United States Department of Agriculture

Forest

Service

Northern 

Region

January 2015

Final Record of Decision

For the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Kootenai 

National Forest Land 

Management Plan

Lincoln, Sanders, and Flathead Counties, Montana

and Bonner and Boundary Counties, Idaho

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Faye Krueger, Regional Forester

Northern Region

200 East Broadway

Missoula, MT 59807

For Information, Contact: Christopher S. Savage, Forest 

Supervisor

Kootenai National Forest

31374 US Highway 2

Libby, MT 59923

406-293-6211

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Contents

Contents ...............................................................................................................i

Introduction.........................................................................................................1

Forest Setting............................................................................................................................... 1

Land and Resource Management Planning ................................................................................. 2

The 1987 Forest Plan and Forest Plan Revision...................................................................... 2

The Revised Forest Plan.......................................................................................................... 3

Nature of Forest Plan Decisions.............................................................................................. 3

Tribal, Agency, and Public Involvement and Collaboration ....................................................... 3

Decision Summary..............................................................................................5

Components of the Programmatic Decision................................................................................ 6

Site-specific Decision to Restrict Motorized and Mechanized Use ...................................... 12

Decisions Carried Forward.................................................................................................... 13

Rationale for Decision............................................................................................................... 13

Net Public Benefit ................................................................................................................. 13

Role of Budgets..................................................................................................................... 14

Purpose and Need for Change – Revision Topics ................................................................. 14

Alternatives................................................................................................................................ 25

Alternatives Considered in Detail, Including the No-Action Alternative ............................. 26

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study ............................................. 26

Environmentally Preferable Alternative................................................................................ 27

Range of Alternatives............................................................................................................ 28

Role of Science.......................................................................................................................... 29

Relationship to Other Entities.................................................................................................... 29

County Governments............................................................................................................. 29

State....................................................................................................................................... 30

Tribes..................................................................................................................................... 30

Federal................................................................................................................................... 30

Climate Change ......................................................................................................................... 31

Findings Related to Laws and Regulations ............................................................................... 31

American Indian Religious Freedom Act.............................................................................. 31

Archaeological Resources Protection Act ............................................................................. 32

Clean Air Act......................................................................................................................... 32

Clean Water Act..................................................................................................................... 32

Endangered Species Act........................................................................................................ 33

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) .................................................................. 33

Federal Land Policy and Management Act ........................................................................... 34

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act .................................................. 34

Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112) ........................................................................... 34

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186........................................................ 35

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act ......................................................................................... 35

National Environmental Policy Act....................................................................................... 35

National Forest Management Act.......................................................................................... 36

National Historic Preservation Act........................................................................................ 37

Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294) ......................... 38

Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644 as amended by Executive 

Order 11989) ......................................................................................................................... 38

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) and Floodplains (Executive Order 11998).................... 40

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act................................................................................................... 41

Wilderness Act and Montana Wilderness Study Act............................................................. 41

Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process (Objection Process)...........41

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision i
Contents

Implementation .................................................................................................42

Project and Activity Consistency and Transition to the Revised Plan ...................................... 42

Maintaining the Land Management Plan and Adapting to New Information43

Adaptive Management............................................................................................................... 43

Amending the Forest Plan ......................................................................................................... 43

Contact Person........................................................................................................................... 43

Approval ............................................................................................................43

Appendix 1—Objection Instructions...............................................................45

List of Tables

Table 1. KNF Management Areas and Acreages ...................................................................... 8

Table 2. Additional Designated Special Areas.......................................................................... 9

Table 3. Pre-decisional Reviewing Official’s Instructions...................................................... 45

ii Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Introduction

This final Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale for approving the 

revised Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan (Plan). This revised Plan describes 

desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines, and land suitability for project and 

activity decision making and will guide all resource management activities on the Forest for the 

next 10 to 15 years. It is part of the long-range resource planning framework established by the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning of 1974 (RPA), the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), and the 2012 Revision of the USDA Forest 

Service Strategic Plan.

I issued a draft decision for the revised Plan, subject to the pre-decisional administrative review 

process (objection process) as described in Subpart B of 36 CFR 219, on September 27, 2013. 

Thirty-eight objections were submitted per the objection procedures at 36 CFR sections 219.54 

(c) or 219.56 (a). After Reviewing Officer Jim Peña’s review of objections and participation in an 

objection resolution meeting, he received a new job and Greg Smith was delegated as the new 

Reviewing Officer. Reviewing Officer Greg Smith issued his written response on September 8, 

2014. The response of the reviewing officer is the final decision of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (36 CFR 219.57 (b)(3)). All objection letters and responses are available in the 

project record.

This final ROD, the errata to the final environmental impact statement (EIS), the final version 

(2015) of the revised Plan, and the planning record incorporate all the reviewing officer’s 

instructions. I have assessed the additional information provided per his instructions and find 

them to be within the range of environmental effects analyzed in the final EIS.

Forest Setting

The Kootenai National Forest (KNF or “Forest”) is located in the northwest corner of Montana 

and includes about 2.2 million acres of public land. The Forest administers the entire proclaimed 

Kootenai and a portion of the Kaniksu National Forest. The KNF is divided into five ranger 

districts: Rexford, Fortine, Three Rivers, Libby, and Cabinet.

Two large rivers, the Kootenai and the Clark Fork, along with several smaller rivers and their 

tributaries, are major features of the Forest. The Whitefish Range, Purcell Mountains, Bitterroot 

Range, Salish Mountains, and Cabinet Mountains are all part of the rugged terrain radiating from 

the river valleys. In the north-central part of the Forest, the land is more open with gently rolling 

forested hills lying in the shadows of the Whitefish Range.

The KNF contains some of the most diverse and productive forests in the Northern Region of the 

Forest Service. It is the home of many plant and animal species, and it provides a diversity of 

aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Grizzly bear, Canada lynx, gray wolf, and bull trout are some of 

these species.

For over a century, these productive lands have contributed to the local and regional supply of 

forest products in response to national demands. These products include lumber, house logs, 

pulpwood, posts and poles, and firewood. In addition to the economic value of the timber 

resource, timber harvest is used to move vegetation towards desired conditions, improve 

watershed condition, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce wildfire risk through reduced fuel 

loads. Timber harvest also provides jobs and income in logging and manufacturing of wood 

products.

The KNF also contains lands rich with minerals. Developing mineral resources, especially gold, 

silver, lead, zinc, and copper, is part of the history of northwestern Montana and is tied to the 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 1
Final Record of Decision

settlement of the area in the mid-1800s. Development of these resources has provided local jobs 

and income and provided a supply of these minerals in response to public demand.

The principal population centers within the KNF are Libby, Troy, Eureka, and Trout Creek, 

Montana. Smaller communities that have social, economic, and historic ties to the KNF include 

Rexford, Fortine, Trego, Stryker, the Yaak community, Noxon, and Trout Creek. The nearest large 

urban areas, Spokane, Washington, and the Flathead Valley in Montana, have a social and 

economic influence on the local communities. The majority of land administered by the KNF is 

located in Lincoln and Sanders counties in Montana. Smaller portions of land are also found in 

Flathead County in Montana, and Boundary and Bonner counties in Idaho.

Abundant recreation opportunities exist in the KNF. Visitors come from across the nation and 

Canada, as well as Spokane and local communities, to fish and boat the numerous rivers and 

lakes. Other popular recreation activities include hiking, biking, sightseeing, hunting, offhighway vehicle (OHV) use, recreational prospecting, snowmobiling, skiing, and gathering forest 

products. Recreation is important to the local economy and is a major reason people choose to 

live in this area.

The landownership pattern in and near the KNF enhances collaborative planning and partnership 

opportunities. The Forest is within and/or encompasses portions of the wildland urban interface, 

private, state, county, or other federal land, as well as rural communities and populations centers. 

People of different backgrounds and values, but with shared interests in forest management, work 

together with the Forest Service to manage the resources in ways that consider all values and uses 

of the Forest.

Other distinctive features of the KNF are described in chapter 1 of the Plan.

Land and Resource Management Planning

The 1987 Forest Plan and Forest Plan Revision

The 1987 Forest Plan (1987 Plan) has provided a framework for management of all forest 

resources; including recreation, timber, water resources, and wildlife habitat, for the last 27 years. 

As forest practices, recreation uses, and species-based knowledge have evolved, the plan has been 

amended. The 1987 Plan, as amended, continues to provide measures to protect species and 

habitat while providing for recreational uses, generation of forest products, and development of 

mineral resources. The monitoring and evaluation reports indicate that implementation of the plan 

has protected soils, treated weeds, provided habitat for threatened and endangered species, and 

generated forest products. The Forest continues to have a diversity of plant and wildlife species, 

while providing for multiple uses.

Plan revision was initiated based on legal requirements and significant changes that had occurred 

in conditions and demands since the 1987 Plan went into effect. The Analysis of the Management 

Situation (AMS) (2003) documents the need to establish or change forest plan management 

direction. Revision is also warranted because the 1987 Plan is beyond the 10 to 15 year duration 

provided by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1606(e) (5) (A)).

The need for revision also comes from new public issues, new desires, and new expectations of 

public land and resource management. Topics of specific interest to the KNF public include forest 

access, recreation, inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), fire, timber management, soils, aquatic

species, and wildlife habitat, as well as vegetation and watershed restoration.

2 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

The Revised Forest Plan

The final EIS and revised Plan were developed according to the NFMA, its implementing 

regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 219; the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA); the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 

1500–1508; and the Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220. According to transition 

language of the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), the responsible official may elect to 

use the provisions of the prior planning regulations (1982 Planning Rule, dated September 30, 

1982, and as amended) to prepare plan amendments and revisions. For this revision of the Plan, I 

have elected to follow the provisions of the planning regulations in effect prior to May 9, 2012,

referred to collectively in this document as the 1982 Planning Rule. References in this ROD refer 

to the 1982 Planning Rule version of 36 CFR unless indicated differently in the citation.

The final EIS discloses the environmental consequences of the alternative management strategies 

considered and describes how these alternatives respond to issues and concerns raised during 

public participation processes.

Nature of Forest Plan Decisions

The nature of forest plan decisions is outlined in the NFMA. A forest plan provides overall 

guidance for the management of National Forest lands. It is based on law, science, and input from 

citizens. The forest plan establishes goals, desired conditions, objectives, standards, and land 

suitability to assure coordination of multiple uses (e.g., outdoor recreation, range, timber, 

watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness) and sustained yield of products and services. Similar 

to local government land-use zoning, the forestwide and management area direction in the forest 

plan are used to guide future management decisions and set consistent expectations for the types 

of activities permissible on the forest.

This forest plan decision is strategic in nature, does not make a commitment to the selection of 

any specific project, and does not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on 

the Forest Service’s internal operations (e.g., personnel matters, law enforcement, or 

organizational changes). The forest plan programmatic management direction will be

implemented through the design, execution, and monitoring of site-specific activities such as 

relocating a trail, conducting a prescribed burn, or harvesting timber. The decisions for these 

activities will be consistent with the strategic decisions made in the revised Plan and are subject 

to separate analysis under the NEPA.

Tribal, Agency, and Public Involvement and 

Collaboration

A variety of opportunities for meaningful dialogue and public participation were provided 

throughout the plan revision process, including the initial ecological and socioeconomic 

sustainability assessments, development, and finalization of the plan, and the consideration of 

effects in the final EIS. As explained in chapter 1 of the final EIS, the Plan is based in part on 

public involvement and collaboration over the course of many years.

In late 2000, the KNF began working on revision of the 1987 Plan under the 2000 Planning Rule. 

In April 2002, the Forest published a notice of intent (NOI) in the Federal Register, announcing 

the revision of the Land Management Plan with a 12-month public comment period.

From April 2002 to May 2004, the KNF hosted public meetings, open houses, and field trips, and 

held meetings with county commissioners. Approximately 15 informational and comment 

meetings took place in and around the local communities during the scoping process, which 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 3
Final Record of Decision

started in April 2002, with the NOI in the Federal Register and ended in May 2004. The Forest

continued briefings and meetings with tribes; Congressional representatives; state, county, and 

local elected officials; other agencies; and interested groups as the revision process continued 

through the ROD.

In addition, the KNF hosted approximately 75 workgroup meetings from August 2003 to 

September 2005. These meetings were held in communities within the KNF and the workgroups 

focused on the geographic areas (GAs) surrounding each of these communities. The purpose of 

these workgroup meetings was to: 1) share information about the revision topics; 2) 

collaboratively discuss and develop desired conditions for each of the revision topics within the 

workgroups’ GAs; 3) gain an understanding of the issues and appreciation of others’ viewpoints; 

and 4) discuss Starting Option maps and potential changes to suggest to the forest supervisor.

On May 12, 2006, the Forest released the Proposed Land Management Plan under the 2005 

Planning Rule. Open houses and public meetings were held to share the Proposed Land 

Management Plan, Comprehensive Evaluation Report, and other documents for the 120-day 

public comment period. Public comments on the proposed Plan were analyzed and summarized in 

a report (the Analysis of Public Comment Report, March 2007). Based on public and agency 

comments, the revision team began development of the final revised Plan. A court injunction 

(March 30, 2007) resulted in suspension of forest plan revision activities under the 2005 Planning 

Rule. The 2008 Planning Rule was released in April of 2008 and forest plan revision resumed 

under that Rule. A final revised Plan release was anticipated for winter of 2009 when a court 

ruling invalidated the 2008 Planning Rule in June 2009. The 2000 Planning Rule was reinstated 

in December of 2009, with transition provision allowing the Forest Service to follow the 

procedures of the 1982 Planning Rule. The Forest issued a second NOI in March 2010 to revise 

the forest plan using the 1982 procedures under the 2000 Planning Rule. The 2012 Planning Rule 

became effective May 9, 2012, with similar transition provisions allowing the Forests to continue 

revision using the 1982 procedures. All the public comment received on the various forest plan 

revision products over the life of the Plan revision were used in developing the draft Plan and 

draft EIS released in January of 2012.

In addition to the open houses, workgroup meetings, and individual group, agency, and local 

government meetings held as requested throughout the planning process, the forest hosted the 

Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Zone (KIPZ) website (http://www.fs.usda.gov/kipz) providing 

additional access to the planning effort documentation. This site linked to the Kootenai and Idaho 

Panhandle National Forest webpages with maps and GIS data providing additional detailed 

information for interested publics.

The initial 90-day comment period for the draft EIS was extended an additional 30 days through 

May 7 of 2012. Comments received during this 120-day comment period have been either 

incorporated or answered in the final EIS accompanying this record of decision.

As stated in the 2010 NOI to revise the forest plan, the KNF elected to follow the pre-decisional 

administrative review process (objections) outlined in 36 CFR 219. Thirty-eight objections 

meeting the objection filing requirements at 36 CFR 219.54(c) were considered by the reviewing 

officer. Also, 39 requests from interested persons were received and granted. Comments received 

from six individuals did not meet filing requirements but were forwarded to me and my staff for 

consideration while making this final decision. 

After the initial review of the written objections received for the revised Plan and final EIS, 

Reviewing Officer Jim Peña decided to hold a meeting in Libby, Montana on April 30, 2014, to

have additional engagement with objectors and interested persons on proposed remedies for four 

4 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

areas of concern: local government coordination, Wild and Scenic River eligibility 

determinations, Recommended Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas, and Management 

Indicator Species. Approximately 34 objectors and co-objectors and 8 interested persons 

participated in the meeting, either in person or by phone. All objectors and interested persons 

participating in the meeting were given an opportunity to speak on each of the issue areas. The 

purpose of the meeting was not to re-state the contents of the objection letters or to bring forward 

information not previously submitted, but rather focused on a discussion of the remedies under 

consideration specifically for those four issue areas. During the meeting objectors helped to 

clarify understanding of the issues and suggested improvements to remedies proposed for 

consideration in the final response to objections. Interested persons provided additional thoughts. 

The feedback received was very helpful for our consideration of the issues and potential 

remedies.

All objections and the final agency response can be found on the forest website at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/kootenai.

Decision Summary

I have reviewed the alternatives, read the public comments, and after considering the effects to 

the ecological, social, and economic environment as described in the final EIS and associated 

errata, I have selected the primary management direction and allocations of Alternative B

Modified, with adjustments per the instructions from the Pre-decisional Reviewing Official, for 

the Kootenai National Forest (KNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan). However, in 

consideration of public concerns in the vicinity of the Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area, I’m also 

incorporating allocation components of Alternative A (no action) and Alternative D in two 

specific areas as described below and on page 11. 

My decision approves the goals, desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, timber 

suitability, management area direction, and monitoring and evaluation direction as described in 

Alternative B Modified. It also includes the recommendations of wilderness allocations for 

Congressional consideration – Scotchman Peaks, Roderick, and the Cabinet Additions. However, 

in a change from the August 2013 draft decision, I’m assigning the Whitefish Divide area to 

Management Area 5a–Backcountry Non-motorized Year-round, as described in Alternative D.

At this time, I am not taking any action regarding wilderness recommendations for the Ten Lakes 

Montana Wilderness Study Act area (Alternative A, no action). I will continue to defer to the 

1985 Legislative Report to Congress, which recommends 26,000 acres of the 34,000-acre Ten 

Lakes Study Area for wilderness designation. Until Congress makes a determination, the entire 

34,000-acre area will be managed, subject to existing rights, to maintain its existing wilderness 

character and potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The revised Plan emphasizes moving towards desired conditions and contributing to ecological, 

social, and economic sustainability. It establishes a framework for future multiple-use

management, setting programmatic direction that serves as a gateway for compliance with

environmental laws at the site-specific project level. Approval of the revised Plan does not require

implementation of any site-specific management actions, but rather provides the framework for 

future decision-making.

The final EIS includes the site-specific analysis to support my decision to restrict over-snow 

motorized and mechanized uses in the management areas where these uses are not considered 

suitable for meeting the desired conditions. In addition to approving the programmatic direction 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 5
Final Record of Decision

of the revised Plan, this record of decision authorizes an accompanying closure order* as per 36 

CFR 261 Subpart B to align the allowed uses within the management area direction as follows:

• Restrict mechanized use on 96,500 acres and 126 miles of trail in Research Natural Areas

and the Scotchman Peaks, Roderick, and Cabinet Additions recommended wilderness

• Restrict over-snow motorized use on 42,200 acres and 47 miles of trail in Research

Natural Areas and the Scotchman Peaks, Roderick, and Cabinet Additions recommended 

wilderness (most of the Scotchman Peaks and Cabinet Additions are currently under the 

2001 order prohibiting motorized use)

• Release existing over-snow motorized closure on 15,600 acres (0.7 percent of the KNF),

in areas not recommended for wilderness in this decision, that were closed based on the 

1987 FP recommended wilderness 

• Restrict the use of hand-held motorized equipment in management areas in the 

Scotchman Peaks, Roderick, and Cabinet Additions recommended wilderness except for 

administrative use.

(*Some commenters expressed concerns about the Plan’s effect on road access so I want to 

note my decision does not change current motorized route designations. The KNF completed 

non-winter motor vehicle use designations as required by Subpart B of the Travel 

Management Rule (36 CFR 212) in 2009. Additional site-specific NEPA analysis would be 

required for any future motor vehicle use map (MVUM) designation changes.)

I have considered how the revised Plan and site-specific prohibition responds to public 

comments, internal management concerns, and national direction and policy. My decision is 

based on the management direction in the revised Plan, the analysis of effects disclosed in the 

final EIS and associated errata, and the planning record in its entirety. The decision components 

are fully supported by the environmental analysis documented in the final EIS, as required by law 

and regulation. This decision applies only to National Forest System land on the KNF. It does not 

apply to any other Federal, State, or private lands, although the effects of these lands and the 

effects of my decision on lands surrounding the KNF are also considered.

Components of the Programmatic Decision

There are six fundamental components of the programmatic decision made in the plan revision. 

The following sections discuss these components of the decision in detail.

1. Establishment of Forestwide Multiple-Use Goals, Objectives, Desired 

Conditions, and Quantities of Goods and Services (36 CFR 219.11(b)) 

Goals, objectives, and desired conditions are defined in chapter 1 of the revised Plan. The 

“quantities of goods and services” are defined in the objectives. Chapter 2 of the revised Plan lists 

the forestwide goals, objectives, and desired conditions. Chapters 3 and 4 of the revised Plan lists 

desired conditions by management area and by geographic area, respectively.

Part of my rationale for selecting Alternative B Modified is because of how it will achieve the 

goals, objectives, and desired conditions. Although the goals, objectives, and desired conditions

apply to all the alternatives, each alternative achieves them in different ways and to different 

degrees, depending on the emphasis. I find that Alternative B Modified best achieves the goals,

objectives, and desired conditions by providing for the variety of uses people told me were 

important, and by best recognizing the past management history and capabilities of the KNF.

Alternative B Modified provides for active management and timber harvest while moving 

vegetation towards desired conditions for improved resiliency. Alternative B Modified also 

6 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

provides areas with passive management and limited access. This balance between active and 

passive management is described in the effects analysis of the final EIS.

2. Establishment of Forestwide Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 219.13 to 

219.27)

Forestwide management requirements (standards and guidelines) do not vary by alternative, 

because they were considered the ‘baseline’ design criteria that ensure resources are managed in a 

sustainable manner. They were developed based on scientific and public input. The standards and 

guidelines were carefully crafted to strike a balance between providing assurances that 

management direction is followed, while allowing managers flexibility in the case of site-specific

circumstances. Standards are limitations on actions or thresholds that are not to be exceeded. 

Guidelines are requirements that must be followed unless a different management action achieves 

the same intent as the guideline. 

After careful review, I believe that the standards and guidelines provide sufficient requirements 

for management, provide for resource protection, and reflect the intent of the new Plan. To 

simplify the planning document and to keep it up to date, laws, policies, Forest Service Manual, 

and Forest Service Handbook direction or other regional directives are incorporated by reference 

from the original source and are not duplicated in the plan. I find that the forestwide standards 

and guidelines were developed in an interdisciplinary manner, and provide for achievement of the 

revised Plan’s goals, objectives, and desired conditions.

3. Establishment of Management Area (MA) Direction (Multiple-use Prescriptions) 

with Associated Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 219.11(C))

The revised Plan provides direction for management areas that have specific management 

direction that differs from the general forest. The Plan designates seven management area (MA) 

themes across the KNF: Wilderness (Designated, Recommended, and Wilderness Study Area); 

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers; Special Areas (botanical, geological, historical, recreational, 

scenic, or zoological); Research Natural Areas (RNAs); Backcountry; General Forest; and 

Primary Recreation Areas. The MAs span a continuum of management emphasis from a passive 

approach with little human-caused change to more active management with substantially more 

human-caused change designed to sustain the social, economic, and ecological attributes of the 

Forest. The management area prescriptions include specific standards and guidelines, which are 

described in chapter 3 of the revised Plan. The management area allocations were the primary 

difference between the three action alternatives. Based on public input, there were several 

important changes in the management area allocations between the Alternative B (the draft Plan), 

Alternative B Modified, and this final ROD (the revised Plan).

The forest received several comments and objections regarding the three MA5 allocations. These 

backcountry MAs consist largely of Inventoried Roadless Areas with primitive and semiprimitive motorized recreation opportunities. Dividing the backcountry areas between MA5a 

(non-motorized year-round) and MA5b (motorized year-round), with MA5c (motorized winter)

added was a change from the 2006 Starting Option based on public input to address the need for 

preliminary identification of suitable motorized or non-motorized recreation seasons of use.

Management area allocation variations were analyzed across the alternatives in the EIS. However, 

many commenters have continued to request changes between one allocation and another, either 

to prohibit motorized recreation or allow motorized recreation, in various specific locations. 

Often one commenter’s request is in direct conflict with another commenter’s request (or with 

forest resource considerations) demonstrating ongoing disagreement over motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities common to National Forest land management. 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 7
Final Record of Decision

I’ve considered the public input and the interdisciplinary evaluation of resource effects and find 

my decision provides appropriate allocations along the range of recreation opportunities. Ongoing 

and future site-specific travel management planning subsequent to approval of the revised Plan 

will either be consistent with these allocations or amend the Plan as needed as the Forest 

continues to strive toward balancing recreation opportunities with other natural resource 

management considerations. 

Management Area Allocations

Land within the KNF may be assigned to more than one management area. For example the Ross 

Creek Research Natural Area (MA 4) is nested within the Scotchman Peak recommended 

wilderness area (MA 1b). In such cases, the most restrictive plan direction would apply to the area 

of overlap.

Table 1 describes the management area allocations included in my decision. See the map for all 

MA allocation acreages and locations on the web at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/kootenai. 

Table 1. KNF Management Areas and Acreages

MA Management Area Name Acres* Percent

1a Wilderness 93,700 4.2

1b Recommended Wilderness 86,800 3.9

1c Wilderness Study Areas 34,100 1.5

2 Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers 41,000 1.8

3 Botanical, Geological, Historical, Recreational, Scenic or 

Zoological Areas 29,100 1.3

4 Research Natural Areas 9,800 0.4

5a Backcountry – Non-motorized Year-round 246,800 11.1

5b Backcountry – Motorized Year-round (Summer only on 

designated routes/areas)

169,800 7.7

5c Backcountry – Motorized Winter, Non-motorized Summer 86,500 3.9

6 General Forest 1,408,800 63.5

7 Primary Recreation Areas 12,900 0.6

Total Acres 2,219,100

*Displayed acres are based on a single management area designation. Where management areas overlap

(e.g., MA2 within MA1b), the following hierarchy is used in the table 1 acre summary: MA1a, MA4, 

MA1c, MA1b, MA2, MA3, and MA7. There are no overlaps in MA 5 or MA 6.

As part of the decision, I am designating additional special management areas, including RNAs, 

special areas, and identifying additional eligible wild and scenic rivers.

RNAs

I am designating three additional RNAs: Doonan Peak (504 acres), Huson Peak (731 acres), and 

Seven Point Genetical (1,991 acres). The Doonan Peak RNA includes an extensive, welldeveloped distributional overlap of western larch, alpine larch, and their natural hybrids. Huson 

Peak and Seven Point Genetical RNAs both include viable stands of whitebark pine, providing a 

historic representation of the species for western Montana and Idaho. Establishment records will 

be completed after approval of the revised Plan.

8 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

Special Areas

I am designating 36 additional special areas and increasing the size of two existing special areas 

(see table 2). These additional special areas will be protected and managed for public use and 

enjoyment. They possess unique botanical, geological, historical, recreational, scenic, or 

zoological values. I am increasing the size of the Northwest Peak (8,533 acres) and Ten Lakes 

(8,403) scenic areas to incorporate the adjacent unique scenic values and improve manageability 

of the areas.

Table 2. Additional Designated Special Areas

Special Area Name Recommended Acres Values

494 Bedrock Meadow 35 Botanical

Bad Medicine 1,938 Zoological/Historical

Barnum Wetland 227 Botanical

Barron Creek 326 Historical

Bitterroot Point 126 Botanical/Historical

Callahan Historic Mining & Logging District 3,262 Historical

Cody Lakes 194 Botanical/Zoological

East Fork Bull River 109 Botanical

East Fork Pipe Creek 1,118 Geological

Falls Creek 42 Scenic/Geological

Flower Lake 16 Botanical

French Creek Cedars 131 Botanical

Gateway Prairie 2,147 Botanical

Halverson Face 47 Botanical

Hamilton Gorge 144 Geological

Kelsey Creek 53 Botanical

Kenelty Caves 87 Geological

Little North Fork Falls 6 Recreational/Historical

Lost Horse Fen 308 Botanical

Lower Sunday Creek Ecosystem 150 Botanical/Historical

Northwest Peak Scenic Area 8,5331 Scenic

Pete Creek 320 Botanical

Pinkham Falls 21 Historical/Geological

Rock Creek Meadows 186 Botanical

Rocky Fivemile Forest 214 Botanical

Ross Falls 44 Historical/Geological

Spar Springs 196 Geological

Spread Otis Creeks 382 Botanical

Stone Hill 760 Recreational/Geological

Sutton Falls 113 Historical/Geological

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 9
Final Record of Decision

Special Area Name Recommended Acres Values

Swamp Mountain Meadows 45 Botanical

Ten Lakes Scenic Area 8,4031 Scenic

Tenmile Falls 187 Historical / Geological

Tepee Lake 46 Botanical

Terriault Pass 493 Geological

Vermilion Falls 99 Recreational/Historical

Vinal Lake 83 Historical/Botanical

Yaak Falls 44 Historical/Recreational

Total Acres 30,635

1 Existing special area that is increased in size

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Forest has identified nine river or stream systems as eligible for wild and scenic designation. 

Five of these river systems (the Kootenai, Yaak, Bull, and Vermillion Rivers and Big Creek) were 

found eligible under the 1987 Plan. I will continue to manage these rivers, totaling 112.4 miles on 

NFS lands, as eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. I am also 

recommending an additional 37.6 miles of river or creek as eligible for inclusion in the Wild and 

Scenic River System. This includes segments of the Vinal Creek System, the West Fork Yaak 

River, Ross Creek, Callahan Creek, and two additional segments to the Bull River. The land 

surrounding these river and creek systems (generally 1⁄4 mile on each side) is allocated to MA 2 

(48,085 acres), with desired conditions, standards, and guidelines as described in chapter 3 to 

protect their free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values.

4. Establishment of Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements that Provide a Basis 

for Periodic Determination and Evaluation of the Effects of Management 

Practices (36 CFR 219.11(d) and 219.12(k))

The monitoring plan is described in chapter 5 of the revised Plan. Monitoring provides the 

feedback for the forest planning cycle by testing assumptions, tracking relevant conditions over 

time, measuring management effectiveness, and evaluating effects of management practices. 

Monitoring information should enable the Forests to determine if a change in plan components or 

other plan management guidance may be needed, forming a basis for continual improvement and 

adaptive management.

Implementation of the monitoring requirements in the 1987 Plan revealed shortcomings in the 

approach. The 1987 monitoring plan was overly detailed, prescriptive, and lacked flexibility. It 

focused on quantifying outputs rather than assessing how well the 1987 Plan was working. The 

revised Plan’s monitoring program sets monitoring questions and indicators to help managers 

evaluate and assess the degree to which on-the-ground management is maintaining or making 

progress toward achieving the desired conditions and objectives. 

Every monitoring question links to one or more goal, desired condition, or objective. However, 

the monitoring program strives to be realistic in terms of budget and capacity and does not 

include a monitoring question for every plan component. On a biennial basis, an interdisciplinary 

team will evaluate forest plan monitoring data and relevant broad-scale monitoring information in 

terms of movement toward desired conditions and efficacy of management treatments. The 

10 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report will summarize this evaluation and make 

recommendations for adjusting management action as necessary.

I have placed emphasis on monitoring and I am confident that the monitoring requirements will 

provide the information to evaluate implementation of the revised Plan and will facilitate 

adapting management in response to results and new information.

5. Recommendations to Congress for Additions to the Wilderness Preservation 

System (36 CFR 219.17(a))

Public opinion regarding wilderness recommendation varies widely. Many people favor 

recommending additional areas for wilderness while many others object to any recommendations.

The Lincoln and Boundary County commissioners do not support additional recommended 

wilderness in the revised Plan. The Bonner County Commissioners support wilderness 

designation for the Scotchman Peaks area.

After considering the public value of wilderness and reviewing the suitability evaluations in the 

FEIS, I am recommending to Congress the addition of 89,300 acres for addition to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. This includes recommending Scotchman Peaks at 35,900 acres,

Roderick at 23,500 acres, and the addition of 29,900 acres to the existing Cabinet Mountain 

Wilderness.

My recommendation is similar to what was included in the 1987 plan for additions to the 

wilderness preservation system, although some of the boundaries and locations have changed 

under Alternative B Modified based on public input during the plan revision effort. I feel this

amount of recommended wilderness, paired with the 93,700 acres of the designated Cabinet 

Mountain Wilderness, provides an appropriate amount of area to be managed for wilderness 

values in balance with managing for other desired conditions across the Kootenai National Forest. 

The Scotchman Peaks and additions to the Cabinet Mountains have been managed as 

recommended wilderness since the 1987 Plan was approved. These areas have attributes that are 

fitting as wilderness. The Roderick area was added as recommended wilderness in Alternative B 

Modified because interest in this area was supportive from a local collaborative group. This area 

ranked high for capability, availability, and need in the wilderness evaluation (see Appendix C of 

the final EIS). The Revision Topic 6 discussion on pages 21–23 of this ROD provides further 

rationale for this decision.

This recommendation is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive further 

review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, and 

the President of the United States. The Congress has reserved the authority to make final 

decisions on wilderness designation.

The draft ROD included recommending a portion of the Whitefish Divide (16,000 acres) area as 

wilderness to provide consistency with management on the adjacent Flathead National Forest. 

The greater Whitefish Divide area on the Flathead National Forest has support for recommended 

wilderness from a collaborative group representing diverse interests. However, due to lack of 

local public support on the Kootenai National Forest in conjunction with ongoing travel 

management planning in the area, I have decided not to recommend the Whitefish Divide area for 

wilderness designation at this time.

Therefore, per the Reviewing Official’s instructions and the consideration of these public 

concerns, I will defer making any changes regarding recommended wilderness in the Ten Lakes

and Whitefish Divide area until travel management planning initiated under the 2007 Montana 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 11
Final Record of Decision

Wilderness Study Area (MWSA) Settlement Agreement has been completed. I will carry forward 

the 1985 Ten Lakes MWSA Final Report and Proposal to recommend 26,000 acres of the 34,000 

acre Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area as wilderness as analyzed under Alternative A. And I will 

allocate the Whitefish Divide area to management area 5a as analyzed under Alternative D. This 

decision falls within the scope and context of the environmental effects disclosed in the final EIS. 

The revised Plan direction for the Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area will continue to require the 

Forest to maintain the area’s wilderness character as it existed in 1977, as well as maintain its 

potential for inclusion in the wilderness system as legislatively directed under the Montana 

Wilderness Study Act (final 2015 Plan page 49) while awaiting congressional action.

I have notified the Chief's Office of my intended action on wilderness study areas involved in the 

Forest plan Revision. Upon request of the Chief, an updated legislative proposal may be 

completed. The 1985 recommendation is a preliminary administrative wilderness study area 

recommendation which will receive further review and possible modification in the offices of the 

Chief, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Final decisions on 

wilderness designation have been reserved by Congress to itself.

The discussion on pages 21–23 further describes my rationale around this important revision 

topic.

6. Determine Suitability And Potential Capability Of Lands For Resource 

Production (Timber And Grazing) (CFR 219.14 And 219.20)

There is some variation between the alternatives in acres suitable for timber production and acres 

suitable for grazing, based on MA allocation. Suitability for timber production and suitability for

grazing are defined in part by management area standards and guidelines.

Alternative B Modified has 793,700 acres (36 percent of the Forest) suitable for timber 

production. This is less than Alternative D, but more than Alternative C. This is a large change 

from the 1987 Plan as originally written, which was 1,263,000 acres. However, with forest plan 

amendments over the previous 26 years, including INFISH and the Grizzly Bear Access 

Amendment, lands suitable for timber production in the 1987 Plan were reduced to 739,300 acres 

(Alternative A). When compared to Alternative A, Alternative B Modified is slightly higher in 

acres suitable for timber production. I believe these acres represent areas where timber production 

is feasible, based on other resource requirements and compatibility with management area desired 

conditions.

Suitability for grazing only varies by alternative by a few acres. Grazing suitability is driven 

mostly by areas capable of producing forage. The Kootenai is densely forested. Only 252,600 

acres are capable of producing forage. Of this, approximately 149,000 acres are suitable for 

grazing, based on allotments and management area allocations.

Site-specific Decision to Restrict Over-snow Motor Vehicle 

Use and Mechanized Use

As described on pages 5 and 6 of this ROD, in addition to the programmatic forest plan decision, 

this ROD also authorizes a prohibition on motorized and mechanized use in RNAs and the 

Scotchman Peaks, Roderick, and Cabinet Additions revised Plan recommended wilderness areas.

I have included this decision to align uses with the desired conditions to provide non-motorized 

and non-mechanized opportunities for exploration, solitude, risk, challenge, and primitive 

recreation within the revised Plan recommended wilderness areas. Continuing the uses could 

12 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

affect the wilderness character and potential for the areas we analyzed to be included in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. Within RNAs, the purpose is to maintain undisturbed 

conditions for the purposes of non-manipulative research and education.

I have reviewed the analysis in the final EIS and errata which considers the number of acres and 

miles of trail which would not be available for motorized and mechanized use. This includes the 

effects to ecological resources such as watershed (final EIS page 198) and wildlife (final EIS page 

234, 252, 271, 302, 327, 364–365, and the biological assessment) as well as effects to recreation 

opportunities in the access and recreation environmental consequences (final EIS beginning on 

page 416). 

I recognize that motorized and mechanized recreation users also desire remote recreation areas 

that allow them the opportunity for exploration, solitude, risk, challenge, and primitive recreation

via their recreation vehicle of choice (e.g., snowmobile or mountain bike) similar to nonmotorized recreationists. This site-specific prohibition will reduce that opportunity on 

approximately 4 percent of the 2 million acre Forest, but I believe those opportunities can still be 

found within the MA5b and 5c backcountry management allocations (approximately 12 percent 

of the Forest). 

Decisions Carried Forward

Three decisions that amended the 1987 Plan are retained. The revised Plan includes an 

explanation of the direction retained from each of these decisions and their associated biological 

opinions. Projects and activities implemented under the revised Plan must be consistent with the 

direction within these decisions. They include:

• Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH)—Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant 

Impact (USDA Forest Service, July 1995)

• Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management Within the Selkirk and 

Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones—Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service, 

November 2011)

• Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction—Record of Decision (USDA Forest 

Service, March 2007)

This retained direction (desired conditions, standards, and guidelines) can be found in appendix B 

of the revised Plan. Copies of the Records of Decision and associated biological opinions are 

available on the web at www.fs.usda.gov/main/kootenai/landmanagement/planning.

Rationale for Decision

Net Public Benefit

The 1982 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations (1982 regulations 

36 CFR 219.1) state that forest plans must “...provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of 

goods and services from the National Forest System in a way that maximizes long-term net public 

benefits in an environmentally sound manner.”

I have considered the many competing public desires for uses of the KNF in the context of 

ecological diversity and ecosystem integrity. I am also mindful of economic difficulties of the 

counties surrounding the Forests and seek a decision that balances the need for resource 

conservation with one that contributes to the economic well-being of these communities.

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 13
Final Record of Decision

I chose Alternative B Modified because, in my judgment, it maximizes the net benefit to the 

public by: 

• Addressing all of the primary revision topics and needs for change identified in the 2003 

Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS)

• Maintaining or enhancing diversity and productivity of the Forest

• Contributing to economic and social needs of people, cultures, and communities 

• Providing sustainable and predictable levels of products and services 

• Providing an emphasis on restoration of vegetation and watersheds to improve resistance 

and resiliency to disturbance

• Sustaining biological diversity and aid in conserving and recovering federally-listed 

species and other species with viability concerns

• Emphasizing maintaining diverse, high-quality outdoor recreation opportunities as well 

as a road and trail system that provides access to the KNF 

• Providing the best mix of benefits to address the needs for change identified in the AMS

• Providing consistent direction at the forest level to assist managers in making project 

decisions at a local level

• Emphasizing adaptive management 

My choice also considered how the revised Plan responded to public comments, internal 

management concerns, and national direction and policy. 

Role of Budgets

Some commenters were concerned with the consideration of budget constraints when setting 

objectives in the revised Plan (e.g., determining the predicted timber harvest level objective). Our 

objectives in the Plan were developed to move towards a variety of desired conditions in the 

various resource areas. The desired conditions are unconstrained by budget, but the quantity or 

amount of each objective was based largely on our current and recent past budget levels because 

we expect future budgets to stay relatively flat or decrease. I believe it is misleading to portray 

unrealistic objectives considering this expectation. The revised Plan objectives are a realistic 

projection of what the KNF expects to accomplish annually over the life of the plan. The final 

EIS describes the effects on forest health and vegetation composition from management under 

current budget levels. Furthermore, if budget allocations increase or other funding opportunities 

arise, the revised Plan allows for an increase in outputs (e.g. developed recreation maintenance or 

timber volumes up to the allowable sale quantity (ASQ)).

Purpose and Need for Change – Revision Topics

Early in the plan revision process, a set of topics was developed to identify the need for changing 

the 1987 Plan. The list of topics was reviewed and validated at each step in the plan revision 

process. Revision topics represent a systematic framework for discussing the revised Plan. In 

addition, the revised Plan carries forward other management direction not identified as needing 

change or that needed only minor changes to achieve the multiple-use balance sought in this 

decision. Revision topics were used to develop alternatives.

14 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

Revision Topic 1 – Vegetation

The focus on vegetation during the revision process was largely due to concerns that the forest 

composition, structure, and pattern had shifted away from historical conditions to the extent that 

ecosystems, and the goods and services that they provide, may not be sustainable, especially in 

light of potential impacts from climate change. Commenters generally agree that vegetation 

objectives and standards should emphasize healthy forests. On the other hand, opinions differ 

widely on the definition of forest health and the means for improving health. Some people would 

like to see increased management to restore and improve vegetation. Others felt no restoration 

was needed, but we needed increased management. Still others felt the way to improve forest 

health is by doing less management and protecting areas from activities.

Vegetation management under the 1987 Plan focused primarily on timber production. The 1987 

Plan contains very little direction on the desired conditions for vegetation and management 

approaches to achieve them. It did not recognize or address important natural disturbance 

processes as part of the ecosystem. The incorporation of broader ecological principles, including 

the role of fire as a disturbance process, was identified as a need for change in plan revision. 

The revised Plan provides direction to improve vegetation conditions which will increase 

resistance and resiliency to disturbance, including climate change. The revised Plan contains 

desired conditions for forest composition, structure, density, and pattern and objectives for 

management activities that will move vegetation towards these conditions. Standards and 

guidelines protect components of vegetation, providing for diversity and habitat for terrestrial 

species. 

Some commenters were concerned about providing increased protection for old growth. Some 

wanted a specific management area for old growth while others wanted to prohibit any timber 

harvest in old growth. The Forest has been managing old growth for decades. The 1987 Plan

contained direction related to old growth and had a separate management area (MA13) for this 

resource. The revised Plan provides for protection and enhancement of old growth stands 

including desired conditions to increase the amount of old growth over the long term. Standards 

prohibit vegetation management activities that could decrease old growth. Guidelines allow 

timber harvest in old growth if it improves the resistance and/or resiliency of the stand while 

meeting the definitions for old growth. The revised Plan builds upon the decades of knowledge 

gained on the KNF from protecting old growth, retaining the mapped old growth, and managing 

this resource into the future.

The final EIS analyzes changes that may occur to forest composition, structure, landscape 

patterns of forest conditions; the resistance and resiliency of the forest to disturbances and 

stressors; and the ability of the forest vegetation to sequester carbon. This analysis provided a 

foundation for how terrestrial vegetation may influence other resources such as wildlife habitat, 

aquatic resources, timber production, and fire risk.

I believe Alternative B Modified, as represented in the revised Plan, provides the greatest 

potential to move forest composition, structure, and pattern toward desired conditions overall, 

while considering all other National Forest management resource values. Analysis presented in 

the final EIS indicates that Alternative B Modified makes the broadest improvements to 

vegetation composition and structure, although results are mixed by individual species and size 

classes. This is because Alternative B Modified has more acres allowing active management to 

improve vegetation conditions than Alternative C. And although Alternative D includes more 

acres allowing active management than Alternative B Modified, the emphasis is on maximizing 

timber harvest, with improving vegetation composition and structure as a secondary goal. Thus, 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 15
Final Record of Decision

Alternative B Modified provides the best opportunity for improvement to vegetation condition. 

The amount of old growth is projected to increase under all alternatives, with the largest increase 

in Alternative B Modified.

Revision Topic 2 – Fire Risk

In order to restore and maintain the fire-adapted ecosystems on the Forest, wildland fire (both 

planned and unplanned ignitions) needs to be considered as a management tool. A substantial 

amount of acreage on the KNF is fairly remote in terms of road access. In many of these areas, it 

can be difficult or undesirable to use mechanical treatments to manage the vegetation to help 

achieve the desired forest conditions. Therefore, in these areas, it is especially important to 

consider when and where the use of fire is appropriate.

Since the 1987 Plan was written, much has been learned about the role fire plays as a disturbance 

process in western forest ecosystems. Fire suppression has changed the vegetation patterns, 

structure, and composition of forests. Therefore, the role fire plays in these ecosystems has also 

been altered. The altered forest composition, when coupled with additional structures and 

communities in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), results in conditions that need to be 

addressed by the revised Plan.

Under the 1987 Plan, most MAs allow the use of prescribed fire (planned ignitions). However, 

the use of natural, unplanned ignitions is fairly restrictive in the 1987 Plan Twelve MAs (5, 6, 13, 

15–21, 23, and 24) have standards that do not allow the use of natural, unplanned ignitions and 

the acres that these MAs occupy is substantial, approximately 25 percent of the total acres on the 

KNF.

The revised Plan allows the use of prescribed fire and natural, unplanned ignitions in most MAs. 

The revised Plan emphasizes the use of natural (unplanned) fire ignitions for multiple objectives 

as well as the use of prescribed fire, particularly in the backcountry (MA5–487,400 acres). The 

direction also emphasizes hazardous fuels reduction in the WUI. Some commenters wished to see 

increased use of fire (both prescribed and natural, unplanned ignitions) to achieve Plan desired 

conditions, and although I agree additional fire use would be beneficial, the amount of fuel 

treatment established in FW-OBJ-FIRE-01 (5,000 to 15,000 acres annually) is based on likely 

funding and staffing levels.

Some commenters were concerned with the emissions produced during prescribed burning. They 

requested additional forest debris utilization to avoid producing smoke. Two forestwide plan 

components (FW-DC-AQ-01 and FW-GDL-AQ-01) provide direction for cooperating with 

federal, state, tribal, and local air quality agencies as appropriate to meet air quality standards.

The KNF has been able to meet air quality standards through the appropriate timing and location 

of prescribed burns. In addition, the KNF has an aggressive utilization policy to reduce slash and 

support biomass markets. However, there are many ecological reasons to use prescribed fire as a 

resource management tool in reducing forest debris rather than using it as biomass for another 

purpose. The ecological benefits of fire are described in the vegetation section of the final EIS.

The three action alternatives have similar approaches to the use of fire. Alternative B Modified 

has a mixture of fuels treatments (planned and unplanned ignitions as well as mechanical 

treatment). Alternative D provides more opportunity for mechanical treatment, while also 

allowing planned and unplanned ignitions. Alternative C has the least mechanical treatments, 

while providing for planned and unplanned ignitions. Alternative C is the most responsive to the 

desire to restore fire to the landscape. However, because of its mixture of fuel treatments and 

16 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

overall movement towards vegetation desired conditions, I find Alternative B Modified provides

the best opportunity for mitigating hazards in the WUI and restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems.

Revision Topic 3 – Watersheds and Aquatic Species

There were two primary reasons the 1987 Plan needed to be revised for watershed and aquatic 

dependent resources. The first was to establish management direction that recognizes and 

emphasizes watershed restoration activities. The second was to address changes in the physical 

and biological components of the aquatic ecosystem, such as water quality impairments; 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; soil productivity; and habitat conditions. The 1987 

Plan had very little direction regarding watersheds, and no direction for restoration or 

improvement. Since the 1987 Plan was written there has been an increased focus by the State on 

identifying water quality impaired streams under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. 

Currently, about one-half of the subwatersheds on the Forest include or have the potential to 

influence one or more of these listed impaired segments. In addition, since the 1987 Plan was 

written, the Kootenai River white sturgeon was listed as an endangered species and the bull trout 

was listed as a threatened species. Both have designated critical habitat within the Forest’s 

boundary (although the amount of critical habitat for sturgeon within the KNF is extremely small, 

at approximately 80 acres).

The 1987 Plan was amended in 1995 by the Inland Native Fish Strategy (USDA 1995) (INFISH). 

This amendment provides direction for the protection of riparian and aquatic habitat and species. 

The INFISH resulted in improved management direction for the 1987 Plan for these ecosystems.

As described on page 13 of this final ROD, the INFISH amendment is being carried forward 

under the revised Plan. In addition, the revised Plan includes further direction and emphasis for 

watershed protection and restoration. The INFISH concept of “priority watersheds” has been 

refined in the revised Plan as “conservation” and “restoration” subwatersheds. Conservation 

subwatersheds were identified to protect stronghold populations of native salmonids and 

compliment restoration efforts. Restoration subwatersheds were identified based on degraded 

habitat conditions, water quality limitations, depressed populations of native fish species, and a 

relatively higher potential for improvement. Restoration subwatersheds include both active and 

passive restoration efforts. 

Active restoration opportunities will be pursued whenever possible, and considered in the context 

of existing budget levels and other land management priorities. Cooperation with land owners and 

interested parties such as watershed councils, state agencies, tribes, and conservation districts 

could result in improved accomplishments because resources could be pooled to accomplish 

conservation and restoration actions. Passive restoration will rely on the implementation of 

guidelines and best management practices to maintain watershed processes and aquatic habitat 

conditions to allow for natural rates of recovery. It will be more prevalent in MAs such as 1b and 

1c that have wilderness characteristics.

Some commenters were concerned the revised Plan does not address requirements under the 

Clean Water Act and other laws. The KNF is required to follow laws, policies, and regulations 

that relate to managing NFS lands and the final EIS lists those that are applicable to each 

resource, including those related to watersheds and aquatic habitats. The revised Plan provides 

broad, strategic guidance that is designed to supplement, not replace, overarching direction from 

these sources. For example, Forest Service Handbook direction includes the requirement to 

protect water quality and abate or mitigate adverse water quality impacts while meeting other 

resource goals and objectives (FSH 2509.22). The KNF addresses this mandate by implementing 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 17
Final Record of Decision

best management practices (BMPs) outlined in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 

2509.22) at the project level of analysis and implementation.

The 1987 Plan did not include any aquatic management indicator species (MIS). For the revised 

Plan, I am selecting a macroinvertebrate assemblage to serve as bioindicators of water quality and 

aquatic habitat conditions across the planning unit. Macroinvertebrates as the aquatic MIS will 

provide an appropriate measure of the ecological health of a waterbody or river and can be used 

to reveal pollution problems. However, macroinvertebrates are not indicators of fish populations 

or distribution; therefore, the macroinvertebrate assemblage will not be used for that purpose.

(Selection of MIS in the revised Plan is required under 36 CFR 219.19.)

Although forestwide direction common to all alternatives are designed to protect and improve 

soil, riparian and aquatic habitat conditions, Alternative B Modified is expected to most 

effectively improve the overall trend in watershed conditions across the forest. Protection and 

restoration measures included in the revised Plan will improve habitat conditions for threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species. In addition, the macroinvertebrate assemblage is expected to 

improve.

I believe the selected alternative presents the best balance between acres with active restoration 

opportunities and acres with passive restoration. It includes a greater number of active restoration 

acres than found under Alternative C and allows for improved conditions on a faster trajectory 

than passive restoration. Alternative D provides the highest amount of active restoration acres. 

However, Alternative D does not improve vegetation conditions to the degree found under 

Alternative B Modified. As described under the vegetation revision topic, Alternative B Modified 

provides the most movement towards vegetation desired conditions, which increases resistance 

and resiliency to disturbance. This increased resistance and resiliency of vegetation to disturbance 

provides protection to watersheds, with fewer large-scale disturbances that could increase 

sedimentation and damage stream conditions.

Revision Topic 4 – Terrestrial Wildlife

Over the life of the 1987 Plan, changes have occurred that have resulted in modifications to 

wildlife management. Species listed as threatened and endangered have changed. The peregrine 

falcon, gray wolf, and bald eagle have been removed and the Canada lynx added. Knowledge 

related to habitat conservation for grizzly bear, lynx, and other species has continued to evolve 

and the sensitive species list was updated. The revised Plan incorporates new information relative 

to habitat fragmentation, patch size, biodiversity, and ecosystem management strategies. Recent 

plan amendment direction relative to listed species (grizzly bear and lynx) is carried forward as 

forestwide direction to help move threatened species toward recovery (see Decisions Carried 

Forward, page 13 of this final ROD).

In order to preserve species populations, genetic structure, biotic communities, and landscapes, 

there has been an increased emphasis on the maintenance of ecological functions, processes, and 

disturbance regimes. The desired conditions for vegetation and fire are the foundation of the 

KNF’s approach to providing species viability through a coarse filter approach. The revised plan 

includes a fine filter approach by providing direction to address specific habitat components or 

potential management effects to specific species and/or groups of species. It provides sufficient 

direction for implementation activities to maintain species viability and help move threatened and 

endangered species towards recovery.

The revised Plan allocates 214,500 acres to MA 1 and 503,100 acres to MA 5. These MAs 

emphasize natural processes with minimal human intervention/disturbance, and provide wildlife 

18 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

security habitat. There are also opportunities for active restoration of vegetation conditions 

(wildlife habitat) in areas which may currently be outside of desired conditions (MA6—64

percent or 1,408,600 acres).

The revised Plan contains specific direction to provide wildlife connectivity across the KNF in 

cooperation with other agencies, and is compatible with connectivity efforts in British Columbia. 

The direction is designed to be flexible in light of the dynamic nature of the habitat and 

disturbance processes on the KNF to accommodate multiple species’ habitats and will allow them

to move, connect, and persist.

The revised Plan changes the management indicator species (MIS) from those found in the 1987 

Plan. The MIS under the 1987 Plan included threatened and endangered species (grizzly bear, 

grey wolf, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon), elk, whitetail deer, mountain goat, and pileated 

woodpecker. Under the revised plan, the KNF chose species whose habitat will likely be 

influenced by forest management to provide a meaningful measure of progress towards 

vegetation desired conditions. Although commenters suggested a wide variety of species, the 

KNF chose landbird assemblage and elk after considering the location and type of management 

activities that are likely to occur. The species in the landbird assemblage were selected to 

represent a variety of habitat conditions that could be tied to desired conditions for vegetation. 

Rocky Mountain elk were selected because they are a commonly hunted species and their habitat 

needs (security habitat) may be influenced by planned management programs. The final EIS and 

the Kootenai Idaho Panhandle Zone (KIPZ) MIS Selection documentation provide additional 

information regarding MIS selection. (Selection of MIS in the revised Plan is required under 36 

CFR 219.19.)

Some commenters specifically requested an “old growth” MIS. However, the KNF does not have 

an obligate old growth habitat species or a species that relies solely on old growth habitat. 

Regardless, the revised Plan recognizes the important habitat value old growth provides for a 

variety of species and includes direction that will maintain and develop additional old growth 

over time (see FW-DC-VEG-03, FW-STD-VEG-01, FW-GDL-VEG-01, and FW-GDL-VEG02). Other important wildlife habitat components, such as snags and downed wood (coarse woody 

debris), will also be maintained under forestwide vegetation and wildlife guidelines (see FW-DCVEG-07 and 08, FW-GDL-VEG-03 through 06, FW-DC-WL-12 and 13, and FW-GDL-WL-13).

The final EIS and revised Plan address public concerns for wildlife habitat security and 

demonstrate the importance of habitat security considerations for all aspects of KNF 

management. The grizzly bear access amendment ROD established standards for core (secure) 

habitat and motorized route densities within the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone and those are

carried forward in the revised Plan as FW-STD-WL-02. This provides high levels of habitat 

security for all species. In addition, wilderness areas, recommended wilderness areas, inventoried 

roadless areas, and other non-motorized areas contribute to secure habitat and connectivity for 

some species. The KNF coordinated with State wildlife management agencies for setting 

management emphasis for each planning subunit, including elk habitat security and the revised 

Plan includes direction (FW-DC-WL-16) to coordinate with state agencies for ungulate habitat 

management.

I believe the revised plan’s broad vegetation management approach to provide ecological 

components and processes at multiple scales on the landscape provides the full spectrum of 

habitats and conditions needed for the biological organisms associated with the various 

ecosystems of the KNF. As forest conditions trend toward desired conditions for vegetation and 

fire intensity and frequency, wildlife will experience habitat amounts, pattern, and connectivity 

similar to those found under the natural disturbance process they evolved with on the forest. The 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 19
Final Record of Decision

benefits of management under Alternative B Modified for forest composition, structure, and 

pattern, as described in the vegetation section, provide the best opportunities for improving 

terrestrial wildlife habitat. Even though Alternative D provides more acres with management 

activities, there is less emphasis on restoration and movement of vegetation towards desired 

conditions as found under Alternative B Modified, and less secure habitat. Although Alternative C 

provides the most acres of security habitat, I believe Alternative B Modified provides sufficient

security and limits on road densities to benefit grizzly bear, lynx, big game/ungulates, and other 

species. In addition, Alternative B Modified provides the greatest improvement in habitat through 

restoration of vegetation and movement towards vegetation desired conditions.

Revision Topic 5 – Access and Recreation

National Forests provide diverse outdoor recreation opportunities, connecting people to nature in 

a variety of settings and activities. Recreation on the KNF includes (but is not limited to) hunting, 

scenic viewing/driving, rock climbing, skiing, fishing, hiking, camping, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, OHV riding, and snowmobiling. Commenters stressed the important economic 

contribution of Forest recreation use to local economies and the high-value they place on 

traditional access opportunities.

Most of these activities occur across the Forest without conflict and National Visitor Use 

Monitoring has demonstrated overall satisfaction with KNF recreation management (see the 

access and recreation section of the final EIS). However, motor vehicle access for both summer 

and winter recreation is an ongoing issue for the public on both a local and national level. 

Although the KNF provides adequate space and terrain for diverse recreation experiences, 

watershed protection and wildlife security needs often limit non-winter motor vehicle use 

opportunities. Some commenters felt additional motor vehicle restrictions are needed to maximize 

ecological protections, while other commenters felt there are too many restrictions for motor 

vehicle use and opportunities are unnecessarily limited.

The Forest has been managing motor vehicle access and roads for decades. As shown by the 2011 

Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report, the Forest has increased the number of miles of 

roads with prohibition from 1,669 miles in 1987 to 5,041 miles in 2011. This reflects a change 

from 27 percent of the roads in 1987 having some form of prohibition to 64 percent of roads in 

2011. Most of these increased prohibitions occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The 1987 

Plan projected that 57 percent of roads would need some form of prohibition in order to provide 

the issue resolution desired. The 1987 Plan predicted there would be new road construction, with 

prohibitions placed on the new roads. The new road construction has been less than projected.

Prohibitions have been placed on roads that previously had no prohibitions (which were not 

anticipated to have prohibitions in the 1987 Plan) and on newly constructed roads. The reasons 

for the unanticipated prohibitions include additional wildlife habitat security measures, to 

decrease potential sedimentation, and to improve hydrologic condition. Prohibitions have 

remained fairly constant for the last 5 years.

The Forest has also been managing over-snow vehicle access for several decades. The Forest 

currently has 258,000 acres closed to all motor vehicles for most or all of the winter months.

These areas were closed because of critical winter range or because they are recommended 

wilderness or non-motorized recreation under the 1987 Plan. There have not been changes to 

areas restricted to over-snow vehicle use for several years. Generally, forest monitoring has not 

indicated a need for change regarding over-snow vehicle use on the KNF. Two exceptions include 

the over-snow vehicle use in the Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area, which is currently undergoing 

site-specific travel management planning, and the boundary area of the Scotchman Peaks 

recommended wilderness area near Savage Peak.

20 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

My decision does not change non-winter motor vehicle use on the Forest. The KNF completed 

non-winter motor vehicle use designations as required by Subpart B of the Travel Management 

Rule (36 CFR 212) in 2009, resulting in motor vehicle use maps (MVUM) forestwide. The areas 

and routes designated as motorized on the MVUMs will not change, except following projectlevel NEPA analysis. My decision, therefore, primarily affects over-snow vehicle and mechanized 

(bicycle) use.

While my decision does not affect non-winter motor vehicle use, it does affect future options to 

consider in designating additional miles or areas for motorized use following site-specific 

analysis. In selecting Alternative B Modified, I considered changes to existing uses and 

ecological needs. Alternative C emphasized non-motorized recreation, while Alternative D

emphasized motorized recreation. I felt Alternative C resulted in too many acres with motorized 

restrictions, which analysis shows is not needed to protect wildlife (see wildlife section in the 

final EIS chapter 3). Alternative D, on the other hand, would release from closure too many areas 

that may present an impact on wildlife and non-motorized users. Alternative B Modified is 

similar to current conditions, with some changes for areas that have public conflict.

Alternative B Modified, together with the allocation of the Whitefish Divide area to MA5a from 

Alternative D, provides a balance to accommodate reasonable assurances of motorized and nonmotorized recreation choices, while protecting forest resources. Alternative B Modified does the 

following:

• Incorporates previous landscape level plan decisions to protect ecological resources such 

as water quality, aquatic habitats, and wildlife security (see Decisions Carried Forward, 

page 13 of this final ROD);

• Provides the opportunity to consider non-winter motor vehicle use designations on 74 

percent of the Forest. This is a change from 76 percent of the Forest under the 1987 Plan;

• Allows over-snow vehicle use on 86 percent of the Forest. This is a change from 88 

percent under the 1987 Plan;

• Allows mechanized use (e.g., mountain bikes) on 91 percent of the Forest. This is a 

change from 96 percent under the 1987 Plan;

• Continues to provide dispersed recreation opportunities across the KNF with some 

improvements to concentrated use areas. This is an increased emphasis on improvements 

over what was in the 1987 Plan.

The revised Plan makes broad, strategic decisions identifying suitable uses for the land while 

providing the settings for balanced recreation opportunities consistent with goals for watershed 

health, sustainable ecosystems, and biodiversity. I believe my decision best balances the Forest’s 

multiple-use objectives, while maintaining diverse, high quality outdoor recreation opportunities, 

a road and trail system that provides access, and protection for terrestrial and aquatic habitats.

Revision Topic 6 – Recommended Wilderness

As described on page 11 of this final ROD, public opinion regarding wilderness recommendation 

varies widely. I recognize the complexity of public concerns over recommended wilderness and 

considered all public comments related to recommended wilderness boundary changes between 

the draft and final EIS. Some commenters suggested boundary changes that were not made 

because they were counter to our wilderness evaluation, while others suggested boundaries that 

were not manageable, locatable on the ground, or met the characteristics of wilderness. Some 

commenters did not want the Forest Service to evaluate areas for wilderness potential at all; 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 21
Final Record of Decision

however, the Forest Service is directed to evaluate areas for recommended wilderness under 1982 

Rule 36 CFR 219.17(a) where it states “roadless areas within the NFS shall be evaluated and 

considered for recommendation as potential wilderness areas during the forest planning process.” 

Some did not believe the delineation of the Inventoried Roadless Areas is correct and therefore 

are an inappropriate starting point for wilderness evaluation. Some felt wilderness characteristics 

were under-valued while others felt they were over-valued. Some commenters felt the inclusion 

of improvements within recommended wilderness did not meet eligibility requirements. Our 

direction allows the potential wilderness inventory to contain improvements such as unauthorized 

and user-created roads, and evidence of historic logging activities where the use of mechanical 

equipment is not evident. It also allows adjustment of the potential wilderness inventory area

boundaries that are taken forward as the preliminary administrative recommendations for 

manageability.

I believe the wilderness evaluation conducted by the Forest followed manual and handbook 

direction, resulting in appropriate suitability determinations. Potential wilderness is based on the 

inherent wilderness quality determined in the capability, availability, and needs assessment. In 

addition to the inherent wilderness quality an area might possess, the area should provide 

opportunities and experiences one would expect to find in a wilderness environment. 

Management of preliminary recommendations considers establishing boundaries that are easy to 

define and locate on the ground. The final EIS and errata describe the analysis used in evaluating 

individual roadless areas on the KNF and include a summary of each area’s evaluation of 

suitability for recommended wilderness (see Appendix C of the final EIS). 

The wilderness evaluation indicated 217,348 acres had potential and were suitable as 

recommended wilderness. Of these, Alternative C recommended the most acreage for wilderness 

at 242,800 acres. Alternative B Modified recommended acreage similar to the 1987 Plan at 

105,300 acres. Alternative D recommended the least acreage at 37,300 acres. I selected the 

Scotchman Peaks, Roderick, and Cabinet Additions areas from Alternative B Modified, both 

because they had public support and because they contain outstanding wilderness characteristics.

However, I have decided to allocate the Whitefish Divide area to MA5a as analyzed in 

Alternative D, instead of recommending it for wilderness, due to ongoing public concerns 

associated with ongoing travel management in the area.

Some commenters were concerned I inappropriately considered the 1987 Plan recommended 

wilderness acreage a “cap” on my recommendation. Although the recommended acres in 

Alternative B Modified are similar to what was recommended in the 1987 Plan, I did not consider 

this amount as my limit. I carefully considered a range of recommended wilderness areas, as well 

as other allocations, to determine the mix of land and resource uses that would best meet public 

needs. I find the areas recommended in this decision are an appropriate balance for the Kootenai 

National Forest in consideration of the wilderness evaluation, alternative analyses, and public 

comments.

The other roadless areas that commenters suggested for recommended wilderness, but which I am 

not recommending (including the Whitefish Divide area from Alternative B Modified), will

primarily be allocated to the various MA5 categories. The desired conditions in these backcountry

MAs will provide a range of non-motorized, motorized, and mechanized opportunities and secure 

wildlife habitat. 

Some commenters also expressed concern over the allowed uses in recommended wilderness.

The revised Plan includes desired conditions and standards for these areas that are incompatible 

with motorized and mechanized use. Thus, I am also making the site-specific decision to restrict 

22 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

over-snow vehicle and mechanized use (mountain biking) within recommended wilderness (with 

the exceptions allowed in the Montana Wilderness Study Act Ten Lakes area) as described on 

pages 5 and 6 of this ROD. I am including this prohibition because these uses impact wilderness 

character and, over time, could potentially lead to these areas no longer being suitable for 

wilderness designation. However, the other backcountry areas provide a range of remote 

mechanized, non-motorized, and motorized opportunities, and allow these uses.

I find the analysis for the final EIS gave independent consideration to forest-specific issues 

pertaining to recommended wilderness management. The analysis considered impacts of existing 

motorized and mechanized use in the evaluation of the Forest’s 43 IRAs for wilderness capability 

and availability as described in appendix C to the final EIS. In particular, the Forest addressed 

mountain biking, over-snow and motorized uses, explained how site-specific uses were analyzed, 

and discussed why continuation of some uses would compromise wilderness values of areas 

recommended for wilderness.

With respect to mountain biking, the analysis examined how mountain biking as an activity is 

inconsistent with the “primitive and unconfined” definition used to determine wilderness 

suitability, and discusses the continued growth of the sport and increasing use on public lands. I 

believe the analysis examined how mountain biking can lead to user conflicts and resource 

impacts and gave adequate consideration to site-specific trails in or near recommended 

wilderness, such as the Parmenter Divide Trail along the Cabinet Additions which was 

deliberately left outside the recommended wilderness boundary. The project record and final EIS 

discussed the number of miles of trail (126 miles) currently open to mountain biking that will be 

closed by my decision.

I believe the Forest’s analysis of over-snow use examines how this activity is incompatible with 

more primitive activities and the opportunity for solitude associated with wilderness character.

The final EIS and project record explain how existing over-snow use was considered while 

examining wilderness capability and availability.

The Ten Lakes Montana Wilderness Study Area (MWSA) has been, and will continue to be,

managed in accordance with applicable law and policy, including but not limited to the Montana 

Wilderness Study Act and Forest Service Manual 2329. Language in the 1977 Act requires that 

the MWSA be managed to maintain its presently existing (1977) wilderness character and 

potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Under a 2007 settlement 

agreement with the Montana Wilderness Association, the Forest is currently completing a travel 

management plan for the Ten Lakes MWSA and adjacent areas. The site-specific analysis for that

project will identify the appropriate level of motor vehicle use to ensure the wilderness character 

that existed in 1977 is maintained. Because of this ongoing effort, I am deferring 

recommendations in the MWSA to the 1985 Ten Lakes MWSA Final Report and Proposal.

Wilderness is highly valued by many, and represents deeply held values and beliefs. Yet, 

recommendation and potential Congressional designation of lands for wilderness will necessarily 

result in losses of other opportunities such as snowmobiling and mountain biking within these 

areas. The revised Plan provides a balance of opportunities in response to the broad range of 

public values.

Revision Topic 7 – Timber

Timber harvest on the KNF has been an important management issue since the KNF was 

established. The management direction in the 1987 Plan emphasized the production of timber, 

with the majority of MAs allowing or promoting timber management. This is reflected in the 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 23
Final Record of Decision

established allowable sale quantity (ASQ) in the 1987 Plan of 227 MMBF/year. In November 

1995, the Chief of the Forest Service adjusted the ASQ to 150 MMBF/year in response to an

administrative appeal. In the 1990s, the KNF began to focus on ecosystem management and 

ecological sustainability, with a decreased emphasis on commercial timber production and an 

increased emphasis on timber harvest as a tool to restore vegetation, improve wildlife habitat, or 

to address other resource requirements (e.g., riparian habitat conservation direction under the

Inland Native Fish Strategy and grizzly bear management). In addition, declining budgets have

reduced staffing over the past several years. Subsequently, timber production levels have been 

well below the ASQ established in the 1987 Plan, with an average volume sold of 44.9

MMBF/year over the last 5 years (2008–2012). Although the ASQ is intended to represent the 

maximum sustainable harvest level subject to management constraints with no budget limitation, 

there is a public expectation that the full ASQ can be achieved and support the commensurate 

level of local jobs and income displayed in the 1987 Plan’s analysis.

The final EIS reanalyzed the ASQ based on changes in policy and ecosystem needs, and also 

considered an evaluation of timber suitability as required by 36 CFR 219.14. The revised Plan 

outlines the ASQ as 80.2 MMBF/year over the first decade. The revised Plan also provides a 

predicted annual volume sold of 47.5 MMBF/year, based on current budget levels. If budgets 

increase, the Forest has the ability to increase timber harvest above the predicted timber volume 

sold up to the ASQ. This represents the maximum level of sustainable timber harvest given 

management requirements for other resources such as water quality, old growth, and wildlife 

habitat.

Some public commenters are concerned about what they perceive as modest projections for 

timber harvest in the revised Plan. They would like the KNF to achieve sustainable and reliable 

harvest levels but prefer the revised Plan include a higher ASQ. They would also like the 

objective for timber harvest in the revised Plan to match the ASQ rather than the predicted 

volume sold, which is constrained by budget.

The final EIS includes a detailed analysis to determine sustainable levels of timber harvest 

relative to desired conditions and forest management requirements. I believe the ASQ level is the 

maximum that could be achieved given additional funding (more than twice the current budget) 

and habitat and water quality protection constraints for other resources. Providing an objective 

that is realistic given current budgets levels is appropriate. The predicted volume sold is a 

reasonable estimate of the sustainable timber volume that could be sold given current funding 

levels. The social and economic section of the final EIS highlights the importance of forest 

outputs on local economies and communities, as well as how forest management affects jobs and 

income. KNF staff works to ensure the economic feasibility of all commercial timber sales and I 

find the amount of timber harvest predicted in the revised Plan is achievable, given current budget 

levels. Thus, timber harvest will continue to contribute to the viability of the forest products 

infrastructure.

The revised plan also considers utilization of non-sawlog material in keeping with National and 

Regional Forest Service direction to increase availability and utilization of biomass. Not only 

does this support non-saw/biomass material markets, it is important for reducing fuels and 

restoring forests while protecting air quality and reducing required collections for brush disposal.

I find Alternative D is most responsive to this revision topic. It has the highest level of ASQ and 

predicted timber volume and provides the most wood fiber in response to public demands.

Alternatives B Modified and C provide lower levels of forest products. However, in consideration 

of the full range of National Forest management resource values, I believe Alternative B 

24 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

Modified provides the best opportunity for sustainable timber production while contributing to an 

economically viable forest products industry.

Alternatives

All alternatives in the final EIS adhere to multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services 

(36 CFR 219.1(a), (b)). In addition, they share objectives and standards for managing forest 

resources and complying with applicable laws and policies. They also contain the same direction 

to contribute to the diversity of desired native and non-native plant and animal communities and 

contribute toward the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Forestwide direction 

identified in the revised Plan applies to all action alternatives. 

The revision topics drove alternative development. The primary difference between alternatives is 

in the allocation of acres by MA to meet the purpose and need for change, and address one or 

more of the revision topics.

Each alternative was developed to be in compliance with applicable law and regulation, as well as 

national policy and direction including, but not limited to, the Healthy Forests Initiative, National 

Fire Plan, and National Energy Policy.

The following did not change between the action alternatives in the final EIS and errata:

• Forest Plan Goals, Desired Conditions, and Standards and Guidelines —

Management area and forestwide direction for goals, desired conditions, standards, and 

guidelines remained constant for all action alternatives.

• Developed Recreation Sites—Existing developed recreation sites were retained in all 

alternatives. There were no site-specific proposals to remove or create developed 

recreation sites. Allocation of primary recreation areas (MA7) remained constant for all 

action alternatives.

• Utility Rights-of-Way and Communication Sites—Direction for and location of 

designated utility rights-of-way and communication sites remained constant for all 

alternatives.

• Wild and Scenic Rivers—Direction for, and allocation of, eligible wild and scenic rivers 

(MA2) remains constant for all alternatives.

• Wilderness Study Area—The Wilderness Study Area on the Forest was established by 

an act of Congress in 1977. The Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area and its management 

are outlined by the Wilderness Study Act. This management remained constant for all 

alternatives.

• Designated Wilderness—The Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Designation remained

constant for all alternatives.

Under the Draft EIS, allocation of special areas and research natural areas remained constant for 

all action alternatives. Based on comments, these allocations were changed for Alternative B 

Modified, resulting in differences between the action alternatives.

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 25
Final Record of Decision

Alternatives Considered in Detail, Including the No-Action 

Alternative

The no action and three action alternatives are summarized as follows. See the final EIS for a full 

description and analysis of effects. Table 5 at reference page 37 of the errata to the final EIS 

contains a comparison of the MA allocations for each alternative.

Alternative A is the no-action alternative. This alternative is the 1987 Plan, as amended to date, 

and accounts for current laws and regulations. New information, inventories, and technologies 

were used to evaluate this alternative. Output levels were recalculated for this alternative based 

on these new sources of information and amended direction. The no-action alternative retains the 

1987 Plan goals and objectives, standards and guidelines, and MA prescriptions, as amended. 

This alternative serves as the baseline for comparison with the action alternatives.

Alternative B Modified is based on Alternative B from the DEIS, with modifications in response 

to comments. This alternative is the preferred alternative. It is the result of collaborative efforts 

since 2003 and responds to the identified purpose and need. This alternative emphasizes moving 

towards desired future conditions and contributing to ecological, social, and economic 

sustainability. Alternative B Modified would manage approximately 5 percent of the Forest as 

recommended wilderness (MA1b), 22 percent as backcountry (MA5), and 64 percent as general 

forest (MA6). Thirty-six percent of the Forest would be suitable for timber production.

Alternative C emphasizes wilderness values and protection of backcountry while moving 

towards desired conditions. There is an increased emphasis on natural disturbance processes 

(such as unplanned wildfire ignitions for multiple objectives) and prescribed burning. Mechanical 

treatments (e.g., timber harvest, stream improvements) also occur in order to move towards 

watershed and vegetation desired conditions. Alternative C would have more opportunities for 

backcountry and non-motorized recreation (MA1 — 343,700 acres; MA5 — 481,700 acres). This 

alternative also has more acres recommended as wilderness (215,900 acres) than any other 

alternative. About 59 percent would be allocated to general forest (MA6). Thirty-four percent of 

the Forest would be suitable for timber production.

Alternative D emphasizes achieving desired condition through mechanical means. Timber 

production is emphasized while moving towards vegetation desired conditions. This alternative 

has the most acres available for timber production and motorized access, with 76 percent of 

acreage allocated to MA6 (general forest). There would be fewer acres allocated to recommended 

wilderness (36,100 acres or about 2 percent) and backcountry (MA5 – less than 13 percent of the 

Forest). Thirty-eight percent of the Forest would be suitable for timber production.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. 

Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of this revision effort or, duplicative 

of the alternatives considered in detail. Over 19 alternatives (or alternative variations) were 

considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized in chapter 2 of the 

final EIS.

26 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require agencies to specify the alternative 

or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). 

Forest Service policy (FSH 1909.15) defines environmentally preferable as: “An alternative that 

best meets the goals of Section 101 of NEPA. ... Ordinarily this is the alternative that causes the 

least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources.”

I find, based upon the laws and regulations guiding National Forest System management, that

Alternative B Modified is the environmentally preferred alternative. Although Alternative C 

would allow the fewest mechanical ground-disturbing activities and lowest acres allowing 

motorized use, it does not address the six goals of NEPA as well as Alternative B Modified does. I 

base my finding on the following comparison showing how the alternatives address the goals of 

Section 101 of NEPA:

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustees of the environment for 

succeeding generations

Alternative B Modified emphasizes moving forest conditions toward desired future 

conditions while contributing to ecological, social, and economic sustainability. Alternative B 

Modified provides the most movement towards vegetation desired conditions while providing 

sustainable levels of timber harvest similar to current levels. The higher timber harvest levels 

under Alternative B Modified than Alternative C provides the KNF’s sustainable share of 

products and uses demanded by the public, while having a higher probability of improving 

and restoring vegetation for future generations than does Alternative D. Alternative A would 

provide the least improvement toward desired conditions.

2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings

Alternative B Modified achieves maintenance of a safe, healthful, productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally pleasing Forest better than the other alternatives because it 

provides the best mix of resource utilization, active and passive management, and motorized 

and non-motorized recreation uses along with the safeguards provided by standards and 

guidelines for maintaining water quality, scenery, and wildlife habitat. Alternative B 

Modified provides recommended wilderness at levels similar to current levels of Alternative 

A, recommending the best of our backcountry areas for this designation. Alternative B 

Modified also provides timber harvest levels similar to current Alternative A levels and 

maintains access to important recreational areas better than Alternative C. Although 

Alternative D provides higher levels of timber harvest and access opportunities, it does not 

provide the levels of recommended wilderness as is currently enjoyed on the Forest.

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, 

risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences

The beneficial uses that are most varied between alternatives and that I considered in this 

finding are wood fiber production and a reasonable balance between motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. Alternative B Modified achieves a higher level of 

reasonable, sustainable beneficial uses than Alternative C. While Alternative D provides 

higher levels of wood fiber production and motorized recreation allocations, it does so at the 

expense of non-motorized recreation allocations. Although the beneficial uses of Alternative 

A are similar, Alternative B Modified also provides the most movement of vegetation towards 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 27
Final Record of Decision

desired conditions, which will provide for more resistant and resilient forests. This improves 

the health of our forests and watersheds, enhances wildlife habitat, and reduces undesirable 

and unintended consequences.

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage 

and maintain, wherever possible, an environment, which supports diversity and 

variety of individual choice

Part of preserving our historic and cultural national heritage is recognizing that humans are a

natural aspect of our national heritage – humans have utilized the physical and cultural 

resources offered by the KNF for thousands of years. Recognizing that, I find that the best

way to preserve that heritage, and the environment that supports diversity and variety of 

choice, is to manage for a National Forest that provides a balance between the physical 

resource use and the appropriate protection of cultural and historic resources. Based upon the 

collaborative public efforts, tribal consultation, and the effects of each alternative displayed in 

the final EIS, I find that Alternative B Modified meets this goal better than the other 

alternatives. It improves on Alternative A and provides the best balance of uses between 

Alternative C’s emphasis on wilderness values and protection of backcountry and Alternative 

D’s emphasis on achieving desired conditions through mechanical means. 

5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use, which will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities

The public demands a variety of products and uses that can be provided by their National

Forests. National forest lands and resources are evaluated as important local resources that 

contribute to the quality of lifestyles in the region. The final EIS alternative analysis 

compares the various values the public uses to determine their quality of life varying from

economic resource extraction values (timber harvest and minerals) to less tangibly-defined

resources such as wilderness values and backcountry protection. The challenge is in defining 

the balance sought in this goal, and I find that Alternative B Modified achieves that balance. 

Alternative B Modified provides more resource use than Alternative C, but more 

opportunities for backcountry protection than Alternative D.

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources

I find Alternative B Modified enhances the quality of renewable resources and provides 

sustainable use of renewable resources. The standards and guidelines and the management 

area allocation under Alternative B Modified provides for levels of resource use that are 

similar to current levels of Alternative A, while providing protection measures and preserving 

areas as backcountry or recommended wilderness. While Alternative D provides higher levels 

of resource use, it does not provide for as much vegetation restoration as does B Modified. 

Alternative C emphasizes more passive management and greater amount of backcountry and 

recommended wilderness, but it does so at the expense of resource utilization and does not 

achieve as much vegetation restoration as Alternative B Modified.

Range of Alternatives

After considering the analysis in Alternatives A through D, and the alternatives considered but 

eliminated from detailed study, I believe a reasonable range of alternatives was carefully 

evaluated in compliance with the NEPA. 

28 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

Although consideration of budget constraints reduced the variation in the effects of the actions 

across the alternatives, the analysis in the final EIS covered a full spectrum of management 

intensity ranging from a preservation emphasis in Alternative C to a highly-managed, commodity 

output and motorized recreation emphasis in Alternative D. All action alternatives are realistic, 

implementable, and responsive to the revision topics.

Role of Science

The development of the final EIS and the revised Plan has been based on consideration of the best 

available science throughout the planning process. This has occurred by comprehensively 

reviewing available scientific research and other information relevant to the resource areas 

addressed. Scientific conclusions are drawn from well-supported data sources and data 

availability is disclosed. Scientific sources relied on were cited, responsible opposing views were 

discussed, incomplete and unavailable information was acknowledged, and scientific uncertainty 

and risk was addressed in relevant portions of the final EIS or project record. In addition, the 

specific modeling and analysis methods used were documented as appropriate.

The revised Plan provides for the sustainability of the resources of the KNF, while directing the 

coordination and management of multiple uses of national forest land such as recreation, timber, 

mining, wildlife, fish, watershed, and wilderness. Recognizing that conditions on the KNF do not 

remain static, that new information is constantly surfacing, and that scientific uncertainty is 

associated with some conclusions regarding resource effects, the revised Plan embraces an 

adaptive management approach. See page 43 of this final ROD and chapter 5 of the revised Plan

for more information regarding the KNF adaptive management framework.

Relationship to Other Entities

The Planning Rule under 36 CFR §219.7(c) requires the review of planning and land use policies 

of other Federal Agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes. This review includes 

(1) consideration of the objectives of these entities as expressed in their plans and policies; (2) an 

assessment of the interrelated impacts of these plans and policies; (3) determination of how the 

Forest revised plan should deal with impacts identified; and (4) where conflicts with Forest 

Service planning are identified, consideration of alternatives for resolution.

County, State, and Federal plans were reviewed during the plan revision process. These plans are 

referenced and incorporated in numerous areas of analysis in the final EIS, including social and 

economic, water, air, wildlife, fire, and vegetation. Direction in the revised Plan incorporates 

information from these other plans.

County Governments 

The Forest worked with county governments in developing the revised Plan. Their comments 

were reviewed and carefully considered. Many meetings were held with the counties throughout 

the planning process (see the planning record, volume 1, and volume 2).

The interdisciplinary team reviewed the counties’ comprehensive management plans and did not 

find any direct conflicts or inconsistencies in the revised Plan. Areas where the Forest found the 

Plan and the counties’ comprehensive management plan goals are well-aligned in several areas

include a Lincoln County Growth Policy objective to “achieve successful implementation of a 

forest plan consistent with forest health and multiple use principles to reduce catastrophic fire 

potential and improve economic conditions”. Other Lincoln County plan elements well-aligned 

with the revised Plan include the intergovernmental coordination goals to protect fish and wildlife 

resources; manage, protect, enhance, and conserve water resources; encourage the protection and 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 29
Final Record of Decision

enhancement of water resources and fish and wildlife habitat; and allow for the development and 

maintenance of a safe, efficient, and environmentally sound transportation network. An example 

from the Boundary County Comprehensive Plans includes a forestry guideline stating “planning 

decisions should encourage multiple uses of forest resources and promote harvest, thinning, and 

other silvicultural practices to ensure safety and to improve the health and diversity of forest 

land.” An example from the Bonner County Comprehensive Plan includes a natural resources 

goal to “strive to manage its natural resources to attain the greatest long term public benefit”.

Despite the consistency between land use plans, I understand county representatives perceive 

issues regarding economic effects related to expected timber outputs and motorized access. The 

final EIS social and economic section discusses these impacts, but I acknowledge the counties 

still dispute whether my decision will strike the correct balance between ecological protection and 

local economic need. With a large federal land base in northwest Montana, I recognize the local 

economic base is dependent on access and use of the Forest. I believe a productive working 

relationship between the Forest and county governments is vital for successfully implementing 

the Plan and supporting the economic base within the ecological considerations the Plan 

describes. For this reason, the Plan includes desired conditions and objectives which emphasize 

the Forest’s commitment to work with the counties, and other government agencies, in order to 

achieve multiple use goals on the KNF. 

State 

Several Montana State agencies are affected by, or affect Forest Service management. These 

include Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; the Montana Department of Environmental Quality; 

the Department of Natural Resource Conservation; and the Montana Department of 

Transportation. The Forest coordinated information with State agencies during all phases of the 

plan revision process. Those offices provided formal comments during the scoping and other 

public involvement stages. Statewide assessments were considered in the development of the 

revised Plan.

Tribes

The forest supervisor and members of the planning team met with tribal representatives from the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho during development of 

the revised Plan. As a result, specific tribal comments were incorporated in the final EIS and

revised Plan.

Federal

Management of federal lands adjacent to the KNF was considered in the development of the 

revised Plan and the analysis of cumulative effects in the final EIS.

Consideration of national scenic and historic trails, utility corridors, recommended wilderness, 

and other management concerns across boundaries were discussed with the Idaho Panhandle, 

Flathead, and Lolo National Forests. The forests met to ensure management problems weren’t

created with the KNF revised Plan.

In addition, the Forest worked with the Border Patrol on developing direction within the revised 

Plan to coordinate on issues relating to national security along the northern international 

boundary.

30 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

Climate Change

Scientific understanding and public awareness of global climate change has increased 

dramatically in recent years. There is broad scientific consensus that increases in average global 

temperature is very likely if atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to 

accumulate at current rates. How these potential global changes might translate to climatic 

changes on the KNF is much more uncertain.

The continuous forest planning process allows us to adjust our management plans as new, locally 

specific information with sufficient scientific confidence becomes available. The goals and 

objectives of the forest plan are consistent with maintaining the resilience and diversity of the 

vegetation, watersheds, and wildlife of the KNF in the face of the potential effects of climate 

change. Over the next 10 to 15 years, projected changes in global and continental average 

temperatures are much less than for later this century. Projected changes in precipitation patterns 

over the next 10 to 15 years are even smaller, although of greater uncertainty. Moreover, a 10 to 

15-year time period is relatively short in terms of global and regional climate trends and 

conditions may not differ from the range of variability experienced in recent decades.

The Forest Service is undertaking substantial efforts to better understand the potential effects of 

climate change on resource management and the associated uncertainties at the scale of individual 

national forests. Ongoing national, regional, and forest-specific monitoring and scientific research 

will continue to add to our understanding, and will help to inform evaluations of whether 

adjustments in management actions are needed to maintain the health, diversity, and productivity 

of the National Forests and Grasslands, including the KNF.

The Plan goals and objectives are designed to maintain or improve the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the KNF. However, if planning, management, and monitoring information on 

resource conditions and trends, including those that may be affected by long-term climatic trends, 

indicate a need for change, the KNF will adjust forest plan direction as necessary.

Findings Related to Laws and Regulations

The Forest Service manages the KNF in conformance with many laws and regulations. I have 

reviewed the statutes specific to individual resources as described in chapter 3 of the final EIS, 

and I find this decision represents the best possible approach to both harmonizing and reconciling 

the current statutory duties of the Forest Service. Following are summaries of how the revised 

Plan addresses compliance with some of the more prominent applicable laws and regulations.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

Federal agencies must make a good faith effort to understand how Indian religious practices may 

come into conflict with other forest uses and consider any adverse impacts on these practices in 

their decision-making practices. There are five federally-recognized American Indian nations with 

cultural affiliation on the KNF: the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe, the Coeur 

d’Alene Tribe, the Spokane Tribe, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The 

aboriginal territory of the Kalispel, Coeur d’Alene, and Spokane Tribes, overlap with the territory 

now along the Clark Fork Valley with the territory used by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The entire Forest is within aboriginal territory for the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.

The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. No effects on American Indian social, economic, or 

subsistence rights are anticipated as a result of this revised Plan. The Forest will continue to 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 31
Final Record of Decision

consult with tribes during site-specific management activities that may impact treaty rights and/or 

cultural sites and cultural use. The revised Plan desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines

include provisions in consideration of American Indian rights and interests and cultural resources. 

Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with this act.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act

The purpose of this act is to provide protection for archaeological resources found on public lands 

and Indian lands of the United States. The legislation provides civil and criminal penalties for 

those who remove or damage archaeological resources in violation of the prohibitions contained 

in the act. The act prohibits the removal of archaeological resources on public lands or Indian 

lands without first obtaining a permit from the affected Federal land manager or Indian Tribe and 

requires Federal agencies to develop plans to survey lands under their management to determine 

the nature and extent of archaeological and cultural resources.

The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800 regulations require assessments to establish the presence of 

historic properties within the area of potential effect for any site-specific activities and also meet 

the intent of this act. In addition, the Forest will continue to consult with tribes during sitespecific management activities that may impact cultural sites and cultural use. Plan desired 

conditions, objectives, and guidelines include provisions in consideration American Indian rights 

and interests and cultural resources. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with this act.

Clean Air Act

According to the Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the USDA 

Forest Service has the responsibility to protect the air, land, and water resources from the impacts 

of air pollutants produced within the national forest boundaries and to work with states to protect 

those same resources from degradation associated with the impacts of air pollution emitted 

outside of the national forest.

The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. The revised Plan does not create, authorize, or execute 

any activities with the potential to alter air quality, although it does provide for the consideration 

of certain types of activities such as prescribed burning. Forestwide desired conditions and 

guidelines include direction for meeting air quality standards established by Federal and State 

agencies during planning for prescribed burns. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with 

this act.

Clean Water Act

The intent of the act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of 

the nation’s waters. The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance 

and direction to future site-specific projects and activities. The revised Plan does not create, 

authorize, or execute any ground-disturbing activity, although it does provide for the 

consideration of certain types of activities. The revised Plan contains direction to ensure all sitespecific projects meet or exceed State Best Management Practices prepared under guidance of the 

Clean Water Act. Implementation of the revised Plan is expected to contribute to protecting or 

restoring the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters of the United States in 

accordance with the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with this act.

32 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

Endangered Species Act

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems 

upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide 

for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species. Section 7(a)(1) of the act

requires federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. In addition, 

ESA requires federal agencies to insure that any agency action does not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species (ESA Section 7(a)(2)). ESA also requires the USFWS and Forest Service, 

respectively, to base the biological opinion and subsequent agency action on the use of best 

scientific and commercially available data [16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)].

In accordance with Section 7(c) of the act, USFWS identified the listed and proposed threatened 

or endangered species that may be present on the Forest. Biological assessments (BAs)were

prepared for the identified terrestrial, aquatic, and plant species.

The terrestrial BA found implementation of the revised Plan may affect, and is likely to adversely 

affect Canada lynx and grizzly bear. The BA also determined that implementation of the revised 

Plan will adversely affect designated critical habitat for Canada lynx. The BA outlines the specific 

reasons why implementation of the revised Plan may have short-term adverse effects to these 

species and critical habitat and result in overall net benefits.

The aquatic BA found implementation of the revised Plan may affect, and is likely to adversely 

affect bull trout. The BA also determined the revised Plan will adversely affect designated critical 

habitat for bull trout. The BA outlines the specific reasons why implementation of the revised 

Plan may have short-term adverse effects to this species and critical habitat and result in overall 

net benefits. 

The aquatic BA found implementation of the revised Plan will have no effect on the Kootenai 

River white sturgeon or its habitat. As documented in the BA, forest management activities have 

not been identified as a factor in the decline of the Kootenai River white sturgeon. Therefore, land 

management activities allowed under the revised Plan will not affect Kootenai River white

sturgeon or its habitat.

The plant BA determined the revised Plan would have no effect on the Spalding’s catchfly. This 

species has no known occurrences on the KNF; however, suitable habitat potentially exists for 

this plant and it is listed as “suspected.” The protection measures offered for this species in the 

revised Plan result in the determination of no effect.

The USFWS issued Biological Opinions (BOs) covering Canada lynx, grizzly bear, bull trout and 

critical habitat for Canada lynx and bull trout. The BOs determined that the actions as proposed 

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Canada lynx, grizzly bear, or bull trout, and 

are not likely to destroy or adversely modify Canada lynx or bull trout critical habitat. Therefore, 

the revised Plan is fully compliant with the requirements of the ESA.

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires that federal agencies make achieving 

environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of their program, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The Order further 

stipulates that the agencies conduct their programs and activities in a manner that does not have 

the effect of excluding persons from participating in, denying persons the benefits of, or 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 33
Final Record of Decision

subjecting persons to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because of their 

race, color, or national origin.

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, the revised Plan has been assessed to determine 

whether it would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. The social 

assessments for the KNF (Russell and Adams-Russell 2003, Russell and Downs 1995) and the 

assessment of social conditions and trends (Russell et al. 2006) did not identify any 

disproportionate impacts from forest management. In addition, collaboration and public 

involvement on the revised Plan did not identify any concerns regarding disproportionate impacts 

to low-income or minority populations. The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, 

providing guidance and direction to future site-specific projects and activities. Future site-specific 

activities will consider potential disproportionate effects on minority or low-income communities 

during project planning. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with Executive Order 

12898.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

This act allows the granting of easements across National Forest System Lands. The revised Plan 

is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to future site-specific 

projects and activities. The revised Plan does not create, authorize, or execute any specific 

activity, although it does provide for the consideration of granting easements and rights-of-way. 

Forestwide desired conditions include strategic easements to provide reasonable public and 

administrative access. Therefore, the revised Plan is consistent with the act.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

The procedures of the 1982 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.12(f)(6)) require that at least one

alternative be developed that responds to and incorporates the Resources Planning Act (RPA)

Program’s tentative resource objectives for each National Forest as displayed in Regional Guides. 

The last RPA Program was developed in 1995 and the Regional Guide for the Northern Region 

was withdrawn on November 26, 2001, as required by the 2000 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.35 

(e)). The Forest Service Strategic Plan 2007–2012 in lieu of an RPA Program, was completed in 

accordance with the Government Performance Results Act and the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act. The Strategic Plan does not recommend outputs to incorporate in specific 

forest plans, but all alternatives analyzed in detail in the final EIS support the broad strategic 

objectives.

Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112)

Executive Order 13112 directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species; 

detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and 

environmentally sound manner; to monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; 

to provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been 

invaded; to conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent 

introduction; and to provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and promote 

public education on invasive species and the means to address them. All of these actions are 

subject to the availability of appropriations. FSM 2900, Invasive Species Management, sets forth 

National Forest System policy, responsibilities, and direction for the prevention, detection, 

control, and restoration of effects from aquatic and terrestrial invasive species (including 

vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and pathogens).

The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. The revised Plan does not create, authorize, or execute 

34 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

any ground-disturbing activity, although it does provide for the consideration of certain types of 

activities that may have the potential to affect the dispersal of invasive species. The revised Plan

includes forestwide desired condition statements, objectives, guidelines, and specific MA 

direction that stress the need to treat new invaders and utilize best management practices that 

limit the introduction and spread from management activities. In addition, other direction serves

to protect watershed, soil, riparian, and aquatic conditions in ways that will reduce management 

caused disturbances which otherwise may increase weed spread or introduction. In addition, the 

monitoring program includes indicators associated with invasive plant species and effectiveness 

of treatments. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with Executive Order 13112.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186

Executive Order 13186 (January 10, 2001): “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect

Migratory Birds” was issued by President Bill Clinton in furtherance of the purposes of the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts, the Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. This 

order requires including effects of federal actions on migratory birds as part of the environmental 

analysis process. On December 8, 2008, the Forest Service signed a Memorandum of 

understanding with the USFWS to complement the Executive Order (USDA Forest Service 2008) 

and the Forest Service agreed to: (a) incorporate migratory bird habitat and population objectives 

and recommendations into the agency planning process, in cooperation with other governments, 

state, federal agencies, and non-federal partners and (b) strive to protect, restore, enhance, and 

manage habitat of migratory birds, and prevent the further loss or degradation of remaining 

habitats on NFS lands.

The KNF observes conservation strategies within the Partners in Flight Conservation Plan (PIF 

2000). The use of this plan supports the goal of maintaining long-term sustainability of migratory 

bird species and their habitats as specified by this act and the E.O. The revised Plan includes 

forestwide and MA direction related to key stressors for migratory birds and their habitats, 

including direction to maintain or improve forest resilience, composition, and structure. Future 

site-specific activities or projects with the potential to impact migratory bird habitat will be 

analyzed with site-specific NEPA processes and comply with revised Plan direction. Therefore, 

the revised Plan is fully compliant with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and E.O. 13186.

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act

Consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531) (MUSYA), 

the Forest Service manages the NFS to sustain the multiple use of its renewable resources in

perpetuity while maintaining the long-term health and productivity of the land. Resources are 

managed through a combination of approaches and concepts for the benefit of human 

communities and natural resources. As demonstrated in the final EIS and as required by MUSYA, 

this revised Plan guides sustainable, integrated resource management of the resources on the KNF

in the context of the broader landscape, giving due consideration to the relative values of the 

various resources in particular areas. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with this act.

National Environmental Policy Act

This act requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects. The 

environmental analysis and public involvement process complies with the major elements of the 

requirements set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 

1500-1508). These include 1) considering a broad range of reasonable alternatives, 2) disclosing 

cumulative effects, 3) using best scientific information, 4) consideration of long-term and shortterm effects, and 5) disclosure of unavoidable adverse effects.

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 35
Final Record of Decision

The KNF considered a broad range of alternatives in the final EIS and has compiled a

comprehensive record of the effects relevant to the alternatives considering best scientific 

information. The revised Plan adopts all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental 

harm. These means include provisions for providing the ecological conditions needed to support 

biological diversity and standards and guidelines to mitigate adverse environmental effects that 

may result from implementing various management practices. The revised Plan includes

monitoring requirements and an adaptive management approach to assure needed adjustments are 

made over time.

The revised Plan does not represent an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. The 

revised Plan is a programmatic level planning effort and does not directly authorize any ground 

disturbing activities or projects. Future ground disturbing activities and projects will be consistent 

with this revised Plan and subject to additional site-specific public involvement, environmental 

analysis, and pre-decisional review processes. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with 

the act and CEQ implementation regulations.

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development, maintenance,

amendment, and revision of land and resource management plans for each unit of the National 

Forest System. These plans help create a dynamic management system so that an interdisciplinary 

approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences 

will be applied to all future actions on the unit (16 U.S.C. 1604(b), (f), (g), and (o). The Forest

Service is to ensure coordination of the multiple uses and sustained yield of products and services 

of the National Forest System (16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(1)).

The NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate regulations for developing and 

maintaining forest plans. On April 9, 2012, the Department of Agriculture issued a final planning 

rule for National Forest System land management planning (2012 Rule) 77 FR 68 [21162-21276]. 

According to transition language of the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), the 

responsible official may elect to use the provisions of the prior planning regulations (1982 

Planning Rule, dated September 30, 1982, and as amended1

) to prepare plan amendments and 

revisions. The KNF elected to use the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule for the plan revision. 

References in this final ROD to sections of 1982 Planning Rule version of 36 CFR are indicated 

in the citations.

NFMA Diversity Requirements

The NFMA also requires that forest plans “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities 

based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multipleuse objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives of a land management plan adopted 

pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to be 

taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by 

the plan” (16 U.S.C. §1604 §6 (g)(3)(B)). The 1982 planning rule requires that “Forest planning 

shall provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species consistent with the 

over-all multiple-use objectives of the planning area” (36 CFR 219.26). In addition, land 

management plans shall provide direction to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable2

1 The 1982 provisions can be found online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html.

2 For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one that has the estimated 

numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure its continued existence is well 

36 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision

 
Final Record of Decision

populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area (36 

CFR 219.19). 

My interdisciplinary team identified the species that occur on the forests, determined which of 

those species have conservation needs, narrowed down which species could be affected by forest 

management, screened the risks to species through a coarse filter (ecosystem diversity), and 

developed additional plan components where necessary through a fine filter approach (species 

diversity).

The overall goal for ecological sustainability is to sustain native ecological systems and support 

diversity of native plant and animal species. The focus in the sustainability analysis was on 

species that are of regional or local conservation concern as indicated by documented threats to 

populations or habitats. Native vertebrates and invertebrates known to occur on land administered 

by the KNF were considered.

The initial focus of the assessment process was on ecosystem diversity, both in addressing the 

needs of healthy, diverse, and resilient ecosystems within the plan area, and in determining the 

extent to which maintaining ecosystem diversity will also maintain populations of plant and 

animal species within their ranges in the plan area. Ecosystem diversity is defined as the variety 

and relative extent of ecosystem types including their composition, structure, and processes. An 

assumption relative to terrestrial animals is that ecosystem diversity will maintain habitat for the 

persistence of the vast majority of species. This has often been referred to as the “coarse filter” 

conservation approach. For KNF, a coarse filter ecosystem diversity evaluation was used to 

compare existing vegetation communities to a set of reference conditions in order to evaluate 

changes in disturbance regimes and ecological communities. Based on the results of this 

evaluation, proposed forest plan components were developed to maintain or move vegetation 

communities towards a desired level or condition. A similar evaluation was done for ecosystem 

diversity of aquatic systems.

A complementary approach (species diversity) to the ecosystem diversity analysis was used for 

those species for which ecological conditions necessary to sustain populations may not be 

provided by maintaining ecosystem diversity. In these cases, a species-specific approach was used 

in the analysis and for the establishment of plan components (where necessary). The assessment 

of individual species is often referred to as the “fine-filter” approach.

The complete analysis as well as the plan components can be found in the document Kootenai 

and Idaho Panhandle National Forests: Providing for Ecological Sustainability in the Revised 

Forest Plans, which is located in the project record and on the forest website.

My review of the planning process, the final EIS, and the information provided in the ROD 

indicates the revised Plan and its preparation meet requirements for revising plans under the 

provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule, as allowed in the transition provisions of the 2012 Planning 

Rule at 36 CFR 219.17. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with the act.

National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires each Federal agency to take into 

account the effects of its actions on historic properties, prior to approving expenditure of Federal 

funds on an undertaking or prior to issuing any license. Furthermore, an agency must afford the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (an independent Federal agency created by NHPA) an 

distributed in the planning area (36 CFR 219.19).

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 37

 
Final Record of Decision

opportunity to comment on any of the agency's undertaking that could affect historic properties. 

National forests must work closely with the appropriate scientific community and American

Indian Tribes concerning cultural resources. Heritage inventories are to be completed prior to any 

ground disturbing activities associated with project level decisions. In addition, the laws and 

policies that govern cultural resource protection on Federal lands are coordinated with the State 

Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) of Montana and Idaho, who serve in an advisory capacity.

The revised Plan is a programmatic level planning effort and does not directly authorize any 

ground disturbing activities or projects. Site-specific projects undertaken in response to direction 

in this revised Plan will fully comply with laws and regulations that ensure protection of heritage 

resources. The revised Plan includes Forestwide desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines for 

cultural resources to fully integrate heritage resource management with other management 

activities. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with this act.

Roadless Area Conservation Rule and Idaho Roadless Rule (36 

CFR 294)

The Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C) applies to inventoried roadless areas managed 

by the KNF, that are within the State of Idaho. This rule was promulgated in 2008 (73 FR 201). 

The Rule designates management theme or classifications for roadless areas in Idaho. This rule 

went through a separate public review and analysis process. The rule states “the prohibitions and 

permissions set forth in the rule are not subject to reconsideration, revision, or rescission in 

subsequent project decisions or land and resource management plans or revisions undertaken 

pursuant to 36 CFR 219” (36 CFR 294.28(e)). Therefore, the rule provides higher level 

management direction for roadless areas in Idaho and limits the scope of the revised Plan. The 

rule only provides management direction for road construction, reconstruction, timber cutting, 

and discretionary mineral activities. Based on this higher level direction, the revised Plan was 

developed to conform to the management themes and direction in the Idaho Roadless Rule for 

those portions of inventoried roadless areas in Idaho.

Management direction for inventoried roadless areas that are not within the state of Idaho is 

compliant with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart B, published at 

66 Fed Reg. 3244-3273). The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule includes a prohibition on 

road construction and road reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas and prohibitions on timber 

cutting, sale, or removal except in certain circumstances. The revised Plan is a programmatic 

level planning effort and does not directly authorize any road construction, reconstruction, or 

timber removal. Therefore, the revised Plan is fully compliant with these Rules.

Use of Off-road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 

11644 as amended by Executive Order 11989)

This Executive Order addresses the use of off-road vehicles on public lands. It requires the Forest 

Service and other federal land management agencies to “establish polices and provide for

procedures that will ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and 

directed so as to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those 

lands, and to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands” (section 1). The 

Executive Order directs agencies to designate the “specific areas and trails on public lands on 

which the use of off-road vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road 

vehicles may not be permitted” (section 3). 

The KNF initially met this designation requirement with the publication of travel plan maps 

beginning in 1977, 1978, and circa 1980, continuing with forestwide Travel/Recreation Guides in 

38 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

1980 through 1983, and annual district access maps beginning in 1984 continuing through 2009.

In 2009, the KNF published motor vehicle use maps (MVUM) as required by 36 CFR 212 

subpart B, identifying the roads, trails and areas, by vehicle type and season of use, designated for 

non-winter motor vehicle use. In addition to the specific motorized recreation management 

reflected in the travel maps, the 1987 Plan considered off-road vehicle use per the Executive 

Order and the NFMA implementing regulations at 36 CFR 219.21(g) (1982 Rule) when it 

allocated motorized and non-motorized use in specific management areas (see additional 

discussion regarding management area allocations below). The KNF continues to offer district 

access maps for recreation planning and to display over-snow vehicle area prohibitions per the

Plan allocations and subsequent site-specific decisions.

Section 8 of the Executive Order includes requirements for monitoring the effects of off-road 

vehicle use and adjusting designations as needed. It states: the “agency shall monitor the effects 

of the use of off-road vehicles on lands under their jurisdictions. On the basis of the information 

gathered, they shall from time to time amend or rescind designations of areas or other actions 

taken pursuant to this order as necessary to further the policy of this order.”

The KNF monitors the effects of off-road vehicle use, and when necessary to further the policy of 

this order or to otherwise further the purposes for which the Forest was established, amends or 

rescinds motor vehicle use designations. The access and recreation section of the final EIS

documents the 35-year history of managing motorized recreation on the Forest, which includes 

the 2001 Tri-state OHV forest plan amendment (prohibiting cross-country non-winter motor 

vehicle use to protect soil, watershed, wildlife, and other resources) and the 2011 Grizzly Bear 

Access Amendment (establishing motorized route density standards to minimize wildlife 

harassment).

In addition to the requirement for designating where off-road vehicles may or may not be

permitted, section 3 of the Executive Order requires “that designation of such areas and trails will 

be based upon the protection of the resources of the public lands, promotion of the safety of all 

users of those lands, and minimization of conflicts among the various uses of those lands.” More 

specifically, the regulations further require that the designation of areas and trails shall:

1. Be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, or other resources of the 

public lands.

2. Be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats.

3. Be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing or 

proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring lands, and to ensure the 

compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account 

noise and other factors.

4. Not be located in officially designated Wilderness Areas or Primitive Areas.3

The management area allocations in the revised Plan do identify areas “on which the use of offroad vehicles may be permitted, and areas in which the use of off-road vehicles may not be 

permitted.” However, it is important to note that this decision is programmatic in nature. The 

revised Plan sets desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and suitability to 

frame and guide future forest management decisions. The management area allocations are my 

primary programmatic tool at the forest scale to “minimize conflicts” by identifying broad areas

where motorized or non-motorized use may or may not generally be allowed. 

3 The remainder of subsection 4 concerns National Parks and other lands not found on the KNF.

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 39

 
Final Record of Decision

The management areas where motorized use is inconsistent (unsuitable) with meeting desired 

conditions include standards that do not allow motor vehicle use (MAs 1a, 1b, and 4) or

guidelines to not allow additional route designations (MA2 (wild) and MA3 (botanical, historical, 

zoological). Although the programmatic nature of the Plan only identifies management area 

suitability and does not prescribe site-specific activities, this ROD also authorizes a site-specific 

prohibition on motorized use to align current recreation uses with the Plan’s desired conditions in 

MA 1b–Recommended Wilderness and MA 4–Research Natural Areas. (See ROD pages 5–6.)

Areas with guidelines that state motor vehicle use “may occur” or “is allowed” are considered 

“open” allocations (MAs 1c, 2 (scenic and recreational), 3 (geological, recreational, scenic), 5, 6, 

and 7) where motorized use is considered a suitable activity . However, while the use is

considered suitable, the revised Plan does not mandate off-road vehicle use or indicate the area is 

subject to unmanaged off-road vehicle use. In fact, despite the “open” allocation, off-road motor 

vehicle use in these areas is constrained by site-specific motor vehicle use designations and sitespecific over-snow motor vehicle prohibitions, as well as applicable Plan standards and 

guidelines with the intent and effect of minimizing adverse effects of that use and minimizing 

conflict among the various uses of those lands.

My decision makes limited adjustments to the 1987 Plan’s (as amended) “closed” and “open with 

constraints” suitability allocations. These adjustments coincide with allocation changes for 

recommended wilderness and research natural areas (see pages 7–10 of this final ROD), 

conforming allowed uses to the management emphasis for those lands. The final EIS discloses the 

effects relevant to my decision on the revised Plan (see the effects analysis discussions under 

vegetation, watershed, wildlife, and access and recreation in chapter 3 of the final EIS). My 

decision to immediately conform actual uses to the allocations through certain site-specific 

closure orders further minimizes otherwise potential conflicts. 

I considered the effects of off-road vehicle use on the Kootenai National Forest, including 

minimizing effects on resources of public lands, promoting safety of all users of those lands, and 

minimizing conflicts among the various uses of those lands. I believe those effects have been 

“minimized.” As discussed here, on page 20–21 of this final ROD, and in the final EIS, we have 

been actively managing this use for over 30 years. Previous and ongoing management actions, 

both programmatic and site specific, have reasonably reduced and minimized the adverse effects 

of off-road vehicle use and conflict among the uses of the Forest. I find the final EIS for the 

revised Plan demonstrates continuing consideration of the minimization criteria required to 

protect the resources of the KNF, to promote the safety of users, and to minimize conflicts among 

the various uses of those lands. Therefore, the revised Plan is in compliance with this Executive 

Order.

Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) and Floodplains (Executive 

Order 11998)

These Executive Orders require Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, short- and longterm effects resulting from the occupancy and modification of flood plains, and the modification 

or destruction of wetlands.

The revised Plan is strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to 

future site-specific projects and activities. The revised Plan does not create, authorize, or execute 

any ground-disturbing activity, although it does provide for the consideration of certain types of 

activities. It contains direction to ensure all site-specific projects meet or exceed State Best 

Management Practices. Implementation of the revised Plan is expected to contribute to protecting 

40 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

soil and water, wetlands, and riparian areas to minimize effects to flood plains and wetlands. 

Therefore, the revised Plan is in full compliance with these orders.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

This act establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System with three classes of river systems: 

wild, scenic, and recreational. The purpose of the act was to protect the river “...for the benefit and 

enjoyment of present and future generations” and to preserve select river’s free-flowing condition, 

water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values.

Evaluation of the eligibility of rivers and streams for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System was conducted for the preparation of the revised Plan as required by the act and 

Forest Service Manual policy (FSM 1924.03). In addition, management area direction in the 

revised Plan provides protection for the outstandingly remarkable values identified for those rivers 

identified as eligible. Therefore, the revised Plan is compliant with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Wilderness Act and Montana Wilderness Study Act

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be 

administered in such a manner as to leave these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

wilderness. It provides the statutory definition of wilderness and management requirements for 

congressionally designated areas. The Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977 provides for the 

study of certain lands to determine their suitability for designation as wilderness in accordance with 

the Wilderness Act of 1964, and for other purposes. These areas are referred to as Wilderness Study 

Areas (WSAs).

Evaluation of existing wilderness and areas for wilderness potential was included in the 

environmental analysis for the revised Plan, which includes specific management area direction for 

the management and protection of wilderness values on the KNF as provided by the Wilderness Act 

and the Montana Wilderness Study Act. Therefore, the revised Plan is compliant with these Acts.

Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process 

(Objection Process)

The revised Plan and the draft ROD were subject to review and objection pursuant to 36 CFR 219 

regulations. More than 200 individual issues were identified from the objections received and each 

was considered in the review. The review focused on ensuring the revised Plan meets current 

requirements and to determine whether changes are warranted to improve upon the analysis and 

decision based on the objections submitted. 

The issues covered a broad range of resources and topic areas, including climate change; 

economics; fire and fuels management; invasive species; minerals; monitoring; multiple use 

management; public involvement; soils; timber production; transportation management; vegetation 

management, including old growth; Wild and Scenic River eligibility; recommended wilderness 

designation and management; and various aspects of wildlife and fisheries management. Objectors 

were concerned that the draft ROD did not appropriately address public interests and violated the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Wilderness Act, and the Wild and Scenic River Act, among 

others.

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 41
Final Record of Decision

After a deliberative and extensive review of concerns raised by objectors involving complex 

regulatory and management issues, the reviewing officer responded to all the objectors in writing. 

He provided me with specific instructions, which I have complied with as described in appendix 1. 

Implementation 

The revised KNF Land Management Plan provides a framework and text to guide resource 

management options. It is a strategic, programmatic document and does not make project-level 

decisions or irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. Those kinds of commitments 

would be made after more detailed, site-specific analysis, and further public comment as part of the 

site-specific National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

The KNF will also follow all laws, regulations, and policies that relate to managing NFS land. The 

revised Plan is designed to supplement, not replace, direction from these sources. The final EIS 

lists and considers this direction for each of the revision topics and specific resources, but the 

revised Plan does not repeat laws, regulations, or program management policy, practices or 

procedures.

The revised Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan will become effective 30 days from 

the date of the publication of the Notice of Availability of the final ROD in the Federal Register 

(per 36 CFR 219.17(a), 2012 Rule).

Project and Activity Consistency and Transition to the 

Revised Plan

The revised Plan direction will apply to all projects that have decisions made on or after the 

effective date of the final record of decision. There may be some previously approved and ongoing 

projects that are not consistent with the revised Plan. These projects need to remain consistent with 

the direction in the 1987 Plan, and are not required to meet the direction of the revised Plan. The 

effects of these ongoing actions were considered as a part of the baseline in developing the final 

EIS. 

As required by NFMA and the planning rule, subject to valid existing rights, all projects and 

activities authorized by the Forest Service after approval of this revised Plan must be consistent 

with the applicable plan components (16 U.S.C. 1604(i)) as described at 36 CFR 219.15 of the 

2012 Planning Rule. (Although the transition provisions at 36 CFR 219.17 of the 2012 Planning

Rule allow revision of this Plan under the 1982 regulations, subsequent projects or activities 

approved on units with plans revised under a prior planning rule must comply with the consistency 

requirement at 219.15 of the current rule.)

Upon the effective date of the revised Plan, all subsequent project or activity approval documents

must describe how the project or activity is consistent with the Plan by the criteria listed at 36 CFR 

219.15(d) (2012 Planning Rule). Where a proposed project or activity would not be consistent with 

Plan direction, the responsible official has the following options (36 CFR 219.15(c) 2012 Rule):

1. Modify the proposed project or activity to make it consistent with the applicable Plan

components;

2. Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity;

3. Amend the plan so that the project or activity will be consistent with the Plan as amended;

4. Amend the Plan contemporaneously with the approval of the project or activity so that the 

project or activity will be consistent with the Plan as amended. This amendment may be 

42 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision 

limited to apply only to the project or activity, and may be adopted at the same time as the 

approval of the project or activity (36 CFR 219.15( c)( 4) 2012 Rule). 

Any resource plans (for example travel management plans) developed by the Forest Service that 

apply to the resources or land areas within the planning area must be consistent with the Plan 

components. Resource plans developed prior to plan decision must be evaluated for consistency 

with the plan and amended if necessary (36 CFR 219.15( e) 2012 Rule). 

Authorizations for occupancy and use made before the final ROD may proceed unchanged until 

time of reauthorization. At time of reauthorization, all permits, contracts, and other authorizing 

instruments must be made consistent with the revised Plan, subject to existing valid rights, as 

provided at §219.IS(d) (2012 Rule). 

Maintaining the land Management Plan and 

Adapting to New Information 

Adaptive Management 

A land management plan is an integral part of an adaptive management cycle that guides future 

management decisions and actions. Adaptive management includes: 

• Defining measurable management objectives; 

• Monitoring management outcomes and changing circumstances; and 

• Revising management strategies accordingly. 

This adaptive management cycle enables the Forest to identify and respond to changing conditions, 

changing public desires, and new information, such as that obtained through research and scientific 

findings. The Forest's monitoring program is an integral part of this adaptive management cycle, 

consisting of monitoring questions and performance measures (see page l 0-1 l of this final ROD 

and chapter 5 of the revised Plan for additional information about the monitoring plan). 

Amending the Forest Plan 

A forest plan may be amended at any time based on a preliminary identification of the need to 

change the plan. The preliminary identification of the need to change the plan may be based on a 

new assessment, forest plan monitoring, or other documentation of new information, changed 

conditions, or changed circumstances. The amendment and administrative change process is 

described at 36 CFR 219. l 7(b )(2) of the 2012 Planning Rnle. 

Contact Person 

Further information about the final EIS, revised Plan, and final ROD can be obtained from Chris 

Savage dnring normal office hours (weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Kootenai National 

Forest Supervisor's Office (Address: Kootenai National Forest, 31374 US Highway 2, Libby, MT 

59923-3022; Phone/voicemail: (406) 293-6211. 

FAYE LJKRUEGER / 

Regional Forester 

Northern Region 

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 43 

Appendix 1—Objection Instructions

Table 3. Pre-decisional Reviewing Official’s Instructions

Instruction Instruction Location Response Location

County Coordination

Ensure compliance with the requirements of 36 CFR 219.7(c) (1982) by 

including in the record the review of local government planning and land 

use policies. Further summarize that review in the final EIS. Meet with the 

county commissioners to discuss the compliance.

Greg Smith’s letter page 6

ROD pages 29–30

Errata to the final EIS

Project record documents 02352, 02353, 02354, 

02355, 02704, 02866, 02874, 02875, 02876, 

02877

Wild And Scenic Rivers

Redo and appropriately document “Step 5” of the WSR eligibility 

assessment. Document the analysis and findings to support WSR eligibility 

determinations. Provide an explanation for the rationale used to make final 

ORV determinations for all streams, both eligible and ineligible, including 

all those recommended by the public for consideration. Highlight any 

discrepancies between the initial assessment of streams for “potential 

ORVs” and the final WSR eligibility inventory. Replace documentation on 

the existing analysis with the results of this new analysis

Greg Smith’s letter page 8

ROD pages 10–11

Errata to forest plan

Errata to final EIS (updated Appendix E)

Project record documents 01855

Ensure WSRA eligibility is consistent across all FEIS action alternatives Greg Smith’s letter page 8 ROD page 25

Errata to the final EIS

Remove any reference to rivers on other neighboring Forests in the Region, 

as it should not factor into the ORV analysis. If the existence of other 

designated or eligible WSRs in the Region impacted it’s analysis and 

deterred ORV findings for rivers on the forest, redo the analysis so that 

only river values on the Forest are considered

Attachment 2 page 16 Errata to final EIS

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 45
Final Record of Decision

Instruction Instruction Location Response Location

Clarify the wording in the FEIS as necessary to ensure that wherever “rare, 

unique, or exemplary” is mentioned, it is used to describe “values,” not 

“rivers.” For example, KNF FEIS pg. 30 currently states, “The additional 

streams and rivers are not rare, unique, or exemplary when considered on a 

forest or regional basis.” This sentence should be modified to state, “The 

additional streams and rivers do not have values that are rare, unique, or 

exemplary when considered on a forest or regional basis.”

Attachment 2 page 16 Errata to the final EIS

Consider the American Rivers’ report in the new eligibility analysis for 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Attachment 2 page 17

Errata to final EIS (updated Appendix E)

Project record document 01504

Recommended Wilderness And Wilderness Study Areas

Clarify in the record referencing the “R1 Consistency Paper” to reflect that

the paper is not binding policy, but instead is a reference tool used to assist 

Forests as they consider management options for recommended wilderness.

Greg Smith’s letter page 10

Errata to the final EIS

Project record document 02580

Clarify in the record how the KNF gave independent consideration to 

Forest-specific issues pertaining to recommended wilderness management 

decisions. In doing so, the KNF should provide a more detailed explanation 

of the nature of impacts from motorized and mechanized uses to wilderness 

capability and availability.

Greg Smith’s letter page 10

ROD pages 21–23

Errata to the final EIS

Project record document 02580

Summarize and reference in the ROD the environmental analysis 

supporting the site-specific decision being made. The summary should 

specifically address the minimization criteria described at 36 CFR 212.55. 

Of course, the site-specific decision to prohibit over-snow and mountain 

biking in recommended wilderness areas must also be supported by 

analysis disclosing why continuation of these uses would compromise the 

wilderness values of the areas recommended for wilderness.

Greg Smith’s letter page 10 ROD pages 21–23, 38–40

Project record document 02577, 02580

Provide additional rationale in the record as to why the Ten Lakes study 

area is no longer recommended as wilderness. Specifically address what 

has changed since the recommendation in the 1987 Forest Plan and clarify 

how this decision complies with MWSA, the 2007 Settlement Agreement, 

and Region 1 supplemental direction to FSM 2320 (2329).

Greg Smith’s Letter page 10

Decision has been modified for Ten Lakes 

WSA. Forest Plan will defer to the 1985 

Legislative Report to Congress as described in 

this ROD on pages 5, 11–12, 23

Project record document 02574 and 02575

46 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

Instruction Instruction Location Response Location

Provide additional explanation in the record on the current condition of the 

old roads and harvest areas included in Whitefish Divide (i.e., how evident 

the improvements currently are and the current stage of regeneration), as 

well as the manageability reasons for including the cherry stem in 

recommended wilderness. With 13 percent of this recommended 

wilderness area consisting of a cherry stem of closed roads and associated 

harvest, this calls into question the overall wilderness capability of the area. 

Thus, further explanation would help to bolster support for KNF’s 

determination.

Greg Smith’s Letter page 18-19 Project record document 02576

Clarify the following sentence in FEIS Appendix G, p. 390: “The Roderick 

and Whitefish Divide recommended wilderness areas meet the criteria 

above and do not have forest roads or timber harvest in a significant 

percentage of their area.” (emphasis added) Recommended wilderness 

should not contain any “forest roads.”

Attachment 2 page 19

Errata to the final EIS

Project record document 02578

Provide a more detailed response explaining why the change was made to 

the Scotchman Peaks’ recommended wilderness boundary. Attachment 2 page 20 Project record document 02578

Provide further explanation for the allocation of Gold Hill West IRA 

primarily to MA5c given the objector’s reference to FEIS Appendix C’s 

assessment that this area has high ratings for wildlife values and the terrain 

is difficult for cross country travel/snowmobile use is rare. See FEIS 

Appendix C, p. 107.

Attachment 2 page 21 Project record document 02578

Provide further explanation of the change made between the draft and final 

EIS. Provide more of an explanation of the manageability concerns and 

impacts to grizzly bear in the Tuchuck IRA.

Attachment 2 page 23 Project record document 02578

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Clarify in the record the linkage between population monitoring, 

management activities, and habitat condition for species in the landbird 

assemblage. Ensure the rationale is clear to explain why these species are 

responsive to forest activities. Document clearly the monitoring objectives 

for each MIS.

Greg Smith’s letter page 12 Project record document 01971

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 47
Final Record of Decision

Instruction Instruction Location Response Location

Clarify in the record that no inferences are being made that AMA 

monitoring is being used to draw conclusions about fish populations and 

distribution.

Greg Smith’s letter page 12 ROD page 18

Errata to the final EIS

Summarize and reference the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle National 

Forest: Providing for Ecological Sustainability in the Revised Forest Plans 

report in the Record of Decision how the other diversity-related 

requirements of the 1982 planning regulation are being met in the Revised 

Plan.

Greg Smith’s letter page 12 ROD pages 36–37

Project record document 02542

Fire/Fuels

Clarify that the monitoring and evaluation report will address effectiveness 

and movement toward desired condition. Attachment 2 page 2

ROD pages 10–11

Project record document 01999 (Monitoring 

Guide)

Planning

Review and clarify, as needed, the response to comments about the 

objector’s statements [that “public notice and information presented to 

local citizens and land owners was not reasonable or forthright.”]

Attachment 2 page 3 ROD pages 3–5

Errata to the final EIS

Recreation

Summarize in the record the analysis for the site specific decision for 

restrictions to motorized and mechanize uses. Use citations to cross 

reference the analyses already found in the FEIS

Attachment 2 page 4 Project record document 02579

Review to assure that the site specific analysis addresses the minimization 

criteria described in the travel management regulation at 36 CFR 212.55, 

including user conflicts.

Attachment 2 page 4 ROD pages 21–23, 38–40

Project record document 02579

Soils

Replace the term “managed area” in the desired condition with the term 

“activity area.” Attachment 2 page 5 Errata to the forest plan

48 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision
Final Record of Decision

Instruction Instruction Location Response Location

Roadless Area

Review and clarify as needed that management actions that do not require 

construction of new roads will still be allowed in inventoried roadless areas 

as stated in the preamble of the 2001 Roadless Rule

Attachment 2 page 5 Errata to the final EIS

Timber

Clarify in the record that the KNF is responding to an overall shift in the 

focus of planning and forest management throughout the agency. The 

wording should be changed to highlight the shift in planning emphasis 

rather than policy

Attachment 2 page 6 Errata to the final EIS

Vegetation

Clarify in the record the “gaps in explanations, questionable conclusions, 

and apparent discrepancies” raised by the objector concerning the use of 

the ERG 2012 Report and its incorporation in the FEIS

Attachment 2 page 7 Project record document 02289

Modify FW-DC-VEG-03 to change or clarify the term “substantial 

amounts,” or provide clarification elsewhere in the Revised Plan Attachment 2 page 8 Errata to forest plan

Clarify in the record the intent of FW-GDL-VEG-03 Attachment 2 page 9 Project record document 01680

Add the 10+ inch size class for snags to the tables displayed in FW-DCVEG-07 and FW-GDL-VEG-04, or provide an explanation for why it is not 

necessary.

Attachment 2 page 10

Errata to the forest plan (FW-DC-VEG-07)

Project record document 01680 (FW-GDLVEG-04)

Delete the word “generally” from the guideline [FW-GDL-VEG-04] or 

modify it to state “when large diameter trees are rare across the landscape, 

all will be left."

Attachment 2 page 10 Errata to forest plan

Either delete the last bullet in the guideline [FW-GDL-VEG- 5] or modify 

it to clearly reflect a restoration objective of retaining the pattern of snag 

availability across the landscape to meet the diversity requirement of 

NFMA

Attachment 2 page 11 Errata to forest plan

Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision 49
Final Record of Decision

Instruction Instruction Location Response Location

Clarify in the record that the monitoring and evaluation report will address 

effectiveness and movement toward desired condition. Attachment 2 page 12

ROD pages 10–11

Project record document 01999 (Monitoring 

Guide)

Enhance documentation for how the invasive species program will follow 

program requirements and standards, including but not limited to the 

collection and recording of treatment efficacy. Specifically, enhance 

documentation to show the alignment of all program activities associated 

with invasive species with national policy (FSM 2900), and associated law, 

regulations, and the provisions of E.O. 13112 related to federal agency 

duties

Attachment 2 page 14

ROD pages 34–35

Errata to the final EIS

Project record document 01676 and 01999 

(Monitoring Guide)

Clarify in the record that the utility of tracking sites [per MON-VEG-02-

01] does not apply to all invasive species infestations, but can be used in 

certain early detection and rapid response situations. If the utility of 

counting sites cannot be clarified, the reference to tracking sites should be 

removed

Attachment 2 page 14 Project record document 01999 (Monitoring 

Guide)

Clarify in the record that the Forest, through compliance with law, 

regulation, and policy, will take an all-taxa approach to invasive species 

management rather than the more narrow focus on regulated noxious weeds

Attachment 2 page 14

ROD pages 9–10

Errata to the final EIS

Project record document 01676, 02469, and 

01999 (Monitoring Guide)

Watershed

Add a definition for hydrologic stability to the Revised Plan’s glossary Attachment 2 page 14 Errata to the forest plan

Wildlife and Fisheries

Review FW-DC-WL-01 and add documentation to support the last 

sentence of this DC or edit this sentence to remove the unsubstantiated 

assumption.

Attachment 2 page 23 Project record document 02544

Review FW-GDL-WL-16 and FW-GDL-WL-21 and add documentation to 

support these guidelines or edit them to remove the unsubstantiated 

assumptions.

Attachment 2 page 24 Project record document 02558

Ensure documentation clearly supports the intent of this guideline [FWGDL-WL-05] and make sure the guideline is clear. Attachment 2 page 25 Project record document 02559

50 Kootenai National Forest 2015 Land Management Plan Record of Decision