United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Northern Region

Idaho Panhandle 

National Forests

St. Joe 

Ranger District

May 2011

Bussel 484

Draft Supplemental

Environmental 

Impact Statement 

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

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Bussel 484

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Idaho Panhandle National Forests, St. Joe Ranger District

Shoshone County, Idaho

May 2011

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Forest Supervisor

Idaho Panhandle National Forests

3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815

For Additional Information Contact: Lynette Myhre, Project Team Leader 

St. Joe Ranger District

222 7th Street, Suite 1, St. Maries, ID 83861

(208)245-2531

Abstract: This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) supplements portions of the May 

2008 Bussel 484 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). On August 6, 2010, Idaho District Court 

Judge Edward J. Lodge, in the court case The Lands Council v. Jane Cottrell and Ranotta McNair (Case 

No. 2:09-CV-164-EJL-REB) set aside the Bussel 484 Project and remanded it to the Forest Service. This 

supplemental EIS addresses requirements of the court and updates the analysis based on new 

information since the original analysis was completed. The 2008 Bussel 484 FEIS describes the purpose 

and need for the project, alternatives, affected environment, and environmental consequences. That 

information is not repeated here unless it is needed to clarify the supplemental analysis.

The comment period for this draft SEIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection 

Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

This supplemental EIS and the 2008 FEIS are based on documents in the project file that are available 

upon request.

Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

Table of Contents

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

Public Involvement.................................................................................................................................... 1

Fire and Fuels ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Changes between the Final EIS and this Supplemental EIS ...............................................................2

Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................................... 4

Fisheries ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Federal Listed Species......................................................................................................................... 5

Sensitive Species ................................................................................................................................. 6

Plant Species at Risk................................................................................................................................ 9

Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................................10

Federal Listed Species.......................................................................................................................12

Sensitive Species ...............................................................................................................................16

Management Indicator Species..........................................................................................................23

Other Wildlife Species ........................................................................................................................33

Index............................................................................................................................................................36

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................38

List of Preparers..........................................................................................................................................42

List of Agencies, Organizations, and People to Whom Copies of the SEIS are Sent ................................42

List of Tables

Table 1 – Location of Discussions of Fire Suppression as Fire Management Direction ..............................3

Table 2 - Plant Species Considered for Bussel 484 Supplemental EIS .......................................................9

Table 3 – Wildlife Species Considered for Bussel 484 Supplemental EIS.................................................11

Table 4 – Fisher Guidelines for Forest Structure........................................................................................19

Table 5 – Acres and Percent of Forest Structure by Alternative.................................................................20

Table 6 – Effects on Road Density (miles/mile2

).........................................................................................21

Table 7 – Existing and Recommended Conditions for Goshawk................................................................26

Table 8 – Goshawk Recommended Condition and Predicted Conditions for All Alternatives....................28

Table 9 – Pileated Woodpecker Habitat by Hypothetical Home Range .....................................................32

Table 10 – Existing Marten Habitat in the Bussel 484 Project Area ...........................................................34

Table 11 – Comparison of Alternatives on Marten Habitat .........................................................................35

Table 12 – Comparison of Alternatives on Road Densities ........................................................................35

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Current Lynx Analysis Units in Relation to the Bussel 484 Project Area ...................................15

Figure 2 – Goshawk Analysis Area.............................................................................................................26

Figure 3 – Pileated Woodpecker Hypothetical Home Ranges....................................................................30

List of Appendices

Appendix A – Management Indicator Species Considerations for the IPNF

Appendix B – Crosswalk between Bull Trout Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (MPI) and Primary 

Constituent Elements (PCEs) of Critical Habitat 

Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

1

Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

Introduction

This analysis supplements portions of the May 2008 Bussel 484 Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS).

On August 6, 2010, Idaho District Court Judge Edward J. Lodge, in the court case The Lands Council v. 

Jane Cottrell and Ranotta McNair, Case No. 2:09-CV-164-EJL-REB, set aside the Bussel 484 Project and 

remanded it to the Forest Service. Judge Lodge said the Forest Service's reliance on habitat-as-proxy for 

analysis of management indicator species was arbitrary and capricious. He also ordered the Forest 

Service to evaluate whatever fire plan is in effect at the time of any new supplemental EIS. 

This supplemental EIS addresses requirements of the court and updates the analysis based on new 

information since the original analysis was completed. Supplemented portions of the EIS include:

Fire and Fuels 

Clarification of management direction

Fisheries

Critical habitat for bull trout

New sensitive species: western pearlshell mussel

Sensitive Plants 

New sensitive species: greater yellow lady’s slipper and Hudson's bulrush

Wildlife

Threatened and endangered species

Management indicator species

New sensitive species: long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis

New information about fisher

The 2008 Bussel 484 FEIS describes the purpose and need for the project, alternatives, affected 

environment, and environmental consequences. That information is not repeated here unless it is 

needed to clarify the supplemental analysis.

Public Involvement

The public was notified of the intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement when the 

Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2011. The notice specifically stated 

that the Forest Service was not inviting comments at that time. Scoping is not required for supplements 

to environmental impact statements. There was extensive public involvement in the development of the 

proposed action, the 2008 Draft EIS, and the 2008 Final EIS. A 45-day comment period for this draft 

supplemental EIS will begin when the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability 

in the Federal Register. This draft supplemental EIS is being distributed to everyone on the mailing lists 

for original Bussel 484 DEIS and FEIS. 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

2

Fire and Fuels

The following section replaces "Differences between Draft EIS and Final EIS" on page 117 of the 

FEIS.

Changes between the Final EIS and this Supplemental EIS

Judge Lodge ordered the Forest Service to evaluate whatever fire plan is in effect at the time of any new 

supplemental EIS (Memorandum Order page 32).

Current direction for wildfire management on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests comes from the 

Forest Plan. Forest Supervisor, Ranotta K. McNair, withdrew the Idaho Panhandle National Forests 2008 

Fire Management Plan because she determined it was not needed in order to implement Forest Plan and 

other applicable direction for responding to unplanned ignitions (McNair 2009; Weldon 2010). 

References to the 2008 IPNF Fire Management Plan were removed from this EIS.

The 2008 IPNF Fire Plan did not make fire management decisions, but it did provide a summary of the 

desired conditions, standards, guidelines, goals, and objectives in the forest plan (McNair letter to The 

Lands Council March 24, 2009). The 2008 FEIS listed fire suppression as a present and reasonably 

foreseeable activity (FEIS p. 47) and explained that efforts would be made to suppress all fires which 

occur within the project area (FEIS p. 49). That is still the case, for the reasons explained below. 

The original Bussel 484 EIS explained that prescribed burning outside of harvest units would not be used

(FEIS p. 11-12); but it was not clear that, for the same reasons, wildfires would be suppressed.

In order to comply with the Court's order this supplement clarifies that all wildfires would be suppressed in 

the Bussel 484 Project Area. Consistent with the IPNF Forest Plan, the Forest Service would suppress all 

unplanned ignitions in the Bussel 484 Project Area because wildfire would pose unacceptable risks for 

the following reasons:

 Approximately 12,010 of the 12,190 acres of National Forest System lands in the project area are 

designated for timber production, and the Forest Service has invested a great deal in these areas 

through site preparation, reforestation, and other stand-tending activities.

 Many of the stands in the project area are stocked with young trees that, regardless of species, 

have thin bark because of their age and are therefore highly susceptible to fire-induced mortality.

 Potlatch Corporation owns land adjacent to the National Forest System lands in the project area, 

and the Idaho Department of Lands manages land near the project area.

 The Bonneville Power Administration transmission line runs through the project area.

 If we were to let a wildfire burn early in the season it would be extremely difficult to control when 

conditions begin to dry later. Canopy cover within the project area is very high. High canopy 

cover results in heavy shading of the forest floor, keeping fuel temperatures low and fuel 

moistures high throughout the spring and early summer. Natural fuels and the forest floor climate 

make it very difficult for a fire to spread on the ground during typical early season conditions. 

Later in the season on warm days from July through September the transition from benign 

surface fire to problematic crown wildfire can occur rapidly and is difficult or impossible to control. 

This type of wildfire behavior would result in tree mortality and make it very difficult to keep a 

wildfire on the National Forest System lands. This would pose unacceptable risk to adjacent 

lands.

The direction to suppress wildfires in the Bussel 484 project area is evaluated as described in Table 1.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

3

Table 1 – Location of Discussions of Fire Suppression as Fire Management Direction

Page Subject

FEIS Summary Alternative A would maintain existing level of management including fire suppression

FEIS p. 11 research indicates more fires will escape initial suppression

FEIS p. 13 With Alternative A fire suppression would continue

FEIS p. 47 Fire suppression is reasonably foreseeable

FEIS p. 48 Effects of fireline construction used to suppress wildfires

FEIS p. 49

Efforts will be made to suppress all fires that occur within the project area. Effects of past and 

continuing fire suppression are considered for air quality, fire and fuels, fisheries, forest vegetation, 

noxious weeds, old growth, plant species at risk, soils, water, and wildlife.

FEIS p. 52 Decrease in smoke generated from wildfires due to the advent of effective fire suppression

FEIS p. 73 Effects of past fire suppression on fisheries

FEIS p. 76 Road density resulting from roads built for fire suppression and effects to fisheries

FEIS p. 77 Effects of fire suppression on fisheries

FEIS p. 93 Continuation of fire suppression and effects on sediment and water yield 

FEIS p. 106 Effects of present and reasonably foreseeable fire suppression on fisheries

FEIS p. 120 Fire suppression tactics; Use of indices for determining trends for potential fire suppression 

activities

FEIS p. 121 Success of fire suppression efforts to date; Affected environments of project area related to fire 

suppression; Fire suppression history in project area

FEIS p. 123 Fire suppression tactics related to fire flame lengths

FEIS p. 126 Effects of continues fire suppression

FEIS p. 127 Road access for fire suppression

FEIS p. 128 Effects of harvest activities on fire suppression access

DSEIS p. 3 Effects of road decommissioning and timber harvest on fire suppression

FEIS p. 130 Cumulative effects of fire suppression on species composition, structure, and the forest's response 

to wildfires; Continued fire suppression is consistent with the Forest Plan for all alternatives.

FEIS p. 134 Effect of fire suppression on forest composition

FEIS p. 135 Effect of fire suppression on forest structure

FEIS p. 137 Effect of fire suppression and lack of openings in forest canopy

FEIS p. 138 Effect of fire suppression with no action; Continuation of current fire suppression policies

FEIS p. 143 Continuation of aggressive wildfire suppression

FEIS p. 146 Current and reasonably foreseeable fire suppression and effects for noxious weeds

FEIS p. 147 Effects of fire suppression activities for noxious weeds

FEIS p. 153 Effects of fire suppression on old growth

FEIS p. 161 Stand-replacing fires were important part of the ecosystem prior to fire suppression efforts

FEIS p. 183 Continuation of fire suppression; Effects of fire suppression on soils; Effects of past fire 

suppression; Effects of proposed vegetation treatments on our ability to suppress fires

FEIS p. 190 Effects of successful fire suppression on soil productivity; 

FEIS p. 229 Continuation of fire suppression and related activities

FEIS p. 244 Our inability to measurably predict effects of fire suppression

FEIS p. 277 Current fire suppression policy and affected environment for black-backed woodpecker in terms of

large areas of fire-killed trees

FEIS p. 278 Effects of fire suppression on black-backed woodpecker habitat quantity and quality
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

4

The following section replaces "Regulatory Framework" on pages 118-119 of the FEIS.

Regulatory Framework

Forest Plan Direction

IPNF forest-wide management direction states "Provide efficient fire protection and fire use to help 

accomplish land management objectives" (USDA Forest Service 1987). 

Forest Plan fire management standards state that fire protection and use standards are specified by 

management area. "Cost effective fire protection programs will be developed to implement management 

direction based on on-site characteristics that affect fire occurrence, fire effects, fire management costs 

and fire caused changes in values." Management area standards define requirements for fire protection.

Appendix F of the Forest Plan says appropriate wildfire responses are confine, contain, and control in all 

management areas in the project area (MA1, MA4, MA9, and MA16).

Prescribed fire is utilized in accordance with management area standards to accomplish specific resource 

objectives, such as to manage wildlife habitat, meet silvicultural objectives as prescribed in the 

silvicultural prescription or other area objectives. Fire management is a support function integrated with 

and responsive to the management direction established in the Forest Plan. Fire would be used within 

predetermined criteria to meet specific management objectives. 

Appendix F of the Forest Plan states: 

Fire is a natural force in the ecosystem of the IPNF. The effects of fires will be detrimental or 

desirable depending on when and where fires occur and nature of the fires relative to 

management objectives. Prolonged fire exclusion leads to changes in forest composition and 

distribution patterns, which can also have detrimental or desirable consequences. Ecological 

principals relative to fire must be integrated into fire use and protection requirements along with 

requirements for resource protection and efficiency. Fire use and protection standards included 

in each management area will:

1. Use prescribed fire where it is the most effective way to achieve ecosystem responses 

required for management objectives.

2. Reduce the total cost of land management by integrating fire protection and fire use in 

management direction.

Forest Service Manual

Forest Service Manual 5130.2 states that the objective of wildland fire suppression is to "safely suppress 

wildfires at a minimum cost consistent with land and resource management objectives and fire 

management direction as stated in Fire Management Plans." For the Idaho Panhandle National Forests 

the fire management plan is the Forest Plan (Weldon letter 4/13/2010, project file document SFF-1).

The following paragraph replaces the last paragraph of Alternatives B and C "Direct and Indirect 

Effects" which is the third paragraph on page 130 of the FEIS.

The proposed road decommissioning would most likely reduce the potential for human-caused ignitions 

by reducing accessibility. The proposed road decommissioning may result in an increase of the average 

cost per acre for fire suppression within the areas affected by reduced motorized access. This would be 

due to reduced access for engines and water tenders, increased hike-in distance and potential increases 

in the use of aerial delivery of firefighters and the supplies they need. However, the proposed harvesting 

may provide opportunities to utilize changes in fuel types as natural barriers to fire spread that may allow 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

5

managers to more readily reduce suppression costs, and reduce disturbance associated with traditional 

suppression actions.

Fisheries

The Bussel 484 FEIS Fisheries section (pages 62-116) was reviewed to ensure compliance for Proposed, 

Endangered, Threatened, Candidate species, R1 Sensitive species, and IPNF management indicator 

species (MIS). Species or habitats are only discussed in this supplemental EIS if:

1. A change in conditions on the ground warranted changed effect/impact determinations.

2. Additional “best available science” would change effect/impact determinations.

3. Species are an addition to the Endangered, Threatened, and Federal Candidate species list or 

the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list that was used in the original 2008 report. Some 

species have been added and removed from the Sensitive Species list since the 2008 FEIS.

4. Federal status has changed since the 2008 FEIS.

If a species is not addressed in this SEIS refer to the Bussel 484 Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) [USDA 2008a, pages 62-116] for effects analysis. 

Federal Listed Species

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified two listed fish species that may occur on the 

Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Species list # 1-9-09-SP-0035, February 11, 2009) [USDI 2009a]: 

Kootenai River white sturgeon and bull trout. Only the bull trout has potential habitat in the Bussel 484 

project area.

Bull Trout

For effects analysis for bull trout see FEIS pages 62 through 117. There are no changes to the 

anticipated effects for any alternative. The bull trout is discussed in this supplemental EIS 

because Marble Creek was designated as critical habitat for bull trout in 2010. The lower eight 

miles of Marble Creek is within the fisheries cumulative effects analysis area (FEIS p. 63). 

On September 25, 2005 the USFWS published a final rule designating critical habitat for the Klamath 

River, Columbia River, Jarbidge River, Coastal-Puget Sound and Saint Mary-Belly River populations of 

bull trout (70 FR 56212). This rule did not designate critical habitat on National Forest System lands. On 

December 22, 2008 the USFWS notified the court of its intent to review a December 15, 2008 Interior 

Department Inspector General Report disclosing irregularities in development of its 2005 bull trout final 

critical habitat designation. On March 23, 2009 the USFWS requested a voluntary remand of the 2005 

final critical habitat rule to address irregularities in the rule-making process and outcome as identified by 

the 2008 Inspector General report. On July 1, 2009 the court granted the Service’s request for a remand, 

and directed the Service to submit a proposed revision to the Federal Register by December 31, 2009, 

and a final designation by September 30, 2010. On January 13, 2010 the FWS published the proposed 

critical habitat revision, a Justification document that includes Rationale for Why Habitat is Essential, and 

Documentation of Occupancy, and Draft Economic Analysis. The final bull trout critical habitat 

designation was published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2010 and went into effect on November 

17, 2010 (USDI 2010).

The FWS final designation of bull trout critical habitat utilizes primary constituent elements (PCEs) to 

determine which areas were occupied at the time of listing of the bull trout to propose as critical habitat. 

PCEs consider physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species. 

Appendix B compares PCEs to the habitat indicators that are currently displayed in the environmental 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

6

baseline matrix. This PCE matrix crosswalk provides the supporting rationale that the PCEs for bull trout 

critical habitat are thoroughly addressed in the current matrix analysis and that the environmental 

baseline conditions and determination for effects to the species consists of a biological and habitat 

component addressing in total the PCEs listed in the rule for critical habitat.

Appendix B covers all PCEs except for non-native species. See the FEIS (page 74) for information on 

non-native species.

Sensitive Species

The Regional Forester Sensitive species list was updated in February of 2011 and will take effect May 27, 

2011 (USDA 2011).

Western Pearlshell Mussel

The western pearlshell mussel is a new addition to the Regional Forester’s list for the Idaho Panhandle National 

Forests (USDA 2011). This species was not on the Sensitive Species list when the Bussel 484 FEIS was completed. 

Geographic Scope and Methodology

The western pearlshell mussel (Margaritifera falcata) is the most common mussel species in the Pacific 

Northwest (Jepson and others 2011) and the population is apparently secure in the U.S. (N4 [Jepsen and 

others 2011]). In Idaho, the historical range of M. falcata includes sites in the Snake, Coeur d’Alene, 

Lost, and Salmon River drainages (Frest 1999). Populations persist in north Idaho in the Coeur d’Alene, 

St. Joe, and St. Maries Rivers. In central Idaho, populations with good viability occur in the Clearwater, 

Selway, Lochsa, Pahsimeroi, Lost, Salmon and Little Salmon rivers and in Hells Canyon. In south Idaho, 

populations are thought to be extant in the upper tributaries of the Snake River, including the Blackfoot 

River (Frest 1999).

The western pearlshell mussel has been located in the St. Joe drainage, in the St. Maries drainage 

downstream of Santa Creek and in the East Fork of Emerald Creek (Frest 1999). No surveys have been 

conducted within the Bussel 484 project area. 

The effects to western pearlshell mussel are indicated by the effects to westslope cutthroat trout and 

sediment as described in the 2008 FEIS. 

Affected Environment

Habitat requirements for western pearlshell mussels are similar to habitat requirements for western 

cutthroat trout, specifically related to sediment levels. The preferred habitat for the western pearlshell 

mussel is cold, clear streams and rivers (Frest 1999). Pearlshell mussels occur in waterways with low 

velocities, low shear stress and stable substrates and are frequently found in eddies or pools (Howard & 

Cuffey 2003). The species is intolerant of heavy nutrient loads, siltation and water pollution (Frest 1999). 

Glochidia, or larva, of western pearlshells are fish parasites that attach to the fins or gills of host fish 

(Frest 1999). Host fish include westslope cutthroat trout (Stagliano 2007) and potentially bull trout and 

brook trout (Jepsen et al 2011).

Bussel Creek and its tributaries are on Idaho Department of Environmental Quality's 303(d) list as not 

supporting beneficial uses because of sediment and temperature (FEIS p. 77). Overall, existing fish and 

mussel habitat is considered to be Highly Altered from the historic range of variability and/or at high risk of 

further undesirable change. These conditions are largely due to large fires and floods in the past and

incremental effects of past management overtime (FEIS p. 93). Sediment yield is above reference 

conditions because of roads and the removal of large woody debris from streams for log drives during the 

early 1900s. 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

7

Western cutthroat trout have maintained or increased their population abundance over a very large area 

within Idaho (including the St. Joe River) over the last 15-34 years (FEIS p. 74). Populations appear to 

be stable or increasing throughout most of northern Idaho, and trend data from Idaho Fish and Game 

snorkel counts show that cutthroat trout populations in the St. Joe River basins appear to be stable or 

increasing (Idaho Panhandle National Forest Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Reports for 2007-

2009 p. 85-87).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A 

Direct and Indirect Effects (FEIS p. 93-94)

Alternative A would have No Impact on western pearlshell mussel individuals or habitat. In the No-Action 

Alternative, no new management-induced effects (detrimental or beneficial, direct or indirect) to pearlshell 

mussel would occur. No measurable immediate change in mussel habitat is expected with the No-Action 

Alternative. Over time, elements of riparian habitats and RHCAs would continue to improve and stabilize, 

so habitat conditions for fish and mussel would continue to improve. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A would not incrementally add to cumulative effects, as there would be no direct or indirect 

effects associated with Alternative A. 

Alternative B 

Direct and Indirect Effects (FEIS p. 95-104)

The effects to pearlshell mussel are based on effects to westslope cutthroat trout and on changes in 

stream sediment. Project activities are not expected to detrimentally affect mussels. Watershed 

conditions for fish are expected to improve or remain the same (FEIS p. 109-115) , so the same would be 

true for pearlshell mussels. The proposed fish migration barrier removal would replace two culverts on 

Road 1900 that are currently barriers to fish passage. Because fish act as hosts for mussel glochidia

(larva), the removal of the barriers would benefit mussel by allowing the host to access additional habitat. 

The replacement of these two human-created migration barriers would allow improved migration access 

to approximately three miles of habitat (FEIS p. 98). See FEIS pages 95-117 for discussions of effects to 

cutthroat trout. Sediment would increase in the short term when culverts are replaced or removed (FEIS 

p. 231-234), but it would decrease in the long term over the entire Bussel Creek drainage (FEIS p. 106, 

107, 233, 238). 

Alternative C 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Analysis shows that in Alternative B proposed treatments are not expected to detrimentally affect 

mussels. Because Alternative C proposes no new road construction, less ground-based logging, and 

fewer miles of road open to motorized vehicles, there would be a greater net improvement to the larger 

Bussel Creek watershed with respect to the reduction of sedimentation from roads, logging, and access 

management. There would also be reduced risk of increased road densities to the individual 

subwatershed and the larger Bussel Creek watershed. Overall, Alternative C has fewer short-term risks 

to the watershed condition than Alternative B (FEIS p. 104); so it would have fewer short-term risks to 

western pearlshell mussels. Stream conditions would be maintained or be improved in the long term for 

fish (FEIS p. 104, 109-117); therefore conditions would be maintained or be improved in the long term for 

western pearlshell mussel. 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

8

Alternatives B & C 

Cumulative Effects

The subwatersheds in the fisheries analysis area are currently rated as Highly Altered/High Risk or 

Moderately Altered/Moderate Risk because of the past activities and natural influences (FEIS p. 107). 

Cumulatively, those conditions would be maintained or would be improved (FEIS p. 109-115).

Alternatives B and C May Impact western pearlshell mussel individuals or habitat, but would not likely 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. This is 

primarily because RHCA buffers on project activities would ensure mussels are not subjected to any 

direct effects from vegetation treatment activities, and culvert removal or replacement would benefit 

mussels in the long term. Indirect effects would also be substantially moderated by the presence of these 

buffers as large woody debris would be retained and accumulated, aiding in stabilizing stream banks, 

reducing sediment delivery potential to streams, maintaining riparian shade, maintaining habitat-forming 

large woody debris and protecting mussels. Western pearlshell mussel populations are linked with 

cutthroat trout populations, and those are stable or increasing.

Cumulatively, the Marble Creek watershed would continue to have water quality issues until riparian 

zones and riparian vegetation recovers more fully and roads are reduced. 

Neither of the action alternatives would cause a net degradation or loss to any of the indicators critical for 

maintaining healthy conditions for fish and mussels. Collectively, restorative activities in Alternatives B 

and C would improve some conditions for fish and mussels in the long term and the short term. Stream 

temperatures, large woody debris, pools, sediment, fish migration barriers, fish populations, and 

beneficial uses would improve in the long term (FEIS p. 108); so mussel populations would also improve.

Summary of Sensitive Fish Species Conclusion of Effects

Species

Alternative 

A Alternative B

Alternative 

C Location of Effects Analysis

Westslope Cutthroat Trout NI MIIH BI FEIS pages 247-248

Western Pearlshell Mussel NI MIIH MIIH SEIS pages 6

NI - No Impact

MIIH- May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of 

Viability to the Population or Species

WIFV- Will Impact Individuals or Habitat With a Consequence That The Action May Contribute to a Trend Towards 

Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species 

BI - Beneficial Impact

PREPARED BY: /s/Kristopher Hennings_________________________________________ DATE May 5, 2011

Consistency with Forest Plan and Regulatory Framework

All alternatives would be consistent with forest plan guidelines and standards for fisheries (FEIS p. 116-

117 and FEIS Appendix D). The alternatives would meet National Forest Management Act requirements 

to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities by maintaining or improving watershed conditions 

and habitat conditions for the host fish species (FEIS p. 117). The alternatives are consistent with 

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 because they would not damage wetlands and riparian dependent 

resources would be protected (FEIS p. 117). 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

9

Plant Species at Risk

The FEIS Botany section was reviewed to ensure compliance for R1 Sensitive Species. Table 2 shows all 

plant species considered during analysis with additions made in 2011 (project file SB-1). Surveys for the 

Bussel 484 project include surveys for all plants with more intensive surveys in high potential plant guilds 

(Mousseaux, 1995). The analysis completed in 2008 and its conclusions are still sufficient with the 

additional species added to the sensitive list in 2011. These plant species would have been found during 

field surveys of the moist and wet habitat guilds if the plants were present because all plants are noted 

during surveys. Only the sensitive plant species discussed in the 2008 Bussel 484 EIS (FEIS p. 163) had 

occurrences in the project area. 

Species or habitats are only discussed in this supplemental EIS if:

1. A change in conditions on the ground warranted changed effect/impact determinations.

2. There was a significant addition to the available science that would change impact 

determinations.

3. Species are an addition to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species that was used in the original 

2008 report. 

If a species has a “No” in the Addressed in this Supplemental Document column then refer to the Bussel 

484 Final Environmental Impact Statement (pages 157-163) for effects analysis. 

Table 2 - Plant Species Considered for Bussel 484 Supplemental EIS

Scientific Name

Common Name Current Status

Sufficient Analysis 

Completed in 2008

FEIS

Addressed in this 

SEIS

Asplenium trichomanes

maidenhair spleenwort R1 Sensitive Yes No

Blechnum spicant

deerfern R1 Sensitive Yes No

Botrychium ascendens

upswept moonwort R1 Sensitive Yes No

Botrychium crenulatum

dainty moonwort R1 Sensitive Yes No

Botrychium lanceolatum

triangle moonwort R1 Sensitive Yes No

Botrychium lineare (h)

Slender moonwort R1 Sensitive Yes No

Botrychium minganense

Mingan moonwort R1 Sensitive Yes No

Botrychium montanum

western goblin R1 Sensitive Yes No

Botrychium paradoxum

paradox moonwort R1 Sensitive Yes No

Botrychium pedunculosum

stalked moonwort R1 Sensitive Yes No

Botrychium pinnatum

northwestern moonwort R1 Sensitive Yes No

Botrychium simplex

least moonwort R1 Sensitive Yes No

Buxbaumia aphylla

leafless bug-on-a-stick moss R1 Sensitive Yes No

Buxbaumia viridis

Green bug-on-a-stick moss R1 Sensitive Yes No

Cardamine constancei

Constance's bittercress R1 Sensitive Yes No
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

10

Scientific Name

Common Name Current Status

Sufficient Analysis 

Completed in 2008

FEIS

Addressed in this 

SEIS

Cypripedium fasciculatum

clustered lady's slipper R1 Sensitive Yes No

Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens (S)

greater yellow lady’s slipper R1 Sensitive Yes Yes

Grindelia howellii

Howell's gumweed R1 Sensitive Yes No

Gimmia brittoniae

Britton’s Grimmia R1 Sensitive Yes No

Hookeria lucens (h)

clear moss R1 Sensitive Yes No

Mimulus alsinoides

chickweed monkeyflower R1 Sensitive Yes No

Rhizomnium nudum

Naked Mnium R1 Sensitive Yes No

Thelypteris nevadensis

Sierra woodfern R1 Sensitive Yes No

Triantha occidentalis spp brevistyla

sticky asphodel R1 Sensitive Yes No

Trichophorum alpinum

Hudson's bulrush R1 Sensitive Yes Yes

Waldsteinia idahoensis

Idaho barren strawberry R1 Sensitive Yes No

* based on Regional Forester's TES list 2011. (s)=suspected (h)=historical occurrence

Two species have been added to the R1 sensitive list: Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens and 

Trichophorum alpinum.

Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens (greater yellow lady’s slipper) is a coastal disjunct member of the 

orchid family that has recently been found in the North Zone of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 

This large yellow orchid grows in wet and moist habitats (see Project File B-1 Bussel 484 FEIS, USDA, 

2008). Habitats where surveyed for all plants for the 2008 FEIS, and no greater yellow lady’s slipper 

plants were found (Project File B-1).

Trichophorum alpinum (Hudson's bulrush) is found in deciduous riparian habitats. This plant was added to 

the IPNF portion of the R1 species list in 2011. This habitat does not exist in the Bussel 484 project area. 

No incidental locations outside of the habitat were found during surveys. 

Alternatives would have no impact on Hudson's bulrush and greater yellow lady’s slipper.

Wildlife

The Bussel 484 FEIS Wildlife section (pages 242-281) was reviewed to ensure compliance for Proposed, 

Endangered, Threatened, Candidate species, R1 Sensitive species, Idaho Panhandle National Forests

management indicator species (MIS), and other species. Table 3 outlines all wildlife species and habitats 

considered during analysis. Table 3 also identifies if the analysis completed in 2008 is still sufficient. 

Species or habitats are only discussed in this supplemental EIS if:

1. A change in conditions on the ground warranted changed effect/impact determinations.

2. Additional “best available science” would change effect/impact determinations.

3. Species are an addition to the Endangered, Threatened, and Federal Candidate species list or 

the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list that was used in the original 2008 report. Some 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

11

species of animals have been added and removed from the Sensitive Species list since the 2008 

FEIS.

4. Federal status has changed since the 2008 FEIS.

5. The IPNF white paper on MIS outlines a new process on the way to address these species 

(Appendix A).

If a species has a “No” in the Addressed in this Supplemental Document column then refer to the Bussel 

484 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) [USDA 2008a pages 242-281] for effects analysis. 

Table 3 – Wildlife Species Considered for Bussel 484 Supplemental EIS

Common Name

(Scientific Name) Current Status

Sufficient Analysis 

Completed in 2008

Addressed in 

Supplemental 

EIS

Woodland Caribou

(Rangifer tarandus caribou) Federal Endangered Yes No

Canada Lynx

(Lynx canadensis) Federal Threatened Yes Yes

Grizzly Bear

(Ursus arctos) Federal Threatened Yes No

Gray Wolf

(Canis lupus) R1 Sensitive Yes No

American Peregrine Falcon

(Falco peregrinus anatum) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Black-backed Woodpecker

(Picoides arcticus) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Black Swift

(Cypseloides niger) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Coeur d'Alene Salamander

(Plethodon idahoensis) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Common Loon

(Gavia immer) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Fisher

(Martes pennanti) R1 Sensitive Yes Yes

Flammulated Owl

(Otus flammeolus) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Fringed Myotis

(Myotis thysandodes) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Harlequin Duck

(Histrionicus histrionicus) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Long-eared myotis

(Myotis evotis) R1 Sensitive No Yes

Long-legged myotis

(Myotis volans) R1 Sensitive No Yes

North American Wolverine

(Gulo gulo)

Federal Candidate R1 

Sensitive Yes Yes

Northern Bog Lemming

(Synaptomys borealis) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Pygmy Nuthatch

(Sitta pygmaea) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Townsend's Big-eared Bat

(Corynorhinus townsendii) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Western Toad

(Bufo boreas) R1 Sensitive Yes No

Northern Goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis)

MIS 

Indicator Species No Yes

Pileated Woodpecker

(Dryocopus pileatus)

MIS 

Indicator Species No Yes
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

12

Common Name

(Scientific Name) Current Status

Sufficient Analysis 

Completed in 2008

Addressed in 

Supplemental 

EIS

Elk

(Cervus elaphus nelsoni)

MIS 

Commonly Hunted Yes Yes

Moose

(Alces alces)

MIS 

Commonly Hunted Yes Yes

Marten

(Martes americana)

Other Species Commonly 

Hunted No Yes

Forest Landbird

(Various species)

Other Species Common 

Avian Species Yes No

Cavity/Snag Habitat Other Habitats Yes No

Disturbance/Access Other Habitats Yes No

Forest Structure Other Habitats Yes No

Riparian Habitat Other Habitats Yes No

Federal Listed Species

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified four listed or proposed wildlife species that may 

occur on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Species list # 1-9-09-SP-0035, February 11, 2009 [USDI 

2009a]; Federal Register [May 5, 2011]): Grizzly Bear, Woodland Caribou and Canada Lynx. 

Summary of Effects for Threatened and Endangered Species

Based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter dated February 11, 2009 which lists the threatened and 

endangered species that may be present on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Reference No. 1-9-09-SP-0035)

and the Federal Register notice that removed the Northern Rockies Gray Wolf from the Threatened and Endangered 

Species list (Federal Register, May 5, 2011).

Species Status Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Location of Effects 

Analysis 

Canada Lynx ESA Listed 

Threatened NE NE NE SEIS page 12

Grizzly Bear ESA Listed 

Threatened NE NE NE FEIS page 267

Woodland 

Caribou

ESA Listed 

Endangered NE NE NE FEIS page 267

NE - No Effect 

NLAA - May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

LAA - May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect 

NLJ-Not Likely to Jeopardize

Canada Lynx

The Canada lynx section in the FEIS on pages 267 through 271 is replaced by the analysis of lynx 

that follows. 

Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) were re-delineated in 2008 on the IPNF to be consistent with the Northern 

Rockies Lynx Management Direction Record of Decision (NRLMD) [USDA 2007]. 

Affected Environment

During the LAU re-mapping using a more refined mapping process, the Grandmother Mountain LAU was 

found to not have sufficient habitat within the LAU to meet minimum LAU requirements; so the LAU was 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

13

dropped as outlined in SWL1 and SWL2. The Bussel 484 project area no longer occurs within a LAU

(Figure 1).

Affected Environment

During the LAU re-mapping it was determined that the Grandmother Mountain LAU did not have sufficient 

lynx habitat within the LAU to meet minimum LAU requirements (FEIS p. 268); so the LAU was dropped 

as outlined in SWL-1 and SWL-2. The analysis and the modifications of the proposed actions are based 

on consistency with the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction and protecting lynx regardless of 

the final lynx habitat remapping. That remapping was finalized after the 2008 FEIS went to print. During 

remapping finalization, the Grandmother Mountain LAU was dropped. The Bussel 484 project area no 

longer occurs within an LAU (Figure 1).

Affected Environment

During the LAU re-mapping, the Grandmother Mountain LAU did not have sufficient habitat within the 

LAU to meet minimum LAU requirements; so the LAU was dropped as outlined in SWL1 and SWL2. The 

Bussel 484 project area no longer occurs within a LAU (Figure 1).

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

No activities are proposed with this alternative, so there would be no direct or indirect effects to lynx or 

their habitat. There are no current or reasonably foreseeable federal actions in the analysis area that 

would measurably affect lynx or their habitat.

Alternatives B & C

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives proposed with the Bussel 484 project would have No Effect on lynx or their habitat because 

project activities would be outside of any LAU. The Bussel 484 project area had been in part of the 

Grandmother Mountain LAU, but that LAU was removed when LAUs were redelineated on the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests. The Bussel 484 project is outside of any LAU and identified lynx habitat 

(Figure 1), therefore, there are no expected effects to lynx.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

14

Figure 1 below shows the current LAUs on the St. Joe Ranger District. LAU boundaries and mapped lynx 

habitat were based on recent research and recommendations by the Lynx Biology team (SWL1); and the 

process they followed can be found in the project file (SWL2). The Regional Office staff reviewed the 

updates to the LAUs and found them to be consistent with NRLMD standards (SWL3). This happened 

when the Final EIS was at the printer, so the mapping that removed the Grandmother Mountain LAU was 

not incorporated in the FEIS. 

The scale of LAUs should approximate the size of area used by an individual lynx, and are intended to 

provide the smallest scale to evaluate the effects of management actions on lynx habitat (Ruediger and 

others 2000 p.7-2).

On March 27, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) finalized critical habitat designation for 

Canada lynx (USDI 2009b). No critical habitat was designated on the St. Joe Ranger District. On July 

28, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Montana issued an opinion which concluded 

that the FWS's February 2009 revised final rule designating approximately 39,000 acres in Maine, 

Minnesota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming as critical habitat for the Canada lynx violated the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). FWS is preparing a new rule addressing the ESA violations.

Affected Environment

During the LAU re-mapping, the Grandmother Mountain LAU did not have sufficient habitat within the 

LAU to meet minimum LAU requirements; so the LAU was dropped as outlined in SWL1 and SWL2. The 

Bussel 484 project area no longer occurs within a LAU (Figure 1).

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

No activities are proposed with this alternative, so there would be no direct or indirect effects to lynx or 

their habitat. There are no current or reasonably foreseeable federal actions in the analysis area that 

would measurably affect lynx or their habitat.

Alternatives B & C

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives proposed with the Bussel 484 project would have No Effect on lynx or their habitat because 

project activities would be outside of any LAU. The Bussel 484 project area had been in part of the 

Grandmother Mountain LAU, but that LAU was removed when LAUs were redelineated on the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests. The Bussel 484 project is outside of any LAU and identified lynx habitat 

(Figure 1), therefore, there are no expected effects to lynx.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

15

Figure 1 - Current Lynx Analysis Units in Relation to the Bussel 484 Project Area

 

Cumulative Effects

Activities proposed for the Bussel 484 project would not incrementally add to cumulative effects as there 

are no effects identified with any alternative for Canada lynx.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

16

Sensitive Species

The Regional Forester Sensitive species list was updated in February of 2011 and will take effect May 27, 

2011 (USDA 2011).

Summary of Effects for Sensitive Species

Based on the Regional Foresters list as of May 27, 2011 (list per R1 Regional Forester’s letter dated 

February 25, 2011).

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Location of Effects Analysis

American Peregrine Falcon NI NI NI FEIS pages 247-248

Bald Eagle NI NI NI FEIS page 247

Black-backed Woodpecker NI MIIH MIIH FEIS pages 277-278

Black Swift NI NI NI FEIS page 248

Coeur d'Alene Salamander NI MIIH MIIH FEIS pages 278-279

Common Loon NI NI NI FEIS page 246

Fisher NI MIIH MIIH SEIS page 17

Flammulated Owl NI NI NI FEIS page 247

Fringed Myotis NI NI NI FEIS page 247

Gray Wolf NI MIIH MIIH FEIS pages 272-274

Harlequin Duck NI NI NI FEIS page 246

Long-eared Myotis NI MIIH MIIH SEIS page 21

Long-legged Myotis NI MIIH MIIH SEIS page 21

North American Wolverine NI NI NI SEIS page 23 and

FEIS pages 276-277

Northern Bog Lemming NI NI NI FEIS page 246

Pygmy Nuthatch NI NI NI FEIS page 247

Townsend's Big-eared Bat NI NI NI FEIS page 248

Western Toad NI MIIH MIIH FEIS pages 279-280

NI - No Impact

MIIH- May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Loss of 

Viability to the Population or Species

WIFV- Will Impact Individuals or Habitat With a Consequence That The Action May Contribute to a Trend Towards 

Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species 

BI - Beneficial Impact

PREPARED BY: Kristopher Hennings___________________________________________ DATE May 5, 2011 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

17

Fisher

The fisher section in the FEIS on pages 274 through 276 is replaced by the analysis of fisher that 

follows. 

The fisher has been petitioned for listing as a threatened or endangered species and is currently 

undergoing a status review by the USFWS. Fisher is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need under the

Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 2005). They 

prefer late-seral stage coniferous and mixed forest habitat. Fisher use riparian habitats as resting sites 

and extensively for travel. It appears that fisher avoid high elevations (> 4,000 ft.) and non-forested areas 

(Ruggiero and others 1994). Extensive alteration of forest structure through logging (i.e. reduction in 

canopy closure, snags, and down woody material) may reduce its habitat value for fisher (Heinemeyer 

and Jones 1994). 

Geographic Scope and Methodology

The analysis uses management guidelines from Fisher Biology and Management in the Western United 

States (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). The percent of the area in mature/old forest structure (i.e. suitable 

habitat) is displayed and compared to the guidelines. Changes from the existing condition relative to 

guidelines for forest structure are discussed. The goal at the scale of this analysis (i.e. the Bussel 484 

Wildlife Analysis Area or “subdrainage”) is to maintain functional home ranges (Heinemeyer and Jones 

1994). 

Fishers are vulnerable to trapping (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). The Forest Service has no jurisdiction 

concerning trapping; and it is beyond the scope of this project analysis. High quality habitats for fisher

are not necessarily strongly associated with low levels of human populations and roads (Carroll and 

others 2001). However, road densities are associated with vulnerability (to trapping) and changes in road 

density are displayed. 

Affected Environment

In 2007, eight forest carnivore bait stations were placed in the Bussel 484 project area; no fishers were 

detected at that time (Albrecht and Heusser 2009). In 2008, wildlife personnel on the St. Joe set 12 forest 

carnivore bait stations within the Bussel 484 project area. During those surveys two fishers were 

detected in the project area (SWL-4). 

Vegetation/Habitat

Late-successional habitat is an essential component of fisher habitat. The physical structure of the forest 

appears to be more important for fisher than the species composition (Ruggiero and others 1994).

Habitat management considerations for fisher emphasize maintaining late-successional forest habitat. 

Mature riparian forest is especially important for denning sites and travel ways for fisher. Based on 

habitat requirements, the quality, amount, and distribution of late successional forest habitat within the 

drainage is considered the most important factor for fisher. 

There are approximately 12,184 acres of capable fisher habitat in the Bussel 484 Wildlife Analysis Area 

(WL-3). There are approximately 2,779 acres of mature/sawtimber size habitat and approximately 2,588 

acres that provide currently suitable fisher denning habitat. 

The existing condition of forested habitat on NFS lands in the Bussel 484 Wildlife Analysis Area and the 

guidelines for forest structure by subdrainage are displayed in 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

18

Table 4.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

19

Table 4 – Fisher Guidelines for Forest Structure

Forest Structure

Existing

Condition*

Subdrainage Guidelines

High

Quality

Moderate

Quality

Low

Quality

Mature/Sawtimber 2,779a 23% 65-75% >40% 30-40%

Immature Sawtimber 7,024a 57% 10-25% na** na

Pole/sapling 2,172a 18% 10-25% na na

Open/seed 293a 2% na na na

* Percent of capable habitat in the wildlife analysis area

** not applicable – no guidelines identified

Based on the amount of mature/sawtimber forest structure, the existing condition of the Bussel 484 

Wildlife Analysis Area is below the criteria needed for a low-quality subdrainage. This is due primarily to 

the fire and harvest history that results in the majority of the stands being classified as immature 

sawtimber. See the discussion in the Forest Vegetation section of the FEIS (pages 131-144).

In addition to the 2,779 acres of mature/sawtimber habitat, approximately 4,246 acres of immature 

sawtimber size forest stands have a number of large trees (>20/acre at least 14-15 inches d. b. h.) that 

may also provide suitable fisher habitat (WL-3). Based on field review, some of these stands appear to 

provide suitable habitat for fisher. Based on these figures, there are as many as 7,025 acres (58% of 

NFS capable habitat) of suitable fisher habitat in the wildlife analysis area. When these additional stands 

are considered, the existing condition of the analysis area would meet the criteria for a moderate-quality 

subdrainage. The landscape surrounding the analysis area to the southwest and west around to the 

northeast is primarily non-NFS land that does not or likely will not provide much mature or late

successional forest within the foreseeable future. The analysis is based on the impacts on 

mature/sawtimber and immature sawtimber sized stands.

Impacted riparian zones are also affecting existing fisher habitat. See the pages 253 and 254 of the FEIS

for discussion on effects on riparian habitat.

Access/Vulnerability Risk

While it is not legal to trap fishers in Idaho, other forest carnivores can be legally trapped so there is some 

vulnerability. Trapping-vulnerability risk has been cited as one of the factors affecting forest carnivores in 

Idaho (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). However, human impacts (e.g. roads) have not been significant 

variables in regional-scale models (Carroll and others 2001). Roads are correlated with trapping 

vulnerability and human disturbance. In areas having fisher trapping seasons road densities greater than 

or equal to 1 mi/mi2 have a high risk to trapping vulnerability for fisher. 

Roads and trails used by motorized vehicles have the greatest impact on wildlife (Wisdom and others 

2004; Gaines and others 2003) and provide the most access for trapping. The existing motorized 

road/trail density in the Bussel 484 Wildlife Analysis Area is 3.4 mi/mi2

.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A 

Alternative A would have No Impact on fishers.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

This alternative would not affect suitable mature forest habitat.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

20

Cumulative Effects

Existing suitable habitat is a result of all past activities and disturbances. Succession of immature 

sawtimber stands would at some undetermined future date result in a minimum of 77% of the analysis 

area in mature/sawtimber. This would meet the criteria for a high-quality subdrainage. Road density

would remain at a level considered a high risk to trapping vulnerability.

Alternatives B & C

Alternatives B and C May Impact fisher individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend 

towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Mature forest habitat would be 

reduced by 2% in the project area leaving approximately 2,613 acres of habitat remaining post activities. 

Fisher use has been documented in the project area, and a 2% reduction of mature habitat is not 

expected to preclude fisher use during or after project implementation when the existing condition of the 

analysis area meets the criteria for a moderate-quality subdrainage. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

A total of approximately 256 acres (255 acres harvest and 0.4 acres road construction) of mature forest 

and 1,891 acres (1,889 acres of harvest and 2 acres of road construction) of young forest (immature 

sawtimber and pole-size stands) would be impacted. This would reduce mature forest habitat by 167 

acres (166 acres from harvest and 0.4 acre from road construction) and reduce immature sawtimber (i.e. 

young forest) by 235 acres (233 from harvest and 2 from road construction). The 89 acres of partial 

harvest in mature forest would result in a total or partial loss of suitable fisher denning habitat until the 

habitat attributes (e.g. down wood) are restored through forest succession because trees would continue 

to grow, decline, then fall. The 1,656 acres of partial harvest in immature sawtimber forest would retain 

the future suitability of the treated stands because an adequate number of trees would remain and would 

continue to grow larger.

Cumulative Effects

Existing suitable habitat is a result of all past activities and disturbances which include those discussed in 

the FEIS on pages 43-49. Succession of immature sawtimber stands would at some undetermined future 

date result in a minimum of 77% of the analysis area in mature/sawtimber. This would meet the criteria 

for a high-quality subdrainage. Road density would remain at a level considered a high risk to trapping 

vulnerability. However, in all action alternatives there would be a reduction in road/trail densities, but

human-impacts (e.g. roads) have not been significant variables in regional-scale models (Carroll and 

others 2001).

Fisher Comparison of Alternatives

The following two tables compare the alternatives by variables that affect fisher. 

Vegetation/Habitat for Fisher

Table 5 – Acres and Percent of Forest Structure by Alternative

Forest Structure Alternative A Alternatives B & C

Mature/Sawtimber 2,779a 23% 2,613a 21%

Immature Sawtimber 7,024a 57% 6,791a 55%

Pole/Sapling 2,172a 18% 2,172a 18%

Open/Seed 293a 2% 722a 6%
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

21

Access/Vulnerability Risk

Table 6 – Effects on Road Density (miles/mile2)

Road/Trail Density

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

3.4 2.2 2.1

Long-eared and Long-legged Myotis

The long-eared and long-legged myotis are new additions to the Regional Forester’s list for the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forest (USDA 2011). These species were not on the Sensitive Species list when the 

Bussel 484 FEIS was completed.

Long-eared myotis roost under bark, in tree cavities, in abandoned buildings and in crevices in cliffs 

(Romin & Bosworth 2010). This bat prefers Douglas-fir for roosting but will occasionally use western 

hemlock and western redcedar (Arnett and Hayes 2009). The species is also associated with stumps and 

high snag densities (Ibid). The western long-eared myotis is thought to hibernate in moist caves and 

mines. It was found in northeastern Washington using rock outcrops for maternity sites (Rancourt and 

others 2005). The western long-eared myotis forages throughout the night and also gleans insects from 

vegetation on the ground (Ibid). Their diet consists of small beetles, moths and other insects. 

The home ranges of the long-eared myotis are small, usually less than five acres (Nixon and others 

2009). However, infrequently the home ranges can be as large as 12 acres (Ibid). 

The western long-eared myotis is one of the most widely reported bats in northern Idaho (Ibid). During

mining adit surveys long-eared bats are commonly captured on the St. Joe Ranger District (SWL-5). 

Long-legged myotis roost under exfoliating tree bark, cavities and snags during the summer and 

hibernate in caves and mines. It feeds primarily on moths. They have been found in mature forests using 

grand fir, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and aspen (Romin & Bosworth 2010). This bat also occasionally 

uses western hemlock and western redcedar (Arnett and Hayes 2009). These bats have been found in 

north central Idaho using managed forests with trees that range from 5 to 15 inches in diameter. They 

generally used snags with an average diameter of 21” in Idaho (Johnson and others 2007). 

Males have the largest variation in home ranges. In north central Idaho male long-legged myotis had 

home ranges that varied from 41 acres to 7,485 acres (Johnson and others 2007). 

During adit surveys long-legged myotis are commonly captured on the St. Joe Ranger District (SWL-5). 

Affected Environment

Bat surveys usually occur at mining adits or cave openings. Since there are no known adits or caves 

within the project area, no bat surveys have been conducted in the project area.

There are no known abandoned buildings, abandoned mines, or caves in the wildlife analysis area that 

may serve as potential habitat for the long-eared or long-legged myotis.

Rock outcrops occur throughout the project area, especially in the Bussel Creek drainage. While 

potential habitat exists, Bussel 484 project activities would not alter rock out crop habitat.

Long-eared and long-legged myotis snag habitat occurs throughout the project area at various levels. 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

22

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A 

Alternative A will have No Impact on Long-eared and long-legged myotis.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative A would not affect suitable snag habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Existing cavity and snag habitat is a function of past and present disturbances (e.g. fire, insects, disease, 

and timber harvest), stand initiation, and succession. The existing condition of cavity habitat is reduced 

from 100% of potential but occurs at a level (77%) that exceeds Forest Plan standards (40-60% of 

potential). Forest Plan standards for cavity nesting species would be met or exceeded in all alternatives. 

There is a relatively low amount of forest structure (i.e. 23% of wildlife analysis area) with reduced cavity 

habitat potential due to past activity and/or natural conditions (WL-3). This includes brush/seedling/

sapling/pole stands and larger size classes with past harvest activity that may have reduced the cavity 

habitat potential. Conversely, there is a relatively large amount of sawtimber/mature sawtimber and 

immature sawtimber forest structure (77% of wildlife analysis area) well distributed in the analysis area 

(WL-3).

Foreseeable activities that could impact snags include roadside hazards, fire suppression, and salvage. 

Road developments influence snag levels by increasing the amount of area considered during road-side 

hazard tree assessments. Personal use firewood cutting will also continue to influence snag densities 

and distributions on the district.

Alternatives B & C

Alternatives B and C May Impact Long-eared and long-legged myotis individuals or habitat, but will not 

likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. Snags 

are not targeted for removal and only limited numbers of snags would be lost due to timber harvest and 

associated activities. In addition, areas outside of proposed treatment units would continue to provide 

snags at existing levels. Adequate habitat would remain and long-eared and long-legged bats are 

commonly found during surveys across the St. Joe Ranger District.

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Snag removal is no longer a standard logging practice. In fact, design features based on Regional 

guidance, such as the Northern Region Snag Management Protocol (USDA Forest Service 2000) and the 

Estimates of Snag Densities for Northern Idaho Forests (Bollenbacher and others 2009) have greatly 

improved the retention of quality snags and live trees to serve as future snags. Specifications contained 

in timber sale contracts also typically require the retention of all or most snags, particularly large diameter 

ones, except those needing to be removed for safety purposes due to Occupational Health and Safety 

Administration (OSHA) guidelines (Appendix A, page 5). 

In both action alternatives, it is expected that limited numbers of some snags would be lost due to timber 

harvest and associated activities. However, areas outside of proposed treatment units would continue to 

provide snags at existing levels in the short term and the number of snags in these areas would increase 

as stands succeed. Snags that occur within riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) buffers would also 

be maintained at existing levels, and as succession occurs more snags would be recruited, therefore 

cavity habitat is expected to remain near existing levels.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

23

Cumulative Effects

Existing cavity and snag habitat is a function of past and present disturbances (e.g. fire, insects, disease, 

and timber harvest), stand initiation, and succession. The existing condition of cavity habitat is reduced 

from 100% of potential but occurs at a level (77%) that exceeds Forest Plan standards (40-60% of 

potential). Forest Plan standards for cavity nesting species would be met or exceeded in all alternatives. 

There is a relatively low amount of forest structure (i.e. 23% of wildlife analysis area) with reduced cavity 

habitat potential due to past activity and/or natural conditions (WL-3). This includes brush/seedling/

sapling/pole stands and larger size classes with past harvest activity that may have reduced the cavity 

habitat potential. Conversely, there is a relatively large amount of sawtimber/mature sawtimber and 

immature sawtimber forest structure (77% of wildlife analysis area) well distributed in the analysis area 

(WL-3). 

Some additional snags (i.e. bat habitat) would be lost due to timber harvest and associated activities. 

However, the potential impacts on snags are alleviated by a number of factors. Areas outside of 

proposed treatment units would continue to provide snags at existing levels in the short term and the 

number of snags and down woody material in these areas would increase as stands succeed. Areas 

would be reserved from treatment within riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) buffers. Design 

features of the project were devised – based on the Northern Region Snag protocol (USDA 2000). Snags 

and snag replacements would be retained in all treatment units at levels recommended by scientific 

literature based on recent studies (12 per acre in most units) which would exceed Forest Plan standards 

of three to four per acre. While acknowledging notable differences, the commercial thin treatments and 

design features for snag retention are similar to treatments that have been shown to maintain cavity 

habitat and wildlife use (Quesnel and Steeger 2002).

Foreseeable activities that could reduce the number of snags include removal of roadside hazards, fire 

suppression, and firewood removal. Road developments influence snag levels by increasing the amount 

of area considered during road-side hazard tree assessments. Personal use firewood cutting would also 

continue to influence snag densities and distributions on the district.

The combination of potential snag loss from project activities and foreseeable activities would be a slight 

reduction of snags.

North American Wolverine

In December of 2010 the US Fish and Wildlife Service published their 12-month finding on a petition to list 

the North American wolverine. After review, the US Fish and Wildlife Service found that the North 

American wolverine occurring in the contiguous United States is a distinct population segment (DPS) and 

addition of the DPS to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants is warranted, but is 

precluded by higher priority actions at this time (USDI 2010b). This finding places the wolverine on the 

US Fish and Wildlife’s candidate species list. 

For effects analysis for wolverines see FEIS pages 276 and 277. There are no changes to the 

anticipated effects for any alternative. 

Management Indicator Species

The Management Indicator Species Considerations for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Appendix 

A) white paper discusses the management indicator species (MIS) process on the IPNF. Selection of 

MIS included three categories: (1) Threatened or endangered species on federal or state lists; (2) 

Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped which have special habitat needs that are affected by 

planned management activities, and (3) Other species whose population changes are believed to indicate 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

24

effects of management activities on a major biological group or on water quality. This category will be 

referred to as “Indicator Species" and includes northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker. 

The majority of the white paper focuses on northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker and provides a 

step-down process, based on best available science, for these species. Existing condition, population 

and habitat availability at various scales including National, Regional, State and Forest-level are 

discussed for both species. The Regional and Forest trends discussed provide a larger context to these 

species. This paper also includes the potential threats to these species and their habitat, as well as the 

difficulties in monitoring. The following project-level analysis is based on the scientific findings cited in 

this supplemental EIS and provides a step down process from the larger context covered in the white 

paper.

Summary of Effects on Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

MIS were identified in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest Plan (USDA 1987 p. L-4 through L-6).

Species Status

Alternative 

A

Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

Location of Effects 

Analysis

Northern 

Goshawk Indicator Species NI MI MI SEIS page 24

Pileated 

Woodpecker Indicator Species NI MI MI SEIS page 28

Elk Commonly Hunted NI MI MI SEIS page 33

FEIS pages 264-266

Moose Commonly Hunted NI MI MI SEIS page 33

FEIS page 248

NI – No Impact 

MI-May Impact Individuals or Habitat 

MC- May Contribute to Loss of Population Viability

Indicator Species 

Northern Goshawk

The goshawk section in the FEIS on pages 260 through 264 is replaced by the analysis of 

goshawks that follows. 

Goshawks use a variety of forest types, structures, and successional stages, and have been primarily 

associated with late-successional habitat. For nesting, goshawks utilize mature to old growth stands on 

gentle to moderately steep slopes (Kennedy 2003). Forest habitat that provides prey species and which 

is open enough to allow unimpeded flight through the understory is considered suitable for foraging.

The analysis of effects on goshawks uses direction in Old-Growth Habitats and Associated Wildlife 

Species in the Northern Rocky Mountains (USDA 1990), Management Recommendations for the 

Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States (Reynolds and others 1992), Northern Goshawk, 

Northern Region Overview, Key Findings and Project Considerations (Brewer and others 2007), and A 

Conservation Assessment of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, and 

Pileated Woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service (Samson 2006a) to assess potential 

effects. The analysis is based on the analysis done for size class (see FEIS, pages 250 through 253).
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

25

Geographic Scope and Methodology

Goshawk territory sizes range from approximately 1,235 to 9,880 acres (Samson 2006a). Assessment 

areas of 5,000 acres at a minimum (USDA 1990) and 5,400 acres not including nest areas, post fledging 

area, and natural or created openings (Reynolds and others 1992) are recommended for evaluation of 

potential goshawk suitability. For this analysis, two assessment areas within the wildlife analysis area

were delineated based on topographic features and existing stand boundaries (Figure 2). These 

assessment areas represent hypothetical goshawk home ranges. For analysis purposes the assessment 

areas are entirely within the Bussel 484 Wildlife Analysis Area, actual goshawk home ranges may include 

areas outside of the analysis area.

Management recommendations for each home range include approximately three suitable nest areas 

and three replacement areas (in a developmental phase) per home range and a mosaic of vegetation 

structural stages in both an approximately 420-acre Post-fledging Family Area (PFA) and an 

approximately 5400-acre foraging area (Reynolds and others 1992).

Affected Environment

Potential goshawk habitat within the Bussel 484 project area was surveyed in 2002 with broadcast calls 

and did not result in any confirmed goshawks (WL-22). Although, locating goshawks during breeding 

season can be difficult (Appendix A, page 12). 

Three incidental sightings of goshawks occurred during field review of the Bussel 484 project area (WL44, SWL-6). Follow up searches by wildlife personnel located an individual goshawk in the south east 

portion of the project area and a nest just north of the project area (SWL-6, SWL-7). 

In 2008 wildlife personnel completed a follow-up search at the location where the pair of goshawks was 

seen in 2007 (WL-44). During the follow-up a nest was located that had one fledgling in it approximately 

700 feet outside of the Bussel 484 project area (SWL-7). 

In 2009, the nest visit confirmed an inactive nest for the year (SWL-7). Again in 2010, the site was 

visited. The tree the nest was located in had died and the nest had blown out of the tree. Wildlife 

personnel searched the surrounding area and were able to locate at least one fledged young, but no new 

nest location (SWL-7). Goshawk activity observed in the area from 2007 through 2010 confirm an active 

goshawk territory with alternate nest sites.

Based on literature descriptions (USDS 1990; Reynolds and others 1992; Kennedy 2003; Samson 2006a, 

and Brewer and others 2007), there is capable and suitable habitat available within the Bussel 484 

Project Area.

Potential nest areas include: mature/sawtimber forest structure, old growth, and stands classed as 

immature with at least 20 trees per acre greater than 14 inches d.b.h.; these criteria are consistent with 

literature descriptions of nest habitat (USDS 1990; Reynolds and others 1992; Kennedy 2003; Samson 

2006a, and Brewer and others 2007) and direction (Brewer and others 2007). An additional criterion for 

percent slope < 40% was also applied in this analysis (USDA 1990). Although more restrictive than 

nesting criteria in some literature this criterion does not limit the suitability of the assessment areas based 

on availability of nesting habitat. A subset of potential habitat was field checked to ensure mapped 

habitat matched current field conditions (WL-2). Table 7 shows the existing condition for goshawks.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

26

Figure 2 – Goshawk Analysis Area

Table 7 – Existing and Recommended Conditions for Goshawk

Area

Area

Acres

Potential

Nest 

Areas*

Forage Area Vegetation Structure

Existing acres

and % of the area

Management

Recommendations

Grass 

Shrub

Seed/

Sapling Pole

Mid/

Old

Grass 

Shrub

Seed/

Sapling Pole

Mid/

Old

Bussel 

484 SW 6,487a 18+ 119a2%

462a

7%

816a

13%

5,089a

78% 10% 10% 20% 60% Bussel 

484 NE 5,704a 19+ 173a3%

488a

9%

367a

6%

4,676a

82%

*The exact number of potential nest areas depends on how patches of at least 40 acres in size are counted. 

These values represent a minimum number based on a conservative approach when assessing nest areas.

An assessment of conditions in an approximately 450-acre area surrounding each potential nest stand 

revealed that the SW area has 8 nest stands with hypothetical PFAs that meet recommendations for 

vegetative conditions and the NE area has 11 nest stands that meet the recommendations (WL-23).
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

27

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

This alternative would not impact forest habitat in either of the goshawk home ranges. It would maintain 

middle-aged to old forest habitat (i.e. those with the higher forage value) in excess of the recommended 

60% in each goshawk analysis area. Alternative A would maintain sufficient nesting habitat well 

distributed throughout each goshawk analysis area with potential PFAs (Table 8).

Alternatives B & C

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Both action alternatives would maintain middle-aged to old forest habitat (i.e. those with the higher forage 

value) in excess of the recommended 60% in each goshawk analysis area. Alternatives B & C would 

maintain sufficient nesting habitat well distributed throughout each goshawk analysis area with potential 

PFAs (Table 8).

In each alternative the amount of seedling/sapling size would move above recommended levels in both 

goshawk analysis areas. This is not expected to affect the suitability of the analysis area to support a 

breeding pair of goshawks - as evidenced by known active nests in areas with high percentage of 

seedling/sapling elsewhere on the District and the amount of immature sawtimber and sawtimber size 

classes retained. Goshawk foraging habitat will have sustainable and abundant prey when the majority of 

forage are in the older age classes (Reynolds and others 1992). Older age classes of forest structure 

provide the most prey species at higher population levels (ibid) and provide higher forage habitat values 

for goshawks (USDA 1990). There are approximately 133 acres in the SW Goshawk Analysis Area and 

approximately 342 acres in the NE Goshawk Analysis Area typed as sapling size class that will succeed 

to the pole size class within a few years (+ 5 years). The proposed pre-commercial thinning would 

increase the rate at which this succession to pole size class stands occurs. Based on the higher forage 

value of immature sawtimber vs. sapling size classes and the impending succession of existing sapling 

stands the increase (short term) in seedling/sapling size class would not adversely affect the suitability of 

either analysis area to support goshawks - now or in the future. 

As outlined in the FEIS (page 37), goshawk nests found before and during implementation would have a 

40-acre no-activity buffer and the PFA would be seasonally restricted from April 15 to August 15. The 

design criteria would minimize impacts to known nesting sites. 

Cumulative Effects

Based on the project design criteria, mitigation measures, and availability of existing suitable habitat

(which is a result of all past activities and disturbances); there would be no effect on goshawk populations 

in either of the goshawk analysis area. There would be no cumulative effects associated with this project 

or analysis area that would jeopardize populations of northern goshawks. This is based on the limited 

effects from this project, documented goshawk activity in and near the project area, the stable and welldistributed population, and adequate amounts of habitat in the project area and across the IPNF.

Based on the best available science summarized in the Management Indicator Species Considerations 

for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Appendix A), the northern goshawk population trend appears 

to be stable and their habitat is abundant and well-distributed across the Region. Additionally, the IPNF 

contains substantially more than enough habitat distributed throughout the Forest to support a minimum 

viable population of northern goshawk. Northern goshawks and active nest sites are documented across 

the Forest, including territories that have had multiple years of documented occupancy and reproductive 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

28

success, and surveys periodically locate new territories and nest sites. See Appendix A for additional 

information on goshawks.

Goshawk Comparison of Alternatives

The following table summarizes the recommended habitat conditions for each goshawk analysis area and 

shows how the alternatives compare to those conditions (WL-6).

Table 8 – Goshawk Recommended Condition and Predicted Conditions for All Alternatives

Habitat Recommended Alternative A Alternatives B & C

SW Area

# Nest Areas 6* 8** 7**

% of area Acres % Acres %

Grass/Shrub 10 119 2% 119 2%

Seed/Sap 10 462 7% 704 11%

Pole 20 816 13% 816 13%

Mid/Old** 60 5,089 78% 4,847 75%

NE Area

# Nest Areas 6* 11** 9**

% of area Acres % Acres %

Grass/Shrub 10 173 3% 173 3%

Seed/Sap 10 488 9% 650 11%

Pole 20 367 6% 367 6%

Mid/Old** 60 4,676 82% 4,514 79%

* Recommendation is for 3 suitable and 3 replacement (Reynolds and others 1992) 

 and 6 (Brewer and others 2007)

** nest areas with suitable PFAs

Pileated Woodpecker

The pileated woodpecker section in the FEIS on pages 257 through 260 is replaced by the analysis 

of pileated woodpeckers that follows.

Pileated woodpeckers are often associated with late successional forests but they also use young and 

fragmented forests with abundant remnant old structure (Bull and Jackson 1995). Pileated woodpeckers

require tall, large-diameter dead or living defective trees within forested stands for nesting (USDA 1990a). 

Nest tree size has been identified as a minimum diameter of 15” (Samson 2006a) to 20” (USDA 1990) 

with no upper limit. With a median dispersal distance of 148 miles, habitat/territory distribution at this 

project level or at the Forest level is not an issue (Samson 2006a). Carpenter ants make up the bulk of 

their diet. Feeding habitat includes large snags with advanced decay, the moist decaying butts of live 

trees, logs greater than 10 inches diameter, and natural or cut stumps. Large trees, canopy cover, and 

the number and size of feeding sites (e.g. dead trees greater than 10 inches diameter) are all important 

features of quality pileated habitat (USDA 1990). Activities that reduce these habitat features may affect 

pileated habitat suitability.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

29

Geographic Scope and Methodology

The analysis of effects on pileated woodpeckers is based on habitat associations and direction in OldGrowth Habitat and Associated Wildlife Species in the Northern Rocky Mountains (USDA 1990) and A 

Conservation Assessment of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, and 

Pileated Woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service (Samson 2006a) and other scientific 

literature (Bull and Jackson 1995). This analysis is based on the analysis done for size class and old 

growth (FEIS pages 151 through 154 and 250 through 253). The geographic scope for direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects is the wildlife analysis area; however, due to the spatial location of existing nesting 

habitat some habitat outside of the analysis area has been included in the analysis for some home 

ranges.

For analysis purposes a total of eight home ranges (see Figure 3) were delineated. All eight of these 

home ranges contain sufficient nesting and feeding habitat to support a breeding pair of pileated 

woodpeckers. Portions of some home ranges extend beyond the wildlife analysis area due to the spatial 

distribution of existing nesting habitat and to more accurately represent existing conditions and potential 

effects. When needed to determine viability of these home ranges, conditions outside of the analysis 

area were considered.

Habitat suitability models were used to identify potential suitable habitat. Then a subset of potential 

habitat was field checked to ensure habitat suitability models depict habitat on the ground (WL-2, WL-3).

TSMRS/FSVeg data and habitat values based on the HSI models (USDA 1990) were used to identify 

potentially suitable habitat and assess the potential for effects (WL-3, WL-11). The analysis displays a 

comparison of potential effects on hypothetical home ranges using habitat associations based on 

literature descriptions of habitat and index values from the HSI model (WL-21). Field review was

conducted to verify the habitat associations used for the analysis (WL-2, WL-3). 

The analysis methodology for determining potential effects on pileated woodpeckers involved mapping 

old growth and mature forest stands (i.e. suitable nesting habitat) in the wildlife analysis area and 

delineating hypothetical 1,000-acre home ranges based on the distribution of suitable nesting 

stands/groups of stands (Figure 3).

Based on relative habitat values and the acres of suitable nesting habitat a home range should have 

(USDA 1990, WL-21), areas with at least 100 acres of contiguous mature and/or old growth forest habitat 

and an additional contiguous 100 acres of immature/sawtimber size tree habitat were identified as having 

sufficient suitable habitat.

Once home ranges with suitable nest stands were identified, the suitability of surrounding stands in the 

home range to provide adequate feeding habitat was evaluated. Within each home range at least 500 

acres of sawtimber/mature sawtimber forest and/or immature sawtimber habitat is needed to provide 

adequate feeding habitat (USDA 1990). Potential impacts on suitable habitat were then determined for 

each home range. 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

30

Figure 3 – Pileated Woodpecker Hypothetical Home Ranges

Affected Environment

No broadcast surveys for pileated woodpeckers were completed in the Bussel 484 project area. A 

pileated woodpecker was observed by wildlife personnel while conducting goshawk surveys in the south 

east portion of the project area (SWL-6). A pileated woodpecker was also observed near the north 

boundary of the project area (WL-44). 

In addition to the sightings of pileated woodpeckers pileated foraging sign was located throughout the 

project area. Wildlife personnel conducting pileated woodpecker habitat surveys found 11 out of 30 

(37%) stands surveyed showed sign of pileated woodpecker foraging (WL-2). Pileated foraging sign is 

unique in appearance and differs from other woodpeckers (Bull et al 1990). In a report outlining pileated 

woodpecker surveys conducted by the Coeur d’Alene Audubon Society on the IPNF in 2003, it was noted 

that pileated woodpecker responses correlated very tightly with observations of pileated foraging sign 

(Coeur d’Alene Audubon 2003).

The pileated woodpecker sighting in the project area coupled by foraging evidence in 37% of the stands 

that pileated habitat surveys were conducted shows pileated use of the project area.

Forest Plan standards are being met for old growth across the St. Joe Ranger District and the Forest (see 

the Old Growth Section, FEIS pages 151-154). There are 2,523 acres of allocated old growth in the 

wildlife analysis area. Approximately 23 percent (2,779 acres) of the Bussel 484 Wildlife Analysis Area is 

sawtimber/mature sawtimber – this includes allocated old growth. These stands (along with stands in the 

immature sawtimber size class) provide structure and attributes used by pileated woodpeckers (USDA 

1990; Samson 2006a).
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

31

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There would be no effect on suitable pileated woodpecker nesting habitat or feeding habitat on NFS lands 

within delineated home ranges. 

Alternatives B & C

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives B and C would maintain suitable habitat to support pileated woodpeckers in 7 of the 8 home 

ranges (WL-11).

Proposed seed tree harvest treatment would render unsuitable ≈36 of the existing 109 acres of mature 

suitable nesting habitat in Home Range 4. This would result in insufficient suitable mature/old nesting 

habitat in Home Range 4. 

In Home Range 3, approximately 44 acres of the existing 507 acres of foraging habitat would be impacted 

by partial harvest. Approximately 463 acres of foraging habitat would be maintained as untreated. Due 

to the design features (i.e. snag retention levels), prescriptions (i.e. thinning), pileated woodpecker use of 

areas with 10% forest cover (Samson 2006a), and information that indicates that cavity habitat and 

pileated woodpecker use can be maintained in partially treated stands (Quesnel and Steeger 2002), the 

44 acres of partial harvest would retain their suitability as foraging habitat (albeit at a reduced level) and 

the suitability of the home range would be maintained. 

In Home Range 8, approximately 261 acres of the existing 663 acres of foraging habitat would be 

impacted by partial harvest. Approximately 402 acres of foraging habitat would be maintained as 

untreated. Due to the design features (i.e. snag retention levels), prescriptions (i.e. thinning), pileated 

woodpecker use of areas with 10% forest cover (Samson 2006a), and information that indicates that 

cavity habitat and pileated woodpecker use can be maintained in partially treated stands (Quesnel and 

Steeger 2002), the 261 acres of partial harvest would retain their suitability as foraging habitat (albeit at a 

reduced level) and the suitability of the home range would be maintained. 

Common to All Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

No alternative would harvest existing old growth (see Old Growth, FEIS pages 151-154).

Cumulative Effects

Existing suitable habitat is a result of all past activities and disturbances. There would be no cumulative 

effects associated with this project or analysis area that would jeopardize populations of pileated 

woodpeckers. This is based on the potential effects from this project, the maintenance of existing 

suitable habitat and home ranges in the analysis area, the retention of existing immature sawtimber 

stands that would succeed to suitable habitat, compliance with the Forest Plan standards for old growth

(to provide for viable populations of old-growth dependant and MIS), the abundance and distribution of 

nest site habitat and winter forage habitat across Region 1 and the IPNF (Samson 2006b), and the 

pileated woodpecker population trend is increasing (Appendix A).

Consequently, none of the alternatives would likely result in appreciable adverse habitat modification or a 

perceptible change in populations of pileated woodpeckers.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

32

In the analysis area at least 40% of NFS lands would progress naturally from immature sawtimber forest 

to sawtimber/mature sawtimber size classes over time. This represents 70% of the existing immature 

sawtimber size class (Table 9). These areas would increase (over 10+ years) the potential suitable 

habitat and the number of home ranges.

It is expected that the majority of non-NFS land surrounding the project and analysis area would be 

actively managed; and therefore, no stands would remain in the sawtimber/mature sawtimber size class 

for any appreciable length of time before being treated. NFS lands would provide the vast majority of 

mature/old forest with non-NFS lands being in younger successional stages.

Based on the best available science summarized in the Management Indicator Species Considerations 

for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Appendix A), the pileated woodpecker population trend is 

increasing and their habitat appears to be abundant and well-distributed across the Region. The IPNF 

contains far more than enough large snag habitat than required by the Forest Plan and recommended by 

the scientific literature to support a minimum viable population of pileated woodpeckers. Pileated 

woodpeckers and their foraging sign are commonly seen and documented across the Forest. See 

Appendix A for more information on pileated woodpeckers.

Pileated Woodpecker Comparison of Alternatives

Table 9 displays the existing condition and potential effects on pileated woodpecker home ranges. For 

analysis purposes regeneration harvest would result in unsuitable nesting and foraging habitat and partial 

harvest would maintain the suitability of habitat at a reduced value (Samson 2006a). 

Table 9 – Pileated Woodpecker Habitat by Hypothetical Home Range

Home 

Range

Existing Alternatives B & C

Mature/Old

Nesting Foraging

Suitable Un-impacted

Mature/Old

Nesting Foraging

Mature/Old

Nesting Foraging

1 172* 615 156* 599 139 511

2 307 792 298 762 298 762

3 308 507 308 507 308 463

4 109* 921 73 799 73 665

5 313 899 275 862 238 680

6 260 906 247 893 235 681

7 437 653 414 620 382 586

8 322 663 308 574 295 402

* Sufficient additional immature sawtimber acres available to provide sufficient suitable nesting habitat

Species Commonly Hunted, Fished, or Trapped

The species listed under species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped represent important economic 

species that are of common public interest and are monitored by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game

(IDFG). IDFG is responsible for setting the harvest regulations for the species in this category. By having 

populations that support harvest levels, viability is not a concern for these species. The data source for 

monitoring these species comes from IDFG (Forest Plan, p. IV-11).
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

33

Elk

The MIS section has been broken into two categories and elk have been moved into the MIS – species 

commonly hunted section. Effects analysis for elk is located on pages 264 through 266 of the FEIS. 

There are no changes to the anticipated effects for any alternative. 

Moose

The MIS section has been broken into two categories and moose have been moved into the MIS –

species commonly hunted section. There is still no need for further analysis on moose, see page 248 of 

the FEIS for rationale. 

Other Wildlife Species

Species Commonly Hunted, Fished, or Trapped

Marten

The Marten section in the FEIS on pages 274 through 276 is replaced by the analysis of marten 

that follows.

Although marten were not specifically identified as MIS in the Forest Plan, they are identified as a species 

that is commonly hunted, fished, or trapped on the Forest. Marten are ranked G5 globally and S5 in 

Idaho, which is defined as “Secure: common, widespread, and abundant” (IDFG 2005). Current marten 

information from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game indicates the species is stable throughout north 

Idaho and there continues to be a marten trapping season (IDFG 2008). Based on their population status 

and their identification as a species commonly hunted, fished or trapped, viability is not a concern for 

marten.

The effects of the project on marten are discussed and the appropriate management of their habitat is 

addressed. Due to some overlap in their habitat associations with fisher (Ruggiero and others 1994), the 

effects to the portion of marten habitat that is similar can be ascertained by referring to the fisher analysis 

(e.g. lower elevation, late-successional, mesic). However, suitable marten habitat encompasses a 

broader spectrum of habitats than fisher based on the scientific literature (Ruggiero and others 1994, 

Samson 2006a), including stands with smaller diameter trees and a more open canopy. Additionally, 

marten have been shown to use higher elevation habitats and areas with more snow depth than are used 

by fisher (Ruggiero and others 1994, pers. comm. Albrecht 2011). Consequently, based on their broader 

habitat associations than fisher, marten habitat is more abundant (Bush and Lundberg 2008) and does 

not appear to be limiting across the landscape. Based on DNA and remote camera surveys conducted 

over the past seven years in North Idaho (e.g. over 400 verified marten detections), marten appear to be 

abundant and well-distributed across the Forest1

Affected Environment

.

In 2007, eight forest carnivore bait stations were placed in the Bussel 484 project area; no martens were 

detected at that time (Albrecht and Heusser 2009). In 2008, wildlife personnel on the St. Joe set 12 forest 

carnivore bait stations within the Bussel 484 project area. One marten was detected in the Bussel 484

project area (SWL-4). 

 1 The marten data for this figure was provided by the Coeur d'Alene Tribe as a courtesy and are not on file with the 

USDA Forest Service.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

34

For the Bussel 484 Project area, all stands that have an average d.b.h. of 9 inches or greater are 

considered potential habitat. Approximately 80% (9,803 acres) of the project area is potential marten 

habitat (Table 10). 

Table 10 – Existing Marten Habitat in the Bussel 484 Project Area

Size/Structure Existing Acres

Percent of the 

Landscape

Sawtimber/Mature Sawtimber 2,779 23%

Immature Sawtimber 7,024 57%

Total 9,803 80%

The landscape surrounding the analysis area to the southwest and west around to the northeast is 

primarily non-NFS land that does not or likely will not provide much mature or late successional forest 

within the foreseeable future.

Impacted riparian zones also affect existing marten habitat. See the section on riparian habitat (FEIS 

pages 253 – 254) for further discussion on effects on riparian habitat.

Trapping-vulnerability risk has been cited as one of the factors affecting forest carnivores in Idaho 

(Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). However, human impacts (e.g. roads) have not been significant variables 

in regional-scale models (Carroll and others 2001). Roads are correlated with trapping vulnerability and 

human disturbance. In areas having marten trapping seasons road densities greater than or equal to 1 

mi/mi2 road densities have a high risk to trapping vulnerability for fisher. It should be noted that marten 

are legally trapped in Idaho. 

Roads and trails used by motorized vehicles have the greatest impact on wildlife (Wisdom and others 

2004; Gaines and others 2003) and provide the most access for trapping. The existing motorized 

road/trail density in the Bussel 484 Wildlife Analysis Area is 3.4 mi/mi2

.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

This alternative would not alter existing marten habitat or change trapping vulnerability.

Alternatives B & C

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives B and C would reduce marten habitat in the project area by approximately 399 acres (4%). 

However, 76% (9,404 acres) of the project area would still provide potential marten habitat. The 

alternatives could shift marten use patterns within the project area, but 76% of the project area would

remain habitat and available for martens.

Alternatives B and C would reduce trapping vulnerability within the project area. Although road densities

would be reduced in Alternatives B & C, they would remain at a level considered a high risk to trapping 

vulnerability. 

Common to All Alternatives

Cumulative Effects

As stated above: Based on marten population status and their identification as a species commonly 

hunted, fished or trapped, viability is not a concern for marten. Marten habitat is abundant (Bush and 
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

35

Lundberg 2008) and does not appear to be limiting across the landscape. Based on DNA and remote 

camera surveys conducted over the past seven years in North Idaho (e.g. over 400 verified marten 

detections, including the detection in the Bussel 484 project area), marten appear to be abundant and 

well-distributed across the Forest.

Existing suitable habitat is a result of all past activities and disturbances which include those discussed in 

the FEIS on pages 43-49. Succession of immature sawtimber stands would at some undetermined future 

date result in a minimum of 76% of the analysis area in mature/sawtimber. This would meet the criteria 

for a high-quality subdrainage. Road density would remain at a level considered a high risk to trapping 

vulnerability, but human-impacts (e.g. roads) have not been significant variables in regional-scale models 

(Carroll and others 2001). In all action alternatives road/trail densities would be reduced.

Marten - Comparison of Alternatives

Table 11 – Comparison of Alternatives on Marten Habitat

Size/Structure

Alternative A

Acres (%)

Alternatives B & C

Acres (%)

Sawtimber/Mature Sawtimber 2,779 (23%) 2,613 (21%)

Immature Sawtimber 7,024 (57%) 6,791 (55%)

Total 9,803 (80%) 9,404 (76%)

Table 12 – Comparison of Alternatives on Road Densities

Road/Trail Density

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

3.4 2.2 2.1
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

36

Index

A

American peregrine falcon, 11, 15

B

bald eagle, 11, 15, 3, 4

beneficial uses, 6, 8

black swift, 11, 15

black-backed woodpecker, 11, 15, 22, 27

brook trout, 6, 3

bull trout, 1, 5, 6

C

Canada lynx, 11, 12

cavity/snag habitat, 12

Coeur d'Alene salamander, 11, 15

common loon, 11, 15

critical habitat, 5, 13

crown fire, 2

culvert, 8

cutthroat trout, 6, 7, 8

E

Elk, 12, 22, 31, 38

F

Federal Register, 3

fire exclusion, 4

fire management plan, 1, 2

fire protection, 4

fire suppression, 4

fire use, 4

fires, 4, 6, 4, 12

fish migration barrier, 7

fisher, 1, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 31, 32

fisheries, 1

flammulated owl, 11, 15, 22, 27

floods, 6

forest composition, 4

forest landbird, 12

forest structure, 12, 17, 18, 27

fringed myotis, 11, 15

G

glochidia, 7

goshawk, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28

gray wolf, 11, 12, 15

greater yellow lady’s slipper, 1, 10

grizzly bear, 11, 12

ground-based logging, 7

H

habitat-as-proxy, 1

harlequin duck, 11, 15

Hudson's bulrush, 1, 10

I

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 16, 30, 31

insects, 20, 21

K

Kootenai River white sturgeon, 5

L

large woody debris, 7, 8, 2

long-eared myotis, 1, 11, 19

long-legged myotis, 1, 11, 19, 20

M

management indicator species, 1, 5, 10, 21

marten, 12, 31, 32, 33

migration barriers, 7, 8

moose, 12, 22, 31

motorized vehicles, 7, 17, 32

mussel, 6, 7, 8

N

non-native species, 6

North American wolverine, 11, 15, 21

northern bog lemming, 11, 15

northern goshawk, 11, 22

O

old growth, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29

P

pealshell mussels, 6, 7, 8

pileated woodpecker, 11, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

pools, 6, 8, 2

prescribed fire, 4

public involvement, 1, 2

pygmy nuthatch, 11, 15
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS

37

R

riparian habitat, 12

riparian habitat conservation area, 8, 20, 21

road construction, 7, 18

road decommissioning, 4

road densities, 7, 16, 17

S

sediment, 6, 7, 8

sensitive species, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 19

St. Joe River, 7

stream temperatures, 8

T

threatened and endangered species, 1

timber, 20, 21

Townsend's big-eared bat, 11, 15

W

western pearlshell mussel, 1, 6, 7, 8

western toad, 11, 15

westslope cutthroat trout, 6, 7

wildfire, 2, 4

wildfire management, 2

wildlife analysis area, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28

woodland caribou, 11, 12

woodpeckers, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
38

Bibliography

Albrecht, N. and C. Heusser. 2009. Detecting the Presence of Fishers and Lynx on the Ceded Territory of the 

Coeur d A’lene Tribe. Natural Resource Department of the Coeur d A’lene Tribe. 36p.

Albrecht, N. 2011. Personal communication; Email correspondence with J. Madison. March 21, 2011.

Arnett, E. and J. Hayes. 2009. Use of Conifer Snags as Roosts by Female Bats in Western Oregon. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 73(2):214-225.

Brewer, L. T., R. Bush, J. E. Canfield, A. R. Dohmen. 2007. Northern Goshawk Northern Region Overview: Key 

Findings and Project Considerations. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 57 pp. 

Bull, E. L., R. S. Holthausen and M. G. Henjum. 1990. Techniques for monitoring pileated woodpeckers. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-269. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

13 pp.

Bull, E. L., and J. E. Jackson. 1995. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In The Birds of North America, 

No. 148 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American 

Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D. C. 

Bush, R. and R. Lundberg. 2008. Wildlife habitat estimates updates for the Region One Conservation Assessment: 

Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report 08-04 v1.0.

Carroll, Carlos, Reed F. Noss, and Paul C. Paquet. 2001. Carnivores as Focal Species for Conservation Planning in 

the Rocky Mountain Region. Ecological Applications 11(4) pp. 961-980

Coeur d’Alene Audubon. 2003. Pileated woodpecker survey report. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 17 pp.

FSM 2630.3. Forest Service Manual 2630.3, WO Amendment 2600-90-1, June 1, 1990. (Policy).

Forest Service Manual 2670-2671, WO Amendment 2600-2005-1, September 23, 2005. (Policy).

FSM 2672.4. Forest Service Manual 2672.24b-2676.17c, WO Amendment 2600-2009-1, July 24, 2009. (Policy).

Frest, Terrence J. 1999. A review of the land and freshwater mollusks of Idaho. Prepared for Idaho Conservation 

Data Center. Boise, Idaho. December 15, 1999. 

Gaines, W. L., P. H. Singleton, and R. C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes 

on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 79p.

Heinemeyer, K.S., and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher Biology and Management in the Western United States; a literature 

review and adaptive management strategy (version 1.2). U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Northern Region and Interagency 

Forest Carnivore Working Group.

Howard, Jeanette K. and Kurt M. Cuffey. 2003. Freshwater mussels in a California North Coast Range river: 

occurrence, distribution, and controls. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. Vol. 22, No. 1. March 

2003. pp. 63-77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1467978.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS - Bibliography

39

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Idaho 

Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2008. Furbearers Report. Project W-170-R-32. Boise, ID. 32pp.

Jepsen, Sarina, Caitlin LaBar, and Jennifer Zarnock. 2011. Species profile: western pearlshell (Margaritifera 

falcata). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Johnson, J. M. Lacki, and M. Baker. 2007. Foraging Ecology of Long-legged Myotis (Myotis volans) in Northcentral Idaho. Journal of Mammalogy. 88(5):1261-1270.

Kennedy, P.L. (2003, January 2). Northern Goshowk (Accipiter gentilies atricapillus): a technical conservation 

assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf

Mousseaux, Mark, R. 1995. unpublished TES Plant habitat queries. December 4, 1995. 8pp.

Nixon, A., J. Gruver, and R. Barclay. 2009. Spatial and temporal patterns of roost use by western long-eared bats 

(Myotis evotis). Am. Midl. Nat. 162:139-147.

Quesnel, H.J. and C. Steeger. 2002. Stand Structure Retention in Old-growth Forests of the Rocky Mountain 

Trench: Final Report. Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Project. Invermere Forest District, Invermere, B.C.

Rancourt, S., M. Rule, and M. O’Connell. 2005. Maternity roost site selection of long-eared myotis, Myotis evotis. 

Journal of Mammology 86:77-84.

Reynolds, R.T.; Graham, R.T.; Reiser, M. H.; and others. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern 

Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90p.

Romin, S., and W. Bosworth. 2010. Northern Region Bat Species Occurrences in Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. Boise, ID. 65 pp. 

Ruediger, Bill, Jim Claar, Steve Gniadek, Bryon Holt, Lyle Lewis, Steve Mighton, Bob Naney, Gary Patton, Tony 

Rinaldi, Joel Trick, Anne Vandehey, Fred Wahl, Nancy Warren, Dick Wenger, and Al Williamson. 2000. Canada 

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau 

of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 

pp.

Ruggiero, L.F., et. al. tech. eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, 

Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins CO: USDA, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski (tech. eds.). 1994. The Scientific basis for 

conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. General 

Technical Report RM-GTR-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Fort Collins, CO. 184 pp.

Samson, F.B. 2006a. A Conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated 

owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report on file, Northern 

Region, Missoula, Montana, USA.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS - Bibliography

40

Samson, F.B. 2006b. Habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of the northern goshawk, black-backed 

woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten and fisher. Unpublished report. USDA 

Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.

Stagliano, David, M., George M. Stephens and William R. Bosworth. 2007. Aquatic Invertebrate Species of 

Concern on USFS Northern Region Lands. Report to USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Montana Natural 

Heritage Program, Helena, Montana and Idaho Conservation Data Center, Boise, Idaho. 95 pp. plus appendices. 

USDA. 2011. PLANTS database. May 2, 2011. http://plants.usda.gov/java/.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Forest Plan – Idaho Panhandle National Forest. Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

USDA Forest Service Northern Region. 1990. Old-Growth Habitat and Associated Wildlife Species in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains, Northern Region Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Northern Region Snag Management Protocol. Missoula, Montana. 

USDA, Forest Service. 2007. Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction record of Decision and Attachment. 

Northern, Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Regions. 67 p.

USDA, Forest Service. 2008a. Bussel 484 Final Environmental Impact Statement. St. Joe Ranger District. Idaho 

Panhandle National Forest. 286pp.

USDA, Forest Service. 2008b. USDA, Forest Service. 2008. Recent Changes to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species List. Missoula, Montana. 2p.

USDA, Forest Service. 2011. USFS Region 1 Sensitive Species List Update. Missoula, Montana. 6 p.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Amended through the 108th Congress. 

Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington DC. . [Available online] 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ESA/content.html [07 January 2008].

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a. Biannual Species List for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. FWS 

reference No. 1-9-09-SP-0035 February 11, 2009. 3 p.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2009b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada lynx; Final Rule. 

February 25, 2009. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 36: p. 8616-8702.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of 

critical habitat for bull trout in the coterminous United States; Final rule. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 200. 

Monday, October 18, 2010: p. 63898-64070.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2010a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of 

Protections for the Gray Wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains in Compliance With a Court Order; Final Rule. 

October 26, 2010. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 206: p. 65574-65579.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2010b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened. December 14, 2010. Federal Register

Vol. 75, No. 239: p. 78030-78061.
Bussel 484 Draft Supplemental EIS - Bibliography

41

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: reissuance of final rule to 

identify the Northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf as a distinct population segment and to revise the list 

of endangered and threatened wildlife. Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 87. Thursday, May 5, 2011: p. 25590-25592.

Wisdom, Michael J., A.A. Ager, H.K. Preisler, N.J. Cimon, and B.K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of Off-road 

Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 

69:531-550
42

List of Preparers

Name Education Experience Project Duties

Kim Frymire BS Biology w/ Botany Emphasis 13 years Sensitive Plants

Lisa Hawdon BS Biology 23 years Fisheries

Western Pearlshell Mussels

Kris Hennings BS Wildlife Resources 23 years Wildlife

Lynette Myhre BS Forest Resource Management 23 years

IDT Leader

Writer/Editor

Fire Management Direction

List of Agencies, Organizations, and People to Whom Copies 

of the SEIS are Sent

Native American Tribes:

Coeur d’Alene Tribe

Elected Officials:

Benewah County Commissioners

Shoshone County Commissioners

Agencies:

Bonneville Power Administration

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Activities

Environmental Protection Agency Region 10

Idaho Dept of Environmental Quality Surface Water Section

Idaho Dept Fish and Game

Idaho Dept of Parks & Recreation

USDA Forest Service Ecosystem Management Coordination

USDA National Agricultural Library

USDA Office of Civil Rights

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service

USDI Office of Environmental Affairs

Organizations:

Alliance for the Wild Rockies

American Wildlands

Center for Biological Diversity

Defenders of Wildlife

Friends of the Clearwater

Idaho Conservation League

Kootenai Environmental Alliance

The Lands Council

Wildwest Institute

Universities:

Colorado State University

University of Idaho

Individuals:

Dick Artley

Dennis Baird

Doug Blevins

Vic & Robbie Castleberry

Mike Drew

Sandy Emerson

Chad Farrell

Cindy Fisher

Win Flanigan

J. Wesley Goodwin

Kyle Hawley

Jerry Hugo

Jeff Juel

Tony Livingson

Mark Lowrey

Roger Martinson

Hubert Nett

Krista Parkins

Wade & Sue Parkin

Blair Peet

B Sachau

Gary Schwatz

Mitch Silvers

Neil Smith

Dave Spicer

Ed Spooner

Mark Tihonovich

John Walters

Businesses:

Bennett Lumber Products Inc.

Regulus Stud Mill

Stimson Lumber
April 21, 2011

Appendix A-1

Appendix A

Management Indicator Species Considerations 

for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Introduction

The purpose of this white paper is to provide recommendations for analyzing management indicator species (MIS) 

on projects on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests in light of recent court decisions; Native Ecosystems Council et 

al v. Leslie Weldon (Case:06-35890) and Lands Council v. Jane Cottrell (Case:2:09-CV-164-EJL-REB). 

Background

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to provide for and 

maintain diversity of plant and animal communities to meet overall multiple-use objectives stated in the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987). We must also comply with the 2004 

interpretive rule that requires the responsible official to “consider the best available science in implementing ... the 

plan” (36 CFR 219.35(a)). Lastly, the IPNF Forest Plan currently provides that we maintain at least minimum 

viable populations of management indicator species distributed throughout the Forest (Forest Plan, p. II-28).

These requirements are not new; our NEPA analyses have always required a sound technical basis. Projects 

proposed and carried out must show consideration of “best available science”, be consistent with the forest plan, and 

support maintaining diversity of plant and animal communities. 

Management Indicator Species Overview

The 1982 planning rule provided direction for implementing the NFMA when the Idaho Panhandle National Forests 

Forest Plan was adopted in 1987. The 1982 rule directed forests to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain 

viable populations and directed forests to select MIS as a method to help ensure species viability (36 CFR 219.19).

MIS were defined as “plant and animal species, communities, or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning, 

and which are monitored during forest plan implementation in order to assess the effects of management activities 

on their populations and the populations of other species with similar habitat needs which they may represent” (FSM 

2620.5). The role of MIS and the criteria to select MIS were described in 36 CFR 219.19 (a)(1) of the 1982 rule as 

follows:

In order to estimate the effects of each [Forest Plan] alternative on fish and wildlife populations, certain vertebrate 

and/or invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as management indicator species and 

the reasons for their selection will be stated. These species shall be selected because their population changes are 

believed to indicate the effects of management activities. In the selection of management indicator species, the 

following categories shall be represented where appropriate: Endangered and threatened plant and animal species 

identified on State and Federal lists for the planning area; species with special habitat needs that may be influenced 

significantly by planned management programs; species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped; non-game species of 

special interest; and additional plant or animal species selected because their population changes are believed to 

indicate the effects of management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on water 

quality.
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 2

Forest Plan Direction for MIS

Wildlife Goals

The Forest Plan identified goals which are concise statements directed to the future, with no timeline or specific date 

attached. Specific goals related to MIS are as follows:

• Provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities (Forest Plan, p II-1-A(8)).

• Manage vertebrate wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of all species (Forest Plan, p. II-1-A(9)).

• Manage big game habitat toward achieving the goals of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Forest Plan, p

II-1-A(10)).

Wildlife Objectives

The Forest Plan identified objectives that are time specific, measurable, and respond to the goals stated above. 

Objectives are limited by budget. Specific objectives related to MIS are as follows:

To help provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities, habitats, and species, standards for old 

growth maintenance will be established. Approximately 10 percent of the Forest will be maintained in old 

growth...to provide for viable populations of old-growth dependent and management indicator species

(Forest Plan, p. II-5(g)).

Habitat for vertebrate populations, other than TES, will be managed to maintain viable populations 

(greater than 40 percent of maximum potential). In order to maintain viable populations of all species, 

the habitat will be managed for selected indicator species. Habitat for species harvested (big game, small 

game, and furbearers), except elk, will be managed to meet goals outlined by the Regional Guides (Forest 

Plan, p. II-5(g)).

Wildlife Standards

The Forest Plan identified standards, when used with prescriptions for the management area (MA); these standards 

set the overall management direction for the IPNF. Specific standards related to MIS are as follows:

7. Other Wildlife

a. Maintain at least minimum viable populations of management indicator species distributed 

throughout the Forest (see Appendix L for indicator species selection process Forest Plan, p. 

II-28).

b. Maintain habitat for cavity nesting species and foraging substrates by implementation of the 

IPNF Snag and Woody Down Timber Guidelines (Appendix X).

Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation comprise the management control system for the Forest Plan. They provide 

information on the progress and results of implementing the Forest Plan. Monitoring and evaluation 

entail comparing the end results being achieved to those projected in the Plan. When changes occur, they 

will be evaluated as to their significance (Forest Plan, p. IV-7).

Monitoring requirements for this Forest Plan are outlined in Table IV-2 (see Table 13 below). Other 

monitoring items are more applicable to broad areas or are Forest-wide in nature, and will be evaluated 

from such sources as the data base, Forest attainment reports, public involvement processes, and nonForest Service sources. These items include: ...F-1 (wildlife)... (Forest Plan, p. IV-8).

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is identified in the Forest Plan as the data source for monitoring 

population trends of MIS on the Forest. However, IDFG focuses their monitoring efforts mostly on commonly 

hunted, fished or trapped species and information from IDFG regarding other MIS is limited. Consequently, 

population trend information for MIS other than those commonly hunted, fished or trapped consists of the best 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 3

available science drawn from a variety of sources such as Forest Service inventorying and monitoring information,

scientific papers, research, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state natural heritage programs, NatureServe, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, Avian Science Center and others.

Table 13. – Copy of Table IV-2 Monitoring Requirements from IPNF Forest Plan p. IV-11 for Wildlife 

item F-1 only

Standards, Practices, 

Activities, Outputs or 

Effects to be Monitored

Data 

source

Estimated 

Precision

Expected 

Reliability

Frequency of 

Measurement

Reporting 

period

Threshold to 

initiate further 

action

WILDLIFE

Population trends of 

indicator species

State Fish 

and Game

Moderate Moderate Annually 5 years Downward 

population 

trends

Forest Plan MIS Selection

Important characteristics used for selecting MIS in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Forest Plan were: they 

were considered to be sensitive to management activities, they were capable of being effectively monitored, habitat 

requirements could be quantitatively assessed on the gross scale of Forest planning, and they were larger, more 

wide-ranging species rather than smaller animals. The assumption was that component elements of the habitat of 

large animals would produce viable populations of smaller animals (Forest Plan, p. L-2). 

Under the 1987 Idaho Panhandle National Forests Forest Plan, Appendix L identified a total of 13 potential MIS that 

had documented presence on the IPNF (Forest Plan p. L-3). Of these 13 species, 11 were actually selected as IPNF 

MIS (Forest Plan, p. L-4 through L-6). Table 14 lists potential indicator species with documented presence on the 

IPNF and shows with a check mark those species that were selected as MIS in the 1987 Forest Plan. 

Table 14. – Selecting Indicator Species on the IPNF – Documented Presence on IPNF

Threatened or endangered 

species on federal or state lists

Species commonly hunted, 

fished, or trapped which have 

special habitat needs that are 

affected by planned 

management activities

Other species whose 

population changes are 

believed to indicate effects of 

management activities on a 

major biological group or on 

water quality

Bald Eagle

Grizzly Bear

Woodland caribou

Gray Wolf

Elk

White-tailed deer

Moose

Marten

Cutthroat trout

Rainbow trout

Bull trout

Pileated woodpecker

Goshawk

 Indicates that the species was selected by the IPNF and reason for selection is identified in the Forest Plan on pages L-4 

through L-6

Those species listed under threatened or endangered are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and by 

definition have viability concerns. The Idaho Panhandle National Forests is committed to ensuring their protection 

and recovery through compliance with ESA and the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, pp.II-27-28, III-7-16, IV-8-11, V-3, 

Appendix N, U, and W).

Bald Eagle population trends increased over time, recovery goals were met and this species was delisted in 2008, 

and is now designated as a regional sensitive species. Grizzly bear and woodland caribou continue to be federally 

listed. Gray wolf was not selected as a MIS; however, this species has been included as an MIS in past Forest Plan 

monitoring reports because of its federally listed status. The population trend of this species in North Idaho is 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 4

increasing. Bull trout, a species that was originally chosen because it was commonly fished for, was listed as 

threatened under ESA in 1998.

The species listed under species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped represent important economic species that are 

of common public interest and are monitored by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. IDFG is responsible for 

setting the harvest regulations for the species in this category. By having populations that support harvest levels, 

viability is not a concern for these species. The data source for monitoring these species comes from IDFG (Forest 

Plan, p. IV-11). 

Elk, white-tailed deer, and moose continue to be commonly hunted in North Idaho. Population trends for elk and 

white-tailed deer are stable to increasing (IDFG 2008a, IDFG 2008b); while the population trend for moose is 

increasing (IDFG 2008c). Federal listing of westslope cutthroat trout was determined to be “not warranted” in 2000 

and 2003. This species continues to be commonly fished for in North Idaho. Cutthroat trout population trends on 

the IPNF overall tend to be stable to increasing (USDA Forest Service 2010a). The vast majority of rainbow trout 

found on the IPNF are non-natives. There is no longer legal harvest of bull trout; however, overall population trends 

on the IPNF are stable to increasing, except in the Priest River drainage (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

Marten are listed under the heading of species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped yet they were not selected as an 

Idaho Panhandle National Forests indicator species (see Table 14). Although marten were not specifically identified 

as an MIS in the Forest Plan, the IPNF has treated them as one in the past. The IPNF will no longer identify marten 

as MIS, but will continue to analyze the effects of projects on marten as a species that is commonly hunted, fished, 

or trapped. 

Marten are ranked G5 globally and S5 in Idaho, which is defined as “Secure: common, widespread, and abundant” 

(IDFG 2005). Current marten information from Idaho Fish and Game indicates the species to be stable throughout 

North Idaho and there continues to be a trapping season on them (IDFG 2008d). 

Species included under other species whose population changes are believed to indicate effects of management 

activities on a major biological group or on water quality are listed because it was thought that their populations 

would be affected by management activities at the forest level, not at the project level. These species are pileated 

woodpecker and northern goshawk. While these species met some of the characteristics for selecting MIS, they pose 

difficulty in surveying and monitoring on a meaningful basis and may not respond to direct habitat changes locally 

but rather are influenced by many other factors such as predation, weather and competition. 

The reasons for selection of pileated woodpecker and northern goshawk stated in Appendix L of the 1987 Forest 

Plan are as follows:

G. Pileated woodpecker

1. Pileated woodpeckers are the largest primary excavator in the IPNF. They are dependent on large snags for 

nesting sites. Although past fires have left a temporary abundance of snags on the IPNF, standard logging 

practice is to cut these snags. As more of the forest comes under timber management, available and suitable 

nest trees may be severely reduced.

2. Pileated woodpeckers are also generally regarded as old-growth indicators because of their dependence on large 

old snags for nesting and downed logs for feeding. Snags and down rotten logs are characteristic elements of 

decadent stands.

3. A wide variety of small mammals and birds are dependent on holes excavated by pileated woodpeckers for 

denning or nesting.
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 5

H. Goshawk

4. Goshawks are proposed as indicators of old-growth habitats. Goshawks prefer multi-layered mature and oldgrowth stands of about 30 acres on flattish, northern aspects for nesting.

5. Despite their preference for nesting in old-growth stands, goshawks feed largely on seral species. Thus, they 

are more diverse and interspersion dependent than pileated woodpeckers.

It is important to note that the IPNF no longer conducts timber harvest or any other management that removes 

allocated old growth stands and has not done so for many years (USDA Forest Service 2010a). However, old 

growth distribution is not static because forests are living, dying and changing as part of natural communities. 

Disturbances such as fire, insects, disease and weather events may reduce the amount of old growth in some areas 

while other areas will grow and age into old growth. The IPNF contains almost 700,000 acres of mature forest 

(canopy dominated by trees over 100 years old), substantial amounts of which have the potential to develop into old 

growth in the next few decades (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

Equally important to note is that in contrast to what was stated in the 1987 Forest Plan, snag removal is no longer a 

standard logging practice. In fact, design features based on Regional guidance, such as the Northern Region Snag 

Management Protocol (USDA Forest Service 2000) and the Estimates of Snag Densities for Northern Idaho Forests 

(Bollenbacher et al. 2009) have greatly improved the retention of quality snags and live trees to serve as future 

snags. Specifications contained in timber sale contracts also typically require the retention of all or most snags, 

particularly large diameter ones, except those needing to be removed for safety purposes due to Occupational Health 

and Safety Administration (OSHA) guidelines. Additionally, any larger snags felled per OSHA guidelines must be 

left on site after they are felled, which provides large downed logs needed for pileated woodpecker foraging and 

habitat for northern goshawk prey species. 

The remainder of this paper centers on the northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker.

Management Indicator Species Step Down Process

General Considerations

The Ninth Circuit Court has upheld the use of habitat analysis to determine the effects on species from management 

activities (Lands Council v. McNair). Wildlife surveys conducted within project areas are designed to document 

species presence, rather than abundance. MIS status is a Forest-level evaluation that requires reconciling disparities 

in the geographic scale between the management actions and the scale of ecological and species-specific responses. 

For instance, population viability and trend information is not scientifically feasible, or even appropriate, at smaller 

scales such as a project area, particularly for species with relatively large home ranges such as the northern goshawk

and pileated woodpecker (Beissinger 2002, Samson 2006a). Instead, the IPNF uses habitat as a proxy for population 

data of MIS, and MIS habitat suitability assessments are conducted within project areas. 

In addition, species presence surveys do not determine absence of a species. Many variables impact the ability to 

detect a species even if they are present such as secretiveness, large home ranges, seasonal detectability, and 

temporal movements of the species (Bull et al. 1990, Woodbridge and Harris 2006). Therefore, again, a more 

meaningful and credible approach in conducting an analysis is to assess habitat suitability based on biophysical 

attributes, using species survey information to help validate suitability of habitats. In many cases, surveys can also 

identify key habitats (e.g., breeding or nesting sites) that can be protected through project design features.

An important concept in discussing habitat suitability for some species is the distinction between capable habitat and 

suitable habitat. Capable habitat refers to the inherent potential of a site to produce the necessary biotic and abiotic 

components to support a given species. Suitable habitat refers to habitat that is currently providing the necessary 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 6

components to support a species. Therefore, habitat that is unsuitable is capable habitat that has the potential to 

develop into a suitable condition, but currently does not meet the habitat requirements for a species. Habitat that is 

not capable has no potential to develop into a suitable condition.

Complex relationships exist among the variables that define the use of suitable habitat by a wildlife species (Pulliam 

2000). Among other factors, the size and configuration of habitat, dispersal ability of individuals and interspecific 

competition can play into the ability of a species to occupy suitable habitat. Consequently, it would not be expected 

that every acre of suitable habitat will be occupied by a particular wildlife species at any given point in time. 

Populations of wildlife species that are abundant and well-distributed across the landscape do not occupy every acre 

of suitable habitat across a variety of spatial scales. For species that are less common, the likelihood of suitable, but 

unoccupied, habitat is high, regardless of population status. 

“Clearly, competition, dispersal, niche size and the distribution of environmental conditions in 

space and time all play some role in determining species distributions in relationship to the 

distribution of suitable habitat” (Pulliam 2000). 

However, this does not diminish the importance of recognizing an area as suitable habitat and managing it 

accordingly. Whether or not the potentially suitable habitat is currently occupied by the species in question, suitable 

habitat may be occupied by that species in the future so it is important to manage, particularly if it is a habitat that is 

limited across the landscape.

The Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1502.2) directs that impacts be discussed in proportion to their 

significance. Some wildlife species require a detailed analysis to determine effects of an action on them. Other 

wildlife species may not be impacted or impacted at a level that does not increase risk to the species. Some species 

may be adequately protected by altering the design of the project. Generally, these species do not require a detailed 

discussion and analysis.

The appropriate methodology and level of analysis needed to determine potential effects are influenced by a number 

of variables including presence of a species or its habitat within the project area, the scope and nature of the 

activities associated with the proposed action and alternatives, and the risk to factors that could ultimately result in a 

meaningful adverse or favorable effect on the species or habitat being analyzed.

National Overview

The northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Executive 

Order 13186 of 2001 clarified the responsibilities of Federal agencies regarding migratory bird conservation, and 

these responsibilities include inventory and monitoring. In December 2008, the Forest Service entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

that further clarified the Forest Service’s commitment to bird conservation during forest and project-level planning 

(USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

Within the National Forest System, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat 

conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for other land 

management activities. National forest managers design and collaborate on projects that provide for bird 

conservation in accordance with numerous laws, agreements and collaboratively-developed comprehensive planning 

documents. As part of the MOU, the Forest Service agreed to consider the most up-to-date Fish and Wildlife 

Service list of Birds of Conservation Concern and to evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds within 

the NEPA process, focusing first on these species of concern along with their priority habitats and key threats. The 

northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker are not on either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s current list of 

Birds of Conservation Concern or Birds of Management Concern for the Northern Rockies, which includes northern 

Idaho (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009).
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 7

In 2004, Partners in Flight published the North American Landbird Conservation Plan to identify birds of concern 

along with recommendations on how to protect these species and their habitat. As part of the Plan, they developed a

Species of Continental Importance in the Intermountain West Avifaunal Biome list, which includes all of Idaho. 

The northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker were not included on the list of over 30 bird species warranting 

special concerns within this region (Partners in Flight 2004). 

Northern Region Overview

In 1990, the Avian Science Center (ASC) designed a monitoring program to help biologists and managers better 

understand the habitat relationships and population trends of landbirds breeding in the Northern Region, including 

northern goshawks and pileated woodpeckers. ASC coordinated efforts to survey birds at permanently marked 

points on an every-other-year basis. Preliminary ASC analyses suggest that most landbird populations have 

remained fairly stable during the 12-year period from 1994 to 2006 (Avian Science Center 2009). 

In 2006, the Northern Region of the Forest Service released a conservation assessment, which included northern 

goshawk and pileated woodpecker, to provide a synthesis on the best available science regarding habitat and 

populations and to analyze the availability of habitat for these species across the region and on the individual Forests 

(Samson 2006a; updated estimates in Bush and Lundberg 2008). The conservation assessment considered peerreviewed literature, non-peer-reviewed publications (particularly master’s theses and PhD dissertations), research 

reports and Forest Service data. Peer-reviewed literature published in professional journals was emphasized where 

possible since they are the accepted standard. Additionally, literature published since 2000 was emphasized since 

these more recent publications review previously published literature and provide for the best available science.

The conservation assessment is based on a principle-based approach to population viability analysis (PVA). This 

method uses point observation data and vegetation inventory information based on the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA) data to build wildlife habitat relationship models to analyze short-term viability (less than 100 years). 

It also discusses the use of dispersal distance to assess the distribution of habitat and long-term viability based on the 

principles of Representation, Redundancy and Resiliency.

The FIA program provides a congressionally mandated, statistically-based, continuous inventory of forest resources. 

The FIA program is administered through the Research branch of the Forest Service, making it administrated 

independently of the National Forest System. FIA inventory design is based on the standardized national grid of 

inventory plots that covers all forested areas of the United States. Both sample plot location and data collection 

standards are strictly controlled by FIA protocols. The sample design and data collection methods are scientifically 

designed, publicly disclosed and repeatable. There are also stringent quality control standards and procedures, 

carried out by FIA personnel. All of this is designed to assure that all measurements are accurate and that there is 

not bias in sample design, plot location, trees selected for measurement or the measurements themselves. Using FIA 

data allows the Forest Service to base habitat condition assessments on an unbiased, statistically sound, 

independently designed and implemented representative dataset. 

FIA data provides statistically reliable estimates at the Regional and Forest levels. Estimates of habitat from FIA 

data provide broad-level cumulative effects information. This information is useful in setting the context for the 

possible effects of a project. However, finer-level vegetation analysis, such as can be done with stand exam data, is 

necessary to quantify and map northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker habitat at the project level using 

parameters similar to those of the FIA model (Samson 2006a). See Samson (2006a) for a detailed description of the 

methods used to determine the amount of habitat available for each species in question.

The Forest Service Northern Region developed these documents to satisfy the requirements of NFMA and Forest 

Service regulations. The Forest Service’s focus for meeting the requirement of NFMA and its implementing 

regulation is to assess habitat and provide species diversity (Brewer et al. 2009).
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 8

Although the Forest Plan requires maintaining minimum viable populations of MIS at the Forest level, larger scale 

inventory and monitoring efforts for MIS population trends and habitat suitability at the regional or ecosystem level 

provide a vital backdrop on which to assess these species. Efforts, such as those described above, undertaken by the 

Forest Service, other governmental agencies (Federal and State) and other organizations (e.g. Partners in Flight) 

provide the best possible accumulation of information for determining the population trends for a species by 

providing a broad context. They are also better able to account for broader scale ecosystem functions such as 

disturbance processes (e.g. insect and disease outbreaks) and climate change.

Forest Overview

The IPNF considers Samson (2006a, 2006b, and updated habitat estimates in Bush and Lundberg 2008) to be the 

best available science addressing viability for northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker for the Northern Region. 

These references are a synthesis and evaluation of available research and information applied to specific 

management questions relevant to this and other agency decisions and management issues. Wildlife analyses on the 

Forest appropriately evaluate and consider works like these, along with more recent research and information (much 

of it peer reviewed), in analyzing and disclosing potential effects of the proposed actions on these species. The 

analyses use a variety of reliable sources of information including peer-reviewed literature, published reports, 

monitoring of the Forest Plan and specific projects, General Technical Reports from the Forest Service research 

branch, and conservation strategies that are based on peer reviewed science and bridge research with resource 

management.

The amount of mature/old growth habitat on the IPNF is within the historic range of variability, albeit on the low 

end of the range (USDA Forest Service 2011), and may represent reduced pileated woodpecker nesting habitat 

compared to historic conditions. More importantly from a goshawk habitat standpoint, the within-stand species 

composition has changed even more substantially from the historic condition, replacing mature stands dominated by 

early seral species with dense stands of mid/late seral species and congested understories that diminish both nesting 

and foraging habitat for goshawks. Additionally, white pine-dominated stands likely made considerable 

contributions to goshawk habitat historically (due to the presence of large-diameter individual trees, continuous 

overstory canopy and relatively open understories), but these stands are all but eliminated from today’s landscape 

due to white pine blister rust (Harvey et al. 2008). 

Many of the stands now dominated by mid/late successional shade-tolerant species are unlikely to mature into old 

growth if left alone due to their susceptibility to insects and disease, and other stands that may still contain remnant 

large early seral fire-adapted individuals have accumulated fuel loads to the point that merely discontinuing fire 

suppression in these stands is more likely to result in a stand-replacing fire than to recreate the more open stand 

conditions dominated by large individuals that existed historically. 

Consequently, it can generally be assumed that northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker nesting habitat was more 

prevalent on the IPNF prior to settlement than it is now due to the clearing of land for agriculture, large scale 

wildfires in 1910, logging, fire suppression, and the introduction of white pine blister rust. Availability of mature 

and old growth forests probably reached its lowest level at some point in the years after the late 1970s, when logging 

reached its peak. Since the late 1980s, the decline in timber harvest has been precipitous. Over the last ten years, 

the IPNF has harvested less than two percent of the forested acres on the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2010b). In 

the early 1990s, timber harvest of old growth effectively ended on the IPNF and the blister rust epidemic had largely 

run its course. The preponderance of forested acres has gradually been maturing since that time.

Based on current FIA data, the estimated percent of old growth on the forested lands of the IPNF is 11.8 percent 

(USDA Forest Service 2010a). Additionally, based on the IPNF’s field examination and assessment at the standlevel to determine how well they meet the old growth definitions in the Forest Plan and Green et al. (2008), the acres 

of mapped stands allocated and retained for old growth on the IPNF is 12.4 percent (USDA Forest Service 2010a). 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 9

The stand-level old growth allocation allows the IPNF to distribute old growth across the Forest and landscapes in 

ways that make ecological sense at the landscape scale.

Northern Goshawk

Background

In 1991 (Babbit et al. 1991, Silver et al. 1991) and in 1997 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998), the northern 

goshawk was petitioned to be listed as threatened or endangered in the western United States. On June 29, 1998 (63 

FR 35183), in response to the 1997 petition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded based on the 

best available science that the listing of the northern goshawk was not warranted because:

• There was no evidence of a declining population trend for goshawks in the western United Sates.

• There was no evidence that goshawk habitat is limiting the population, or that significant curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range is occurring.

• The goshawk continues to be well-distributed throughout its historical range.

• There are no significant areas of extirpation.

• While the goshawk uses stands of mature and older forests it is not dependent on old-growth, and uses a 

variety of forest habitats in meeting its life history requirements.

In 2009, Brewer et al. released a report for the Forest Service Northern Region that summarized the best available 

scientific information about the ecological status of northern goshawks: the estimated amounts and distribution of 

goshawk habitat in Region One (Samson 2006a; estimates updated in Bush and Lundberg 2008); the results of the 

2005 R1 grid-based inventory of the species (Kowalski 2006); and a consistent methodology for conducting habitat 

analysis. The methods used to classify goshawk habitat at multiple-spatial levels follows the architecture supported 

by the R1 Multi-Level Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis System (Berglund et al. 2009). This system 

provides a consistent methodology to classify vegetation dominance type, tree size class and tree canopy cover for 

R1-VMap and data inventory information residing in FSVeg. See Brewer et al. (2009) for a detailed description of 

the methods used.

Species Description and Habitat Associations

The northern goshawk is a forest habitat generalist that uses a wide variety of forest age classes, structural 

conditions and successional stages, inhabiting mixed-conifer forests in much of the northern hemisphere (Reynolds 

et al. 1992). Nesting habitat appears to be the most critical and limiting factor for goshawks. Throughout North 

America, goshawk nest sites have typically been associated with the later stages of succession (mature and old 

growth forests) having relatively closed canopies (50 to 90 percent) with open understories located on the lower onethird or bottom of the hill slope and in most cases in areas with less than a 40 percent slope (Hayward and Escano 

1989, Warren 1990, Squires and Reynolds 1997, Graham et al. 1999). They nest in a variety of forest types 

throughout their range and typically nest in one of the largest trees within the nest stand (Squires and Reynolds 

1997, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, Samson 2006a, Squires and Kennedy 2006). The nest area vegetative 

and structural composition represent a much narrower range of characteristics than the surrounding post-fledgling 

area (PFA) and foraging areas (Brewer et al. 2009). 

In contrast to what is suggested in the Forest Plan, no evidence exists that goshawks depend on large, unbroken 

tracts of mature forest or old growth or that they specifically select for old growth forests (Whitford 1991, USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, McGrath 2003). However, although goshawks are not considered to be old growth 

dependent, old growth can be important for goshawks, not only for prey species habitat, but also for the large trees 

that provide substrate for their substantial nest structures.

The nest area size for goshawks documented in scientific literature ranges from one acre to 148 acres based on local 

conditions and can include multiple alternate nests (Reynolds et al. 1992, Squires and Reynolds 1997, Patla 1997, 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 10

Clough 2000, McGrath et al. 2003). Thirty acres was recommended as the minimum nest stand sizes by Reynolds et 

al. (1992) and was the guideline adhered to by the IPNF for a over a decade. However, based on more recent 

research conducted in Montana and the subsequent recommendations in Brewer et al., nest stands on the IPNF are 

currently delineated at a minimum of 40 acres in size (Clough 2000, Brewer et al. 2009).

Goshawk territories contain a post-fledgling area surrounding the nest site that is used by the family group from the 

time the young fledge until they are no longer dependent on the adults for food (Reynolds et al. 1992, Kennedy et al. 

1994, Kennedy and Ward 2003). The PFA and the home range (which includes the nest area, post-fledgling area 

and foraging area) both contain a more heterogeneous mix of forest age and structural components than the nest area 

itself (Reynolds et al. 1992). The size of the PFA ranges in the literature from 198 acres to 494 acres. The size, 

shape, habitat composition and functional importance of the PFA may vary with local conditions, such as 

disturbance history, prey availability and risk of predation (Squires and Kennedy 2006). 

Research indicates the goshawk home range or foraging area varies depending on prey abundance/availability, 

habitat conditions and other factors, but has been shown to range from approximately 1,400 acres to 8,600 acres 

(Reynolds et al. 1992, Kennedy 2003, Brewer et al. 2009). These areas typically have one to five nest sites within 

them. Based on Brewer et al. (2009), a foraging area size of 5,000 to 6,000 acres is used on the IPNF to delineate 

potential goshawk territories and to provide an adequate cumulative effects area for project-level analysis.

Foraging habitat entails a much wider range of forest age classes and structures that provide a relatively open forest 

environment for unimpeded movement or flight through the understory. One factor influencing goshawk habitat is 

the amount of understory vegetation. Because northern goshawks require a combination of adequate overstory to 

provide prey species and adequate clearance for flight maneuverability, some stands that historically were suitable 

for foraging are no longer suitable due to an increased density of understory vegetation largely as a result of fire 

suppression.

Threats

The primary threats to northern goshawk that may result from forest management activities on public land include a 

reduction in the amount of mature forests and their associated structures (e.g., large-diameter snags and logs) along 

with the transition of older forests from being dominated by shade-intolerant tree species to being dominated by a 

dense structure of shade-tolerant tree species, primarily due to fire exclusion (Wisdom et al. 2000). This increase in 

shade-tolerant species has increased the forest’s susceptibility to stand-replacing fires, and has adversely affected 

habitat suitability by 1) obstructing flight corridors used by goshawks to obtain prey, and 2) reducing herbaceous 

understory that supports prey species (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Fire exclusion, insects, and diseases have changed the species composition and structure of many stands, reducing 

their suitability for goshawk habitat. Some capable habitat on the Forest consists of younger, more immature stands 

that do not contain larger diameter trees used by goshawks for nesting or they are more mature stands, but contain a 

high density of smaller stems in the understory. As the secondary canopy layer becomes more congested, these 

stands lose their effectiveness as goshawk habitat.

The primary threats to the northern goshawk that could occur as a result of activities on private land, thus out of the 

control of the Forest Service, include the conversion of forested habitats to non-forested habitat (e.g. regeneration 

harvest on private timber industry land, conversion of forest habitat to residential or agricultural development) and 

human disturbance in close proximity to goshawk nest sites.

Difficulties in Monitoring

Goshawk detectability is highly variable within a breeding season, and nest sites can be difficult to locate. During 

certain times of the nesting season, goshawks actively defend the nest stand. Additionally, adults and nestlings are 

vocal in and around nest sites during the later stages of the nesting season and at times will respond to auditory 

surveys in close proximity to the nest stand. Consequently, if a goshawk survey occurs during this time frame and 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 11

in close proximity to the nest, the chances of detecting this species are good. Outside of the breeding season, 

goshawks are largely silent (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006).

However, when monitoring a species with a large home range of potentially more than 6,000 acres, such as the 

goshawk, locating the nest stand within that territory can be very difficult. Adding to the difficulty of locating an 

active nest is the goshawk’s propensity of maintaining multiple nest sites within their home range and to use 

different nests from year to year, as well as to create new ones. Although known for aggressively defending their 

nests, breeding goshawks are typically secretive and nest sites are often difficult to locate (Woodbridge and Hargis 

2006). Visual and auditory detectability varies greatly during the reproductive cycle. During incubation and the 

early nestling stage, adult goshawks tend to remain quiet and do not typically respond to auditory surveys 

(Woodbridge and Hargis 2006). During these times, detecting goshawks can be extremely difficult, even if you are 

standing at the base of tree with an occupied nest. Additionally, if a nest failure occurs during the incubation and 

early nestling stage, surveys initiated after goshawks become more vocal would likely not be able to determine that 

the stand or a particular nest site had been active. 

Topography (e.g. slope and elevation) and habitat structure (e.g. horizontal cover and vegetation density) can also 

substantially impact the ability of surveyors to hear auditory responses, track the movements of individual goshawks 

and ultimately locate and verify nest sites. For instance, habitats on gentle slopes with a more open canopy and less 

dense understory provide favorable conditions for locating goshawks and their nests. However, in North Idaho, the 

steep slopes and denser stands characterized by closed canopies increases the difficulty in locating and monitoring 

northern goshawks and their nest sites.

Another factor affecting the timing of detection is the correlation of the nesting season with seasonal and climatic 

weather patterns. Late winter and spring weather that is cool and moist, as is typical in North Idaho, hampers early 

season goshawk surveys that are used to determine if territories are occupied and snow conditions limit access to 

many areas making completion of transects difficult. Additionally, a late winter can delay the nesting time frame in 

some areas on the Forest, but may not in all areas, or an early spring can lead to earlier nesting. These differences in 

the start of nesting season in turn alter the timing on when goshawks are likely to respond to auditory surveys and be 

detected. These fluctuations make it more difficult to locate and survey a nest stand within the window of time 

when responses would be expected and goshawk detection is more likely to occur. In the Northern Goshawk

Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide, Woodbridge and Hargis (2006) surmise that when compared to surveys 

for songbirds, goshawk auditory responses, which rely on eliciting defensive responses, vary greatly and depend 

highly on the reproductive chronology and status of the goshawk pair.

As a result, while it can be difficult to monitor known, recently occupied goshawk territories from year to year, it is 

substantially more difficult to locate and confirm goshawk presence in areas with no previously documented 

territories. This is particularly true since based on the factors discussed above; systematic auditory surveys within 

suitable nesting habitat may not always be effective in locating active nests. Consequently, conducting goshawk 

surveys with sufficient intensity on thousands of hectares of suitable goshawk habitat Forestwide for a period of 

time adequate to establish a statistically sound population trend would be extremely difficult and likely infeasible.

Existing Condition

According to NatureServe (2009) the northern goshawk has a global conservation status rank of G5. This indicates 

the species is common, widespread, abundant, and therefore secure across its range. Although the vast majority of 

the IPNF is within Idaho, it also includes some portions of Washington and Montana. All three states list the status 

of the northern goshawk as S3, which indicates there are some factors posing moderate risks to the species or its 

habitat, such as insect and disease outbreaks in Montana. The northern goshawk is not a “species of greatest 

conservation need” in either Idaho or Montana (IDFG 2005, MNHP 2010). In 2011, the State of Idaho will be 

reviewing the conservation status of this species and the state rank will be adjusted, if necessary, to reflect 

information that has become available since the last revision in 2005 (Dixon, pers. comm. 2011). Concerns in 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 12

Washington appear to stem from declines in goshawk populations in the western portions of the state (WDFW 

2005).

According to the Partners in Flight Population Estimates Database, there are approximately 62,000 northern 

goshawks in the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR), which includes North Idaho. Within just the 

North Idaho portion of the BCR the population is estimated to be approximately 4,000 northern goshawks (Partners 

in Flight 2007). The North Idaho estimate has a lower data quality rating than the data for the Northern Rockies and 

therefore a lower accuracy due to a more limited amount of data. See Guide to the PIF Population Estimates 

Database: North American Landbird Conservation Plan 2004 for a detailed description of the data used and 

limitations of these population estimates (Blancher et al. 2007).

Northern Region

Based on methodology discussed briefly in the Northern Region Overview section above and described by Samson 

(2006a) and updated in Bush and Lundberg (2008) using FIA data, the North Rocky Mountain Ecological Province 

(NRMEP); comprised of the Idaho Panhandle, Clearwater, Flathead, Kootenai and Lolo National Forests, contains 

approximately 126,349 acres of goshawk nesting habitat, approximately 400,104 acres of habitat for utilization as 

post-fledgling habitat and approximately 3,779,928 acres of foraging habitat.

Samson (2006b) concluded, based on the synthesis of the best available science, that to maintain a minimum viable 

population of the northern goshawk across Region One, there would need to be a minimum of 30,147 acres of PFA 

habitat, based on a net effective population size of 110 individuals (55 pairs) using an approximately 545 acre PFA 

per pair. Bush and Lundberg’s updated FIA data results in 2008 for northern goshawk habitat indicates that the 

NRMEP alone provides more than 13 times more acres of habitat than needed for the entire Region to maintain a 

minimum viable population of the northern goshawk (Samson 2006b, Bush and Lundberg 2008). 

Samson (2006b) also determined using a dispersal distance method developed for birds (Bowman 2003) that suitable 

habitat for the northern goshawk was within the species-specific dispersal distance, indicating that well-distributed 

habitat is not an issue in the Northern Region. 

In 2005, the Northern Region conducted goshawk surveys throughout the region based on the Northern Goshawk

Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006). The primary purpose of the surveys 

was to estimate the frequency of goshawk presence within grids that approximated a territory size and to better 

define the geographic distribution of goshawk across the Northern Region. Based on the results of the survey and 

goshawk nest information provided by the Forests, the frequency of goshawk presence in the accessible portions of 

the Northern Region suggests they are relatively common and well distributed across the region (Kowalski 2006).

Samson (2006a) concluded the following with regard to the short-term viability of the northern goshawk in the 

Northern Region of the Forest Service based on his review of the pertinent literature and synthesis of the best 

available science, as well as his habitat assessments:

• No scientific evidence exists that the northern goshawk is decreasing in numbers.

• Increases in the extent and connectivity of forested habitat have occurred since European settlement.

• Well-distributed and abundant northern goshawk habitat exists on today’s landscape.

• Level of timber harvest is insignificant in the Northern Region (in 2009, 4,854 ha of 9,045,255 ha or 0.05% 

of the forested landscape) and on the IPNF (551 ha of 999,733 forested ha or 0.06% of the forested 

landscape) (USDA Forest Service 2010c). Over the last ten years, the Northern Region harvested 76,649 

ha or 0.85% of the forested landscape and the IPNF harvested 15,367 ha or 1.54% of the forested landscape 

(USDA Forest Service 2010b). These figures include all types of harvest and does not indicate that all 

harvested hectares resulted in habitat loss or degradation for northern goshawks.
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 13

Until 2007, the northern goshawk was listed as a Sensitive Species in the Northern Region of the Forest Service. 

Forest Service Manual states that Sensitive Species are those for which there is a significant current or predicted 

downward trend in population numbers/density and a similar downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce 

distribution of the species. Regional data collection and analyses demonstrates that neither condition exists for the 

northern goshawk; therefore in 2007, the species no longer met the definition for “sensitive” and was removed from 

the list (USDA Forest Service 2007). 

Forest

Based on the analysis performed by the Northern Region, the IPNF contains approximately 32,967 acres of goshawk

nesting habitat, approximately 148,354 acres of habitat for utilization as post-fledgling habitat and approximately 

918,379 acres of foraging habitat (Samson 2006a, Bush and Lundberg 2008).

Based on Samson habitat thresholds for maintaining a minimum viable population across the Region and the 

updated FIA information provided by Bush and Lundberg (2008), the IPNF contains just under five times more PFA 

habitat on this Forest alone than is needed to provide viability at the Region level.

Over the past ten years, there have been 114 documented active goshawk breeding territories on the IPNF (see 

Project File). This figure is additive because it accounts for a single territory potentially being active in multiple 

years within that time frame. However, there have been a minimum of 41 different territories active over the past 

ten year period (see Project File). Although some level of known goshawk territory monitoring occurs on an annual 

basis across the Forest, all known territories are not surveyed every year. Consequently, the documented number of 

active territories represents the minimum number of active goshawk territories for a given year when in reality it is 

likely higher. Some surveys of potentially suitable goshawk nesting habitat are typically conducted on an annual 

basis in an attempt to locate, document and protect newly found active goshawk territories. Additionally, some 

suitable goshawk nesting habitat occurs in remote areas within designated roadless and wilderness areas that are not 

subject to surveys. 

Based on information in field notes and nest survey forms for northern goshawk nest sites documented on the IPNF 

over the past ten years, the known nest sites are generally located in forested stands that fall within the habitat 

parameters considered to be suitable goshawk nesting habitat in the scientific literature (e.g. more open understory, 

larger diameter trees) (Hayward and Escano 1989, Warren 1990, Reynolds et al. 1992, Squires and Reynolds 1997, 

Graham et al. 1999). If there are any disparities between the literature and nest sites on the IPNF it would be the 

occurrence of some nest sites within fairly dense stands of smaller diameter trees and/or on steeper slopes. 

However, even within these types of stands goshawks appear to select microsites that contain the largest diameter 

trees and/or benches with a gentler slope.

During that same ten year time frame there have been 298 documented sightings of goshawks on the IPNF (see 

Project File). Although some of these sightings are associated with nest sites (e.g. breeding adults, young), some 

represent individuals present outside the breeding season, transient individuals or sightings outside of known 

breeding territories. Goshawk sightings and active territories have been documented throughout the Forest over the 

past ten years.

Project Level

See project level analysis located in project specific NEPA documents. 

Forest Plan Compliance

The IPNF Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987) selected the northern goshawk as a management indicator 

species of old growth habitats and established guidance for managing old growth in part to provide for viable 

populations of this species. It states, “Approximately 10 percent of the Forest will be maintained in old growth as 

needed to provide for viable populations of old growth dependent and indicator management species.” Although it

has been shown since the 1987 Forest Plan that northern goshawks are not old growth dependent, old growth is 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 14

addressed to illustrate continued compliance with the Forest Plan. To obtain the desired distribution, each designated 

old growth unit is managed to maintain approximately five percent old growth where it exists. The IPNF is meeting 

and exceeding the Forest Plan standard that calls for maintaining 10 percent of the forested portion of the IPNF as 

old growth (USDA Forest Service 2010a). FIA data and stand-level allocated old growth also provides evidence 

that the old growth is well distributed across the IPNF (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

Applicable Forest Plan Standard

7. Other Wildlife

a.Maintain at least minimum viable populations of management indicator species distributed 

throughout the Forest.

Based on the best available science discussed in the Existing Condition section for this species, the IPNF contains 

substantially more than enough habitat distributed throughout the Forest to support a minimum viable population of 

northern goshawk. In addition, the best available science suggests that the goshawk population is, at a minimum, 

stable if not increasing slowly, and there has been no scientific evidence that the goshawk population is in decline.

Pileated Woodpecker

Background

The pileated woodpecker was originally designated as a MIS because it was generally regarded as an old growth 

indicator due to its need for large dead trees (snags) for nesting (Bull et al. 1990). Pileated woodpeckers are no 

longer considered to be a good indicator of old growth, although the importance of large snags remains a key 

component of their habitat regardless of the stand age. Prior to the implementation of the 1987 Forest Plan, timber 

harvest activities on the IPNF would have likely reduced snag densities in most cases. The long term impacts of 

these activities were the reduction of snags in all size classes. However, following the implementation of the Forest 

Plan and more recently the adoption of the Northern Region Snag Management Protocol (USDA Forest Service 

2000) and Regional guidance on snag densities in North Idaho (Bollenbacher et al. 2009), snag retention and snag 

recruitment (leaving higher densities of green trees to produce good quality snags in the future) in harvested areas 

has risen dramatically.

Snag habitat on the Forest has been strongly influenced by vegetation succession, fire suppression, firewood cutting 

and insect and disease, along with natural fire events to a lesser degree. Most of the snags created by past wildfires 

have since fallen. Since 1910, much of the landscape has progressed and is now dominated by a high density of 

Douglas-fir, which are more susceptible to insect and disease at a younger age and therefore do not create larger, 

longer-lived snags.

Snags are an ephemeral resource that varies greatly throughout the life cycle of a forest stand. Most snags remain 

standing from a few years to a few decades. How long snags remain standing is a function of the structure, species 

composition, age of the stand, cause of tree mortality (e.g. fire, insects), size of the snag and site characteristics such 

as soil type and slope. Once they fall, snags become down wood that provide habitat for many wildlife species. 

Pileated woodpeckers often forage on down wood that is being heavily utilized by insects.

Snag numbers and size distribution can vary considerably within a stand. This high variability makes it more 

difficult to characterize the snag situation at the individual stand level. However, at large spatial scales the factors 

regulating snag numbers are more likely to balance out for longer periods of time. Therefore, it is important to look 

at mid and larger scale snag information to provide context for the snag situation for a specific area (USDA Forest 

Service 2010a).
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 15

Species Description and Habitat Associations

Pileated woodpeckers are relatively common in both cut and uncut mid-elevation forests, and appear to do well in a 

matrix of forest types (Hutto 1995). They nest in both previously harvested stands that contain remnant large trees 

and snags, and in mature and old growth forests. The presence of large trees for nesting appears to be more 

important than the age of the stand (Kirk and Naylor 1996, Giese and Cuthbert 2003). The pileated woodpecker is 

able to do well in young and fragmented forests that retain abundant remnant structure, such as large diameter snags 

and down woody debris (Mellon et al. 1992). Home range size for pileated woodpeckers varies considerably from 

approximately 200 acres to over 3,000 acres (Samson 2006b). However, studies in habitats most similar to those on 

the Northern Region show a home range size of approximately 1000 acres (Samson 2006b, Bull et al. 1992). 

Dead trees are preferred over live trees for nesting and roosting, and nest trees are usually over 20 to 25 inches in 

diameter. The minimum canopy cover selected by pileated woodpeckers for nesting stands ranges in the scientific 

literature from 15 to 60 percent depending on the habitat type (Bull 1989, Bull et al. 1990, Warren 1990, Bull and 

Holthausen 1993, Bonar 2001). A large tree is needed because the cavity is typically 10 inches wide and up to 24 

inches deep at heights of 20 to 60 feet above ground level (Bull 1989, Warren 1990). Live or dead western larch, 

and dead ponderosa pine, aspen, or black cottonwood are preferred nest tree species in the northern region (Warren 

1990). New nest cavities are excavated each year in stands of approximately 50 to 100 acres of mature/old forest 

habitat with a relatively closed canopy (Warren 1990).

Most foraging occurs in logs and dead trees at least six inches in diameter, although large diameter (i.e., greater than 

12”) dead wood is used most frequently (Bull et al. 1990). Since foraging habitat occurs in a wider ecological range 

of forest age structures, nesting habitat is considered the most critical and limiting feature for pileated woodpeckers. 

Natural disturbances such as insect outbreaks, disease, wind and fire are the primary mechanisms that insure a 

continuum of snags, downed dead wood and live, decaying trees which pileated woodpeckers depend on (Parks 

2009). 

Pileated woodpeckers forage for insects by gleaning insects from the surface of trees and plants, pecking into bark or 

by excavating into the interior portions of a tree. Although hairy woodpeckers dig smaller holes less than two 

inches in diameter or depth, pileated woodpecker excavation are distinguishable from them because they dig large 

excavations into a tree’s interior wood. Because this foraging behavior is exclusive to pileated woodpeckers, it can 

be readily used to identify the presence of pileated within a stand (Bull et al. 1990). Large chip size (one to three 

inches) can also be used to indicate pileated woodpecker foraging since no other woodpecker in this area can 

produce such large chips (Bull et al. 1990).

Recent foraging is distinguished from previous years by the condition of the exposed wood and chips. The wood 

chips and exposed wood in the excavation from recent foraging are lighter and brighter in color than older foraging 

sign (Bull et al. 1990). The older the excavation, the duller in color the interior of the excavation and the associated 

wood chips, as well as chips being more likely to be covered by debris on the ground. To determine the presence of 

pileated within an area, Bull et al. (1990) recommends walking transects in areas with the appropriate habitat 

characteristics and look for signs of recent foraging. In a report outlining pileated woodpecker surveys conducted 

by the Coeur d’Alene Audubon Society on the IPNF in 2003, it was noted that pileated woodpecker responses 

correlated very tightly with observations of pileated foraging sign. Although based on a relatively small sample 

size, the presence or absence of pileated foraging sign appeared to closely predict pileated presence (Coeur d’Alene 

Audubon 2003).

The pileated woodpecker is ecologically important as a keystone species and primary cavity nester because it 

excavates nest cavities in large diameter trees, which are later used by more than four dozen other species of 

migratory birds, bats and other mammals.
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 16

Threats

The primary threats to pileated woodpeckers that may be a result of forest management activities on public land 

include intense timber harvest that results in the conversion of forested habitats to non-forest habitat (e.g. 

regeneration harvest), forest fragmentation and removing downed wood generated by timber harvest activities.

The reduction in the amount of old forests and its associated structures (e.g., large-diameter snags and logs) along 

with the transition of older forests from being dominated by shade-intolerant tree species to being dominated by a 

dense structure of smaller diameter, shade-tolerant tree species, primarily due to fire exclusion (Wisdom et al. 2000) 

can also negatively impact pileated woodpeckers.

The change in species composition resulting from fire exclusion has slowly and methodically replaced such species 

as ponderosa pine, white pine and western larch, trending stands toward smaller and younger size and age classes 

that are more susceptible to insects and disease before reaching maturity. Consequently, snag production has 

somewhat shifted from the larger, longer-lived species to smaller, shorter-lived species.

The primary threats to pileated woodpecker that could occur as a result of activities on private land, thus out of the 

control of the Forest Service include 1) the conversion of forested habitats to non-forested habitat (e.g. regeneration 

harvest on private timber industry land, conversion of forest habitat to residential or agricultural areas), 2) short 

rotation, even-age forestry (e.g. commercial harvest on private timber industry lands), and 3) forest fragmentation.

Difficulties in Monitoring

Pileated woodpeckers have large home ranges (over 1,000 acres) and individuals can be located a couple of miles 

away from their location the previous day (Bull et al. 1990 and 1992; Samson 2006b). Consequently, this makes it 

more difficult to determine if it is the same individual that was previously documented unless you are able to cover 

an entire area (e.g. home range, subwatershed, patch of contiguous forest) during each survey, which can be difficult 

in areas such as the IPNF with large patches of continuous forest that are suitable for pileated woodpeckers.

Pileated woodpeckers will respond to recordings or human imitation of their calls. However, it must be a very good 

imitation of the territorial call or the birds will not respond. Additionally, the call of the northern flicker is very 

similar and can easily be mistaken for a pileated woodpecker (Bull et al. 1990). Pileated woodpeckers can also be 

located and identified by listening to their drumming. The drumming of the northern flicker and hairy woodpecker 

has similar characteristics to pileated and can easily be misidentified. Consequently, it is imperative that the surveys 

be conducted by people who have been trained and are experienced at distinguishing the difference between pileated 

woodpecker vocalizations and drumming and woodpecker species with similar characteristics (Bull et al. 1990).

Because so many other species of birds and mammals use nesting holes created by pileated woodpeckers, observing 

an adult or juvenile pileated woodpecker in the nest is the only totally reliable verification that it is an active pileated 

nest (Bull et al. 1990). Locating pileated foraging holes can also be a reliable way to document pileated woodpecker 

presence. However, determining the age of the foraging, particularly if it is not recent can be more difficult in areas 

with a lot of precipitation, such as North Idaho, because moisture increases the speed at which the excavated wood 

and wood chips darken in color (Bull et al. 1990).

Topography and habitat structure, such as horizontal cover and vegetation density, can also substantially impact the 

ability of surveyors to hear auditory responses, track the movements of individual pileated woodpeckers and 

consequently to locate and verify nest sites. Forested habitats typical of North Idaho comprised of fairly dense 

stands with high canopy closure on steeper slopes, increases the difficulty in locating, verifying and monitoring 

pileated woodpeckers and their nest cavities.

Existing Condition

According to NatureServe the pileated woodpecker has a global conservation status rank of G5. This indicates the 

species is common, widespread, abundant, and therefore secure. Although the vast majority of the IPNF is within 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 17

Idaho, it also includes some portions of Washington and Montana. The pileated woodpecker is listed S4 by Idaho 

and Washington and S3 by Montana, which indicates the species is apparently secure, but in Montana there may be 

some factors posing a potential risk (IDFG 2005, WDFW 2005, MNHP 2010). However, the pileated woodpecker 

is not a “species of greatest conservation need” in either Idaho or Montana. In 2011, the State of Idaho will be 

reviewing the conservation status of this species and the state rank will be adjusted, if necessary, to reflect 

information that has become available since the last revision in 2005 (Dixon, pers. comm. 2011).

According to the Partners in Flight Population Estimates Database, there are approximately 71,000 pileated 

woodpeckers in the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR), which includes North Idaho. Within just 

the North Idaho portion of the BCR the population is estimated to be approximately 9,000 pileated woodpeckers 

(Partners in Flight 2007). The North Idaho estimate has a lower data quality rating than the data for the Northern 

Rockies and therefore a lower accuracy due to a more limited amount of data. See Guide to the PIF Population 

Estimates Database: North American Landbird Conservation Plan 2004 for a detailed description of the data used 

and limitations of these population estimates (Blancher et al. 2007). 

Northern Region

Based on methodology discussed briefly in the Northern Region Overview section above and described by Samson 

(2006a) and updated in Bush and Lundberg (2008) using FIA data, the Northern Rocky Mountain Ecological 

Province, of which the IPNF is a part, contained approximately 1,052,905 acres of pileated woodpecker nesting 

habitat and approximately 1,674,119 acres of foraging habitat.

Samson concluded (2006b), based on the synthesis of the best available science, that to maintain a minimum viable 

population of pileated woodpecker across Region One, there would need to be 95,382 acres of habitat, based on a 

net effective population size of 180 individuals (90 pairs) using an approximately 1,005 acre territory per pair. Even 

if only nesting habitat is used to meet the criteria for habitat to maintain a minimum viable population, Bush and 

Lundberg’s updated 2008 FIA data results shows that the NRMEP alone contains over 11 times more acres of 

habitat than needed for the entire Region to maintain a minimum viable population of pileated woodpecker (Samson 

2006b, Bush and Lundberg 2008).

Samson (2006b) also determined using a dispersal distance method developed for birds (Bowman 2003) that suitable 

habitat for the pileated woodpecker was within the species-specific dispersal distance, indicating that welldistributed habitat is not an issue in the Northern Region.

Samson (2006a) concluded the following with regard to the short-term viability of the pileated woodpecker in the 

Northern Region of the Forest Service based on his review of the pertinent literature and synthesis of the best 

available science, as well as his habitat assessments:

• No scientific evidence exists that the pileated woodpecker is decreasing in numbers.

• Increases in the extent and connectivity of forested habitat have occurred since European settlement.

• Well-distributed and abundant pileated woodpecker habitat exists on today’s landscape.

• Level of timber harvest is insignificant in the Northern Region (in 2009, 4,854 ha of 9,045,255 ha or 0.05% 

of the forested landscape) and on the IPNF (551 ha of 999,733 forested ha or 0.06% of the forested 

landscape) (USDA Forest Service 2010c). Over the last ten years, the Northern Region harvested 76,649 

ha or 0.85% of the forested landscape and the IPNF harvested 15,367 ha or 1.54% of the forested landscape 

(USDA Forest Service 2010b). These figures include all types of harvest and does not indicate that all 

harvested hectares resulted in habitat loss or degradation for pileated woodpeckers.

Population information based on the Breeding Bird Surveys compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey show a clear 

increase in the population trend for pileated woodpecker over the past 38 years both at the scale of the Northern 

Rockies and specific to Idaho. See Figure 4 and Figure 5 for a graph displaying this information. The time frame 

covered by this data is significant in that it covers a minimum of 4 to 5 generations of pileated woodpeckers over 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 18

almost four decades including the time period where the most intensive timber harvest activities occurred, and 

consistently reflects an increasing trend in their population (Bull and Jackson 1995, USDI Geological Survey 2010).

Figure 4. Population trend graph for pileated woodpecker from 1968 through 2006 in the Northern 

Rockies, including Idaho, based on USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center North American 

Breeding Bird Surveys (USDI Geological Survey 2010).

Figure 5. Population trend graph for pileated woodpecker from 1968 through 2006 in Idaho based 

on USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center North American Breeding Bird Surveys (USDI 

Geological Survey 2010).

Forest

Based on the analysis performed by the Northern Region, the IPNF contains approximately 430,932 acres of 

pileated woodpecker nesting habitat and approximately 729,994 acres of foraging habitat (Bush and Lundberg 

2008). 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 19

Based on Samson habitat thresholds for maintaining a minimum viable population across the Region and the 

updated FIA information provided by Bush and Lundberg (2008), the IPNF contains over four times more pileated 

woodpecker nesting habitat on this Forest alone than is needed to provide viability at the Region level.

Based on FIA data collected on the IPNF, there are an estimated average of 10.4 snags per acre with a dbh between 

10 inches and 19.9 inches. For snags 20 inches or larger there is an estimated average of 1.4 snags per acre (USDA 

Forest Service 2010a). Bull and Meslow (1977) concluded that to maintain a pileated woodpecker population in 

northeast Oregon, 0.14 snags per acre 20 inches dbh or greater were needed. The IPNF currently has 10 times more 

large snag habitat than that based on the FIA analysis. 

According to Appendix X of the 1987 Forest Plan titled Snag and Woody Debris Management Guidelines, to 

support 100 percent of the maximum population of pileated woodpeckers in the habitat communities where they 

occur, the IPNF would need to maintain 1.4 snags per acre 20 inches dbh or greater. This recommendation is to 

reach 100 percent maximum population, which is a target far and above the standard of maintaining minimum 

species viability as required by the Forest Plan. Regardless, the FIA data shows the average number of snags per 

acre greater than 20 inches dbh on the IPNF meets the 100 percent maximum population requirement in Appendix X 

and therefore greatly exceeds the requirement of snags needed to maintain a minimum viable population of pileated 

woodpeckers. 

Bull and Holthausen (1993) recommend maintaining a minimum of 0.65 snags per acre greater than 20 inches dbh. 

Again, the FIA data shows that the average number of snags per acre greater than 20 inches dbh is more than double 

the minimum recommendation.

Based on information from field notes and surveys, there have been 70 documented sightings, auditory detections 

and sign (e.g. feeding sites, excavated holes) of pileated woodpeckers on the IPNF in the past ten years (see Project 

File). Field going Forest Service personnel anecdotally report commonly seeing pileated woodpecker sign in most 

forested areas. Documented sightings, auditory detections and sign have increased over the past few field seasons

(based on the IPNF wildlife data bases). However, the increase can likely be attributed to an increased emphasis on 

making sure pileated woodpecker sightings and sign are reported and documented. Because pileated woodpeckers 

and their sign are commonly seen across the Forest, the documenting of their presence has not occurred as 

frequently as more rare species. The documenting of their presence has occurred most often in project-related field 

visits by biologists and foresters. The lack of more documented pileated woodpecker presence on the Forest more 

closely reflects the absence of documentation rather than the absence of the species itself. Despite the lack of 

consistent reporting, pileated woodpeckers and their sign have been documented throughout the Forest over the past 

ten years. Additionally, documented pileated woodpecker sightings on the IPNF are generally located in forested

stands that fall within the habitat parameters considered to be suitable pileated woodpecker habitat in the scientific 

literature (e.g. forested stands that retain large snags and down woody debris).

Project Level

See project level analysis located in project specific NEPA documents. 

Forest Plan Compliance

The IPNF Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987) selected the pileated woodpecker as a management indicator 

species for old growth habitats and established guidance for managing old growth to provide for viable populations 

of this species. It states, “Approximately 10 percent of the Forest will be maintained in old growth as needed to 

provide for viable populations of old growth dependent and indicator management species.” Although it has been 

shown since the 1987 Forest Plan that pileated woodpeckers are not old growth dependent, old growth is addressed 

here to illustrate continued compliance with the Forest Plan. To obtain the desired distribution, each designated old 

growth unit would be managed to maintain approximately five percent old growth where it exists. The IPNF is 

meeting and exceeding the Forest Plan standard that calls for maintaining 10 percent of the forested portion of the 
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 20

IPNF as old growth (USDA Forest Service 2010a). FIA data and stand-level allocated old growth also provides 

evidence that the old growth is well distributed across the IPNF (USDA Forest Service 2010a).

Applicable Forest Plan Standards

7. Other Wildlife

b.Maintain at least minimum viable populations of management indicator species distributed 

throughout the Forest (see Appendix L for indicator species selection process Forest Plan, p. 

II-28).

Based on the best available science discussed in the Existing Condition section for this species, the IPNF contains 

substantially more than enough habitat distributed throughout the Forest to support a minimum viable population of 

pileated woodpecker. Pileated woodpeckers and their foraging sign are also seen and documented across the Forest. 

In addition, the best available science indicates that the pileated woodpecker population is likely increasing in the 

Northern Rockies and there has been no scientific evidence that the pileated woodpecker population is in decline.

c. Maintain habitat for cavity nesting species and foraging substrates by implementation of the 

IPNF Snag and Woody Down Timber Guidelines (Appendix X).

Based on the best available science discussed in the Existing Condition section for this species, the IPNF contains 

substantially more large snags per acre than are required by the IPNF Snag and Woody Down Timber Guidelines for 

maintaining a minimum viable population of pileated woodpeckers.
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 21

References

Avian Science Center. 2009. Avian Science Center: Promoting science, education and outreach. Online. 

Available: http://avianscience.dbs.umt.edu [2011, February 2].

Babbit, C., P. Galvin, S.M. Hitt, S.W. Hoffman, A. Macfarlane, K. Rait, C.I. Sandell, M. Sauber, M.T. Schulke and 

G. Wardwell. 1991. Letter to the U.S. Department of Interior requesting to amend petition to list the 

northern goshawk. Maricopa Audubon Society. Phoenix, AZ. In Brewer, L.T., R. Bush, J.E. Canfield and 

A.R. Dohmen. 2009. Northern goshawk Northern Region overview: key findings and project 

considerations. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, MT. 57 pp.

Beissinger, S. R. 2002. Population viability analysis: past, present and future. Pages 5-17 in Population viability 

analysis. S. R. Beissinger, and D. R. McCullough, editors. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 

USA. In Samson, F.B. 2006. Habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of the northern 

goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten and fisher. 

Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.

Berglund, D., R. Bush, J. Barber and M. Manning. 2009. R1 multi-level vegetation classification, mapping, 

inventory and analysis system. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis 

Report #09-01 2.0.

Blancher, P.J., K.V. Rosenberg, A.O. Panjabi, B. Altman, J. Bart, C.J. Beardmore, G.S. Butcher, D. Demarest, R. 

Dettmers, E.H. Dunn, W. Easton, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Inigo-Elias, D.N. Pashley, C.J. Ralph, T.D. Rich, 

C.M. Rustay, J.M. Ruth and T.C. Will. 2007. Guide to the Partners in Flight Population estimates 

database. Version: North American Landbird Conservation Plan 2004. Partners in Flight Technical Series 

No. 5.

Bollenbacher, B., Bush, R. and R. Lundberg. 2009. Estimates of snag densities for northern Idaho Forests in the 

Northern Region: Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report 09-06 

v1.3.

Bonar, R.L. 2011. Pileated woodpecker habitat ecology in the Alberta foothills. University of Alberta. Edmonton, 

AB. Doctorate Thesis. 84 pp.

Bowman, J. 2003. Is dispersal distance of birds proportional to territory size? Canadian Journal of Zoology 81: 

195-202.

Brewer, L.T., R. Bush, J.E. Canfield and A.R. Dohmen. 2009. Northern goshawk Northern Region overview: key 

findings and project considerations. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, MT. 57 pp.

Bull, E. L. 1989. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) In Clark, T.W., A. H. Harvey. 1989. Rare, sensitive, 

and threatened species of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Northern Rockies Conservation 

Cooperative.

Bull, E. L., and J. A. Jackson. 1995. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). The Birds of North America No. 

148. A. Poole editor. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Online. 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/148. 

Bull, E. L. and R. S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern 

Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:335-345.
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 22

Bull, E. L., R. S. Holthausen and M. G. Henjum. 1990. Techniques for monitoring pileated woodpeckers. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-269. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

Oregon. 13 pp.

Bull, E.L, R.S. Holthausen and M.G. Henjum. 1992. Roost trees used by pileated woodpeckers in northeastern 

Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:786-793.

Bull, E.L. and E.C. Meslow. 1977. Habitat requirements of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. 

Journal of Forestry 75:335-337.

Bush, R. and R. Lundberg. 2008. Wildlife habitat estimates updates for the Region One Conservation Assessment: 

Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report 08-04 v1.0.

Clough, L.T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in west-central Montana. 

Missoula, MT: University of Montana. M.S. Thesis. 87 pp.

Coeur d’Alene Audubon. 2003. Pileated woodpecker survey report. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 17 pp.

Dixon, R. 2011. Personal communication; Email correspondence with J. Madison. January 18, 2011.

Giese, C.L. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2003. Influence of surrounding vegetation on woodpecker nest tree selection in oak 

forests of the upper Midwest. Forest Ecology and Management 179:523-534.

Graham, R.T., R.L. Rodriguez, K.M. Paulin, R.L. Player, A.P. Heap and R. Williams. 1999. The northern goshawk

in Utah: habitat assessment and management recommendations. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR22. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 48 pp.

Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack and B. Naumann et al. 2008. Old-growth forest types of the 

northern region. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Missoula, MT.

Harvey, A.E., J.W. Byler, G.I. McDonald, L.F. Neuenschwander and R. Jonalea. 2008. Death of an ecosystem: 

perspectives on western white pine ecosystems of North America at the end of the twentieth century. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-208. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 10 pp.

Hayward, G.D. and R.E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. 

In: The Condor. 91:476-479.

Hutto, R.L. 1995. USDA Forest Service Northern Region Songbird Monitoring Program Distribution and Habitat 

Relationships. USDA Forest Service contract #R1-95-05. Second Report. Division of Biological 

Sciences. University of Montana. Missoula, Montana. 21 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Idaho 

Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, ID.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2008a. Elk Report. Project W-170-R-32s. Boise, ID. 143 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2008b. White-tailed Deer Report. Project W-170-R-32. Boise, ID. 51 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2008c. Moose Report. Project W-170-R-32. Boise, ID. 73 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2008d. Furbearers Report. Project W-170-R-32. Boise, ID. 32 pp.

Kennedy, P.L., J.M. Ward, G.A. Rinker and J.A. Gessaman. 1994. Post fledgling family areas in northern goshawk

home ranges. Studies in Avian Biology 16:75-82.
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 23

Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Denver, CO.

Kennedy, P.L. and J.M. Ward. 2003. Effects of experimental food supplementation on movements of juvenile 

northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus). Oecologia 134:284-291.

Kirk, D.A. and B.J. Naylor. 1996. Habitat requirements of the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) with 

special reference to Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Environment, South Central Science and Technology 

Report 46. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Kowalski, S. 2006. Frequency of northern goshawk presence in R1. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, 

Region One. Missoula, MT.

McGrath, M.T., S. DeStefano, R.A. Riggs, L.L. Irwin and G.J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit influences on 

northern goshawks nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Monographs 124:1-63.

Mellon, T.K., C.E. Meslow and R.W. Mannan. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated 

woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:96-103.

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2010. Animal species of Concern. Montana Natural Heritage Program and 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Online. Available: http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_ABNKC12060.aspx

[2011, March 4].

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe: A network connecting science and conservation. Online. Available:

http://www.natureserve.org [2011, January 21].

Parks, N. 2009. Looking out for the pileated woodpecker. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. Science Findings Issue 109. 6 pp.

Partners in Flight. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 36pp.

Partners in Flight. 2007. Partners in Flight Landbird Population Estimates Database. Online. Available: 

www.rmbo.org/pif_db/laped/default.aspx [2011, February 2].

Patla, S.M. 1997. Nesting ecology and habitat of the northern goshawk in undisturbed and timber harvest areas on 

the Targhee National Forest, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. M.S. Thesis, Idaho State University. 

Pocatello, ID. 164 pp.

Pulliam, H.R. 2000. On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecology Letters 3:349-361.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith and 

E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United 

States. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 184 pp.

Samson, F.B. 2006a. A conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated 

owl and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report. 

Northern Region, Missoula, MT.

Samson, F.B. 2006b. Habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of the northern goshawk, black-backed 

woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten and fisher. Unpublished report. 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 24

Silver, R.D. et al. 1991. Letter to Department of the Interior petitioning to list the northern goshawk (Accipiter 

gentilis) in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona under the Endangered Species Act. Maricopa 

Audubon Society. Phoenix, AZ. 61 pp. In Brewer, L.T., R. Bush, J.E. Canfield and A.R. Dohmen. 2009. 

Northern goshawk Northern Region overview: key findings and project considerations. USDA Forest 

Service. Missoula, MT. 57 pp.

Squires, J.R. and P.L. Kennedy. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment of current knowledge and 

information needs for conservation management. Studies in Avian Biology 31:8-62.

Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles). In The birds of North America, 

Number 298. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. Philadelphia, PA.

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Idaho Panhandle National Forests Forest Plan. Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Northern Region snag management protocol. Region One. Missoula, MT. 27 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Project Analysis in Region 1. Forest Service Region One. Missoula, MT.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the 

conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement# 08-MU-1113-2400-264.

USDA Forest Service. 2010a. Idaho Panhandle National Forests Forest Plan Monitoring Reports 2007, 2008 and 

2009. Supervisor’s Office. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 150 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Acres harvested by cutting method. Unpublished report. Regional Office. Missoula, 

MT. 40 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2010c. Region One annual silvicultural accomplishment report. Unpublished report. 

Regional Office. Missoula, MT. 22 pp.

USDA Forest Service, 2011. Summary of the analysis process used to determine the Historic Range of Variability 

and Existing Condition for Forest Structure on the IPNF. Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d 

Alene, ID. 7 pgs.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Northern goshawk status review. Office of Technical Support: Forest 

Resources. Portland, OR. 250 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. 85 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Birds of Management Concern. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. 11 pp.

USDI Geological Survey. 2010. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center: Bird population studies. Online. Available:

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov [2010, November 26].

Warren, N., tech. ed. 1990. Old growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Northern Region Report #R1-90-42. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, MT. 47 pp.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Washington Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 

Online. Available: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcs/cwcs.html [2011, January 21].
Idaho Panhandle National Forests MIS Considerations

Appendix A - 25

Whitford, T. 1991. Defining old-growth Douglas-fir forests of central Montana and use of the northern goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis) as a management indicator. Master’s Thesis. University of Montana. Missoula, MT. 

In Brewer, L.T., R. Bush, J.E. Canfield and A.R. Dohmen. 2009. Northern goshawk Northern Region 

overview: key findings and project considerations. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, MT. 57 pp.

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Staab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. 

Rowland, W.J. Murphy and M.R. Earnes. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the 

Interior Columbia River Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Volume 2 – Group Level 

Results. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Woodbridge, B. and C.D. Hargis. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide. General 

Technical Report WO-71. USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C. 80 pp.

Appendix B– Bull Trout MPI and PCEs Crosswalk

Appendix B-1

Appendix B

Crosswalk between the Bull Trout Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (MPI) and Primary 

Constituent Elements (PCEs) of Critical Habitat

The Matrix of Pathway Indicators (MPI) for bull trout is used to evaluate and document baseline 

conditions and to aid in determining whether a project is likely to adversely affect or result in the 

incidental take of bull trout. 

The MPI analysis incorporates 4 population indicators and 19 physical habitat indicators. Analysis 

of the habitat indicators can provide a thorough evaluation of the existing baseline condition and 

potential project impacts to the PCEs of critical habitat for bull trout. Appendix B Table 1 shows 

the relationship between the PCEs for bull trout critical habitat and the MPI habitat indicators. 

The following paragraphs describe how the MPI indicators are related to evaluating the function 

of each PCE for bull trout critical habitat. 

1. Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity 

(hyporehic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal 

refugia. 

The analysis of floodplain connectivity considers the hydrologic linkage of off-channel 

areas with the main channel and overbank-flow maintenance of wetland function and 

riparian vegetation and succession. Floodplain and riparian areas provide hydrologic 

connectivity for springs, seeps, groundwater upwelling and wetlands and contribute to the 

maintenance of the water table. The analysis of changes in peak/base flows addresses 

subsurface water connectivity and substrate embeddedness addresses inter-gravel flows. 

Increase in drainage network and road density and location address potential changes to 

groundwater sources and subsurface water connectivity. Streambank condition, 

floodplain connectivity and riparian conservation areas address groundwater influence. 

Chemical contamination/nutrients addresses concerns regarding groundwater water 

quality.

2. Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments 

between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging 

habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal 

barriers. 

Physical, biological or chemical barriers to migration are addressed directly through water 

quality habitat indicators, including temperature, sediment, chemical 

contamination/nutrients and physical barriers. The analysis of these indicators assess 

whether barriers have been created due to impacts such as high temperatures or high 

concentrations of turbidity or contaminants. Analysis of change in peak/base flows and 

average wetted width/maximum depth ratio assess whether changes in flow might create 

a seasonal barrier to migration. An analysis of refugia considers the habitat’s ability to 

support strong, well distributed, and connected populations for all life stages and forms of 

bull trout.

3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.

Floodplain connectivity and riparian conservation areas provide habitat to aquatic 

invertebrates, which in turn provide a forage base for bull trout. Pool frequency and 

quality and substrate embeddedness contributes to the variety and density of aquatic 

invertebrates and other fish species. Changes in temperature, sediment, and chemical 

contaminants and nutrients affect aquatic invertebrate production, floodplain and riparian 

areas provide habitat to aquatic invertebrates, which in turn provide a forage base for bull 

trout. The combined analyses of all the Matrix habitat indicators and the other seven 

PCEs provide information to assess whether there is an abundant food base in the 
Appendix B– Bull Trout MPI and PCEs Crosswalk

Appendix B-2

analysis area. Therefore, any impairment to the food base will be addressed by way of 

summarizing the biological and habitat indicators.

4. Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments 

and processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut 

banks and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and 

structure.

Large woody debris increases channel complexity and creates pools and undercut banks, 

so the analysis of the current amounts and sources of large woody debris available for 

recruitment is pertinent to this PCE. Pool frequency and quality considers the number of 

pools per mile as well as the amount of cover and temperature of water in the pools. 

Average wetted width/maximum depth ratio is an indicator of channel shape and pool 

quality. Low ratios suggest deeper, higher quality pools. Large pools, consisting of a wide 

range of water depths, velocities, substrates and cover, are typical of high quality habitat 

and are a key component of channel complexity. Analysis of off-channel habitat 

describes side-channels and other off-channel areas. Streambank condition analyzes the 

stability of the banks, including features such as undercut banks. The analysis of both 

riparian conservation areas, and floodplain connectivity, disturbance history, and 

disturbance regime includes the maintenance of habitat and channel complexity, the 

recruitment of large woody debris, and the connectivity to off-channel habitats or side 

channels. Complex habitats provide refugia for bull trout and in turn, analysis of refugia 

assesses complex stream channels. All of these habitat indicators consider the numerous 

characteristics of instream bull trout habitat and quantify critical components that are 

fundamental to creating and maintaining complex instream habitat over time.

5. Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 °C (36 to 59 °F), with adequate thermal 

refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific 

temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life-history stage 

and form; geography; elevation; diurnal and seasonal variation; shade, such as 

that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence.

This PCE is addressed directly by the analysis of temperature. It is also addressed 

through consideration of refugia, which by definition is high quality habitat of appropriate 

temperature. Availability of refugia is also considered in analysis of pool frequency and 

quality and large pools. Average wetted width/maximum depth ratio is an indication of 

water volume, which indirectly indicates water temperature, i.e., low ratios indicate 

deeper water, which in turn indicates possible refugia. This indicator in conjunction with 

change in peak/base flows is an indicator of potential temperature and refugia concerns 

particularly during low flow periods. Streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, road 

density and location and riparian conservation areas address the components of shade 

and groundwater influence, both of which are important factors of water temperature. 

Stable streambanks and intact riparian areas, which include part of the floodplain, 

typically support adequate vegetation to maintain thermal cover to streams during low 

flow periods. Road density and location addresses the potential contributions of warm 

water discharges from stormwater ponds. 

6. Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg 

and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and 

juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g., less than 12 percent) of fine substrate 

less than 0.85 mm (0.03 in.) in diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines 

in larger substrates are characteristic of these conditions.

The analyses for sediment and substrate embeddedness assess substrate composition 

and stability in relation to the various life stages of the bull trout as well as the sediment 

transportation and deposition. Large woody debris and pool frequency and quality affect 

sediment transport and redistribution within a stream and assessment of these indicators 

will clarify substrate composition and amounts. Analysis of streambank condition will 

provide insight into the amount of fine sediment contribution.
Appendix B– Bull Trout MPI and PCEs Crosswalk

Appendix B-3

7. A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and 

seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural 

hydrograph.

The analysis of change in peak/base flows considers changes in hydrograph amplitude or 

timing with respect to watershed size, geology, and geography. Analyses of floodplain 

connectivity, increase in drainage network, road density and location, disturbance history, 

and riparian conservation areas provides further information regarding possible 

interruptions in the natural stream hydrology. Floodplain connectivity considers the 

hydrologic linkage of off-channel areas with the main channel. Roads and vegetation 

management both have effects strongly linked to a stream’s hydrograph. Disturbance 

regime ties this information together to consider how a watershed reacts to disturbance 

and the time required to recover back to pre-disturbance conditions.

8. Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and 

survival are not inhibited.

The quantity of permanent water will be considered in the analyses for PCE 4 natural 

hydrograph and PCE 5 springs, seeps, and groundwater, which include floodplain 

connectivity, changes in peak/base flows, drainage network increase, disturbance history, 

and disturbance regime. Analysis of temperature, sediment, and chemical contaminates 

and nutrients consider the quality of permanent water. Current listing under 303(d) and 

305(d) status should be considered, as well as the causes for that listing. Analysis 

pertinent to sediment should address turbidity.

9. Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth 

bass; inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive (e.g., brown trout) species 

present.

This PCE is not well covered by existing MPI analyses. Some information may be 

available from analyses of population indicators, particularly the “persistence and genetic 

integrity” indicator.
Appendix B

Appendix B-4

Table 1. MPI indicators relevant to each of the Primary Constituent Elements of bull trout critical habitat (2010 version) 

Diagnostic Pathway/Indicator

*PCE 1 - 

Springs, seeps, 

groundwater

PCE 2 - 

Migratory 

Habitats

PCE 3 - 

Abundant 

food base

PCE 4 - 

Complex 

habitats

PCE 5 - 

Water 

Temperature 

PCE 6 - 

Substrate 

features

PCE 7 - 

Natural 

Hydrograph

PCE 8 - 

Water quality 

and quantity

PCE 9 - 

Predators and 

competitors

Water Quality

 Temperature x x x x

 Sediment x x x x

 Chemical Contaminants and Nutrients x x x x

Habitat Access

 Physical Barriers x x x x

Habitat Elements

 Substrate Embeddedness x x x

 Large Woody Debris x x

 Pool Frequency and Quality x x x

 Large Pools x x

 Off-Channel Habitat x

 Refugia x x x

Channel Conditions and Dynamics

 Wetted Width/Maximum Depth Ratio x x x

 Streambank Condition x x x x

 Floodplain Connectivity x x x x x x

Flow/Hydrology

 Changes in Peak/Base Flows x x x x x

 Drainage Network Increase x x x

Watershed Conditions

 Road Density and Location x x x

 Disturbance History x x x x

 Riparian Conservation Areas x x x x x

 Disturbance Regime x x x

*Updated for 2010 proposed rule Khalupka 2-24-10