United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

August 2013

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement

For the Revised Land Management 

Plan

Idaho Panhandle National Forests
Cover Photo: Orville Mountain

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 USDAs 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.
Land Management Plan

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah, and Shoshone Counties in Idaho

Lincoln and Sanders Counties in Montana

Pend Oreille County, Washington

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Faye Krueger

Regional Forester, Northern Region

200 E Broadway

Missoula, MR 59807

For Information Contact: Mary Farnsworth

Idaho Panhandle National Forest

3815 Schreiber Way

Coeur d’Alene, ID 83815

208-765-7223

Abstract: This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) documents analysis of four alternatives 

developed for programmatic management of the 2.5 million acres administered by the Idaho Panhandle 

National Forests. The Forest Service has identified Alternative B Modified as the preferred alternative.

Table of Contents

Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................................xv

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... i

Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................... i

Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................. ii

Public Involvement............................................................................................................................... ii

Major Issues ........................................................................................................................................ iii

Alternatives ......................................................................................................................................... iii

Comparison of Alternatives...................................................................................................................v

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ..................................................................................................1

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

Proposed Action........................................................................................................................................1

The Planning Area ....................................................................................................................................2

Purpose......................................................................................................................................................3

Need ..........................................................................................................................................................3

Need for Change .......................................................................................................................................4

Revision Topics.....................................................................................................................................4

Vegetation .............................................................................................................................................5

Fire.........................................................................................................................................................5

Watershed, Soils, Riparian, Aquatic Habitat, and Aquatic Species......................................................6

Terrestrial Wildlife ................................................................................................................................6

Access and Recreation...........................................................................................................................7

Recommended Wilderness....................................................................................................................7

Timber ...................................................................................................................................................8

Other Topics..........................................................................................................................................8

Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................9

Decision Framework...............................................................................................................................11

Related Decisions Which Implement the Forest Plan.............................................................................11

Relationship to Other Entities.................................................................................................................12

County Governments...........................................................................................................................12

State.....................................................................................................................................................12

Tribes...................................................................................................................................................12

Federal.................................................................................................................................................12

Relationship to Other Assessments or National Policy...........................................................................12

National Scale......................................................................................................................................12

Regional Scale.....................................................................................................................................13

Forestwide Scale..................................................................................................................................13

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.............................................................................15

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................15

Development of Alternatives..................................................................................................................15

Important Points about all Alternatives...................................................................................................16

The Preferred Alternative........................................................................................................................16

Description of Alternatives.....................................................................................................................16

Management Areas..............................................................................................................................16

Elements Common to Alternatives.........................................................................................................18

Alternative A — No-action Alternative................................................................................................19

Alternative B Modified – Proposed Action.........................................................................................21

Alternative C .......................................................................................................................................23

Alternative D .......................................................................................................................................25
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study...............................................................27

The 1987 Forest Plan ..........................................................................................................................27

Forest “Restoration” Alternative.........................................................................................................27

Conservation Alternative ....................................................................................................................28

Wilderness/Roadless Related Alternatives .........................................................................................28

Recommending Additional Roadless Areas for Wilderness...............................................................29

Wild River Designation ......................................................................................................................29

Additional Eligible Wild and Scenic River Designation ....................................................................29

IPNF Managed as Roadless Area Complexes.....................................................................................31

Reduction of Roadless Areas..............................................................................................................32

Open All Roadless Areas to Snowmobile Use....................................................................................32

No Winter Motorized Recreation Alternative.....................................................................................32

Access and Roads ...............................................................................................................................32

Pro-Motorized Recreation...................................................................................................................33

Site-Specific Travel Management.......................................................................................................33

Small Sales only Alternative...............................................................................................................34

Wildlife Linkage Alternative ..............................................................................................................34

Natural Fires........................................................................................................................................34

Old Growth Reserves, Linkages between Reserves, and Differing Management Direction for Old 

Growth Management ..........................................................................................................................35

Varying/Additional Standards and Guidelines....................................................................................35

Conformance with the Resource Planning Act (RPA)........................................................................36

Comparison of Alternatives....................................................................................................................36

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................................41

Introduction Organization of Chapter 3..................................................................................................41

Relationship between Programmatic and Site-Specific Analysis.......................................................41

Budget Levels .....................................................................................................................................41

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Section.....................................................41

Overview of the IPNF.........................................................................................................................42

Physical and Biological...............................................................................................................................47

Forest Vegetation....................................................................................................................................48

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................48

Legal and Administrative Framework ................................................................................................48

Key Indicators.....................................................................................................................................49

Methodology and Analysis Process....................................................................................................49

Analysis Area......................................................................................................................................52

Changes between Draft and Final .......................................................................................................53

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).......................................................................................54

Forest Vegetation Condition ...............................................................................................................66

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................97

Consequences to Forest Vegetation from Forest Plan Components Associated with other Resource 

Programs or Revision Topics............................................................................................................115

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................118

Rare Plants............................................................................................................................................122

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................122

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................122

Key Indicator ....................................................................................................................................122

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................122

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................122

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................128

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................133
Non-native Invasive Plants ...................................................................................................................134

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................134

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................134

Key Indicator.....................................................................................................................................135

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................135

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................135

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................140

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................143

Fire and Fuels Management..................................................................................................................144

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................144

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................144

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................145

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................145

Affected Environment — Use of Fire for the Maintenance and Restoration of Fire-Adapted 

Ecosystems........................................................................................................................................146

Environmental Consequences — Use of Fire for the Maintenance and Restoration of Fire-Adapted 

Ecosystems........................................................................................................................................147

Affected Environment — Wildland-Urban Interface .........................................................................148

Environmental Consequences — Wildland-Urban Interface..............................................................149

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................152

Watershed, Soils, Riparian, Aquatic Habitat, and Aquatic Species......................................................155

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................155

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................155

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................157

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................157

Analysis Area ....................................................................................................................................157

Changes between Draft and Final......................................................................................................158

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................159

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................192

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................205

Terrestrial Wildlife................................................................................................................................209

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................209

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................210

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................211

Analysis Area ....................................................................................................................................211

Management Indicator Species..........................................................................................................215

Old Growth, Pileated Woodpecker, Marten, and Northern Goshawk...............................................215

Organization of the Following Analysis............................................................................................217

Changes between Draft and Final......................................................................................................218

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species...............................................................................219

Sensitive Species...............................................................................................................................292

Management Indicator Species (MIS)...............................................................................................355

Other Species or Habitat Components...............................................................................................375

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................410

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................410

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................410

Key Indicator.....................................................................................................................................412

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................412

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................412

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................414

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................415
Human Uses and Designations of the Forest ............................................................................................416

Access and Recreation..........................................................................................................................417

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................417

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................417

Key Indicators...................................................................................................................................420

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................421

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................421

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................422

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................439

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................449

Lands/Special Uses...............................................................................................................................451

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................451

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................451

Key Indicators...................................................................................................................................456

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................456

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................456

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................460

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................461

Inventoried Roadless Areas..................................................................................................................463

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................463

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................463

Key Indicator ....................................................................................................................................464

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................464

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................465

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................466

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................471

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................477

Designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Recommended Wilderness .....................................485

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................485

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................485

Key Indicator ....................................................................................................................................486

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................486

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................486

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................487

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................491

Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................................................................................493

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................493

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................494

Key Indicator ....................................................................................................................................495

Analysis Area....................................................................................................................................495

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................495

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................496

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................497

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................499

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................503

Research Natural Areas........................................................................................................................504

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................504

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................504

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................505

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................505

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................505
Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................506

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................509

Special Areas.........................................................................................................................................511

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................511

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................511

Key Indicator.....................................................................................................................................512

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................512

Analysis Area ....................................................................................................................................512

Changes between Draft and Final......................................................................................................512

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................512

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................513

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................515

Experimental Forests.............................................................................................................................517

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................517

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................517

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................517

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................518

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................519

Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................520

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................520

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................520

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................521

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................522

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................522

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................526

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................537

American Indian Rights and Interests...................................................................................................539

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................539

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................539

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................543

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................544

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................544

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................548

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................561

Production of Natural Resources...............................................................................................................563

Timber...................................................................................................................................................564

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................564

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................564

Key Indicator.....................................................................................................................................564

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................564

Analysis Area ....................................................................................................................................565

Changes between Draft and Final......................................................................................................565

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................565

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................569

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................576

Minerals ................................................................................................................................................577

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................577

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................578

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................582

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................582

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................583
Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................586

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................588

Livestock Grazing.................................................................................................................................589

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................589

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................589

Key Indicators...................................................................................................................................590

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................590

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................590

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................592

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................596

Special Forest Products ........................................................................................................................597

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................597

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................597

Key Indicator ....................................................................................................................................597

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................597

Analysis Area....................................................................................................................................597

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................597

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................598

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................599

Social and Economic Environment ......................................................................................................600

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................600

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................600

Key Indicators...................................................................................................................................601

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................601

Analysis Area....................................................................................................................................602

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................605

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................605

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................625

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................630

Other Required Disclosures..................................................................................................................632

Environmental Justice.......................................................................................................................632

American Indian Religious Freedom Act .........................................................................................632

Unavoidable Adverse Effects............................................................................................................633

Relationship of Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity..........................................................633

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.................................................................633

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential............................................................................634

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland ....................................................................................634

Threatened and Endangered Species.................................................................................................634

Wetlands and Floodplains.................................................................................................................635

Conflicts with Other Agency or Government Goals or Objectives ..................................................635

Chapter 4. List of Preparers......................................................................................................................637

Chapter 5. Agencies & Individuals Receiving EIS...................................................................................639

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement...........................................................................639

Chapter 6. Glossary...................................................................................................................................641

Chapter 7. Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................665

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparisons Percent MA Allocation by Alternative .....................................................................v

Table 2. Comparison of Some Key Indicators for Revision Topics by Alternative ....................................vi
Table 3. Acres and Percent Administered by the IPNF, by County..............................................................3

Table 4. Revised Forest Plan Management Area Descriptions Common to All Action Alternatives.........17

Table 5. Comparisons of Alternatives by Management Area Allocation, Acres*, and by Percent.............37

Table 6. Comparison of Resource Key Indicators for Revision Topics by Alternatives.............................38

Table 7. Estimated Bark Beetle Hazard and Estimated Loss 2005-20201

...................................................64

Table 8. White Pine Blister Rust Infection and Mortality Levels for Each Stock Type (averages expressed 

as percentages).....................................................................................................................................70

Table 9. Estimate of Old Growth on the IPNF by Geographic Areas and Forestwide (from FIA data).....75

Table 10. Acres of Ancient Cedars Groves by GA and Forestwide............................................................76

Table 11. Percentage of the Total Forested Area on the IPNF that Currently meets Old Growth 

Definitions and the Estimated Old Growth Amounts for each of the next 5 Decades, for the Forest as 

a Whole as well as for each of the Five Geographic Areas (GA)........................................................79

Table 12. Average Snags per Acre for the entire IPNF by Dominance Group, Habitat Type Group, and 

Snag Sizes Classes...............................................................................................................................83

Table 13. Average Snags per Acre on the IPNF for Areas within Wilderness/Roadless Areas and for the 

Areas outside of those Designations....................................................................................................85

Table 14. Snag Density Ranges and Averages for Wilderness/Roadless Areas on the IPNF by Habitat 

Type and Dominance Groups (average snags are displaced in parentheses) ......................................85

Table 15 Snags and Live Trees per Acre Ranges by Seral Stage and Diameter Class................................86

Table 16. Estimated Amount of Forested Vegetation that would be Actively Managed by Alternative and 

Budget Scenario.................................................................................................................................101

Table 17. Change in Acres by Dominance Group by Alternative over the next 50 Years........................102

Table 18. Change in Acres by Size Class by Alternative over the next 50 Years.....................................105

Table 19. Change in Acres of Very Large Size Class over the next 50 years, by Alternative and Budget 

Scenario.............................................................................................................................................106

Table 20. Percent of the Total Forested Acres that occur in each Snag Density and Size Class at Decade 1 

and 5, and the Percent Change during that Period for each Alternative............................................107

Table 21. Percent of Total Forested Acres of Fire, Bark Beetle, and Defoliator Hazard Rating at Decade 1, 

and the Change between Decade 1 and Decade 5, by Alternative ....................................................110

Table 22. Thousand Metric Tons of Carbon Sequestered in the 5th Decade by Alternative ....................114

Table 23. Rare Plant Species, Status, Occurrence, and Habitat Guilds on the IPNF ................................124

Table 24. Non-native Invasive Plant Species that occur (or have the potential to occur) on the IPNF by 

Zone...................................................................................................................................................137

Table 25. Acres by Weed Risk Rating for NFS Lands on the IPNF .........................................................139

Table 26. Watershed Sensitivity Rating, Forestwide ................................................................................162

Table 27. Watershed Disturbance Rating, Forestwide ..............................................................................164

Table 28. Final Watershed Condition Rating Forestwide .........................................................................167

Table 29. Number of 303(d)-Listed Subwatersheds and Pollutants of Concern (Forestwide)..................168

Table 30. 303(d)-Listed Subwatersheds by Major Drainage Basin...........................................................168

Table 31. Summary of Disturbance Ranges for Existing Soil Conditions in Units Monitored from 2004 to 

2008...................................................................................................................................................170

Table 32. Summary of Disturbance Ranges and Trends for Post-Harvest Soil Conditions Monitored over 

Three Decades (1987 to 2008) ..........................................................................................................171

Table 33. Estimated Past Management and Impacted Soil Acres on the IPNF based on Timber Stand 

Management Record System and the Soil Disturbance Model .........................................................171

Table 34. Riparian Disturbance Ratings, Forestwide ................................................................................174

Table 35. Status of Federally Listed Species.............................................................................................214

Table 36. MIS for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests .........................................................................215

Table 37. Acres of Goshawk Habitat ........................................................................................................216

Table 38. Acres of Marten Habitat............................................................................................................217

Table 39. Acres of Pileated Woodpecker..................................................................................................217
Table 40. Risk Factors Potentially Affecting Canada Lynx .....................................................................221

Table 41. Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs), Total Size, Amount of Private/State Land and Potential Lynx 

Habitat on the IPNF, 2012 ................................................................................................................224

Table 42. Potential Lynx Habitat on NFS Lands by Existing (i.e., 1987 Forest Plan) Management Area 

Direction ...........................................................................................................................................226

Table 43. Potential Lynx Habitat by Allowable Uses and Activities under existing (1987 Forest Plan) 

Management Area direction and the Idaho Roadless Rule (2008)....................................................227

Table 44. NRLMD Components that Address Canada lynx Primary Constituent Elements of Critical 

Habitat...............................................................................................................................................229

Table 45. Status of Potential Lynx Habitat on NFS Lands, by LAU, in a Stand Initiation Stage of 

Development, 2011...........................................................................................................................230

Table 46. Current Motorized Access within Identified Canada Lynx Habitat on the IPNF .....................232

Table 47. Five Risk Factors Potentially Affecting Grizzly Bear Conservation........................................243

Table 48. Grizzly Bear Habitat on NFS Lands by Existing (i.e., 1987 Forest Plan) Management Area 

Direction ...........................................................................................................................................249

Table 49. Grizzly Bear Habitat by Allowable Uses and Activities under Existing (1987 Forest Plan) 

Management Area Direction and the Idaho Roadless Rule (2008)...................................................249

Table 50. Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Bear Management Unit Summary for the 2011 Bear.....................251

Table 51. Bear Year 2011 Motorized Access Conditions for Bears Outside of Recovery Zone (BORZ) 

Areas Situated on the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai National Forests...........................................252

Table 52. Bears Outside Recovery Zone (BORZ) Area on NFS Lands by Existing (i.e., 1987 Forest Plan) 

Management Area Direction.............................................................................................................253

Table 53. Bears Outside Recovery Zone (BORZ) Areas on NFS Lands by Allowable Uses and Activities 

under Existing (1987 Forest Plan) Management Area Direction and the Idaho Roadless Rule (2008)

..........................................................................................................................................................254

Table 54. Current Motorized Over-snow Access within Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones on the IPNF .....260

Table 55. Six Risk Factors Potentially Affecting the Southern Selkirk Mountains Woodland Caribou 

Conservation (from USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008d)...........................................................268

Table 56. Existing Land Management Jurisdiction within the Woodland Caribou Recovery Area .........269

Table 57. Woodland Caribou Habitat by Caribou Management Unit, General Cover Type and Stand Age 

on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, 2012 .................................................................................273

Table 58. Woodland Caribou Habitat on NFS Lands by Existing (i.e., 1987 Forest Plan) Management 

Area Direction...................................................................................................................................276

Table 59. Woodland Caribou Habitat by Allowable Uses and Activities under Existing (1987 Forest Plan) 

Management Area Direction and the Idaho Roadless Rule (2008)...................................................277

Table 60. Current Motorized Over-snow Access within the Woodland Caribou Recovery Area on the 

IPNF..................................................................................................................................................282

Table 61. Estimated Acres Burned by Decade on the Forest....................................................................308

Table 62. Acres of Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat............................................................................308

Table 63. Acres of Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat............................................................................311

Table 64. Habitat Estimates for Fisher (acres)..........................................................................................322

Table 65. Acres of Fisher Habitat.............................................................................................................322

Table 66. Acres of Fisher Habitat.............................................................................................................324

Table 67. Estimated Habitat for Flammulated Owl (acres) ......................................................................327

Table 68. Acres of Flammulated Owl Habitat ..........................................................................................327

Table 69. Acres of Flammulated Owl Habitat ..........................................................................................330

Table 70. Acres of Pygmy Nuthatch Habitat ............................................................................................349

Table 71. Estimated Snag Habitat (acres).................................................................................................350

Table 72. Acres of Pygmy Nuthatch Habitat ............................................................................................351

Table 73. Management Indicator Species for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests...............................355
Table 74. Status of the 33 Elk Management Units (EMU) Located within and near the Idaho Panhandle 

NF Boundary in Regards to Elk Security and Prioritization for Improvement by the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game...........................................................................................................362

Table 75. Acres of Chipping Sparrow and Dusky Flycatcher Habitat ......................................................367

Table 76. Acres of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat ...................................................................................367

Table 77. Acres of Hammond’s Flycatcher Habitat..................................................................................368

Table 78. Acres of Hairy Woodpecker Habitat.........................................................................................368

Table 79. Acres of Chipping Sparrow and Dusky Flycatcher Habitat ......................................................371

Table 80. Acres of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat ...................................................................................371

Table 81. Acres of Hammond’s Flycatcher Habitat..................................................................................372

Table 82. Acres of Hairy Woodpecker Habitat.........................................................................................372

Table 83. Species of Continental Importance Identified for the Intermountain West Avifaunal Biome in 

the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004)....................376

Table 84. Birds of Conservation Concern for the Bird Conservation Region that overlaps the Forest (Bird 

Conservation Region 10 = Northern Rockies) ..................................................................................378

Table 85. Partners in Flight Priority Habitats/Species for Idaho (PIF 2000) ............................................378

Table 86. Dominant Vegetation Type for the IPNF based on FIA Subplots, Vegetation Response Units, 

VMP Organized to Approximate the PIF Priority Habitats...............................................................381

Table 87. Estimated Winter Range Acres on NFS lands...........................................................................388

Table 88. Acres Closed to Over-Snow Motor Vehicle Use (may include Winter Range and Non-winter 

Range.................................................................................................................................................389

Table 89. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use ................389

Table 90. Snow Use Routes Outside of Area Closures* ...........................................................................389

Table 91. Snow Use Areas Outside of Area Closures*.............................................................................389

Table 92. Miles of Snow Use Routes in Winter Range.............................................................................390

Table 93. Acres of Snow Use Areas in Winter Range ..............................................................................390

Table 94. Acres of Areas Closed to Over-Snow Vehicle Use by Alternative...........................................394

Table 95. Miles of Snow Use Routes Outside of Area Closures...............................................................395

Table 96. Acres of Snow Use Areas Outside of Area Closures................................................................395

Table 97. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use (closure 

areas) for the Action Alternatives......................................................................................................395

Table 98. Overlap (miles) of Snow Use Routes and Winter Range for the Action Alternatives..............396

Table 99. Overlap (acres) of Snow Use Areas and Winter Range for the Alternative B Modified ..........396

Table 100. Miles of Road Construction and Reconstruction, by Fiscal Year, for the IPNF (1988-2009) 399

Table 101. Existing Acres (1987 Plan as implemented) of Management Areas 10,11, and 20 ................400

Table 102. National Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................................................410

Table 103. Summary of IPNF Roads by Functional Class........................................................................423

Table 104. Summary of IPNF Roads by Traffic Service Level ................................................................423

Table 105. Summary of IPNF Roads by Operational Maintenance Level................................................424

Table 106. Miles of Trails Managed Use on the IPNF*............................................................................425

Table 107. Summary of Current Acres Restricted to Over-Snow Vehicle Use on the IPNF....................428

Table 108. Summary of IPNF Roads by Travel Management Status........................................................429

Table 109. Summary of IPNF Trails Designated for Motor Vehicle Use*...............................................429

Table 110. Average Annual Road Maintenance Accomplished................................................................431

Table 111. Average Annual Trail Maintenance Accomplished ................................................................431

Table 112. Visitor Participation by Recreation Activity on IPNF (FY 2009)...........................................433

Table 113. Percent Satisfaction Index1 Scores from Recreation Users (FY 2009) ...................................434

Table 114. Forestwide Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Area, 2010..........................................434

Table 115. Developed Recreation Sites: Number and Capacity (Development Level 3 to 5) ..................436

Table 116. IPNF Recreation Special Use Authorizations .........................................................................438

Table 117. 1987 Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives ...........................................................................439
Table 118. Summary of Road Construction Opportunities (by acres and percent of Forest)...................440

Table 119. Summary of Access Availability of Alternatives based on MA Prescriptions and Currently 

Closed Areas that will Remain Closed in all Four Alternatives .......................................................442

Table 120. Acres by Alternative Where Hand-held Motorized Equipment would be Prohibited ............442

Table 121. Percentage Summer Recreation Opportunity Spectrum by Alternative .................................443

Table 122. Percentage Winter Recreation Opportunity Spectrum by Alternative....................................444

Table 123. Percentage of IPNF by Scenic Integrity Objective Category..................................................446

Table 124. Summary of Non-recreation Special Use Authorizations.......................................................459

Table 125. Potential Wilderness Inventory Rated Suitable as Recommended Wilderness......................467

Table 126. 1987 IPNF Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness................................................................468

Table 127. Idaho Roadless Rule Designated Management Themes for IPNF Inventoried Roadless Areas

..........................................................................................................................................................469

Table 128. Summary of Other Inventoried Roadless Areas on the IPNF.................................................470

Table 129. Acres of Recommended Wilderness by Alternative ...............................................................472

Table 130. Allocation of Inventoried Roadless Acres to MAs by Alternative .........................................473

Table 131. Comparison between Idaho Roadless Area Management Classifications and IPNF 

Management Areas ...........................................................................................................................478

Table 132. Comparison between Alternative B Modified and Idaho Roadless Area Management 

Classifications...................................................................................................................................479

Table 133. Comparison between Alternative D and Idaho Roadless Area Management Classifications1

483

Table 134. Summary of Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers on the IPNF ..............................................497

Table 135. Summary of Eligible Rivers on the IPNF (1987 Forest Plan & Amendment)........................499

Table 136. IPNF Rivers Identified as Eligible during Plan Revision Analysis ........................................500

Table 137. Established Research Natural Areas on the IPNF...................................................................505

Table 138. Proposed Research Natural Areas on the IPNF ......................................................................506

Table 139. Designated Special Areas on the IPNF...................................................................................512

Table 140. Recommended Special Areas on the IPNF for Alternative B Modified.................................513

Table 141. Recommended Special Areas on the IPNF for Alternatives C and D.....................................514

Table 142. Historic Administrative Sites Considered for Effects Analysis..............................................523

Table 143. Number of Sites within MAs allowing Vegetation Treatment ...............................................527

Table 144. Alternative A: Qualitative Potential for Adverse Effect to Cultural Resources by MA.........530

Table 145. Alternatives B Modified-D: Qualitative Potential for Adverse Effect to Cultural Resources by 

MA....................................................................................................................................................531

Table 146. Alternative A: Sites, Acreage, Acres of Treatment to Effect One Site and MA Summary ....531

Table 147. Site Numbers by MA and Alternative.....................................................................................533

Table 148. Number of Acres Managed to Affect a Single Site by Alternative.........................................534

Table 149. Comparison of Potential Adverse Effect Classes by Number of Sites for Each Alternative..535

Table 150. Comparison of Potential Adverse Effect Classes by Acres Treated to Impact a Single Site for 

Each Alternative................................................................................................................................536

Table 151. Management Area (MA) Acreage by Alternative for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe.....................554

Table 152. Management Area (MA) Acreage by Alternative for the Kalispel Tribe of Indians..............557

Table 153. Management Area (MA) Acreage by Alternative for the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho ...............560

Table 154. Timber Suitability for the 1987 Plan.......................................................................................566

Table 155. Annual Volume of Timber Processed by Tree Size Class (Excluding Pulpwood) for the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests Impact Zone, 2011 ...............................................................................567

Table 156. Annual Total Capacity and Capability* to Process Trees by Size Class (Excluding Pulpwood) 

for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Impact Zone, 2011..........................................................568

Table 157. Timber Suitability by Alternative ...........................................................................................570

Table 158. Allowable Sale Quantity and Volume Sold by Alternative — Decade 1 ...............................571

Table 159. Acres Harvested to meet ASQ and Volume Sold – Decade 1 ................................................571

Table 160. Long-term Sustained-yield Capacity (LTSYC) by Alternative (MMCF/year).......................572
Table 161. Acres Suitable for Timber Production, Percent Scheduled for Harvest, and First Decade 

Harvest within Inventoried Roadless Areas......................................................................................575

Table 162. Summary of Lands Available for Disposal of Mineral Materials...........................................587

Table 163. IPNF Allotments – Suitability Determination and Status, Existing Condition .......................592

Table 164. Range capability and Suitability by Allotment and Alternative B Modified, C, and D..........594

Table 165. Acres of Management Areas where Commercial Use of Special Forest and Botanical Products 

is Not Allowed by Alternative...........................................................................................................598

Table 166. Counties within the Analysis Area: Acreage and Percent Administered by IPNF..................603

Table 167. Change in Population by County and State.............................................................................605

Table 168. Population by Race, 2010........................................................................................................606

Table 169. Planning Area Communities by Ideal Type ............................................................................611

Table 170. Employment by Industry, 2001 and 2008 ...............................................................................614

Table 171. Per Capita Income by County and State..................................................................................617

Table 172. Compensation by Industry, 2001 and 2008.............................................................................618

Table 173. Wildland Dependency – Total Labor Income by Category (2010 data) .................................621

Table 174. Current Role of the IPNF-Related Contribution to the Area Economy...................................622

Table 175. Federal Land Payments to Analysis Area Counties, 2009 ......................................................624

Table 176. Federal Land Payments as a Share of Total General Government Revenue, FY2007 (2009 

dollars)...............................................................................................................................................624

Table 177. Employment by Program for Current Management and by Alternative (average annual, decade 

1)........................................................................................................................................................627

Table 178. Labor Income by Program for Current Management and by Alternative (average annual, 

decade 1; Thousands of Dollars).......................................................................................................628

Table 179. Economic Efficiency by Alternative (in thousands of dollars) ...............................................629

List of Figures

Figure 1. Management Area Continuum on the IPNF................................................................................... i

Figure 2. Idaho Panhandle National Forests Area Map.................................................................................3

Figure 3. Allocation by MA Group – Alternative B Modified....................................................................21

Figure 4. Allocation by MA Group — Alternative C..................................................................................23

Figure 5. Allocation by MA Group – Alternative D ...................................................................................25

Figure 6. Map of the three Biophysical Settings on the IPNF.....................................................................57

Figure 7. Desired and Current Forest Composition by Dominance Group at the Forestwide Scale ...........67

Figure 8. Desired and Current Forest Structure by Size Class at the Forestwide Scale ..............................73

Figure 9. Age class Distribution of Forested Acres over the entire IPNF...................................................74

Figure 10. Desired and Current Forest Composition by Dominance Group for the warm/dry Biophysical 

Setting..................................................................................................................................................92

Figure 11. Vegetation Desired Condition and Current Vegetation for Size Class for the warm/dry 

Biophysical Setting..............................................................................................................................93

Figure 12. Desired and Current Forest Composition for Dominance Group for the warm/moist 

Biophysical Setting..............................................................................................................................94

Figure 13. Desired and Current Forest Structure by Size Classes for the warm/moist Biophysical Setting

.............................................................................................................................................................95

Figure 14. Desired and Current Forest Composition by Dominance Group for the Subalpine Biophysical 

Setting..................................................................................................................................................96

Figure 15. Desired and Current Forest Structure by Size Classes for the Subalpine Biophysical Setting..97

Figure 16. The Analysis Area and the Hierarchy of the Watersheds and the Hydrologic Unit Codes 

(HUCs). A sub-basin is a HUC4, and a subwatershed is a HUC6 ....................................................158

Figure 17. IPNF Watershed Sensitivity Rating .........................................................................................161
Figure 18. Watershed Sensitivity Rating by Major Drainage Basin.........................................................162

Figure 19. IPNF Watershed Disturbance Rating.......................................................................................163

Figure 20. Watershed Disturbance Rating by Major Drainage Basin.......................................................164

Figure 21. Final Watershed Condition Rating ..........................................................................................166

Figure 22. Final Watershed Condition Rating by Major Drainage Basin.................................................167

Figure 23. IPNF Riparian Disturbance Rating..........................................................................................173

Figure 24. Riparian Disturbance Rating by Major Drainage Basin..........................................................174

Figure 25. Conservation & Restoration Subwatersheds ...........................................................................177

Figure 26. Probable Bull Trout Historic Range (from Lee et al. 1997)....................................................180

Figure 27. Currently known Bull Trout Distribution................................................................................181

Figure 28. Probable Historic Westslope Cutthroat Trout Distribution (Lee et al. 1997)..........................183

Figure 29. Currently known Westslope Cutthroat Trout Distribution ......................................................184

Figure 30. Probable interior redband trout distribution (from Lee et al. 1997) ........................................185

Figure 31. Currently known Interior Redband Trout Distribution............................................................186

Figure 32. Idaho Airsheds and Impact Zones taken from the MT/ID Airshed Group 2010 Operations 

Guide.................................................................................................................................................413

Figure 33. Operational Maintenance Level by District.............................................................................424

Figure 34. Idaho Panhandle National Forest Landownership Pattern.......................................................458

Figure 35. Map of IPNF Established and Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers......................501

Figure 36. Number of Sites and Number of Acres of Treatment to Impact a Single Site ........................528

Figure 37. Alternative A: Number of Sites per Management Area ..........................................................532

Figure 38. Alternative A: Number of Acres Treated to Affect a Single Site............................................533

Figure 39. Comparison of Site Numbers by MA and Alternative ............................................................534

Figure 40. Comparison of Number of Acres Managed to Potentially Affect one Site for each MA and 

Alternative.........................................................................................................................................535

Figure 41. Comparison of Potential Adverse Effect Classes by Number of Sites for each Alternative ...536

Figure 42. Comparison of Potential Adverse Effect Classes by Acres Treated to Impact a Single Site for 

each Alternative ................................................................................................................................537

Figure 43. Aboriginal Territories of the IPNF ..........................................................................................546

Figure 44. Coeur d'Alene ceded lands on IPNF. The area of the 1873 reservation boundary that overlaps 

with the Coeur d’Alene Ranger District managed lands is considered to have reserved off reservation 

rights attached that were not extinguished under the Executive Order that reduced the size of the 

reservation.........................................................................................................................................547

Figure 45. Relative amounts of each MA for the No-action alternative within the Coeur d'Alene 

Aboriginal Territory..........................................................................................................................555

Figure 46. Relative Amounts of each MA for Action Alternatives within the Coeur d'Alene Aboriginal 

Territory ............................................................................................................................................555

Figure 47. Relative comparison of MAs for the no-action alternative within the Kalispel Tribe of Indians 

Aboriginal Territory..........................................................................................................................558

Figure 48. Relative Comparison of MA Acreages for Action Alternatives for the Kalispel Tribe of Indians 

Aboriginal Territory..........................................................................................................................558

Figure 49. Relative acreages for each MA in the no-action alternative for the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.561

Figure 50. Relative Acreage by MA for Action Alternatives within the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Ceded 

Lands.................................................................................................................................................561

Figure 51. Volume Cut and Sold on the IPNF (in MMBF) ......................................................................569

Figure 52. Alternative A - Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term Sustained-Yield 

Capacity ............................................................................................................................................572

Figure 53. Alternative B Modified - Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term 

Sustained-Yield Capacity..................................................................................................................573

Figure 54. Alternative C - Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term Sustained-Yield 

Capacity ............................................................................................................................................573
Figure 55. Alternative D - Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term Sustained-Yield 

Capacity.............................................................................................................................................574

Figure 56. Displays the Locatable Minerals potential for the IPNF..........................................................584

Figure 57. Grazing Use on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest .............................................................591

Figure 58. Counties in the Analysis Area..................................................................................................604

Figure 59. Population by County by Decade.............................................................................................606

Figure 60. Percent Land Ownership by County ........................................................................................607

Figure 61. Percent Unemployment by County ..........................................................................................616

Figure 62. Percent Unemployment by Month by County .........................................................................617

Figure 63. Forest Service Payments by County – 1986 to 2009 (in constant, 2009 dollars).....................623

List of Appendices (separate document)

Appendix A — Cumulative Effects

Appendix B — Description of the Analysis Process

Appendix C — Wilderness Evaluation

Appendix D — Aquatics: Analysis and Methodology

Appendix E — Wild, Scenic, and Eligible Rivers

Appendix F — Special and Research Natural Areas

Appendix G — Response to Public Comments

Acronyms

Acronyms Column 1 Acronyms Column 1

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation MA Management Area

ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity MCF Thousand Cubic Feet

ATV All-terrain vehicle MIS Management Indicator 

Species

AUMs Animal Unit Months MMBF Million Board Feet

BLM Bureau of Land Management MMCF Million Cubic Feet

BMPs Best Management Practices MOU Memorandum of 

Understanding

BMUs Bear Management Units MVUMs Motor Vehicle Use Maps

CER Comprehensive Evaluation Report NAAQS National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards

CFR Code of Federal Regulations NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act

CYRZ Cabinet Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Zone

NFMA National Forest 

Management Act

EIS Environmental Impact Statement NHPA National Historic 

Preservation Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency NFS National Forest System

ESA Endangered Species Act NOI Notice of Intent

FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis NRLMD Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction

FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement

RHCAs Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Area

GA Geographic Area RNAs Research Natural Areas

GIS Geographic Information System ROD Record of Decision

HRV Historic Range of Variability ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project

SRZ Selkirk Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Zone

ID DEQ Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality

USC United States Code

IDT Interdisciplinary Team USDA United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy USDI United States 

Department of Interior

IPNF Idaho Panhandle National Forest USFS United States Forest 

Service

IRAs Inventoried Roadless Areas USFWS US Fish & Wildlife 

Service

KIPZ Kootenai Idaho Panhandle Zone WSA Wilderness Study Area

KNF Kootenai National Forest WUI Wildland Urban Interface

LMP Land Management Plan

LTSYC Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS i 

Summary

Proposed Action

The Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF) proposes to revise its Land and Resource Management 

Plan. The area affected by the proposal includes about 2.5 million acres of public land. The revised Forest 

Plan would designate seven management area (MAs) themes across the Forest: Wilderness (Designated, 

Recommended, Wilderness Study Area, and Primitive); Designated and Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers; 

Special Areas (botanical, geological, historical, recreational, scenic, or zoological); Research Natural 

Areas (RNAs) (established and recommended) and Experimental Forests; Backcountry; General Forest; 

and Primary Recreation Areas. The proposed MAs span a continuum (figure 1) that includes, at one end, 

an approach emphasizing passive management and natural restoration with little human-caused change, 

and on the other end, more active management with substantially more human-caused change designed to 

sustain the social, economic, and ecological attributes of the Forest. 

Figure 1. Management Area Continuum on the IPNF

Allocation to a specific MA does not mandate or direct the Forest Service to propose or implement any 

action; rather, the MAs provide direction on desired conditions and allowable activities and uses, 

including the following: 

• Timber harvest/timber production; 

• Commercial and personal use of special forest products and firewood; 

• Fire (prescribed and natural, unplanned); 

• Livestock grazing;

• Motor vehicle use;

Management Area

Wilderness

(MA1)

Wild & Scenic Rivers

(MA2)

Special Areas

(MA3)

Research Natural 

Area/Exp Forest

(MA4)

Primary Rec Areas

(MA7)

General Forest

(MA6)

Backcountry

(MA5)

Little human-caused change Substantial human-caused change

Idaho Panhandle National Forest – 2,497,700 Acres
Summary 

ii Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Over-snow vehicle use;

• Mechanized use;

• Road construction and reconstruction; and

• Minerals (leasable and minerals material).

Purpose and Need

The purpose of the action is to revise the 1987 Forest Plan for the IPNF. The final Forest Plan would 

guide natural resource management activities on the Forest, address changed conditions and direction that 

have occurred since the original Plan (1987), while meeting the objectives of federal law, regulation, and 

policy. Specifically, the final Forest Plan would provide management direction for identified revision 

topics forestwide, as well as MA direction.

In late 2000, the forest supervisor determined that revision was needed because significant changes had 

occurred in conditions and demands. The need for revision or change is based on legal requirements, 

changed conditions, and the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) (2003). Revision is also 

warranted because the Plan is beyond the 10 to 15 year duration provided by the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1606(e) (5) (A)).

Public Involvement

In late 2000, the IPNF began working on revision of the Forest Plan under the 2000 Planning Rule. In 

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

of the Land Management Plan (LMP) with a 12-month public comment period.

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

meetings. Approximately 19 informational and comment meetings took place in and around the local 

communities during the scoping process, which started in April 2002, with the NOI in the Federal 

Register and ended in May 2004. In addition to the public meetings; briefings and meetings were held 

with the Tribes, Congressional representatives, other elected officials, other agencies, and interest groups.

In addition, the IPNF hosted approximately 90 workgroup meetings from August 2003 to September 

2005. These meetings were held in the communities within the IPNF and the workgroups focused on the 

geographic areas (GAs) surrounding each of these communities. The purpose of these workgroup 

meetings was to: 1) share information about the revision topics; 2) collaboratively discuss and develop 

desired conditions for each of the revision topics within the workgroup’s GAs; 3) gain an understanding 

of the issues and appreciation of others’ viewpoints; and 4) discuss Starting Option maps and potential 

changes to suggest to the forest supervisor.

On May12, 2006, the Forest released the draft Proposed Land Management Plan under the 2005 Planning 

Rule. Open houses and public meetings were held to share the Proposed Land Management Plan, 

Comprehensive Evaluation Report, and other documents for the 120-day public comment period. Public 

comments on the proposed Plan were analyzed and summarized in a report (the Analysis of Public 

Comment Report, March 2007). Based on public and agency comments, the revision team began

development of the final Plan. A court injunction (March 30, 2007) resulted in suspension of Forest Plan 

revision activities under the 2005 Planning Rule. The 2008 Planning Rule was released in April of 2008 

and Forest Plan revision resumed under that Rule. A final Plan release was anticipated for winter of 2009 

when a court ruling invalidated the 2008 Planning Rule in June 2009. The 2000 Planning Rule was 

reinstated in December of 2009. The 2000 Planning Rule was amended in 2002 to allow the Forest 

Service to follow the procedures of the 1982 Planning Rule. The Forest issued a second NOI in March 
Summary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS iii

2010 to revise the Forest Plan using the 1982 procedures under the 2000 Planning Rule. All the public 

comment received on the various plan revision products over the life of the Plan revision were used in 

developing the draft Forest Plan and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS).

The draft Forest Plan and DEIS were released for public comment in January of 2012. Open houses were 

held in the communities throughout the Forest in January and February to share information regarding the 

documents and the process for commenting. The initial 90-day comment period for the draft EIS was 

extended an additional 30 days through May 7 of 2012. Numerous meetings were held with interested 

publics and elected officials during the 120 day comment period. Comments received during this 120-day 

comment period have been responded to in appendix G of the final EIS.

Major Issues

The major issues are the seven primary revision topics addressed by the revised Forest Plan. These topics 

represent areas where there are unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.

• Vegetation

• Fire

• Watershed and Aquatic Species

• Terrestrial Wildlife

• Access and Recreation

• Recommended Wilderness

• Timber Production

Alternatives

These major issues led the agency to develop four alternatives:

Alternative A is the no-action alternative. This alternative is the 1987 Forest Plan, as amended to date, 

and accounts for current laws and regulations. New information, inventories, and technologies were used 

to evaluate this alternative. Output levels were recalculated for this alternative based on these new sources 

of information and amended direction. The no-action alternative retains the 1987 Forest Plan goals and 

objectives, standards and guidelines, and MA prescriptions, as amended. This alternative serves as the 

baseline for comparison with the action alternatives.

Alternative B Modified is based on Alternative B from the DEIS, with modifications in response to 

comments. This alternative is the revised Forest Plan. It is the result of collaborative efforts since 2003 

and responds to the identified purpose and need. This alternative emphasizes moving towards desired 

future conditions and contributing to ecological, social, and economic sustainability. Alternative B

Modified would manage approximately 5 percent of the Forest as recommended wilderness (MA1b), 27 

percent as backcountry (MA5), and 60 percent as general forest (MA6). Thirty-eight percent of the Forest 

would be suitable for timber production.

Alternative C emphasizes wilderness values and protection of backcountry while moving towards 

desired conditions. There is an increased emphasis on natural disturbance processes (such as unplanned 

wildfire ignitions for multiple objectives) and prescribed burning. Mechanical treatments (e.g., timber 

harvest, stream improvements) also occur in order to move towards watershed and vegetation desired 

conditions. Alternative C would have more opportunities for backcountry and non-motorized recreation 

(MA1 — 335,300 acres; MA5 — 630,000 acres). This alternative also has more acres recommended as 
Summary 

iv Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

wilderness (331,100 acres) than any other alternative. About 57 percent would be allocated to general 

forest (MA6). Thirty-six percent of the Forest would be suitable for timber production.

Alternative D emphasizes achieving desired condition through mechanical means. Timber production is 

emphasized while moving towards vegetation desired conditions. This alternative has the most acres 

available for timber production and motorized access with 63 percent allocated to MA6 (general forest). 

There would be less recommended wilderness (138,100 acres or about 5 percent) and backcountry (MA5 

– less than 13 percent of the Forest). Thirty-nine percent of the Forest would be suitable for timber 

production.

All alternatives in this document adhere to multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services (Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) (36 CFR 219.1(a), (b)). In addition, they share objectives and standards for 

managing forest resources and complying with applicable laws and policies. They also contain the same 

direction to contribute to the diversity of desired native and non-native plant and animal communities and 

contribute toward the recovery of threatened and endangered species. Forestwide direction identified in 

the Plan would apply to all action alternatives. The difference between alternatives is primarily the 

difference in allocation of acres by MA to meet the purpose and need for change, and address one or more 

of the major issues.

Each alternative was developed to be in compliance with applicable law and regulation, as well as 

national policy and direction including, but not limited to, the Healthy Forests Initiative, National Fire 

Plan, and National Energy Policy. Each alternative retains the following existing decisions to the 1987 

Forest Plan and the associated Biological Opinion:

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

(1995));

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

Service 2007 March); and

• Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Zones (USDA Forest Service 2011b and 2011c).

The following would not change between alternatives.

• Draft Forest Plan Goals, Desired Conditions, and Standards and Guidelines — Management 

area and forestwide direction for goals, desired conditions, standards, and guidelines remains 

constant for all action alternatives.

• Experimental Forests — Allocation of Experimental Forests (MA4b) remain constant for all 

action alternatives.

• Developed Recreation Sites — Existing developed recreation sites are retained in all alternatives. 

Alternatives do not make decisions to remove or to create developed recreation sites. Allocation 

of primary recreation areas (MA7) remains constant for all action alternatives.

• Utility Rights-of-Way and Communication Sites — Direction for and location of designated 

utility rights-of-way and communication sites remains constant for all alternatives.

• Wild and Scenic Rivers — Direction for and allocation of designated and eligible wild and scenic 

rivers (MA2a and MA2b) remains constant for all action alternatives.

• Wilderness Study Area —The Grandmother Mountain Wilderness Study Area and its 

management would continue as outlined by the Arkansas-Idaho Land Exchange Act (1992) and 

the Idaho Land Enhancement Act (2006), regardless of which alternative is selected for 

implementation.
Summary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS v

• Designated Wilderness — The Salmo-Priest Wilderness Designation remains constant for all 

alternatives.

Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 3 of this FEIS presents a detailed description of the effects of the alternatives. The following 

tables provide a summary of management area allocations by alternative (table 1) and effects by revision 

topic (table 2).

Table 1. Comparisons Percent MA Allocation by Alternative

MA Alternative A1 Alternative B

Modified

Alternative C Alternative D

MA1a – Designated Wilderness 6.2%2 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

MA1b – Recommended Wilderness5 2 6.1% 12.8% 5.2%

MA1c – Wilderness Study Area n/a 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

MA1e – Primitive Lands 0.8% 0% 0.4%

MA2a – Designated Wild & Scenic 

Rivers

1.2%3 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

MA2b – Eligible Wild & Scenic Rivers 2.0% 1.7% 1.9%

MA3 – Special Areas 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 1.4%

MA4a – Research Natural Areas 0.7%4 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

MA4b – Experimental Forests 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

MA5 – Backcountry n/a 27.3% 25.2% 25.0%

MA6 – General Forest n/a 60.3% 56.9% 63.1%

MA7 – Primary Recreation Area n/a 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

1 Alternative A, the no-action alternative, is included even though it does not use the management areas shown in the revised Forest 

Plan. See table 4 in chapter 2 for a crosswalk of the 1987 Plan management areas to those used in the revised Plan and the action 

alternatives.

2 Total for existing condition is MA11, which combines existing and recommended wilderness and primitive lands. 3 Total for existing condition isMA12, which combines eligible and designated wild and scenic rivers.

4 Total for existing condition is MA14, which combines research natural areas and experimental forests.

5 Does not include overlapped MAs, but only where MA1b is primary (see mapping hierarchy as described in chapter 3 of the revised 

Forest Plan)
Summary 

vi Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 2. Comparison of Some Key Indicators for Revision Topics by Alternative

Revision Topic (some Key Indicators) Alternative

A B Modified C D

Vegetation

Forest composition, structure, and pattern

Carbon Sequestration

Least improvement 

towards DFC1

Greatest amount of 

carbon sequestered

Greatest 

improvement towards 

DFC1

Third highest amount 

of carbon 

sequestered

Second greatest 

improvement towards 

DFC1

Second highest 

amount of carbon 

sequestered

Third greatest 

improvement towards 

DFC1

Least amount of carbon 

sequestered

Fire

Use of fire (prescribed and wildfire)

Fuel treatment/risk reduction

Lowest emphasis

Lowest emphasis

Second most 

emphasis

Most emphasis

Most emphasis

Third most emphasis

Third most emphasis

Second most emphasis

Watersheds, Soils, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Species

Trend in watershed condition, water quality, soil productivity, 

riparian ecosystem function, and quality of aquatic habitats

Overall 

improvements, based 

on current and 

historical 

accomplishments in 

restoration efforts 

and activities

More rapid 

improvement than C 

or D. Vegetation 

restoration emphasis, 

would likely target 

areas that include 

other active 

restoration 

opportunities for soil 

and aquatic 

resources and also 

includes a balance 

with passive 

restoration 

opportunities

Potentially slower 

improvement, 

because of emphasis 

towards “passive 

restoration” with 

amount of land area 

allocated within MA1 

– MA5.

Although more land 

allocated to MA6, 

compared to other 

alternatives, potentially 

slower improvement 

with the emphasis in 

commodity based 

management which 

could offset effects of 

active and passive 

restoration efforts

Terrestrial Wildlife

Changes in forest composition, structure, and pattern.

Acres of security habitat

See Vegetation 

section above

Least acres of 

security habitat

See Vegetation 

section above

Second most acres of 

security habitat

See Vegetation 

section above

Most acres of 

security habitat

See Vegetation section 

above

Third most acres of 

security habitat
Summary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS vii

Revision Topic (some Key Indicators) Alternative

A B Modified C D

Vegetation

Access and Recreation

Percent of the Forest where roads & trails may be designated 

for motor vehicle use

Percent of the Forest where over-snow vehicle use is allowed

Percent of the Forest where mechanized use is allowed

96 percent

82 percent

99.5 percent

91 percent

79 percent

93 percent

85 percent

74 percent

87 percent

91 percent

79 percent

94 percent

Recommended Wilderness

Acres of recommended wilderness (includes overlapping 

MAs)

147,000 acres 161,4002 acres 331,100 acres 138,100 acres

Timber

Suitable for Timber Production 928,900 acres 950,900 acres 906,500 acres 982,300 acres

Percent Suitable 37 percent 38 percent 36 percent 39 percent

Predicted Volume Sold. 46.8 MMBF 44.6 MMBF 43.3 MMBF 46.3 MMBF

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) 124.9 MMBF 120.3 MMBF 115.9 MMBF 131.3 MMBF

1 Desired Forest Condition (DFC)

2 There are an additional 19,700 acres allocated to MA1e, Primitive Areas, under this alternative. Primitive areas would be managed similar to recommended wilderness except 

mechanized and motorized over-snow use would be allowed.

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, has prepared this final

environmental impact statement (FEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This FEIS discloses the 

environmental consequences that could result from the proposed action and alternatives. The 

document is organized as follows:

• Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action — This chapter includes information on the 

history of the proposal, the purpose of and need for the action, and the Agency's proposal for 

achieving that purpose and need. This chapter also describes the public involvement process.

• Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action — This chapter describes the 

alternatives developed to address the purpose and need for change. It also describes 

alternatives not considered in detail. A summary comparison of alternatives is provided at 

the end of the chapter.

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences — This chapter 

describes current conditions on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest (IPNF) and the 

environmental consequences of implementing each alternative.

• Chapter 4. List of Preparers — This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies 

consulted during the development of the EIS.

• Glossary — The glossary provides definitions of terms used in this document.

• Appendices — The appendices (separate document) provide additional detailed information 

in support of the analyses presented in the EIS.

• Map — There is a separate, large-scale map of the management areas for Alternative B 

Modified. Maps of management areas for Alternatives C and D are the same as published 

with the DEIS, and are not reprinted with the FEIS.

Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposes to revise the Land Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the 

“revised Forest Plan”) for the IPNF. This revised Forest Plan is proposed to meet legal and 

regulatory requirements; and to address changes, issues, and concerns that have arisen since the

Forest Plan was released in 1987. The area covered under this revision is shown in figure 2.

The draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with the draft Forest Plan were published 

December of 2011 using the 1982 planning procedures as allowed by the 2000 Planning 

Regulations. The Notice of Availability was published January 6, 2012 in the Federal Register. 

The first notice indicated a 45 day comment period. The notice was corrected to specify our 

preference for a 90 day comment period. The comment period was extended 30 days, closing on 

May 7, 2012.

On March 23, 2012 the agency established a new planning rule (the 2012 Rule). The 2012 

Planning Rule provides transition language at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), allowing the responsible 

official to elect to use the provisions of the prior planning regulations (1982 Planning Rule, dated 

September 30, 1982, and as amended) to prepare plan amendments and revisions. The 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

2 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

responsible official has elected to follow the provisions of the planning regulations in effect prior 

to May 9, 2012, referred to collectively in this document as the 1982 Planning Rule.

The Planning Area

The IPNF consists of major portions of three individual proclaimed national forests: the Kaniksu, 

the Coeur d’Alene, and the St. Joe. In 1973, major portions of these three forests were combined 

to be administratively managed as one national forest (for ease of discussion throughout this 

document, the Idaho Panhandle National Forests will be referred to as the IPNF or Forests when 

referencing the single administrative unit, the staff that administers the unit or the National 

Forest System (NFS) lands within the unit).

The IPNF are divided into five ranger districts, which are also the geographic areas (GA) defined 

within the revised Forest Plan: Bonners Ferry, Coeur d’Alene River, Priest Lake, Sandpoint, and 

St. Joe. Together, they consist of more than 2.5 million acres of public lands in the panhandle of 

north Idaho, with small areas extending into eastern Washington and western Montana (figure 2). 

Of the total 2.5 million acres, about 2,351,100 acres are in Idaho, 31,200 in Montana, and 

118,400 acres in Washington. Access into the Forest is via Interstate 90 and U.S. Highways 95 

and 2, and Idaho State Highways 200, 57, 1, 3, and 6.

The IPNF as a whole is characterized by several mountain ranges interspersed with large lakes 

and extensive river valleys. The Selkirk Mountains, Cabinet Mountains, Purcell Mountains, 

Coeur d’Alene Range, and Bitterroot Range are all part of the rugged terrain of the IPNF. Lakes 

Coeur d'Alene, Pend Oreille, and the upper and lower Priest are dominant water features in the 

area. Major river valleys consist of the St. Joe, Coeur d'Alene, Priest, Pend Oreille, Clark Fork, 

and Kootenai.

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

the Forest Service. It is the home of several threatened and endangered plant and animal species, 

and it provides a diversity of aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Grizzly bear, woodland caribou, 

Canada lynx, bull trout, and Spalding’s catchfly are examples of some of these rare and listed 

species.

The principal population centers within the IPNF are Coeur d’Alene and Sandpoint, Idaho. Some 

of the smaller communities that have social, economic, and historic ties to the IPNF include St. 

Maries, Wallace, Kellogg, Priest River, Bonners Ferry, and Priest Lake. The nearest larger urban 

area, Spokane, Washington, has a social and economic influence on the local communities. The 

majority of land administered by the IPNF is located in Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah, 

and Shoshone counties in Idaho and Pend Oreille County in Washington (table 3). Smaller 

portions of land are also found in Lincoln and Sanders counties in Montana, and Latah and 

Clearwater counties in Idaho. Logging, mining, and ranching have played important roles in 

many of these communities throughout the history of the area and continue to do so in varying 

degrees today.

Recreation opportunities abound in the IPNF. Visitors come from across the nation, as well as 

Spokane and local communities, to fish and boat the numerous rivers and lakes. Other popular 

recreation activities include hiking, biking, sightseeing, horseback riding, hunting, off-highway 

vehicle use, recreational prospecting, snowmobiling, skiing, gathering forest products, driving 

for pleasure, and wildlife viewing. This visitation and recreation is important to the local 

economy and is a major reason people choose to live in this area.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 3

Figure 2. Idaho Panhandle National Forests Area Map

Table 3. Acres and Percent Administered by the IPNF, by County

County Acres Administered by IPNF Percent of County Administered by IPNF

Benewah, ID 26,100 5%

Bonner, ID 431,100 35%

Boundary, ID 487,300 59%

Clearwater, ID 3,000 <1%

Kootenai, ID 245,800 29%

Latah, ID 12,900 2%

Lincoln, MT 21,800 1%

Pend Oreille, WA 119,900 13%

Sanders, MT 6,200 <1%

Shoshone, ID 1,149,500 69%

Total Acres 2,503,600

Purpose

The purpose of the action is to revise the 1987 Forest Plan for the IPNF. The final Forest Plan 

will guide natural resource management activities on the Forest, addressing changed conditions 

and direction that have occurred since the original Plan was released, while meeting the 

objectives of federal law, regulation, and policy.

Need

The forest supervisor initiated revision based on legal requirements and significant changes that 

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

the Management Situation (AMS) (2003) documents the need to establish or change forest plan 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

4 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

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

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

Under the 1982 planning procedures, instructions to revise forest plans were formulated in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 36 CFR 219.10(g), 1982:

“A forest plan shall ordinarily be revised on a ten-year cycle or at least every 15 

years. It also may be revised whenever the forest supervisor determines that 

conditions or demands in the area covered by the plan have changed 

significantly, or when changes in Resource Planning Act policies, goals, or 

objectives would have a significant effect on forest level programs.”

Need for Change

The revision of the Forest Plan is based on a need for change. The need for change approach 

analyzes the entire Plan and proposes changes to the 1987 Forest Plan where adjustments are 

necessary.

Monitoring and evaluation of implementation of the 1987 Forest Plan has helped identify 

management concerns, new issues, new information, and better ways to achieve goals, desired 

conditions, and objectives. Inventory information about the Forest’s land and water resources is 

more accurate than it was in 1987, as a result of continued updates and new data management 

tools. The Forest now has geographic information system (GIS) technology, which greatly 

enhances analysis and the revision process. Knowledge of the physical, biological, and social 

processes occurring on the Forest has improved and increased during the life of the 1987 Forest 

Plan. This new and emerging information contributes to the need for revision.

The revision focuses on the most compelling needs for change in Forest Plan direction. These 

changes are generally important enough to:

• Affect large areas;

• Change the mix of goods and services produced; or

• Involve decisions in management direction where there is no public consensus on the 

best course of action.

Revision Topics

Revision topics are broad categorizations of major issues that identify where resource conditions, 

technical knowledge, or public perceptions of resource management have created a potential 

“need for change.” The revision topics are the focus of this Forest Plan revision process. They 

address the central issues and public concerns to which future management of the IPNF must 

respond. The revision topics provide the basis for development of the Proposed Action and 

alternatives.

The AMS identified seven primary ‘need for change’ or revision topics.

• Vegetation

• Fire Risk

• Watershed and Aquatic Species

• Terrestrial Wildlife

• Access and Recreation
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 5

• Recommended Wilderness

• Timber Production

The following is a summary of each revision topic, including an issue statement, a description of 

the need for changes, and key indicators. For more information on revision topics, see the AMS.

Vegetation

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the composition, structure, and 

landscape pattern of forests. This could influence the susceptibility and resiliency of the forests 

to significant disturbance agents such as large intense wildfires, insect and disease epidemics, 

weather events, and climate change.

Need for Change: The focus on vegetation was largely due to concerns that the forest 

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

ecosystems, and the goods and services that it provided, may not be sustainable, especially in 

light of potential impacts from climate change.

This issue was used to develop desired condition descriptions for vegetation at various scales 

(e.g., forestwide and for each of three biophysical settings) and was used in the development of 

management direction (goals, desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines). The 

analysis conducted for this issue focuses on changes that may occur to forest composition, 

structure, landscape patterns of forest conditions, and the resistance and resiliency of the forest to 

disturbances and stressors, and lastly, the ability of the forest vegetation to sequester carbon. This 

analysis provides a foundation for how terrestrial vegetation may influence other resources such 

as wildlife habitat, aquatic resources, timber production, and fire hazard.

Key Indicators

• Forest composition and structure — predicted changes to tree species composition and 

structure (tree size classes, old growth, and snags);

• Landscape pattern of the forests — potential changes to the pattern of forest conditions 

(e.g., successional stages, species composition, tree density, and fuels) on the landscape;

• Resistance and resiliency of the forest vegetation to disturbances and stressors — effects 

of the alternatives on the hazard of wildfire, key insects and diseases, weather 

disturbances, and climate change; and

• Carbon sequestration.

Fire

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the restoration and maintenance 

of the fire-adapted ecosystems on the IPNF. In the wildland urban interface (WUI), the Forest 

Plan management strategies may affect the amount, arrangement, and type of hazardous fuels 

that exist; and therefore, the risk that potential wildfires pose to life, private property, and other 

values in these areas (e.g., campgrounds, utility improvements, communication sites, and 

scenery values).

Need for Change: In order to restore and maintain the fire-adapted ecosystems on the Forest, 

there is a need to expand the use of fire (both planned as well as natural, unplanned ignitions) as 

a management tool.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

6 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

A substantial amount of acreage on the IPNF is fairly remote in terms of road access. In many of 

these areas, it can be difficult or undesirable to use mechanical treatments to manage the 

vegetation in order to help achieve the desired forest conditions. Therefore, in these areas, it is 

especially important to consider the use of natural, unplanned ignitions when and where it is 

appropriate.

The AMS identified fire risk in the WUI as a growing concern since the 1987 Forest Plan was 

developed and recognized the need for more direction and emphasis on this issue in the final

Forest Plan.

Key Indicators

• How much, where, and under what conditions planned and natural, unplanned ignitions

may be used to help achieve desired conditions; and

• How much fuel treatment is anticipated and the relative reduction in hazard that could 

occur.

Watershed, Soils, Riparian, Aquatic Habitat, and Aquatic Species

Issue Statement: Land management activities conducted under the Forest Plan management 

strategy have the potential to affect soil productivity, alter the distribution and abundance of 

aquatic species, change water quality, and modify riparian function.

Need for Change: There are two primary reasons that the 1987 Forest Plan needs to be revised 

for watershed and aquatic dependent resources. The first is to establish management direction 

that recognizes and emphasizes watershed restoration activities and the second is to address 

changes in the physical and biological components of the aquatic ecosystem: such as water 

quality impairments, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, soil productivity, and 

riparian and aquatic habitat conditions.

Key Indicators

• Trend in watershed condition rating;

• Trend in soil productivity;

• Trend in water quality;

• Trend in riparian ecosystem function; and

• Trend in quality of aquatic habitats.

Terrestrial Wildlife

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect habitat for terrestrial wildlife 

species, including species that are listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), Northern Region sensitive species, and forest management indicator species (MIS).

Need for Change: Since the 1987 Forest Plan, several changes have occurred that resulted in 

subsequent modifications in how we manage both species and habitats. The revised Forest Plan

needs to address these changes.

Species listed as threatened and endangered have changed. Additionally, the sensitive species list 

has been amended. Knowledge related to habitat management for grizzly bear continue to 

evolve.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 7

Items such as fragmentation, patch size, biodiversity and ecosystem management strategies have 

evolved and need to be incorporated into the Forest Plan. Current plan direction for special 

habitats may not be adequate. In 2001, it was determined that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

applied to all federal agencies. The state of Idaho completed an elk management plan in 1999, 

with specific habitat and population goals and objectives that did not always match those found 

in the Forest Plan (Idaho Fish and Game 1999).

The analyses done in preparation for the Forest Plan revision show that physical and biological 

components of terrestrial wildlife habitats have changed, resulting in increased or decreased 

suitable habitat, depending on the wildlife species.

Key Indicators

• Changes in forest composition, structure, and pattern; and

• Security habitat (non-motorized areas).

Access and Recreation

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect recreation resources, 

experiences, and opportunities.

Need for Change: Access, specifically the motorized and non-motorized use of National Forest 

System (NFS) lands is recognized as one of the most controversial topics, both internally and 

externally, in forest management today. Because of this level of controversy, it is appropriate to 

address motorized and non-motorized use as part of the Forest Plan revision.

The 1987 Plan does not provide adequate direction to address the changes in recreation demands,

technology, and shifts in management practices that have occurred over the past two decades.

This issue was used in the development of forestwide and MA direction.

Key Indicators

• Percent of the Forest and location of areas where roads and trails may be designated for 

motor vehicle use;

• Percent of the Forest and location of areas where over-snow vehicle use is allowed;

• Percent of the Forest and location of areas where mechanized use is allowed;

• Percent of the Forest and location managed in the various recreation opportunity 

spectrum (ROS) classes; and

• Percent of the Forest managed for various scenery management systems and scenic 

integrity objective categories.

Recommended Wilderness

Issue Statement: Management strategies for recommended wilderness may affect recreation 

opportunities and experiences within recommended wilderness areas.

Need for Change: There is continuing controversy associated with the management of IRAs, as

well as updating guidance provided in the 1987 Forest Plan to reflect current direction for 

recommended wilderness. Evaluation of existing wilderness and areas for wilderness potential is 

a requirement of Forest Plan revision (1982 regulations 36 CFR 219.17).
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

8 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Key Indicator

• Acres of recommended wilderness.

Timber

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the amount of lands suitable for 

timber production and sustainable timber volume managed by the Forest.

Need for Change: The 1987 Forest Plan established an allowable sale quantity (ASQ) as the 

maximum level of timber that could be harvested. Timber production levels have been well 

below the ASQ established in the 1987 IPNF Plan. While timber harvest levels have not 

exceeded the maximums established in the ASQ, they also have not met expectations for 

management and output levels. Even though ASQ is the maximum harvest level, there was an 

expectation by the public that this level was achievable and predicted. The analysis conducted 

for the 1987 Forest Plan used this level of harvest in estimating effects from timber management 

on other resources and the impact to local jobs and income. With the reduced timber harvest 

level, there is a need to reanalyze timber harvest levels and estimate the effects on other 

resources and the local communities.

The management direction in the 1987 Forest Plan emphasized the production of timber, with the 

majority of MAs allowing or promoting timber management. In the 1990s, the Forest Service 

began to focus on ecosystem management and ecological sustainability. This change in policy 

and direction resulted in a decreased emphasis on commercial timber production and an 

increased emphasis on timber harvest as a tool to restore vegetation or as a means to address 

other resource requirements or needs. There is a need to reanalyze timber harvest levels and 

revise them.

In addition, evaluation of timber suitability is required to be reviewed every 10 years (1982 

regulations 36 CFR 219.14). Since the adoption of the 1987 Forest Plan, many changes to timber 

suitability have occurred.

Key Indicators

• Number of acres suitable for timber production;

• Allowable sale quantity and predicted timber volume sold; and

• Long-term sustained yield capacity.

Other Topics

Additional topics were identified where there is a need to incorporate current law, regulation, or 

policy as well as current data and science. The Plan direction that addresses these topics is 

common to all action alternatives:

• Air Quality

• Lands and Special Uses

• Wild and Scenic Rivers

• Research Natural Areas

• Special Areas

• Experimental Forests

• Cultural Resources
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 9

• American Indian Rights and Interests

• Minerals

• Grazing

• Special Forest and Botanical Products

• Social and Economic systems

• Cooperation and Community Involvement

Public Involvement

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

revision of the 1987 LMP had begun and asked for comment on preliminary issues, topics, and 

the preliminary proposed action. Informal discussions with the public regarding needed changes 

to the current Forest Plan began with a series of public meetings in 2002. This input, along with 

science-based evaluations, was used to determine the need for change. Additional meetings, 

correspondence, news releases, comment periods, and other tools were utilized to gather 

feedback from the public, forest employees, tribal governments, federal and state agencies, and 

local governments.

In March 2003, the AMS and AMS Technical Report (USDA Forest Service 2003 March) were 

released to the public. The AMS documented the need for change, the seven primary revision 

topics, and the IPNF proposed action identified from public comment and internal (Forest 

Service) input.

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

workgroup meetings. Approximately 19 informational and comment meetings in and around the 

local communities took place during the scoping process, which started in April 2002, with the 

NOI in the Federal Register and ended in May 2004. In addition to the public meetings, 

briefings and meetings were held with the Tribes, Congressional representatives, other elected 

officials, other agencies, and interest groups.

In addition, the IPNF hosted approximately 72 workgroup meetings from August 2003 to May 

2004. These meetings were held in the communities within the IPNF and the workgroups 

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

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

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

workgroup’s GAs; and 3) gain an understanding of the issues and appreciation of others’ 

viewpoints.

A draft Content Analysis Report, prepared in 2004, summarized what the IPNF had learned from 

people that responded to the preliminary proposed action, revision topics, and need for change.

The report was based on information from various public and workgroup meetings, open houses, 

field trips, invited group presentations, and meetings with tribal partners, agency partners, and 

elected officials up to that time.

Under the 1982 planning procedures, the Forest was required to prepare an EIS in conjunction 

with the revised LMP. Therefore, beginning in June 2004, based on what the IPNF learned 

during internal and external public participation and collaboration, the Forest and revision 

interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed alternative themes utilizing and identifying suitable uses 

for various forest management purposes. These themes were designed to reflect a mix of 

different management philosophies based on the Forest's dialogue with members of the public, 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

10 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

other agencies and governments, tribal partners, and employees. These alternative themes were 

shared with the public and workgroups during meetings held in the winter of 2004-2005.

In January of 2005, a new planning rule was released, that did not require an EIS, and thus, a 

final set of alternatives was never developed. Emphasis shifted to the development of a "starting 

option" map. The starting option map was created utilizing the preliminary alternatives, revision 

topics, public scoping comments, and input from the workgroups and other meetings.

The starting option map and associated direction, was the focus of many public/workgroup 

meetings in July to September of 2005. The purpose of the workgroup meetings was for a 

diverse group of people to come together to discuss the starting option map and try and reach 

agreement on potential changes to suggest to the forest supervisor. From July to September 2005, 

the IPNF hosted 18 workgroup meetings in the same communities focusing on the same GAs. 

The purpose of these workgroup meetings was to: 1) share the starting option map and discuss 

how it was developed; 2) validate the information on the starting option map; and 3) 

collaboratively discuss any possible changes to the starting option map. In addition to the 

workgroup meetings, briefings and meetings were held with the Tribes, Congressional 

representatives, other elected officials, other agencies, and interest groups. Several elected 

officials, Congressional staffers, and other agency representatives participated in the workgroup 

meetings.

In October 2005 the draft Proposed Plan map was released to the public and workgroups, 

showing the major changes and providing the rationale for changes to the starting option map. 

The revision IDT incorporated input from the starting option map into the Proposed Land 

Management Plan, which was released on May 12, 2006, for a 90-day public comment period. 

The comment period was extended an additional 30 days and ended September 11, 2006.

Released along with the Proposed Land Management Plan was the draft Comprehensive 

Evaluation Report (CER). The draft CER built upon the AMS and documented the evaluation of 

the 1987 Forest Plan and proposed changes. The draft CER evaluated current social, economic, 

and ecological conditions and trends that contribute to sustainability and served as the principle 

document that supported the need to establish, amend, or revise a Plan. The draft CER identified 

factors that affect conditions and trends, and included information of what are causing conditions 

to change, and described the influence plan implementation would have on moving toward 

desired conditions.

Public comment on the Proposed Plan and draft CER was analyzed and documented in a report, 

The Analysis of Public Comment Report (March 2007). Based on public and agency comments 

the revision IDT began to develop the final LMP. A court injunction (March 30, 2007) resulted in 

suspension of Forest Plan revision activities under the 2005 Planning Rule. The 2008 Planning 

Rule was released in April of 2008 and Forest Plan revision resumed under that Rule. A final 

Plan release was anticipated for winter of 2009 when a court ruling invalidated the 2008 

Planning Rule in June 2009. The 2000 Planning Rule was reinstated in December of 2009. The 

2000 Planning Rule was amended in 2002 to allow the Forest Service to follow the procedures of 

the 1982 Planning Rule.

The Forest issued a second NOI in March 2010 to revise the Forest Plan using the 1982 

procedures under the 2000 Planning Rule. All the public comment received on the various plan 

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

and DEIS.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 11

The draft Forest Plan and DEIS were released for public comment in January of 2012. Open 

houses were held in the communities throughout the Forest in January to share information 

regarding the documents and the process for commenting. The initial 90-day comment period for 

the draft EIS was extended an additional 30 days through May 7 of 2012. Numerous meetings 

were held with interested publics and elected officials during the 120 day comment period.

Comments received during this 120-day comment period have been responded to in appendix G 

of the FEIS.

Decision Framework

The responsible official for this analysis is the regional forester. Based on the analysis and 

subsequent public comments, the responsible official will select an alternative to revise the 

Forest Plan and document the rationale in a record of decision (ROD). Forest Plan approval 

results in:

1. Establishment of forestwide multiple-use goals and objectives, including a 

description of the desired condition of the IPNF and an identification of the quantities 

of goods and services that are expected to be produced during the planning period, as 

required by 36 CFR 219.11(b);

2. Establishment of forestwide standards and guidelines to fulfill the requirements of 16 

USC 1604 applying to future activities and resource integration requirements in 36 

CFR 219.13 through 219.27;

3. Establishment of Management Area (MA) direction (multiple-use prescriptions) with 

associated standards and guidelines, including possible actions(see appendix A of the 

revised Forest Plan), as required by 36 CFR 219.11(c);

4. Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements that provide a basis for a 

periodic determination and evaluation of the effects of management practices, as 

required by 36 CFR 219.11(d);

5. Recommendation of wilderness to Congress as required by 36 CFR 219.17(a); and

6. Determination of suitability and potential capability of lands for resource production 

(timber and grazing), as required by 36 CFR 219.14 and 219.20.

The Plan will set a course of action for managing the Forest for the next 10 to 15 years. 

However, project level environmental analysis will still need to be completed for specific 

proposals to implement the direction in the Forest Plan.

Related Decisions Which Implement the Forest Plan

The six Forest Plan decisions listed above are strategic. Implementation of the Forest Plan 

generally requires a site- or project-specific analysis and decision(s). However, there are 

situations where a site-specific decision is made at a strategic level, with the Forest Plan ROD. 

For example, a strategic decision may allocate an area as non-motorized to provide quiet 

recreation or to protect wildlife in winter range. To provide for this type of condition, the Plan 

would include a standard to not allow motor vehicle use. The Forest Plan ROD would then make 

a site-specific decision that restricts where motorized use can and cannot occur across broad 

areas and closure orders would be simultaneously issued with the decision.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

12 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Relationship to Other Entities

Forest Service planning regulations require the agency to consider other federal, state and local 

government, and tribal plans and policies. As part of the outreach effort, a number of discussions 

with federal, state, local, and tribal representatives were initiated.

County Governments

Beginning with initiation of the planning process, local government officials from the counties 

within the IPNF lands were invited to participate in Forest Plan development. All county plans

were considered as the planning process developed.

State

Several Idaho State agencies are affected by, or affect, Forest Service management. These 

include the Idaho Department of Fish and Game; the Idaho State Parks and Recreation; the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality; the Idaho Soil and Water Conservation Commission; and 

the Idaho Department of Transportation. The Forest coordinated information with State agencies 

during all phases of the plan revision process. Those offices provided formal comments during 

the scoping and other public involvement stages. Statewide assessments were considered in the 

development of the revised Forest Plan.

In addition, the Forest worked with the Idaho Roadless Commission to ensure the revised Forest 

Plan was compatible with the Idaho Roadless Rule. Adjustments were made to the management 

area boundaries for Alternative B Modified to provide consistency with the Rule.

Tribes

During development of the revised Forest Plan, the IPNF consulted with the Kootenai Tribe of 

Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe, the Coeur d′Alene Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians. The KNF took the lead to 

consult with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes on forest plan revision. As a result, 

specific tribal comments were incorporated in this EIS and revised Forest Plan.

Federal

Management of federal lands adjacent to the IPNF was considered in the formulation of 

alternatives and their cumulative effects.

Consideration of national scenic and historic trails, utility corridors, recommended wilderness,

and other management concerns across boundaries were discussed with the Colville and 

Clearwater National Forests. The forests met to ensure management problems weren’t created 

because of IPNF revised Forest Plan direction.

Relationship to Other Assessments or National Policy

There are several broad scale assessments or national policies in place that affect management 

decisions on the IPNF. Following is a brief description of these assessments or policies and their 

effect on the IPNF Plan revision.

National Scale

In March 1999, the Committee of Scientists published a report entitled, “Sustaining the Peoples’ 

Lands: Recommendations for Stewardship of the National Forests and Grasslands into the Next 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 13

Century” (USDA Forest Service 1999). This report emphasizes ecosystem management and the 

need for sustainability of all forest lands. The report also emphasizes the need for standards and 

guidelines, or any other technical requirements, to be based on scientific research. The IPNF has 

incorporated this guidance by using accepted scientific data and recovery plans as the basis for 

developing resource-specific requirements.

Policy decisions such as the Healthy Forests Initiative, National Fire Plan, and the Associated 

Cohesive Strategy direct the management of national forests to curb uncharacteristic wildfire and 

reduce the risks to people, property, and resources. These policies, where compatible with the 

biological and physical capabilities of the land and other national forest objectives, were 

considered in the development of the proposed action.

In July 2010, the Chief of the Forest Service announced the National Roadmap for Responding 

to Climate Change and the Performance Scorecard. The Forest, in partnership with the Kootenai 

National Forest (KNF), completed a USDA Forest Service Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle 

National Forests Planning Zone (KIPZ) Climate Change Report (USDA Forest Service 2010b), 

parts of which are incorporated in this EIS, and where applicable, used to guide revised Forest 

Plan elements.

Regional Scale

Regional assessments consider different geographic scales and can help identify or maintain 

future public land management options. As part of the context for revision efforts, it was

important to consider the findings and management strategies contained in these larger 

assessments, such as the Columbia River Basin Assessment (2003), Northern Region Overview 

(USDA Forest Service 1998 October), INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995), and how they 

applied to the Forest.

Forestwide Scale

In August 2002, the social and economic assessment for the IPNF was completed under private 

contract. An analysis on conditions and trends of the social and economic environment for the 

planning zone was also completed in 2006. This information was used in describing current 

conditions and as a basis for the effects analysis.

In October 2008, the Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the national 

forests in Idaho (Idaho Roadless Rule (see 36 CFR 294 Subpart C)) was made into law. The Rule 

designated 250 Idaho Roadless Areas and established five management themes that provide 

prohibitions with exceptions or conditioned permissions governing road construction, timber 

cutting, and discretionary mineral development (73 FR 201 [61456-61496]). The Rule provided 

a basis for MA direction for inventoried roadless areas on the IPNF that are in Idaho.

Monitoring and Evaluation reports for the 1987 Forest Plan contributed significantly to the 

knowledge of the need for change.

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 15

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the IPNF revised Forest 

Plan. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, describing the differences 

between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision 

maker and the public. The revision includes changing all, or a portion of, the programmatic 

decisions that make up the Plan. This chapter provides the following five discussions:

1. Development of alternatives;

2. Elements common to all alternatives;

3. Description of each alternative;

4. Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study; and

5. Comparison of alternatives.

Development of Alternatives

As discussed in chapter 1, this revision of the Forest Plan is based on “need for change.” Only 

those topics specifically identified as a need for change, are being changed. A list of key issues, 

or revision topics, based on the need for change was identified. These topics drove alternative 

development. A list of issues common to all alternatives was also developed. Some additional 

items are addressed in the revision because they are required by planning regulations (i.e., 36 

CFR 219.14 through 219.26 (1982)).

Alternative A, the “no-action alternative,” reflects current management practices under the 1987

Forest Plan, as amended and implemented, and provides the basis for comparing alternatives to 

current management and levels of output. While all alternatives provide a wide range of multiple 

uses, goods, and services, some give slightly greater emphasis to selected resources based on the 

theme of the alternative and response to revision topics.

Alternatives to the no-action alternative were based on the need for change identified in the AMS 

(2003), implementation and monitoring of the current Plan, workgroup meetings (2003-2004), 

informational and comment meetings (2002-2004), public issues raised during review of the 

AMS and scoping, public comments on the Proposed Land Management Plan in 2006, 

comments received on the NOI published in 2010, and comments on the draft Forest Plan and 

DEIS (2012). Alternatives represent a range of possible management options from which to 

choose. Each alternative emphasizes specific land and resource uses and de-emphasizes other 

uses in response to the revision topics. This is done by changing management area allocations, 

resulting in trade-offs between the alternatives.

Forest Plans do not make budget decisions. However, alternatives emphasize different programs 

to different degrees, with an expectation of appropriate funding. Should Congress emphasize 

specific programs by appropriation, a redistribution of priorities would follow, regardless of the 

alternative implemented.

All reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action must meet the purpose and need for change 

and address one or more of the revision topics. These alternatives are considered for detailed 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

16 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

study. However, not all possible alternatives were carried into detailed study as the list of options 

would have been prohibitively large. Instead, the responsible official identified those alternatives 

that both met the criteria and created a reasonable range of outputs, direction, costs, management 

requirements, and effects from which to choose.

Important Points about all Alternatives

All alternatives represent, to varying degrees, the philosophies of multiple-use and ecological 

and economic sustainability. The alternatives provide basic protection of Forest resources and 

comply fully with environmental laws. All the alternatives would:

• Meet law, regulation, and policy;

• Incorporate ecosystem management objectives and strategies and contribute towards 

ecological, social, and economic sustainability;

• Meet the purpose and need for change and address one or more significant issues (revision 

topics);

• Provide integrated restoration direction as included in the forestwide goals, desired 

conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines;

• Retain all existing permitted activities and facilities1; and

• Provide sustainable and predictable levels of products and services.

The Preferred Alternative

The responsible official, the regional Forester for the Northern Region, has identified Alternative 

B Modified as the preferred alternative for this final EIS. The preferred alternative is reflected in 

the revised Forest Plan and rationale for its selection is documented in the draft ROD which 

accompanies this document.

Description of Alternatives

Management Areas

For the action alternatives, management area prescriptions have been grouped into categories 

which have similar management characteristics. For example, MA1 is broken down into 

subcategories, which represent designated wilderness (MA1a), recommended wilderness 

(MA1b), wilderness study areas (WSA) (MA1c), and primitive lands (MA1e). Management 

areas range from little human-caused alteration to the Forest (MA1 — wilderness) and focus on 

passive management to more substantial human-caused change (MA7 – primary recreation 

areas) and focus on active management. Each alternative allocates different amounts of land to 

the MA. For a more complete description of categories and MA prescriptions, see the revised 

Forest Plan. Alternative A (1987 Forest Plan as amended and implemented) was not remapped 

with these new MAs. Table 4 displays whether there is a MA from the 1987 Forest Plan that 

corresponds to the revised Forest Plan, or whether this is a new MA.

 1 All permits will be reviewed for compliance with the new Plan. Any permit found to be out of 

compliance will be brought into compliance as soon as practicable using a variety of tools, including 

modifications or amendments to the permit.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 17

Table 4. Revised Forest Plan Management Area Descriptions Common to All Action Alternatives

MA Category Category Description 1987 MA

1a Wilderness 

Designated

The IPNF manage one Congressionally designated 

wilderness area – the Salmo-Priest Wilderness as part of 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. The SalmoPriest Wilderness totals 41,335 acres, of which 9,900 

acres are on the IPNF, in the state of Washington. This 

MA only applies to the portion of the Salmo-Priest 

Wilderness on the IPNF. If, over the life of this Plan, 

Congress designates any additional wilderness areas on 

the IPNF, those areas would be allocated to this MA (FSM 

1923 and 2320; FSH 2409.19).

11

1b Recommended 

Wilderness

These areas are recommended as additions to the 

National Wilderness Preservation System. The wilderness 

character and potential for each area recommended to be 

included in the National Wilderness Preservation System 

is to remain intact until Congressional action is taken. This 

MA, if within an IRA in Idaho, has additional management 

requirements as described in the Idaho Roadless Rule

(see 36 CFR 294 Subpart C).

11

1c Wilderness Study 

Area

The IPNF manage one wilderness study area (WSA) –

Grandmother Mountain WSA (6,900 acres) located on the 

St. Joe Ranger District.

New

1e Primitive Lands These areas have wilderness characteristics and are 

different from recommended wilderness (MA1b) because 

winter motorized recreation (snowmobiling) and mountain 

biking are desirable uses and allowed in these areas. This 

MA, if within an IRA in Idaho, has additional management 

requirements as described in the Idaho Roadless Rule

(see 36 CFR 294 Subpart C).

New

2a Designated Wild 

and Scenic Rivers

This MA applies to river segments that have been 

identified as designated for inclusion as part of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System under the authority granted by 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended.

12

2b Eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers

This MA applies to river segments that have been 

identified as eligible for inclusion as part of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System under the authority granted by the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended.

12

3 Special Areas These areas are administratively designated areas and 

managed to protect and conserve the values for which 

they were identified.

13

4a Research Natural 

Areas (RNAs)

The IPNF have 20 established RNAs, two recommended 

RNAs, and one addition to an existing research natural 

area.

14

4b Experimental 

Forests

Two existing experimental forests are located on the 

IPNF: Priest River Experimental Forest and Deception 

Creek Experimental Forest.

14

5 Backcountry This MA is relatively large areas without roads and 

provides a variety of motorized and non-motorized 

recreation opportunities. This MA, if within an IRA in 

Idaho, has additional management requirements as 

described in the Idaho Roadless Rule (see 36 CFR 294 

10,20
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

18 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

MA Category Category Description 1987 MA

Subpart C).

6 General Forest

Most of this MA consists of relatively large areas with 

roads, trails, structures, and signs of Forest management 

activities. This MA provides a variety of recreation 

opportunities, both motorized and non-motorized. This MA 

contains lands suitable for timber production, with timber 

harvest contributing to regulated timber harvest estimates. 

Some lands within this MA are generally not suitable for 

timber production, based on the timber suitability.

This MA, if within an IRA in Idaho, has additional 

management requirements as described in the Idaho 

Roadless Rule (see 36 CFR 294 Subpart C.

Mixture of: 

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,

9,15,16,17

7 Primary 

Recreation Areas

This MA applies to six areas on the IPNF. They contain a 

variety of recreation sites and areas that provide an array 

of recreational opportunities and experiences in a forested 

environment.

17

Elements Common to Alternatives

All alternatives in this document adhere to multiple use and sustained yield of goods and 

services (36 CFR 219.1(a), (b)). In addition, they share objectives and standards for managing 

forest resources and complying with applicable laws and policies. They also contain the same 

direction to contribute to the diversity of desired native and non-native plant and animal 

communities and contribute toward the recovery of threatened and endangered species. 

Forestwide direction identified in the Plan would apply to all action alternatives. The difference 

between alternatives is primarily the difference in allocation of acres by MA to meet the purpose 

and need for change and address one or more of the revision topics.

Each alternative was developed with the intent of complying with all applicable law and 

regulation, as well as national policy and direction, including but not limited to the Healthy 

Forests Initiative, National Fire Plan, and National Energy Policy. Each alternative retains the 

following existing decisions to the 1987 Forest Plan and their associated Biological Opinion:

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

Impact (1995));

• Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (ROD, USDA Forest Service 2007

March); and

• Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Zones (USDA Forest Service 2011b and 2011c).

Direction for the retained decisions is located in appendix B of the revised Forest Plan.

The draft Forest Plan and DEIS included the retained decision of the Designation of Energy 

Corridors on Federal Lands in the 11 Western States (U.S. Department of Energy [USDE] & 

USDI Bureau of Land Management [BLM], 2008). This has been dropped as a retained decision 

in the revised Forest Plan and FEIS. This decision did not include any direction for the forest 

plan except for the designation of additional utility rights-of-way corridors. These additional 

corridors are included in appendix D of the revised Forest Plan.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 19

The following would not change between alternatives:

• Revised Forest Plan Goals, Desired Conditions, Standards, and Guidelines —

Management area and forestwide direction for goals, desired condition, standards, and 

guidelines remains constant for all action alternatives.

• Experimental Forests — Allocation of Experimental Forests (MA4b) remains constant 

for all action alternatives.

• Developed Recreation Sites — Existing developed recreation sites are retained in all 

alternatives. Alternatives do not make decisions to remove or to create developed 

recreation sites. Allocation of primary recreation areas (MA7) remains constant for all 

action alternatives.

• Utility Rights-of-Way and Communication Sites — Direction for, and location of,

designated utility rights-of-way and communication sites remains constant for all 

alternatives.

• Wild and Scenic Rivers — Direction for, and allocation of, designated and eligible wild 

and scenic rivers (MA2a and 2b) remains constant for all action alternatives.

• Wilderness Study Area —The Grandmother Mountain Wilderness Study Area and its 

management would continue as outlined by the Land Exchange Acts (the Act of 1992, 

[P.L. 102-584] and the Act of 2006, [P.L. 109-372]) regardless of which alternative is 

selected for implementation.

• Designated Wilderness — The Salmo-Priest Wilderness Designation remains constant 

for all alternatives.

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

This alternative reflects the 1987 Forest Plan, as amended to date, and accounts for current laws 

and regulations. New information, inventories (e.g., tentatively suitable timber lands), and 

technologies (e.g., Spectrum Model) were used to evaluate this alternative. Output levels were 

recalculated for this alternative based on Forest Plan amendments and new sources of 

information. The no-action alternative retains the 1987 Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards,

and guidelines, and MA prescriptions, as amended. This alternative serves as the baseline for 

comparison with the action alternatives.

This alternative satisfies the NFMA procedures (36 CFR 219.12(f)(7)) to reflect the current level 

of goods and services provided by the Forest and the most likely amount of goods and services 

expected to be provided in the future, if current management direction continues.

Alternative A Relationship to Revision Topics and Need for Change

Vegetation: The 1987 Forest Plan does not contain direction on moving towards historic 

conditions or to improve resistance and resiliency in the light of climate change. Continued 

deviation from historic conditions would lead to changes in disturbance and succession 

processes, making it difficult to provide for a sustainable ecosystem. The 1987 Forest Plan 

contains a direction for setting aside and managing old growth stands.

Fire: Under the 1987 Forest Plan, each MA lists standards for planned and unplanned ignitions. 

The AMS identified several impediments to the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet 

resource objectives in the 1987 Forest Plan. The MAs were numerous and generally small in 

size. Adjoining MAs often had different or unclear direction on the use of natural, unplanned 

ignitions to meet resource objectives and this resulted in creating a difficult situation for 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

20 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

developing subsequent fire management plans and implementing an integrated fire management 

program. Also, because the 1987 Forest Plan did not contain an emphasis or much analysis on 

using natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives, it was generally believed that the 

Plan did not adequately authorize the use of that tool.

Watersheds, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats/Species: Legacy effects from past timber 

harvest, mining, and other human-caused disturbances continue to effect watershed condition 

and health. The 1987 Forest Plan, as amended by the INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995), 

provides a passive conservation/restoration strategy and reduces the risk to watersheds and 

aquatic biota from many current land management activities. INFISH standards and guidelines 

contain general direction for addressing negative effects from past management related to roads, 

livestock grazing, and recreation, but is lacking for other resources (e.g., timber harvest, mining)

and did not address the need to actively restore watershed, soil, and aquatic ecosystems.

Terrestrial Wildlife: Since the 1987 Plan, research shows that certain forest cover types are not 

as well represented as they were historically. There has been a shift from late and early 

succession forest to a more uniform mid-succession forest. The size of uninterrupted blocks of 

forest is smaller than it was historically. Current direction for some habitats may not be adequate 

for species needing those habitats (e g., snags, down wood).

Access and Recreation: Roads would continue to be managed to meet requirements (36 CFR 

212). Motorized recreation opportunities on roads and trails would be determined by project 

level travel management decisions and displayed on motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs). 

Alternative A would continue to provide both motorized and non-motorized recreational 

opportunities as well as opportunities for mechanized use (e.g., mountain bikes) and over-snow 

motorized use. Existing developed recreation sites would be maintained. Dispersed recreation 

opportunities would continue to be available. Motor vehicle use may be allowed (on roads and 

trails) on 96 percent of the NFS lands on the IPNF. Over-snow vehicle use would be allowed on 

82 percent and mechanized use on 99.5 percent of the land base.

Recommended Wilderness: The 1987 Forest Plan recommended additions to the Salmo-Priest 

Wilderness, (17,600 acres) and recommended three new areas: Scotchman Peaks (23,900 acres), 

Mallard-Larkins (78,500 acres), and Selkirk Crest (26,700 acres).

Timber: Based on historic and current condition and trends, timber harvest levels would 

continue to be well below the ASQ in the 1987 Plan of 280 million board feet (MMBF) and fall 

short of expectations. Direction is to maximize growth and yield through short rotations, high 

use of regeneration harvest, and intensive timber management. The 1987 Forest Plan emphasizes 

timber production and does not incorporate ecosystem management and principles of ecological 

sustainability. Suitable timberlands would continue to be adjusted to make corrections to the 

1987 Forest Plan. Based on adjustments for Plan amendments and new data, lands suitable for 

timber production equal 928,900 acres or 37 percent of the Forest. Based on modeling for Plan 

revision, the predicted volume sold for the first decade is 46.8 MMBF and the ASQ

(unconstrained budget) 124.9 MMBF.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 21

Alternative B Modified – Proposed Action

This alternative describes the revised Forest Plan that responds to the identified purpose and 

need. This alternative was designed around numerous public meetings and public comments on 

the AMS and the May 2006 proposed Management Plan. This alternative emphasizes moving 

towards desired conditions and contributing to ecological, social, and economic sustainability. 

Alternative B Modified would manage approximately 5 percent of the Forest as recommended 

wilderness (MA1b), 27 percent as backcountry (MA5), and 60 percent as general forest (MA6)

(see figure 3).

Figure 3. Allocation by MA Group – Alternative B Modified

Alternative B Modified Relationship to Revision Topics

Vegetation: Movement towards desired future condition would be emphasized in MA6 (60

percent of the Forest) and would rely on a variety of management techniques (e.g., timber 

harvest, planting, thinning, natural unplanned ignitions, planned ignitions, and mechanical fuel 

treatment). MA1 and 5 (approximately 35 percent of the land allocation in this alternative) 

emphasize using natural ecological processes (e.g., plant succession) and disturbances (e.g., fire, 

insects, and diseases) as the primary forces affecting the vegetation. Management practices to 

restore vegetation on these MAs would include natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource 

objectives and planned ignitions. Some mechanical treatments (e.g., timber harvest) may occur 

in backcountry (MA5) areas. The amount of acres of ponderosa pine, western larch, and white 

pine increase while Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine decrease. The amount of large/very large 

stands and lands managed for old growth increase over time.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

22 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Fire: This alternative emphasizes the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource

objectives and planned ignitions in the backcountry (MA5 — 681,200 acres). The direction also 

emphasizes hazardous fuels reduction in the WUI.

Watersheds, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats/Species: Under Alternative B Modified 

and relative to the other alternatives, there would potentially be the most rapid trend toward 

desired conditions for these resources, through a combination of active and passive restoration 

efforts, with passive restoration emphasized in MA1 through 5 and active restoration focused 

primarily in areas allocated to MA6. The potential for more vegetation management under this 

alternative assumes a corresponding potential for increased restoration activities in other 

resource areas as the Forest moves towards a more integrated approach to resource management.

Terrestrial Wildlife: This alternative allocates 188,700 acres to MA 1and 681,200 acres to MA5 

which would maintain areas of large undisturbed land and habitat for forest interior species. 

These MAs also emphasize natural processes with minimal human intervention/disturbance, 

providing wildlife security habitat. This alternative also has opportunities for active restoration 

of vegetation conditions (wildlife habitat) that are currently outside of desired conditions (MA6 

– 60. percent or 1,507,000 acres).

Access and Recreation: Motorized recreation opportunities on roads and trails would be 

determined by travel management decisions and displayed on MVUMs. Alternative B Modified

would provide the opportunity for motor vehicle use (may be allowed on roads and trails) on 91 

percent of the Forest. Over-snow vehicle use would be allowed on 79 percent of the Forest and 

mechanized use (e.g., mountain bikes) on 93 percent of the Forest. Dispersed recreation 

opportunities would continue to be available with some improvements made to concentrated use 

areas.

Recommended Wilderness: This alternative recommends 161,400 acres for wilderness 

(Mallard Larkins, additions to Salmo Priest, Scotchman Peaks, and Selkirk).1

Timber: There are 950,900 acres suited for timber production (or 38 percent of the Forest). The 

predicted volume sold for the first decade is 44.6 MMBF/year and the ASQ (unconstrained 

budget) is 120.3 MMBF/year.

 1 19,800 additional acres would be allocated to MA1e, Primitive Areas, under this alternative. Primitive 

areas would be managed similar to recommended wilderness except mechanized and motorized over-snow

use would be allowed.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 23

Alternative C

Alternative C emphasizes wilderness values and protection of backcountry (MA5) while moving 

towards desired conditions. To move towards watershed and vegetation desired conditions there 

is an increased emphasis on natural disturbance processes, with an increased use of natural, 

unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives. There is also an increased emphasis on 

prescribed fire, in addition to mechanical treatments, to move towards desired conditions.

Alternative C would have more opportunities for backcountry non-motorized recreation (MA1 –

335,300 acres; MA5 – 630,000 acres) and more acres recommended as wilderness (MA1b 

331,100 acres) than any other alternative (see figure 4). About 56 percent would be allocated to 

general forest (MA6).

Figure 4. Allocation by MA Group — Alternative C

Alternative C Relationship to Revision Topics

Vegetation: Movement towards desired condition would be emphasized in MA6 (57 percent of 

the Forest) and would rely on a variety of management techniques (e.g., timber harvest, planting, 

thinning, natural unplanned ignitions, planned ignitions, and mechanical fuel treatment). MA1 

and 5 (approximately 39 percent of the land allocation in this alternative) emphasize using 

natural ecological processes (e.g., plant succession) and disturbances (e.g., fire, insects, and 

diseases) as the primary forces affecting the vegetation. Management practices to restore 

vegetation on these MAs would include natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives

and planned ignitions. Some mechanical treatments (e.g., timber harvest) may occur in 

backcountry areas. The amount of acres of ponderosa pine, western larch, and white pine 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

24 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

increase while Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine decrease. The amount of large/very large stands 

and lands managed for old growth increase over time.

Fire: This alternative emphasizes unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives and planned 

ignitions in all MAs except MA3, 4, and 7. Natural, unplanned ignitions and planned ignitions

are important tools for moving vegetation towards desired condition and reducing fuel hazard, 

particularly in the backcountry (MA5). Hazardous fuels would continue to be reduced in the 

WUI.

Watersheds, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats/Species: Improvements to watersheds, soil 

resources, riparian ecosystems, and aquatic habitats/species would continue to occur, although 

potentially slower than other alternatives, because of relatively more emphasis towards a passive 

restoration strategy, given the relatively larger amount of land area allocated in MA1 through 

MA5,.

Terrestrial Wildlife: This alternative allocates 335,300 acres to MA1 and 630,000 acres to MA5 

which would maintain areas of large undisturbed land and habitat for forest interior species. 

These MAs emphasize natural processes with minimal human intervention/disturbance, 

providing wildlife security habitat. There would be less land available for active restoration of 

habitat for native species preferring open-canopied, large-tree forest conditions (MA6 – 57

percent of the Forest or 1,420,200 acres).

Access and Recreation: Motorized recreation opportunities on roads and trails would be 

determined by travel management decisions and displayed on MVUMs. Alternative C would 

provide the opportunity for motor vehicle use (may be allowed on roads and trails) on 85 percent 

of the Forest. Over-snow vehicle use would be allowed on 74 percent and mechanized use (e.g., 

mountain bikes) on 87 percent of the Forest. Dispersed recreational opportunities would continue 

to be available with few improvements made to concentrated use areas.

Recommended Wilderness: This alternative recommends 331,100 acres for wilderness.

Timber: There are 906,500 acres (36 percent of the Forest) suited for timber production. The 

predicted volume sold for the first decade is 43.3 MMBF/year and the ASQ (unconstrained 

budget) is 115.9 MMBF/year.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 25

Alternative D

This alternative emphasizes achieving desired future conditions through mechanical means. 

Under this alternative, timber production is emphasized while moving towards desired 

vegetation conditions. This alternative has the most acres available for timber production and

motorized access with 63 percent allocated to MA6 (general forest) (see figure 5). There would 

be fewer acres allocated to recommended wilderness (MA1b – approximately 5 percent of the 

Forest) and backcountry (MA5 –25 percent of the Forest).

Figure 5. Allocation by MA Group – Alternative D

Alternative D Relationship to Revision Topics

Vegetation: Movement towards desired future condition would be emphasized in MA6 (63 

percent of the Forest) and would rely on a variety of management techniques (e.g., timber 

harvest, planting, thinning, natural unplanned ignitions, planned ignitions, and mechanical fuel 

treatment). Timber management and production is emphasized while moving towards vegetation 

desired conditions. MA1 and 5 (approximately 35 percent of the land allocation in this 

alternative) emphasize using natural ecological processes (e.g., plant succession) and 

disturbances (e.g., fire, insects, and diseases) as the primary forces affecting the vegetation. 

Management practices to restore vegetation on these MAs would include natural, unplanned 

ignitions to meet resource objectives and planned ignitions. Some mechanical treatments (timber 

harvest) may occur in backcountry areas. The amount of acres of ponderosa pine, western larch, 

and white pine increase while Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine decrease. The amount of 

large/very large stands and lands managed for old growth increase over time.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

26 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Fire: Hazardous fuels would be reduced in the WUI and other areas where values are at risk. 

Fuels will be actively treated. Under this alternative, use of unplanned ignitions to meet resource 

objectives and planned ignitions would be utilized in backcountry MAs while the use of planned 

ignitions, and timber harvest practices would be utilized on the rest of the Forest.

Watersheds, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats/Species: Improvements to watersheds, soil

resources, riparian ecosystems, and aquatic habitats/species would continue to occur and there 

would be an emphasis in active restoration, given the relatively larger amount of land area 

allocated in MA6; however the subsequent trend towards the desired condition could be offset by 

the potential impacts from the emphasis in timber management and timber production.

Terrestrial Wildlife: This alternative would have the greatest amount of land available for 

active restoration of those vegetation communities that are outside of desired conditions. It 

would also have the least emphasis on security habitat due to the greater emphasis on motorized 

use. Insects and disease would be actively controlled and prevented.

Access and Recreation: Motorized recreation opportunities on roads and trails would be 

determined by travel management decisions and displayed on MVUMs. Alternative D would 

provide the opportunity for motor vehicle use (may be allowed on roads and trails) 91 percent of 

the Forest. Over-snow vehicle use would be allowed on 79 percent and mechanized use on 94

percent of the land base. Dispersed recreation opportunities would continue to be available with 

some improvements made to concentrated use areas.

Recommended Wilderness: This alternative would recommend 138,100 acres for wilderness.

Timber: This alternative has the highest amount of timber production from suitable timberlands. 

There are 982,300 acres (39 percent of the Forest) suited for timber production. The predicted 

volume sold for the first decade is 46.3 MMBF/year and the ASQ (unconstrained budget) for the 

first decade is 131.3 MMBF/year.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 27

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and 

need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of this revision effort or 

duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail. Therefore, a number of alternatives were 

considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below. Public 

comments received on the DEIS and draft Forest Plan included some suggestions for additional 

alternatives. See the response to comments for additional information regarding alternatives 

considered and eliminated from detailed study.

The 1987 Forest Plan

This alternative was considered as the IDT was developing a no-action alternative. This 

alternative is identical to Alternative A, which was described previously, except that the outputs 

would be those stipulated in the 1987 Plan. For example, the ASQ would be as shown on page II13 of the 1987 Forest Plan.

This alternative was considered, but not analyzed in detail because it has been apparent since the 

early monitoring and evaluation reports that the timber outputs projected in the 1987 Plan cannot 

be achieved. Alternative A provides a more realistic baseline for comparing current management

to Alternatives B Modified, C, and D than would this alternative.

Forest “Restoration” Alternative

This alternative responds to public comment to eliminate commercial extraction and uses (e.g., 

logging), eliminate commercial grazing, eliminate motorized use in IRAs and wilderness, 

eliminate off-road all-terrain vehicles (ATV) and over-snow motorized use, eliminate ASQ from 

inventoried roadless areas, and recommend all IRAs as wilderness.

The revision process for all alternatives recognizes the importance of functioning ecosystems. 

This was identified in the AMS. The revised Forest Plan direction includes desired conditions as 

well as standards and guidelines for each MA. Alternatives studied in detail look at varying 

degrees of allowing commercial timber harvest. In addition, appropriate use of timber harvest is 

needed in order to address a number of Need for Change topics (i.e., Vegetation, need to improve 

composition, structure, and landscape patterns; Timber, need to provide a reasonable level of 

goods and services; and Fire, need to provide strategies to affect the amount, arrangement, and 

types of hazardous fuels in the WUI).

National forests were established and are managed for a variety of multiple uses. No 

scientifically credible rationale was provided by the commenter’s requesting these actions as to 

why these resource uses should be discontinued, other than personal. Motorized use is already 

not permitted in congressionally designated Wilderness. The IDT developed alternatives that 

looked at providing a broad range of non-motorized use within roadless areas; many of the IRAs 

were designated to varying amounts to MA1b – recommended wilderness; or MA5 –

backcountry allocations. Most of the inventoried roadless area lands would not be suitable for 

timber production under any action alternative, although timber harvest could still be used as a 

tool to meet management objectives in some areas. No information has been identified on the 

need to eliminate commercial grazing.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

28 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Conservation Alternative

This alternative would place heavy emphasis on restoration of damaged lands and rivers and 

restoring declining fish and wildlife populations. It would also prohibit approval of new resource 

extraction or road building projects, unless the Forest Service establishes that it has adequate 

funding to monitor and/or maintain such projects throughout their lifetime. This alternative 

would give special emphasis to river health, including protection of riparian areas, wetlands, 

aquatic species, and water quality. This would include prohibiting any activities that would harm 

sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic species. This alternative would also require the 

Forest Service to take specific actions to improve water quality on water quality limited stream 

segments and to maintain good water quality where it already exists. This alternative would 

identify certain areas that should be targeted for special protection due to their ecological 

importance or their sensitivity. This alternative would include separate, more prescriptive 

standards for mining operations that protect streams, roadless areas, fish, wildlife, and other 

resource values. This alternative would place strict limits on the method and location of new 

road construction.

Many restoration activities are already occurring and are projected to continue to occur under 

any alternative (stream restoration, road decommissioning, and fuels treatment). Forestwide and 

MA direction emphasizes restoration, ecosystem resiliency, and improved watersheds trending 

toward desired ranges for vegetation composition, structure, patterns, and processes; 

incorporating climate change; and striving to maintain sustainable recreation and other uses 

across the Forest. The IDT felt that the conservation emphasis outlined in this proposed 

alternative was adequately addressed Alternatives B Modified and C.

Wilderness/Roadless Related Alternatives

All roadless areas determined to be capable and available for wilderness were considered by the 

IDT for inclusion as recommended wilderness. The Forest evaluated 48 IRAs for wilderness 

recommendation. The full set of capable and available areas represents the maximum potential 

for wilderness recommendations. The last step of the evaluation process is to determine if the 

area is needed as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The assessment focused 

on social and ecological factors. Social factors included current levels of use in designated 

wilderness in the Northern Region, national and local trends in outdoor activities, and population 

statistics. Ecological factors included the representation of vegetation cover types and ecological 

sections, fisheries, and wildlife.

The Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C) applies to inventoried roadless areas managed 

by the IPNF that are within the state of Idaho. This rule was promulgated in 2008 (73 FR 201). 

The Rule designated management direction for roadless areas in Idaho. This rule went through a 

separate public review and analysis process. The rule states “the prohibitions and permissions set 

forth in the rule are not subject to reconsideration, revision, or rescission in subsequent project 

decisions or land and resource management plans or revisions undertaken pursuant to 36 CFR 

219” (36 CFR 294.28). Therefore, the rule provides higher level management direction for 

roadless areas in Idaho and limits the scope of changes made in this Forest Plan revision effort. 

The rule only provides management direction for road construction, reconstruction, timber 

cutting, and discretionary mineral development as these are the factors that have been found to 

substantially affect roadless character. Based on this higher level direction, all the IPNF 

alternatives were developed to align to the management designations and/or direction in the 

Idaho Roadless Rule, except for Alternative C.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 29

This Plan is being developed under the 1982 planning procedures. The 1982 procedures require 

roadless areas to be evaluated and considered for recommendation as potential wilderness. The 

1982 procedures require alternatives to be distributed between the minimum and maximum 

resource potential to reflect, to the extent practicable, the full range of major commodity and 

environmental resource uses and values that could be produced from the Forest. The EIS 

considers one alternative (Alternative C) that examines wilderness potential of lands beyond 

those identified in the Idaho Roadless Rule as Wild Land Recreation management classification 

theme. An alternative with less recommended wilderness than identified in the Idaho Roadless 

Rule was not considered in detail. Alternative D provides the lower end of the spectrum for 

recommended wilderness and is consistent with the Idaho Roadless Rule. Alternative B Modified 

contains more recommended wilderness than Alternative D, while being consistent with the 

Idaho Roadless Rule.

Recommending Additional Roadless Areas for Wilderness

Some people wanted additional roadless areas recommended as wilderness; however, they did 

not explicitly identify areas to consider. As noted above, the IDT evaluated each roadless area for 

its inherent capability and availability to be considered for wilderness. Alternative C 

recommends seven areas as wilderness (331,100 acres) versus Alternative B Modified (the 

proposed action) which recommends four areas (161,400 acres) as wilderness and 19,800 acres 

as primitive lands (MA1e). The IRAs not recommended for wilderness were primarily placed 

into MA5 (or MA3). These designations also limit activities, such as road construction and 

timber cutting that could affect wilderness character. In Alternative C 1,420,200 acres were 

placed into General Forest. These areas are consistent with the Idaho Roadless Rule which also 

placed them into general forest, rangeland, and grassland theme.

Wild River Designation

Some commenter’s wanted to see wild river designation only for those rivers that lie within 

wilderness. Wild river designation is based on a rivers ability to provide certain attributes; not its 

overlap with MAs.

Additional Eligible Wild and Scenic River Designation

Some commenters wanted to see additional rivers designated as eligible wild and scenic rivers. 

One group had a supporting inventory document (Colburn et al. 2011), while others name 

requested streams within their comment letter with little supporting information. A systematic 

inventory of named streams and rivers was completed by the IPNF as part of the Forest Planning 

Process, as required by Forest Service Manual policy and the Wild and Scenic River Act. 

Documentation of this inventory and the resulting eligible wild and scenic rivers is documented 

in appendix E. To be eligible, a river must be free flowing and possess at least one outstandingly 

remarkable value that is rare, unique, or exemplary. A comparison was made between the 

inventory conducted by the IPNF and the streams and rivers requested by commenters. Although 

some of the streams and rivers are the same, commenters requested several additional rivers that 

were not designated as eligible wild and scenic rivers by the IPNF. The following rivers are not 

included in any IPNF action alternatives for the following reasons:

Moyie River: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation and 

historic values. This river was designated as a Study River under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. The study concluded that the river did not have any outstandingly 

remarkable values and that the river should not be included in the National Wild and 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

30 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Scenic Rivers System. Based on this study, the IPNF found the river is not eligible as a 

wild and scenic river.

Boulder Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation, 

scenery, fisheries, and wildlife values. Other commenters requested this creek be 

included, but did not list specific values. A concern was raised that the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) is presently considering a preliminary permit 

application to construct a small hydropower facility on Boulder Creek. If Boulder Creek 

were designated as eligible for protection under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, FERC 

might be in a position to deny the permit. The IPNF inventory recognized the creek had 

historic values, based on historic mining and development, but they were not rare, 

unique, or exemplary. Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Boundary Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation 

values. Their comment letter also spoke to wildlife values for this area. The IPNF 

inventory found only historic values, based on past mining; however, it was not rare, 

unique, or exemplary. Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Smith Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation and 

wildlife values. The IPNF found no outstandingly remarkable values for this creek. 

Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Cow Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation, scenery, 

and wildlife values. The IPNF found no outstandingly remarkable values for this creek. 

Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Lion Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation, scenery, 

and fish values. This creek is entirely on state land, and is not covered by the IPNF 

Forest Plan.

Lightning Creek: Several commenters requested this creek be included but did not list 

specific values. One commenter stated the creek was the third largest tributary of Lake 

Pend Oreille, and includes old growth cedar stands, bull trout habitat, and premier 

recreational opportunities. The IPNF inventory found the creek had geologic values, but 

they were not rare, unique, or exemplary. Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild 

and scenic river.

North Fork St. Joe River: Several commenters requested this creek be included but did 

not list specific values. One commenter stated the river provides habitat for bull trout, 

westslope cutthroat trout, and a variety of recreational pursuits. The IPNF inventory 

found scenery, recreation, and historic values. However, the values are not rare, unique, 

or exemplary. Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Big Creek: Several commenters requested this creek be included but did not list specific 

values. One commenter stated the river provides habitat for bull trout, westslope 

cutthroat trout, and a variety of recreational pursuits. The IPNF found no outstandingly 

remarkable values for this creek. Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic 

river.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 31

Slate Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation and 

scenery values. The IPNF found no outstandingly remarkable values for this creek. 

Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Marble Creek: This creek was found by Colburn and Hoffman to have recreation, 

scenery, and wildlife values. The IPNF inventory found some of these same values. 

However, after review of the inventory, it was found this creek had many splash dams 

built up and down the river in the first half of the 20th century, which has changed the 

character of the river. Many remnants of these splash dams remain. These remnants 

create artificial cataracts and blockages that continue to alter the creek’s natural path and 

flow. Because the flow continues to be altered, the basic screening criterion of “freeflowing” is not being met; therefore, this creek was not considered as an eligible river 

for wild and scenic designation.

The number of additional creeks and rivers suggested for designation as eligible wild and scenic 

rivers supports the fact these are not rare, unique, or exemplary features. The IPNF has many 

creeks and rivers that support many of these values. The same is true when looking at wild and 

scenic rivers regionally. Neighboring forests, such as the KNF and the Clearwater, have several 

rivers designated as eligible wild and scenic rivers, and numerous additional rivers requested by 

the public for consideration as eligible for wild and scenic river designation. The additional 

streams and rivers are not rare, unique, or exemplary when considered on a forest or a regional 

basis.

IPNF Managed as Roadless Area Complexes

This alternative responds to public comment to identify and manage the Forest in roadless 

complexes. All roadless and unroaded areas would be free from road building, logging, and other 

development and resource extraction activities. This alternative was dropped from detailed study 

because it is similar to the alternatives considered in detail. Under Alternative B Modified, 

almost all of the lands in IRAs would be managed to retain their roadless character because they 

would be allocated to MA1 (168,300 acres) or MA5 (681,200 acres). Road construction and 

timber cutting would be limited in these areas to what is allowed under the Idaho Roadless Rule. 

Approximately 18,000 acres that fall under the Idaho Roadless Rule would be allocated to MA6 

General Forest. Road construction and timber cutting would be permitted in these areas. These 

areas were allocated to General Forest because of their close proximity to communities and the 

need to provide vegetation management options to treat and reduce hazardous fuels. The MA6 in 

Idaho conforms to the general forest, rangeland, and grassland designation under the Idaho 

Roadless Rule; therefore, this designation is not being reconsidered here.

The comment also refers to managing unroaded areas as roadless. The analysis evaluated all 

lands with wilderness potential. Other “unroaded” parcels were addressed in the forestwide 

direction where they provided some pertinent resource protection. For example, some unroaded 

lands provide grizzly bear core habitat. Requirements for managing grizzly bear core habitat 

were made in the Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk 

and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. (USDA Forest Service 2011b and 2011c), and 

have been carried forward into all alternatives (FW-STD-WL-02). Other unroaded lands may 

provide secure areas for elk. The forestwide direction includes direction for increasing elk 

security (FW-OBJ-WL-02-Elk, FW-GDL-WL-13 Big game).
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

32 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Reduction of Roadless Areas

Many public comments were received asking for a reduction of inventoried roadless areas and 

opening them up to access and timber harvest. Managing for timber production requires 

intensive activity and roads. It is possible to manage for timber production without roads;

however, the cost to thin, treat fuels, or commercially thin and harvest are high. When projects 

involve IRAs, the planning cost alone becomes prohibitive. Based on past actions and cost of 

implementation, it did not seem reasonable to consider an alternative to manage for timber 

production in IRAs. If an area is not allocated for suitable timber in IRAs, it does not mean 

commercial timber harvest will not take place. Harvest may be the best tool to accomplish fuels 

reduction, vegetation improvement, or some other management objective. If removal for 

commercial value is decided; as the best means to meet the need for the project, after NEPA 

analysis at the project level, commercial harvest may take place. In addition, inventoried roadless 

areas within Idaho must follow the Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C). Inventoried 

roadless areas (outside of Idaho) must follow the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 

CFR 294 Subpart B). See FW-STD-IRA-01 and FW-STD-IRA-02. Therefore, this alternative 

was not analyzed in detail.

Open All Roadless Areas to Snowmobile Use

Comments suggested that the Forest include an alternative that opened all roadless areas to oversnow vehicle use. Approximately 79 percent of the lands (regardless of whether they are in an 

IRA or not) within the IPNF allow over-snow vehicle use under Alternative B Modified, 74

percent under Alternative C, and 79 percent under Alternative D. All roadless areas outside 

MA1a (designated wilderness), MA1b (recommended wilderness), and MA4a (research natural 

areas) may be available for over-snow use based on MA direction.

Some areas on the Forest would remain closed in all alternatives due to a lawsuit settlement 

regarding the Selkirks and caribou habitat, until a site-specific winter travel plan is finalized.

Other areas on the Forest are closed to over-snow vehicle use to provide non-motorized 

recreation opportunities like the cross-country ski trail system located on the south side of the 

4th of July Summit and English Point. These areas provide opportunities for primitive and semiprimitive non-motorized recreation activities. Several other areas are closed to provide secure 

winter range for elk.

No Winter Motorized Recreation Alternative

This alternative was proposed as a means to evaluate the impact of winter recreation on wildlife 

habitat, particularly grizzly bear or other resources. The request that easily-accessible, nonmotorized, winter recreation areas are provided on the Forest was addressed in Alternative C, 

with the emphasis on more recommended wilderness (MA1b). In addition, area closures for 

winter motorized use may occur where needed to protect wildlife and other resources under any 

of the alternatives.

Access and Roads

This alternative responds to public comments to open all available roads for use, make all trails 

and roads available to multi-use recreationalists, with no designation to any one particular user 

group. It would take out all gates and leave roads open on a year-round basis. This increased 

access would provide additional recreational opportunities for the general public. Consideration 

of an alternative to open all available roads and trails for use would adversely impact resources 

by not protecting big game winter range and sensitive wildlife habitats. This alternative would 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 33

not provide wildlife security and could adversely impact threatened and endangered species. It 

also would not provide any quiet recreation opportunities. Therefore, it is not considered 

reasonable and was not analyzed in detail. In addition, the ROD for the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management 

within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones USDA Forest Service, 

Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2011b and 2011c)

includes a set of motorized access and security guidelines to meet our responsibilities under the 

ESA (see Forest Plan standard FW-STD-WLF-03) to conserve and contribute to recovery of 

grizzly bears.

Pro-Motorized Recreation

This alternative responds to public comments to address the demand for increased OHV and 

motorized recreation opportunities. The alternative includes access to existing routes and areas. 

It also includes an adequate quantity and quality of beginning, intermediate, and advanced routes 

and trails for a wide cross-section of motorized visitors including motorcycles, ATVs, and fourwheel drive vehicles, with a quantity and quality at least equal to non-motorized routes. To 

address concerns over noise levels from motorized vehicles, the Forest Plan would provide a 

reasonable decibel limit for exhaust systems.

As described in chapter 1 of the Forest Plan, the Forest Plan is a programmatic document that 

does not make site-specific decisions. The key indicators described under the access and 

recreation revision topic in chapter 1 of the FEIS do not include individual trails, roads, or miles, 

but only areas available for different uses. Travel management for designating roads, trails, and 

areas for motor vehicle use as required by 36 CFR 212 Subpart B has been completed on the 

North and Central Zones of the IPNF, although changes may be considered during site-specific 

planning at the project level. Roads, trails, and areas where motor vehicle use is allowed are 

identified on the IPNF motor vehicle use map (MVUM). Travel management planning is being 

completed for the South Zone, with a decision expected in 2013, with an MVUM expected in 

2014.

In addition, this alternative would adversely impact resources by not protecting big game winter 

range and sensitive wildlife habitats. This alternative would not provide wildlife security and 

could adversely impact threatened and endangered species. Therefore, it is not considered 

reasonable and was not analyzed in detail. In addition, the ROD for the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management 

within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones USDA Forest Service, 

Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2011b and 2011c) 

includes a set of motorized access and security guidelines to meet our responsibilities under the 

ESA to conserve and contribute to recovery of grizzly bears.

Site-Specific Travel Management

Some public comments requested that individual roads or trails, or all unclassified routes, be 

evaluated and decisions be made concerning their use through the revision process. However, a 

road-by-road or trail-by-trail review requires more site-specific analysis than would be practical 

during forest plan revision. The programmatic-level planning of forest plan revision provides a 

framework for integrated resource management and for guiding project and activity decision 

making. Site-specific travel analysis and subsequent project proposals, guided by the 

management direction established in the forest plan, is the appropriate level of planning to 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

34 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

evaluate detailed travel management information such as the location, condition, and current 

uses of individual roads and trails.

The IPNF has published motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs) on the North and Central Zones that 

display those roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and 

time of year as required at 36 CFR Subpart B. Travel management planning is being completed 

for the South Zone, with a decision expected in 2013, with an MVUM expected in 2014. The 

revised Forest Plan will identify where motorized recreation may or may not be compatible with 

management area direction, but will not change any specific motor vehicle use designations 

(excluding over snow vehicle use). Ongoing district-level travel analyses and site-specific 

project planning will continue to evaluate road and trail designation opportunities as the 

MVUMs are reviewed and updated over the life of the Plan.

Small Sales only Alternative

Some groups were in support of an alternative that would employ the small, local mill owners 

and employees. This alternative would look at no more clear-cutting but would instead focus on 

smaller timber sales, the logging of smaller trees, and the use of single tree selection 

management and no even-age management (e.g., clear-cutting). Clear-cutting is considered a 

desirable tool to create openings for a variety of ecological and social benefits on the Forest. 

Other considerations, such as support to local mills and employees, could be applied at the 

project level to different projects and nothing in the Plan would prohibit this.

Wildlife Linkage Alternative

This alternative would respond to comments about habitat connectivity. Commenters requested 

the development of specific MAs for habitat linkages with their own set of goals, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines. In addition, commenters requested at least one Plan alternative be 

created to focus on maximizing habitat connectivity in the face of climate change.

Habitat connectivity was one of the major themes found throughout the wildlife analysis in the 

FEIS and wildlife specialist’s report. Additionally, it was analyzed in the ERG report (ERG 

2012). Connectivity is a topic that is woven throughout the wildlife direction in the revised 

Forest Plan, the wildlife specialist’s report, and the “Wildlife” section of chapter 3 of the FEIS.

There was no need to have a separate MA designation for connectivity because of the direction 

present in the revised Forest Plan. The connectivity direction found in the Forestwide and GA 

sections apply regardless of MA. Additionally, there is MA direction in the revised Forest Plan 

that specifically states that certain MAs contribute to wildlife movement and security. 

Furthermore, the direction in the revised Forest Plan would be implemented by all action 

alternatives, which eliminates the need to have a separate “wildlife linkage” alternative. All of 

the action alternatives have a desired condition of facilitating movement between separated 

parcels of NFS lands, and maintain options to address wildlife crossing concerns as they 

develop.

The Old Growth alternative described below addresses old growth habitat connectivity and 

vegetation management on national forest lands.

Natural Fires

Some commenter’s wanted to let all natural fires (unplanned ignitions) burn to return to a natural 

cycle. In the AMS, several impediments to the use of fire were identified in the 1987 Forest Plan 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 35

direction. Because the 1987 Forest Plan did not contain an emphasis or much analysis on the use 

of natural, unplanned ignitions, it was generally believed that the Plan did not adequately 

authorize the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives. The use of natural,

unplanned ignitions is allowed and promoted under all action alternatives. However, the Forest is 

unable to let all unplanned ignitions burn because of concerns with such things as private 

property, structures, facilities, and rare and unique habitats.

Old Growth Reserves, Linkages between Reserves, and Differing 

Management Direction for Old Growth Management

Some commenters suggested the designation of old growth reserves and linkages between 

reserves. Under this alternative, areas designated as old growth reserves would be assessed for 

restoration needs that would move them toward a desired condition. At the same time the nonreserve areas would be assessed for active timber management. Projects would proceed only 

after a comprehensive inventory process was completed that identified (mapped) all old growth 

and mature/late-successional forest for each “Old-Growth Management Unit” wholly or partially 

encompassed within the project area. This updated inventory would form the basis for the 

process to set-aside (commit to protecting) the old growth and mature/late-successional forests.

The concept of creating old-growth reserves was considered but the Forest determined not to 

carry this suggestion forward for a number of reasons. The scale of “Old-Growth Management 

Units” (approximately 10,000 acres) is too small to ensure that old growth is distributed across 

the Forest in a “natural” way that would support old growth associated species. Historically, 

stand-replacing fires have been larger than the size of the Old-Growth Management Units,

having the potential to kill all existing stands of old growth in a unit. In addition, some areas of 

the Forest have had more old growth than others historically, due to variations in climate, 

topography, and other factors that influence fire return intervals and severities. Thus, the use of 

Old Growth Management Units would not capture the natural distribution of old growth on the 

landscape.

The action alternatives provide for protection and enhancement of old growth stands (see the 

“Vegetation” section of chapter 3 of the FEIS). Revised Forest Plan desired conditions provide 

for increases in the amount of lands managed for old growth while standards provide protection 

of stands that are currently old growth.

In addition, some people suggested that the Forest manage for a certain percentage of old growth 

by watershed and elevation and to prohibit new roads in old growth habitat. The action 

alternatives provide for increased amounts of old growth and protection of current old growth. In 

addition, MA allocations provide for large areas of little or no active vegetation management 

(i.e., MA1 and 5). The revised Forest Plan also includes a guideline that road construction or 

other developments should generally be avoided in existing old growth stands. Thus, these 

concerns have been incorporated into the action alternatives.

Varying/Additional Standards and Guidelines

Alternatives were suggested that would add additional guidelines or standards proposed in the 

Plan, or vary the levels of protection offered from the current ones by alternative. The requests 

included the following, among others:
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

36 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Proposed Standards

• Maximum road density — Some commenters wanted road densities standards to be 

included in the revised Forest Plan to protect big game and other species, such as grizzly 

bears. The Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within the 

Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones (USDA Forest Service 2011b 

and 2011c), which is incorporated into the Plan for all alternatives, addresses the habitat 

requirements for grizzly bears. This decision established standards for total motorized 

open routes, which is similar to the concept of road densities. The action alternatives 

include management direction for elk by requiring a certain level of elk security in lieu 

of road densities. In addition, the alternatives incorporate different amounts of each MA. 

Alternative C allocates the most areas to recommended wilderness and backcountry, 

which provides lower road densities than the general forest areas.

• No net gain in ATV or snowmobile access over the next 15 years — This is considered 

indirectly through the alternatives. Alternative C essentially would result in no net 

increase in off-highway vehicle or snowmobile access over what currently exists.

Proposed Guidelines

• More restrictive grazing — Grazing is very limited on the IPNF. Based on the AMS and 

the analysis, the IDT did not find any reason to restrict grazing, nor was there any 

specific reasoning given by the commenter.

• Permit motorized use in recommended wilderness — Motorized use is a nonconforming use in wilderness; therefore, the alternatives do not permit motorized use in 

recommended wilderness so that the use does not become established. Instead, the 

alternatives included varying amounts of recommended wilderness to address this 

concern.

• Stricter guidelines for watersheds/aquatics, access and recreation (seasonal 

closures, road and landing locations in riparian conservation areas, sediment 

transport, decommissioning) — The alternatives incorporate forestwide and MA

direction for watershed/aquatics. Based on the analysis, additional protective measures 

were not found to be warranted.

Conformance with the Resource Planning Act (RPA)

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations require development of at least one 

alternative which incorporates the Resource Planning Act (RPA) Program’s tentative objectives 

for each national forest (36 CFR 219.12(f)(6). The last RPA Program was developed in 1995. 

The Forest Service Strategic Plan 2007-2012, in lieu of an RPA Program, was completed in 

accordance with the Government Performance Results Act and the Interior and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act. The Strategic Plan does not recommend outputs to incorporate in specific 

Forest Plans, but all alternatives analyzed in detail in this FEIS incorporate the broad strategic 

objectives.

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the land allocations and effects of implementing each 

alternative. Table 5 provides a comparison of management area allocations by alternative. 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, is included even though it does not use the management 

areas shown in the revised Forest Plan. Where possible, Alternative A was crosswalked to the 

revised Forest Plan MAs for comparison purposes.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 37

Table 5. Comparisons of Alternatives by Management Area Allocation, Acres*, and by Percent

MA Alternative A Alternative B Modified Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

1a 153,9001 6.2% 9,900 0.4% 9,900 0.4% 9,900 0.4%

1b 152,100 6.1% 318,500 12.8% 128,800 5.2%

1c n/a 6,900 0.3% 6,900 0.3% 6,900 0.3%

1e 19,800 0.8% 0 0% 11,200 0.4%

2a 29,1002 1.2% 21,300 0.9% 21,400 0.9% 21,400 0.9%

2b 49,900 2.0% 42,200 1.7% 48,400 1.9%

3 6,800 0.3% 13,500 0.5% 13,200 0.5% 35,400 1.4%

4a 18,1003 0.7% 14,800 0.6% 14,100 0.6% 14,100 0.6%

4b 8,200 0.3% 8,200 0.3% 8,200 0.3%

5 n/a 681,200 27.3% 630,000 25.2% 624,900 25.0%

6 n/a 1,507,000 60.3% 1,420,200 56.9% 1,575,400 63.1%

7 n/a 13,100 0.5% 13,100 0.5% 13,100 0.5%

Total Acres 207,900 2,497,700 2,497,700 2,497,700

* Some management areas overlap. When this overlap occurs the following hierarchy was used: MA1a, MA4, MA1b, MA1c, MA2, MA3, and MA7. 1 Total for existing condition is MA11, which combines existing and recommended wilderness and primitive lands. 2 Total for existing condition is MA12, which combines eligible and designated wild and scenic rivers. 3 Total for existing condition is MA14, which combines research natural areas and experimental forests.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

38 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 6 summarizes the effects by alternative for each revision topic. Information in this table is focused on activities and effects where different 

levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively between alternatives

Table 6. Comparison of Resource Key Indicators for Revision Topics by Alternatives

Resource and indicator(s) Alternative

A1 B Modified C D

Vegetation

Forest composition

Forest structure

Landscape pattern

Susceptibility and resiliency to key disturbances

Carbon Sequestration

Least improvement

Least improvement

Least improvement

Least improvement

Greatest amount of 

carbon sequestered

Second greatest 

improvement

Greatest 

improvement

Greatest 

improvement

Greatest 

improvement

Third highest amount 

of carbon 

sequestered

Third greatest 

improvement

Second greatest 

improvement

Second greatest 

improvement

Third greatest 

improvement

Second highest 

amount of carbon 

sequestered

Greatest improvement

Third greatest 

improvement

Third greatest 

improvement

Second greatest 

improvement

Least amount of carbon 

sequestered

Fire

Use of fire (natural, unplanned and planned ignitions)

Fuel treatment/risk reduction

Lowest emphasis

Lowest emphasis

Second most 

emphasis

Most emphasis

Most emphasis

Third most emphasis

Third most emphasis

Second most emphasis

Watersheds, Soils, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Species

Trend in watershed condition, water quality, soil productivity, 

riparian ecosystem function, and quality of aquatic habitats

Overall 

improvements, based 

on current and 

historical 

accomplishments in 

restoration efforts 

and activities

More rapid 

improvement than C 

or D. Vegetation 

restoration emphasis, 

would likely target 

areas that include 

other active 

restoration 

Potentially slower 

improvement, 

because of emphasis 

towards “passive 

restoration” with 

amount of land area 

allocated within MA1 

Although more land 

allocated to MA6, 

compared to other 

alternatives, potentially 

slower improvement 

with the emphasis in 

commodity based 

management which 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 39

Resource and indicator(s) Alternative

A1 B Modified C D

Vegetation

opportunities for soil 

and aquatic 

resources and 

includes a balance 

with passive 

restoration 

opportunities

– MA5 could offset effects of 

active and passive 

restoration efforts

Terrestrial Wildlife

Changes in forest composition, structure, and pattern

Acres of security habitat

See Vegetation 

section above

Least acres of 

security habitat

See Vegetation 

section above

Second most acres of 

security habitat

See Vegetation 

section above

Most acres of 

security habitat

See Vegetation section 

above

Third most acres of 

security habitat

Access and Recreation

Percent of the Forest where roads & trails may be designated 

for motor vehicle use

Percent of the Forest where over-snow vehicle use is allowed

Percent of the Forest where mechanized use is allowed

Percent of Forest by Scenic Integrity Objectives Categories

Very High

Very High/High

High/Moderate

High to Low

Low

Percent of Forest by ROS Class

Summer ROS:

Primitive

Semi-primitive Non-motorized

Semi-Primitive Motorized/

Roaded Natural

Rural

96 percent

82 percent

99.5 percent

7 percent2

12 percent3

39 percent4

42 percent5

1 percent

6 percent

16 percent

73 percent

4 percent

91 percent

79 percent

93 percent

7.6 percent

2.4 percent

29.2 percent

60.5 percent

0.3 percent

1 percent

56 percent

21 percent

20 percent

2 percent

85 percent

74 percent

87 percent

14.9 percent

1.5 percent

26.9 percent

56. 4 percent

0.3 percent

1 percent

58 percent

20 percent

19 percent

2 percent

91 percent

79 percent

94 percent

7.6 percent

2.0 percent

26.9 percent

63.2 percent

0.3 percent

2 percent

56 percent

20 percent

20 percent

2 percent
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

40 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Resource and indicator(s) Alternative

A1 B Modified C D

Vegetation

Winter ROS:

Primitive

Semi-primitive Non-motorized

Semi-Primitive Motorized

Roaded Natural/Rural

Rural

1 percent

6 percent

16 percent

73 percent

4 percent

1 percent

18 percent

67 percent

12 percent

2 percent

1 percent

23 percent

62 percent

12 percent

2 percent

2 percent

17 percent

67 percent

12 percent

2 percent

Recommended Wilderness

Acres of recommended wilderness (includes overlapping 

MAs)

147,000 acres 161,400 acres 331,100 acres 138,100 acres

Timber

Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 2,076,900 acres 2,076,900 acres 2,076,900 acres 2,076,900 acres

Other resources limit timber or management precludes timber 

production as an objective

1,148,000 acres 1,126,000 acres 1,170,300 acres 1,092,500 acres

Suitable for Timber Production 928,900 acres 950,900 acres 906,500 acres 982,300 acres

Percent Suitable 37 percent 38 percent 36 percent 39 percent

Predicted Volume Sold 46.8 MMBF 44.6 MMBF 43.3 MMBF 46.3 MMBF

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ)

Long-term Sustained Yield

124.9 MMBF

22.3 MMCF

120.3 MMBF

22.1 MMCF

115.9 MMBF

21.2 MMCF

131.3 MMBF

23.4 MMCF

1 Alternative A (no-action) does not have Scenic Integrity Objectives established using the Scenery Management System. In 1987 when the original Plan was completed Scenery was 

described using the Visual Management System (Agriculture Handbook Number 462) with areas of the forest classified using Visual Quality Objectives (VQO). 2 In the 1987 Plan this was the percent assigned to the “Preservation” VQO.

3 In the 1987 Plan this was the percent assigned to the “Retention” VQO.

4 In the 1987 Plan this was the percent assigned to the “Partial Retention” VQO. 5 In the 1987 Plan this was the percent assigned to a “Modification and Maximum Modification” VQO.
Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 41

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

Introduction Organization of Chapter 3

Chapter 3 summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that may be 

affected by the alternatives presented in chapter 2. It also presents the effects that the alternatives 

may have on those resources. The discussion of affected environment and environmental 

consequences was combined into one chapter to provide a clear picture of what the resources are, 

and what could happen to them under the different alternatives. The analysis of environmental 

consequences provides the basis for the comparison of alternatives that appears at the end of 

chapter 2, table 6. This introduction provides the context in which the alternatives are analyzed.

Relationship between Programmatic and Site-Specific Analysis

This final EIS is a programmatic document. It discloses the environmental consequences on a 

large scale, at the planning level. This is in contrast to analyses for site-specific projects. The 

final EIS presents a programmatic action at a forest level of analysis but does not predict what 

will happen each time the standards and guidelines are implemented. Environmental 

consequences for individual, site-specific projects on the Forest are not described. The 

environmental effects of individual projects will depend on the implementation of each project, 

the environmental conditions at each project location, and the application of the standards and 

guidelines in each case.

The affected environment and environmental consequences discussions in this chapter allow a 

reasonable prediction of consequences for any individual location on the Forest. However, this 

document does not describe every environmental process or condition.

Budget Levels

The Forest’s budget directly affects the level of activities and outputs that may occur as a result 

of forest plan implementation. Budgets are expected to remain flat or decrease in the future. The 

effects of all alternatives were analyzed using current budget levels. To analyze effects without 

consideration of expected budgets would be a misrepresentation of expected outcomes. The 

exception is the vegetation and timber resource sections. To display movement towards 

vegetation desired conditions and to develop the ASQ, an unconstrained budget level was 

analyzed along with the constrained, current budget level.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Section

The remainder of chapter 3 is organized by resource, focusing on those resources related to 

issues described in chapter 1. Following the overview of the IPNF, the chapter is divided into 

four major sections:

• Physical and Biological Elements

• Uses and Designations of the Forest

• Production of Natural Resources

• Economic and Social Environment

Each resource section is further divided into the following sub-sections:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

42 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Introduction

• Legal and Administrative Framework

• Analysis Area

• Analysis Methods and Assumptions

• Key Indicators

• Changes Between Draft and Final (where applicable)

• Affected Environment

• Environmental Consequences (direct, indirect, and cumulative effects)

Overview of the IPNF

Physical and Biological Environment

In order to provide a better understanding of the ecological setting and importance of the IPNF, 

one must first look at where the Forest is in relation to a larger landscape.

The IPNF were created in 1973 to administer the Coeur d'Alene, Kaniksu, and St. Joe National 

Forests, which encompass 2.5 million acres. The Forest administers lands in three states: Idaho, 

Montana, and Washington and have agreements with Canada and Mexico. Elevation on the 

Forest ranges from 2,100 to 7,600 feet with as much as 80 inches of precipitation at high 

elevations. There are approximately 400 species of wildlife, including wolves and grizzly bear. 

There are 73 fish species in the many streams and lakes.

The IPNF falls within various hierarchical land units such as the Northern Rocky Mountain 

Ecological Province, the Canadian Rocky Mountains Ecoregion, the Upper Columbia River 

Basin, and the Kootenai River Basin. Recent broad scale assessments, such as the ICBEMP, have 

been completed for each of these land units, which have included all or portions of the Forest. In 

addition, assessments have been completed or are ongoing for large portions of the Forest 

(geographic area assessments for the IPNF). These broad-scale assessments were reviewed and 

the resulting information incorporated into this analysis.

The IPNF are a large forest employing over 300 permanent employees working in all resource 

areas and hundreds more employed during the field season. The Forest houses a working tree 

nursery that provides planting stock of native plants for forests all over the west. Over 11,000 

miles of classified roads exist in the Forest. There are 850,000 acres of inventoried roadless lands 

(48 areas totaling 34 percent of the land base) and a portion of one wilderness, the Salmo-Priest 

(11,950 acres) administered by the Colville National Forest. Four roadless areas are proposed for 

Wilderness: Salmo-Priest (Idaho portion), Selkirk Crest, Scotchman Peaks, and Mallard-Larkins 

(146,700 acres). Estimated forest growth is 400 million board feet annually on the suitable acres 

with over 100 million board feet of mortality on all acres annually.

Most of the IPNF are a moist forest type, influenced by maritime air masses riding the prevailing 

winds from the coast. The IPNF is a lakes region with Idaho's three largest lakes: Pend Oreille, 

Coeur d'Alene, and Priest. The lakes are very important for tourism and recreation in the region.

The IPNF are part of the Upper Columbia River Basin. The Forest has significant watersheds 

and water resource management is very important to the Forest. The Forest has one designated 

wild and scenic river, the St. Joe.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 43

There is extensive trail use for stock, off-highway vehicle use, hiking, and winter snowmobile 

and cross-country skiing. The Forest is rich with backcountry trails in the Bitterroot, Selkirk, 

Purcel, Cabinet, and Coeur d'Alene mountains. The trailheads, day use areas, campgrounds, and 

dispersed sites close to town are at or near capacity on the weekends and more remote sites 

provide opportunities for solitude. Hunting and fishing are important to the region and outfitters 

and guides are very active on the Forest providing a variety of outdoor experiences.

The Forest is heavily influenced by urban populations. Spokane, an urban area of over 470,000 

people, lies 30 miles to the west. The forestlands are present in many communities in the 

Panhandle and are part of community watersheds, provide recreation opportunities, and 

sometimes are needed for utilities, such as sewer expansion and communication sites.

Ecological Sustainability

Many of the decisions to be made in the Forest Plan will affect the Forests’ contribution to 

ecological sustainability. Goals, desired future conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, MA 

allocations, and monitoring will all have effects to the components of ecological sustainability.

Over the last half-century, scientists and natural resource managers have learned much about 

how ecosystems contribute to the fulfillment of human life (Costanza et al. 1997). An ecosystem 

is an interacting system of living organisms and their environment. Most obviously, ecosystems 

provide many of the goods that are harvested and traded in the human economy — food, timber, 

forage, biomass fuels, and many pharmaceuticals (Daily 1997). Ecosystems also provide indirect 

benefits to humans through their impacts on nutrient flux and cycling, mitigation of flood and 

drought, and maintenance of biodiversity, all of which feedback in important ways on the 

production of ecosystem goods that humans directly derive from ecosystems (Chapin et al. 

1996). Finally, ecosystems also provide less tangible, but equally important, benefits in the form 

of recreational, spiritual, and intellectual stimulation (Postel and Carpenter 1997). Because of 

these important and necessary goods and benefits provided to humans, the long-term 

sustainability of ecosystems is central to natural resource management.

Ecological sustainability is defined as: “The ability to maintain diversity, productivity, resilience 

to stress, health, and yields of desired values, resource uses, products, or services over time in an 

ecosystem while maintaining its integrity” (USDA Forest Service 1995a). Integrity, in turn, is 

defined as: “...the capacity to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive 

biological system having the full range of elements and processes expected in a region’s natural 

habitat” (Karr 1991). Critical elements of integrity include vegetation measures of structure, 

composition, and process and they are defined as:

• Structure — the horizontal and vertical physical elements of forests and grasslands and 

the spatial interrelationships of ecosystems.

• Composition — the component tree, shrub, grass, and forb classes in a stand or 

community.

• Function — includes energy flows of materials across and within the landscape and how 

one ecosystem influences another. Function also relates to energy processes such as fire, 

hydrological processes (including floods), and matter and energy exchange throughout 

the food chain.

A system subject to external disturbance will retain its integrity if it preserves all its components 

as well as the functional relationships among the components (De Leo and Levin 1997).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

44 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Based on Haynes et al. (2001), a working definition of aquatic sustainability can be described as 

the inherent capability or existing potential for a watershed system to provide water quality, 

water bodies (streams, lakes, wetlands, ponds, etc.), riparian environs (wetlands, flood plains, 

stream banks, lake shores, and other lands including terrestrial lands proximal to water bodies 

that can directly influence the water), and the biologic organisms that live in or are dependent on 

the water that are necessary to support the beneficial uses of the water.

Ecosystem diversity is the variety of ecological structures, communities, and processes across 

spatial scales such as regions, sub-regions, landscapes, and localities. Ecosystem diversity arises 

from variation in abiotic and biotic components and ecological processes over space and time 

(Huston 1994). History plays a strong role in the ecosystems we see today through the long-term 

effects of geological and climate change and biological evolution, and the shorter-term effects of 

weather, disturbance, succession, and migration of organisms. Ecosystems are open, linked, and 

adaptive systems. Linkages among ecosystem components can be weak or strong and the 

system’s responses to change in one component can be spatially and temporally lagged (Wu and 

Loucks 1995).

Social and Economic Environment

Issues related to socio-economic resources are analyzed in detail in this chapter. These resources 

include Recreation, Access, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Special Areas, Timber, 

Livestock Grazing, Minerals, and Tribal Rights and Interests. The chapter includes an analysis 

on the social and economic effects of these resources on the planning area. As part of Forest Plan 

revision, an assessment was completed on the conditions and trends of the social and economic 

setting for the IPNF (Russell et al. 2006). Following are excerpts from this document, giving a 

general description of the historical and socio-economic setting for the IPNF.

Historical Setting

The social and economic environment for the IPNF incorporates a geographic region including 

portions of eastern Washington State, the panhandle region of northern Idaho and parts of 

western Montana. The Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia are across the 

international border with Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The states and provinces of this 

region are the historical homeland for Native American tribes including the Kalispel Tribe of 

Indians, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, the Confederated Salish 

and Kootenai Tribes, the Spokane Tribe of Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, and the Nez Perce Tribe. These tribes relied on the natural resources of these lands, 

including camas roots, salmon, elk, deer, and other fish, game, and plant material. After the 

acquisition of horses, some also trekked across the mountains to hunt buffalo. A lifestyle tied to 

following the natural cycles of resource production and availability characterized these tribes 

before contact with Europeans and Americans.

Fur traders and explorers, including David Thompson and others of the North West Company 

and Hudson’s Bay Company, were among the first to make this contact. By 1809 David 

Thompson had established Kullyspell (Kalispell) House on Lake Pend Oreille. Other fur traders 

of the North West Company and Hudson’s Bay Company were followed by Christian 

missionaries including the Jesuit Priest Father Peter DeSmet who established one of the first 

missions in what was to become northern Idaho. In 1805-1806, as Lewis and Clark descended 

from Lolo Pass, they were greeted by members of the Nez Perce Tribe. Tribal members assisted 

them with horses, food, and travel through their territory. Lewis and Clark took back to the east 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 45

stories about the resources of this region, stimulating further exploration and a trickle of new 

settlers who were seeking to use and develop the resources of the region.

Gold was found along Libby Creek in northwestern Montana about 1860. Around this same time 

(1863) gold was discovered in British Columbia attracting miners who traveled along the Wild 

Horse trail and across the Kootenai River, aided by Bonner’s ferry. The discovery of gold, silver, 

zinc and other metals south of the Canadian border attracted a new influx of miners, cattlemen, 

farmers, and entrepreneurs into this region. Mining flourished in communities such as Kellogg 

and Pierce in Idaho as well as in western Montana. Development of the region was further fueled 

by construction of the Northern Pacific Railroad and Great Northern Railroad during the 1880s 

and 1890s. During this same time period (1890) Forest Reserves were created in this part of 

Idaho and Montana and these eventually became NFS lands.

The open spaces, rich natural resources, and scenic beauty aided by the Homestead Act of 1909 

continued to fuel growth in the region. Once the railroad provided adequate transportation, 

timber resources also became an important source of economic and population growth. White 

pine, fir, and other timber resources attracted lumber interests from the east that established mills 

and company towns such as Potlatch in Idaho. The first farmers arrived in the region around 

1869 growing flax and other grains. They were attracted by the fertile ground in the rolling hills 

and grass lands of north central Idaho’s prairie lands. These first farmers provided the food 

resources for the mill towns, miners, and shop keepers who were essential to the development of 

the entire region.

The history of this region is steeped in logging, mining, agriculture, and the railroad connecting 

the east to the west. These railroads were essential to enabling development of the region’s 

resources. The present day socioeconomic environment of the project area has a foundation in 

this history of natural resource development and settlement driven by the economics and lifestyle 

issues of western exploration that was supported by the federal government policies such as the 

Homestead Act.

Social Setting

National forests are public lands that influence and are influenced by the local and national 

public. The local public is represented in the communities of place and interest adjacent to 

national forest lands. Many of these communities were formed from the development of timber, 

gold, silver, grazing lands, and other natural resources. Historically, individuals in these 

communities developed strong place attachments to public lands that provided recreational, 

aesthetic, employment, and other contributions to their social environment. Work, place, and 

lifestyles became an integral part of the culture and social characteristics of such communities. 

These communities developed particular interests in the interactions of public lands with their 

ways of life and their economic present and future. These interests are expressed in their 

interactions with public lands in addition to the actions and comments of local interest groups.

The IPNF contains portions of ten counties in three states: Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, 

Clearwater, Kootenai, Latah, and Shoshone counties in Idaho; Lincoln and Sanders counties in 

Montana; and Pend Oreille County in Washington. The analysis area for the social and economic 

environment is comprised of the counties that are influenced by IPNF management and, when 

grouped, create a functional economy. Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, and Shoshone 

counties comprise the analysis area for the IPNF. These are the counties that are likely to be 

affected by IPNF management. These counties are also influenced by a larger regional economy 

comprised of the surrounding counties.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

46 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Within this larger region, several different categories of communities can be identified by 

characteristics such as population size, patterns of residence, and lifestyles. Spokane (population 

of 471,000 persons) and Missoula (60,722) are regional centers with larger populations, more 

dense urban-like residence patterns, and access to airports that connect to larger transportation 

hubs. Similarly, Spokane and Missoula also offer access to diverse specialty services as well as 

diverse shopping and amenities. A second community grouping is the regional hub that provides 

services, shopping, amenities, and employment opportunities for residents of nearby smaller 

communities and rural residents, although not the diversity of services and amenities offered in 

the regional centers. These communities are the next largest in population size and they also 

have urban-like residence patterns and population densities. Regional hub communities include 

Kalispell (16,391), Sandpoint (7,378), Coeur d’Alene (37,262), Moscow (21,707), and, Lewiston 

(30,937). Rural centers are the third community category. Rural centers may be a county seat or 

other incorporated entity offering basic services and amenities for nearby smaller communities 

and rural residents. Places such as Libby (2,606), Thompson Falls (1,323), St. Maries (2,589), 

Kellogg (2,236), and Bonner’s Ferry (2,647) exemplify these rural centers. Rural towns provide 

limited services and amenities, but they foster a sense of local identity and community among 

those living in their vicinity. These rural towns are exemplified in communities such as Moyie 

Springs (685) in Boundary County, Clark Fork (566) and Priest River (1,863) in Bonner County, 

Harrison (984) in Kootenai County, Wallace (887) in Shoshone County, Potlatch (759) in Latah 

County, Troy (957) and Eureka (1,017) in Lincoln County, and Plains (1,126) in Sanders County.

Traditionally, the county communities relied on the use of natural resources in activities such as 

farming, ranching, mining, and timber production. Recreation has also been an important use of 

forest resources among the residents of nearby communities as well as others from more distant 

urban areas such as Spokane, Missoula, and elsewhere. Recreation usage also appears to be 

increasing as urban populations increase and more diverse residents are moving to rural towns 

and cities. The institution of the Forest Service has also been a part of the social environment of 

communities in this region since development of the NFS.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 47

Physical and Biological

This section includes the following resources:

• Vegetation

• Rare Plants

• Non-native Invasive Plants

• Fire and Fuels Management

• Watershed, Soils, Riparian, Aquatic Habitat, and Aquatic Species

• Terrestrial Wildlife

• Air Quality

Vegetation is listed first as it is often referred to in several of the following sections
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

48 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Forest Vegetation

Introduction

The ecosystems and vegetation of the IPNF are dynamic. The processes of succession and 

disturbance patterns have produced the current vegetativon conditions. These natural processes, 

both part of and necessary for ecosystem function, will continue to produce changes in the 

future. Therefore, the following descriptions of current vegetation represent only one point in 

time. Some of the changes will be generally predictable, others less so. Accordingly, any 

description of future vegetation is a prediction subject to uncertainty. The level of uncertainty 

depends on the degree to which natural processes are allowed to operate. Natural disturbance 

events such as fire, windstorms, landslides, and insect and disease outbreaks are generally 

difficult to predict. On the other hand, changes associated with succession and human-caused 

disturbance such as timber harvest and prescribed burning are fairly predictable. Although the 

Forest will experience natural disturbance events, the degree to which they are allowed to occur 

will influence the ability to predict future vegetation conditions at any given point in time.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• The Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: Provides for 

maintenance of land productivity and the need to protect and improve the soil and water 

resources.

• The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: “It is the policy of the Congress 

that all forested lands in the NFS shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species 

of trees, degree of stocking, rate of growth and conditions of stand designed to secure the 

maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield. Plans developed shall provide for the 

diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the 

specific land area in order to meet the overall multiple-use objectives, and within the 

multiple-use objective.”

• Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974: Authorizes the Secretary to cooperate with other 

federal and state agencies and individuals in carrying out measures to eradicate, suppress, 

control, or prevent the spread of noxious weeds.

• The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973: Requires federal agencies to conserve 

threatened and endangered species.

• Executive Order 13112: Directs federal agencies whose actions may affect the status of 

invasive species to (1) prevent the introduction of invasive species, (2) detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost effective and environmentally 

sound manner, as appropriations allow.

Regulation and Policy

• FSM 2080: Contains numerous provisions related to suppression of noxious weeds.

• FSM 4063: Directs management of Research Natural Areas as part of a national network of 

ecological areas allocated in perpetuity for research and education and/or to maintain 

biological diversity on NFS lands.

• FSM 4063.03: Forest Plans shall include analysis of, and recommendations for, any 

proposed research natural areas establishment.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 49

• FSM 2670.22: (1) Develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do 

not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions; (2) maintain viable 

populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats 

distributed throughout their geographic range on NFS lands; (3) Develop and implement 

management objectives for populations and or habitats of sensitive species.

• Departmental Regulation 9500-4: Habitats for all native and desired non-native plants, 

fish, and wildlife species will be managed to maintain at least viable populations of such 

species. In achieving this objective, habitat must be provided for the number and distribution 

of reproductive individuals to ensure continued existence of a species throughout its 

geographic range.

• Region 1 Natural Areas Assessment 1996: Provided an assessment of plant community 

types needed to fulfill the national spectrum of types to be placed in RNA status in Region 1.

• USDA Forest Service Position Statement on National Forest Old-Growth Values 

10/11/89: Recognizes the many values associated with old growth forests, such as biological 

diversity, wildlife and fisheries habitat, recreation, aesthetics, soil productivity, water quality, 

and industrial raw material. Old growth on the national forests will be managed to provide 

the foregoing values for present and future generations. Decisions on managing existing old 

growth forest to provide these values will be made in the development and implementation 

of forest plans. These plans shall also provide for a succession of young forests into old 

growth forests in light of their depletion due to natural events or harvest.

Key Indicators

• Forest composition and structure – predicted changes to tree species composition and 

structure (tree size classes, old growth, and snags);

• Landscape pattern of the forest — potential changes to the patterns of forest conditions 

(e.g., successional stages, species composition, tree density, and fuels) on the landscape;

• Resistance and resiliency of the forest vegetation to disturbances and stressors – effects 

of the alternatives on the hazard of wildfire, key insects, and diseases, weather 

disturbances, and climate change; and

• Carbon sequestration.

Methodology and Analysis Process

The vegetation management approach that is being used in the Forest Plan is one of providing 

ecological components, patterns and processes at multiple scales on the landscape, and thereby 

providing the full spectrum of habitats and conditions needed for all of the biological organisms 

associated with the various ecosystems. This general strategy is often called the “coarse-filter” 

approach to ecosystem management and is followed by a fine-filter approach that focuses on 

more species-specific management strategies (see AMS Technical Report (2003) for more 

detailed information). In order to preserve species, their populations, genetic structure, biotic 

communities, and landscapes, there has been an increased emphasis on the maintenance of 

ecological functions, processes, and disturbance regimes (West and Whitford 1995).

As a way to understand the various ecosystems on the Forest and sustain the biodiversity within 

them, it is necessary to have some reference for understanding the potential productivity of the 

land, the natural diversity of the relevant ecosystems, and what processes sustain this 

productivity and diversity. The concept of ecosystem ranges of variability has been suggested as 

a framework for coarse filter analysis (Landres et al. 1999). Historic range of variability concepts 

were developed in part to better understand how disturbance, vegetation, and other ecosystem 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

50 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

components interact, and in turn how interaction affects biophysical characteristics such as 

plants, animals, fish, and soil and water resources. Historical perspectives increase our 

understanding of the dynamic nature of landscapes and provide a frame of reference for 

assessing current patterns and processes (Swetnam et al. 1999).

The HRV analysis focuses on forest composition, structure, landscape pattern, and processes 

(disturbance and succession). Not only was the HRV considered in revising forest plan direction, 

but the potential impacts that climate change might have on the future range of variability was 

contemplated. The concept of comparing current vegetation conditions to both the historical as 

well as the potential future conditions is described by Gärtner et al. (2008). In summary, this 

approach is designed to provide insights into how ecosystems have changed, as well as how they 

may change in the future. The knowledge gained from this approach can then be used to 

“inform” management decisions regarding how climate change may affect future landscape 

conditions (Keane et al. 2008). Given these insights, climate change adaptive strategies such as 

fostering “resistance” and “resiliency” in the forest ecosystems can be considered.

Historic and Desired Conditions

A historic range of variability (HRV) was developed to determine historic conditions and provide 

context for building the vegetation desired conditions for the Forest Plan. The Technical Report 

for the AMS for the KIPZ Forest Plan Revisions (March 2003) contained preliminary 

information on HRV for the IPNF. This report defined the HRV as the range of variation in 

spatial, structural, compositional, and temporal characteristics of ecosystem elements as affected 

by minor climatic fluctuations and disturbances. This range is measured using a reference period 

prior to intensive resource use and management. For the IPNF, this period is considered to be 

approximately 2,500 years ago up until 1880 (Chatters and Leavell 1994). The HRV is the 

baseline for comparison with current conditions to assess the degree of past change.

To complete the HRV and analyze current conditions, the KIPZ chose the following three 

ecosystem characteristics to quantify and describe:

• Composition (Dominance type or species composition)

• Structure (Size class)

• Landscape pattern (Fragmentation)

Historic ranges for dominance type and size class were developed at both the forestwide scale as 

well as for each of the three biophysical settings. Landscape pattern was assessed by geographic 

area and at the forestwide scale.

The HRV analysis used a wide variety of sources and methods to assess historic conditions, 

including:

• Information about post-glacial (last 11,00 years — Holocene Era) climate and vegetation 

changes to set context for more recent conditions;

• Narrative descriptions from the early expeditions (Stevens Expedition during 1853-55 

and Mullan Road Journals for 1859-61);

• Data, maps, and narrative descriptions from the 1890s contained in government surveys 

done in conjunction with the establishment of the Forest Reserves (Leiberg's reports

1897);
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 51

• Data, maps, and narrative descriptions from numerous Timber and/or Forest 

Management Plans done on most proclaimed national forests on approximately a 

decadal basis from 1910' through the 1960s;

• 1930s reports on forest conditions by county;

• John Losensky's 1993 report: Historical Vegetation in Region 1 by Climatic Section;

• Data from various Region 1 reports on timber conditions on national forests during the 

first half of the 20th century;

• Information on fire return intervals from fire history investigations in these ecosystems;

• Historical accounts of the 1910 and other fires;

• Maps of large fires dating from approximately 1880s through the 1970s;

• Extensive sets of aerial photos from the 1930s;

• Modeling results using the VDDT Model done as part of information development for 

the Interior Columbia River Basin Assessment (this transition model predicts vegetation 

condition over time using information about successional and disturbance processes);

• Historical and vegetation change information from the late 1990s Interior Columbia 

River Basin Assessment;

• Change information from the 1998 Forest Service, Northern Region Overview;

• Pollen, sediment, and charcoal analysis (Chatters and Leavell 1994); and

• Negative exponential model for age classes.

A variety of historic data and information sources was assessed and compared to avoid omissions 

and biases that may be inherent in any one source. Trends through time from one data source to 

another were examined to uncover any information that may be in contradiction to the 

preponderance of evidence. Information in both narratives and historical forest inventories was 

also compared to objective evidence such as historic landscape scale photos, historical records 

and maps of major forest fires, and various fire history studies. Findings from the Interior 

Columbia River Basin Assessment, the US Forest Service Northern Region Overview (USDA 

Forest Service 1998), and model (negative exponential model) results were also included in the 

analysis.

Development of HRV was an iterative process, involving teams of specialists from the districts 

and supervisor’s offices, including silviculturists, ecologists, timber managers, wildlife 

biologists, and fire managers with extensive field knowledge. These specialists reviewed the 

historic and current information to develop historic conditions for their study area.

In addition, two parametric fire history models (the negative exponential and the Weibull 

models) were used to develop theoretical age class distributions. These models were tailored for 

forest fire regimes and diversity. These outputs were reviewed and adjusted based on data from 

existing stands (analysis of age class and structure) and an understanding of historic disturbance 

effects.

The resulting HRV was then reviewed in the context of climate change. Results from HRV were 

found to be consistent with conditions that would improve resistance and resiliency under 

climate change. This resulted in the ranges for vegetation desired conditions by species and size 

class presented in the revised Forest Plan. Because it will take many decades to achieve these 

desired ranges, the desired condition for vegetation is to move towards these ranges.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

52 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Forest Vegetation Condition

The composition and structure of the forest vegetation was assessed using two primary sources 

of data: a spatial map source developed from remote sensing and an inventory source.

The spatial map source used in analysis of vegetation was the Northern Region Vegetation 

Mapping Project (R1-VMP). This mapping project was completed for the Northern Region of 

the Forest Service in April 2004, and provides a geospatial database of vegetation and land 

covers (Brewer et al. 2004, Brewer et al. 2006). These datasets were produced following

consistent analytical logic and methods and mapped continuously across all ownerships. From 

this, four GIS layers were produced:

• Lifeform

• Tree Dominance Type

• Tree Diameter Class

• Tree Canopy Cover Class

The inventory source used in analysis was data from the forest inventory and analysis. The 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program provides a congressionally mandated, statistically 

based, continuous inventory of the forest resources of the United States. Since 1930, the FIA 

program has been administered through the Research and Development branch of the Forest 

Service, which makes it administratively independent from the NFS. The FIA program is 

administered by employees of the Interior West Forest Inventory and Analysis work unit, which 

is headquartered at the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station in Ogden, Utah.

The FIA program collects, analyzes, and reports information on the status and trends of 

America’s forests (i.e., how much forest exists, where it exists, who owns it, and how it is 

changing), providing data related to the changing conditions of trees, and other forest vegetation. 

The FIA program combines this information with related data on insects, diseases, and other 

types of forest damages and stressors to assess the health and potential future risks to forests. The 

FIA program also projects these trends through the next 50 years and displays how various 

management scenarios would affect forest vegetation through time. Additional information on 

the FIA program can be found on the internet (http://www.fia.fs.fed.us).

The FIA data used for forest planning was collected from 1999 to 2002 on the IPNF. The FIA 

data was used to quantify both species and size class at the forest and biophysical setting scales. 

The FIA data was also used to develop growth and yield tables for the vegetation modeling.

Analysis Area

The affected area for direct and indirect effects to terrestrial vegetation is the lands administered 

by the IPNF. This area represents the NFS lands where changes may occur to vegetation as a 

result of management activities or natural events.

The affected area for cumulative effects to terrestrial vegetation includes the lands administered 

by the IPNF, as well as the lands of other ownership, both within and adjacent to the IPNF 

boundaries.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 53

Changes between Draft and Final

Modifications to plan components related to old growth:

• Modifications were made to several of the plan components associated with the old growth 

resource. Additions were made to FW-DC-VEG-03 to express the desire that old growth 

stands be well distributed across the various geographic areas on the Forest and that old 

growth stands (or groups of contiguous stands) increase in size. Additional information on 

these items has been added to the old growth section in this FEIS. The phrase “other lands 

managed for old growth” was removed from FW-DC-VEG-03 because it was not needed in 

order to express the desire that the amount of old growth increase on the Forest. The 

response to Public Comment 359 in appendix G of the FEIS contains more information on 

the rationale for that change.

• A modification was made to both FW-STD-VEG-01 and FW-GDL-VEG-01 to eliminate the 

word “minimum.” The underlying intent of those plan components is to allow some 

vegetation management activities within some old growth stands under certain conditions as 

long as the activities would not modify the stand to the extent that it would no longer meet 

the definition of old growth. Examples of the circumstances in which the Forest would 

consider proposing vegetation management activities in old growth stands has been added to 

the old growth section in this FEIS.

Additional information provided concerning old growth:

• Additional information and results of analysis for old growth were included in both the 

affected environment and environmental consequences sections of this FEIS. The 

quantitative estimates of existing old growth and potential future old growth were updated as 

a result of newer analysis. This additional old growth information was provided in order to 

address the numerous public comments that were received on the topic. Some of the 

additional information that was added to this FEIS was contained in the specialist report for 

forest vegetation at the time the draft Forest Plan and DEIS were released to the public, and 

some was developed since the drafts were released. For details on the comments that we 

received that prompted the expansion of this discussion, see Public Comments 351, 371, 

960-962, 964 and 965 in appendix G of this FEIS.

Adjustments made to model simulations:

• As described in more detail in appendix B of this FEIS, between the development of the 

draft and final EIS the forest vegetation simulations that were made using the SIMPPLLE 

and Spectrum models were modified. There were a number of reasons for re-running those 

models but the two primary motives were to simulate the possible warming and drying 

influence from potential climate change impacts, and to correct deficiencies that were 

identified in the wildfire behavior, fire suppression, and insect/disease related elements of 

the previous SIMPPLLE modeling effort. As a result of re-running the models, the 

quantitative estimates of how the forest vegetation would change in the future for each 

alternative changed. Therefore, many of the numbers presented in the environmental 

consequences section of the FEIS related to forest vegetation have changed.

Additional information provided regarding western white pine and the tree improvement 

and reforestation program:

• As mentioned in a number of places in the revised Forest Plan and this EIS, restoration 

efforts for the western white pine are an extremely important component of the broader 

program to trend the forest vegetation on the IPNF towards a condition that is more resistant 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

54 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

and resilient towards natural and man-caused disturbances and stressors. One part of the 

program to increase the dominance of this tree species in the Forest is the tree improvement 

and planting activities that are designed to increase the level of resistance that the white pine

have against the non-native blister rust disease. The DEIS contained some information on 

this topic. However, in reviewing the public comments regarding this issue (e.g., Public 

Comment 354 and 362 in appendix G) it was apparent that providing additional information 

would be helpful for some readers to understand the necessity of the program and the genetic 

implications.

Expanded discussion regarding the desired future condition for forest vegetation:

• The IPNF received a number of public comments on the draft Plan/EIS that expressed 

concerns regarding the use of the historic range of variability (HRV) information in the 

development of the desired future conditions for forest vegetation. In general, those 

comments were responded to in appendix G (see the responses to Public Comment 952). 

However, additional information was also provided in this FEIS under the heading of “Forest 

Composition.”

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Forest Succession

Prior to presenting the existing, historical, and desired conditions for forest vegetation, it is 

helpful to have a general understanding of some of the important factors that affect the 

composition, structure, patterns, and ecological processes that occur in forest communities on the 

IPNF.

Processes and conditions that occur in vegetation communities are a result of interactions 

between the biological and physical environments in which they occur, as well as the history of 

natural and human-caused disturbances. To classify forest vegetation according to physical and 

environmental factors, a classification system called habitat typing was created. Habitat types are 

based on natural relationships and reflect ecological patterns and the capability of vegetation on

a site.

The designation of habitat types and the classification of forest stands were established to 

characterize vegetation based on potential “climax” conditions (Cooper et al. 1991). Climax 

conditions represent the culmination of overstory and understory plant succession without 

disturbance. Because climax species, by definition, are those species that are self-perpetuating in 

the absence of disturbance, and because disturbances are relatively common on most sites, the 

occurrence of climax conditions is rare (Cooper et al. 1991).

In various sections of this FEIS, the terms succession and seral stages are used. Succession can 

be defined as the sequential process of long-term plant community change and development that 

occurs following a disturbance. Succession causes changes in forest composition, structure, and 

function. For example, following a stand-replacing wildfire a site may be dominated by grasses 

and herbaceous plants for a few years; then be dominated by shrubs for a decade or two; then be 

dominated by tree species that need open sunlight to regenerate (e.g., western larch, ponderosa 

pine, western white pine); and ultimately (if there's no new disturbance) be dominated by slower 

growing tree species that can regenerate in the shade (e.g., grand fir, hemlock, cedar). However, 

in complex ecosystems such as the forests on the IPNF, there are multiple successional pathways 

possible for any given site, depending upon the type of disturbance and the conditions when the 

disturbance occurs. For example, on forest sites that are warm/moist (also known as the cedar-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 55

hemlock zone), Shiplett and Neuenschwander (1994) describe five idealized successional 

chronologies based solely on the influence that fire disturbances have on the successional 

pathways. As described and visually depicted by Smith and Fischer (1997), these successional 

pathways can be very complex; even when they only include the consideration of one 

disturbance factor such as fire. When other disturbance factors are considered such as insects, 

disease and weather, the possible pathways become even more numerous and complex.

The different stages of succession are often referred to as seral stages and can be described as 

follows:

• Early- seral: Communities that occur early in the successional path and generally have 

less complex structural developmental than other successional communities. Stands 

dominated by trees in the seedling/sapling to small size classes are typically in this early 

seral stage.

• Mid-seral: Communities that occur in the middle of the successional path. For forests, 

this usually corresponds to stands that are dominated by trees in the small-medium size 

classes.

• Late-seral: Communities that occur in the later stage of the successional path with 

mature, generally larger individuals. Generally, stands in this late-seral stage will be 

dominated by trees in the large size class.

Biophysical Setting

To characterize the existing, historical, and desired forest vegetation across the IPNF, three 

Biophysical Settings were recognized: Warm/Dry; Warm/Moist; and Subalpine.

• Warm/Dry: This biophysical setting includes the warmest and driest sites that support forest 

vegetation. These sites cover approximately 15 percent of IPNF NFS lands and occur either 

at low elevations, at mid-elevations on southerly aspects, or on droughty soils. Vegetation

response units 1 through 3 occur in this setting.

• Warm/Moist: This biophysical setting includes moist sites that are relatively warm and these 

sites cover approximately 61 percent of IPNF NFS forested lands. This setting includes lowelevation upland sites with deeper soils on north and east aspects, extensive mid-elevation 

moist upland sites, and most low- and mid-elevation wet stream bottoms and riparian 

benches and toe-slopes. Vegetation response units 4 through 6 occur in this setting.

• Subalpine: This biophysical setting occurs over approximately 24 percent of IPNF NFS 

forested lands and occupies the higher elevations of the Forest. This setting ranges from the 

cool and moist, lower subalpine sites up to the cold and dry, high elevation sites that have 

more open forests and occur between forest and alpine tundra. The moist end of this setting 

is common on northwest to east-facing slopes and riparian and poorly drained subalpine 

sites. The cool to cold dry sites occur at higher elevations and typically have a short growing 

season. Vegetation response units 7 through 11 comprise this setting.

These biophysical settings are broad groupings of vegetation response units that have been 

aggregated by factors that regulate disturbance regimes and successional responses (such as 

habitat types, landform, and other topographic characteristics, such as aspect); combined with 

climatic factors such as temperature and moisture gradients. The vegetation response units are 

equivalent to the land unit, or ecological land unit, as described in the National Hierarchical 

Framework of Ecological Units (Cleland et al. 1997). A comprehensive discussion of each of the 

individual vegetation response units, and a discussion of the methodology used to delineate them 

is presented in USDA Forest Service (1999).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

56 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Areas within each of the biophysical setting have similar patterns in potential natural 

communities, soils, hydrologic function, landform and topography, lithology, climate, and 

natural processes (e.g., nutrient and biomass cycling, succession, productivity, and fire regimes). 

Biophysical settings on the IPNF are displayed in figure 6.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 57

Figure 6. Map of the three Biophysical Settings on the IPNF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

58 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Disturbance Types and Processes

The AMS Technical Report described the historic and current disturbance processes (pages 3 to 

7). Disturbance processes include the following: climate; weather; wildfire; management 

activities of timber harvest and prescribed burning; and insects and disease. These disturbance 

processes have a great influence on vegetation composition and function. The following 

information is generally in addition to what is included in the AMS Technical Report on this 

topic.

Climate

The climate within the Interior Columbia River Basin, which includes the IPNF, is particularly 

dynamic because it has a transition-type climate, which is influenced by three competing air 

masses:

1. Moist, marine air from the west that moderates seasonal temperatures;

2. Continental air from the east and south, which is dry and cold in the winter and hot 

with convective precipitation and lightning in summer; and

3. Dry, artic air from the north that brings cold air in winter and helps cool the area in 

summer.

The relative strengths of these air masses can vary greatly over time, change rapidly, and are 

controlled by large-scale weather patterns, including the position of the jet stream and 

continental-scale patterns of high and low pressure systems. Northeastern Washington and 

northern Idaho is an area where the variability caused by the interaction of these three air masses 

is great (Ferguson 1999).

Because of the strong influence of inland marine airflow, precipitation in northern Idaho and 

northwest Montana is generally heavy compared to the rest of the Rocky Mountains. However, 

precipitation tends to vary on a decadal basis, with wet periods and dry periods each lasting 

several years to decades (Finklin and Fischer 1987). Extended droughts raise the fire danger and 

stress trees, especially the more drought intolerant species. During drought times, these stressed 

trees are less able to resist insect and pathogen attacks. Recent research has found evidence that 

decadal scale fluctuations in climate, such as those caused by the Pacific decadal oscillation, can 

have a large influence on forest disturbance processes such as wildfires and insect outbreaks 

(Bollenbacher 2010, Hessl et al. 2004, McKenzie et al. 2009, Morgan et al. 2008, Westerling et 

al. 2006). This climatic variability creates an environment prone to a high frequency of a variety 

of disturbances. Rocky Mountain forest ecosystems are (and were historically) a mosaic of 

disturbance-derived patches of various ages and composition. Historically, fire was the primary 

disturbance agent throughout most Rocky Mountain ecosystems (Barbour and Billings 2000 or 

Peet 2000), but insects, pathogens, and weather events were also important.

An assessment on climate change for the planning zone synthesized the most recent scientific 

information regarding how future climate change may impact forest resources and disturbance 

processes on the IPNF and KNF (USDA Forest Service 2010b). The report concluded the 

average annual temperatures will increase 2.2°F by the 2020s and 3.5°F by the mid-21st century. 

The greatest temperature increases are predicted for the summer season. Precipitation predictions 

are considered less certain, but most of the climate change models project decreases in summer 

precipitation, increases in winter, and little change in the average. It is also predicted that some 

extreme events will occur more frequently or with greater magnitude, while others may be less 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 59

frequent (i.e., more unusually warm periods and fewer really cold spells). Other research for the 

northern Rockies (Westerling et al. 2006, Running 2006, Morgan et al. 2008) predicts warmer 

springs, earlier snowmelt, and hotter, drier summers with longer fire seasons and larger, more 

intense fires.

Weather

The weather of the IPNF is unique to the inland area of the western United States. Strong 

maritime air flow carries high levels of moisture to this area. Moist maritime air that moves 

across the Northwest carries significant moisture descending from the Cascade Mountains and 

across the Columbia Plateau. When this warm/moist air is driven into the IPNF heavy/wet snows 

can occur. These storms often result in significant windthrow and breakage in species of trees 

such as Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and grand fir, especially when the ground is not frozen. 

The narrower crowns of western white pine, the deep rooting habits of ponderosa pine, and the 

deciduous nature of western larch make them less susceptible to this damage. Root diseases 

make Douglas-fir especially vulnerable to windthrow events. Dense stands, where tree canopies 

form contiguous “interlocking” tree crowns and trees tend to be relatively tall and have small 

diameters, are especially susceptible to damage from heavy snows and/or winds. This can lead to 

heavy fuel loadings for decades afterwards.

In general, weather events raise the probability of subsequent insect or fire disturbances. Trees 

broken or blown down in severe weather events provide breeding grounds for some bark beetle

species. Weather events that cause large amounts of tree breakage or blowdown are frequently 

the precipitating event that leads to bark beetle epidemics. In turn, blowdown from weather 

events and trees killed by insects both create woody fuels that increase fire hazard (USDA Forest 

Service 2000b).

In the northern Rocky Mountains, precipitation tends to vary on a decadal basis, with wet 

periods and dry periods each lasting several years to decades (Finklin 1983). Extended droughts 

both raise the fire danger and stress trees, especially the more drought-intolerant species. 

Western hemlock and grand fir are two of the more drought-intolerant tree species on the IPNF, 

and are highly stressed during drought periods. In an ecosystem subject to periodic droughts, the 

succession to these shade-tolerant, drought- and fire-intolerant forest types creates an increased 

risk of large-scale insect and disease mortality. During droughts these stressed trees are less able 

to resist insect and pathogen attacks. This climatic variability creates an environment prone to a

high frequency and variety of disturbances.

Wildfire

The dominant, historical fire regime that occurred within forested vegetation on the IPNF can be 

characterized as a variable or mixed-severity fire regime (Brown and Smith 2000, Kilgore 1981, 

Zack and Morgan 1994). This type of fire regime commonly had a moderately short fire return 

interval for nonlethal or mixed-severity fires, with lethal crown fires occurring less often. 

Relative to the other two common fire regimes (i.e., non-lethal and stand-replacement regimes) 

that are often recognized for forested vegetation, the mixed-severity fire regime is the most 

complex (Agee 2004, Perry et al. 2011). Individual mixed-severity fires typically leave a patchy 

pattern of mortality on the landscape, which can create highly diverse communities. These fires 

kill a large percentage of the more fire-susceptible tree species (e.g., hemlock, grand fir, 

subalpine fir, lodgepole pine) and a smaller proportion of the fire-resistant species, including 

western larch, ponderosa pine, whitebark pine, and western white pine (Arno et al. 2000, Arno 

1980). Across the Northern Rockies (Idaho and western Montana), areas that were characterized 

as having a mixed-severity fire regime affected approximately 50 percent of the area within 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

60 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

national forests, while the non-lethal regime (also known as low-severity regime) affected 

approximately 30 percent, and the lethal fire regime (also known as the stand-replacement 

regime) approximately 20 percent (Quigley et al. 1996). The three fire severity types that occur 

in this mixed-severity regime are briefly discussed below.

Stand-replacing (lethal) fires are those that result in killing most of overstory tree canopy over a 

significant area and restarting the successional sequence. Historically, on landscapes dominated 

by relatively moist habitat types (e.g., those habitat types that dominate the warm/moist 

biophysical setting), the mean fire return interval was approximately 200 years for standreplacing fires (plus or minus 80 years), with slightly drier sites burning more frequently and 

wetter sites burning less frequently (Leavell 2000, Smith and Fischer 1997, Zack and Morgan 

1994). The fire-adapted, shade-intolerant tree species in these ecosystems commonly live 140 to 

400 plus years. Because the historic mean, stand-replacing fire return interval was shorter than 

the life-span of many shade-intolerant, early successional tree species, these fire regimes trended 

forest succession towards dominance by fire-adapted, shade-intolerant, potentially long-lived 

early-seral tree species (ponderosa pine, larch, white pine, and whitebark pine), as well as 

towards fire-adapted plant species in the shrub and herb lifeform layers.

Major fire years occur most commonly during regional summer droughts. Lightning storms and 

wind contribute to the likelihood of a major fire year. During major fire years, stand-replacing 

fires were commonly on the order of tens of thousands of acres, with some individual fire 

patches 50,000 acres or larger (Pyne 1982, Zack and Morgan 1994). During major fire events 

some watersheds were almost entirely burned over, while other large areas were unaffected. In 

any particular watershed, major stand-replacing disturbances came in pulses with long intervals 

between the pulses. During the last 100 years, these pulses were synchronized with the 

occurrence of the warm phases of the Pacific decadal oscillation, and the result was hot and dry 

local weather (Morgan et al. 2008).

While stand-replacing fires in the Northern Rockies favor long-term dominance by early 

successional, shade-intolerant tree species, the mean time interval between stand-replacing fires 

was long enough to allow development of mature and old growth forest structural stages, 

particularly in locations where fire intervals tended to be longest; for example, in wide riparian 

zones, moist flats, north slope coves and benches, and the lower portions of north slopes (Zack 

and Morgan 1994).

Mixed-severity fires kill a moderate amount of the overstory tree canopy, but do not replace the 

whole stand. Mean fire return intervals typically ranged from 55 to 85 years, depending upon 

landscape location. On very moist sites they may have been significantly less common, while on 

drier sites return intervals were 25 years or less (Smith and Fischer 1997, Zack and Morgan 

1994). Mixed-severity fires create an irregular patchy mosaic of small- to moderate-sized 

openings, thinned areas, underburned areas, and unburned areas. Mixed-severity fires generally 

prolonged the period of dominance by early successional fire-adapted species and at a larger 

scale, allowed for the development of mature and old growth structural stages dominated by 

large trees. A classic example of this is the influence that periodic low- to moderate-severity 

wildfires had on releasing western larch from competing, shade-tolerant tree species. The 

periodic thinning effect that this had on stands of old growth larch at the Coram experimental 

forest allowed for this early seral species to be maintained in the forest (Elzinga and Shearer 

1997). Fire also played many additional ecological roles as a carbon and nutrient recycling agent, 

dormancy breaking and stimulating agent for herb and shrub seeds and sprouts, and creator of 

tree cavities and snags (used by wildlife). Historically, mixed-severity fires were extremely 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 61

variable in size (less than one acre to more than 1,000 acres) and introduced both variable-sized 

patches and internal diversity within larger blocks created by the less frequent stand-replacing 

fires (Zack and Morgan 1994).

Low-severity (nonlethal) fires are typically underburns that kill very little of the overstory tree 

canopy. They are most important on drier habitat types where conditions are dry enough to burn 

more frequently; for example, within the warm/dry biophysical setting). Mean fire return 

intervals typically range from 10 to 30 years (Smith and Fischer 1997). Low-severity fires 

typically remove most small understory trees, particularly the more shade-tolerant, fire-intolerant 

species. On drier habitat types where these fires are common, the frequent burns maintain a large 

portion of the landscape in relatively open stands of large, shade-intolerant, fire-tolerant species 

(larch and ponderosa pine with lesser amounts of Douglas-fir).

In the higher elevations forests that occupy the subalpine biophysical setting on the IPNF, the 

fire regime could be characterized as having a 150-175 year return interval for stand replacing 

fires with mixed-severity fires every 30-50 years (Arno and Davis 1980, Barrett and Arno 1991, 

Smith and Fisher 1997).

Across the IPNF, the large, infrequent stand-replacing wildfire disturbances created a dynamic 

shifting mosaic of forest successional stages on a very large scale. In between the stand-replacing 

fires, vegetation, aquatic systems, and wildlife habitat had long periods to recover. Intermediate 

disturbances (low-and mixed-severity fire; some insect, pathogen, and weather events) 

introduced finer scale variability within these larger patches. As a result, blocks of wildlife 

habitat tended to be large, and blocks of mature/late-successional forest also tended to be large, 

but internally diverse. Terrestrial/aquatic interactions meant that watershed conditions and fish 

habitat also tended to form a dynamic, large-scale shifting mosaic. Over time any individual 

watershed could vary from predominantly mature/old forest (with wildlife and fish habitat) to 

almost all recently burned over. However, at any given time, at the larger scale of a river subbasin (500,000 – 2,000,000 acres), the whole range of these conditions was represented in 

watershed-sized blocks of thousands, to tens of thousands of acres (USDA Forest Service 2000b, 

Hessburg et al. 2007).

Re-burns of fires have occurred throughout history in this region (Habeck 1987). Re-burns have 

been associated with, and have normally followed, severe fire years that have burned in high 

intensity conditions. Stand-replacing fires can create a high fuel loading in both standing and 

down wood. When the residual fuels from the first fire dry out after several years, the areas can 

become a strong candidate for re-burn when high temperatures, low humidity, and winds 

combine.

With the aid of the cool phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation and resultant cool and moist 

regional climate from 1940 to 1980, the Forest Service was very successful in suppressing 

wildfires. For the period from 1970 to 2010, over 97 percent of all the fires were less than 10 

acres in size, mostly due to fire suppression. Suppression efforts have been particularly effective 

for low-and mixed-severity fires, virtually removing this agent as a significant disturbance 

process for the last 60 years. Rapid suppression of all fire starts has also removed most 

opportunity for fires to grow in size and intensity to become stand-replacing fires.

The success of fire suppression efforts (aided by the cool phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation) 

and resource management activities over the last 100 years has had a large influence on the 

structure and composition of forest and rangeland fuel conditions. The function and process of 

ecological systems has changed and fire suppression and some management activities have 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

62 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

altered fuel loadings. As documented in Keane et al. (2002), the changes include an increase in 

shade-tolerant species, decrease in fire-tolerant species, increased vertical stand structure, 

increased canopy closure, increased vertical fuel ladders, greater biomass, greater fire intensities 

and severities, and increased insect and disease epidemics.

The influence of climate change on the occurrence and types of wildfires in the future is 

documented in the KIPZ Climate Change Report (USDA Forest Service 2010b). The report 

concludes climate changes are likely to increase the frequency of large fire years in the Northern 

Rockies and that fire seasons will be longer. Some of the climate change modeling efforts has 

suggested that by the 2080s, the amount of area burned by wildfires in the Pacific Northwest 

region (including Idaho and western Montana) would double or triple. However, as explained in 

the KIPZ Climate Change Report in more detail, there are a number of key sources of 

uncertainty regarding this issue.

Timber Harvest and Prescribed Burning

Because of the success of fire suppression efforts over the last several decades, regeneration 

timber harvests are the current predominant stand-replacing disturbance process. Regeneration 

harvest systems (clearcut, seed-tree, shelterwood) followed by prescribed fire can emulate some 

of the functions of stand-replacing fire, but not all of them. These silvicultural systems are 

generally successful in regenerating mixed species stands dominated by early successional 

shade-intolerant species. However, some regeneration harvests conducted prior to the mid-1990s 

tended to create unnaturally uniform conditions and did not leave the scattered residual snags, 

residual live tree patches, and scattered fire-tolerant large live trees (larch and ponderosa pine) 

that were characteristic of historic fires. In addition, the size of these regeneration harvest units 

(2 to 40 acres) was much smaller than patches created by historic, natural-fire regimes.

Over the last 15 years, silvicultural prescriptions in the Northern Region have largely been 

designed to emulate forest composition and structures created by historic fire regimes 

(Bollenbacher 2010). Intermediate harvest prescriptions such as thinning can favor species that 

are resistant to fire and create stand structures that are less likely to burn with high intensities. 

Even- or two-age and multi-age regeneration harvests can change species composition of forests 

by removing all or part of the current stand, replacing it with different species. The initial openstand conditions created by even-and two-age harvest prescriptions generally favors resilient 

shade-intolerant species such as western larch, ponderosa pine, western white pine, and aspen. 

However, the number of acres that are being treated annually with some form of harvest has 

decreased dramatically during the last two decades. For example, approximately 17,000 acres 

were being treated by regeneration prescriptions each year in the late 1980s and this has dropped 

in recent years down to approximately 1,100 acres on the IPNF (USDA Forest Service 1989b

and USDA Forest Service 2010a). Relative to the entire forested acreage on the IPNF, the recent 

level of 1,100 acres per year represents less than five-hundredths of 1 percent.

The effects of timber harvest on successional processes often depend on whether or not harvest is 

accompanied by prescribed fire. Where prescribed fire is used, impacts on understory vegetation 

may more closely replicate the effects of natural fire, and favor fire-adapted, shade-intolerant 

tree species. Where there is timber harvest with neither prescribed fire nor any other type of site 

preparation advanced regeneration of shade-tolerant, drought-and fire-intolerant species are more 

likely to dominate the post-harvest stand (Zack 1994).

Prescribed fire has the potential to emulate many natural-fire ecosystem functions. However, the 

scale, seasonality, severity, and internal variability of natural fires need to be considered in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 63

developing fire prescriptions. To date, prescribed fire efforts of this sort have been relatively 

small scale compared to natural disturbances.

Insects and Pathogens

Many insects and diseases are found on the IPNF and most are native and exist at endemic 

levels. However, there are some native as well as non-native insects and diseases that are likely 

functioning outside of their historic role. Other forest diseases, such as stem decays, rusts, needle 

diseases, and dwarf mistletoe, exist on the IPNF but are generally not considered to be 

significant as they are likely functioning within their historic role.

Mountain pine beetles in white pine, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine (and occasionally 

spruce beetles) are capable of serving as stand-replacing agents. These beetles have a mixed 

effect on succession. They can open canopies enough to provide regeneration opportunities for 

shade-intolerant tree species, but more commonly they release shade-tolerant understory tree 

species. By the fuels they create, bark beetles can influence the probability of large standreplacing fires, which in turn can reset the successional sequence. In some situations, Douglas-fir 

bark beetle can also do the same thing on a smaller scale.

As part of the assessment on climate change, a hazard analysis was conducted to determine how 

much of the forests were susceptible to mortality from mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, 

and western pine beetle (USDA Forest Service 2010b). This report summarizes the current 

hazard rating as well as the estimated losses that may occur to stands for the period from 2005 to 

2020 (table 7). It is estimated that during that period, up to 29.9 percent of the lodgepole pine 

may be killed by mountain pine beetle; up to 21.6 percent of the Douglas-fir may be killed by the 

Douglas-fir beetle; and up to 0.6 percent of the ponderosa pine could be killed by either 

mountain pine beetle or western pine beetle.

Historically, root pathogens most commonly acted as thinning agents. In natural, mixed-species 

stands, root pathogens caused the greatest mortality in Douglas-fir, followed by true firs (i.e.,

grand fir and subalpine fir). White pine and larch were the most resistant tree species (Hoff and 

McDonald 1994, Monnig and Byler 1992). Root pathogens thinned out the Douglas-fir and 

favored the pines and larch, which increased the amount of pine and larch over the first 150 plus 

years of stand life (Rockwell 1917). A recent analysis was conducted on the Forest to determine 

the root disease hazard on lands within the boundaries of the IPNF. The results indicate that 

approximately 18.2 percent of the area has a high hazard, 37.3 percent is moderate, 44.3 percent 

is rated as low and approximately 0.1 percent has no hazard (additional information about this

analysis is available in the project record).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

64 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 7. Estimated Bark Beetle Hazard and Estimated Loss 2005-20201

Bark Beetle and Tree Species Hazard Class Estimated Loss

High Moderate Low None High Moderate Low Total

Mountain Pine Beetle in Lodgepole 

Pine

4.6% 12.9% 3.3% 79.2% 2.7% 6.5% 19.8% 29.9%

Mountain Pine Beetle/Western Pine 

Beetle in Ponderosa Pine

0.1% 2.9% 1.5% 95.5% 0.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.6%

Douglas-fir Beetle In Douglas-fir 5.4% 25.2% 20.0% 49.4% 3.2% 11.3% 7.0% 21.6%

1 This information was derived by using FIA data and the mountain pine beetle hazard rating model imbedded in the Forest Vegetation Simulator model
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 65

Historically, western white pine was a common tree species on the IPNF, and dominated a very 

large part of the moist habitat types. In the early part of the 20th century, white pine blister rust 

(a Eurasian disease) was accidentally introduced to western North America. This exotic disease, 

combined with a mountain pine beetle outbreak in white pine in northern Idaho in the late 1930s, 

was the primary cause for the loss of white pine in this area (Neuenschwander et al. 1999). With 

the loss of white pine, there have been large increases in the amount of Douglas-fir and subalpine 

fir cover types, and a major acceleration of forest succession toward shade-tolerant, latesuccessional true firs (grand fir), hemlocks, and cedars.

Historically, western white pine had an important ecological role in forests of the Interior 

Northwest (Harvey et al. 1995, Monnig and Byler 1992). Especially important was this species 

ability to form a stable, relatively long-lived, forest that was perpetuated by a combination of 

mixed-severity and stand-replacing wildfires (Zack and Morgan 1994). Even though fire 

occurred in this forest type fairly regularly, old-growth structures often persisted for several 

centuries. Across its range, western white pine is now estimated to be less than 5 percent of what 

it was at the turn of the 20th century (Neuenschwander et al. 1999).

In an attempt to restore this species to the landscape, there have been successes in genetically 

improving tree resistance, planting those trees, and then using cultural treatments like pruning to 

improve survival (Schwandt et al. 1994). The best strategy to save white pine from blister rust is 

to increase the numbers of rust resistant white pine in these ecosystems by aggressively planting 

them in openings (Fins et al. 2001, p. 10; and Samman et al. 2003, p. ii).

With the impact of white pine blister rust and the decrease in fire, the role of insects and 

pathogens as disturbance agents is growing and changing. White pine blister rust accounts for 

major changes in forest successional patterns, having removed more than 90 percent of two 

conifer species (white pine and whitebark pine). With the absence of white pine and decreased 

amounts of ponderosa pine and larch, root pathogens have been transformed from thinning 

agents into major stand-change agents in Douglas-fir and true fir stands. Root pathogens now 

produce significant canopy openings on many sites. Depending upon the habitat type, root 

pathogens may either stall stands in a diseased shrub/sapling/open pole successional stage, or 

strongly accelerate succession towards shade-tolerant species.

Bark beetles have also changed their role. Because there is more Douglas-fir relative to historical 

conditions, Douglas-fir bark beetles are now more important change agents than they were 

historically. In all but the driest habitat types, Douglas-fir bark beetles accelerate succession in 

the short-run, and in the long-run they create fuel conditions and stand structures that may 

increase the risk of stand-replacing wildfires.

Native insects and pathogens are also now responsible for a relatively much larger proportion of 

forest disturbance than they were historically. The impact of insects and pathogens in the shortterm is to strongly accelerate succession towards late seral, shade-tolerant tree species. An 

analysis of pathogen and insect impacts in northern Idaho and western Montana by Hagle et al. 

(2000) examined successional changes for the period 1935 to 1975. This analysis shows that in 

40 years, pathogens and insects changed forest cover types to more late-successional, shadetolerant tree species on over 80 percent of the area dominated by moist forest habitat types 

(Byler and Hagle 2000). The same analysis of insect and pathogen impacts also showed that 

almost 40 percent of the moist habitat type area analyzed was either stalled in small tree 

structures or was actually moving back towards the small tree structures as a result of the 

removal of the largest trees.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

66 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The potential influence of climate change on some of the key forest insects and diseases of the 

Northern Rockies is discussed in the KIPZ Climate Change Report (USDA Forest Service 

2010b). In addition, a literature review of climate change and forest diseases of Western North 

America is presented in Kliejunas et al. (2009). These documents conclude that climate change 

will lead to reductions in tree health and will improve conditions for some insects such as bark 

beetles and highly damaging pathogens such as root diseases.

Forest Vegetation Condition

Forest composition, structure, and function are used in describing forest vegetation condition. 

Composition is described by the tree species and their amounts on the Forest. Structure is 

described by size-class, snags, and density of stands. Function is described by landscape 

patterns. As described in the preceding sections, disturbance affects all these attributes, resulting 

in current forest vegetation conditions and shaping conditions into the future. The combination 

of these vegetation conditions reflects its resistance and resiliency to disturbance and stressors, 

resulting in potential future conditions and the ability to adjust to climate change.

Approximately 96 percent of the national forest land on the IPNF is classified as forested

(Vegetation Mapping Project). Within these forested plant communities, trees are the largest and 

most dominant plants; therefore, they have a large influence over the composition, structure, 

patterns, and processes that occur on the Forest. In addition, because trees dominate most 

landscapes on the IPNFs, they are very important to aquatic ecosystems and habitat for wildlife 

species. Lastly, not only do the trees provide timber and other products for human use, they also 

provide a host of amenity and intrinsic values (e.g., scenery, recreation, spiritual, cultural). For 

all of these reasons, the discussion in the following sections focuses on describing the condition 

of the trees across the IPNF, as opposed to the many other types of plants (e.g., shrubs, forbs, 

ferns, grasses, mosses and lichens).

Forest Composition

On the IPNF, there are fourteen native conifer species1 as well as five broadleaved species2

. The 

conifer species typically dominate the forests with the broadleaved species being much less 

prevalent. Forest stands are usually composed of different combinations of tree species with 

various abundance levels. Often, a mixture of three to five conifer species will occur within an 

individual forest stand. However, it is not uncommon to find stands that contain six to eight 

different conifer species as well as one or two broadleaved species. “Pure” stands that contain 

only one tree species are relatively rare, and it is even somewhat uncommon to find a stand that 

contains only two tree species.

A classification system was developed based on the most dominant tree species, or mix of 

common species, that occurs in the forest stands. The result is that there are eight different 

Dominance Groups to describe the composition of the forest communities. Figure 7 illustrates 

how much of the Forest is currently occupied by the various Dominance Groups as well as the 

desired range. The “grand fir/cedar/western hemlock” mix represents those areas that are 

dominated by one or more of those three tree species. The “subalpine fir” mix Dominance Group 

includes areas dominated by one or more of the following species: subalpine fir, Englemann 

 1 Grand fir, subalpine fir, subalpine larch, western larch, Engelmann spruce, whitebark pine, lodgepole 

pine, western white pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, pacific yew, western redcedar, western hemlock 

and mountain hemlock.

2 Red alder, water birch, paper birch, quaking aspen, and black cottonwood.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 67

spruce, whitebark pine, mountain hemlock, or subalpine larch. The remaining Dominance 

Groups shown in figure 7 are named for the single most abundant tree species in the stand.

PP = ponderosa pine; DF = Douglas-fir; LP = lodgepole pine; WL = western larch; GF/C/WH mix = grand fir/cedar/ 

western hemlock mix; WP = white pine; and SF mix = subalpine fir mix

Figure 7. Desired and Current Forest Composition by Dominance Group at the Forestwide Scale

For the IPNF, the most abundant Dominance Groups are the grand fir/cedar/western hemlock, 

Douglas-fir, and subalpine fir (figure 7). Each of those groups occupies at least 23 percent of the 

forested area. Much less common are the ponderosa pine, western larch, and western white pine 

Dominance Groups. Those relatively rare groups each occupy less than 5 percent of the forested 

area. The lodgepole pine Dominance Group is intermediate in abundance, occupying 

approximately 11 percent.

In addition to depicting the current condition, figure 7 illustrates the desired amount for each of 

the Dominance Groups. The desired ranges that are illustrated in the figure represent an 

approximation of the historic range of conditions for forest composition. The goal is for 

management actions to move species composition towards the desired ranges.

In a comparison of the current and desired conditions, it is apparent that the objective is to

increase the amount of western white pine, ponderosa pine, and western larch across the Forest;

and to decrease the amount of grand fir/hemlock/cedar mix, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and 

subalpine fir mix. The species to increase are drought-and fire-tolerant, and are relatively 

resistant to insects and diseases. The species to decrease are relatively drought-and fireintolerant, and are fairly susceptibility to various insects and disease. Changing the forest

composition towards the desired ranges will increase resistance and resiliency, reducing effects 

from drought, fire, insects, disease, and climate change (McKenzie et al. 2009).

There are two primary reasons for selecting the specific desired ranges for the Dominance 

Groups that are depicted in figure 7. First, it is generally recognized in the scientific literature 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

68 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

that the most effective approach to maintaining biodiversity, and therefore the sustaining forest 

ecosystems, is to manage them so that the conditions and processes approximate the range of 

conditions that occurred historically and with which all of the native species and communities 

evolved under (see earlier discussion on HRV for more detail). Second, when considering how 

climate change may affect forest vegetation, the same general goals regarding what the desired 

forest composition should be are appropriate. That is, relative to the current conditions, the desire 

is that the forests contain a greater abundance of tree species that demonstrate more of the 

following traits: less susceptibility to being killed by forest insects and diseases, more resistance 

to fire, more tolerance of drought, relatively long-lived, and being more productive.

The potential effects of future climate change scenarios on forest composition on the IPNF are 

explored in the KIPZ Climate Change Report (USDA Forest Service 2010b). Thus far, most 

modeling efforts do not produce consistent predictions on how climate change might influence 

forest composition. In addition, a number of important factors that could affect predictions have 

yet to be included in model simulations. However, the general consensus seems to be that 

projected changes in climate are likely to significantly stress many forest communities and tree 

species. Therefore, it would be logical to attempt to increase the abundance of tree species in the 

forest that tend to exhibit more resistance and/or resiliency towards the common agents and/or 

conditions that can lead to stress and mortality. For example, some forest entomologists suggest 

that climate change is likely to increase bark beetle population eruptions and tree mortality 

(USDA Forest Service 2010b), and therefore, by increasing the abundance of tree species that 

tend to be resistant to beetle attacks, such as western larch, it could lead to a more resilient 

forest. In addition, western larch and ponderosa pine are very resistant to fire-caused mortality 

and are long-lived. Given that climate change may increase the incidence of large standreplacing wildfires (USDA Forest Service 2010b), it is desirable to increase the abundance of 

these two species in order to create more resilient forests. Western white pine, which is not only 

very unrepresented in the forests of north Idaho relative to historical conditions, but this white 

pine tree is very productive and is fairly resistant to root diseases. In addition, if the abundance 

of this pine could be increased, it could potentially serve to sequester more carbon than some 

other tree species. If a combination of white pine, ponderosa pine, and larch are restored in 

locations where root disease severity and species composition is high for susceptible species 

such as grand fir, Douglas-fir, and hemlock, then significant potential carbon sequestration 

benefits will result at both the stand and forestwide scales. By trending the forest composition 

towards more resistant and resilient conditions, stress complexes, such as those that develop 

from drought, fire, insects, diseases, and climate change, could be reduced (McKenzie et al. 

2009, USDA Forest Service 2010b). This approach of reducing the stresses on the forest 

represents one of the adaptive management approaches to climate change that has been 

identified, and it has been called a “no regrets” strategy (Joyce et al. 2008). However, to be 

effective, this strategy must be applied at the scale of the problem. Small steps over long periods 

of time may not meet the expectation of having a resilient forest ecosystem anytime soon.

Western White Pine

With the loss of western white pine, the forests on the IPNF are much less productive and are 

unstable. They have become insect-pathogen-fire-prone forests that are less valuable for many 

amenities, including carbon sequestration (Atkins et al. 1999, Harvey et al. 1995, Monnig and 

Byler 1992). Despite their inherent high growth potential, the forests that were formally 

dominated by western white pine trees are now one of the lowest storage compartments for fixed 

carbon in the northern Rocky Mountains (Birdsey 1992). In the past, northern Idaho white pine 

sites have produced high volumes of white pine and other species and volumes that rank among 

the best in the country (Haig et. al. 1941).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 69

Historically, western white pine was considered to have served as a “keystone” species in forests 

within this area. As discussed in detail in Mills and Soule (1993), a keystone species is one 

whose loss leads to significant changes in ecosystem structure, materials, and energy flows. 

Because of the blister rust disease, the mountain pine beetle outbreak in white pine in the late 

1930s, and subsequent logging to capture expected morality from the disease, very little white 

pine remains and this trees’ ecological role as a keystone species has been altered (McDonald et. 

al. 2000). As depicted in figure 7, western white pine historically dominated approximately 20 to 

40 percent of the forested area on the IPNF, while it is only dominate on a few percent of the 

acres today. Therefore, there are a lot of processes and functions that have been altered. For 

example, because stands dominated by western white pine have different canopy structures than 

stands without white pine, the dynamics of hydrologic processes could have changed (McDonald 

et. al. 2000). Due to the loss of the western white pine, these forests now both accumulate less 

carbon as a result of tree growth, but they also release more carbon as a result of accelerated 

decomposition of the more rot prone species that replaced the white pine (McDonald et. al. 

2000). In addition, increased mortality from root disease, insects, and low levels of carbon 

sequestration in the main canopy of the Forest would increase fuel loads and these forests would 

have more ladder fuels that could facilitate a relatively slow moving surface fire to become a 

faster crown fire. The shallow rooted, climax species that have low and dense crowns have larger 

accumulations of litter on the soil surface than do forests dominated by seral species. This can 

lead to more nutrients (mostly nitrogen) in the top soil horizon and predispose them to potential 

losses from wildfires (Harvey and Morgan 2001).

As briefly mentioned above under the heading of “Insects and Pathogens,” the IPNF has been 

helping to restore the western white pine to the landscapes of northern Idaho. One of the efforts 

involves a tree improvement/ breeding program that is designed to build upon the natural 

resistance that some white pine trees have towards the non-native blister rust fungus. Then, 

seedlings that have been improved upon to have greater levels of resistance towards the disease 

are planted out in openings created by fires or harvest activities. During the review of the public 

comments on the DEIS, some respondents questioned the reason for the breeding program when 

the “natural” populations of white pine had some levels of resistance already. The following 

discussion represents a response to that public concern/question1

.

The advancement of blister rust resistance in naturally regenerated western white pine through 

natural selection is one facet of the western white pine restoration program in the Northern 

Region of the Forest Service (which includes the IPNF). The role of natural regeneration needs 

to be evaluated in the context of both natural selection and the current threats facing western 

white pine. The same threats that are facing other five-needle pines are also negatively impacting 

western white pine: blister rust has already been mentioned, but also keeping western white pine 

from occupying its former range in the Inland Northwest are mountain pine beetle epidemics and 

altered fire regimes (both fire exclusion and catastrophic wildfire). Though white pine has a 

generalist adaptive strategy (Rehfeldt et al. 1984), the impacts of predicted warmer and drier 

climates, or warmer and variable participation will also impact the persistence and distribution of 

western white pine (Richardson et al. 2009). Examination of historic range of variability and 

current species distribution indicates western white pine is occupying a position of 5-10 percent

of its former range (Fins et al. 2001). If reliance on natural regeneration was a successful strategy 

in and of itself, then we would have seen an increase in the species distribution since the 

identification of phenotypically resistant western white pine in the early 1950s; however, current 

 1 The information that follows was provided by the Regional Forest Geneticist for the Northern, Rocky 

Mountain, Southwestern and Intermountain Regions of the Forest Service (Mary F. Maholovich, PhD).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

70 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

species distribution levels are remaining with the range of 5-10 percent range, showing no 

expansion.

There is a fairly widespread misunderstanding of expectations of blister rust resistant material 

available from the genetics program, typically centered on the definitions of immunity, 

resistance, and susceptibility. Immunity implies the complete absence of rust symptoms: no 

spotting, no branch flagging, and no active or inactive cankers. The genetic mechanism behind 

this response is usually single gene or maybe oligogenic inheritance (~ 5-7 genes) (Van Der 

Plank 1984). A related concept is virulent races of rust and major gene resistance. Interior 

western white pine does not exhibit major gene resistance, or a gene-for-gene action between 

white pine and blister rust, unlike coastal western white pine (Champion Mine race) or sugar 

pine (Happy Camp race) (Kinloch and Dupper 2002). Major gene resistance is considered 

evolutionary primitive to partial gene resistance (Nelson 1978). Crop and agronomy programs 

emphasizing stripe rust and smut resistance provide examples of how quickly varietal releases 

must be continually developed to overcome increased virulence in these gene-for-gene systems. 

It is both biologically and economically unfeasible to try and develop immunity in a selective 

breeding program. As such, since we are not developing immunity in our white pine genetics 

program, we are not applying undue selection pressure on the pathogen (Fins et al. 2001).

The Merry Creek location is elucidated to be a location where a putative virulent strain of blister 

rust occurs in Idaho. There are no peer-reviewed publications confirming a more virulent rust 

resistant strain in the Inland Northwest. Virulence typically results from of a formerly neutral 

allele increasing in frequency in the population and thereby inferring higher infection levels (Van 

Der Plank 1984) or through phenotypic plasticity (McDonald et al. 2005). Epidemiologically, 

virulence in a pathogen is typically not from mutation, as mutation rates are very rare and even 

rarer that these new genes would have a positive fitness value and favored via natural selection. 

For a western white pine tree to remain alive even though cankered is an important resistance 

mechanism (canker tolerance) for it permits blister rust to continue its life cycle, thus decreasing 

selection pressure for new races of rust (Bingham et al. 1971, Hoff 1982).

If a virulent strain of blister occurred among all of the stock types at the Merry Creek location 

we would also see high levels of mortality in all of the stock types (control, F1, B1, and F2); 

mortality and infections vary by stock type. One thing to note in both the 1971 Merry Creek test 

cited below and the 2005 Merry Creek realized gain trial adjacent to this test, is the poor 

performance of the control lot relative to F1, B1, and F2 stock types. The controls serve as 

examples of unimproved and hence, expectation of naturally regenerated western white pine. 

Based on 7-year data from the 2005 Merry Creek test location, infection levels in the control 

plots is 24 percent and only 9 percent in the F2 stock (Mahalovich, unpublished data). What is 

more compelling are those data reported for the 1971 Merry Creek test based on 26-year data 

(Fins et al. 2001). Infection levels are 100 percent in the controls and 93 percent in the F2 stock; 

however, the control lot, representing what we can expect from natural regeneration has achieved 

100 percent mortality. Rather than focus on this one test location, three other sites were reported 

in Fins et al. (2001). Averages over four test locations are shown in table 8.

Table 8. White Pine Blister Rust Infection and Mortality Levels for Each Stock Type (averages 

expressed as percentages)

Stock Type1 Infection (%) Rust Mortality (%)

F2 60.3 (± 30.32) 25 (± 27.4)

Control 95 (± 4.7) 67 (± 29.1)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 71

1 F2 stock type represents the white pine seedlings that contain rust resistant mechanisms that resulted from the rust 

resistance breeding program. The Control stock types are white pine seedlings that have not been breed to be resistant 

to the blister rust

2 These numbers in parentheses are the confidence intervals surrounding the mean estimates

Resistance as defined in an individual though infected and exhibiting blister rust symptom(s) is 

able to survive, thrive, and reproduce. The objective of the genetics program is balancing 

selection (Mahalovich 2010), recognizing that blister rust cannot be removed from the landscape. 

This approach is also documented in (Fins et al. 2001). It remains to be seen if the western white 

pine and white pine blister rust will evolve into a mutualistic or symbiotic host-pathogen 

relationship. The genetics program incorporates seven rust resistance traits at the family and 

within-family levels; six of those traits require infection for the resistance to be expressed. 

Reported infection levels, such as the 60.3% cited among four long-term tests need to be 

adjusted for the frequency of the rust resistance traits to determine susceptibility (60.3 – 27% 

using Cycle 22 data) = 33.3 percent. Our deployment strategy is not based on the premise of 

artificially increasing the numbers of some resistant genotypes. Family selection of partial gene 

resistance traits is based on a weighted index and within-family selection is based on an 

individual exhibiting no-spot, needle shed, short shoot, or bark reaction resistant traits. Since 

orchards are blocked by those four traits, an equal number of each of the individuals by each of 

these four traits (plus the background level of improvement via family selection) serves to 

provide a balanced selection approach in the host for the express purpose of not applying undue 

selection pressure in the pathogen (Van Der Plank 1983, Mahalovich 2010).

The expected gains of 66 percent rust resistance is based on nursery data (Fins et al. 2001). We 

now know that the realized gain is 20 percent (Lupo 2004) based on 30-year data from similar 

F2 stock types at Canyon Creek (IPNF) and Hog Meadows (Nez Perce-Clearwater NF). We do 

not see a loss in family representation (effective population size) nor do we see a differential 

representation among the four, individual-tree traits over time (Lupo 2004). Restoration progress 

will certainly proceed more rapidly with planted, rust resistant stock and known levels of genetic 

diversity (Kim et al. 2010), without concerns over founder effects or genetic drift curtailing 

genetic diversity in naturally regenerated western white pine.

Broadleaved Species

In addition to conifers, there is a small amount of area (approximately 0.3 percent) of the forest 

that is dominated by broadleaved species. These species typically occupy in relatively small 

stands, and are often located in riparian areas or on moist upland sites. Of the five species that 

occur on the IPNF, paper birch, quaking aspen, and black cottonwood are the most common with 

red alder and water birch being relatively rare. Although these species are not shown in figure 7, 

the desire is to see an increase in their abundance on the Forest.

Whitebark Pine

Whitebark pine is a tree species that was grouped together with some other species (subalpine 

fir, Englemann spruce, mountain hemlock, subalpine larch) to form the subalpine fir mix 

Dominance Group that is presented in figure 7. Whitebark pine trees occur on some of the higher 

ridges and mountain tops across the IPNF. Where they occupy lower elevations within their 

range, they typically serve as a minor early seral species in mixed conifer stands. At the other 

extreme, where they are found at the uppermost elevations in rather pure stands, they can serve 

as a major climax species. This tree is considered a “keystone” and “foundation” species because 

of its significant role in subalpine ecosystems (Keane and Parsons 2010, Tomback and Kendall 

2001, Tomback et al. 2001).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

72 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The most recent inventory information indicates that some live whitebark pine trees occur over 

approximately 1.2 percent of the forested area of the IPNF (USDA Forest Service 2010

September). Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed a status review of whitebark 

pine for potential listing as a threatened or endangered species. They concluded that the species 

warranted listing but was precluded because of the need to address higher priority species. 

Whitebark pine is now designated as a Candidate species. The regional forester has placed 

whitebark pine on the sensitive species list for Region One, which includes the IPNF. The 

principle reasons for the concern over this tree species stems from the fact that mountain pine 

beetles, fire exclusion policies, and the introduced non-native white pine blister rust disease have 

been found to be responsible for the significant decline of this species across its range in western 

North America (Keane and Parsons 2010, Keane et al. 2012, Schwandt 2006). In addition, 

climate change could detrimentally affect this tree species either directly or indirectly through 

interactions of bark beetles, blister rust, wildfires, or a combination (Keane and Parsons 2010, 

USDA Forest Service 2010 September, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010a).

In northern Idaho and northwestern Montana, white pine blister rust has killed a quarter to half 

of all whitebark pine trees, and since the late 1990s, mountain pine beetle-caused mortality has 

increased (USDA Forest Service 2010 September). 

The desired condition for whitebark pine is to increase the abundance of this species on the IPNF 

and increase the resistance and resiliency of them to disturbances. Active restoration efforts, such 

as those that are described in Keane and Arno (2001) and Schwandt (2006) are believed to be 

necessary in order to achieve these objectives. Without management intervention, losses of this 

tree across its range could have major consequences for biodiversity (Tomback 2007).

In 2012, Keane et al. published a comprehensive restoration strategy for this tree across its entire 

range (Keane et al. 2012). The IPNF has been implementing many of the restoration actions that 

are suggested in that strategy for the last one to two decades. For example, the IPNF has been 

collecting seed, identifying rust resistant trees, testing rust resistance of progeny, conducting 

prescribed burns, planting seedlings, and monitoring sites (USDA Forest Service 2010,

September, appendix G). However, to date, the number of acres that have had some form of 

restoration activity occur on them has been limited. As described in more detail in the 

environmental consequences section, most of the whitebark pine sites overlap with habitat for 

one or more wildlife species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The 

Canada lynx, woodland caribou, and grizzly bear all have habitat that overlaps with that of the

whitebark pine. The presence of habitat for those wildlife species makes it difficult to 

aggressively implement restoration activities that are needed for the whitebark pine. Other 

challenges have been the limited funds that have historically been available as well as the 

difficult access to many of the remote, high elevation sites.

Forest Structure

Size Class

Four size classes were developed to broadly describe and quantify stand structure across the 

Forest. Figure 8 illustrates how much forested land is currently occupied by each of the four size 

classes. Approximately 34 percent of the forested area on the IPNF is dominated by trees in the 

large size class, with a similar amount in the medium size class. The small size class is somewhat 

less common at approximately 24 percent, and the areas occupied by the smallest size trees, the 

seed/sap size class, occupy approximately 8 percent. In general, stands in the seed/sap size class 

range from 0 to 35 years old. Stands in the small and medium size classes range in age from 35 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 73

to 60 and 60 to 100 years old, respectively. Stands in the large size class are generally 100 years 

old or older.

(seed/sap = 0-5” DBH trees, small =5-10” DBH trees, medium =10-15” DBH trees, and large =>15” DBH trees.)

Figure 8. Desired and Current Forest Structure by Size Class at the Forestwide Scale

In addition to depicting the current distribution of size classes on the IPNF, figure 8 also 

illustrates the desired amount. The desired ranges that are illustrated in the figure represent an 

approximation of the historic range of size classes. In a comparison of the current and desired 

conditions, it is apparent that the goal is to increase the amount of both the seed/sap and large 

size classes, and reduce the amount of the small and medium size classes.

The importance of late-seral forest structures for the maintenance of biological diversity and 

wildlife habitat is well recognized in the scientific community (Spies and Duncan 2009). 

However, the ecological importance of the early-seral forest structure has not been emphasized 

until more recently. Swanson et al (2011) authored a paper titled “The forgotten stage of forest 

succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites” and stresses the importance of these 

young forest stands in sustaining ecosystem processes and biodiversity. As depicted in figure 8

above, currently the amount of forest in the early-seral forest structure (represented by the 

seed/sap size class) on the IPNF is substantially less than the HRV for that type of forest, and 

therefore the desire is to substantially increase the amount of that type of forest for the ecological 

reasons that are articulated in Swanson et al (2011).

Age Class

Figure 9 presents the distribution of the current age classes of forest stands for the IPNF. As 

visually depicted in that figure, the distribution is skewed towards middle-aged stands that are 

approximately 40-100 years old. Those stands are generally in the mid-seral stage of forest 

succession and they comprise a very large percentage of the total forested acreage on the IPNF

(approximately 57 percent). The 1910 wildfire as well as other wildfires in the 1920s and 1930s 

was the principal cause of that mid-seral, middle-aged bulge in the age distribution curve. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

74 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Although it was a much less significant factor compared to wildfires, regeneration type timber 

harvesting that occurred from approximately the 1940s to the 1970s also contributed to that 

bulge.

NOTE: The age-class information present in this figure cannot be used in determining old growth amounts on the Forest. 

See the project record for details on the data and methodology used in this figure.

Figure 9. Age class Distribution of Forested Acres over the entire IPNF

The bulge in the age class distribution has a number of implications, one of which concerns 

wildfire hazard. In general, these middle-aged stands tend to be dense and the trees within them 

are undergoing intense competition for limited sunlight, water and nutrients and this often results 

in competition-induced tree mortality. The trees that die either do so directly from this 

competition or more often, they are weakened to the extent that forest insects and/or diseases kill 

them. Dead surface fuels build up in these stands and many of the stands have dense tree crowns

that predispose them to higher chances of crown fires. Lastly, stands within these structural 

stages often have shade tolerant tree species growing in the understory of the taller trees, and 

these understory trees can serve as ladder fuels to allow surface fires to transition into crown 

fires. Another issue that often occurs within these middle-aged dense stands is that many of the 

trees will develop into tall and skinny trees that are very susceptible to storm damage. As trees 

undergo competition between themselves, a tree will allocate resources (photosynthate) to 

different needs in order of priorities. Height growth has a higher priority than diameter growth 

(Oliver and Larson, 1996). This means that high-density stands may eventually develop tall, 

spindly trees because height growth continues even after diameter growth slows or stops. These 

unstable trees are very susceptible to snow or wind breakage and often fall over or break off and 

increase the surface fuel loadings. Some of the middle-aged stands on the Forest have had 

treatments within them to thin them out and/or to reduce the hazardous fuels within them. 

However, the percentage that has been treated is very low. As articulated in the plan components 

FW-DC-VEG-02 and FW-DC-VEG-05, the desire is to decrease the percentage of the middleaged stands on the Forest. Typically these middle-aged stands are dominated by trees in the small 

or medium size classes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 75

Old Growth

The IPNF has adopted the definitions of old growth types that were developed by the Regional 

Old Growth Task Force, and documented in Green et al. 19921

. That document is a 

comprehensive report that not only presents old growth type descriptions for thirty different 

types of old growth in Region One, but it also provides the background, ecological concepts and 

process that was used to develop them. For the IPNF, there are ten old growth types that are 

described in detail in that publication (see pages 13-22). The rationale for using those definitions 

is not only included in that document, but it is also presented in Bollenbacher and Hann (2008) 

along with a summary of the science and understanding of forest practices intended to create, 

maintain, and restore resilient old growth stands.

The adopted old growth definitions cited above are specific to forest type (the dominant tree 

species) and habitat type group, and are defined by a minimum number of trees of a minimum 

age and diameter, in stands with a minimum density. The most common old growth types on the 

IPNF require at least ten trees per acre that are 150 years in age and 21 inches in diameter, and 

have a minimum stand density of 80 square feet of basal area. A thorough discussion concerning 

how the IPNF has been using the Green et al. 1992 publication to identify old growth stands is 

described in USDA Forest Service (2013). Old growth management direction that was provided 

in the 1987 Forest Plan is presented in the environmental consequences section.

The IPNF utilizes two different inventory and analysis “tools” to monitor and manage the old 

growth resource. One method uses inventory information from the FIA program, and the other 

method is a stand level, GIS map layer, used for project-level delineation and old growth 

management. The analysis process that utilizes the FIA data is documented in Region One 

Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory and Analysis Report (Bush et al. 2007 and Report 

# 06-07, dated April 11, 2006). Information on the validity of using FIA data for old growth (as 

well as snag estimates) is available in Czaplewski (2004). The most recent analysis that was 

conducted for the IPNF using FIA data to determine how much old growth exist on the Forest 

was conducted in 2013 (Bush and Reyes 2013a). Based on that analysis, approximately 12.12

percent (with a 90 percent confidence interval of 9.8 percent to 14.5 percent) of the forested 

acreage across the entire IPNF meets the definition of old growth. As shown in table 9, the old 

growth is well distributed across the five GAs and ranges from approximately 9.2 to 15.9 

percent. Confidence intervals for the individual GAs is reported in Bush and Reyes (2013a).

Table 9. Estimate of Old Growth on the IPNF by Geographic Areas and Forestwide (from FIA data)

Geographic Areas Estimate of Percent Old Growth

Coeur d'Alene 10.4%

St. Joe 12.0%

Sandpoint/Pend Oreille 9.8%

Bonners Ferry/Kootenai 15.2%

Priest Lake 14.2%

Total Forestwide 12.1

 1 When referencing the Green et al.(1992) publication in this section, we are referring to the most recent 

version that was corrected via an errata in December of 2011.

2 These FIA based old growth estimates are slightly different in this FEIS than they were in the DEIS. This 

is due to a more updated analysis being conducted (Bush and Reyes 2013a)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

76 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The IPNF stand-level GIS map layers of old growth represent a spatial depiction of stands that 

either currently meet the definition of old growth, or are being managed with an objective of 

meeting the definition sometime in the future (USDA Forest Service 2013). Stand-level 

information from the Monitoring Report indicates that 10.8 percent of the forested lands are 

occupied by stands meeting the old growth definition (data base special use codes 2,9,10, and 

12). An additional 1.8 percent of the forested acres are being managed with the objective that 

they meet the old growth criteria in the future (data base special use code 11).

Due to their unique nature, the IPNF identifies and inventories “Ancient Cedar Groves” as a 

subset of old growth. These western redcedar groves are defined as areas that contain trees over 

5 feet in diameter and with ages over 500 years old. These groves far exceed the minimum old 

growth age and tree size criteria. There are dozens of these groves located on the Forest and they 

occupy approximately 4,878 acres (USDA Forest Service 2013). Table 10 below indicates 

approximately how many acres of these cedar groves occur in the various GAs on the Forest. 

These groves have been referred to as the “redwoods of the northern Rockies” and “cathedral 

groves” due to their aesthetic qualities and the sense of awe that people often experience when 

visiting them (Parker and Johnson 1993). Although it is difficult to determine their age because 

of rot, Parker and Johnson (1993) estimate that some of these trees may be older than 3,000 

years. These groves tend to occupy very moist or wet sites, generally on river terraces, toeslopes, and streamsides. An ample supply of moisture from the water table has likely protected 

them from wildfire. These groves on the IPNF and elsewhere in the northern Rockies have been 

found to contain rare plant species such as certain ferns or moonwarts species (Lichthardt 1998).

Table 10. Acres of Ancient Cedars Groves by GA and Forestwide

Geographic Area Acres of Ancient Cedar

St. Joe 1,963

Coeur d’Alene 207

Pend Oreille 53

Lower Kootenai 516

Priest 2,139,

Forest Total 4,878

As described in more detail in USDA Forest Service 2013, the old growth on the IPNF is well 

distributed across the GAs as well as across the eight habitat type series. The exception being 

that there are relatively few acres of old growth found on the drier sites (i.e. the Douglas-fir and 

drier end of the grand fir habitat series). The low proportion of old growth in these drier habitat 

type series is a function of the combined effects of the huge 1910 fire and other large high 

severity early 20th century fires; subsequent suppression of most low and mixed severity fires 

that served to maintain resilient old growth; late 19th century and early 20th century timber 

cutting; root diseases; and bark beetles. Much of the old growth inventoried on these two habitat 

type series is currently dominated by Douglas-fir or grand fir (as opposed to ponderosa pine or 

western larch), which are at risk from bark beetles and root diseases. Where the moister, nonriparian grand fir habitat types are adjacent to dry sites, the fires, root diseases, and bark beetles 

that strike the dry sites have a high probability of carrying over into adjacent Douglas-fir /grand 

fir stands. During drought years the larger grand fir growing on upland grand fir habitat types are 

at risk from fir engraver bark beetle attacks. In order to increase the proportion of old growth on 

our dry habitat type series, active management will often be required to manage stand density 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 77

and restore more resilient tree species (ponderosa pine and western larch). A more 

comprehensive discussion on this topic may be found in USDA Forest Service 2013.

For the entire state of Idaho across all land ownerships, it is estimated that somewhere between 

12 percent and 32 percent (depending upon what method one uses) of the forested lands are 

occupied by stands having old growth like structures (Witt et al. 2012). For the entire state of 

Montana across all land ownerships, it is estimated that approximately 14 percent of the forested 

lands are occupied by stands that meet the old growth definitions in Green et al. 1992 (Menlove 

et al. 2012).

Regarding the historic range of variability of old growth on the IPNF, there is no way to 

accurately determine how much of the forest may have met the Green et al. (1992) definitions of 

old growth. In order to determine whether or not a forest stand meets those definitions, it 

requires detailed information on how many trees per acre exist in the stand over a certain 

diameter and age, the total stand density, the forest type and lastly, the habitat type group that the 

stand occupies. No historical information exists that can provide that level of detail. Therefore, a 

numeric desired condition or an HRV estimate for old growth is not included in this analysis.

Because old growth stands provide valuable ecological and social functions, the IPNF developed 

a number of plan components for all the action alternatives that are designed to increase the 

quantity of old growth in the future, increase the resistance and resilience of the old growth to 

disturbances and stressors, and to increase the size of the old growth patches that exist in the 

future. More details of the old growth related plan components that are incorporated into the 

action alternatives are provided in the environmental consequence section. That section 

summarizes what the 1987 Forest Plan direction was for old growth, and contrasts it with the 

direction that is part of the action alternatives.

As discussed in chapter 2 of this FEIS in the section titled “Alternatives Considered But 

Eliminated from Detailed Study,” public comments were received during the scoping effort 

suggesting that the IPNF should include plan components in the action alternatives that would 

require the establishment of large old growth reserves, linkages between those reserves, as well 

as other measures to protect the existing old growth and to foster the development of additional 

old growth. In response to scoping comments, the IPNF considered an alternative that included 

those elements but for the reasons that were summarized on pages 33 and 34 of the DEIS, that 

alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis. However, after the DEIS was released to the 

public for comment, we received additional comments on this topic. Some of the old growth 

related comments received on the DEIS and draft Forest Plan were addressed in appendix G of 

this EIS, while other comments required a substantial amount of discussion to address them 

sufficiently, and those items are presented below.

We received a number of comments suggesting that old growth reserves be created to protect 

existing old growth stands and to develop additional old growth. The comments suggested that 

we should designate large areas of the forest that contain old growth stands and/or 

mature/middle-aged stands, and then protect them from the disturbances that could otherwise 

impact them (e.g., wildfires, insects, diseases, and humans). Some comments went further to 

suggest that if these reserves were burned up or heavily impacted by other disturbances, that they 

should be left alone and continue to be managed as old growth reserves even if they no longer 

contained old growth (or very little of it). Thus, the reserves would essentially be large dedicated 

areas (possibly with their own specific MA designation) where we hoped old growth type stands 

would develop one day and persist, but that at any given time, they could be dominated by much 

younger stands. Lastly, some commenters advocated that we take the existing old growth on the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

78 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

IPNF, which is approximately 11-12 percent of the entire forested acreage, add to that amount 

another 18-19 percent of the forested acreage, to achieve a combined 30 percent of the forested 

area in reserves to be managed for old growth purposes. The premise of the 30 percent seems to 

be either that it may have represented an approximation of the average amount of the forested 

area on the IPNF that historically was in a condition similar to old growth, or possibly it was 

suggested because it represented the same figure that was set aside in reserves as part of the 

Northwest Forest Plan in Oregon and Washington.

While the approach of managing old growth by “reserving” large areas may be appropriate in 

some regions or types of forests, for example in western Oregon and western Washington where 

wildfires and other disturbances tend to be relatively rare, the widespread use of this strategy on 

the IPNF does not make ecological sense given our disturbance prone forests as well as the likely 

impacts from climate change. The old growth reserves that were established as part of the 

Northwest Forest Plan were called Late-Successional Reserves in the plan, and they essentially 

comprised 30 percent of the 24 million acres of federal land of the Pacific Northwest region. 

However, since their establishment in 1994 those reserves have failed to protect old forests in 

disturbance prone portions of that region and thus the ecological suitability of using reserves as a 

mechanisms to provide habitat for species that use old growth forests is being strongly 

questioned (Feinstein 2010, Spies et al. 2009, Noon 2009, Healey et al. 2008, Spies et al. 2006, 

Camp et al. 1996, Spies 2006, Camp et al. 1997, Camp 2001, Everett et al. 1994, Camp et al. 

2006, Bauhus et al. 2009, Carey 2003). In addition, given the likelihood of a greater frequency of 

wildfires and other disturbances occurring in the future on the IPNF as a result of climate change 

impacts, relying on old growth reserves as the principal strategy for ensuring that amply old 

growth stands occur into the future makes no sense. Rather, the scientists that are cited above as 

well as other forest researchers generally advocate that a much broader, all-lands approach be 

used to increase the resistance and resiliency of the forests to disturbances, and thereby,

increasing the chances that substantial amounts of old growth will persist into the future.

In Thomas et al. (2006) the authors review the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan 

(NWFP) and provide suggestions for better achieving the goals of that plan. Several of the key 

points that the authors make are very relevant to the management of old growth on the IPNF. In 

order to continue to conserve old-growth trees and forests, the authors suggest that classic oldgrowth within the wetter habitat types be reserved, and that appropriate fuel treatments be 

undertaken in the drier habitat types to prevent the old trees from being killed from wildfires or 

bark beetles. Both of these suggestions have been incorporated into the action alternatives 

associated with this revised Forest Plan. For example, all of the existing old growth stands are 

being reserved (see FW-DC-VEG-03, FW-STD-VEG-01, FW-STD-VEG-02) while the stands 

(such as the ones on the drier sites) that have species or conditions associated with them that put 

them at risk for fires or other disturbances (such as bark beetles) that could kill the old growth 

trees, would be considered for treatments (see FW-GDL-VEG-01) as opportunities arise. In 

regard to the sustainability of old-growth in light of wildfire and other disturbance risks, the 

authors caution that “Unless the federal agencies consider the peril of inaction equal to the peril 

of action, the goals of the NWFP will not be reached”. As suggested by that quotation, simply 

circling an old-growth stand on a map and prohibiting all management activity from occurring 

within it, is not without risks.

In regard to perpetuating old growth forests in dynamic landscapes, Salwasser (2009) states 

“Perpetuating some older forests will require a combination of conditions within stands that 

enhance resilience against low to moderate disturbances and redundancy of developmental states 

across landscapes so that when major stand-replacing disturbances do occur, there are forests 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 79

moving into older stages somewhere else to replace the altered stands. Where fires have been 

suppressed for long periods of time, selective removal of some biomass followed by use of 

managed fire-perhaps harkening back to pre-historical land use practices- may be needed to 

restore stand resilience.” On dry forest sites (i.e., drier than the forests of western Washington 

and Oregon), Franklin (2009) says: “On dry forest sites, climate change encourages us to protect 

old-growth trees by restoring stands and landscapes to more sustainable conditions. Activities 

that improve survival of the key structural elements should be of highest priority, given recent 

wildfire history; furthermore, silvicultural targets should reflect the probability that fire seasons 

will be ever longer and more severe.” The Forest Plan components noted in the previous 

paragraph as well as a number of other components (e.g., FW-DC-VEG 01, 04-06, FW-DCFIRE-03, FW-OBJ-FIRE-01,02) have been included in the action alternatives to address the need 

expressed above by Salwasser (2009) and Franklin (2009).

The IPNF has over a half million acres1 of mature forest stands that are essentially serving as a 

potential source of recruitment old growth (USDA Forest Service 2013). These mature forest 

stands do not meet the old growth definition now but they are dominated by 100 plus year old 

trees and barring huge wildfires or other stand replacing type disturbances in the future, a 

substantial amount of those mature stands have the potential to grow into old growth stands in 

the next few decades. As discussed later in this section, some of these stands may benefit in their 

development towards old growth conditions and their resiliency towards stand replacing 

disturbances by conducting mechanical treatments in them and/or the use of prescribed fire or 

natural unplanned ignitions.

In an effort to investigate how many acres of forested stands on the IPNF may meet old growth 

criteria in the coming five decades, two different approaches were used. The first was to use the 

FIA plot information for the Forest and simply “age” the trees on the plots to determine how 

much of the Forest may meet the old growth criteria in the future. As discussed in more detail in 

Bush and Reyes (2013b), the tree ages on the plots were increased by 10 years in five increments 

over a 50-year period. Then, for each decade (e.g., year 2023, year 2033, etc.) the amount of the 

forested vegetation that would meet old growth criteria was calculated. In this specific analysis, 

the trees on the plots were not “grown” in size nor were potential tree mortality modeled. 

Therefore, the only areas that were predicted to be recruited into old growth stands during the 50 

year period were areas (represented by plots) that currently had enough large trees and stocking 

to meet the minimum criteria), but were only lacking in meeting the tree age criteria. Table 11

provides a summary of the results of that analysis. More information on the methodology and 

results of this analysis, including the confidence intervals, is provided in Bush and Reyes 

(2013b).

Table 11. Percentage of the Total Forested Area on the IPNF that Currently meets Old Growth 

Definitions and the Estimated Old Growth Amounts for each of the next 5 Decades, for the Forest as 

a Whole as well as for each of the Five Geographic Areas (GA)

Area Year

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Forestwide 12.1 14.4 15.5 18.4 21.2 23.1

St. Joe GA 12.0 14.7 16.5 19.7 23.3 25.4

Coeur d' Alene GA 10.4 11.1 11.9 13.9 16.9 19.7

 1 Those acres do not include mature stands dominated by lodgepole pine which are very prone to being 

attacked by mountain pine beetles.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

80 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Area Year

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

Pend Oreille GA 9.8 10.4 11.5 12.6 15.6 17.2

Lower Kootenai GA 15.2 21.4 22.3 26.8 28.8 29.6

Priest GA 14.2 16.0 16.5 20.8 21.7 22.6

As illustrated in table 11 above, the amount of old growth that is predicted to occur across the 

Forest in the future increases substantially during the next 50 years. This specific analysis shows 

that the amount of old growth would almost double from current levels within the next 50-year 

period at both the forestwide scale as well as for each of the five GAs. As discussed in more 

detail in Bush and Reyes (2013b), this specific analysis does not factor in tree growth nor does it 

consider natural or man-caused mortality during that 50-year period. But it does provide 

evidence that in the absence of large scale dramatic disturbances over the Forest, that old growth 

amounts should increase in the future due to the large number of acres of forest stands on the 

IPNF that currently meet every old growth criteria except age, but that will meet the age criteria 

relatively soon.

The second approach that was used to investigate how much old growth may occur on the IPNF 

in the future utilized the SIMPPLLE and Spectrum modeling efforts that were undertaken to 

predict how forest succession, disturbances and management activities would influence forest 

vegetation conditions over time for the various Alternatives and under the different scenarios 

(i.e., with or without budget constraints and under different future climate assumptions). The 

primary advantage of this approach over the use of the FIA plots is that this modeling effort is 

able to capture how wildfire, forest insects and diseases, climate change and even management 

activities may impact forest conditions in the future. In addition, the SIMPPLLE model is able to 

simulate how the various disturbances, forest succession and management elements interact with 

one another in a spatial context. The methodology used for the modeling efforts is presented and 

discussed at length in appendix B of this FEIS as well as in Chew (2012), Henderson (2013) and 

Ecosystem Research Group (2012). The results of the modeling effort for each of the 

Alternatives that are analyzed in this FEIS are summarized in the environmental consequence 

section. However, one of the results is presented here. If no active management (with the 

exception of fire suppression) were to occur on the Forest for the next 50 years, and the future 

climate scenario of a warmer/drier climate is assumed, then the acreage of stands that would 

have structures similar to old growth is predicted to increase by approximately 112 percent over 

current amounts. The very large size class (stands that are dominated by 20”+ diameters) was 

used from the Spectrum model results for this estimate. The dramatic increase in old growth like 

stands over the 50-year simulation period occurred despite a substantial amount of predicted 

wildfire, root disease; bark beetle and defoliator caused disturbances (Ecosystem Research 

Group 2012).

In addition to the public comments that were submitted on the draft Forest Plan and DEIS 

regarding the creation of large old growth reserves, the IPNF also received a number of 

comments suggesting that additional or revised forest plan components were needed that would 

prohibit any vegetation treatment activity from occurring in existing old growth stands, or that 

would only allow treatments to occur in the drier types of old growth stands. The following 

discussion is meant to provide rationale for why those suggested changes were not made.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 81

The IPNF deliberately established language within two components of the action alternatives 

(FW-DC-VEG-03, FW-GDL-VEG-01) that would allow vegetation management activities to 

occur within old growth stands if the activities were designed to increase the resistance and 

resiliency of the stands to disturbances or stressors, and if the activities would maintain the 

criteria for age and number of trees and basal area for the specific old growth type as described 

in Green et al. 1992 (errata corrected 12/11). Both the terms resilience as well as resistance (see 

glossary for definitions) are used in this EIS and revised Plan in the context of forest ecosystems 

and the desire to increase the resistance and resiliency of the forest vegetation to disturbances 

and stressors, such as wildfires, droughts, insects and diseases, and potential climate change 

effects. In regard to the specific desired condition that old growth stands are more resistant and 

resilient to disturbances and stressors (FW-DC-VEG-03), there are numerous ways that this 

could be achieved depending upon specific circumstances. The following examples are meant to 

provide the reader with an idea of the wide range of actions that might be proposed at the sitespecific, project level. The examples are not a comprehensive list nor are they meant to preclude 

other actions from being proposed that are not described here. Mention of North Idaho Zone Old 

Growth Types in the examples below is referring to the old growth type descriptions in Green et

al. 1992. Because one of the main functions of the old growth resource on the IPNF is to provide 

habitat for wildlife (and other organisms such as rare plants) that use old growth type stand 

structures, any treatments that are proposed would need to be supported by an appropriate 

wildlife analysis.

Example 1: Within old growth stands that occur in the Warm/Dry biophysical setting (i.e., North 

Idaho Zone Old Growth Type 1 and 4A) and that contain a substantial component of ponderosa 

pine or western larch, prescribed fire alone or in combination with the cutting of smaller trees 

could be used to emulate a non-lethal or mixed-severity wildfire that was relatively common on 

these sites historically, and that often maintained fairly open stands dominated by shade 

intolerant and fire resistant ponderosa pine and/or western larch tree species.

Example 2: Within old growth stands that occur in the Warm/Moist biophysical setting and 

contain substantial amounts of shade intolerant species (i.e., North Idaho Zone Old Growth Type 

4B with western larch and/or ponderosa pine), prescribed fire alone or in combination with the 

cutting of smaller trees could be used to emulate a non-lethal or mixed-severity wildfire that 

occasionally occurred on these sites historically, and that served to extend the time that shade 

intolerant western larch or ponderosa pine could maintain their presence in stands that would 

otherwise become dominated by shade tolerant species (e.g., western hemlock, western redcedar, 

grand fir).

Example 3: Within old growth stands that occur in the Subalpine biophysical setting and contain 

substantial amounts of shade intolerant species (e.g., North Idaho Zone Old Growth Type 6 and 8 

with whitebark pine and/or western larch), prescribed fire alone or in combination with the 

cutting of smaller trees could be used to emulate a non-lethal or mixed-severity wildfire that 

occasionally occurred on these sites historically, and that served to extend the time that shade 

intolerant whitebark pine or western larch could maintain their presence in stands that would 

otherwise become dominated by shade tolerant species (e.g., subalpine fir, Englemann spruce or 

mountain hemlock).

For examples 1-3 above, if cutting smaller trees is needed and the removal of the cut trees is 

necessary to meet the site-specific restoration objectives, then timber harvest may be proposed. 

The modified stand structure and fuel complex that results from the activities described in the 

examples above could increase the resistance of the large trees to potential mortality from 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

82 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

disturbances and/or stressors (e.g., high intensity wildfire, bark beetle attacks, and/or potential 

climate change impacts such as more frequent or intense droughts).

Example 4: For the old growth types that are noted above in examples 1-3, another action that 

could be taken in some circumstances to increase the resistance and resiliency of the old growth

stands is to use natural, unplanned fire ignitions for the same general purposes as noted above. 

However, because it is more difficult to predict and control the intensity, severity and size of 

fires that result from unplanned ignitions, the potential benefits of using this tool in a specific 

circumstance would be carefully weighed against the risks.

Example 5: Other examples of activities that could be used in old growth stands or adjacent to 

old growth stands to increase resistance and resiliency may include treatments for non-native 

invasive plants, small scale tree planting of blister rust resistant white pine seedlings in openings 

within old growth stands that are created from wildfires, using anti-aggregate pheromones to 

prevent or minimize the loss of susceptible trees to bark beetle attacks or raking away the 

unnatural accumulation of bark debris from underneath ponderosa pine trees prior to prescribe 

burning to minimize potential tree mortality.

In regard to the scientific basis for the potential need to conduct the type of vegetation treatments 

that are described above, the following discussion cites relevant literature. Treatments in the 

drier forest types would allow the ability to improve the resiliency, resulting in stands more able 

to withstand bark beetle mortality and stand-replacing fire (Agee and Skinner 2005, Fettig et al. 

2008). Restoring forest composition and structure before wildfires occur should allow fire to 

play its characteristic role in maintaining ecosystem structure and function in the forest (Noss et 

al. 2006, Johnson 2007). Whether restoration should focus on ecological processes (e.g., fire), or 

re-establishing forest structure, to reincorporate natural disturbance processes in managed 

ecosystems, continues to be debated (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005). However, in the 

meantime, dry old growth forest types are at high risk from wildfire, due to increasingly dense 

understories composed of drought- and fire-intolerant species that have created ladder fuels, as 

well as increases in ground fuels and in main canopy densities (Agee and Skinner 2005, 

Hessburg et al. 2005, Noss et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2006, Abella et al. 2007, Brinkley et al. 2007, 

Egan 2007, Fiedler et al. 2007a, Johnson 2007).

Management options for creating or restoring a fire-resilient forest structure within the drier 

forest types includes the reduction of surface and ladder fuels and canopy bulk density and the 

maintenance of large thick bark trees in the stand (Agee and Skinner 2005). All of these 

structural characteristics significantly changed after decades of vigorous fire exclusion, which 

was facilitated by a moderate climate between 1930 and 1980 (Morgan et al. 2008). Several 

studies show that increasing forest resilience can be accomplished with various silvicultural 

treatments (Fiedler 2002, Agee and Skinner 2005, Stephens and Moghaddas 2005, Metlen and 

Fiedler 2006, Youngblood et al. 2006, Fettig et al. 2008, Ritchie et al. 2008, Zhang et al. 2008, 

Fulé et al. 2012). Specifically, thinning combined with prescribed underburning, compared with 

no treatment, was considered the most effective strategy, while prescribed burning alone could 

scorch and kill many of the old trees intended for retention (reviewed in Kolb et al. 2007, Ritchie 

et al. 2008).

The desired result of developing resilient old growth conditions through management techniques 

is to meet restoration objectives while maintaining composition and structure that conforms to 

the Green et al old growth definition (Green et al. 1992). Based on the current literature, this 

approach to maintaining resilience in old growth ecosystems has been incorporated into all the 

action alternatives (e.g., Hawe and Delong 1997, Fiedler 2000b, Quesnel and Steeger 2002, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 83

Steeger and Quesnel 2003, Briana et al. 2004, Lindh and Muir 2004, Sala and Callaway 2004, 

Spies et al. 2006, Kolb et al. 2007, Ritchie et al. 2008, Zhang et al.2008, Elzinga and Shearer 

1997, Arno et al. 1997, Harrington 2007, Erickson et al. 2008).

Snags

Snags (standing dead trees) are ecologically important for a number of reasons. They are 

important habitat structures (for nesting, feeding, perching, and/or roosting) for a wide variety of 

wildlife species. They provide substrate for some mosses and lichens and also serve to improve

environmental conditions on harsh sites. Once they fall, snags become down wood that provide 

other habitat structures (including den sites) for a different and very wide suite of wildlife 

species and some plant species. Down wood is also critical for nutrient cycling, moisture 

retention, providing effective microsites for tree regeneration, diversity of soil micro-organisms, 

and hydrologic function. Snags are short-term and vary greatly throughout the life cycle of a 

forest stand. If a stand originates following a fire, the resulting young stand may begin under a 

high number of snags. Most snags only remain standing for a few years, but can remain standing 

up to a few decades. How long these snags remain standing is a function of the species, size, age,

and site factors like soil characteristics, slope position, and landscape position. An insect or 

disease outbreak may rapidly increase the number of snags. A severe windstorm may rapidly 

reduce the number of snags (while increasing the amount of down wood). Root pathogens may 

provide gradual input of snags until all the trees are killed. Depending upon the particular 

pathogen, these snags may not remain standing for very long. Various severe weather conditions 

may serve either to increase or decrease snag numbers.

In order to quantify and otherwise describe the amount of snags on the IPNF, an analysis was 

recently completed using FIA information collected on the Forest (Bollenbacher et al. 2009). 

Table 12 provides a summary of the estimated average number and size distribution of snags per 

acre that occur across the forested areas of the IPNF. The information is separated by Dominance 

Group, Habitat Type Group, and three snag sizes. The three Habitat Type Groups correspond 

very closely to the Biophysical Settings (warm/dry, warm/moist, and subalpine) presented 

earlier. The Lodgepole Pine Dominance Group was separated from the other Dominance Groups 

in the analysis since lodgepole pine trees do not grow as large as the other common tree species 

because of their growth form and high stocking levels, and typically do not contain as many 

large snags.

Snag numbers decrease substantially in the larger size classes across all Habitat Type Groups and 

Dominance Groups (table 12). The Low-Mid Elevation-Moist group has the highest average 

snag densities across all snag classes. This is likely due to the presence of higher productivity 

sites and because of the specific fire regime typical on these sites compared to the other Habitat 

Type Groups. That is, a longer interval between stand-replacing fires occurs while mixedseverity fires occur in-between the stand-replacing events.

Table 12. Average Snags per Acre for the entire IPNF by Dominance Group, Habitat Type Group, 

and Snag Sizes Classes

Dominance 

Group

Habitat Type 

Group

Snags per Acre 

10"+

Snags per Acre 

15"+

Snags per Acre 

20"+

All except 

Lodgepole pine

Dry 9.4 3.9 1.1

Low Mid ElevMoist13.5 4.7 1.9
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

84 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Dominance 

Group

Habitat Type 

Group

Snags per Acre 

10"+

Snags per Acre 

15"+

Snags per Acre 

20"+

Subalpine 11.2 3.3 1.1

Lodgepole Pine All Settings 9.0 1.7 0.5

Data in this table is a summary of the more detailed information within table 5 of appendix C in Bollenbacher et al.2009. 

Confidence intervals and the number of sample plots per strata are available in that document.

To determine historic snag densities, the snag analysis (Bollenbacher et al. 2009) separated the 

forest inventory data into two categories; areas that occurred in wilderness or roadless areas, and 

the rest of the Forest. The assumption was that snag levels and distribution patterns in the 

wilderness/roadless areas provide a better “picture” of historic snag conditions, and represent the 

best available information as to the historic range and distribution of snags. This information was 

then used to establish desired future conditions and forest plan guidance. Although fire 

suppression activities may have influenced snag conditions in the wilderness/roadless areas in a 

number of ways, the effects are difficult to predict (Bollenbacher et al. 2009, Harris 1999). In a 

recent snag study (Harris 1999) that took place in western Montana, Harris considered how fire 

suppression activities may have influenced snag levels in areas that had no harvest history. 

Harris stated that predicting the likely effects was complex and uncertain. However, he did 

conclude that existing snag densities in his study area may be about 10 percent higher than 

historical levels.

Average snag densities for wilderness/roadless areas and the other forested lands are displayed in 

table 13. As this table indicates, in two of the three snag classes the average snag quantities are 

slightly more for areas that are outside of wilderness/roadless areas, than for areas within 

wilderness/roadless areas. The likely explanation for this is that current stands were created from 

large wildfires that occurred on the IPNF (e.g., the 1910 and 1926 fires) are in a mid seral stage 

of succession, and a greater percentage of those stands are located in wilderness/roadless areas 

than they are outside of the wilderness/roadless areas. However, even though the average snag 

densities are greater for two of the size classes outside, when one compares the confidence 

intervals surrounding those averages, the differences are not statistically significant.

1

 1 This is illustrated in table 2 of Bollenbacher et al. 2009.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 85

Table 13. Average Snags per Acre on the IPNF for Areas within Wilderness/Roadless Areas and for 

the Areas outside of those Designations

Area Snags per Acre 10"+ Snags per Acre 15"+ Snags per Acre 20"+

In Wilderness/Roadless 

Areas

10.4 3.7 1.6

Outside of 

Wilderness/Roadless 

Areas

12.7 4.2 1.4

Data in this table is a summary of the more detailed information within table 2 in Bollenbacher et al. 2009 Confidence 

intervals and the number of plots per strata are available in that document.

Table 14 below displays the range and average number of snags that occur in the 

wilderness/roadless areas on the IPNF by Habitat Type and Dominance Groups. These snag 

densities were utilized as the desired amounts in the revised Forest Plan.

Table 14. Snag Density Ranges and Averages for Wilderness/Roadless Areas on the IPNF by 

Habitat Type and Dominance Groups (average snags are displaced in parentheses)

Dominance 

Group

Habitat Type 

Group

Ranges of Snags per Acre by Diameter Class

10"+ 15"+ 20"+

All except 

Lodgepole pine

Dry 4.1-13.2 (9.4) 0.5-6.4 (3.9) 0.4-2.2 (1.1)

Low Mid Elev-Moist 8.6-15.9 (13.5) 2.9-6.3 (3.9) 1.3-3.0 (1.9)

Subalpine 7.2-14.0( 11.2) 2.2-5.3 (3.3) 0.6-2.3 (1.1)

Lodgepole Pine All Settings 1.8-13.7 (9.0) 0.3-4.4 (1.7) 0.1-0.7 (0.6)

Data in this table is from the IPNF portion of table 11 in Bollenbacher et al. 2009

As found in both Bollenbacher et al. (2009) and Harris (1999), the distribution of snags across 

the landscapes in both northern Idaho and western Montana is very clumpy, or uneven. For 

example, when analyzing snag distributions on several national forests in northern Idaho (Idaho 

Panhandle, Nez Perce, and Clearwater National Forests), Bollenbacher et al. (2009) found that 

the percent of FIA plots having any snags occurring on them, varied from approximately 5 to 4

percent, depending upon the habitat type, Dominance groups, and snag class.

1 The conclusion is 

that over much of the area, there are no snags, while other areas have numerous snags. The 

primary reason for this uneven distribution of snags across the landscape is simply that many 

snags are created as a result of periodic, broad-and fine-scale disturbances such as fire, insects,

and diseases; and these disturbances do not occur evenly across space.

Bollenbacher et al. (2009) also looked at how snags and live tree densities varied across different 

seral stages of forest development. This analysis was used to determine the appropriate levels for 

retention of snags and live snag recruitment for vegetation treatments. In the analysis, size class 

was used to approximate seral stages. Areas that were dominated by trees that were 0.0-9.9 

inches in diameter (up to 30 years old) were considered early-seral, while areas dominated by 

10.0 -19.9 inch diameter trees were considered to be in a mid-seral stage. Finally, areas 

dominated by trees 20.0 inches and greater were considered to be in the late-seral stage 

(generally 130 or more years old).

 1 See table 9 in Bollenbaucher et al. (2009) for more details
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

86 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 15 illustrates the ranges and average number of snags and live trees that occur within each 

of the three seral stages by Habitat Type and Dominance Groups. Information in that table is for 

wilderness/roadless areas across all of the northern Idaho national forests. This information was 

used to develop the snag guideline in the revised Forest Plan that indicates how many snags and 

live trees (for future snag recruitment) should generally be left in areas that have vegetation 

management activities conducted in them.

Table 15 Snags and Live Trees per Acre Ranges by Seral Stage and Diameter Class

Dominance 

Group

Habitat Type 

Group

Ranges per Acre in Early-seral Conditions

Snags > 15”+ DBH Snags > 20.0” DBH Live trees > 15.0” 

DBH

All Other 

Groups

Dry 2.1-4.2 (3.1) 0.9-1.8 (1.3) 0.3 -3.0 (1.4)

Low and Mid 

Elevation Moist

4.3-6.7 (5.5) 2.2-3.5 (2.9) 1.1 -5.6 (3.1)

Subalpine 3.2-5.0 (4.1) 1.0-1.8 (1.4) 1.1 -3.6 (2.6)

Lodgepole 

Pine

All 0.9-2.4 (1.6) 0.1 -0.7 (.4) 0.7 – 3.2 (1.8)

Dominance 

Group

Habitat Type 

Group

Ranges per Acre in Mid-seral Conditions

Snags > 15”+ DBH Snags > 20.0” DBH Live trees > 15.0” 

DBH

All Other 

Groups

Dry 2.0 -5.0 (3.4) 0.8 -2.1 (1.3) 20.7 – 32.5 (26.4)

Low and Mid 

Elevation Moist

3.8 -6.6 (5.2) 1.9 -3.4 (2.6) 26.2 – 34.1 (30.1)

Subalpine 3.0– 5.0 (4.0) 0.9 – 2.0 (1.4) 19.7 – 25.5 (22.6)

Lodgepole 

Pine

All 1.1 -3.4 (2.2) 0.2 -1.1 (0.5) 10.8 – 18.8 (14.6)

Dominance 

Group

Habitat Type 

Group

Ranges per Acre in Late-seral Conditions

Snags > 15”+ DBH Snags > 20.0” DBH Live trees > 15.0” 

DBH

All Other 

Groups

Dry 2.4 -6.2 (4.2) 1.3 -3.4 (2.2) 18.8 -32.5 (25.4)

Low and Mid 

Elevation Moist

6.0 -12.3 (8.9) 3.4 -6.9 (5.1) 32.3 -47.2 (39.6)

Subalpine 4.6 -11.3 (7.7) 1.7 -4.3 (2.9) 23.0-45.0 (33.5)

Lodgepole 

Pine

All

Estimated mean for each range is displayed in parentheses. Seral stage is based on Stand Size as derived by basal 

area weighted average diameter: early-seral = 0.0 – 4.9” average diameter; mid-seral = 5.0” – 14.9” average diameter; 

late-seral = 15.0” + average diameter

Information in this table was taken from table 12 in Bollenbacher et al. 2009.

The desired snag quantities and sizes are provided in the revised Forest Plan by biophysical 

setting, Dominance Group and size class. The desired condition over the Forest approximates the 

conditions in table 14 (see above) that currently occur in the roadless/unroaded areas.

Forest Density

The density of forest vegetation can influence everything from the health and vigor of individual 

trees in a forest stand to the composition of plant species in the community, which affects 

whether or not the stand is suitable habitat for certain wildlife species. Tree density also affects 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 87

the susceptibility of the trees to drought, insects and diseases, wildfires, and other disturbance 

events, as well as influencing the rate of plant succession. While it is difficult to quantify 

historical forest densities, general inferences can be made based on the knowledge of historical 

disturbance regimes and forest succession.

As discussed in the “Wildfire” disturbance section, the success of fire suppression has had a 

large influence on the structure and composition of forest conditions. Research has shown that 

fire suppression for the last several decades has led to increased density of stands as well as 

additional canopy layers (Keane et al. 2002, Hessburg et. al. 2005). Fire exclusion has led to 

stands that are much denser than occurred historically.

There are a number of key ecological concerns with the trend of increasing forest density. In 

general, the denser the forest the greater the likelihood that fuel characteristics could support a 

fast moving intense crown fire. This is not only a result of greater fuel quantities in a dense 

forest, but also of the vertical and horizontal continuity of fuels. On most of the sites where fire 

suppression and other factors have led to increased forest densities, not only has the number of 

trees per area increased, but so has the number of canopy layers in a given stand. This has 

increased the continuity of vertical fuels. The lower tree and tall shrub canopies serve as ladder 

fuels to increase the likelihood of a surface fire moving upwards to become a crown fire.

The susceptibility of a forest to insects and diseases is heavily influenced by density and its 

impact on tree vigor. As the density increases, a deficit of soil moisture develops and trees lose 

their ability to withstand attacks by insects, pathogens, and parasites (Powell 1999, Safranyik et 

al. 1998). Density-related tree mortality from insects, diseases, and competition leads to 

increased dead fuel quantities and higher fuel hazards.

Another concern regarding the trend of increasing forest density is its influence on the more 

desirable tree species that are intolerant of shade. Western larch and ponderosa pine are very 

intolerant of shade. In a stand with mixed species, as the density of more shade-tolerant species 

(e.g., Douglas-fir, grand fir, hemlock, and cedar) increase, the larch and ponderosa pine will 

likely die out (unless a disturbance reduces the competition from the shade-tolerant species).

Climate change may compound the effect of dense forests on the soil water balance. In general, 

the soil water balance (especially in the summer drought period) determines which tree species 

can ultimately survive on a specific site. Seral tree species (e.g., ponderosa pine and western 

larch) have the unique ability to establish on bare soil surfaces where high surface temperatures 

exclude other species. One of the adaptations of these seral species are deep rooting 

characteristics that allows the tree to find an adequate water supply and avoid extensive 

competition with shallow and fibrous rooted grasses and forbs. As the shade from these seral tree 

species limits grasses and forbs, shade-tolerant tree species can become established in 

understories. These shade-tolerant species have shallower rooting characteristics that allow them 

to gather soil water from near the soil surface. The overall rooting structure on the site becomes 

much more competitive for water resources as succession progresses. As the density of the stand 

and the amount of leaf area increases, water transpiration increases and this can deplete the water 

that is stored in the soil throughout the summer. The additional forest canopy interception of rain 

and snow further compounds the reduction in soil water recharge. This results in a waterstressed forest that not only becomes more susceptible to insect and disease, but also more prone 

to supporting severe wildfires because live fuel moisture is relatively low.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

88 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Landscape Patterns of Forest Conditions and Disturbance Implications

To understand how forest ecosystems function and how management activities could affect them, 

it is important to consider the pattern of forests on the landscape. The pattern of a forest can 

affect numerous ecological processes, including: watershed functioning; wildlife habitat and 

dispersal; plant habitat and dispersal; disturbance (fire, insects, and pathogens) risk, spread and 

size; ecosystem response to disturbance; and human esthetic values. The numerous ecosystem 

services that forests provide are heavily influenced by the spatial patterns that exist on the 

landscape (Turner et al 2012).

The historic and current forest pattern of size classes on the IPNF was analyzed through the use 

of a spatial pattern analysis model called FRAGSTATS. This model was used to quantify the 

extent and spatial configuration of forest “patches” within a landscape. Patches were identified 

and then classified into tree size classes. The model then calculated a number of spatial metrics. 

The methods used for the analysis are described in appendix B of this EIS.

Relative to the historical conditions, the following conclusions were made regarding how the 

spatial pattern of structural conditions has changed over representative landscapes on the IPNF. 

Forest stands in the smallest size class, as well as those in the largest size class, changed in 

similar ways. The area covered by both of these size classes declined from historical levels (see 

figure 8 above). The FRAGSTATS analysis also indicated that the average patch size of stands in 

these size classes decreased substantially. The smaller-sized patches have an increase in edge and 

decrease in interior habitat; therefore, these types of patches have become more fragmented. In 

addition, the size of these patches became less variable. Although the average patch size for both 

the smallest size class as well as the largest size class showed similar trends, the magnitude of 

the changes were generally greater for the largest size class.

Changes that have occurred to the medium size class have generally been in the opposite 

direction to those described above. The medium size class became a larger percent of the 

landscape and the average patch size generally became much bigger. In addition, the patch sizes 

became more variable.

The FRAGSTATS analysis concluded that overall, there has been a homogenization and 

simplification of landscape patterns for forest structure. Landscapes have increasingly become 

dominated by large patches of medium size trees and there is less variability in internal structure 

or composition of these medium size patches. Meanwhile, the patches of the smallest and largest 

size classes are fragmented into smaller patches with more edge and less interior area.

Other assessments have been conducted to investigate how the pattern of other forest 

characteristics (e.g., forest cover types, crown cover, snags, tree density, etc.) has changed over 

time, and how those changes may have influenced the susceptibility of the forests to insect and 

disease disturbances. For example, as part of the ICBEMP effort, a midscale assessment was 

conducted to determine how the cumulative changes in forest composition, structure, and pattern 

have affected the vulnerability of the forests to insects, diseases, and wildfires (Hessburg et al. 

1999, Hessburg et al. 2000). As part of that assessment, several subwatersheds that occur on the 

IPNF (Pend Oreille and Upper Coeur d’Alene) were analyzed. Conclusions made that are 

applicable to those watersheds regarding how the landscapes patterns have changed regarding 

insect susceptibility include:

• Areas dominated by lodgepole pine forests have aged and become more synchronous in their 

vulnerability to mountain pine beetles and fires;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 89

• The lodgepole pine exhibited larger tree size, poorer crown differentiation, higher crown 

cover, and greater contiguity of those characteristics;

• There are greater areas vulnerable to fir engraver bark beetles and;

• The area and connectivity of forests that is vulnerable to spruce beetles has increased.

For root diseases, the changes in the forests have generally increased the vulnerability to 

armillaria, annosum, and laminated root diseases (as well tomentosus and butt rots). With regard 

to wildfires and smoke production, changes to forest conditions were such that a larger 

percentage of the landscapes would burn with greater intensities and produce more smoke than 

historically. The fuel loading, predicted fuel consumption, and expected smoke production 

estimates generally increased as did the intensity, flame length, and crown fire potential. 

However, Hessburg et al. (2000) concludes that management activities have not made entire 

landscapes prone to uncharacteristic wildfires, but rather they have removed the spatial isolation 

that patches of forests prone to stand replacement fires once exhibited.

Changes to the landscape pattern have occurred largely as a result of a cool phase of the Pacific 

decadal oscillation between 1940 to 1980 (which helped make fire suppression effective until the 

warm phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation became dominate in the late 1980s through 2007).

There is a growing body of evidence that the types of changes to landscape patterns and 

conditions discussed above have increased the susceptibility of the forests to larger and/or 

different kinds of disturbances, especially when considered in light of the potential climate 

change affects.

Bark beetle outbreaks generally occur in areas where there is a large expanse of forest with fairly 

homogenous conditions of host tree species of a susceptible age/condition (Fettig et al. 2007, 

Samman and Logan 2000). On portions of the IPNF, the hazard of significant mortality from 

either mountain pine beetle or Douglas-fir beetle is fairly high as a result of having these 

conditions. For these bark beetles (as well as other species), the severity of outbreaks and tree 

mortality can be reduced in extent by increasing the diversity of stand ages, size classes, and tree 

species in landscapes that are homogenous (Bentz et al. 2010, Bollenbacher 2010, Fettig et al. 

2007).

As the fuels and forest structures have homogenized over the landscapes, the potential for large, 

high-intensity wildfires has increased, and climate change effects will likely exasperate this trend 

(USDA Forest Service 2010b). Research has shown that the spread of wildfires and the potential 

for large fire growth across a landscape can be limited by reducing fuel continuity (Ager et al. 

2010, Collins et al. 2008, Finney and Cohen 2003, Finney 2007, Hessburg et al. 2007 Safford et 

al. 2009, Stephens et al. 2009). In addition, large landscapes (e.g., wilderness areas) where 

wildfires have been allowed to burn can develop fuel heterogeneity; therefore, future fires could 

be limited in size relative to other landscapes that have more homogeneity in fuel conditions 

(Bollenbacher 2010, Collins et al. 2008, Rollins et al. 2002, and van Wagtendonk 2004). In 

addition, patterns of old burns can delay and detour the spread of new fires.

Promoting Resistance and Resiliency to Disturbance and Stress Agents

Numerous changes have occurred to the forests on the IPNF relative to historical conditions. To 

various degrees and in different ways, these changes have affected the composition, structure, 

landscape pattern, and ecological processes. These altered conditions have predisposed the 

Forests to new levels and types of disturbances (e.g., uncharacteristic fires as well as both native 

and non-native insects and diseases). From the perspective of maintaining biodiversity and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

90 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

healthy forest ecosystems, these trends are not desirable. In addition, future climate change will 

add to the list of existing forest “stressors.”

Forest ecologists and other scientists are increasingly noting that “resistance” and “resilience” 

are important concepts as they relate to sustainability, biodiversity, and climate change (Blate et 

al. 2009, Drever et al. 2006, Folke et al. 2004, Hansen et al. 2003, Joyce et al. 2008, Millar et al. 

2007, Noss 2001, Stephens et al. 2010, Thompson et al. 2009, Unnasch et al. 2009, Walker et al. 

2004, Walker and Salt 2006). Resistance refers to the capacity of ecosystems to tolerate 

disturbances without exhibiting significant change in structure and composition, while resilience 

refers to the ability of a system to recover from disturbance in the event that the disturbance 

exceeds the capacity of the system to resist changing (Holling 1973). To improve adaptation of 

forest vegetation to the likely effects of climate change, these same researchers suggest 

promoting resistance and resiliency. Reducing the impact of current stressors has been called a 

“...no regrets adaptation strategy that could be taken now to help enhance ecosystem resilience 

to climate change, at least in the near term” (Joyce et al. 2008). Joyce goes on to explain that 

“[e]fforts to address the existing stressors would address current management needs, allow an 

incremental approach that begins to incorporate climate into management and planning, and 

potentially reduce the future interactions of these stressors with climate change.”

Adaptations options are presented in the KIPZ Climate Change Report (USDA Forest Service 

2010b), “...emphasize management actions that address existing stressors, contribute to multiple 

land management objectives regardless of climate change (win-win), and are likely to be 

effective at achieving or maintaining desired conditions across a wide range of future climates. 

Their application in appropriate circumstances may be a critical contribution to sustaining the 

health, diversity, and productivity of the IPNF to meet the needs of present and future 

generations.” One of these options is to:

Increase the resilience of forest vegetation by reducing the potential severity of 

wildfire and insect outbreaks. Managing the density of trees can improve forest 

resiliency by reducing water stress, decreasing susceptibility to insect and 

disease mortality, and decreasing the likelihood of stand-replacing wildfires. 

Management actions that increase the diversity of stand ages, size classes, and 

tree species in currently homogenous landscapes can reduce the extent and 

severity of bark beetle outbreaks and wildland fires. Mechanical treatments, 

prescribed fire, and managing wildland fires for resource objectives are all 

potential tools for increasing the resiliency of forest vegetation to climate and 

other stressors. In addition, existing programs to reduce the vulnerability of 

whitebark pine and western white pine to white pine blister rust will also 

improve the resistance of these species to the added stresses associated with 

climate change.

When developing the goals, desired future conditions, objectives and standards in the revised

Forest Plan that pertain to forest vegetation, the concepts and management approaches discussed 

above regarding forest resistance and resiliency were utilized with the overall objective of 

maintaining and restoring the Forests biodiversity and sustainability. In discussions in this EIS 

regarding forest vegetation, we consider that a resilient forest ecosystem contains the diversity of 

composition, size, density, and pattern to enable it to cope with disturbance and to perpetuate 

itself through periodic regeneration.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 91

Carbon Sequestration

Carbon sequestration is the process by which atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken up by 

vegetation through photosynthesis and stored as carbon in biomass (trunks, branches, foliage, 

and roots) and soils. Forests also release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as a result of 

respiration and decay of dead wood, litter, and organic matter in soils. In addition, forest fires 

release some stored carbon into the atmosphere in the combustion process, and insect outbreaks, 

fires, pathogens, drought stress, and wind storms kill trees and increase the amount of biomass 

available for decomposition by microorganisms. Timber harvesting removes carbon from the 

forest, although some of it is stored in wood products or used to produce energy — displacing 

fossil fuel use.

Sequestering carbon in forest ecosystems can help to offset sources of carbon dioxide to the 

atmosphere, such as deforestation, forest fires, and fossil fuel emissions. Interest in carbon 

sequestration has increased in an effort to explore opportunities for climate change mitigation. 

The KIPZ Climate Change Report (USDA Forest Service 2010b) provides a substantial amount 

of information on how terrestrial vegetation and disturbance processes can affect carbon cycles 

as well as forest productivity. The IPNF and KNF contribute approximately six tenths to eight 

tenths of 1 percent of the total U.S. forest carbon “reservoir.” Estimated carbon stocks on 

forested areas of the IPNF are approximately 177 million metric tons. In addition, preliminary 

estimates indicate that the forests on the IPNF and KNF currently serve as a net carbon sink, 

removing approximately 27 to 31 metric tons of carbon per acre per year. Harvested wood 

products increase the net sequestration on those forests by an undetermined amount. See the 

KIPZ Climate Change Report, for more detailed information on carbon sequestration.

On the IPNF, carbon stocks will vary over coming decades in response to complex and uncertain 

interactions between climate variability and change, age structure, disturbance-recovery 

processes, and possible effects of carbon dioxide concentrations on forest productivity. High 

severity fires or large scale tree mortality from bark beetles will affect the amount of carbon 

sequestered by the IPNF. An increase in root disease, with its associated limitation on the growth 

of stands, could lead to a reduction in the ability of the Forest to store carbon. In addition, timber 

harvesting will affect amount of carbon stored and the short-term net flux of carbon with the 

atmosphere.

Desired and Current Vegetation Conditions for Each Biophysical Setting

As described earlier, the IPNF are comprised of three major biophysical settings: Warm/Dry; 

Warm/Moist; and Subalpine. Following is a description of the vegetation condition for each 

biophysical setting. The desired condition is first described in a narrative format for each setting 

and then the current forest composition and structure is compared to the desired condition using 

Dominance Groups and size class figures.

Warm/Dry Composition, Structure, and Pattern

This biophysical setting includes the warmest and driest forest sites that support forest 

vegetation. These sites cover approximately 15 percent of the IPNF forested lands and occur 

either at low elevations, at mid-elevations on southerly aspects, and/or on droughty soils (figure 

6).

On the driest sites in this setting (vegetation response unit 1 and the south and west aspects of 2), 

the stands are generally open-grown, park-like stands that contain abundant large-diameter 

ponderosa pine and lesser amounts of large-diameter Douglas-fir. Openings are generally less 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

92 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

than five acres and occur within 20 to 200 acre patches. Stands are usually multi-aged and have a 

low tree density of 5 to 30 large mature trees per acre that are irregularly spaced in the stand.

On the moister sites within this setting (vegetation response unit 3 and north and east aspects of 

2), species composition varies with mixed Douglas-fir-western larch-ponderosa pine stands more 

prevalent on the moist end, and mixed ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir stands occurring on drier 

sites. At maturity, densities of trees generally vary from 15 to 60 trees per acre. However, on the 

moister sites, the tree density can exceed 100 trees per acre. The pattern for these landscapes is a 

mosaic with small to moderate size openings (less than 5 acres up to 10 acres) within larger 

patches (50 to 200 acres).

The pattern of successional stages in this warm/dry setting is such that fire or insects and 

diseases do not dominate the landscape at any one time. As the Forest trends towards the desired 

conditions, uncharacteristic levels of bark beetles, root disease, and fire intensity, decrease over 

time.

Figure 10 shows current species composition and desired ranges for the dominance groups found 

in this biophysical setting. As indicated in figure 10, ponderosa pine is well below desired 

conditions, while Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine are above. The desire is to increase the amount 

of ponderosa pine and decrease Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine.

PP = ponderosa pine; DF = Douglas-fir; LP = lodgepole pine; WL = western larch

Figure 10. Desired and Current Forest Composition by Dominance Group for the warm/dry 

Biophysical Setting
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 93

(seed/sap = 0-5” DBH trees, small=5-10” DBH trees, medium =10-15” DBH trees, and large =>15” DBH trees.)

Figure 11. Vegetation Desired Condition and Current Vegetation for Size Class for the warm/dry 

Biophysical Setting

Figure 11 shows current amounts and desired ranges of size classes for this biophysical setting. 

As indicated in figure 11, the seedling/sapling size class is well below desired conditions, while 

small and medium size classes are above. The desire is to increase the amount of 

seedling/saplings and large size classes while reducing the amount of small and medium size 

classes.

Warm/Moist Composition, Structure, and Pattern

This biophysical setting includes moist forest sites that are relatively warm. Approximately 61

percent of IPNF forested lands are within this biophysical setting. This setting includes lowelevation upland sites with deeper soils on north and east aspects, extensive mid-elevation moist 

upland sites, and most low-and mid-elevation wet stream bottoms and riparian benches and toeslopes.

On the drier aspects, early-seral tree species such as western larch and western white pine, and in 

some cases Douglas-fir (where root disease risk is low), dominate throughout all successional 

structural stages. Other tree species occur in smaller quantities, including grand fir, and in cooler 

locations, Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine. On the dry end on warm exposures and/or well 

drained soils, ponderosa pine is a seral component. Stands generally have either a single-age

class or have two-age classes. Stands having two-aged classes resemble mixed-severity fire 

conditions, usually with fire-tolerant western larch and Douglas-fir in the overstory. At maturity, 

stands have approximately 100 trees per acre and have canopy coverage of 60 percent or more. 

Stands dominated by western larch have a lower density, with 40 to 70 trees per acre and canopy 

coverage of 30 to 40 percent.

In the moderately cool and moist uplands, forests include a mixture dominated by early-seral 

shade-intolerants (e.g., western larch, western white pine, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir), with 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

94 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

seral shade-tolerant species (e.g., grand fir, Engelmann spruce) and climax species forming a 

smaller proportion of the Forest. Single-and two-age class forests are desirable during early, 

middle-, and late-successional structural stages. Multi-storied forests increase in desirability 

when forests reach maturity. Desired stand density and canopy coverage are similar to desired 

conditions described above for the drier sites in the setting.

On wet sites, an abundance of large, old, mature forests occur and are often dominated by the 

climax western hemlock and western redcedar. High tree densities and canopy coverage of 70 

percent or more exist through most successional structural stages. Mature stands support very 

large trees (often 30 to 50 inches in diameter), are open-grown and occasionally park-like in 

appearance, and are generally two- or multi-storied.

The resulting pattern for these landscapes is coarse and includes large, distinguishable patches, 

with residual structural diversity and heterogeneity both within and between patches. The pattern 

of successional stages is such that fire or insects and diseases do not dominate the landscape at 

any one time. As the Forest trends towards the desired conditions for this biophysical setting, 

uncharacteristic levels of root disease, bark beetles, and fire intensity would decrease over time.

Figure 12 shows current species composition and desired ranges for the dominance groups found 

in this biophysical setting. As indicated in figure 12, white pine is greatly under-represented 

while grand fir/cedar/hemlock is greatly over-represented. Western larch is also below and 

Douglas-fir above desired ranges. The desire is to increase the amount of white pine and western 

larch while decreasing Douglas-fir and grand fir/cedar/hemlock.

DF = Douglas-fir; WL = western larch; GF/C/WH mix = grand fir/cedar/western hemlock mix; WP = white pine.

Figure 12. Desired and Current Forest Composition for Dominance Group for the warm/moist 

Biophysical Setting
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 95

(seed/sap = 0-5” DBH trees, small=5-10” DBH trees, medium =10-15” DBH trees, and large =>15” DBH trees.)

Figure 13. Desired and Current Forest Structure by Size Classes for the warm/moist Biophysical 

Setting

Figure 13 shows current amounts and desired ranges of size classes for this biophysical setting. 

As indicated in figure 13, the seedling/sapling size class is well below desired conditions, while 

small and medium size classes are above. The desire is to increase the amount of 

seedling/saplings and large size classes while reducing the amount of small and medium size 

classes.

Subalpine Composition, Structure, and Pattern

This biophysical setting occurs over approximately 24 percent of IPNF forested lands and 

occupies the higher elevations of the Forest. This setting ranges from the cool and moist lower 

subalpine sites, up to the cold and dry high elevation sites that have more open forests.

Western larch, western white pine, Engelmann spruce, and Douglas-fir are seral dominants, 

while lodgepole pine dominates areas less often in colder locations. Grand fir occurs on the 

warmer sites. Climax species, subalpine fir, and mountain hemlock also occur on cooler sites 

where fire-free intervals exceed the life span of lodgepole pine. Forests consist of two-aged 

forests (usually western larch/Douglas-fir in the overstory), and single-aged forests (seral mixed 

conifers, lodgepole, or spruce-dominated stands). Multi-aged stands are less common, but do 

exist with discrete age groups in older forests where several canopy layers exist. There are 

approximately 80 to 120 trees per acre at maturity and canopy coverage is 60 percent or more.

On high elevation sites in this biophysical setting, whitebark pine restoration efforts have 

increased the abundance of this species. Forests are low to moderate in density, and have 

conditions that would have been supported by mixed-severity fires. Other species include 

lodgepole pine, mountain hemlock, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce. Canopy coverage is 

generally less than 80 percent at maturity, much less at timberline sites. Forest conditions include 

numerous small openings (one-half to three acres in size) that are available for whitebark pine 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

96 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

regeneration. Multi-aged stands are desirable, predominately occurring in discrete age-class 

groups. At the seedling stage, the desirable numbers include at least 100 trees per acre of 

whitebark pine that have some blister rust resistance, with 30 to 80 trees per acre at maturity. At 

the extreme timberline sites, trees grow in clusters.

The resulting pattern for these landscapes includes a variety of patch sizes, with residual 

structural diversity and heterogeneity both within and between patches. In some locations in this 

subalpine setting, there are existing homogenous patches of extensive lodgepole pine-dominated 

forests in the medium and large size classes. These forests are very susceptible to large bark 

beetle outbreaks and/or wildfires. The desired condition is that the pattern of these areas be 

diversified. The pattern of successional stages is such that fire, insect, or diseases do not 

dominate the landscape at any one time.

Figure 14 shows current species composition and desired ranges for the dominance groups found 

in this biophysical setting. As indicated in figure 14, western larch and white pine are underrepresented while lodgepole pine and spruce/fir are at the high end of their desired range. The 

desire is to increase the amount of western larch and white pine while decreasing lodgepole pine 

and spruce/fir.

LP = lodgepole pine; WL = western larch; WP = white pine; SF mix = subalpine fir mix

Figure 14. Desired and Current Forest Composition by Dominance Group for the Subalpine 

Biophysical Setting

Figure 15 shows current amounts and desired ranges of size classes for this biophysical setting. 

As indicated in figure 15, the seedling/sapling and large size classes are below desired 

conditions, while small and medium size classes are above. The desire is to increase the amount 

of seedling/saplings and large size classes while reducing the amount of small and medium size 

classes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 97

(seed/sap = 0-5” DBH trees, small=5-10” DBH trees, medium =10-15” DBH trees, and large =>15” DBH trees.)

Figure 15. Desired and Current Forest Structure by Size Classes for the Subalpine Biophysical 

Setting

Environmental Consequences

Forest Vegetation

The following discussion focuses on describing how forest vegetation would be affected by 

implementing the different alternatives. More specifically, the effects to forest composition, 

structure, landscape pattern, resistance and resiliency to disturbances and stress agents, and 

carbon sequestration will be addressed. For each topic and alternative, the relevant management 

direction is first summarized followed by the effects.

Forest Composition and Structure

Management Direction

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

Alternative A would retain all of the 1987 Forest Plan direction regarding the management of 

forest vegetation. With regard to forest composition, the existing Forest Plan contains very little 

direction on the desired conditions for vegetation and management approaches to achieve them. 

One forestwide goal is to “Provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities” (goal #8, p 

II-1). Two forestwide objectives (item l on p II-8, and T, p II-10) and one standard (item #4, p II32) discuss planting or other management of forest stands for seral tree species and mixtures as a 

way to minimize damage from forest insects and diseases. Individual MA prescriptions do not 

provide any additional specific direction.

The 1987 Forest Plan contains direction that addresses items related to forest structure. Most of 

this direction is either related to the desire of balancing the age class distribution of forest stands 

in order to regulate the timber yield and ultimately produce a sustained, even flow of timber 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

98 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

products (e.g., forestwide goal #16, p II-2 and objective item l, p II-8), or the components are 

related to setting aside old growth stands for wildlife habitat or other values (forestwide 

objective item g, p II-5, forestwide standard #10, p II-29).

Regarding the management of old growth, the 1987 Forest Plan contains one forestwide standard 

(#10, p II-29) with nine separate items. That standard addresses such things as the definition of 

old growth, how much and what type of old growth is to be retained (also known as “allocated”), 

and what the distribution should be. One element of the standard (item #d) allows harvest of old 

growth in old growth management units that contain more than 5 percent of old growth, as long

as the total is more than 10 percent on the Forest.

In addition to the old growth direction provided in the 1987 Forest Plan, in 1991 the forest 

supervisor of the IPNF provided the ranger districts with a letter of explanation describing how 

to implement the old growth standard (USDA Forest Service 1991). That letter provided very 

detailed instructions on the process to use for the identification and allocation of old growth 

stands. Using that information, the staff on the seven ranger districts went through a 

comprehensive exercise to inventory, map and allocate old growth stands for retention. At the 

time the 1987 Forest Plan was developed, it was believed that retaining 10 percent of the 

forested land on the IPNF as old growth would suffice to provide enough habitat to support 

minimum viable populations of wildlife species that were solely dependent upon old growth for 

their existence (USDA Forest Service 1987 (page IV-56) and USDA Forest Service 1983. While 

there may be some organisms that are truly dependent upon old growth, to date there are no 

documented cases of species that occur on the IPNF that are known to be solely dependent upon 

old growth stands.

While the IPNF has not removed old growth stands through harvesting for many years, the 1987 

Forest Plan does allow it under certain circumstances. Given that the 1987 Forest Plan requires 

10 percent of the forested land be maintained for old growth, and that the current inventory 

indicates that there is at least 10.8 percent (using the stand level map inventory) of old growth on 

the Forest, then theoretically the existing Forest Plan would allow the harvest of approximately 

18,000 acres of old growth.

Regarding snags, one forestwide standard exists (item 7b, page II-28) for snag retention to 

provide habitat for cavity nesting species and one standard exists for the retention of large woody 

debris (forestwide standard 2, page II-33) for the maintenance of soil productivity. With one 

exception, individual MA prescriptions do not provide any specific direction on forest structure. 

The exception is that within the MA that contains lands suitable for timber production, the 

amount of stands to be retained for old growth is specified.

As described in a number of the 1987 Forest Plan components as well as the final EIS for that 

Plan, activities related to timber management (e.g., timber harvesting, tree planting, precommercial tree thinning) were envisioned as the primary means that would be used to 

encourage species diversity, create stands dominated by seral species, and minimize damage 

from insects and disease. Specifically, the 1987 Forest Plan indicated that timber management 

activities would be the primary mechanism to influence the structure of the Forest. For forest 

lands identified as suitable for timber production, the objective was to manage those timber 

stands (with the exception of some old growth stands) with a rotation age of 80 to 100 years (i.e., 

the stands would be regenerated by a harvest at an interval of between 80 and 100 years). 

Although most of the MA prescriptions in the Plan allowed the use of natural, unplanned 

ignitions to help achieve Forest Plan goals and objectives, that tool has seldom been used since 

the Plan was adopted.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 99

In addition to the direction described above that is only applicable to Alternative A, the following 

Plan direction is common to all alternatives and could potentially affect forest composition and 

structure. The “retained existing Forest Plan direction” (see chapter 1 and appendix B in the 

revised Plan for more information on this direction) in the revised Forest Plan that could 

potentially affect the forest composition and structure includes the INFISH (USDA Forest 

Service 1995), Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) (USDA Forest Service 

2007 March), and the Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones (USDA Forest Service 2011b and 2011c). All of this direction 

influences where vegetation management treatments can occur and/or what kind of treatments 

can be used. This includes the use of planned ignitions as well as natural, unplanned ignitions 

that are managed to meet multiple resource objectives.

Action Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D contain forestwide goals (Goal-01) and desired conditions for 

both forest composition (FW-DC-VEG-01) and structure (FW-DC-VEG-02, 03, 04, 07, and 08). 

Desired forest composition and structure conditions are also provided for each of the three 

biophysical settings. Additional desired conditions for forest composition and structure are 

provided at the geographic area scale to address unique condition for individual GAs.

These alternatives also have forestwide objectives (FW-OBJ-VEG-01), standards (FW-STDVEG-01, 02) and guidelines (FW-GDL-VEG-01, 02, 03, 04, 05, and 06) designed to move 

vegetation towards desired conditions.

These alternatives contain direction as to the desired role that fire (both planned and natural,

unplanned ignitions) would have in affecting the forest composition and structure. For example, 

at the forestwide scale, a desired condition (FW-DC-FIRE-03) and two objectives (FW-OBJFIRE-01, 02) emphasize the desire to have fire play an increased role in trending the vegetation 

towards the desired conditions. In addition, many of the individual MAs contain similar direction 

on the role of fire.

As discussed above under the no-action alternative, the applicable “Retained Existing Forest 

Plan Direction” contains direction that will influence management of forest composition and 

structure.

The old growth direction for these action alternatives is very different than it is for the NoAction alternative. For example, in contrast to the No-Action alternative, the action alternatives 

would not allow the removal (i.e., modifying the old growth stand characteristics to the degree 

that it no longer meets the old growth definition) of old growth stands through timber harvesting 

(see FW-STD-VEG-01). Rather, as opposed to the No-Action alternative, these action 

alternatives include direction (see FW-DC-VEG-03) to increase the amount of old growth on the 

Forest and to emphasize the development of the types of old growth that would be most resistant 

and resilient towards forest insects and diseases, wildfires, drought and other potential stressors 

such as climate change (e.g., ponderosa pine, western larch, western white pine and whitebark 

pine). Another difference between the 1987 Forest Plan and the action alternatives is that the 

action alternatives acknowledge that some management activities such as thinning and/or use of 

prescribed fire, could be used in certain old growth stands under certain circumstances to 

increase the resistance and/or resiliency of the stands to undesirable disturbances, such as stand 

replacing wildfire events or insect epidemics (see FW-GDL-VEG-01). The action alternatives 

recognize the tremendous ecological and social importance of ancient cedar groves (which are a 

special category of old growth). Unlike the 1987 Forest Plan, the action alternatives would not 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

100 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

allow reducing these ancient cedar groves through harvesting or conducting other vegetation 

management activities in them (see FW-STD-VEG-02).

Regarding direction in the action alternatives that relates to road construction and old growth, the 

action alternatives contain more stringent direction that does the no-action alternative. The 1987 

Forest Plan contains direction (Standard 10, item i) indicating that road construction should be 

avoided in old growth stands if doing so would be in conflict with the direction regarding the 

size of old growth stands. However, the action alternatives contain more limiting direction (see 

FW-GDL-VEG-02) that indicates that no temporary or permanent road construction or other 

developments would occur in old growth stands unless the road construction was needed to 

implement activities that were designed to increase the resistance and/or resilience of the stands 

to disturbances.

General Effects

Vegetation management activities for each alternative were formulated by considering the MAs,

land suitability, multiple-use objectives, and the management requirements set forth in NFMA. 

The type and amount of vegetation management and the effect on vegetation composition and 

size classes was modeled using both SIMPPLLE and Spectrum. See appendix B of this EIS for a 

description of these models and Chew (2012), Henderson (2013) and Ecosystem Research Group 

(2012) for detailed information on methodology. The SIMPPLLE model was primarily used to 

predict how the forest vegetation would change over time given forest succession, disturbances 

(wildfire and insects and diseases) and the management activities (prescribed burning and 

various timber harvesting treatments) that were anticipated under the various alternatives. 

SIMPPLLE predicted how much wildfire would occur in the future given the current condition 

of the forest vegetation, the effect of the climate becoming warming and drier during the fire 

season, the impact of certain insects and diseases and the effect of management activities.

Among other things, Spectrum was used to determine how well the changes to the forest 

conditions would or would not meet the desired conditions given the different management 

emphasis for each alternative. Using Spectrum, a specific model was developed for each 

alternative, with management actions and objective functions varying based on the theme of the 

alternative. Alternative A was run with an objective to maximize timber production while 

Alternatives B Modified and C had objectives to move towards the desired forest composition 

(Dominance Groups) and structure (size classes) as quickly as possible, while meeting other 

resource constraints. Alternative D had an objective function to maximize timber and then to 

move towards the desired condition for vegetation. All solutions were finally run with an 

objective to maximize present net value to ensure economic efficiency in vegetation treatments.

The Spectrum models included management actions for timber harvest and prescribed burning 

(except in Alternative A). Prescribed burning was not included in Alternative A because it had no 

objective to move towards vegetation desired conditions. The models also included the amount 

of stand-replacing wildfire that was predicted from SIMPPLLE – approximately 40,000 acres 

per decade. For all of the forested areas, including where timber harvest or prescribed burning 

occurred as well as where those activities did not occur the models simulated general tree growth 

and mortality processes.

Several outputs were tracked by the Spectrum models, including dominance groups, size classes, 

snag density, fire and insect hazard, and carbon sequestration. Dominance groups and size 

classes were included as objectives for management while the other outputs were merely 

reported by the models.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 101

The Spectrum model for each alternative was run twice. First it was run with a budget constraint, 

limiting timber harvest activities to what could be funded under current budget levels. The model 

was then run without a budget constraint to determine the amount of active management 

activities that could take place, given unlimited funds while meeting other resource constraints.

Several constraints were included in the Spectrum model to provide for other resource 

management concerns, operational limits, and NFMA requirements. See appendix B for a 

complete discussion of the model components.

Throughout this section, Spectrum results are shown for each alternative and when appropriate, 

SIMPPLLE results are summarized. Regarding Spectrum, it is important to note there are several 

limitations with the model. The model shows predicted changes given a set of assumptions, 

including the amount of stand-replacing wildfire and the effect of root disease on tree growth and 

mortality. The actual amount of stand-replacing wildfire and the amount and impact of root 

disease may be different from that modeled. Other natural disturbance, such as blowdown and 

drought were not included in the model. The model results are useful for understanding 

differences in alternatives and general trends in vegetation. Model results are not objectives for 

plan implementation but merely indicators of how vegetation may change over time based on 

management activities, an anticipated amount of disturbances (e.g., wildfire), and general forest 

successional processes. Results vary by alternative based on MA allocation, the theme of the 

alternative, and management intensity. For the remainder of the discussions regarding the 

Spectrum modeling results, the phrases “active management” or “actively managed” are used to 

denote acres that were simulated by the models to have either timber harvest or prescribed 

burning activities conducted on them.

Table 16 displays the estimated acres and the percent of the total acreage that were predicted to 

be actively managed during the first decade for each alternative and under both the constrained 

and unconstrained budget scenario.

Table 16. Estimated Amount of Forested Vegetation that would be Actively Managed by Alternative 

and Budget Scenario

Alternative and Budget 

Scenario

Acres of Forest Vegetation 

Management During First 

Decade

Percent of Total Acreage on 

the IPNF that would have 

Forest Vegetation 

Management During First 

Decade

A – without budget constraint 55,370 2.2

A – with budget constraint 48,670 1.9

B Modified – without budget 

constraint

141,900 5.7

B Modified – with budget 

constraint

94,670 3.8

C – without budget constraint 131,950 5.3

C – with budget constraint 110,320 4.4

D – without budget constraint 107,900 4.3

D – with budget constraint 79,120 3.2
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

102 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 16 shows that without a budget constraint Alternative B Modified would actively manage 

slightly more acres than would Alternative C, and substantially more than either A or D. With a 

constrained budget, Alternative C would actively manage slightly more acres than would 

Alternative B Modified, and a substantial more acreage than either Alternatives A or D.

Alternative A does the least amount of vegetation management. The model for Alternative A did 

not include prescribed burning as a vegetation management activity, since the model had no 

objective to move towards vegetation desired conditions.

Table 17 illustrates the change to forest composition (indicated by the distribution of dominance 

groups) by alternative over the next five decades. The table includes the change needed from 

current conditions in order to be within the range for desired conditions. Acres by alternative 

include changes for all forested acres; both those that had timber harvest or prescribed burning 

activities, and those that did not.

Table 17 indicates some of the dominance groups are moving towards desired conditions while 

others are not. Those moving towards desired conditions under both budget scenarios include 

ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, grand fir/cedar/hemlock mix, and white pine. Generally, those 

dominance groups that are predicted to move towards the desired conditions do so to a much 

greater degree without a constrained budget than they do so under a constrained budget. Those 

dominance groups that are predicted to move away from desired conditions under both budget 

scenarios include subalpine fir mix, and to a much lesser degree, Douglas-fir and western larch.

Under a constrained budget, fewer acres are actively managed and less progress is made in 

moving towards desired conditions. Alternative D would trend slightly more of the dominance 

groups towards the desired conditions and to a greater degree than would Alternative B Modified 

under both budget scenarios. Alternatives A and C would not trend the dominance groups toward 

the desired conditions as much as would Alternative B Modified or Alternative D.

Table 17. Change in Acres by Dominance Group by Alternative over the next 50 Years

Dominance Group Minimum Change 

needed to be within 

Desired Condition

Range

Alt A 1 Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Results with Unconstrained Budget

Ponderosa Pine +83,500 +23,214 +23,392 +21,931 +25,072

Douglas-fir Within 2 +47,147 +38,431 +40,302 +39,967

Lodgepole Pine -126,500 -89,333 -82,517 -81,363 -90,746

Western Larch +121,700 -4,635 -6,312 -5,758 -4,175

Grand Fir/Cedar/ 

Hemlock mix

-512,900 -174,568 -166,226 -157,244 -201,115

White Pine +431,900 +181,930 +188,825 +175,919 +219,511

Subalpine Fir mix -83,500 +48,153 +42,822 +43,312 +45,473

Results with Constrained Budget

Ponderosa Pine +83,500 +21,511 +19,778 +19,790 +20,557

Douglas-fir Within 2 +53,499 +48,858 +48,684 +48,579

Lodgepole Pine -126,500 -89,276 -82,543 -82,125 -82,372

Western Larch +121,700 -4,147 -904 -1,622 -1,907
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 103

Dominance Group Minimum Change 

needed to be within 

Desired Condition

Range

Alt A 1 Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Results with Unconstrained Budget

Grand Fir/Cedar/ 

Hemlock mix

-512,900 -25,989 -45,431 -44,829 -50,912

White Pine +431,900 +28,911 +48,691 +48,185 +54,190

Subalpine Fir mix -83,500 +47,547 +45,879 +46,129 +46,057

1 Alternative A does not have an objective to manage for vegetation desired condition. Numbers reported are results 

only, and not a desired outcome from the model.

2 Douglas-fir is currently within the desired condition range. To stay within the range, there should be no more than a 

272,100 acre reduction or no more than a 38,100 acre increase in Douglas-fir.

As noted above, three dominance groups are either not moving towards vegetation desired or 

moved outside of the desired range over the 50-year simulation period. The subalpine mix and 

western larch are moving away from desired conditions while Douglas-fir is currently in the 

desired range, but is predicted to move outside of the desired range to a small degree. In 

addition, even the dominance groups that are trending toward the desired conditions are 

generally not moving towards those conditions very substantially, especially given the long 50-

year simulation period and the likely scenario that budgets will indeed be constrained. There are 

two key reasons for these general modeling results. First, a large portion of the Forest is not 

being actively managed in the model simulations because only 36-39 percent (depending upon 

alternative) of the forested acreage has been determined to be suitable for timber production, and 

even those acres have various resource constraints placed upon them that limit the frequency and 

intensity of the treatments (see the management constraint section of appendix B for more 

details). Thus, even under the assumption of an unconstrained budget very little of the forested 

area gets actively managed and therefore there is very limited opportunity to use management 

tools (i.e., timber harvest or prescribed fire) to trend the vegetation towards desired conditions. 

For example, as shown in table 16, during the first decade only about two to six percent 

(depending upon alternative and budget scenario) of the forested area is actively managed.

The second reason that the models are not predicting more progress towards achieving the 

desired condition for the dominance groups has to with the lack of enough fire disturbance on the 

landscape that would beneficially affect the dominance groups. Even though the SIMPPLLE 

model predicts a substantial amount of wildfire will occur in the future (e.g., approximately 

40,000 acres/decade of stand replacing fire), it is not enough to have a substantial beneficial 

impact at the scale of the entire IPNF in regards to the dominance groups.

In the absence of fire or active management, most of the changes in species composition over 

time would be in the opposite direction from what is desired. In general, the desired trend is to 

obtain more forests dominated by early seral, shade-intolerant species (e.g., western larch, 

ponderosa pine, white pine, and white bark pine), yet without either active management (harvest 

and/or prescribe burning) or wildfires, the current trend of the forest becoming more and more 

dominated by shade-tolerant, mid-to late-seral tree species (e.g., Douglas-fir, grand fir, western 

hemlock, cedar, and subalpine fir) will continue. If more wildfire were to actually occur than was 

simulated in the models, then it is likely that it would improve the trajectory more towards the 

desired dominance groups.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

104 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Broadleaved tree species (e.g., red alder, water birch, paper birch, quaking aspen, and black 

cottonwood) dominate relatively few forest stands on the IPNF (approximately 0.3 percent). 

These species were not included in the modeling and thus no quantitative estimates are provided 

as to how they may increase or decrease in abundance under the different alternatives. However, 

some general qualitative trends can be predicted based on the knowledge of the silvics1 of these 

trees along with an understanding of how the predicted amounts of active management and 

wildfires may impact the species. All of these broadleaved species can be characterized as being 

intolerant or very intolerant of shade, and of being early seral or pioneer species (Burns and 

Honkala 1990). With one exception (black cottonwood) these species live relatively short lives. 

All of these species are dependent upon disturbances to regenerate themselves. It could be 

wildfire, prescribed burning, timber harvesting, riparian flooding, or another type of disturbance 

that provides growing space and suitable conditions for the establishment and growth of these 

trees. Historically, wildfire was probably the most important disturbance agent in perpetuating 

these species on upland sites, while a combination of wildfires, blow down, and flooding were 

likely the most important in the riparian areas. Without active management or substantial 

amounts of fire, it is expected that these broadleaved species will continue to decrease in 

abundance. Without a budget constraint, Alternative B Modified would likely have the most 

beneficial effect on increasing the broadleaved tree species with Alternative C ranked second. 

Under a budget constraint, Alternative C would have the largest impact towards the desired 

condition with Alternative B Modified ranked second. Alternatives A and D would have much 

less of a positive impact under both budget scenarios.

As described in the “Affected Environment” section, whitebark pine occurs over a small 

percentage of the Forest (approximately 1.2 percent) and this species has been declining in 

abundance due to bark beetles, blister rust, and fire exclusion. Although an attempt was made to 

model how the habitat (i.e., amount of suitable habitat for regeneration of whitebark pine) for 

whitebark pine might change over time under the alternatives and budget scenarios, results from 

the modeling were somewhat inconclusive (Ecosystem Research Group (2012). However, it 

seems that the amount of area that is suitable for the regeneration of whitebark pine is predicted 

to increase in the future as more wildfires burn in the higher elevations where potential habitat 

occurs. Aside from the modeling effort, all of the Action Alternatives contain direction that 

would encourage restoration activities to occur for this species. Obviously, more active 

management would occur without a budget constraint than it would if budgets were constrained. 

Since Alternative A does not contain management direction that encourages whitebark pine 

restoration activities, that alternative would have the least potential for activities to occur that 

would benefit that species.

Table 18 illustrates the change to forest structure (indicated by the distribution of size classes) by 

alternative over the next five decades as well as the change needed from current conditions in 

order to be within the range for desired conditions. Acres by alternative include changes for all 

acres, including lands that are actively managed and those that are not.

 1 Silvics is known as the study of the life history and general characteristics of forest trees and stands, with 

particular reference to environmental factors.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 105

Table 18. Change in Acres by Size Class by Alternative over the next 50 Years

Size Class Minimum Change needed 

to be within Desired 

Condition Range

Alt A 1 Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Results with Unconstrained Budget

Seedling/sapling +143,100 -115,559 -126,166 -126,731 -123,118

Small -167,000 +561,656 +515,446 +508,838 +506,363

Medium -190,900 -403,354 -408,103 -398,289 -385,327

Large/Very large Within 2 -10,836 +54,243 +51,566 +34,730

Results with Constrained Budget

Seedling/sapling +143,100 -114,415 -122,954 -128,564 -121,102

Small -167,000 +450,190 +441,395 +445,284 +428,940

Medium -190,900 -386,954 -386,261 -391,681 -379,018

Large/Very large Within 2 +83,235 +102,149 +109,175 +105,372

1 Alternative A does not have an objective to manage for vegetation desired condition. Numbers reported are results 

only, and not a desired outcome from the model.

2 The large/very large size class is within the desired range. If more than 71,600 acres are lost or more than 664,100 

acres added, this size class will no longer be within the desired range.

Table 18 indicates the seedling/sapling size class is moving in the wrong direction for desired 

condition, with a decrease in acres under all alternatives and for both budget scenarios. This is 

because of the relatively small amount of active management that is predicted to occur that 

would create this size class, as well as the lack of enough wildfire to have a meaningful effect at 

the scale of the entire Forest. Although the model simulations predict a substantial increase in the 

amount of wildfire in the coming decades compared to the recent past, there is still not enough 

acres burning, nor active management occurring that creates young, early-seral stands in the 

seedling/sapling size class.

With the unconstrained budget scenario, Alternative B Modified is slightly better in trending the 

vegetation towards the desired condition for size class as compared to the other alternatives. 

Under that unconstrained budget scenario, Alternative B Modified increases the amount of the 

large/very large size class the most as well as decreasing the amount of the medium size classboth of which are desired. In comparison, with the constrained budget scenario, Alternatives C

and D do a slightly better job at trending the vegetation towards the desired size class 

distribution than do the other alternatives.

As noted in the affected environment section, the SIMPPLLE and Spectrum model simulations 

were used to predict how much of the forested vegetation may be similar in structure to old 

growth stands in the future. The results of the simulations are presented in table 19. The results 

show that for all alternatives and budget scenarios the amount of acres in the very large size class 

is predicted to increase substantially in the next 50 years. As noted earlier, the very large size 

class in the model simulations represents stands that are dominated by trees 20” in diameter or 

greater. Therefore, those estimates can be used to provide a rough estimate of how many acres 

may have similar characteristics to old growth stands in the future given all the predictions and 

assumptions built into the model simulations regarding wildfire, insects and diseases, future 

climate change (i.e., the modeling assumed a warmer/drier scenario from decade 3 to 5), and the 

amount of active management that is anticipated to occur for each alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

106 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Despite the relatively large amount of the forest that is predicted to have stand replacing type 

wildfires during the next 50 years (approximately 200,000 acres total or 40,000/decade) and the 

insect and disease impacts, the model simulations still predict substantial increases in the amount 

of the forest in the very large size class in the future. As illustrated in table 19, Alternative B 

Modified is predicted to increase the amount of forest in the very large size class more than the 

other alternatives, and it does so under both the constrained and unconstrained budget scenarios.

Table 19. Change in Acres of Very Large Size Class over the next 50 years, by Alternative and 

Budget Scenario

Budget Scenario Alt. A Alt. B Mod. Alt. C Alt. D

Unconstrained + 184,648 + 212,658 + 206,467 + 139,029

Constrained + 239,365 + 246,827 + 243,194 + 243,450

As previously noted, if more stand-replacing wildfire occurs than was modeled, there may be a 

more desirable overall improvement in the movement of size classes towards desired conditions. 

With a small amount of forested vegetation actively managed with either regeneration harvest or 

simulated wildfires, only a small portion of the Forest is converted to the seedling/sapling size 

class. This in turn affects the amount of acres in small size classes, resulting in levels below 

desired condition while the large and very large size classes see great increases.

In addition to using size classes to describe how forest structure may change over time as a result 

of implementing the various alternatives, the snag component of forest structure was also 

analyzed using the Spectrum model. A forest growth simulation model called, forest vegetation 

simulator, was used to predict tree growth, mortality and yield attributes for the Spectrum model 

(see appendix B). Snags were one of the many items estimated by the forest vegetation simulator 

and incorporated into the Spectrum model. The amount of snags by density class was reported by 

the Spectrum model. Amounts of snags were a result of management (or no management) 

actions. There were no constraints or objectives to manage for certain levels of snags in the 

model.

The “Affected Environment” section provides detailed information about the existing and 

desired snag quantities and sizes. Table 20 contains information on predicted changes during the 

next five decades to snag densities and sizes as a result of implementing the various alternatives. 

All alternatives show an increase in the percentage of acres that have the highest number of 

snags per acre (both the 10-20 inch diameter snags as well as the 20 inch plus diameter snags). 

All action alternatives and budget scenarios would meet or exceed the standards and guidelines 

for snags.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 107

Table 20. Percent of the Total Forested Acres that occur in each Snag Density and Size Class at Decade 1 and 5, and the Percent Change during that 

Period for each Alternative

Snag 

Size 

Class

Snag 

Density 

Class- # 

snags/

acre

Alternative A Alternative B Modified Alternative C Alternative D

Percent of Total 

Forested Acres

Percent 

Change

Percent of Total 

Forested Acres

Percent 

Change

Percent of Total 

Forested Acres

Percent 

Change

Percent of Total 

Forested Acres

Percent 

Change

Decade 

1

Decade 

5

Decade 

1

Decade 

5

Decade 

1

Decade 

5

Decade 

1

Decade 

5

Unconstrained Budget

Snags 

10-20”

DBH 

0-5.9 15 9 -6 15 8 -7 15 8 -7 15 9 -6

6-9.9 6 11 5 6 12 6 6 11 5 6 11 5

10+ 79 80 1 79 80 1 79 81 2 79 80 1

Snags 

20”+ 

DBH 

0-0.9 18 13 -5 18 14 -4 18 15 -3 18 14 -4

1-3.9 61 35 -26 60 33 -27 61 33 -28 61 35 -26

4+ 21 52 31 22 52 30 22 53 31 21 51 30

Constrained Budget

Snag

s 10-

20”

DBH

0-5.9 15 5 -10 15 5 -10 15 6 -9 15 5 -10

6-9.9 6 12 6 6 9 3 6 8 2 6 10 4

10+ 79 83 4 79 86 7 79 86 7 79 85 6

Snag

s 

20”+ 

DBH 

0-0.9 18 13 -5 18 11 -7 18 13 -5 18 14 -4

1-3.9 61 30 -31 61 28 -33 61 31 -30 61 30 -31

4+ 21 56 35 22 61 39 22 55 33 22 56 34
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

108 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Landscape Pattern

Management Direction

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

The existing Forest Plan contains minimal direction on the desired landscape pattern for forest 

vegetation. One forestwide objective (item t, p II-11) discusses “breaking up” large areas of 

forest that have a single age class through the use of timber harvest in order to reduce bark beetle 

outbreaks, and two forestwide standards (items 7 and 8, p II-32) talk about forest opening sizes 

and generally keeping them 40 acres or less in size. Individual MA descriptions do not provide 

any additional direction on pattern.

In addition to the direction described above that is only applicable to Alternative A, the following 

Plan direction is common to all alternatives and could potentially affect the landscape pattern of 

forest conditions. The “retained existing Forest Plan direction” in the revised Forest Plan (see 

chapter 1 of this EIS and appendix B in the revised Forest Plan for more information on this 

direction) that could potentially affect landscape pattern includes the INFISH, NRLMD, and the 

Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Zones. When describing the effects that the alternatives would have on landscape patterns, the 

direction mentioned above was considered.

Action Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

All of these action alternatives contain a forestwide goal (Goal-01) and a desired condition (FWDC-VEG-05) on the desired pattern relative to the existing pattern for forest structure and 

composition. In addition, the desired pattern for forest structure and composition is provided for 

each of the three biophysical settings (FW-DC-VEG-11). The desired pattern for hazardous fuels 

is provided in FW-DC-FIRE-02 and the desired pattern for snags is described in FW-DC-VEG07. At the smaller scale (GAs), additional direction is provided on certain aspects of landscape 

pattern (i.e., GA-DC-VEG-CDA-01, GA-DC-VEG-LK-01, and GA-DC-VEG-SJ-01). There is 

also Forest Plan direction related to fire that affects landscape pattern.

General Effects

As discussed previously, past wildfire suppression efforts and timber harvest patterns have 

largely been responsible for creating a pattern of forest conditions (e.g., size class, species 

composition, stand structure, and density) different from historical patterns. The current pattern 

is more susceptible to some insects, diseases, and wildfire disturbances. Forest patches 

dominated by the smallest-sized trees, as well as patches dominated by the largest trees, have 

decreased substantially in size relative to historical conditions. On the other hand, patches of 

forest dominated by trees of moderate size have become much larger. Across all size classes and 

fuel conditions the continuity of stand structures has increased and become more homogenized at 

the landscape scale.

Alternative A does not contain direction to provide for improved landscape pattern. Under the 

direction of the current Forest Plan it is assumed that regeneration harvest treatments will 

continue to be relatively small in size, that commercial thinning treatments would only occur 

over small-to moderate-size areas, and that almost all wildfires would be suppressed, or an 

attempt made at suppression. As previously discussed, all of the alternatives would be expected 

to have a substantial number of acres burn from wildfires despite suppression efforts. Therefore, 

wildfires are likely to have beneficial effects in the landscape pattern for all the alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 109

Alternative A would likely have the least beneficial effect on the pattern of size classes on the 

landscape (relative to the desired conditions). The patch size of the seed/sap size class would not 

increase and the patch size of the small/medium size classes would not decrease. Although there 

are exceptions, a relatively high percentage of the large patches of forest that are dominated by 

stands in the small/medium size classes are located in MAs that either exclude the use of 

commercial timber harvesting or de-emphasize it. Therefore, without the use of prescribed 

burning at a large scale, or the use of natural, unplanned ignitions in those areas to break up the 

continuity of fuels and stand structures, these large patches of forests dominated by medium size 

trees will not be reduced as desired (unless burned via a wildfire). As discussed in more detail in 

the section about resistance and resiliency to disturbances, the ramifications of the predicted 

trends for landscape pattern include a greater likelihood that some disturbances such as wildfires 

and bark beetles may become larger and/or more intense in the future due to the connectivity of 

some of these forest conditions.

Under the action alternatives, management direction for landscape pattern is anticipated to lead 

to improvements in the pattern of forest vegetation on the landscape. The amount of 

improvement in landscape pattern is directly related to the amount of active or passive vegetation 

management that will occur. Without a budget constraint Alternative B Modified would actively 

manage slightly more acres than would Alternative C, and substantially more than either A or D.

With a constrained budget, Alternative C would actively manage slightly more acres than would 

Alternative B Modified, and a substantial more acreage than either Alternatives A or D. 

Alternative A does the least amount of vegetation management.

Resistance and Resiliency to Disturbances and Stress Agents

Management Direction

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

The 1987 Forest Plan does not contain any explicit direction regarding the management of the 

Forest for a goal or objective of maintaining or improving the resistance and/or the resiliency of 

the forest vegetation to disturbances and other forest stressors. However, through several Plan 

components, the Plan does portray the intent to protect the timber resource from insect, disease, 

and/or wildfire-caused damage. The 1987 Plan contains one forestwide goal (#24, p II-2), two 

forestwide objectives (items l, p II-8 and t, II-10), and several forestwide standards (item #4, p 

II-32, item #1, p II-38, and item #2, p II-39) that express expectations of keeping the damage to 

the Forest from insects/disease and or wildfire to an acceptable amount. In addition, there is one 

forestwide standard (#2e, p II-38) that indicates that fire suppression response for designated old 

growth stands shall be intended to prevent the loss of the old growth.

For Alternative A (as well as the other alternatives) the “retained existing Forest Plan direction” 

that has been previously discussed could affect this issue, and therefore, it was considered in the 

following analysis. As was done with other topics, some of the effects of this direction could be 

predicted with modeling, while other effects were addressed qualitatively.

Action Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

These Action Alternatives all contain Forest Plan direction regarding the need and desire to 

increase the resistance and resiliency of forest conditions to disturbances and stressors. For 

example, forestwide vegetation and fire goals (Goal-01) and desired conditions (FW-DC-VEG01, 03, 04, 05, 06, 11, FW-DC-FIRE-02, 03) articulate the need and vision for managing the 

Forests towards that overall goal. Forestwide vegetation and fire objectives (FW-OBJ-VEG-01, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

110 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

FW-OBJ-FIRE-01) and guidelines (FW-GDL-VEG-01, 02) contain additional direction and 

guidance regarding resistance and resiliency.

As discussed above in the “Management Direction” section for Alternative A, some of the 

“retained existing Forest Plan direction” was considered for these alternatives as well.

General Effects

Forest conditions on the IPNF are currently quite different from the range of historical conditions 

with regard to composition, structure, landscape pattern, and ecological processes. Consequently, 

the Forests are predisposed to new levels and types of stress agents and disturbances. Combined 

with the possible effects of climate change (discussed in more detail in the “Cumulative Effects” 

section), the current conditions are not desirable.

The resistance and resiliency of a forest to stress agents and disturbances is largely a function of 

the composition, structure (including density) and landscape pattern of forest conditions, and 

how those elements interact together. Both quantitative and qualitative information is utilized to 

assess how susceptible the forest may be to the various key stress agents.

The forest vegetation simulator was used to model bark beetles, defoliating insects, and wildfire 

risk. These attributes were included in the growth and yield tables in the Spectrum model and 

reported for each run (see appendix B and Vandendriesche (2005) for more information on the 

forest vegetation simulator and Spectrum modeling). Other important disturbances or stressors 

that could potentially affect the alternatives, such as root diseases, white pine blister rust, and 

weather (e.g., drought, wind, and snow/ice) were addressed qualitatively.

Table 21 displays the Spectrum results for fire, bark beetle, and budworm hazard ratings for each 

alternative. The table shows current percent of the Forest by hazard rating and percent change in 

ratings from decade 1 to decade 5.

Table 21. Percent of Total Forested Acres of Fire, Bark Beetle, and Defoliator Hazard Rating at 

Decade 1, and the Change between Decade 1 and Decade 5, by Alternative

Hazard Type Hazard Rating Decade 1- % of 

Total Acres

Percent Increase or Decrease of Total Acres 

from Decade 1 to Decade 5

Alt. A Alt. B

Modified

Alt. C Alt. D

Results with Unconstrained Budget

Fire Low/Moderate 3% 15% 21% 20% 19%

High/Very 

High/Extreme

97% -15% -21% -21% -19%

Bark Beetles Low 2% 7% 7% 7% 7%

Moderate 93% -10% -9% -9% -11%

High 5% 4% 2% 2% 4%

Defoliators Low 6% 4% 5% 4% 4%

Moderate 32% -10% -6% -6% -6%

High 62% 6% 1% 2% 2%

Results with Constrained Budget

Fire Low/Moderate 3% 11% 13% 13% 13%

High/Very 97% -11% -13% -13% -13%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 111

Hazard Type Hazard Rating Decade 1- % of 

Total Acres

Percent Increase or Decrease of Total Acres 

from Decade 1 to Decade 5

Alt. A Alt. B

Modified

Alt. C Alt. D

High/Extreme

Bark Beetles Low 2% 3% 4% 4% 4%

Moderate 93% -6% -6% -6% -6%

High 5% 3% 2% 2% 2%

Defoliators Low 5% -1% 1% 2% 1%

Moderate 32% -11% -9% -10% -8%

High 63% 12% 8% 8% 7%

Fire hazard — As illustrated in table 21, a large percentage of the total forested acres on the 

IPNF are rated as having a high, very high, or extreme fire hazard. This is decreased somewhat 

over the first five decades. Timber harvest and prescribed burning reduces the fire hazard in 

stands. However, even though the results in table 21 show a reduction in the percentage of the 

Forest in the combined high, very high and extreme hazard classes, the amount of Forest in the 

extreme class goes up substantially over time. This is a result of the acres in the high and very 

high categories having a tendency to move into the extreme category. Alternatives with the most 

passive and active management will have the greatest impact on reducing the trend of increasing 

the amount of the Forest in the extreme category. Alternatives B Modified and C reduce fire 

hazard the most and Alternative A the least. This is because Alternatives B Modified and C have 

the most acres of active and passive management while Alternative A has the least amount of 

active management and does not include prescribed burning. Relative to the constrained budget 

scenario, the unconstrained budget scenario would result in a greater reduction in the higher 

hazard levels for all alternatives.

After the draft Forest Plan and DEIS was released to the public, some additional modeling was 

conducted using SIMPPLLE to determine how much and what kind of wildfire might occur on 

the IPNF in the next 5 decades (Ecosystem Research Group 2012, Chew 2012). The complete 

modeling and analysis was done for a no-action alternative (no active management at all), and 

for Alternative B Modified with and without budget constraints. The results and methodology are 

explained at length in the reports by the Ecosystem Research Group (2012) and Chew (2012). 

The summary is that wildfires will increase substantially across the Forest in the next five 

decades, despite the assumption of continued suppression efforts. However, compared to an 

alternative of not conducting any active treatments (timber harvesting or prescribe burning), 

Alternative B Modified was found to result in a decrease in acres burned and the severity of the 

fires with the most noticeable reduction being to the stand replacing fires, versus the mixed and 

low severity types (Ecosystem Research Group 2012) . The unconstrained budget scenario had a 

larger effect of decreasing the wildfire acres than did the constrained budget.

Bark Beetle Hazard — The bark beetle hazard rating is a hazard rating of tree mortality from the 

spruce beetle, mountain pine beetle, and the Douglas-fir beetle (Vandendriesche 2005). The low, 

moderate, and high hazard rating system was based on risk factors such as tree diameter, stand 

density (basal area), and the percentage of the stand that was a host species. As shown in table 

21, most of the forested acres (93 percent) have a hazard rating of moderate at the beginning of 

decade one. At the unconstrained budget level, all alternatives show a slight increase in both the 

low and high rating over the first five decades. The amount of change is reflective of the amount 

of active and passive management. Alternatives B Modified and C provide for the most 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

112 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

management and thus the least increase in high hazard rating. Alternatives A and D provide the 

least active and passive management, therefore, have a slightly higher increase in the high hazard 

rating.

Defoliator Hazard — The defoliator hazard rating is a hazard rating of tree mortality from the 

western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth (Vandendriesche 2005). The primary 

host trees for these insects are Douglas-fir, grand fir, subalpine fir, and Englemann spruce. As 

illustrated in table 21, most of the forested acres have a hazard rating of moderate (32 percent) or 

high (62 percent) at the beginning of decade 1, while very few acres have a rating of low (6 

percent). Under all alternatives, the proportion of acres with a high or low rating increases by the 

5th decade while the amount in moderate rating decreases. The increase in the high rating is 

largely a function of an increase in tree species that serve as primary hosts to these defoliating 

insects (the more shade-tolerant grand fir, subalpine fir, Englemann spruce, and Douglas-fir) as 

well as the stand structures becoming more conducive to these insects (i.e., denser with more 

canopy layers). Both passive and active management activities reduce the amount of high rating. 

Alternative B Modified has the least and Alternative A the most increase in high defoliator 

hazard ratings.

After the draft Forest Plan and DEIS were released to the public, some additional modeling was 

conducted for bark beetles and a defoliator insect using the SIMPPLLE model (Ecosystem 

Research Group 2012, Chew 2012). The modeling was done for the mountain pine beetle, 

Douglas-fir beetle, and for the western spruce budworm. The results and methodology are 

explained at length in the reports by the Ecosystem Research Group (2012) and Chew (2012). 

The complete modeling and analysis was done for a no-action alternative (no active management 

at all), and for Alternative B Modified with and without budget constraints. To summarize, a 

substantial amount of acreage of the IPNF is expected to be affected by the mountain pine beetle 

(primarily killing lodgepole pine) in the next few decades. From decade 2 through decade 5, 

Alternative B Modified has fewer acres affected by the mountain pine beetle than would an 

alternative that did not actively treat any vegetation. Regarding impacts from either the western 

spruce budworm or the Douglas-fir beetle, the SIMPPLLE modeling did not discern much 

difference in acres impacted between the no-action and Alternative B Modified (Ecosystem 

Research Group 2012).

Root Diseases — Effects of the alternatives on root disease was qualitatively assessed based on 

the anticipated changes to forest composition. Armillaria root disease and annosus and laminated 

root rots are three of the more important root pathogens on the IPNF. Grand fir, Douglas-fir, 

subalpine fir, and the hemlocks (western and mountain) are generally the most susceptible tree 

species, while the more tolerant or resistant are generally ponderosa pine, western larch, western 

white pine, western redcedar, and lodgepole pine.

The change to tree composition over the next 50 years is described above (see table 17 and 

subsequent discussion). The increases predicted in ponderosa pine, larch, and white pine with the 

associated decrease in Douglas-fir will improve conditions and limit root disease. However, the 

predicted increases in the grand fir/cedar/hemlock mix and the subalpine fir mix will increase 

susceptibility to root disease. Those alternatives that do the best job moving vegetation towards 

desired condition (Alternative B Modified, C, and D) will also reduce the amount of acres 

susceptible to root disease.

After the draft Forest Plan and DEIS were released to the public, some additional modeling was 

conducted for root disease using the SIMPPLLE model (Ecosystem Research Group 2012, Chew 

2012). The results and methodology are explained at length in the reports by the Ecosystem 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 113

Research Group (2012) and Chew (2012). The analysis concluded that the acres affected by root 

disease on the IPNF will increase in the future, but that in comparison to an alternative of doing 

no active management, Alternative B Modified would result in fewer acres being impacted 

(Ecosystem Research Group 2012).

White Pine Blister Rust — Management activities to reduce the effects of white pine blister rust 

include; planting of rust resistant western white pine and vegetation management activities in 

whitebark pine stands (thinning, prescribed burning). As described above for tree composition 

(see table 17 and subsequent discussion), Alternative D provides the greatest increase in western 

white pine and Alternative B Modified ranks second. As previously noted, all of the action 

alternatives would improve conditions for white bark pine, especially if there were no budget 

constraints. Alternative A has the least direction to manage to improve these pine species.

Weather, Moisture Stress, and Forest Density — Forest composition, structure, and landscape 

pattern can influence the susceptibility of forest stands to weather related disturbances or 

stressors. Therefore, to the degree that the alternatives influence those forest conditions, they 

also influence the potential stress caused by weather related disturbances.

Droughts are a weather event that often occurs on a decadal basis and serves to stress trees, 

especially those that are drought-intolerant. This in turn can predispose the trees to bark beetle 

attacks and/or root diseases (Hagle et al. 2000, Bentz et al. 2010). Under Alternative A, the 

drought-intolerant species of grand fir, hemlock, cedar, and subalpine fir are expected to increase 

in abundance. Therefore, in the future when droughts do occur, the Forests are likely to exhibit 

increased signs and symptoms of this stress. Alternatives B Modified and C provide the most 

active and passive management to reduce the amount of these species and replace them with 

more drought-tolerant species, such as ponderosa pine, larch, and white pine. As discussed in the 

“Affected Environment” section, the density of a forest affects the moisture stress that trees are 

under and influences their susceptibility to mortality from a number of insect and diseases. 

Through both active and passive management, Alternatives B Modified and C would reduce the 

forest density more towards the desired condition than would the other alternatives.

Snow and/or ice accumulations and wind are other weather events to which certain species and 

forest structures are susceptible. A substantial amount of blowdown and/or stem breakage can 

precipitate bark beetle outbreaks, increase surface fuel loadings, and elevate fire hazards. In 

general, the most susceptible species and stand structures are predicted to increase under 

Alternative A. Alternatives B Modified and C provide the most active and passive management 

and increase the species that are less susceptible to windthrow.

Carbon Sequestration

Management Direction

All Alternatives

The effect of management activities on the ability of forest vegetation to sequester carbon was 

not an issue or analysis item that was included in the 1987 Forest Plan; therefore, Alternative A 

does not include any management direction on this item. Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, 

indirectly give carbon sequestration direction by addressing disturbance processes that affect 

sequestration. Management activities can affect the ability of forests to sequester carbon when 

they address relevant disturbance processes. The Forest Plan components that are part of 

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D that were presented above in the “Management Direction” 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

114 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

section of the “Resistance and Resiliency to Disturbances and Stress Agents” topic are relevant 

to carbon sequestration.

General Effects

Carbon sequestration is a measurement of how much carbon is stored on the Forest. Carbon 

sequestration was modeled in Spectrum in three different pools: forest inventory or growing 

stock volume; harvested forest products; and dead forest inventory volume resulting from standreplacing wildfires. For the inventory pool, both non-soil carbon and soil organic carbon were 

taken into account. The harvested forest product is the amount of carbon stored in wood products 

harvested and removed from the forest. This amount diminishes over time. The dead forest 

inventory is the amount of carbon stored in dead timber following a stand-replacing wildfire. 

This amount also decreases over time. See appendix B for more information. Table 22

summarizes the total metric tons of carbon sequestered 50 years from now (in the 5th decade of 

the model).

Table 22. Thousand Metric Tons of Carbon Sequestered in the 5th Decade by Alternative

Alt. A Alt. B

Modified

Alt. C Alt. D

Results with Unconstrained Budget

Carbon sequestered in inventory of forested acres 225,448 224,560 224,988 223,985

Carbon sequestered in wood products 2,316 2,327 2,224 2,426

Carbon sequestered in acres burned by wildfire 1,764 1,706 1,703 1,694

Total Carbon 229,528 228,593 228,915 228,105

Results with Current Budget Level

Carbon sequestered in inventory of forested acres 233,231 232,087 232,113 231,879

Carbon sequestered in wood products 947 887 884 902

Carbon sequestered in acres burned by wildfire 1,767 1,730 1,728 1,736

Total Carbon 235,945 234,704 234,725 234,517

At the unconstrained budget level, Alternatives A and C has the greatest amount of carbon 

sequestration in decade 5. These alternatives contain the highest amount of carbon from standing 

trees because they have fewer acres of regeneration harvest than Alternatives B Modified and D. 

Carbon sequestration is higher under the constrained budget level because fewer acres are 

regeneration harvested. It should be noted the amount of carbon sequestered is very similar for 

all alternatives. This is because of the large inventory (standing trees) on the Forest sequestering 

carbon. This inventory doesn't change much by alternative.

Currently, the IPNF stores approximately 177 million metric tons. For all alternatives, the IPNF 

acts as a carbon sink, sequestering more carbon over time than is lost through natural and human 

disturbance. Alternative A, at the constrained budget level, has the largest addition in carbon 

sequestration storing an additional 23.6 million metric tons over the next 50 years. Alternative D,

at the unconstrained budget level, has the smallest addition in carbon sequestration storing an 

additional 22.8 million metric tons over the next 50 years.

The amount of carbon sequestered may be limited by the vegetation composition. The root 

disease associated with large amounts of the grand fir/cedar/hemlock species group decreases the 

growth potential for these stands, limiting the ability to sequester carbon. If these stands are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 115

converted to white pine and western larch, which is in line with the vegetation desired condition, 

there would be increased carbon sequestration potential on these acres.

Consequences to Forest Vegetation from Forest Plan Components Associated with 

other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

The general effects that the alternatives would have on forest vegetation have been described 

above. That discussion focused on the consequences that would result from implementing the 

Forest Plan components related to forest vegetation. The emphasis in the following discussion is 

on how other (i.e., those not directly related to forest vegetation) Forest Plan components may 

influence forest vegetation and the attainment of the desired conditions.

Effects from Access and Recreation Management

Forest Plan direction for scenery management in the action alternatives (i.e., FW-GDL-AR-01) 

would restrict the type of vegetation treatments that could occur in some areas across the Forest. 

For example, some regeneration methods or other silvicultural practices (i.e., the use of 

prescribed fire or natural, unplanned ignitions) may not be compatible with the scenic integrity 

objectives of High or Very High that are established along scenic travel routes; therefore, those 

components could have a small effect on the ability to reach the desired conditions for forest 

vegetation. The consequences that would result from the no-action alternative as a result of Plan 

components in the 1987 Forest Plan (e.g., forestwide standard #1 under the Visual heading on 

page II-25 of the Plan) are fairly similar to the action alternatives.

Forest Plan direction for management of transportation systems in the action alternatives (i.e., 

FW-DC-AR-07, FW-OBJ-AR-03) may limit vegetation management opportunities. Placing 

roads into intermittent storage or decommissioning roads could increase future costs associated 

with vegetation treatments, and therefore, could have an impact on the economic feasibility of 

these treatments. However, because only a relatively small amount of road 

storage/decommissioning activities are anticipated across the Forest, the effects are minimal.

Public safety issues in developed and undeveloped recreation sites limit the ability to maintain 

the desired snag levels indicated under the action alternatives (i.e., FW-DC-VEG-07 and FWGDL-VEG-04). However, because these recreation areas are generally small in size, the effect of 

not having snags on the ability to meet the forestwide desired conditions is negligible.

Winter recreation trails (primarily the groomed snowmobile routes) and associated Forest Plan 

direction (i.e., FW-OBJ-AR-04) may affect the ability to implement some winter season

vegetation treatments because of a conflicting resource issue such as grizzly bear security or soil 

disturbance concerns. However, these effects are likely very small and do not vary by alternative.

The use of over-snow vehicles off of groomed or ungroomed routes could cause a small, 

insignificant amount of damage to trees or other vegetation that protrudes above the snow. In 

rare instances, the tops of small trees that extend above the snowpack could be damaged from 

over-snow vehicles. However, in most cases this effect would only be noticeable in very small 

areas where the public might concentrate their use of these vehicles. Seldom would the impact 

likely result in any mortality of the trees or shrubs. Rather, this impact could cause very minor 

forking of the damaged trees.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

116 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Effects from Wildlife Management

Measures to protect certain wildlife species limit treatments to move vegetation towards desired 

conditions. Management direction for grizzly bear, lynx, caribou, big game winter range, and elk 

security result in limitations on the timing, type, and amount of vegetation treatments.

Forest Plan direction limits management in grizzly bear management units (BMUs), especially 

within core areas. Timing, frequency, and size of treatments must be considered, thus minimizing 

the amount of acres that can be actively managed. Grizzly Bear Core Areas are not suitable for 

timber production, and timber harvest is limited in these areas. This results in fewer acres that 

can be treated to move vegetation towards desired condition. The effect is similar for all 

alternatives, reducing acres treated to improve vegetation.

With regard to whitebark pine, which is on the Region One sensitive species list and is a 

Candidate species for federal listing under the ESA, a significant percentage of whitebark pine 

sites on the IPNF are located in BMUs. In addition, most of the whitebark pine habitat on the 

IPNF occurs in roadless areas (inventoried roadless areas, wilderness or wilderness study areas). 

In these areas, restoration activities for whitebark pine are logistically and economically 

challenging and often necessitate the use of helicopters and other motorized equipment (i.e.,

using helicopters to ignite prescribed burns or transport workers to plant trees, using chainsaws 

to thin-out other trees species from around existing whitebark pine trees). Because motorized 

equipment can disturb the bears it could be time consuming and expensive to conduct the 

required environmental analysis and consultation with the USFWS in order to conduct a 

whitebark pine restoration project. This could decrease the number and scope of restoration 

projects that might otherwise occur on the Forest.

For lynx, all of the alternatives contain the NRLMD. One substantial impact this direction has on 

the forest vegetation is to limit the ability to pre-commercial thin (or otherwise similarly treat) 

young forest stands. The effect is that in mixed stands, shade-intolerant tree species such as 

western larch may be outcompeted by shade-tolerant species in the absence of natural or mancaused disturbances. Since the shade intolerant tree species are very desirable due to their 

relative resistance to insects, disease, fire, and drought, and because of its long-lived nature, this 

effect is substantial. For whitebark pine, most of the suitable habitat for that tree species on the 

IPNF also occurs in lynx habitat. Depending upon the circumstance, some of the management 

direction for lynx in the NRLMD may impact the ability to conduct restoration activities for 

whitebark pine.

The 1987 Forest Plan contains a standard for caribou habitat (page III-36) to suppress wildfires

to prevent the loss of trees. On the northern portion of the IPNF, the 1987 Plan estimated that the 

habitat was over 117,000 acres in size. Because of the location of the habitat, generally on ridge 

and mountain-tops in remote areas, the area would otherwise form one of the best places to use 

natural, unplanned ignitions for improving other resource conditions. For example, fire would

help trend the subalpine fir- Engelmann spruce dominated stands towards a more desirable 

composition and structure, and would likely help in the restoration of whitebark pine habitat. As 

opposed to Alternative A, which would continue the practice of trying to suppress all unplanned 

ignitions in caribou habitat, the action alternatives would allow for the consideration of the use 

of natural, unplanned ignitions. Therefore, from this standpoint, the Action Alternatives would 

have less impact on the ability to use natural, unplanned ignitions. However, it is still anticipated 

that many of the natural, unplanned ignitions in caribou habitat would still be suppressed due to 

concerns over the loss of key seasonal habitats from a fire. Because whitebark pine restoration 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 117

activities often require the use of fire, the presence of the caribou habitat and management 

direction would likely also have a negative effects on that tree species.

As noted above, management requirements for caribou, lynx, and grizzly bear would have some 

likely impacts on potential restoration efforts of whitebark pine for all alternatives. Even if a 

potential project could be accomplished given the overlapping wildlife management restrictions 

for those federally listed species, the high cost and time required for doing the environmental 

analysis may have the effect of discouraging such projects from taking place, and if they did 

occur, the expense of conducting them would likely take some resources away from some other 

restoration project. While it would be very difficult or impossible to quantify this impact, the 

effect of having habitat for several threatened and endangered wildlife species overlapping most 

the whitebark pine sites would likely result in fewer and smaller restoration projects occurring 

for the whitebark pine on the IPNF.

Another effect on vegetation from revised Forest Plan direction related to wildlife is the desire to 

maintain or provide old growth or stands with old forest structures for terrestrial species 

associated with these habitats. To accomplish this, there may be a need to prevent these stands

from being lost to stand-replacing wildfires. These stands currently tend to be distributed over 

most of the landscapes on the IPNF, and it may be necessary to consider the level of risk to 

stands managed for old growth. By minimizing the loss of these types of stands, one effect to 

vegetation may be that wildfires are suppressed more often, which could reduce the ability to 

achieve other aspects of the vegetation desired condition (such as increasing early-successional 

forests and shade-intolerant tree species). The 1987 Forest Plan contains a forestwide standard 

(item 2e under heading Fire Management, page II-38) that wildfires would be suppressed if there 

was a risk of losing designated old growth (with the possible exception of wilderness areas). 

None of the action alternatives contain this direction. Therefore, wildfires would likely be 

suppressed more often under Alternative A than they would under the other alternatives.

Management for big game winter range limits the amount of openings in these areas. When 

conducting timber harvest in winter range, the timing, silvicultural prescription, and size of 

openings must be consistent with objectives for winter range. In addition, the action alternatives 

contain direction for elk security. That direction not only affects motorized road access during 

hunting season, but it also could restrict the amount of the elk management units that are in an 

open condition in the Coeur d'Alene and St. Joe Geographic Areas. This elk security and big 

game winter range direction causes some limitation on the amount of acres that may be treated 

with timber harvest reducing the ability to move towards vegetation desired condition. These 

effects are similar for all alternatives.

Effects from Fire Management

Fire management using planned and natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives

generally have a positive effect on vegetation condition. Management direction in the revised

Forest Plan emphasizes increased use of both planned and natural, unplanned ignitions to 

improve vegetation conditions. As discussed in the “General Effects” section, fire is generally 

beneficial to vegetation and is an important tool in moving vegetation towards desired condition. 

Compared to Alternative A, all of the Action Alternatives would utilize fire (both prescribed and 

natural, unplanned ignitions) to a much greater degree and that tool would improve the overall 

condition of the forest vegetation.

As described earlier in this document, fire suppression has a large effect on vegetation. In areas 

where wildland fire is suppressed, there will generally be less movement towards vegetation-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

118 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

desired condition. In lands within the WUI and near communities, a continued policy of heavy 

fire suppression will require that mechanical treatment methods be used in order to reduce 

hazardous fuels and trend the vegetation towards desired conditions. This effect is common to all 

alternatives.

Effects from Watershed, Soil, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management

The effects of watershed, soil, riparian and aquatic habitat management on upland forest 

vegetation are generally similar for all alternatives. All alternatives incorporate the direction 

from INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995). They also contain direction to protect watershed 

integrity and soil productivity which can place limitations on how much and where vegetation 

treatment activities may occur as well as whether or not road access is available for mechanical 

treatments. Although it is difficult to quantify the effects, the anticipated result is a limitation on 

the amount of activities that can be undertaken in order to trend the forest vegetation towards 

desired condition.

Effects from Air Quality Management

The consequences to forest vegetation from air quality related Forest Plan direction are the same 

for all alternatives. All alternatives have direction to meet air quality standards established by 

federal and state agencies and to meet the requirements of state implementation plans and smoke 

management plans. This direction limits the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to manage forest 

vegetation by limiting how much can be burned and when and where it can occur. The costs of 

conducting prescribed fires increases as a result of the burning regulations, which affect how

much is burned. Limited use of prescribed fire affects the ability to move vegetation towards 

desired condition under all alternatives.

Conclusion of Effects from the Alternatives on Forest Vegetation

After considering the effects that the various alternatives would have on all of the individual 

components discussed above (e.g., dominance types, size class, landscape pattern, snags, 

insects/diseases), the overall conclusions can be made regarding how the alternatives would 

affect the forest vegetation.

Regardless of the budget scenario, Alternative B Modified would generally trend the forest 

vegetation towards the desired conditions to the greatest degree. Alternative C would trend the 

vegetation towards the desired conditions slightly less than would Alternative B Modified, but 

both Alternatives B modified and C would be more beneficial than would Alternative D. Lastly, 

all of the Action Alternatives would improve the forest vegetation substantially more than would 

Alternative A.

If the IPNF were to receive a level of funding similar to that which would be needed to 

implement the unconstrained budget scenario, then much more progress could be made in 

trending the forest vegetation towards the desired conditions compared to the current budget 

level. Given the assumption that budget levels will remain similar to those that the IPNF has 

received in the recent past (i.e. assuming the constrained budget level), then only a small 

improvement would be made in trending the vegetation towards desired conditions.

Cumulative Effects

The effects that past activities have had on all of the components of forest vegetation (e.g., forest 

composition and structure, landscape pattern, etc.) were discussed in the “Affected 

Environment” section and are reflected in the current condition of the forest vegetation. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 119

Therefore, unless otherwise noted, past activities are not carried forward into the following 

cumulative effects analysis. Present and foreseeable future activities that could affect forest 

vegetation are summarized below:

• National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Initiative, and Healthy Forest Restoration Act: Since 

they were developed, these national level plans, initiatives, and acts (these are called "other 

plans" for the rest of this discussion) have influenced the vegetation and fuel management 

programs on the IPNF. Therefore, they have had some effects on forest vegetation and it is 

anticipated that they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In general, these "other 

plans" have resulted in more hazardous fuel vegetation treatments in the vicinity of WUI 

areas and fewer vegetation treatments in areas located away from communities. In addition, 

the types of fuel treatments that are being done in response to these other plans are often 

more expensive, and the social issues (i.e., effects of treatments on scenery, air quality, noise, 

wildlife viewing, etc.) can be more contentious. Therefore, higher public involvement, 

planning, and implementation expenses are likely to lead to fewer acres being treated within 

a given budget level.

• Northern Region Integrated Restoration and Protection Strategy: The Northern Region 

of the Forest Service has been working on a strategy and decision support model to help 

identify opportunities and priorities for integrated restoration and protection activities 

throughout the Region. This strategy is a component of the larger regional climate change 

adaptation strategy. In the future, this strategy has the potential to influence program level 

decisions on the IPNF by affecting where, when, and how forest vegetation treatments and 

protection activities occur. However, it is premature to speculate what the more specific 

effects may be once this strategy is implemented.

• Conservation Efforts for Whitebark Pine: As discussed in the “Affected Environment” 

section, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently determined that this tree species 

warranted listing as a threatened or endangered species but that it was precluded due to 

higher priority species. The species is now designated as a federal Candidate species and 

Region One has placed the species on the Sensitive Species list. As described in USDA 

Forest Service (2010 September), the forests in the region (including the IPNF), have been 

implementing various restoration efforts for this species and these activities will likely 

continue or intensify (contingent upon funding). If the tree species is eventually listed as a 

federal threatened or endangered species, there could be effects to the vegetation and fire 

management programs on the IPNF. Alternatives B Modified, C, and D contain Forest Plan 

components that stress the desire to increase the abundance and resiliency of this species to 

disturbances and stressors. If listed, there could be additional emphasis placed on restoration 

actions. As described in the “Affected Environment” section, Keane et al. (2012) recently 

published a range-wide restoration strategy for this tree species. Although the IPNF has a 

long history of implementing restoration projects for this tree, the comprehensive restoration 

strategy may have a beneficial impact of encouraging more efforts. However, as previously 

discussed the presence of habitat for wildlife species listed under the ESA make planning 

and implementing activities very difficult.

• Climate Change: Of all of the ongoing and foreseeable future actions that have the potential 

to affect forest vegetation on the IPNF, climate change is likely to be the single most 

important factor. The effects of climate change will likely combine with some of the effects 

that result from implementing the alternatives to produce cumulative impacts.

The potential effects (and uncertainties) that climate change may have on forest vegetation 

on the IPNF are summarized in the KIPZ Climate Change Report (USDA Forest Service 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

120 Vegetation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

2010b). In general, given the existing condition of the forest vegetation on the IPNF, the 

potential effects of climate change can be summarized as:

○ Increase in mountain pine beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine and whitebark pine 

in relatively high elevation forests and a decrease at low-mid elevation;

○ Increase in western pine beetle/mountain pine beetle mortality in ponderosa pine 

during droughts or otherwise under moisture stress;

○ More root disease mortality and mortality from other insect/diseases during 

times of moisture stress;

○ Longer fire seasons with more frequent large fires and more annual area burned; 

and

○ Increase in the water balance deficit.

At the forestwide scale, the alternatives analyzed in this final EIS would generally add to the 

potential effects from climate change noted above. Alternative A would be the most affected 

and Alternatives B Modified and C the least affected by climate change. For all alternatives, 

the effects from climate change would be offset in those areas where vegetation treatments 

occur.

Climate change predictions for the Northern Rockies generally forecast warmer temperatures 

and longer, drier summers. If those predictions are correct, the effect of dense forests on the 

soil water balance could be compounded. In general, the soil water balance (especially in the 

summer droughty period) determines which tree species can ultimately survive on a specific 

site. Early seral tree species (e.g., ponderosa pine and western larch) have the unique ability 

to establish on bare soil surfaces where high surface temperatures exclude other species. One 

adaptation of these seral species is the deep rooting characteristic that allows the tree to find 

an adequate water supply and avoid extensive competition with shallow and fibrous rooted 

grasses and forbs. As the shade from these species limits shade-intolerant grasses and forbs, 

shade-tolerant tree species can become established in the understory. These species usually 

have shallower rooting characteristics that allow them to gather water from near the soil 

surface. The overall rooting structure on the site becomes much more competitive for water 

resources as succession progresses. As the density of the stand and the amount of leaf area 

increases, water transpiration increases, which in turn can deplete the water that is stored in 

the soil throughout the summer. The additional forest canopy interception of rain and snow 

which directly evaporates back into the atmosphere (snow sublimation) further compounds 

this effect and reduces soil water recharge. The end result is a water stressed forest, that not 

only becomes more susceptible to insect and disease, but also more prone to supporting 

severe wildfires because live fuel moisture is relatively low.

Whether it is invasive species (e.g., white pine blister rust), drought, uncharacteristic 

wildfires, elevated native insects and disease levels, unusually high forest densities, or some 

other agent or combination of agents that serves to stress trees and forest ecosystems, recent 

research suggests that climate change will likely exacerbate those stressors and “stress 

complexes” will continue to manifest themselves (McKenzie et al. 2009, Littell et al. 2010).

• Human Population Increases and/or Shifts towards Wildland-Urban Interface: For the 

last several decades, there has been more human development around the "edges" of lands 

administered by the IPNF. This trend is expected to continue in the future and is likely to 

have effects on the forest vegetation that are similar to those discussed above under the item 

titled "National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Initiative, and Healthy Forest Restoration Act." In 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Vegetation 121

addition, with a greater number of people living and recreating in these wildland-urban 

interface areas, there is a greater probability of more human-caused ignitions that could have 

effects on the forest vegetation.

• Increased Regulation and Concern over Smoke Emissions: The ability to implement the 

vegetation treatments that would occur as a result of the alternatives is highly dependent 

upon prescribed burning (both associated with timber harvesting and without it) as well as 

using natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives. Therefore, to the extent that 

air quality regulations may become more stringent in regards to the quantity and timing of 

smoke emissions, there could be substantial effects in limiting vegetation treatments using 

prescribed burning.

• Timber Product Manufacturing Infrastructure and Economics: The ability of the IPNF 

to positively affect the forest vegetation is partially dependent upon the ability to sell forest 

products to manufacturing companies and to use the harvesting processes, including residual 

slash disposal activities. If the forest products industry declines in areas surrounding the 

IPNF to the degree that it is difficult to sell forest products, or if “stumpage prices” decrease 

significantly, it would affect how many acres could be treated. While some treatments could 

be accomplished by using prescribed burn-only treatments, it is generally too risky in the 

WUI and too expensive elsewhere.

• Coeur d'Alene Basin Superfund Clean-up Efforts: As described in more detail in the 

watershed section of this FEIS, activities associated with the clean-up of mining related 

heavy metals is ongoing and other associated activities are foreseeable. These activities will 

likely affect riparian vegetation in local areas where the activities occur in the basin. 

However, these activities primarily occur on lands that are not NFS lands and effects from 

these clean-up efforts would not have meaningful cumulative impacts when considered with 

the effects from the Alternatives associated with this revised Forest Plan.

• Shared Border with Canada: As described in more detail in the fire and fuels section of 

this FEIS, the northern portion of the IPNF shares an international border with Canada 

(British Columbia). As such, there may be some impacts regarding the management of 

wildfires and whether or not the use of natural, unplanned ignitions is appropriate on the 

IPNF when wildfires occur near the USA-Canadian border. As noted in the fire and fuels 

section, the general impact is that some natural, unplanned ignitions on the IPNF that may 

have otherwise been allowed to burn to meet resource objectives may become suppressed as 

a result of objectives or concerns raised by the Canadians. This could have a small negative 

impact on trending the forest vegetation on the IPNF towards desired conditions, but the 

degree of this effect is unknown.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

122 Rare Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Rare Plants

Introduction

The Forest Service has a legal requirement to maintain or improve habitat conditions for 

threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species under the ESA. Species covered under 

ESA are those listed by the USDI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sensitive species are protected 

under the regional forester’s Sensitive Species Program. The IPNF are required to identify and 

mitigate potential effects to these species from federal land-disturbing actions. In order to 

comply with the ESA and the Sensitive Species Program, forest botanists conduct inventories 

during project planning to locate and protect any threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, 

and sensitive plant species.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• The Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: Provides for 

maintenance of land productivity and the need to protect and improve the soil and water 

resources.

• The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: “It is the policy of the Congress 

that all forested lands in the NFS shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species 

of trees, degree of stocking, rate of growth and conditions of stand designed to secure the 

maximum benefits of multiple use sustained yield. Plans developed shall provide for the 

diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the 

specific land area in order to meet the overall multiple-use objectives, and within the 

multiple-use objective.”

• The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973: Requires federal agencies to conserve 

threatened and endangered species.

Key Indicator

• Potential for adverse effects on rare plants from ground-disturbing activities or other 

applicable threats or stressors.

Methodology and Analysis Process

The geographic scope of the analysis for effects to rare plants is the lands administered by the 

Forest. This area represents the NFS lands where changes may occur to rare plants or habitats 

from activities that result from the various alternatives. The rare plant species included in the 

analysis are those that are either listed under the ESA or are on the regional forester's Sensitive 

Species list. The known threats and/or stressors that have the potential to negatively affect the 

plant species were reviewed for each of seven plant habitat guilds. Potential adverse effects were 

considered based upon the likelihood and intensity to which the various alternatives may affect 

the threats/stressors.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

No threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate plant species are known to occur on the 

IPNF. However, two threatened plant species, Howellia aquatillis (water howellia), and Silene 

spaldingii (Spalding’s catchfly), are “suspected” on the Forest. Suspected species are those that 

are believed to have potential to occur on the Forest, but to date, have not been found.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Rare Plants 123

Spalding’s Catchfly (Silene spaldingii)

In 2001, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed Silene spaldingii as a threatened 

species (Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 196, 2001). No populations of Spalding’s catchfly have 

been found to date on the IPNF. According to USFWS, this species is suspected to occur on the 

IPNF in Kootenai, Shoshone, Benewah, and Latah Counties.

Habitat

Spalding’s catchfly, a perennial herb of the carnation family, is a Pacific Northwest regional 

endemic plant. The plant is typically found in mesic, perennial grasslands and is known to occur 

in 52 populations in west-central Idaho, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, northwest 

Montana, and British Columbia. Populations are often small and isolated. Its habitat is primarily 

dry grassland habitats and grassland inclusions in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forest. 

Suitable habitat for this species is typically dominated by fescues (Festuca species), blue bunch 

wheat grass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), and other bunchgrasses, but also has a high density of 

forbs. Some sites may have shrubs such as Symphoricapos albus, Physocarpus malvaceus, or 

Rosa spp. Soil types on which it has been found include loam, silty loam, granitic, loamy 

basaltic, and loess (Lorain 1991). Soils in its habitat are characterized as deep to moderately 

deep.

Threats

Endangered Species Act section 7 guidelines for Spalding’s catchfly list seven management 

activities that potentially threaten habitat or populations. They are grazing, recreation, fire use, 

exotic species, pollinator impacts, herbicide and pesticide use, and habitat conversion.

Water Howellia (Howellia aqualitis)

The USFWS listed Howellia aquatilis (Gray) as a threatened species on July 14, 1994 (Federal 

Register Vol. 59, p. 35860). Critical habitat has not been defined or designated for H. aquatilis

(Federal Register Vol. 59, p. 35860). Populations of this species are currently extant in 

California, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. These populations are threatened by loss or change 

of habitat due to natural and human-induced causes. According to the Conservation Strategy for 

Howellia aquatilis (USDA Forest Service 1994), there are currently 110 known occurrences of 

the species; most occurrences are in Montana and Washington, with only one known occurrence 

in Idaho in Latah County. Although no known populations occur on the IPNF, potential habitat 

may exist in the oxbows and river meanders on the Forest.

Habitat

Howellia aquatilis lives in shallow, vernal freshwater pools of wetlands, edges of larger ponds, 

or river oxbows that are abandoned or still hydrologically linked to the adjacent river system. 

Drying of the pools in the fall is necessary for germination and submergence in the spring is 

necessary for growth and flowering (Roe and Shelly 1992).

Threats

The following threats were documented in the recovery plan of water howellia (Shelly and 

Gamon 1996): timber harvest (siltation and hydrologic regime alteration), livestock grazing 

(trampling and soil compaction), non-native plant and noxious weed invasion, conversion of 

habitat, road construction and maintenance, military activities (in the Puget lowlands), fire 

effects, and natural conditions (lack of genetic variation, successional changes).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

124 Rare Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Sensitive Plant Species

Sensitive plant species that are known or suspected to occur in the IPNF are listed in table 23. 

Currently, there are 61 sensitive plant species that are known, suspected, or historically known to 

occur on the IPNF. The regional forester establishes and maintains the sensitive plant list. In 

response to new or changed information on the plant species, the regional forester occasionally 

adds or removes species. Therefore, the list is dynamic and will undoubtedly change in the 

future.

Distribution, habitat information, and population data for each species are available from the 

Idaho Conservation Data Center, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Montana Natural 

Heritage Program, and NatureServe databases.

The 1987 Forest Plan direction for sensitive and rare species, including plants, is to manage 

habitat to maintain population viability, to prevent the need for federal listing, and to determine 

the status and distribution of threatened, endangered, sensitive, and other rare plants. Habitat 

found to be suitable within project areas, and which could be affected by project-related 

activities, is surveyed to determine the presence of rare plant species. Protection measures are 

implemented to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities following the NFMA 

and Forest Service policy.

Table 23. Rare Plant Species, Status, Occurrence, and Habitat Guilds on the IPNF

Scientific Name Common Nate Status1 Occurrence2 Habitat 

Guild3

Andromeda polifolia Bog rosemary S K P

Asplenium trichomanes Maidenhair spleenwort S K M

Aster junciformis Rush aster S K P

Astragalus microcystis Least bladdery milkvetch S H D

Betula pumila Dwarf birch S K P, D-R

Blechnum spicant Deerfern S K M

Botrychium ascendens Upswept moonwort S K M

Botrychium crenulatum Dainty moonwort S K M

Botrychium lanceolatum Triangle moonwort S K M

Botrychium lineare Slender moonwort S H M

Botrychium minganense Mingan moonwort S K M

Botrychium montanum Western goblin S K M

Botrychium paradoxum Peculiar moonwort S K M

Botrychium pedunculosum Stalked moonwort S K M

Botrychium pinnatum Northwestern moonwort S K M

Botrychium simplex Least moonwort S K M, D

Buxbaumia aphylla Leafless bug-on-a-stick moss S S M, S

Buxbaumia viridis Green bug-on-a-stick moss S K M

Cardamine constancei Constance's bittercress S K D-R, M

Carex buxbaumii Buxbaum's sedge S K P, M

Carex chordorrhiza String-root sedge S K A, P

Carex comosa Bristly sedge S K P

Carex flava Yellow sedge S K P
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Rare Plants 125

Scientific Name Common Nate Status1 Occurrence2 Habitat 

Guild3

Carex leptalea Bristle-stalked sedge S K P

Carex livida Pale sedge S K P

Carex paupercula Poor sedge S K P

Cicuta bulbifera Bulb-bearing water hemlock S K A, P

Cypripedium fasciculatum Clustered lady's slipper S K M, D

Cypripedium parviflorum var 

pubescens

Greater yellow lady’s slipper S K M

Drosera intermedia Spoon-leaved sundew S K P

Dryopteris cristata Crested shield fern S K P

Epilobium palustre Swamp willow weed S K P

Epipactis gigantea Giant helleborine S S P

Eriophorum viridicarinatum Green-keeled cotton grass S K P

Gaultheria hispidula Creeping snowberry S K P, M

Grimmia brittoniae Britton's dry rock moss S K M, D

Grindelia howellii Howell's gumweed S K D

Hookeria lucens Clear Moss S H M

Howellia aquatilis water howellia T S A

Hypericum majus Large Canadian St. 

Johnswort

S K P

Iris versicolor Blue flag iris S K P

Lycopodiella inundata Northern bog clubmoss S K P

Lycopodium dendroideum Ground pine S K D-R, M, 

C

Meesia longiseta Meesia moss S K P

Mimulus alsinoides Chickweed monkeyflower S K M, D

Phegopteris connectilis Northern beechfern S K M

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark pine S K C, S

Polystichum braunii Braun's hollyfern S K M

Rhizomnium nudum Naked mnium S K M

Rhynchospora alba White beakrush S K P

Salix candida Hoary willow S K P, D-R

Salix pedicellaris Bog willow S K P

Scheuchzeria palustris Pod grass S K P

Schoenoplectus subterminalis Water clubrush S K A, P

Silene spaldingii Spalding's catchfly T S D

Sphagnum mendocinum Mendocine peatmoss S K P

Streptopus streptopoides Krushea S K M, C

Thelypteris nevadensis Sierra wood fern S S M

Triantha occidentalis ssp. 

brevistyla

Short-styled sticky tofieldia S K P, S

Trichophorum alpinum Hudson's Bay bulrush S K P

Trientalis arctica Northern starflower S K P

Vaccinium oxycoccos Bog cranberry S K P
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

126 Rare Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Scientific Name Common Nate Status1 Occurrence2 Habitat 

Guild3

Waldsteinia idahoensis Idaho barren strawberry S K M

1 Status: S = Sensitive; T = Threatened; E = Endangered

2 Occurrence: K = Known; S = Suspected; H = Historically Known

3 Habitat Guild: A = Aquatic, P = Peatland, DR = Deciduous Riparian, M = Moist Forest, D = Dry Forest, C = Cold Forest, 

S = Subalpine

Potential Threats

Threats are defined as activities (Forest Service or otherwise) or natural conditions that currently 

or potentially have negative effects on the diversity of rare plant communities or their habitat. 

Threats can be divided into the following three types: direct (e.g., livestock grazing (trampling),

herbivory, recreational activities (hiking and associated trampling)), alteration of ecological 

factors (e.g., fire exclusion, insects, and disease), and habitat reduction (e.g., oil and gas 

exploration, road construction and reconstruction). Refer to the specialist report for a more 

inclusive list of examples for each of these three threats.

Habitat Guilds or Groups

Each of the IPNF rare plant species listed in table 23 was placed into appropriate habitat groups, 

or guilds. The term “guild” is used to mean a group of species that use similar resources in a 

similar way. These guilds include the following: aquatic, peatland, deciduous riparian, moist 

forest, dry forest, cold forest, and subalpine. Each of these guilds is briefly discussed below (see 

Specialist Report for more detailed discussion).

Aquatic Plant Habitat Guild

The aquatic plant habitat guild contains one federally listed threatened plant species and three 

sensitive species.

Several key stressors generally apply to most members of this species group. These include 

boating activities, lake shore development, aquatic non-native invasive species (especially 

Phalaris arundinacea), use of aquatic herbicides, agricultural practices, grazing and aquatic 

vegetation succession. Alteration of hydrologic regimes, either directly from drainage, ditching, 

and dam construction (or beaver dam removal); or indirectly from upland activities or events 

such as timber harvest, road construction, and wildfire are also potential stressors.

Stressors beyond Forest Service control include short- and long-term climate change (which may 

increase the risk of desiccation due to increased and prolonged summer temperatures and/or 

drought conditions) and activities as described above that occur on non-federal lands. These 

changes or activities could result in altered hydrologic regimes and/or species composition that 

may affect the persistence of aquatic group plant species.

Peatland Plant Habitat Guild

This species guild is composed of 31 sensitive plant species and is all nearly or completely 

restricted to peatland habitats; in numerous cases they co-occur at known peatland sites and the 

stressors and ecological processes that influence their habitats apply to all of them.

All of the peatlands on the IPNF are fens, although there are instances where microsites with bog 

characteristics occur within the fens; such cases are referred to as mixed mires (Chadde et al. 

1998). These fen habitats can be further divided into five distinct sub-guilds that are 

characterized by different plant communities and species, different substrates, different pH, and 

different abiotic processes. Although the sub-guilds are distinct, individual peatland complexes 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Rare Plants 127

often contain a mosaic of sub-guilds that grade into one another (poor fens, ombrotrophic bog, 

intermediate and rich fens, paludified forests, and shrub-carr). The sub-guilds are described in 

more detail in the Specialist Report in the project record.

Deciduous Riparian Plant Species Guild

This species guild contains four sensitive species.

The following stressors may have direct or indirect effects on plant species in deciduous riparian 

habitats:

• Management actions that alter hydrologic regimes;

• Alterations to riparian plant community succession through vegetation manipulation;

• Changes to natural disturbance regimes such as flooding;

• Management activities that affect water quality: such as road construction, 

reconstruction, and maintenance activities that result in runoff, livestock use, fertilizer 

application, and sedimentation from timber harvest activities;

• Invasive plant species;

• Off highway vehicle (OHV) use around wet margins of riparian areas; and

• Recreation use in and adjacent to riparian areas.

One stressor beyond Forest Service control includes long- and short-term climate change, which 

may increase the risk of desiccation due to increased and prolonged summer temperatures and/or 

drought conditions; and may alter the hydrologic regimes and floodplain dynamics that are 

important in the habitat of these species.

Wet and Moist Forest Plant Species Guild

This species guild contains twenty-nine sensitive species.

Key stressors affecting this species guild include timber harvest (especially regeneration of late 

seral and old growth cedar and hemlock forests), prescribed fire, road and trail construction, and 

other activities that could impact populations either directly through loss of individuals or 

indirectly through canopy removal or ground disturbance that disrupts soil mycorrhizae. Air 

pollution and removal of large, old trees may negatively affect lichens in this species group.

Stressors beyond Forest Service control include short- and long-term climate change (which may 

increase the risk of desiccation due to increased and prolonged summer temperatures and/or 

drought conditions), and activities as described above that occur or originate on other ownership 

lands.

Dry Forest Plant Species Group

This species guild consists of one federally listed threatened plant species and six sensitive 

species. The federally listed species (Silene spaldingii) is not currently known to occur on the 

IPNF, but suitable habitat is present and there is known occurrences near NFS lands.

Key stressors that affect this species guild include timber harvest, prescribed fire, severe 

wildfire, fire suppression efforts, grazing, and OHV use; all of which may directly or indirectly 

impact populations through ground disturbance, canopy removal, destruction of soil 

mycorrhizae, or increased risk of noxious weed invasion. Dry-forest and open-forest grassland 

habitats are relatively rare vegetation types on the IPNF, and the effects of these various stressors 

may be exacerbated in some areas as a result. Long-term fire exclusion and grazing exclusion 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

128 Rare Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

may have detrimental effects on Silene spaldingii (Spalding's catchfly); the one federally listed 

threatened plant species in this group.

One stressor beyond Forest Service control includes short- and long-term climate change, which 

may increase the risk of desiccation due to increased and prolonged summer temperatures and/or 

drought conditions.

Cold and Forested Subalpine Plant Species Guild

Three sensitive species (including one tree (whitebark pine)) are assigned to one or both of these 

guilds.

For the non-tree species in this guild, the key stressors affecting this species guild include timber 

harvest, prescribed fire, road and trail construction, and other activities that could directly impact 

populations through vegetation and/or ground disturbance. For the whitebark pine, key stressors 

are fire suppression, white pine blister rust, mountain pine beetle, and climate change. Additional 

information on the existing condition for whitebark pine and the impacts of the alternatives is 

provided in the “Forest Vegetation” section of this EIS.

Subalpine Grassland Plant Species Guild

This species guild occurs in the non-forested portions of the subalpine zone and includes two 

sensitive species.

Several management activities and risks may have direct or indirect effects on rare plants in this 

species guild. These include disturbance associated with recreation use, trail construction 

(including blasting of rock), maintenance of fire lookouts and other administrative sites, and 

harvesting of special forest products. Invasion of exotic plant species may affect some rocky 

sites, but generally the harshness of these habitats inhibits complete dominance by such species.

One stressor beyond Forest Service control includes climate change, which may result in 

changes to snow amounts and distribution that affect these habitats. The possibility of 

desiccation due to increased and prolonged summer temperatures or drought conditions is also a 

potential stressor resulting from climate change, although the subalpine parks currently occupy 

areas that are subject to a higher degree of summer soil drying compared to surrounding sites 

(Roche and Busacca 1987).

Environmental Consequences

Forestwide Direction for all Alternatives

Threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species have special management requirements 

for all Forest Service management activities. The ESA section 7 guidelines and recovery 

objectives have been followed where potential habitat for the three threatened plant species 

known or suspected to occur on the Forest.

For sensitive species, management efforts to ensure the diversity of rare plant communities or 

their habitat are already in place. The Forest Service management policy (FSH 2609.25, 1.25, 

1988 and FSM 2670) ensures that for all rare plant species, the following measures will be taken:

(1) Biological evaluations will be written for all activities that may affect sensitive 

species and their habitat;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Rare Plants 129

(2) “Effects” of activities will be determined as similar to those for threatened, 

endangered, or proposed species; and

(3) Special management emphasis will be included in all management activities to 

ensure the viability of the sensitive species and to preclude trends toward endangerment 

that would result in the need for federal listing. This Forest Service management policy 

will be employed at a species level in all alternatives to ensure its mandates are achieved 

and that sensitive species are conserved.

All of the alternatives implement the protection measures noted above for law, regulation, and 

policy. In addition, all of the alternatives (including Alternative A) retain INFISH as Forest Plan 

direction (revised Plan FW-STD-RIP-03). INFISH contains riparian management objectives for 

habitat conservation areas and a comprehensive set of standards and guidelines related to what 

kind of activities may or may not occur within the riparian areas. Although they were not 

specifically designed to do so, many of the standards and guidelines of INFISH serve as 

protection measures for rare plants that are associated with aquatic and/or riparian habitats, of 

which there are many. In addition, all action alternatives include management direction to 

evaluate proposed management activities and project areas for the presence of occupied or 

suitable habitat for “any plant species listed under the ESA or on the regional sensitive species 

list. If needed, conduct field review and provide mitigation or protection to maintain high-quality 

occurrences (those in intact, sustainable habitats) over time (FW-GDL-VEG-07).” This 

management direction ensures that surveys would be conducted and any protection measures 

applied, thereby reducing the potential for adverse effects.

Consequences to Rare Plants from Forest Plan Components Associated with other 

Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Direction

At the scale of the entire IPNF, it is important to realize the difficulties associated with assessing 

the impacts of broad Forest Plan direction to 60 rare plants. Plant species may be rare due to 

evolutionary history, basic population ecology, historic or current human activities, or more 

likely, a complex combination of these factors. Human activities may or may not be responsible 

for the current distribution and abundance of the rare plant species. However, an important 

assumption in this analysis is that certain management actions may contribute or detract from the 

availability or quality of habitats that support rare plant species.

Alternative A retains all of the 1987 Forest Plan direction regarding the management of 

vegetation, including rare plants. Forestwide goal #8 includes the desire to provide for a diversity 

of plant and animal communities and goal #11 indicates that habitat of animal and plant species 

listed under the ESA should be managed to provide for recovery. Forestwide standard number 9 

states that habitat for species on the regional sensitive species list would be managed to prevent 

further declines in populations that could lead to federal listing under the ESA. All of the 1987 

Forest Plan direction mentioned above is required as part of the laws, regulations, and policies 

previously mentioned.

In Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, MA1a and 1b, MA3 – Botanical Areas, and MA4 –

Research Natural Areas would not allow certain management activities (e.g., timber harvest, 

grazing, motor vehicle use, road construction) which are considered threats to rare plants (see 

standards and guidelines for each MA in the revised Forest Plan). This direction is the same 

under each action alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

130 Rare Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Effects from Specific Forest Plan Management Direction for Alternatives B

Modified, C, and D

Forest Plan components that are relevant to rare plants are the same for each action alternative. 

Vegetation forestwide Goal-01 articulates the desire to have plant communities with high 

ecological integrity and exhibiting resiliency towards natural and man-caused disturbances. In 

addition, numerous forestwide desired conditions (i.e., FW-DC-VEG-01 through 08, and 11) for 

vegetation express the desire to trend the forest vegetation towards a more resilient condition 

with a high degree of ecological integrity. The management direction recognizes the need to 

maintain and/or improve the populations of the rare plants as well as the ecological roles and 

functions that they serve.

Action alternatives also contain specific components for rare plants (FW-DC-VEG-09, GDLVEG-07) that address the need for field review and identification of mitigation and/or protection 

measures for site-specific proposed projects. This last guidance is also part of Forest Service 

Handbook and Manual direction (FSH 2609.25, FSM 2670).

Action alternatives also contain numerous forestwide goals, desired conditions, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines with regard to riparian and aquatic resources. Many of those Forest 

Plan components are designed to maintain or restore riparian conditions and aquatic resources. 

Many of the rare plants on the IPNF are associated with these types of habitats, and would 

benefit from implementing Forest Plan components related to riparian and aquatic resources (i.e., 

FW-GDL-RIP-05).

Effects from Fire (Planned Ignitions, Wildfires, and the Use of Natural, Unplanned 

Ignitions to meet Resource Objectives) Management

All of the alternatives use fire as a tool to accomplish management goals and objectives. The 

alternatives have different management emphasis areas and as such, the use and emphasis of fire 

vary by alternative. The biggest difference between the alternatives in this regard is that of 

Alternative A compared to the others. The use of fire as a management tool was not emphasized 

in the 1987 IPNF Forest Plan, in general, and with regard to using natural, unplanned ignitions to 

meet resource objectives. There are a number of barriers that prevented the IPNF from using that 

tool very often. Therefore, compared to the other alternatives, it is assumed that Alternative A 

would involve much less prescribed burning as well as the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to 

meet resource objectives. In considering the action alternatives, Alternative D has more emphasis 

on active management and commodity production than the others, while Alternative C has the 

least. Therefore, in general, it is assumed that of the action alternatives, Alternative D would 

involve more prescribed burning, while Alternative C would rely more heavily on the use of

natural, unplanned ignitions as a management tool to help trend the forest vegetation towards the 

desired condition. In that regard, Alternative B Modified would fall between C and D.

Another factor that is important to some rare plants is the timing of burns. For example, the use 

of prescribed fire in the spring has potential impacts to some rare plants. In general, these plants 

are not adapted to fire at this time of year and spring burning can interfere with flowering, 

fruiting, and other physiological impacts; and could affect life history patterns with pollinators. 

However, those risks have to be weighed against the trade-offs in the event that prescribed 

burning could not take place at another time of year. Therefore, a higher risk occurs that an 

uncharacteristically intense wildfire occurs. Wild and prescribed fires can pose risks to those rare 

plants in the wet/moist and dry forest plant groups, particularly when the fires are 

uncharacteristic. In general, most plant species would benefit by the restoration of more 

historical fire regimes. For those rare plants that thrive in open areas created by fires, using fire 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Rare Plants 131

to help restore a more natural fire regime could benefit those species in the long-term. There are 

also impacts to plants associated with wildfire suppression activities, such as fire line 

construction and other mechanical activities, reforestation following fire, and the increased 

potential for the spread of noxious weeds.

Effects from Recreational Management

Recreation impacts can include trampling, both by hikers and off-road vehicle use. Road 

building and the development of campgrounds and other facilities used by recreationists also 

contribute to plant impacts, as these developments make more areas accessible and concentrate 

use. Dispersed camping and recreation have similar impacts, which are more difficult to monitor. 

Parking areas, particularly undesignated areas, pose similar impacts to plants. In addition, there 

can be long-term impacts of bisecting a rare plant population with a road or similar feature and 

affecting the reproduction and/or plant dispersal. Other recreational impacts include off-road 

vehicle use, which can also disturb soil, affecting both habitat and potential habitat. Roads and 

trails for recreational use can contribute to the spread of noxious weeds and increase the 

accessibility of areas to livestock as well as native ungulates, which in turn can increase the 

impacts of trampling, herbivory, and congregation. Because some alternatives, for example, 

Alternative D, includes the potential for a higher level of recreational use, especially associated 

with motorized recreation, there are differences between alternatives on this factor. Action 

alternatives also contain specific components for rare plants (FW-DC-VEG-09, GDL-VEG-07) 

that address the need for field review and identification of mitigation and/or protection measures 

for site-specific proposed projects.

Effects from Vegetation Management

Mechanical activities include vegetation management treatments, whether for restoration or to

meet timber production objectives. Activities such as logging can have impacts to plants and 

plant habitat through canopy removal, soil disturbance and erosion, and stream sedimentation. In 

addition, mechanical activities for vegetation treatment may require road building. Roads can 

increase access to and fragment habitat, thus providing an avenue for invasive plant species. 

They can be placed on ridgetops, in riparian areas, or through scree slopes, which are important 

habitats for a number of species. Reconstruction and maintenance of existing roads can directly 

or indirectly affect plant populations by introducing competitive weeds and altering availability 

of light, nutrients, and moisture. Sudden changes in seral stage, or an abundance of early seral 

stages, also reduce the available habitats for those plants that require mid-late seral stages. 

However, those species that prefer openings, early-seral stages, or some ground disturbance, 

could benefit from moderate levels of mechanical activities. As discussed above in fire, the 

restoration of historical fire regimes and restoration of conditions towards HRV with a range of 

seral stages for different potential vegetation groups may benefit some rare species in the longterm. With regard to the various alternatives, Alternative D is expected to have the greatest 

amount of mechanical activities and Alternative C the least. Alternative A and B Modified would 

be fairly similar. The management direction includes a guideline to evaluate proposed 

management activities and project areas for the presence of occupied or suitable habitat for “any 

plant species listed under the ESA or on the regional sensitive species list. If needed, conduct 

field review and provide mitigation or protection to maintain high-quality occurrences (those in 

intact, sustainable habitats) over time (FW-GDL-VEG-07).

Effects from Non-native Invasive Plants

Introduced, invasive plant species can displace rare species through competitive displacement. 

Indirect impacts include herbicide spraying and mechanical ground disturbance to control 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

132 Rare Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

noxious weeds once they gain a foothold. Competition from invasive non-native species and 

noxious weeds can result in the loss of habitat, loss of pollinators, and decreased rare plant 

species viability. Roads, trails, livestock, and canopy reduction can provide ideal pathways for 

the introduction of exotic and non-native species. Indirectly, herbicide spraying can destroy 

populations of native pollinators by contaminating nesting materials and pollen resources, further 

decreasing the viability and reproductive success of rare species. Regarding the risk of weed 

invasions and/or expansion of populations, the alternatives vary in some ways. In general, the 

more emphasis the alternative has on active management the greater the likelihood of weed 

spread. All action alternatives contain a forestwide desired condition that states “new invasive 

plant species are treated and populations are contained or eradicated. Integrated pest 

management approaches are used, including best management practices (BMPs) that limit 

introduction, intensification and spread due to management activities. Areas requiring revegetation use locally adapted, native plant species where feasible and appropriate. Agreements 

with cooperative weed MAs assist in noxious weed and invasive plants control across 

jurisdictional boundaries” (FW-DC-VEG-10). Alternative D with its emphasis on active 

management, would be expected to have the greatest impacts on weeds, and at the other end of 

the spectrum, Alternative C would be expected to have the least impacts. The other alternatives 

fall between those two extremes.

Effects on Aquatic, Peatland, and Deciduous Riparian Species Guilds

These three habitat guilds will be analyzed together as they generally have similar types of 

threats for the rare plant that occur within them. Within these three guilds there are 39 sensitive 

species and one threatened species (water howellia). As mentioned earlier, there are no known 

locations of water howellia on the IPNF but potential habitat exists along river meanders and 

oxbows. Hydrologic and/or nutrient alternations are the two most important impacts that could 

occur to plants within these guilds. Mechanical vegetation treatments, off-road vehicles, roads 

and trails, grazing, and catastrophic wildfires are the most likely causes of Forest Service 

activities that could affect the hydrologic regimes or nutrient inputs. However, as previously 

mentioned the INFISH standards, guidelines, and other direction provide a fairly high level of 

protection for rare plants in these guilds. Those protections are in affect for all the alternatives. 

The action alternatives have additional protection measures and an increased emphasis on the 

restoration and maintenance of riparian and aquatic resources. Probably the most substantial risk 

to the plants in these guilds that has not been mitigated by INFISH or the other aquatic/riparian 

direction associated with the action alternatives, is the risk of a wildfire burning a large area and 

affecting either the hydrologic regime or nutrient inputs into these habitats. In comparing the 

action alternatives, Alternative C would likely pose the largest risk to plants in these guilds. 

Alternative C would rely heavily on fires to help trend the vegetation towards desired condition; 

and the use of a high level of prescribed fire or natural, unplanned ignitions has risks associated 

with it getting larger and/or more intense than desired. A large fire covering substantial area in 

these habitat guilds could make substantial changes in above and below ground water flows as 

well as nutrient inputs.

Effects on Wet and Moist Forest Plant Species Guild

On the IPNF, 27 sensitive species are assigned to either the wet or moist forest guild. Of the 

potential threats to plants in this guild, possible impacts from mechanical activities, fire, and 

noxious weeds are the most important. Many of the plants in this guild are somewhat sensitive to 

reductions in tree canopy cover and/or soil disturbance and many are commonly located in older 

late seral mature or old growth type forest stands. Because one of the general forest vegetation 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Rare Plants 133

desired conditions is to increase the amount of old growth in the future, there may be more of 

this habitat in the future, barring large landscape scale wildfires.

Alternative D, because of the emphasis on an increased level of active management, is likely to 

have the greatest potential impact on rare plants in this guild. The plants in the wet guild would 

likely be protected from impacts from mechanical activities, due to the INFISH and/or aquatic 

and riparian Forest Plan components discussed earlier. In addition, the required field surveying 

that is conducted for projects would likely locate many of the populations and 

mitigation/protection measures would be established on a project specific basis. Relative to 

Alternative D, the risk of negatively affecting rare plants in these guilds is less for Alternative C, 

and Alternatives A and B Modified would rank between the other two.

Effects on Dry Forest Plant Species Guild

Six sensitive species and one federally listed threatened species (Spalding’s catchfly) are 

grouped together in this dry forest species guild. As noted previously, there are no known 

populations of the Spalding’s catchfly on the IPNF; however, potential habitat does exist. The 

threats associated with the rare plants in this guild are fire (both from fire suppression efforts as 

well as from the fires themselves), mechanical activities, grazing, and OHV recreation. Because 

field surveys are conducted for proposed activities, such as the use of prescribed fire and 

mechanical activities, the risk of harm from those causes is likely fairly low (FW-GDL-VEG07). Greater risks likely exist due to wildfires burning under uncharacteristically intense 

conditions. Regarding the various alternatives, Alternative C, with less active management and 

its reliance on more fire, probably has a greater chance of causing negative effects to plants in 

this guild than do the other alternatives.

Effects on Cold Forest Plant Species Guild

Only two sensitive plant species occur in this guild, the ground pine club moss, and Krushea. 

Threats to these plants are primarily mechanical activities and fire. Forestwide guideline FWGDL-VEG-07 would be applied under all action alternatives prior to trail construction or 

maintenance activities. Alternative D, with its greater emphasis on active management, would 

likely pose more risk to these plants than would the other alternatives.

Effects on Subalpine Grassland Plant Species Guild

Two sensitive plants occur in this subalpine guild, the short-styled sticky tofieldia, and the 

leafless-bug-on-a-stick moss. Because these plants are located at high elevations they tend to 

occur in IRAs, designated or recommended wilderness areas, or other remote locations. Trail 

construction or maintenance might affect these species, but probably the greatest threat is climate 

change. Forestwide guideline FW-GDL-VEG-07 would be applied under all action alternatives 

prior to trail construction or maintenance activities.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects includes all ownerships that comprise the IPNF. There 

are no cumulative effects from the decisions we are making in the revised Forest Plan except for 

past actions.

Under the influence of changing climate, if droughts and warmer winters continue, agents such 

as mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, Western balsam bark beetle, and spruce beetle will 

likely show increased levels of activity. Fires are likely to increase in intensity under climatic 

influence if droughts continue and weather favorable to high intensity fire develops.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

134 Non-native Invasive Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Non-native Invasive Plants

Introduction

Non-native plants are species that do not have their origin in a local area. They have not adapted 

to or evolved with the local environment, which means there are no natural enemies. Non-native 

plants include both exotics and noxious weeds. Exotic plants are species that have been 

introduced to an area, usually from a different continent. They may have been introduced 

inadvertently or intentionally.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974: States that each federal agency shall establish and 

adequately fund an undesirable plant management program; complete and implement 

cooperative agreements with state agencies regarding the management of undesirable plant 

species on federal lands under the agency's jurisdiction; and establish an integrated 

management system to control or contain undesirable plant species targeted under 

cooperative agreements.

• Executive Order 13112: Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive 

species; detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a costeffective and environmentally-sound manner; to monitor invasive species populations 

accurately and reliably; to provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in 

ecosystems that have been invaded; to conduct research on invasive species and develop 

technologies to prevent introduction; to provide for environmentally sound control of 

invasive species; and to promote public education on invasive species and the means to 

address them. All of these actions are subject to the availability of appropriations.

• State of Montana County Noxious Weed Management Act: States that it is unlawful for 

any person to permit any noxious weed to propagate or go to seed on the person's land, 

except that any person who adheres to the noxious weed management program of the 

person's weed management district or who has entered into and is in compliance with a 

noxious weed management agreement is considered to be in compliance with this section.

• Idaho Noxious Weed Law: States that it is unlawful for any individual to allow noxious 

weeds to propagate or go to seed on their land unless they are complying with an approved 

weed management plan. This law directs the counties to develop weed control districts to 

plan and implement weed control efforts. The law also directs district (county) weed boards 

to "make all reasonable efforts to develop and implement a noxious weed program covering 

all land within the district owned or administered by a federal agency."

• Washington State Weed Law: The primary noxious weed law (17.10 RCW) for 

Washington holds landowners, including state and county land agencies, responsible for 

controlling noxious weeds on their property. The law also established programs for 

administering the law, which is carried out by the Washington State Noxious Weed Control 

Board, the Washington Department of Agriculture, and the County and District Noxious 

Weed Control Boards.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF- EIS Non-native Invasive Plants 135

Key Indicator

• Level of ground disturbing activities (e.g., timber harvesting, road and trail 

construction/reconstruction, fire suppression, grazing) and wildland fire (both prescribed 

fire and the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives).

Methodology and Analysis Process

A weed risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the current risk of 20 species of weeds 

spreading and harming native plant communities. The methodology for that assessment is 

documented in project file records. The evaluation of how alternatives may impact the risk of 

new weed introductions and the spread of existing weeds was based primarily on what the 

relative opportunities are for ground disturbing activities and wildfire.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 defines a federal noxious weed as a “foreign origin as is 

new to or not widely prevalent within the United States, and can directly or indirectly injure 

crops... fish and wildlife resources or the public health.” Federal noxious weeds are specified as 

aquatic weeds, parasitic weeds, or terrestrial weeds. For the purpose of the management of 

noxious weeds on Forest Service lands, noxious weeds are considered to be “Those plant species 

designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible state official. 

Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive and 

difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease, and 

being native or new to or not common to the United States or parts thereof” (FSM 2080.5).

Most introduced species never became pests as they could not thrive without special care or they 

did not compete well with native vegetation, therefore, they remained confined to gardens or 

agricultural fields. Some even became valuable crop or landscaping plants. However, in the 

absence of competitors and natural enemies with which they evolved, a few exotic species 

spread and dominated to the detriment of native vegetation. For example, knapweed came into 

the United States from Eurasia in clover and alfalfa seed. Oxeye daisy was spread around the 

northwest in forage grass and legume seed after its introduction in the late 1800s. Intentional 

introductions have brought invasive weeds into the area as well. Common St. John's-wort seed 

was brought with English and German settlers as seed for gardens. Dalmatian toadflax came 

from Europe as an ornamental, as did orange hawkweed and absinth wormwood.

Noxious weeds are plant species designated by law that can have detrimental effects on 

agriculture, commerce, or public health. They spread aggressively and are difficult to manage. 

These species are generally new or not common to the United States. Noxious weeds generally 

present the most immediate and disruptive threat to ecosystems.

Noxious weeds, classified as invaders, pose the greatest threat as these plants are capable of 

becoming established in undisturbed or relatively undisturbed areas and have the ability to 

spread quickly over large areas. Spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed, yellow star thistle, leafy 

spurge, and dyer’s woad are examples of invaders. These infestations can substantially change 

the biological diversity of areas by influencing the amount and distribution of native plants and 

animals; and negatively affect recreational experiences, forest regeneration, wildlife and 

livestock forage, soil productivity, fire regimes, and riparian and hydrologic function.

Various recreational and management activities that occur on the IPNF have the potential to 

disperse noxious weeds or increase the likelihood that they will become established at a given 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

136 Non-native Invasive Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

site. This increase in dispersal and establishment is above what would happen naturally as a 

result of seed transport by wind, water, or wildlife.

In Idaho, state laws and county ordinances require that all landowners be responsible for control 

of noxious weeds on their lands. The IPNF has several district-wide noxious weed environmental 

documents that provide an adaptive strategy to treat both existing and new weed infestations. 

Currently, the IPNF also partners with county, state, and other federal agencies in two 

Cooperative Weed Management Areas, which promote the integrated management and education 

on noxious weeds across jurisdictional boundaries.

Current control efforts are aimed at eradicating new invaders (table 24) and containing existing 

infestations. Every known site occupied by a new invader species is treated and monitored. 

Logging equipment is cleaned before entering a sale area to reduce the potential for the 

introduction of weed species not yet present in a sale area. Tactics used to attempt to contain 

large infestations include spraying roadsides, seeding major disturbances caused by road and 

skidtrail building and landing piles, and treating gravel pits. Biocontrols have been released for 

spotted knapweed, dalmatian toadflax, St. John's wort, purple loosestrife, and Canada thistle. 

Infestations in some sites have been reduced by these measures. However, in spite of these 

control efforts existing infestations continue to invade disturbed areas and impact plant 

communities.

On the IPNF, it is fairly common to see non-native, invasive plants along many roadsides, 

railroad and utility rights-of-way, and other disturbed areas, such as gravel pits. Spotted 

knapweed, tansy ragwort, rush skeleton weed, and other species have migrated away from the 

road right-of-way onto undisturbed hillsides, especially within the drier vegetation types. Weeds 

are also becoming established in harvest units where the seeds have been brought by machinery 

and other vectors such as wildlife, cattle, railcars, and/or wind. Table 24 lists the non-native 

invasive plants that are known to occur on the IPNF, as well as potential invaders. There are 

numerous differences across the IPNF with regard to the location of these plants, and the 

potential for additional invaders to become established. Table 24 summarizes the information for 

each of the three administrative zones on the Forests. Plants listed in table 24 as a potential 

invader (noted as PI in the table), are those that have not yet been located on the Forest but are 

known to be in the general area and are considered potential invaders. The management goal for 

those potential invaders is to prevent them from becoming established, and if found, eradicate 

them promptly. For the new invaders that are identified in the table (noted as NI in the table), 

there is a goal of eradicating any small infestations and reducing the larger ones. Lastly, for those 

plants that are recognized as widespread weeds (noted as WS in the table), the goal is to contain 

them inside areas that are already infested and reduce the plant populations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF- EIS Non-native Invasive Plants 137

Table 24. Non-native Invasive Plant Species that occur (or have the potential to occur) on the IPNF

by Zone

Scientific Name Common Name Plant Status by Zone on the IPNF (PI=Potential 

Invader, NI=New Invader, WS=Widespread Invader)

North Zone Central Zone South Zone

PI NI WS PI NI WS PI NI WS

Achillea nobilis Noble yarrow X

Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed X

Anchusa arvensis Small bugloss X

Anchusa officinalis Common bugloss X

Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard X

Arctim minus Common burdock X

Arctium lappa Burdock X X

Artemesia absinthium Absinth wormwood X X

Barbarea vulgaris Garden yellowrocket X

Bassia scoparia Burning bush X

Berteroa incana Hoary alyssum X

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass X X

Butomus umbellatus Flowering rush X

Campanula 

rapunculoides

Creeping bellflower X

Caragana arorenscens Siberian pea shrub X

Cardaria draba Hoary cress, 

Whitetop

X X

Cardus nutans Musk thistle X X

Centauree dissusa Diffuse knapweed X X X

Centaurea nigrescens Meadow Hawkweed X

Centaurea stoebe Spotted knapweed X X X

Centaurea debeauxii Russian knapweed X X

Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle X X

Chaenorhinum minus Dwarf snapdragon X

Chondrilla juncea Rush skeletonweed X X X

Chrysanthemum 

leucanthemem

Oxeye daisy X

Cichorium intybus Chicory X X X

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle X X X

Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle X X

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed X

Conium maculatum Poison hemlock X X

Crupina vulgaris Common crupina X X X

Cynoglossum officinale Houndstongue X X X

Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom X X

Echium vulgare Blueweed,Texas 

blueweed,Vipers 

Bugloss

X X X
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

138 Non-native Invasive Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Scientific Name Common Name Plant Status by Zone on the IPNF (PI=Potential 

Invader, NI=New Invader, WS=Widespread Invader)

North Zone Central Zone South Zone

PI NI WS PI NI WS PI NI WS

Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive X

Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge X X X

Euphorbia cyparissius Cypress spurge X

Euphorbia myrsinites Myrtle spurge X

Hypochaeris radicata Spotted cat’s ear X

Hieracium aurantiacum Orange hawkweed X X X

Hieracium spp. Meadow/Yellow 

hawkweed complex

X X X

Hypercium perforatum St. Johnswort X X X

Iris pseudacorus Yellowflag iris X X X

Isatis tinctoria Dyer’s woad X

Knautia arvensis Field scabious X

Kochia scoparia Kochia X

Lepidium latifolium Perennial 

pepperweed

X

Lythrum spp. Purple loosestrife X X X

Lathyrus latifolius Perennial pea X

Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye daisy X X

Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax X X X

Linaria vulgaris Yellow toadflax, 

Common toadflax

X X X

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasion watermilfoil X X

Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed X

Nardis stricta Matgrass X

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle X X

Polygonium cuspidatum Japanese knotweed X X X

Polygonum sachalinense Giant knotweed X X

Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass X

Potentilla recta Sulfur cinquefoil X X X

Potentilla argentea Silvery cinquefoil X

Ranunculus acris Tall buttercup X X X

Salvia aethiopis Mediterranean sage X

Senecio jacobaea Tansy ragwort X X X

Solanum rostratum Buffalobur X X

Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass X

Solanum elaeagnifolium Silverleaf nightshade X X

Sisymbrium altissimum Tumble mustard X

Sonchus arvensis Perennial sowthistle X

Solanum dulcamara Climbing nightshade X

Tamarix. spp. Saltcedar complex X
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF- EIS Non-native Invasive Plants 139

Scientific Name Common Name Plant Status by Zone on the IPNF (PI=Potential 

Invader, NI=New Invader, WS=Widespread Invader)

North Zone Central Zone South Zone

PI NI WS PI NI WS PI NI WS

Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy X X X

Tribulus terrestris Puncturevine X X

Tripleurospermum 

maritimum

Scentless 

chamomile

X

Verbascum spp. Mullein X X X

Veronica chamaedrys Germander 

speedwell

X

Veronica officinalis Common speedwell X

The list of non-native invasive plant species noted in the table 24 includes the applicable state of 

Idaho (as well as Washington and Montana) and county noxious weed lists as well as other 

species that the Forest considers important. Treatments for all weed species are an Integrated 

Pest Management approach that includes one, or a combination of the following:

• Biological — release of bio-agents;

• Mechanical — hand pulling, hoeing, clipping of seed heads, etc.;

• Chemical — application of herbicides; and

• Cultural — establishment of desirable plants as competition.

A weed risk assessment was conducted for the IPNF and with current levels of disturbance, it 

was estimated that approximately 48 percent of the Forest (1,199,900 acres) is at high risk, with 

41 percent (1,030,000 acres) at moderate risk. Additional information developed from the weed 

risk assessment mentioned above is displayed in table 25. The weed risk assessment ratings in 

the table are a composite of 20 noxious weed species. The risk rating was based on individual 

components including disturbance, weed susceptibility, threat of weeds to native plant 

communities, and exposure. Methodology used in the assessment is documented in project file 

records.

Table 25. Acres by Weed Risk Rating for NFS Lands on the IPNF

Biophysical Group/ Forestwide Weed Risk Rating Acres Percent of Biophysical 

Group/ Forestwide

Warm/Dry High 304,400 82

Warm/Dry Moderate 67,800 18

Warm/Dry Total 372,200

Warm/Moist High 769,400 52

Warm/Moist Moderate 714,600 48

Warm/Moist Total 1,484,000

Subalpine High 126,100 20

Subalpine Moderate 247,600 39

Subalpine Low 269,100 42

Subalpine Total 642,800

Water None 1,500
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

140 Non-native Invasive Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Biophysical Group/ Forestwide Weed Risk Rating Acres Percent of Biophysical 

Group/ Forestwide

Water Total 1,500

Forestwide High 1,199,900 48

Forestwide Moderate 1,030,000 41

Forestwide Low 269,100 11

Forestwide None 1,500 0

Forest Total 2,500,500

Environmental Consequences

Management Direction for Alternative A

The 1987 Forest Plan contains very little management direction related to the management of 

non-native invasive plants. However, there is one forestwide objective (p II-7 and 8) for noxious 

weeds and it indicates that noxious weed control would be based on an integrated pest 

management approach and would be conducted in cooperation with counties, other agencies, and 

private landowners. The discussion associated with that objective acknowledged that the weed 

species already widespread could not be eradicated given budget constraints. Treatment priority 

was given to small infestations of new species.

Management Direction for Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Relative to Alternative A, all of these action alternatives contain more management direction 

related to non-native invasive plants. For example, these alternatives contain forestwide desired 

condition statements (FW-DC-VEG-10) and objectives (FW-OBJ-VEG-02) that stress the need 

to treat new invaders and utilize BMPs that limit the introduction and spread from management 

activities. The integrated pest management approaches and BMPs being used in the region are 

described in FSM 2081. In addition to the forestwide direction noted above, these alternatives 

also contain additional direction for some specific MAs. All of the action alternatives contain 

numerous Forest Plan components (e.g., FW-DC-WTR-01; FW-DC-SOIL-01,02,03; FW-DCRIP-04, 06; FW-DC-AQH-01; FW-OBJ-SOIL-01; FW-STD-RIP-03, 04; FW-DGL-RIP-03, 05;

FW-GDL-ASQ-02) that would serve to protect watershed, soil, riparian, and aquatic conditions 

in ways that would reduce management caused disturbances in these areas that could otherwise 

increase weed spread or introduction.

Consequences to Non-native Invasive Plants from Forest Plan Components Associated 

with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Access and Recreation Management

Vehicles can carry noxious weeds when they pass through infestations or along the periphery of 

invasions where seeds or other plant parts occur (Sheley et al. 1999). Roadsides along major 

highways, general forest roads, and two-tracked roads are one of the primary mechanisms for the 

spread of these plants. Motorized, as well as non-motorized, recreation activities are also a 

common means for the spread of weeds. Recreational areas and facilities, such as trails, 

trailheads, and campgrounds receive a high amount of public use and soil disturbance and this 

facilitates weed introduction and spread. Recreationists can disperse seeds on their clothing, 

footwear, camping equipment, and vehicles (Sheley et al. 1999). Lastly, users of horse and pack 

stock may transport weed seeds in the supplemental feed that they use to feed their animals.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF- EIS Non-native Invasive Plants 141

There are numerous weed prevention and control measures required by Forest Service policy 

(FSM 2081) for the management of roads and recreational activities. However, despite the use of 

those best measures, there is still a risk that new weeds could be introduced or existing weeds 

spread as a result of these types of activities. To the extent that the alternatives would affect the 

access and recreational activities or opportunities noted above, there would be consequences to 

the risk of weed introduction and spread. As discussed in more detail in the “Access and 

Recreation” topic, the management direction associated with the alternatives would not vary 

with regard to potential effects on motorized and non-motorized access and recreational 

opportunities on the IPNF. Therefore, the risk that weeds would be introduced and/or spread as a 

result of these activities is similar for all the alternatives. One small exception is that for 

Alternative C, on the central portion of the IPNF, there is an area where some motorized trails 

would be closed due to a proposed change in the MA designation; therefore, there may be a 

small reduction in the risk that those activities would spread weeds in that specific area.

Effects from Vegetation and Timber Management

Activities associated with timber harvest and mechanical fuels treatments, such as construction 

and use of roads, landings, and skid trails, disturb the soil and can create a more susceptible 

environment for the spread of weeds. Noxious weeds can also be introduced into an area by 

mechanical equipment associated with these activities. In addition, the use of prescribed fire 

associated with the management of vegetation can increase the likelihood for weed spread.

While there are numerous weed prevention and control measures required by Forest Service 

policy (FSM 2081) related to timber harvesting and other vegetation treatment activities, there is 

still a risk that these activities would result in spreading or introducing new weed species. As 

presented in the discussions for the “Vegetation” and “Timber” topics, the alternatives vary in the 

estimated amount of vegetation and timber treatments that would occur given the different 

management direction for each alternative; and under the two different budget scenarios. For the 

purpose of a general comparison between alternatives on how vegetation and timber related 

direction may affect the risk of weed introduction and spread, the number of acres of treatment 

can be used as an indicator.

Under the assumption that budget levels in the future will remain similar to current levels, 

Alternative A is predicted to result in the smallest number of acres being treated with timber 

harvest activities or prescribed fire (approximately 1.8 percent of the forested acres during the 

first decade), while Alternative C would result in the largest number of acres (approximately 4.2 

percent) being treated during that time period. Alternatives B Modified and D are predicted to 

treat approximately 3.6 percent and 3.3 percent, respectively. If the budget constraint was 

removed, all the alternatives would treat more acres. Compared to the other alternatives, 

Alternative A would treat the smallest number of acres (approximately 2.8 percent), followed by 

Alternative D (4.5 percent), Alternative C (6.0 percent) and lastly, Alternative B Modified (6.2 

percent).

Effects from Fire Management

Non-native invasive plants frequently invade sites following fires and sometimes it can occur on 

a large scale (Asher et al. 2000). In addition, wildfire suppression efforts often involve 

constructing control lines and requiring staging areas for fire equipment and fire camps. Control 

lines are usually dug down to bare mineral soil and can provide sites that are very vulnerable to 

weed establishment and spread. While there are many weed prevention and control measures that 

are required by Forest Service policy (FSM 2081) that are associated with the management of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

142 Non-native Invasive Plants Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

wildfires and prescribe fires, there is an increased risk of weed invasions and introductions in 

burned areas.

The relative risk among alternatives for prescribed fire was addressed above in the “Vegetation”

and “Timber” paragraph. Therefore, the following discussion concerns risks associated from 

natural, unplanned fires that are managed to meet resource objectives. As described in more 

detail in the discussion of the “Fire” topic, the management direction associated with 

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D would result in an increased level of natural, unplanned 

ignitions being used to meet resource objectives compared to Alternative A. While it is difficult 

to predict the magnitude of the likely consequences, Alternatives B Modified, C, and D would 

result in higher risks for weed introduction and spread compared to Alternative A due to the 

increased amount of natural, unplanned ignitions managed to meet resource objectives.

Effects from Wildlife Management

As previously noted, wildlife species are one of the many mechanisms that serve to spread nonnative invasive plants. Weed seeds, or parts of plants, can attach to the fur or feet of wildlife, or 

in some cases, are eaten and pass through animals and may be ready to germinate (Sheley et al. 

1999). Therefore, to the degree that the various alternatives may affect wildlife populations, 

there could be some effects on the amount of weed spread that occurs. In addition, when 

conducting wildlife habitat restoration and improvement projects (for example prescribed 

burning to improve big game forage) one of the consequences may be that the site conditions are 

created that are more suitable for weed establishment and/or spread. However, the consequences 

of the wildlife-related management direction on the establishment and spread of non-native 

invasive plants is likely to be similar for all of the alternatives.

Effects from Watershed, Soil, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat Management

Noxious weed infestations are fairly common in some riparian areas on the IPNF. This is due to 

the availability of ample moisture, the high potential for weed seed transportation through stream 

systems, and in some instances, the high levels of public activity due to recreational activities in 

these areas. Some weed species are adapted to riparian areas.

While all the alternatives include the INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) direction that would 

serve to reduce weed spread/introductions in these areas, the action alternatives contain more 

protection measures. In addition, there are a number of soil-and water-related weed prevention 

and control measures required by Forest Service policy (FSM 2081) that are applicable for all 

alternatives.

Effects from Livestock Grazing Management

Livestock can transport weed seeds in their fur, wool, or manure (Sheley et al. 1999). In areas 

where livestock congregate, such as around watering sites, trails, corrals, and along fence lines, 

the high level of soil disturbance can create conditions for weed germination and spread. In 

addition, some weed species do not require bare soil to become established and can compete 

with native plants in riparian areas or other heavily vegetated areas in allotments.

As discussed in more detail in the “Livestock Grazing” section of this EIS, the amount of 

livestock grazing on the IPNF is not anticipated to vary due to the management direction 

associated with various alternatives. Therefore, the risk that livestock grazing activities would

introduce and/or spread non-native invasive plants would be the same across all alternatives. 

There are numerous weed prevention and control measures required by Forest Service policy 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF- EIS Non-native Invasive Plants 143

(FSM 2081) related to livestock grazing, and they would be utilized under all alternatives to 

reduce the weed related risks associated with these activities.

Effects from Minerals, Lands, and Special Uses Management

Activities associated with locating and removing minerals and the issuance of special use 

permits or the acquisition, disposal, or exchange of lands can have consequences to the 

introduction and spread of noxious weeds. However, the Forest Plan components relating to 

those activities do not vary by alternative; therefore, the weed risks would be similar with each 

alternative. There are numerous weed prevention and control measures required by Forest 

Service policy (FSM 2081) related to lands, special uses, and minerals; and they would be 

utilized under all alternatives to reduce the weed related risks associated with these activities.

Cumulative Effects

The effects that past activities have had on the introduction and spread of non-native invasive 

plants were discussed in the “Affected Environment” section and are reflected in the current 

condition. Therefore, past activities are not carried forward into the following cumulative effects 

discussion. Present and foreseeable future activities that could have consequences are 

summarized below.

Human Population Increases and Additional Recreational Use of the IPNF: The regional 

population is expected to increase in the area surrounding the IPNF. As the human population 

increases in the region, it is expected that there will be more recreational use of the IPNF. 

Although it is anticipated all types of recreational use will increase, because of the aging 

demographics, there may be a slight increase in the motorized use versus more strenuous nonmotorized activities. In general, both of these trends may increase the spread of weeds and/or the 

probability of new weed species being introduced. This effect would cumulatively add to those 

resulting from the alternatives.

Climate Change: As discussed in more detail in the KIPZ Climate Change Report (USDA 

Forest Service 2010b), climate change may increase the risk in the Northern Region of the 

spread of non-native invasive plant species but there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding any 

predictions. It is likely that some noxious weeds will likely expand as the climate changes and 

some may decline. However, if climate change results in more wildfire activity, as predicted, 

more area is likely to burn and the result would be an increase in highly suitable areas for weeds 

to spread to. As a result, climate change may directly or indirectly cumulatively add to the risks 

resulting from the alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

144 Fire & Fuels Management Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Fire and Fuels Management

Introduction

Fire is an ecological process as well as a disturbance. In some ways, fire is similar to insects, 

diseases, wind events, floods, or ice storms. However, unlike other processes and disturbances, 

fire can also be used as a tool to manage natural resources. Land managers can plan for fire use 

in order to achieve management objectives; whether through the use of prescribed fire (i.e., a 

planned ignition) or natural, unplanned fire (i.e., ignited by lightning as opposed to humans).

Fire management programs oversee all aspects of fire suppression as well as the use of fire to 

meet management objectives. Fire suppression actions include a full range of options, from 

resource intensive (e.g., large numbers of personnel and equipment) to less intensive activities. 

The decision to use one or a combination of suppression strategies and tactics depends on 

management objectives and factors including such things as threats to life, property, and 

investments; fuel and weather conditions; natural resource objectives; terrain; and available 

resources such as personnel and equipment.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551): Authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to make provisions for the protection of national forests against destruction by 

fire.

• Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1010, 1011): Authorizes and 

directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and land 

utilization to protect public lands.

• Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131, 1132): Authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to take such measures as may be necessary in the control of fire with designated 

wilderness.

• National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of October 22, 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.):

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to specify guidelines for land management plans to 

ensure protection of forest resources. Implementing regulations at Title 36, Part 219 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 219.27) specify that consistent with the relative 

resource values involved, management prescriptions in forest plans must minimize serious or 

long-lasting hazards from wildfire.

• Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.): Provides for the protection and 

enhancement of the nation’s resources and applies to the application and management of 

prescribed fire.

• Economy Act of 1932, June 30, 1932 (41 U.S.C. 686): Provides for procurement of 

materials, supplies, equipment, work, or services from other federal agencies.

• Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 572): Authorizes expenditure of Forest 

Service funds to erect buildings, lookout towers, and other structures on land owned by 

states. It provides for the procurement and operation of aerial facilities and services for the 

protection and management of the national forests and other lands administered by the Forest 

Service.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Fire & Fuels Management 145

• Reciprocal Fire Protection Act of May 27, 1955 (42 U.S.C. 1856, Chapter 15A):

Authorizes reciprocal agreements with federal, state, and other wildland fire protection 

organizations.

• Wildfire Suppression Assistance Act of April 7, 1989 (HR 4936): Authorizes the Secretary 

of Agriculture to enter into agreements with fire organizations of foreign countries for 

assistance in wildfire protection.

• Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1904): Expedites the preparation and 

implementation of hazardous fuels projects on federal land and assisting rural communities, 

states, and landowners in restoring healthy forest conditions on state and private lands.

Regulation and Policy

• The National Fire Plan: Directs reduction of hazardous fuel and restoration of forest and 

rangeland. Includes a ten-year Comprehensive Strategy (2001) and implementation plan 

response developed by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, Western Governors, 

and other interested parties, for protecting communities and the environment. Coupled with 

the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy 

Review Working Group 2001), the Plan forms a framework for federal agencies, states, 

tribes, local governments, and communities to reduce the threat of fire, to improve the 

condition of the land, to restore forest and rangeland health, and to reduce risk to 

communities.

• The Healthy Forests Initiative: Reduces administrative process to facilitate implementation 

of projects to reduce hazardous fuels and restore healthy ecological conditions on federal 

lands. The Healthy Forest Restoration Act, passed in December 2003, provides improved 

statutory processes for hazardous fuel reduction projects on certain types of at-risk NFS and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. It also provides other authorities and direction to 

help reduce hazardous fuel and restore healthy forest and rangeland conditions on lands of 

all ownerships. Healthy Forest Restoration Act is intended to be consistent with, and 

supportive of, the community-based wildfire planning, watershed planning and related 

ongoing efforts under the National Fire Plan and Comprehensive Strategy.

Key Indicators

• How much, where, and under what conditions may planned ignitions and natural,

unplanned ignitions be used to meet resource objectives on the Forest; and

• How much fuel treatment would the alternatives likely implement and the relative risk 

reduction that could occur.

Methodology and Analysis Process

The analysis area for fire is all lands on and within the IPNF. This area represents NFS lands 

where fire management activities may take place. Cumulative effects includes other land 

ownerships within and adjacent to lands administered by the IPNF, particularly in areas of 

wildland-urban interface. This larger area incorporates concerns to and from other landowners 

with regard to the potential effects on or from these intermingled properties. This approach is 

consistent with the coordination that occurs between states, counties, other federal agencies, and 

private landowners under the National Fire Plan and other fire management direction.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

146 Fire & Fuels Management Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Affected Environment — Use of Fire for the Maintenance and Restoration of FireAdapted Ecosystems

The affected environment for the “Vegetation” section provides a comprehensive discussion on 

the historical and current role that fire has had on the IPNF, the types of wildfires that 

historically occurred on the IPNF and the ecological and environmental effects from fire 

suppression. That part of the “Vegetation” section provides a better appreciation for the 

importance that fire has on the maintenance of the biodiversity and productivity of ecosystems 

on the IPNF; and provides the overall context for understanding the environmental consequences 

of the alternatives presented in the “Environmental Consequences” section for this topic.

The AMS Technical Report (USDA Forest Service 2003 March) describes the number of 

wildfires that have occurred on the IPNF during the last 100 years. Historically, fire has played a 

significant role in ecosystem processes for vegetation on the Forests. Historical fire levels for the 

Forests were probably similar to the levels that occurred in the Interior Columbia Basin, which 

was 3 percent of the area in an “average” fire year and up to 6 percent of the area in an “active” 

fire year (Barrett et al. 1997). Based on wildfire and prescribed fire records for the last 10 years, 

the IPNF have averaged approximately 3 percent of its area. The IPNF have used prescribed 

burning as a tool to treat fuels, improve habitat, and reduce wildland fire risk for the past several 

decades. During the last 10 years, the IPNF have used prescribed burning on approximately 

62,000 acres. Over a 3 year period (2007 to 2009) the number of wildfires per year that occurred 

on the IPNF ranged from 102 to 125 and the number of acres that burned annually from those 

fires varied from 132 to 431 acres (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Fire use as a tool can have adverse effects under certain conditions, even though it is an 

important ecosystem process. Current Forest Plan direction is intended to help define those 

situations where fire use will be limited or is not to be considered appropriate due to potential 

adverse resource or social-economic impacts. Part of the decision criteria to determine whether a 

lightning ignition will be managed to meet resource objectives is whether or not the fire would 

likely benefit or harm resources and be consistent with the Forest Plan direction.

Planned or natural, unplanned ignitions can help achieve certain management objectives. The use 

of either tool will occur within certain conditions or prescriptions. Prescribed fire and the use of 

natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives are likely to be implemented at different 

times during the burning season, and therefore, have somewhat different effects. Prescribed fires 

are often conducted in the spring and fall within burning “windows” that are developed to ensure 

that the effects meet resource management objectives. Conversely, lightning produces the 

natural, unplanned ignitions that may be managed to meet resource objectives. Most of the 

lightning storms that ignite wildfires on the IPNF occur in July and August. Therefore, the use of 

natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives may more often be implemented under 

drier conditions than those that would occur within prescribed fire burning windows. Prescribed 

fires implemented in the spring or fall would more likely be of lower intensities and severities 

than natural, unplanned ignitions during the summer. In addition, the potential size of the natural,

unplanned ignitions that are being managed to meet resource objectives is likely greater than 

most planned fire ignition.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Fire & Fuels Management 147

Environmental Consequences — Use of Fire for the Maintenance and 

Restoration of Fire-Adapted Ecosystems

Management Direction for Alternative A

The 1987 Forest Plan for the IPNF contains some direction regarding the role that fire should 

have on affecting the ecosystems. The forestwide goals (goal #23), objectives (item e, p. II-4, 

item g, p II-5, item s, p II-10) and standards (fire management section p. II-38) discuss 

management direction for fire in wilderness areas, the use of fire for creating big game forage, 

and suppressing wildfires that threaten old growth stands. Alternative A does not have any 

forestwide direction that provides an emphasis on the need to use fire as a tool to restore and/or 

maintain ecosystem composition, structure, or function. Most of the direction in the 1987 Forest 

Plan regarding fire is contained within the individual MA standards and guidelines.

There are 19 MAs in the 1987 Forest Plan that contain direction regarding the use of prescribed 

fire, the use of natural, unplanned ignitions and appropriate suppression strategies, and tactics in 

both critical and non-critical fire seasons.

Prescribed fire may be used in all MAs except MA17 and 18 (existing and proposed developed 

recreation and administrative areas, respectively). However, the use of natural, unplanned 

ignitions is fairly restrictive in the 1987 Forest Plan and some of the MA standards in the Plan 

serve as barriers for the use of this tool. For example, nine MAs (10, 13 through 20) have 

standards that do not allow the use of natural, unplanned ignitions and the acres that these MAs 

occupy is substantial; approximately 13 percent of the total acres on the IPNF.

The AMS identified several impediments to the use of fire in the 1987 Forest Plan. The MAs 

were numerous and generally small in size. Adjoining MAs often had different or unclear 

direction on the use of natural, unplanned ignitions; this resulted in creating a difficult situation 

for developing subsequent fire management plans and implementing an integrated fire 

management program. Also, because the 1987 Forest Plan did not contain an emphasis or much 

analysis on the use of fire (especially natural, unplanned ignitions), it was generally believed that 

the Plan did not adequately authorize the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource 

objectives.

Management Direction for Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D contain more specific forestwide and MA direction regarding 

the role that fire would have maintaining and/or restoring fire-adapted ecosystems. For example, 

each action alternative would contain forestwide desired condition FW-DC-FIRE-03 from the 

Plan, which states, “The use of wildland fire (both prescribed fire, and where appropriate, 

natural, unplanned ignitions) increases in many areas across the Forest. Fire plays an increased 

role in helping to trend the vegetation towards the desired conditions while serving other 

important ecosystem functions.” In addition, each of the alternatives would contain two 

forestwide objectives (FW-OBJ-FIRE-01 and 02) which indicate that fire would be used as a tool 

for both fuel reduction and ecosystem maintenance/restoration functions. The second of these 

objectives expresses the desire that at least 10 percent of the natural, unplanned ignitions would 

be managed to improve and/or maintain fire adapted ecosystems. Other forestwide direction 

(FW-DC-WL-15, FW-OBJ-VEG-01, and FW-GDL-VEG-01) that relates to vegetation or 

wildlife habitat would allocate fire to play a greater role as a management tool. At the scale of 

the individual MAs, all the action alternatives would contain desired conditions and guidelines 

from the Plan that would articulate what role fire should have and whether or not one or both of 

the principle fire tools (prescribed fire or the use of natural, unplanned ignitions) may be used. In 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

148 Fire & Fuels Management Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

general, many of the MAs express the desire to increase the use of fire as a tool (natural or 

prescribed) to trend the ecosystems toward the desired conditions. Some of the MAs, typically 

the ones that occupy small areas and contain resources and/or values that are more susceptible to 

being harmed by fire, contain limits or restrictions on the use of fire, especially natural,

unplanned ignitions. These are research natural areas (MA4), primary recreation areas (MA7),

and some historical or botanical special areas (MA3).

In summary, the management direction that is contained in all of the action alternatives is 

generally designed to encourage an increased use of fire (whether it be prescribed fire or using 

natural, unplanned ignitions) as a tool to assist in the restoration and maintenance of the various 

ecosystems on the IPNF. However, management direction also recognizes that in certain 

situations and locations, wildfires are undesirable because the risk of harming values is too great,

and therefore, suppression action can be taken.

General Effects

The general effects that fire has on vegetation and forest ecosystems are presented in the 

“Affected Environment” section for vegetation. In addition, the effects of not using fire or 

suppressing wildfires are also discussed in that section.

Relative to Alternative A, Alternatives B Modified, C, and D would provide more opportunity 

and direction for the use of fire for the purposes of restoring or maintaining the fire-adapted 

ecosystems on the IPNF. The management direction associated with the action alternatives 

supports a substantial increase in the use of fire; both the use of prescribed fire as well as the use 

of natural, unplanned ignitions.

With regard to the action alternatives, the Forest Plan components that provide direction or 

otherwise influence the use of fire are similar. However, there are subtle differences in the mix of 

fire “tools” that are likely to be used under the various action alternatives. Relative to the other 

action alternatives Alternative D has a greater emphasis on the production of timber and the use 

of other active management techniques to trend the vegetation towards desired conditions. 

Therefore, the use of fire under Alternative D would likely result in a greater amount of 

prescribed fire (e.g., underburning and/or pile burning) used as opposed to natural, unplanned 

ignitions. In contrast, Alternative C would have the greatest emphasis on passive management;

therefore, would more likely use natural, unplanned ignitions as the primary tool to trend 

towards desired vegetation conditions, relative to prescribed fire. Finally, the mix of fire tools 

used that would likely get used for Alternative B Modified would fall between that of C and D. 

With one small exception (MA4a — established and proposed RNAs), all of the MAs allow for 

the use of prescribed fire for the maintenance/restoration of the ecosystem (as well as other 

purposes). In addition, most of the MAs (and the vast majority of the total acres on the IPNF) 

allow the use of natural, unplanned ignitions as a restoration and maintenance tool. The special 

area MAs (MA3), the research natural areas (MA4a), experimental forests (MA4b), and primary 

recreation areas (MA7) generally do not allow the use of unplanned ignitions to meet resource 

objectives. For those areas, the risk that a natural, unplanned ignition would harm the values 

associated with those areas was considered too high.

Affected Environment — Wildland-Urban Interface

The wildland-urban interface (WUI) is the line, area, or zone where structures and other human 

developments meet or intermingle with wildland or vegetation fuels. Population growth has led 

to an increase in these interface areas. More and more people are living in small communities 

adjacent to the WUI. Throughout the West the number of communities threatened or affected by 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Fire & Fuels Management 149

wildfire has increased. To address this concern, as well as concerns about the effects of wildfires 

on natural resources, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior were directed to develop a 

strategy to address severe wildland fires, reduce fire impacts on rural communities, and ensure 

effective firefighting capability in the future. This strategy, which includes national strategic and

implementation goals and plans, budget requests and appropriations, and agency action plans, is 

known as the National Fire Plan.

The presence of the WUI areas affects all fire management decisions in those interface areas. 

While a wide range of fire management strategies are available to implement, these options are 

usually narrowed down in these zones due to concerns that fires may move from federal to 

private lands. Therefore, suppression costs are often higher adjacent to interface areas. In 

addition to the risk of wildfires moving from federal lands onto private lands, the risk of humancaused wildfires originating on private lands and spreading onto federally protected lands is 

increasing.

Currently, approximately 34 percent of the lands on the IPNF are within this WUI area1 and the 

IPNF have been collaborating with other landowners and jurisdictions to reduce the risk of 

wildfires in these areas. Individual community protection plans have been created by the 

counties; and the IPNF has been working cooperatively to reduce the fuels and jointly make 

progress towards reducing risks.

Environmental Consequences — Wildland-Urban Interface

Management Direction for Alternative A

The 1987 Forest Plan does not contain specific Forest Plan components or other direction related 

to the need to address the fuel and fire hazards associated with the WUI area. However, since the 

Forest Plan was developed, a number of national policies, initiatives, and acts have emphasized 

the need to address this issue. As described in more detail in the cumulative effects discussion, 

national direction has had a large influence over fire management programs on the IPNF and in 

the way the 1987 Forest Plan has been implemented. For about a decade, the IPNF have focused 

its fuel reduction programs around the WUI and have collaborated with various counties in 

implementing their respective fire mitigation plans and programs. Therefore, although the 1987 

Forest Plan does not contain direction on this, the implementation of the Plan is heavily 

influenced by national and local emphasis on the need to reduce fuel hazards in these areas.

Management Direction for Alternatives B Modified, C and D

All action alternatives would contain similar direction regarding WUI and hazardous fuel 

reduction. Forestwide desired conditions (FW-DC-FIRE-01, 02, 03) express the need to reduce 

hazardous fuels within the WUI as well as other areas where values are at risk; while recognizing 

that the public and firefighter safety is always a priority with all fire management activities. 

Specifically, FW-DC-FIRE-02 states:

“Hazardous fuels are reduced within the WUI and other areas where values are 

at risk. Fire behavior characteristics and fuel conditions exist in these areas that 

allow for safe and effective fire management, as defined and characterized in 

county wildland fire mitigation plans. Fire behavior is characterized by lowintensity surface fire with limited crownfire potential. Forest conditions, and the 

 1 This estimate was developed by using the various County Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP’s) and 

overlaying their WUI maps onto the IPNF ownership map and calculating acres and percent.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

150 Fire & Fuels Management Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

pattern of conditions across the landscape, exist in these areas such that the risk 

is low for epidemic levels of bark beetles, high levels of root disease, and large 

scale, stand replacement fires.”

In addition, these alternatives would contain forestwide direction regarding the objective of 

treating fuels (FW-OBJ-FIRE-01) with the highest priority for treatment in the WUI.

General Effects

As described above, relative to the 1987 Forest Plan, the action alternatives would contain more 

direction and emphasis on the need to treat fuels and lower wildfire risks in the WUI areas. For 

each of the action alternatives, the forestwide objective (FW-OBJ-FIRE-01) would be to treat 

fuels on NFS lands over approximately 6,000 to 16,000 acres annually and do so with an 

emphasis on placing those activities in WUI areas. As a result of those activities, the hazardous 

fuels in those WUI areas would likely be reduced. In addition, treatments on NFS lands in the 

WUI often adjoin other land owners/jurisdictions where additional fuel treatments are occurring. 

The result is a larger area where hazards would be mitigated.

Consequences to Fire from Forest Plan Components Associated with other Resource 

Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Social and Economic Management

As opposed to Alternative A, the action alternatives all contain a forestwide desired condition 

(FW-DC-SES-04) component that states, “To the extent possible, the Forest contributes to the 

protection of communities and individuals from wildfire within the limits of firefighter safety 

and budgets.” This desired condition provides additional emphasis (in addition to fire 

components previously discussed for the action alternatives) on the need for the IPNF to help 

protect communities. As a result, the action alternatives are more responsive to the issue of fire 

risk in the WUI and the need to reduce hazardous fuels as one of the measures to help protect 

communities.

Effects from Air Quality Management

The consequences to fire (both the use of fire for the maintenance/restoration of ecosystems, as 

well as using fire to reduce hazardous fuels in the WUI) from air quality related Forest Plan 

components are the same for all alternatives and would be similar to those presented for the 

vegetation topic. All action alternatives have Plan components (i.e., FW-DC-AQ-01, FW-GDLAQ-01) that indicate that air quality standards established by federal and state agencies would be 

met and that the Forest Service would meet the requirements of state implementation plans and 

smoke management plans. Through experience implementing these components under the 1987 

Forest Plan, it is apparent that the ability to use prescribed fire to manage forest vegetation is 

impacted. Often, obtaining the required smoke permissions to burn essentially serves to constrain 

how much can be burned and when and where it can occur. The costs of conducting prescribed 

fires increases as a result of the burning regulations, and to some degree, this affects how many 

acres would be burned. Because the use of fire is so important for the maintenance/restoration of 

the fire-adapted ecosystems on the IPNF, as well as a tool for hazardous fuel reduction activities, 

the consequences of this would be substantial.

Effects from Access and Recreation Management

The consequences to fire from access and recreation Forest Plan components are predicted to be 

fairly minor and are likely to be similar in nature for all alternatives. As discussed in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Fire & Fuels Management 151

“Vegetation” topic, in some circumstances, the use of fire may not be compatible with the scenic 

integrity objectives of High or Very High that were established along scenic travel routes and 

other important scenic areas; therefore, those components could have a small effect on the ability 

to use the fire tool for the maintenance/restoration of ecosystems. The consequences that would 

result from the no-action alternative as a result of Plan components in the 1987 Forest Plan (e.g., 

forestwide standard #1 under the Visual heading on page II-25 of the Plan) are fairly similar to 

the action alternatives.

Effects from Timber Management

As discussed above for Alternative A, the general direction in the 1987 Forest Plan for the MAs 

that included the production of timber as one of the objectives, was to suppress wildfires to 

provide the best benefit to cost ratio given the commercial value of the timber at risk. The action 

alternatives do not have this direction and emphasis on protecting timber values; therefore, one 

consequence is a greater opportunity in the action alternatives to allow natural, unplanned 

ignitions to burn and serve to help maintain/restore the fire adapted ecosystems.

Effects from Watershed, Soil, Riparian, and Aquatic Management

The consequences from watershed, soil, riparian, and aquatic related Forest Plan components on 

the ability to use fire for ecosystem maintenance/restoration or on the ability to reduce hazardous 

fuels in the WUI, would generally be similar for all alternatives. All alternatives incorporate the 

retained decision INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995) and also contain various components to 

protect soil and aquatic resource. In order to meet the Plan direction associated with soil and 

aquatic resources there will likely be occasions where prescribed fire, or natural, unplanned 

ignitions, cannot be used due to potential negative effects that those activities could have on 

these resources. Road construction, reconstruction, or maintenance activities associated with 

mechanical fuel treatments may be needed but could be limited if there is potential for sediment

delivery to the stream network. Although it is difficult to quantify the effects, protective 

measures directed towards soil and aquatic resources could limit the use of fire as a vegetation 

management tool or limit the amount of fuel treatments that could be undertaken in the WUI.

Effects from Wildlife Management

The ability to use fire as a tool to maintain and/or restore fire-adapted ecosystems is largely 

discussed in the forest “Vegetation” section. To be consistent with some of the wildlife 

components (i.e., FW-STD-WL-01, 03 and FW-GDL-WL-02) for grizzly bear, lynx, and 

caribou, the use of fire would be constrained somewhat in certain areas of the IPNF. However, 

all of the alternatives (including the no-action) would be affected in the same way.

One effect on vegetation from revised Forest Plan components related to wildlife is the desire to 

maintain or provide old growth or stands with old forest structures for terrestrial species 

associated with these habitats. To accomplish this, there may be a need to prevent old growth or 

stands with old forest structures from being lost to stand-replacing wildfires. These stands 

currently tend to be distributed over most of the landscapes on the IPNF and it may be necessary 

to consider if there would be some level of risk to stands managed for old growth. In minimizing 

the loss of these types of stands, one effect to vegetation may be that wildfires are suppressed 

more often, which could reduce the ability to achieve other aspects of the vegetation desired 

condition (such as increasing early-successional forests and shade-intolerant tree species). The 

1987 Forest Plan contains a forestwide standard (item 2e under heading “Fire Management,”

page II-38) that wildfires would be suppressed if there was a risk of losing designated old growth 

(with the possible exception of wilderness areas). None of the action alternatives would contain 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

152 Fire & Fuels Management Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

this direction. Therefore, natural, unplanned ignitions would likely be suppressed more often 

under Alternative A than they would under the other alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

The effects that past activities have had on the two issues that are addressed above were 

discussed in the “Affected Environment” sections above and are reflected in the existing 

condition. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, past activities are not carried forward into the 

following cumulative effects analysis. Present and foreseeable future activities that could have 

effects on either the ability to use fire as a tool to maintain/restore fire-adapted ecosystems, or 

the fire risks in the WUI, are summarized below.

• National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Initiative, and Healthy Forest Restoration Act: Since 

they were developed, these national level plans, initiatives, and acts (these are called "other 

plans" for the rest of this discussion) have influenced the vegetation and fuel management 

programs on the IPNF. Therefore, they have had some effects on hazardous fuels and it is 

anticipated that they will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In general, these plans 

have resulted in more vegetation treatments being implemented in the vicinity of WUI areas 

with the objective of reducing hazardous fuels; and fewer vegetation treatments being 

conducted in areas located away from communities. In addition, the types of fuel treatments 

that are being used in response to these other plans are often more expensive and the social 

issues (i.e., effects of treatments on scenery, air quality, noise, wildlife viewing, etc.) can be 

more contentious. Therefore, higher public involvement, planning, and implementation 

expenses are likely to lead to fewer acres being treated within a given budget level. Not only 

do these other plans emphasize the need to reduce hazardous fuels in the WUI, but they also 

stress the need to restore the natural fire regimes and forest conditions to the larger national 

forest lands. These plans encourage the development of more resistant and resilient forest 

vegetation that would be less susceptible to large undesirable wildfires and/or insect 

outbreaks.

• Northern Region Integrated Restoration and Protection Strategy: The Northern Region 

of the Forest Service has been working on a strategy and a decision support model to help 

identify opportunities and priorities for integrated restoration and protection activities 

throughout the region. This strategy is a component of the larger regional climate change 

adaptation strategy. In the future, this strategy has the potential to influence program level 

decisions on the IPNF by affecting where, when, and how forest vegetation treatments and 

protection activities occur. One of the components of this strategy is focused on reducing 

hazardous fuels in the WUI. Another component emphasizes the need to develop more 

resistant and resilient forest conditions. It is premature to speculate what the more specific 

effects may be once this strategy is implemented, but in all likelihood the integrated 

restoration and protection strategy will result in an emphasis and provide some planning 

tools towards improving conditions in the WUI and greater forest areas.

• Status Review of Whitebark Pine: Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed 

a status review of whitebark pine for potential listing as a threatened or endangered species. 

They concluded that the species warranted listing but was precluded because of the need to 

address higher priority species. Whitebark pine is now designated as a Candidate species. If 

it is listed at a later date, there could be effects to the fire management programs on the 

IPNF. In addition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s review of the species, the regional 

forester has placed whitebark pine on the sensitive species list for Region One. While it may 

be too early to determine how these actions may influence the fire programs, one restoration 

strategy for this tree species may be to conduct more prescribed fire activities; or use more 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Fire & Fuels Management 153

natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives and create conditions for the 

maintenance and restoration of forest stands that either currently contain or are suitable for 

whitebark pine.

• The Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009: This act 

requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to submit to Congress a report that 

contains a "cohesive wildfire management strategy." The Wildland Fire Leadership Council,

therefore, directed the development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy (Cohesive Strategy). The Cohesive Strategy utilizes a collaborative, "from-theground-up" approach built through active involvement of all levels of government and nongovernmental organizations, as well as the public, to seek national, all-lands solutions to 

wildland fire management issues. The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy is an ongoing project that is being planned in three phases. Thus far, only the first 

phase has been completed and it is too early in the planning process of this national strategy 

to know, with much detail or certainty, how the strategy may influence programs and 

activities that occur on the IPNF. However, many of the elements and emphasis items in the 

Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act as well as the Cohesive 

Strategy report have already been considered and incorporated into the Forest Plan 

components of the action alternatives and/or the effects analysis. For example, the three key 

wildfire problem areas that were noted in the strategy report (Restore and Maintain 

Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities, and Response to Fire) are very similar to a number 

of the Forest Plan revision topics that were identified and used to revise the Forest Plan 

direction. In addition, a number of the other elements in the Federal Land Assistance, 

Management, and Enhancement Act (i.e., using a full range of management responses to 

wildfires, allocating hazardous fuel reduction funds based on priorities, assessing impacts of 

climate change on wildfires) were considered in the Forest Plan revision process. Because of 

these reasons, when the national strategy is complete, it is likely that the revised Forest Plan 

direction (which is contained in all the action alternatives) will be consistent with that 

national strategy. For this reason, no cumulative effects are anticipated as a result of this 

national strategy.

• Climate Change: Of all the ongoing and foreseeable future actions that have the potential to 

affect fire, especially unwanted wildfire, climate change is likely to be the single most 

important factor. The effects of climate change will likely combine with some of the effects 

that result from implementing the alternatives, to produce cumulative impacts. The potential 

effects (and uncertainties) that climate change may have on the fire issues are summarized in 

the KIPZ Climate Change Report (USDA Forest Service 2010b). In general, the fire seasons 

are expected to become longer, large wildfires are expected to occur more often, and total 

area burned is expected to increase. By increasing the amount of prescribed fire use, as well 

as the amount of natural, unplanned ignitions that are used to meet resource objectives, the 

action alternatives would be expected to partially offset predicted effects from the climate 

change. The more fire use (and mechanical treatments) that occurs as a result of the action 

alternatives, the greater the fuels will be reduced and the forest vegetation restored to more 

resistant and resilient conditions, which would mitigate climate change effects.

• Human Population Increases and/or Shifts towards Wildland-Urban Interface: For the 

last several decades, there has been more human development occurring around the "edges" 

of lands administered by the IPNF. This trend is expected to continue in the future and is 

likely to have effects on the forest vegetation that are similar to those discussed above under 

the item titled "National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Initiative, and Healthy Forest Restoration 

Act." In addition, with a greater number of people living and recreating in these wildland-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

154 Fire & Fuels Management Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

urban interface areas, there is a greater probability of more human-caused wildfire ignitions 

that could have effects on the forest vegetation.

• Increased Regulation and Concern over Smoke Emissions: The ability to use fire to 

maintain and/or restore the fire-adapted ecosystems on the IPNF, or to use fire to reduce 

hazardous fuels in the WUI, is highly dependent upon air quality regulations. Therefore, to 

the extent that air quality regulations may become more stringent in regards to the quantity 

and timing of smoke emissions, there could be substantial effects on the ability of the IPNF 

fire management program to utilize these fire tools. If past trends of increasing regulations 

and decreasing burn opportunities continue, the effects could be substantial and would likely 

result in not being able to use fire enough to make meaningful improvements to forest and 

fuel conditions and meet objectives.

• Timber Product Manufacturing Infrastructure and Economics: The ability of the IPNF 

to positively affect the forest vegetation is partially dependent upon the ability to sell forest 

products to manufacturing companies and to use the harvesting process (including the 

residual slash disposal activities) as a means to positively affect the forest vegetation and 

reduce hazardous fuels. If the forest products industry declines in areas surrounding the 

IPNF to the degree that it is difficult to sell forest products or "stumpage prices" decrease 

significantly, it would affect how many acres could be treated and fuels reduced. While some 

treatments could be accomplished by using prescribed burn only treatments, it is generally 

too risky in the WUI and very expensive elsewhere.

• Shared Border with Canada: The northern portion of the IPNF shares an international 

border with Canada (British Columbia). As such, there may be some impacts regarding the 

management of wildfires and whether or not the use of natural, unplanned ignitions is 

appropriate on the IPNF when wildfires occur near the USA-Canadian border. The Forest 

Service, as well as other federal and state agencies in the U.S., has an agreement with

Canadian Officials from the province of British Columbia in Canada. The agreement is 

known as the Northwest Wildland Fire Protection Agreement or the Northwest Compact 

(Northwest Compact 2013). When a wildfire occurs on the IPNF in the vicinity of the 

border, communications occur between the IPNF and the British Columbia fire officials. The 

decisions associated with how a wildfire is managed in the U.S. near the border can be 

influenced by the concerns or objectives of the Canadians (and visa-versa). Because of this, 

the effect could be that some natural, unplanned ignitions that ignite on the IPNF that may 

have otherwise been allowed to burn to meet resource objectives on the IPNF could be 

suppressed or managed differently due to Canadian concerns. The impact on the forest 

vegetation on the IPNF could be a small negative impact in trending the forest vegetation on 

the IPNF towards desired conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 155

Watershed, Soils, Riparian, Aquatic Habitat, and Aquatic Species

Introduction

The revision topic Watersheds, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources considers numerous 

physical and biological resources such as: soil productivity, water quality, native and non-native 

desirable species, and aquatic habitats.

Legacy effects from past timber harvest, mining, and other human-caused disturbances continue 

to affect watershed health and the aquatic ecosystem. As amended by INFISH (USDA Forest 

Service 1995a and 1995b), the 1987 Forest Plan direction reduces the risk to watersheds and 

aquatic biota from new and ongoing activities. For some resources, INFISH standards and 

guidelines contain general direction for repairing past damage from land management associated 

with roads, grazing, and recreation activities. Generally, under the direction of the 1987 Forest 

Plan the intensity and the risks associated with new and ongoing developments and humaninduced disturbances has been, and will be, greatly reduced as compared to the last several 

decades. However, they are likely to continue to accumulate and the press-nature of those 

disturbances still exists.

There will continue to be localized improvements to watershed, soil, riparian, and aquatic habitat 

conditions as projects are implemented, but wholesale watershed-scale improvements will occur 

more slowly given current and anticipated funding levels. With the direction and emphasis in the 

Forest Plan, watershed restoration may tend to be prioritized and directed by more commoditybased resource decisions, such as restoration associated with timber harvest activities and 

integrated vegetation restoration projects.

Improvements in soil productivity should be reflected through an ongoing reduction in timber 

harvest and increase in restoration and protection efforts. Additional guidelines provide further 

direction for soil nutrient management related to potassium limited soils, and other direction is 

designed to protect watershed health, improve soil quality, and maintain soil productivity.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• Clean Water Act: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act, is the 

principal law concerned with polluting activity in the nation's streams, lakes, and estuaries. 

Originally enacted in 1948, it has been revised by amendments in 1972 (P.L. 92-500) that 

gave the act its current form and spelled out ambitious programs for water quality 

improvements that are now being put in place by industries and cities. Congress refined 

these amendments in 1977 (P.L. 95-217) and 1981 (P.L. 97-117). The 1987 amendments 

added:

• A new Section 319 to the act, under which states were required to develop and 

implement programs to control nonpoint sources of pollution, or rainfall runoff from 

farm and urban areas, as well as construction, forestry, and mining sites.

• Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify pollutant-impaired 

water segments and develop "total maximum daily loads" that set the maximum amount 

of pollution that a water body can receive without violating water quality standards.

• A water quality classification of streams and lakes to show support of beneficial uses.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

156 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Anti-degradation policies that protect water quality and stream conditions in systems 

where existing conditions exceed standards.

• Organic Administration Act: States that the mission of national forests is to “...provide 

favorable conditions of water flow...”

• Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960: Congress has affirmed the application of 

sustainability to the broad range of resources over which the USDA Forest Service has 

responsibility. Multiple Use Standard Yield Act confirms the USDA Forest Service’s 

authority to manage the national forests and grasslands “for outdoor recreation, range, 

timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes,” (16 U.S.C. § 528), and does so without 

limiting the USDA Forest Service’s broad discretion in determining the appropriate resource 

emphasis or levels of use of the lands of each national forest and grassland.

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969): Requires analysis of projects to insure 

the anticipated effects upon all resources within the project area are considered prior to 

project implementation (40CFR1502.16).

• Endangered Species Act (1973), as amended: Section 7(a) (1) supports biotic sustainability 

by requiring that, “All...federal agencies shall ...utilize their authorities in furtherance of the 

purposes of this act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and 

threatened species...” Section 7(a) (2) of ESA includes direction that federal agencies, in 

consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, will not authorize, fund, or 

conduct actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or 

endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical 

habitat.

• National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (1976): Directs the Forest Service to manage 

for a diversity of habitat to support viable populations (36 CFR 219.19). Regulations further 

state that the effects on these species and the reason for their choice as management indicator 

species need to be documented (36 CFR 219.19 (a) (1)).

• Executive Order 11988: Directs federal agencies to take action on federal lands to avoid, to 

the extent possible, the long-and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy 

and modification of floodplains. Agencies are required to avoid the direct or indirect support 

of development on floodplains whenever there are reasonable alternatives and evaluate the 

potential effects of any proposed action on floodplains.

• Executive Order 11990, as amended: Requires federal agencies exercising statutory 

authority and leadership over federal lands to avoid to the extent possible, the long- and 

short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. 

Where practicable, direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands must be 

avoided. Federal agencies are required to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial 

values of wetlands.

• Executive Order 12962 (June 7, 1995): Acknowledges the recreational value of aquatic 

biota by stating the objectives "to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, 

and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities by: 

“(h) evaluating the effects of federally funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic 

systems and recreational fisheries and document those effects relative to the purpose of this 

order.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 157

Regulation and Policy

• Forest Service Manual and Handbook Direction (Policy): Forest Service manuals and 

handbooks within the 2500 file code designation contain direction for soil and watershed 

management. Forest Service manuals and handbooks within the 2600 file code designation 

contain direction on species and habitat management that supports recovery of listed species 

and maintenance of viable populations on NFS lands.

Key Indicators

• Trend in watershed condition rating;

• Trend in soil productivity;

• Trend in water quality;

• Trend in riparian ecosystem function; and

• Trend in quality of aquatic habitats.

Methodology and Analysis Process

See appendix D in this EIS.

Analysis Area

The analysis area for aquatic systems includes most of the sub watersheds (6th level hydrologic 

units which are typically 10,000 to 40,000 acres in size) that contain, at least partially, NFS lands 

in north Idaho, the portion of northeast Washington that includes the Priest River Basin, and a 

small part of northwest Montana (figure 16). The analysis area also incorporates portions of the 

Kootenai River Basin in Idaho including the Moyie River; the lower end of the Clark Fork, 

mostly in Idaho to where it flows into Pend Oreille Lake; the Pend Oreille Lake Basin in its 

entirety and the Pend Oreille River in Idaho; the Priest River Basin in Idaho and Washington; the 

Spokane River Basin in Idaho including the major tributaries, the Coeur d’Alene River and the 

Saint Joe River as well as some tributaries to the lake itself and the Rathdrum Prairie; and the 

upper portion of the Little North Fork of the Clearwater River.

Some of these subwatersheds consist of blocks and scattered pieces of NFS, other federal, state, 

and privately held lands. Management of NFS lands often influences the watershed conditions 

and water resources at the scale of the watershed itself. Consequently, in areas of mixed 

ownership, reasonable assumptions of the management of those lands will be based on historic 

management and typical future activities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

158 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Figure 16. The Analysis Area and the Hierarchy of the Watersheds and the Hydrologic Unit Codes 

(HUCs). A sub-basin is a HUC4, and a subwatershed is a HUC6

Changes between Draft and Final

In development of the final EIS, the number of “conservation” subwatersheds changed from 13 

to 48 and the number of “restoration” subwatersheds was increased from 82 to 96. The reason for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 159

the change was an oversight in the relationship between subwatershed condition and native 

species presence. Subwatersheds with redband trout or westslope cutthroat trout, in the absence 

of bull trout, were inadvertently not assigned a priority status in the draft EIS. These changes are 

reflected in the final EIS.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

The aquatic systems in the inland northwest evolved over millions of years under the influence 

of many geologic forces and processes. The present character and resiliency of the systems and 

the climate and geological processes have evolved following the last ice age, approximately 

10,000 years ago. Since then the aquatic systems have been subject to a wide array of 

disturbances and events. These disturbances have often been intense and cyclic in nature and 

may appear to recur somewhat randomly, but with predictable frequency. The watersheds and 

their dependent resources have evolved under this “pulse” disturbance regime so that they can 

effectively respond to those natural disturbances while sustaining their long-term functions, 

processes, and condition. A pulse disturbance allows an ecosystem to remain within its normal 

bounds or domain and to recover the conditions that were present prior to disturbance (Reeves et 

al. 1995).

Around the beginning of the 20th century, the influx of human populations began in the inland 

northwest along with the development of the land and resources to support those populations. 

This has resulted in many new human-caused disturbances to the watershed systems, and the 

pattern of many of those disturbances has tended to be a more sustained or “press” disturbance 

regime. A press disturbance forces an ecosystem to a different domain or set of conditions 

(Reeves et al. 1995). Many of those disturbances tend to mimic historic “natural” processes, but 

the frequency and intensity has been greatly amplified. In some cases, the watershed systems 

have begun to adjust to those press disturbances, or have become altered by them; resulting in an 

inability to support aquatic dependent resources.

Human activities have altered stream channels by direct modification such as channelization, 

mining, removal of large woody debris, dams and diversions, log drives, and building 

infrastructure such as roads, railways, bridges, and culverts that have encroached on riparian 

areas and stream channels. Humans have also indirectly affected the incidence, frequency, and 

magnitude of disturbance events. This has affected inputs and outputs of sediment, water, and 

vegetation. These factors have combined to cause changes in channel conditions throughout 

many parts of the Forests resulting in aquatic and riparian habitat conditions measurably 

different from those that existed prior to human development. Natural (primarily wildfire) and 

human-caused (timber harvest and road construction, mining, dams, introduction of non-native 

species, recreation, fire suppression, and grazing) disturbances over the last century have led to 

changes in the physical watersheds and in the fish and amphibians dependent on them (Lee et al. 

1997).

Roads can have some of the greatest effects to watersheds and aquatic biota. Roads can change 

the runoff characteristics of watersheds, increase erosion and sediment delivery to streams, and 

alter channel morphology (Furniss et al. 1991). These direct effects lead to changes in habitats 

for fish and amphibians. Roads also often fragment the habitat of these animals and may be a 

cause of death for migrating amphibians. Although current BMPs for road construction are 

designed to minimize the damage to watersheds, many miles of road existing on the landscape 

were not built to these standards or are no longer maintained. As a result, these roads either 

continue to degrade watersheds through chronic erosion or are at risk for mass failure from 

crossings or locations on sensitive land types.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

160 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Watersheds

The primary hydrologic unit upon which watershed condition and has been assessed is the 6thlevel hydrologic unit (subwatershed). To evaluate baseline watershed conditions across the 

analysis area, a watershed condition rating was determined for each subwatershed. This 

characterization estimated the existing condition based on physical characteristics (e.g., 

hydrologic, geomorphic, landscape, topographic, vegetation cover, and aquatic habitat) and 

human caused disturbances (e.g., road construction and vegetation treatments).

Three factors were used in the watershed characterization process: 1) inherent watershed 

sensitivity; 2) level of riparian disturbance (described in the subsequent “Riparian” resources

section); and 3) watershed disturbances from land management activities (see appendix D). Table 

28 shows the distribution of Watershed Condition Ratings across the entire Forest.

Watershed Condition Ratings serve to identify subwatershed function based on inherent 

watershed sensitivity and disturbances from current and past land management activities, such as 

road construction and vegetation treatments. These ratings represent an indicator of overall 

watershed health at a large scale and provide a reference point to evaluate the past, current, and 

future trends of soil and aquatic resource conditions. They also identify priority areas for 

restoration and comprehensive recovery that may help to reduce the management level threats 

associated with a decline of aquatic species and legacy effects to their habitats. The ratings 

evaluate physical components that influence aquatic systems and terrestrial uplands that 

influence riparian functions and ecological processes. Ratings provide a consistent line of 

reasoning to recognize when, where, and why adverse, beneficial, or no effects may occur to 

related resources at a large scale. These watershed indicators are not independent from other 

components of the Plan, but provide a baseline to understand the current and desired conditions 

for uplands, riparian areas, water quality, and aquatic habitats. These ratings provides a 

framework to assist specialists and decision makers in ensuring that management actions will not 

limit or prevent attainment of desired conditions for aquatic resources.

1) Watershed sensitivity provides an indication of drainage’s inherent sensitivity with 

regards to both human and natural disturbances, as well as potential for recovery, following 

disturbance. Watershed Sensitivity Ratings are based on sensitive snow rating and sensitive land 

type. Sensitive snow rating is considered the proportion of a subwatershed between 3,000 and 

4,500 feet elevation, which represents snowpack that is typically near ripe (i.e., minimal cold 

content) through most of the winter season. Sensitive snow exhibits rapid conversion from ice to 

liquid or water vapor as a result of warm moist air masses typical to north Idaho and western 

Montana during winter. This conversion results in exceptional heat transfer and snowpack with 

limited cold content to satisfy the heat transfer rapidly melt. When large amounts of snowpack 

undergo this process, high intensity and widespread flooding is likely to occur in a subwatershed. 

Subwatersheds across the planning unit appear to have a relatively high sensitivity to natural or 

human caused disturbances (table 26), when considering climatic and land type variables, with a 

majority of these subwatersheds located in the southern portion of the Forest (figure 17 and 18).

2) Riparian disturbance is described further in the “Riparian” section below.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 161

Figure 17. IPNF Watershed Sensitivity Rating
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

162 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 26. Watershed Sensitivity Rating, Forestwide

Watershed Sensitivity Rating Number of Subwatersheds (% of Forest)

Low 30 (21%)

Moderate 40 (27%)

High 47 (32%)

Extreme 29 (20%)

Total 146

Figure 18. Watershed Sensitivity Rating by Major Drainage Basin

3) Watershed Disturbance Ratings, also used to evaluate watershed condition, provide an 

estimate of the relative amount of human caused disturbances across subwatersheds and takes 

into account the following factors: road density, road density on sensitive land types, stream 

crossing frequency, detrimental soil disturbance, and equivalent clearcut acres. See appendix D, 

for a more detailed discussion of the analysis for determining Watershed Disturbance Ratings. 

Based on that analysis, almost 85 percent of the Forest is considered to have a low to moderate 

level of human disturbances, with most of the higher levels of human influences occurring in the 

southern portion of the planning area (figure 19 and 20) and are assumed to be associated with 

more historically active management, in the form of vegetation treatments, road construction, 

and mining activities. Table 27 shows the distribution of Watershed Disturbance Ratings across 

the Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 163

Figure 19. IPNF Watershed Disturbance Rating
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

164 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 27. Watershed Disturbance Rating, Forestwide

Watershed Disturbance Rating Number of Subwatersheds (% of Forest)

Low 61 (42%)

Moderate 62 (42%)

High 23 (16%)

Extreme 0 (0%)

Total 146

Figure 20. watershed disturbance rating by major drainage basin

The following descriptions provide a basic summary for interpreting Watershed Condition 

Ratings. It should be noted that a given subwatershed may have different combinations of 

watershed sensitivity and watershed/riparian disturbance and these are only general descriptions 

to assist the reader. For example, it is possible for a subwatershed to have a low level of 

sensitivity and a high level of disturbance, providing an overall rating of “moderate.” Appendix 

D provides details of the analysis used to determine Watershed Condition Ratings for 

subwatersheds on the Forest. Final Watershed Condition Ratings may also include professional 

judgment in some cases. Review by resource specialists, with local ground-based knowledge and 

site-specific data, may have resulted in a change to a condition rating and those changes are 

noted in the fields “override” and “comments” (see appendix D).

Subwatersheds rated as “low” generally have a relative low inherent sensitivity to disturbances 

and low level of overall disturbance. These subwatersheds exhibit geomorphic, hydrologic, and 

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The drainage network is generally 

stable. Soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are assumed to be functional, in terms of supporting 

beneficial uses.

A rating of “moderate” generally indicates a subwatershed with a low to moderate inherent 

sensitivity and/or a low to moderate level of disturbances. Subwatersheds exhibit moderate 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 165

geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions 

of these subwatersheds may exhibit an unstable drainage network. Soil, aquatic, and riparian 

systems may or may not support beneficial uses.

In general, subwatersheds rated as “high” have a relatively higher sensitivity to natural and 

human-caused natural disturbances and relatively higher level of overall disturbances. These 

subwatersheds may have limited geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their 

natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be unstable. It is assumed 

that beneficial uses may not be supported.

Subwatersheds with less than 25 percent land area under Forest Service jurisdiction were not 

considered in the analysis. This is due, in part, to limitations in data availability and an 

assumption that there are enough factors beyond agency control that reduces the agency’s ability 

to effectively change conditions at that scale. Detailed information related to the methodology 

used to determine watershed condition can be found in appendix D.

Figure 21 displays the Watershed Condition Ratings by subwatershed. Table 28 summarizes the 

proportion of the Forest subwatersheds by category. Figure 22 displays subwatershed conditions 

by major river basin(s). Data indicates that the Coeur d’Alene River basin has a relatively higher 

proportion of land area with a high sensitivity to disturbance, is in a disturbed condition, or a 

combination of both, and the Pend Oreille basin has the highest percentage of subwatersheds in a 

functioning condition with regards to sensitivity and/or human caused disturbance.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

166 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Figure 21. Final Watershed Condition Rating
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 167

Table 28. Final Watershed Condition Rating Forestwide

Rating Number of Subwatersheds (% of Forest)

Low 48 (33%)

Moderate 58 (40%)

High 40 (27%)

Total 146

Figure 22. Final Watershed Condition Rating by Major Drainage Basin

Water Quality

Water quality is regulated under the authority of the Clean Water Act, and States assess the 

waters within their jurisdiction and identify stream segments and other water bodies whose water 

quality is “impaired” or generally not meeting water quality standards for beneficial uses. 

Currently, about two-thirds of the subwatersheds associated with the IPNF include or have the 

potential to influence one or more of these listed segments (2008 Integrated Report (Idaho DEQ

2009)).

Individual stream segments, lakes, and other water bodies have been listed as "Water Quality 

Limited Segments" (i.e., "impaired") by the states of Idaho, Washington, and Montana. Impaired 

waters are described in subsection 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as waters that do not meet state 

water quality standards, a broad term that includes water quality criteria, designated uses, and 

anti-degradation policies. These segments or water bodies involve 68 percent of the 

subwatersheds (N=227) on the Forest. The dominant pollutant currently affecting "impaired" 

water bodies is temperature. Because of new protocol for assessing temperature criteria there has 

been a dramatic increase in the number of streams listed as impaired from the 1998 list to the 

2008 list. The next most common pollutant is sediment. Other pollutants are listed for a small 

number of subwatersheds.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

168 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Subwatersheds with impaired waters are shown in tables 29 and 30. As noted above, the most 

ubiquitous pollutant is water temperature (thermal modification). Temperature departures are 

occurring in several watersheds where land management activities that can influence changes to 

water temperature have not occurred. Water quality limited segments may be included in the 

same subwatersheds in the following tables; therefore, the total number of watersheds is 

overstated in some cases. For example, the 10 subwatersheds with cadmium as a pollutant of 

concern are also the same subwatersheds that account for the pollutants lead and zinc.

Table 29. Number of 303(d)-Listed Subwatersheds and Pollutants of Concern (Forestwide)

Pollutant of Concern # Subwatersheds (%)

Cadmium 10 (4)

Lead 10 (4)

Zinc 10 (4)

Other Metals 3 (1)

pH 1 (0.5)

Nutrients 1 (0.5)

Pathogens 2 (1)

Sediment 8 (3.5)

Thermal Modification (i.e. Temperature) 108 (46)

Unknown 1 (0.5)

Table 30. 303(d)-Listed Subwatersheds by Major Drainage Basin

Pollutant of 

Concern

Saint Joe River & 

Upper Little 

North Fork 

Clearwater River

Coeur d’Alene 

River & Lake

Pend Oreille 

Lake Basin & 

Lower Clark 

Fork in Idaho

Priest 

River 

Basin

Kootenai 

River in Idaho 

including 

Moyie River

Cadmium 9 1

Lead 9 1

Zinc 9 1

Other Metals 2 1

pH 1

Nutrients 1

Pathogens 2

Sediment 1 5 2

Temperature 17 29 13 23 26

Unknown
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 169

Soils

Volcanic ash from eruptions along the Pacific Northwest Cascade Range has significantly 

influenced forest soils on the IPNF. Volcanic ash soils have lower bulk density, higher porosity, 

and higher water infiltration and retention than soils unaffected by ash. The capability to hold 

ample available moisture is thought to enhance site productivity. Unfortunately, ash-capped soils 

are also very susceptible to negative impacts from machine traffic and, when compacted, the 

soils may not readily recover over many years.

Presently, soil disturbance in forested ecosystems most commonly occurs from ground-based 

harvest and site preparation (mechanical and fire), but can also be associated with roads, grazing, 

and recreation. The effects of soil disturbance on soil productivity, soil quality, or site hydrologic 

function are dependent on the degree, extent, distribution and duration of the impacts (Clayton et 

al. 1987, Craigg and Howes 2007, Snider and Miller 1985) and, for projects, are site-specific 

rather than watershed based. Many forest soils have shown to be resilient to disturbances, while 

others are at risk of losing the productive capacity because of limitations in the inherent soil 

properties (i.e., shallow forest floor or thin mineral mantles over bedrock (Burger and Kelting 

1999)).

Detrimental effects on soils are not permanent with regards to vegetation re-growth and depend 

primarily on soil texture, parent material, aspect, and the level of disturbance. Recovery time is 

typically between 30 to 70 years as second growth timber becomes established around “disturbed 

areas” (Dykstra and Curran 2002, Froehlich and McNabb 1983, Froehlich et al. 1985). However, 

soil displacement that mixes or moves the volcanic ash surface layer and reduces moisture 

holding capacity and productivity may continue to be impacted far beyond the 70 year 

timeframe.

Soil sampling procedures follow guidelines from the Forest Service Soil Disturbance Monitoring 

Protocol (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009) for site-specific analysis of management induced soil 

disturbance in an activity area. Soil sampling transect points fall into one of three categories: 1) 

no disturbance; 2) disturbance present but not detrimental; and 3) detrimental soil disturbance. 

The detrimental disturbance category is considered detrimental as defined in FSM 2550 and 

Region 1 Supplement 2500-99-1.

As a result, detrimental soil disturbance is the proportion of an activity area that may be 

subjected to displacement, compaction, rutting, erosion, or severe burning due to a particular 

management activity (such as harvest or fuels treatment), exclusive of dedicated resources (such 

as system roads). Under the guidance of the 2011 Soil Quality Monitoring Protocol/Technical 

Guide, soil concerns now include both timber management related temporary roads and landings 

outside of activity areas. Such data was not included in the soil sampling protocol under the 

original requirements of FSM 2550.

Intensive mechanized harvest prior to the early 1980s was widespread on private and Forest 

Service land and resulted in wide-ranging soil quality concerns (Kuennen 2005, Niehoff 2002). 

Between the early 1950s and early 1980s extensive unconstrained tractor skidding, dozer piling, 

windrowing, hot burning of slash and burn piles and associated soil disturbance was widespread. During this time period, riparian harvest was still the norm and dozer piles were often up 

to 20 feet high with dozer piling-pushing covering between 80 to 90 percent of the ground in a 

sale unit. In the early 1980s, dozer piling was replaced with excavator skid lines (trails) running 

over slash material which resulted in considerably less soil disturbance. Some controls had been 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

170 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

imposed but compaction and displacement were still widespread between the early 1980s and 

early 1990s.

However, soil monitoring over the past decade has indicated that the extent of detrimental 

disturbance has declined over time as newer harvest equipment and procedures have been put 

into play (L. Kuennen, personal communication, 2008, Kuennen 2005, Niehoff 2002). As the 

IPNF moved away from dozer piling towards excavator piling and skyline yarding in the early 

1980s, the amount of detrimental disturbance, especially compaction and displacement, was 

greatly reduced. Early data showed that approximately half of the sites did not meet R1 soil 

quality standards. This quickly changed to disturbance values on post-harvest sites being less 

than 15 percent and often even less than 5 percent.

There have also been additional reasons for improvement, such as more careful layout of harvest 

units and skid trail spacing, seasonal restrictions, fewer visits to harvest units, and an overall 

awareness of the importance of protecting long-term soil quality.

To display overall trends, data from past soil monitoring was compiled and includes results from 

2004 to 2009 for pre-harvest conditions and from 1987 to 2008 for post-harvest observations. 

Table 31 provides a summary of disturbance ranges for existing soil conditions. Results show 

that only 4 percent of planned management activities propose to re-enter units that currently 

exceed regional soil quality standards, which, as identified in R1 Supplement 2500-99-1, are 

those with more than 15 percent detrimental disturbance.

Table 31. Summary of Disturbance Ranges for Existing Soil Conditions in Units Monitored from 

2004 to 2008

Range of Detrimental Soil Disturbance # of Units % of Total

0 — 5 272 74

6 — 10 54 15

11 — 15 28 8

>15 13 4

Total 367 100%

Many affected soils are recovering as shown by observations from field visits and monitoring of 

units that were harvested from as early as the 1930s. In general, main skid trails and landings 

often remain in some disturbed condition while many of the side skids and other disturbances are 

improving to levels that show minimal impacts.

Post-harvest monitoring results are displayed by decade in table 32 and contribute to the 

estimated range of detrimental soil disturbance. Monitoring has primarily included units that 

were logged with various types of ground-based equipment, skyline and cable yarding, as well as 

some horse logging. More recent methods, such as combinations of feller-bunchers with skyline 

yarding, are also included. During the 1990s, more skyline units were monitored that, due to 

their general low impact, lower the overall disturbance averages more than the other decades 

where the primary focus was on disturbance associated ground-based impacts.

Regional soils standards require that 15 percent detrimental disturbance within an activity area 

should not be exceeded. Disturbance levels in table 32 reveal that changes in logging practices 

since the 1990s generally result in disturbance levels below 15 percent after harvest is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 171

completed. When compared to post-harvest monitoring during the 1980s, the data supports an 

upward trend in reduced disturbance levels compared to earlier logging and burning practices.

Table 32. Summary of Disturbance Ranges and Trends for Post-Harvest Soil Conditions Monitored 

over Three Decades (1987 to 2008)

Range of 

Disturbance

1980s 1990s* 2000

# of Units % # of Units % # of Units %

0 - 5 2 6 21 58 27 38

6 - 10 1 3 6 17 14 20

11 - 15 0 0 6 17 20 28

>15 29 91 3 8 10 14

Total 32 100% 36 100% 71 100%

* Included more monitoring of skyline than other years, therefore, greater representation in the lower disturbance ranges.

To approximate current soil conditions, residual impacts from past management-related 

disturbances on soils were estimated from the timber stand management record system. The 

timber stand management record system record was queried and results are shown in table 33. 

For areas that were treated or harvested more than once, the most likely impacting logging 

system was selected (i.e., tractor has a greater impact potential than helicopter) to reflect the 

acres of affected land.

Table 33. Estimated Past Management and Impacted Soil Acres on the IPNF based on Timber 

Stand Management Record System and the Soil Disturbance Model

Equipment Class Estimated Past Management 

Acres

Disturbance 

Coefficient

Estimated Impacted 

Acres*

Tractor 281,253 13 % and 25% 53,438

Site Preparation 15,231 8% and 13% 1,599

Horse Logging 40,079 2% 802

Cable Yarding 71,888 6% 4,313

Skyline 36,762 2% 735

Helicopter 21,815 2% 436

Total 467,028 13% 61,323

* Detailed spreadsheet results are available in the project file.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

172 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The resulting acres were entered into a soil disturbance spreadsheet model to estimate 

detrimental disturbance acres and percentages. The following assumptions were made:

• Tractor logging acres are split in half which represents logging before and after 1990 (13 to 

25 percent respectively);

• It is assumed that more than half of the tractor acres displayed in table 33 were logged prior 

to 1990 and that impacts around 25 percent would prevail; however, the spreadsheet model 

does not account for recovery over time. Based on field monitoring, most activities that 

occurred before 1990 have undergone some level of recovery and using professional 

judgment and local ground based knowledge, the specialist determined an equal split gives a 

representative estimate; and

• Site Preparation impacts were estimated from 8 percent to 13 percent.

Riparian

Riparian ecosystem areas represent some of the most dynamic and ecologically diverse areas 

across the landscape. Most riparian areas are obvious because of abundant water and unique 

vegetation and soil characteristics. Ecological drivers such as geology, climate, glaciations, and 

stream gradient all influence the type, complexity, quantity, and distribution of these ecosystems 

and there is great variability in the size and complexity of riparian areas across the Forest. 

Wetlands, such as swamps, bogs, fens, marshes, and wet meadows, are also considered riparian 

areas. Wetlands occur in sites with seasonally or permanently high water tables, as well as on the 

margins of ponds and lakes and commonly support characteristic plant or animal communities 

which require those unique conditions for survival. Although riparian ecosystems cover a 

relatively small proportion of the Forest, their ecological significance within the landscape 

exceeds their limited distribution. Riparian ecosystems can be highly responsive to both natural 

and human disturbances, although they may respond to restoration activities more quickly than 

other habitats due to the dynamic interaction between, water, vegetation, and soils.

Healthy riparian areas with a typical abundance of trees, shrubs, forbs, and grasses help to slow 

flood waters and reduce the likelihood of downstream flooding. Riparian areas also help to 

improve or maintain water quality by filtering runoff, sediment, and nutrients. Water slowed by 

riparian areas enters the groundwater table where it is released at a later time. Riparian areas also 

provide for stream shading keeping water temperatures cool for aquatic organisms. Fish also 

depend on healthy riparian areas for supporting stable channels and habitat, reliable stream 

flows, clean water, food, and hiding cover. Benefits for terrestrial wildlife include food, cover, 

and nesting habitat as well as migration corridors to other habitats. Riparian areas are also 

attractive and inviting to humans because of proximity to water and aesthetic and recreational 

purposes.

As described in the previous section for watershed resources, riparian disturbance ratings were 

used in the determination of a final Watershed Condition Rating. These Riparian Disturbance 

Ratings provide an indicator of the relative level of human impacts to these ecosystems and are 

calculated using the variables; riparian area road density and percent intact riparian area, as a 

function of equivalent clearcut acres. Past harvest activities and roads located in riparian areas 

are evaluated as having some level of equivalent clearcut acres and recovery factors are applied 

accordingly (see appendix D for a detailed description of analysis). The distribution of riparian 

disturbance ratings is displayed in figure 23.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 173

Figure 23. IPNF Riparian Disturbance Rating

The condition of riparian areas can be an indicator of overall ecosystem quality. There are an 

estimated 700,000 acres of riparian areas across the planning unit, and on average, these areas 

are considered to be approximately 96 percent intact. In general, many riparian areas on the 

Forest are believed to be functioning at or near their potential and most degraded areas are in a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

174 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

stable condition or improving. It is estimated that almost 70 percent of all subwatersheds on the 

Forest have a low to moderate amount of disturbance (table 34), with most of the higher levels of 

riparian disturbance associated with the central and southern portions of the planning unit 

(figures 23 and 24). This is likely due to the relatively higher levels of timber management, road 

construction, and mining activities, compared to other areas on the Forest. Although these areas 

are relatively functional and there has been improvement in some areas, there are localized areas 

where riparian areas may be functioning below potential.

Table 34. Riparian Disturbance Ratings, Forestwide

Riparian Disturbance Rating Number of Subwatersheds (% of Forest)

Low 52 (36%)

Moderate 47 (32%)

High 47 (32%)

Total 146

Figure 24. Riparian Disturbance Rating by Major Drainage Basin

Roads can have a relatively high impact on riparian areas and overall road density in a watershed 

can be an indicator of these effects. It is estimated that there are approximately 3,200 miles of 

road located in riparian areas, which amounts to approximately 15 percent of all road miles on 

the planning unit, with an average road density of 2.8 mi/mi2. Another potential indicator of 

riparian condition and effects to water quality and aquatic habitats is the number of road 

crossings within a subwatershed. Although all stream crossings are not created equally, higher 

numbers of stream crossings and density indicate the potential for negative effects to riparian 

areas, water quality, and aquatic habitats. There are an estimated 15,000 stream crossings across 

the entire planning unit and an average of 1.8 stream crossings/mi2, for all subwatersheds on the 

Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 175

Aquatic Habitat/Species

Species distribution and abundance have changed dramatically from historic conditions. Changes 

in the physical environment and habitat alteration have been among the main contributors to 

these changes, resulting from historic land management practices and lack of protective 

measures for aquatic resources. There are indications that historic distribution and abundance 

shifts continued during the term of the 1987 Forest Plan; however, the rates of change may have 

been somewhat tempered or even improved with the implementation of protection measures 

including INFISH amendments and other BMPs. Current conditions and trends show that 

populations of many native aquatic species are stable or improving (Idaho Fish and Game 2011).

Research indicates a need to identify aquatic habitats that support the most productive, diverse,

and otherwise critical populations (Rieman et al. 2000). These habitats provide the best 

opportunities for ensuring the short-term persistence of aquatic species and provide a nucleus for 

rehabilitating more complete networks in the future. In these “conservation” watersheds land 

management activities should focus on the protection and maintenance of high quality aquatic 

habitats and strong native fish populations, while minimizing the risk to existing values and 

retaining ecological health. An emphasis on conservation in these subwatersheds does not 

necessarily mean forest management activities be deferred, but does imply that any activity must 

clearly minimize or eliminate risks that might compromise the ability of native fish populations 

to persist (Rieman et al. 2000).

In addition, long-term persistence of aquatic species depends on more than the conservation of 

existing habitats and populations. Protection of fish habitats and populations alone is not 

sufficient to maintain biological diversity as these reserves will never be large or well distributed 

enough (Franklin 1993). Long-term persistence will also depend on restoring watershed 

processes that create and maintain habitats across stream networks (Rieman et al. 2000) and the 

use of ecologically compatible land use polices to ensure the long-term productivity of aquatic 

and riparian ecosystems (Thurow et al. 1997). Site-specific restoration can address or treat 

specific elements of watershed-scale problems, while larger restoration actions at the 

subwatershed scale are expected to provide the most benefits for aquatic species, their habitats, 

and other aquatic dependent resources.

The concept of "priority watersheds" as described in INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995b) is 

further refined in the revised Forest Plan as "conservation" and "restoration" watersheds. Priority 

watersheds in INFISH were designated based on the following criteria:

• Watersheds with excellent habitat or strong assemblages of inland native fish, with a 

priority on bull trout populations;

• Watersheds that provide for meta-population objectives; and

• Degraded watersheds with a high restoration potential.

INFISH states that priority watersheds are intended to provide a pattern of protection across the 

landscape, where habitat for inland native fish would receive special attention and treatment. 

Priority watersheds would have the highest priority for restoration, monitoring, and watershed 

analysis. Priority areas in good condition would serve as anchors for the potential recovery of 

depressed stocks, and would also provide colonists for adjacent areas where habitat had been 

degraded by land management or natural events (USDA Forest Service 1995a). Subwatersheds

(6th level HUC) in this condition are considered "conservation" watersheds in the revised Forest 

Plan. Subwatersheds that are "areas of lower quality habitat, with high potential for restoration, 

would become future sources of good habitat with the implementation of a comprehensive 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

176 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

restoration program (USDA Forest Service 1995b)" are labeled "restoration" watersheds in the 

revised Forest Plan.

Subwatersheds were identified as “conservation” or “restoration” areas, for an analysis of 

existing condition, based on a synthesis of the physical condition and status, and that of 

associated aquatic species status (see appendix D for further description of the process). 

Conservation subwatersheds are intended to protect stronghold populations of native salmonids 

and complement restoration efforts. Conservation watersheds were identified using the following 

considerations: areas with excellent habitat, water quality, and strong populations of native fish 

species. Restoration subwatersheds were identified by looking for areas with: degraded habitat 

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

of the above, and a relatively higher potential for improvement. There are currently 48 

conservation subwatersheds and 96 restoration subwatersheds (56 active and 40 passive) on the 

Forest (figure 25), as identified by the aquatic conservation strategy and salmonid assessment for 

the Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 177

Figure 25. Conservation & Restoration Subwatersheds

Long-term persistence of aquatic species depends on more than the conservation of existing 

habitats and populations. Protection of fish habitats and populations alone is not sufficient to 

maintain biological diversity, as these reserves will never be large or well distributed enough 

(Franklin 1993). Long-term persistence will also depend on restoring watershed processes that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

178 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

create and maintain habitats across stream networks (Rieman et al. 2000) and the use of 

ecologically compatible land use polices to ensure the long-term productivity of aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems (Thurow et al. 1997). Site-specific restoration can address or treat specific 

elements of watershed-scale problems, while larger restoration at the subwatershed scale are 

expected to provide the most benefits for aquatic species, their habitats, and other aquatic 

dependent resources. Restoration subwatersheds generally have degraded habitat conditions, but 

have a high potential for improvement. Restoration activities would be accomplished by 

identifying and treating risk factors (i.e., unstable roads or poorly located and/or drained roads, 

certain invasive plants and animals, major obstructions to physical and biological connectivity) 

which threaten aquatic and riparian ecosystem integrity and are likely to adversely influence 

achievement of desired conditions.

The following are general statements about the current conditions of some native fish and 

amphibian species. There are five fish species and two amphibian species listed as threatened or 

endangered, or on the regional forester’s Sensitive Species lists (USDA Forest Service 2011a).

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (Threatened)

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids. Habitat 

components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance include water temperature, 

cover, channel form and stability, substrate for spawning and rearing, and migratory corridors. 

Bull trout are found in colder streams and require colder water than most other salmonids for 

incubation, juvenile rearing, and spawning. Spawning and rearing areas are often associated with 

cold-water springs, groundwater infiltration, and/or the coldest streams in a watershed. Bull trout 

typically spawn from August to November during periods of decreasing water temperatures. 

However, migratory bull trout frequently begin spawning migrations as early as April, and have 

been known to move upstream as far as 155 miles to spawning grounds (Fraley and Shepard 

1989).

Throughout their lives, bull trout require complex habitats for cover, including large woody 

debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Bull trout 

exhibit three life history types in Idaho: adfluvial, fluvial, and resident. All require cold-water 

temperatures, typically less than 60° F, during portions of their life cycle to persist. Bull trout are 

opportunistic feeders with food habits primarily a function of size and life history strategy. 

Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, 

macrozooplankton and small fish (Donald and Alger 1993). Adult migratory bull trout are 

primarily piscivorous, known to feed on various fish species (Fraley and Shepard 1989).

For spawning and early rearing, bull trout require loose, clean gravel relatively free of fine 

sediments. Because bull trout have a relatively long incubation and development period within 

spawning gravel (greater than 200 days), transport of bedload in unstable channels may kill 

young bull trout. Bull trout use migratory corridors to move from spawning and rearing habitats 

to foraging and overwintering habitats and back. Different habitats provide bull trout with 

diverse resources, and migratory corridors allow local populations to connect, which may 

increase the potential for gene flow and support or refounding of populations.

Maintaining bull trout habitat requires stream channel and flow stability (Rieman and McIntyre 

1993). Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently inhabit side channels, stream margins, and pools 

with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997). These areas are sensitive to activities that directly 

or indirectly affect stream channel stability and alter natural flow patterns. For example, altered 

stream flow in the fall may disrupt bull trout during the spawning period and channel instability 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 179

may decrease survival of eggs and young juveniles in the gravel during winter through spring 

(Pratt 1992, Pratt and Huston 1993).

Bull trout in the coterminous United States were listed as threatened on November 1, 1999 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a). Earlier rulemakings had listed the Columbia River 

distinct population segment of bull trout as threatened on June 10, 1998 (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1998a). The Columbia River distinct population segment occurs throughout the entire 

Columbia River basin within the United States and its tributaries, excluding bull trout found in 

the Jarbidge River, Nevada. The distinct population segment serves as an interim recovery unit in 

the absence of an approved recovery plan for the species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

2008b). Critical habitat was designated for bull trout in 2010 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

2010b).

Bull trout occur in the northwestern portion of North America from Nevada to the Yukon 

Territory (Behnke 2002). Bull trout are native to the streams and rivers within the Columbia 

River Basin in western Montana and Idaho.

Relatively widespread populations that have declined in overall range and numbers of fish 

represent the Columbia River bull trout distinct population segment. There have been numerous 

local extirpations reported throughout the Columbia River basin. In Idaho, for example, bull 

trout have been extirpated from 119 reaches in 28 streams (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

2002). A majority of Columbia River bull trout occur in isolated, fragmented habitats that 

support low numbers of fish and are inaccessible to migratory bull trout. The few remaining bull 

trout ‘‘strongholds’’ in the Columbia River basin tend to be found in large areas of contiguous 

habitats in the Snake River basin of central Idaho mountains, upper Clark Fork and Flathead 

Rivers in Montana, and several streams in the Blue Mountains in WA and OR (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1998a).

According to Lee et al. (1997), bull trout are widely distributed across the Columbia River Basin, 

although their current range is about 60 percent of historic distribution. Although many 

populations of native aquatic species are stable or improving, bull trout are considered to be in 

decline across their range. Watersheds that are predicted to be strong spawning and rearing areas 

represent less than 10 percent of the historic range. Migratory life histories have been lost or are 

limited throughout the current range due to the introduction of non-native species, intensive land 

management activities such as road construction, and timber harvest that have affected habitat 

conditions for the species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998a).

Bull trout populations on the Forest are included in the Columbia River distinct population 

segment and their distribution and status are displayed in figure 27. High and others assessment 

of distribution, abundance, and population trend in Idaho suggested bull trout were obviously 

reduced from historical levels, but were presently widely distributed, relatively abundant, and 

apparently stable across the state of Idaho (High et al 2008). The authors found bull trout 

abundance declined in several areas from the 1980s to the mid-1990s, were relatively stable in 

other areas, and occasionally increased in some areas from 1994 to 2005.

The draft Recovery Plan for the Columbia River Distinct Population Segment identified a bull 

trout core area as the closest approximation of a biologically functioning unit for bull trout. By 

definition, a core area includes a combination of core habitat (i.e., habitat that could supply all 

elements for the long-term security of bull trout) and a core population constitutes the basic unit 

on which to gauge recovery (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). A core population is a group 

of one or more local populations that exist within core habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

180 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Core areas require both habitat and bull trout to function, and the number and characteristics of 

local populations inhabiting a core area provide a relative indication of the core areas likelihood 

to persist (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008b). A core area is a system of watersheds within 

a larger basin. Each watershed is the habitat for a local population that interacts with other local 

populations throughout the larger basin. Local populations within a core area have the potential 

to interact because of connected aquatic habitat. A local population is defined as a group of bull 

trout that spawn within a particular stream or portion of a stream system. A local population is 

considered the smallest group of fish that is known to represent an interacting reproductive unit. 

In most areas, a local population is represented by a single headwater tributary or complex of 

headwater tributaries where spawning occurs. Gene flow may occur between local populations 

(i.e., those within a core population), but is assumed to be infrequent compared with that among 

individuals within a local population.

The 2002 draft Recovery Plan describes 121 bull trout core areas across the species’ range in five 

states (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) and the action area has lands within five core 

areas: Kootenai River, Lake Pend Oreille/Lower Clark Fork, Priest Lakes, Coeur d'Alene Lake, 

and North Fork Clearwater River. Current long-term trends show that for some core areas, bull 

trout are increasing (Lake Pend Oreille, Coeur d'Alene River, and North Fork Clearwater River) 

and some decreasing (Kootenai River and Priest Lakes) (IDFG 2011).

Figure 26. Probable Bull Trout Historic Range (from Lee et al. 1997)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 181

Figure 27. Currently known Bull Trout Distribution

Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) (Sensitive)

Westslope cutthroat trout live in small mountain streams, main rivers, and large natural lakes. 

They require well-oxygenated water, clean, well-sorted gravels with minimal fine sediments for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

182 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

successful spawning, temperatures less than 70° F, and a complexity of instream habitat structure 

such as large woody debris and overhanging banks for cover.

Westslope cutthroat trout spawn in small tributary streams on clean gravel substrate, where mean 

water depth is 17 to 20 cm and mean water velocity is 0.3 to 0.4 m/sec, and they tend to spawn in 

natal streams (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Adfluvial populations live in large lakes in the upper 

Columbia drainage and spawn in lake tributaries. Fluvial populations live and grow in rivers and 

spawn in tributaries. Resident populations complete the entire life history in tributaries. All three 

life-history forms may occur in a single basin (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Migrants may 

spawn in the lower reaches of the same streams used by resident fishes. Maturing adfluvial fishes 

move into the vicinity of tributaries in fall and winter and remain there until they begin to 

migrate upstream in spring. Of migratory spawners, some remain in tributaries during summer 

months but most return to the main river or lake soon after spawning (Behnke 1992).

Adults prefer large pools and slow velocity areas, stream reaches with numerous pools, and some 

form of cover generally has the highest adult fish densities. Juveniles of migratory populations 

may spend 1 to 4 years in their natal streams, and then move (usually in spring or early summer, 

and/or in fall in some systems) to a main river or lake where they remain until they spawn 

(McIntyre and Rieman 1995, Spahr et al. 1991). Many fry disperse downstream after emergence 

(McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Juveniles tend to overwinter in interstitial spaces in the substrate. 

Larger individuals congregate in pools in winter.

In cold, higher elevation streams, growth rates are slower than warmer streams, with some fish 

living up to 12 years but only attaining lengths of 7 to 8 inches. Adfluvial and stocks in warmer 

waters reach lengths of 12 to 15 inches. Westslope cutthroat trout spawn between March and 

July when water temperatures are about 50° F. Maturity also depends on location ranging from 4 

to 6 years and sizes of 4 to 14 inches. Diets are primarily aquatic invertebrates; although larger 

fish, at times, will habitually or mainly feed on other fish.

Westslope cutthroat trout occur along both sides of the Continental Divide from Yellowstone 

National Park into British Columbia and Alberta, additionally there are several disjunct 

populations in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia (Behnke 2002). Westslope cutthroat 

trout occur on the IPNF as displayed in figure 28.

This subspecies was petitioned for listing under ESA, although listing was determined to be “not 

warranted,” by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Current westslope cutthroat trout distribution 

on the Forest is shown in figure 29. Westslope cutthroat trout are still widely distributed but 

remaining populations may be seriously compromised by habitat loss and genetic introgression 

(Lee et al. 1997) (see figure 28), although current populations are stable or improving in some 

cases. This subspecies is estimated to occur in 60 percent of its historic range (Shepard et al. 

2005). Migration barriers (dams, irrigation diversions, road-stream crossings) have isolated or 

eliminated habitat once available to migratory populations. Small, often isolated populations, 

persist throughout the range. Idaho Fish and Game and Forest Service data indicate an improving 

trend in populations and the long-term outlook for many of these populations is positive.

Westslope cutthroat trout is a state species of special concern in Idaho (S2). This species is also

Region 1 Sensitive Species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 183

Figure 28. Probable Historic Westslope Cutthroat Trout Distribution (Lee et al. 1997)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

184 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Figure 29. Currently known Westslope Cutthroat Trout Distribution

Interior Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) (Sensitive)

Inland redband trout are found in a range of stream habitats from desert areas in southwestern 

Idaho to forested mountain streams in central and northern Idaho. In all cases they prefer cool 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 185

streams with temperatures less than 70° F; however, they can survive daily cyclic temperatures 

up to 80° F for a short period of time (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Resident stream redband 

trout may attain a maximum size ranging from six to eighteen inches depending on location. 

Spawning occurs in the spring between February and June depending on temperature and 

location. Diets are primarily drifting invertebrates, both terrestrial and aquatic. Larger fish will 

occasionally consume other fish.

Inland redband trout are found in the interior Columbia River basin from east of the Cascades 

upstream to geologic barriers such as Shoshone Falls on the Snake River, Kootenai Falls on the 

Kootenai River, and in the upper Fraser River (Behnke 2002). However, they are not in the Clark 

Fork and Coeur d'Alene drainages. This species occurs on the IPNF and its distribution and 

status are displayed in figure 31.

The allopatric form (i.e., not found in the same areas as steelhead trout) of interior redband trout 

is found in the Kootenai River and Little North Fork Clearwater drainage. Current interior 

redband trout distribution on the Forest is shown in figure 31. Distribution of the species 

throughout the Columbia Basin is shown in figure 30 (Lee et al. 1997). Historically, this species 

was widely distributed throughout the Columbia River Basin, although it was not widespread on 

the project area (figure 30). Current populations on the IPNF range from strong to depressed. 

Hybridization and competition are its main threats. Inland redband trout is a state species of 

special concern in Idaho (S2/S3) and included on the Region 1 Sensitive Species list (USDA 

Forest Service 2011a).

Figure 30. Probable interior redband trout distribution (from Lee et al. 1997)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

186 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Figure 31. Currently known Interior Redband Trout Distribution

Burbot (Lota lota) (Sensitive)

Burbot, also known as ling cod, has been petitioned for listing under ESA. This species is found 

only in the Kootenai River in Idaho. This population is very depressed from historic levels. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 187

Changes in hydrologic flows caused by Libby Dam are the biggest threat to this population 

(IDFG 2005). Across their range, they are considered secure, but critically imperiled in the state 

of Idaho (NatureServe 2011c).

Adult burbot primarily inhabit deep lakes or cool rivers or reservoirs in the southern edges of 

their range (McPhail and Paragamian 2000). In lakes, burbot are strongly associated with the 

bottom and prefer temperature range of 10–12° C (50–54° F) and normally remain below the 

thermocline. Burbot can attain lengths of 99 cm (39 in) and weigh 8 kg (17 lbs) but most are 

smaller in the 1–3 kg (2–7 lbs) range. Southern populations of burbot mature at 3–4 years of age 

and females may not spawn each year. Although burbot can spawn in lakes and rivers, the 

population entering Idaho is primarily a spawning population from Kootenay Lake in British 

Columbia, which leaves the lake in the late fall and early winter to spawn in the Kootenai River 

or tributary streams in Idaho. In rivers, burbot spawn in low velocity areas in main channels or in 

side channels behind deposition bars. The preferred substrate is fine gravel, sand, or silt. Eggs 

are broadcast above the substrate. The semi–buoyant eggs may drift but eventually settle into the 

substrate. Spawning is generally high synchronized over a short 2–3 week time period when 

water temperatures are low (1–3° C [34–39° F]). Burbot primarily feed at night, with fry feeding 

on zooplankton and small aquatic invertebrates. As they grow, their diet changes to include fish. 

As adults, more than 80 percent of their diet is likely to be fish.

Burbot have a circumpolar distribution in northern latitudes with wide spread distribution in 

Canada and northern Asia and Europe. In Idaho, they are only found in the Kootenai River 

drainage. The current population estimates of burbot entering Idaho in the fall and winter 

average < 25/year.

Although common in large portions of their range, the Kootenai population has declined 

significantly in past years. In the 1960s, the winter fishery on the Kootenai River was thought to 

have exceeded thousands of pounds of fish in both the commercial and sport harvest. In 1994, 

Idaho Department of Fish & Game only caught eight fish for an average of one fish per 111 net 

days (Paragamian et al. 2000).

Kootenai River White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) (Endangered)

Kootenai River white sturgeon requires rocky substrates, composed of boulders and cobbles, and 

high water velocities (3-9 ft/sec) for spawning. These appear to be the two most critical 

spawning elements (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008c). White sturgeon spawn during 

spring peak flows when velocities are high and turbidity is elevated. The fertilized eggs sink to 

the bottom, and then hatch within a few weeks. The newly hatched sac-fry briefly drift with the 

current before retreating into the substrate for up to a month. The juveniles eventually emerge 

from the substrate and begin a free-roaming life. Juvenile fish use a wide range of depths and 

water velocities as habitat.

Outside of spawning migration movements, Kootenai River white sturgeon are relatively 

sedentary in the deepest locations of the Kootenai River drainage, often selecting low velocity 

waters greater than twenty feet deep. A study by Young and Scarnecchia (2005) found a high 

percentage of telemetry contacts associated with the outside bend and thalweg, indicating 

juvenile fish actively seek deep waters.

Kootenai River white sturgeon is typically found over sand substrates. There are very few areas 

within the lower Kootenai River that contain substrates larger than sand. Due to the dominance 

of this small diameter substrate it is not known whether these fish are selecting the area for sand 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

188 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

or are forced to use it. Young and Scarnecchia (2005) collected micro-habitat data, but were 

unable to determine electivity for macro-habitat, river position, or micro-habitat. The authors 

surmised juvenile fish were forced to utilize sand substrates due to the consistent and dominantly 

sandy nature of the river bottom. White sturgeon are opportunistic feeders, and subsist on 

insects, clams, snails, plant material, and fish (Brown 1971).

The Kootenai River white sturgeon was listed as an endangered species in 1994. Reasons for 

listing included lack of juvenile recruitment reduced biological productivity, possible poor water 

quality, and effects of contaminants (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). The recovery plan 

for the Kootenai River population of white sturgeon was completed in 1999 (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1999a).

The original critical habitat designation included 11.2 miles of river below Bonners Ferry, Idaho. 

Through an interim rule an additional 6.9 miles of critical habitat were designated on February 8, 

2006 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). Kootenai River white sturgeon critical habitat was 

revised on July 9, 2008 with a final rule (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008c) to include a 

total of 18.3 miles of the Kootenai River within Boundary County, Idaho.

The white sturgeon is an ancient fish species that inhabits large rivers, lakes, and marine 

environments from southern California to the Cook Inlet of Alaska. It is a migratory species 

reaching lengths nearly 20 feet, weights of 1,970 pounds, and ages of 100 years or more. The 

white sturgeon, in the Kootenai River, exhibit both riverine and adfluvial life histories.

The white sturgeon is native to the Kootenai River drainage of Montana, Idaho, and British 

Columbia (Brown 1971), and has been geographically isolated from the lower Columbia River 

stocks by Bonnington Falls (i.e., Cora Linn Dam), near Nelson, British Columbia. White 

sturgeon migrate freely throughout the Kootenai River (Andrusak 1980), but are uncommon 

upstream of Bonners Ferry, Idaho (Graham 1981, Apperson 1992). There are no published 

reports of sturgeon using lateral tributaries in Idaho or Montana (Partridge 1983). The majority 

of adult fish resides in Kootenay Lake, and makes extended migrations of more than 100 km to 

spawn in a 19 km stretch below Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Some adult fish remain in the river and 

overwinter in the deep (> 30 m) pools.

The Kootenai River population of white sturgeon is naturally landlocked, genetically distinct and 

restricted to approximately 270 river kilometers (168 miles) of the Kootenai River between Cora 

Linn Dam, British Columbia and Kootenai Falls, Montana (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

1994a). Approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) of the Kootenai River, above designated critical 

habitat, is adjacent to IPNF lands. Numerous factors including changes in river flow, diking, and 

operation of Libby Dam have essentially stopped successful spawning and recruitment by wild 

fish (Beamesderfer 2010). The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho implemented a conservation aquaculture 

program and began stocking juvenile sturgeon in 1992. The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho provides 

nearly all recruitment (KTOI 2007). Historic land management activities conducted by the Forest 

Service, such as road construction and timber harvest, are not considered a factor in the decline 

of this species (Lee et al. 1997, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a).

Beamesderfer et al. (2009) provides a population status update. The updated status report 

includes data collected through 2007. The revised estimates suggest the adult population of 

Kootenai River white sturgeon lies between 800 and 1,400 individuals with an annual rate of 

decline of 4 percent. This is an increase from earlier estimates (Paragamian et al. 2005), which 

predicted a 2007 population of approximately 400 individuals with a 9 percent annual rate of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 189

decline. Based upon the revised information the projected timeframe when the wild population 

would drop below 50 adult fish is 2030 to 2080.

The Forest contains watersheds that drain into the Kootenai River. In the 1994 Final Listing 

Rule, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion stating that the Libby Dam, 

completed in 1974, is the primary factor affecting the Kootenai River white sturgeon (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1994a). There has been an almost complete lack of recruitment of juveniles 

into the population since 1974, soon after Libby Dam began operation (Partridge 1983, Apperson 

1992).

Forest management activities have not been identified as a factor in the decline of Kootenai 

River white sturgeon (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) and there are no revised Forest Plan 

components directed specifically at conservation of the species, or its habitat, other than a 

desired condition to maintain cooperative relationships with other stakeholders (FW-DC-AQS06).

The Forest administers a small section (approximately 80 acres) of isolated NFS lands, which 

includes less than 500 feet of riverbank adjacent to designated critical habitat. It is not 

reasonably foreseeable that this parcel would receive any active management due to its size and 

location relative to more consolidated lands. If management were to occur, all protective 

measures for riparian areas and native fish contained within the revised Forest Plan would apply.

Western Toad (Bufo boreas) (Sensitive)

Habitats used by western toads in Idaho are similar to those reported for other regions and range 

from low-elevation beaver ponds, reservoirs, streams, marshes, lake shores, potholes, wet 

meadows, and marshes to high-elevation ponds, fens, and tarns at or near tree line. Normally 

toads remain fairly close to ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and slow-moving rivers and streams during 

the day, but may range widely at night. Eggs and larvae develop in still, shallow areas of ponds, 

lakes, or reservoirs or in pools of slow-moving streams, often where there is sparse emergent 

vegetation. Boreal toads are known to migrate between aquatic breeding and terrestrial nonbreeding habitats. Adult and juvenile western toads dig burrows in loose soil, use burrows of 

small mammals, or occupy shallow shelters under logs or rocks. At least some toads overwinter 

in terrestrial burrows or cavities, apparently where conditions prevent freezing (MNHP and 

MFWP 2005).

The total adult population size is unknown but likely exceeds 100,000 (IUCN 2011). Within the 

last 25 years populations of western toads have undergone crashes in Colorado, Utah, southeast 

Wyoming, and New Mexico (Corn et al. 1997, Loeffler 1998 in Maxell et al. 2009). Bufo boreas 

is now listed as endangered by the state of Colorado and considered a candidate species which is 

warranted but precluded for federal listing by the USFWS in the southern Rocky Mountains. 

Surveys in the late 1990s revealed that toads were absent from a large number of their historic 

localities in the northern Rocky Mountains and that although they were still widespread across 

the landscape they occupied an extremely small proportion of suitable habitat (less than 10 

percent in most cases, but usually less than 5 percent) (Reichel and Flath 1995, Reichel 1996, 

Hendricks and Reichel 1996, Werner and Reichel 1996, Reichel 1997, Maxell et al. 2009). 

Overall population trend is considered to be decreasing (IUCN 2011).

This species occurs along the Pacific coast of North America from southern Alaska to Baja 

California, and ranges eastward to the Rocky Mountains of west central Alberta, Montana, 

Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and (formerly) northern New Mexico (NatureServe 2011b). In 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

190 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Idaho there are records throughout the state. They are considered fairly common and well 

distributed throughout their range in Idaho as well as on the Forests.

This species is in widespread decline throughout its range. Incidental breeding occurs on the 

IPNF. Although historic distribution is largely unknown, this species has occurred at Priest Lake 

Basin, Priest River below Priest Lake, Cocolalla Creek, Lower Coeur d’Alene River, and Little 

North Fork of Clearwater River. Past land management activities, (timber harvest and road 

construction) in and around streams and wetlands, have likely resulted in habitat loss. Because of 

the species’ specific habitat association and the number of unoccupied historical sites, it is 

possible that populations have declined or even been extirpated locally. Migration barriers,

especially roads, have isolated habitats, probably impacting reproduction and/or winter survival. 

Mortality at roads may be high near breeding ponds that are near roads with large amounts of 

vehicle traffic.

The western toad is currently recognized as two subspecies with Bufo boreas currently 

recognized as occurring in Idaho. However, mitochondrial DNA analysis indicates that four main 

phylogenetic groups exist and each may warrant recognition as separate species (Maxell et al. 

2009). Globally, western toads are classified as G4 (apparently secure) and nationally as N4 

(apparently secure) in both the U.S. and Canada. Throughout the states in which it occurs its rank 

varies widely from S1 (at high risk) to S4 (uncommon but not rare and usually widespread). It is 

not ranked in Idaho. The western toad is a Forest Service Northern Region sensitive species.

Western toad ecology, biology, habitat use, status, and conservation are described and 

summarized in Maxell et al. (2009) and Reichel and Flath (1995).

Coeur d'Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) (Sensitive)

Idaho populations of Coeur d'Alene salamanders are found primarily in talus areas along splash 

zones of creeks, or with seeps running through (Maxell et al. 2009). Nearby habitats are typically 

forested (Reichel and Flath 1995). Foraging areas include seepage areas and splash zones with 

high humidity, high substrate moisture, and relatively high temperatures. Shelter is provided by 

deep bedrock fractures or in talus habitat (Wilson and Larsen 1988).

This species is an invertivore. When above ground, Coeur d'Alene salamanders feed primarily on 

insects and other invertebrates including millipedes, mites, spiders, harvestmen, snails, and 

segmented worms (Wilson and Larsen 1988). They appear to be opportunistic feeders and 

generally restrict foraging activities to moist spray zones, seeps, or streamside rocks and 

vegetation, although they may venture beyond these areas during rainy periods. The diet is most 

similar to other salamanders that occupy semi-aquatic habitats (MNHP 2008).

Overall, the global population trend is unknown. The total number of adults is also unknown but 

probably exceeds 10,000 (NatureServe 2011a). Population declines or extinctions have not yet 

been documented in Idaho; however, some populations continue to be vulnerable to highway 

construction. Most populations occur at elevations and in forest types where timber harvest is a 

common activity. Population sizes are difficult to measure and no estimates are available (i.e., 

surveys are generally conducted at night, when salamanders are active (MNHP 2008)).

Globally the Coeur d'Alene salamander is classified as G4 (apparently secure) and nationally as 

N3 (at moderate risk) in both the U.S. and Canada. It is ranked as S3 in Idaho (NatureServe 

2011a). The Coeur d'Alene salamander is a Forest Service Northern Region sensitive species.

This species is endemic to northern Idaho, northwest Montana, northeast Washington, and 

southern British Columbia. On the IPNF, it has been found within the St. Joe watershed. Past 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 191

land management activities, such as timber harvest and road construction in and near streams,

have likely resulted in some level of habitat loss. Because of the species’ specific habitat 

association, it is possible that populations have declined or even been extirpated locally.

The species maintains a disjunctive distribution in northern Idaho, western Montana, and 

southeastern BC (Wilson et al. 1997, NatureServe 2011a). The majority of the species range is 

found on the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. This species is a remnant of a once 

diverse plethodontid salamander fauna in the central Rocky Mountains that was likely reduced 

by climatic changes over the last 10 to 14 million years (Tihen and Wake 1981). Most known 

U.S. sites (87 percent) occur on lands administered by the Forest Service, but this data is biased 

by the fact that most surveys have been conducted on NFS lands (Ibid). Coeur d'Alene 

salamander population biology, ecology, habitat description, and relationships identified by 

research are described in Cassirer et al. 1994, Groves et al. 1996, and Maxell et al. 2009.

Western Pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata) (Sensitive)

Western pearlshell occurs in sand, gravel, and even among cobble and boulders in low to 

moderate gradient streams up to larger rivers. This species prefers stable gravel and pebble 

substrates in low-gradient trout streams and intermountain rivers. Western pearlshell is found in 

runs and riffles in stable main-current channel areas. This mussel is intolerant of silt and warm 

water temperatures (Stagliano et al. 2007).

In large Idaho river system, such as the Salmon and Clearwater River systems, M. falcata, attains 

maximum density and age in river reaches where large boulders structurally stabilize cobbles and 

interstitial gravels. Boulders tend to prevent significant bed scour during major floods. Bouldersheltered mussel beds, although rare, may be critical for population recruitment elsewhere within 

the river, especially after periodic flood scour of less protected mussel habitat. In localized areas,

where canyon reaches are aggrading with sand and gravel, M. falcata is often replaced by 

Gonidea angulata.

Nearly all mussels require a host or hosts during the parasitic larval portion of their life cycle. 

Hosts are usually fish species and hosts for M. falcata in Idaho and Montana were typically and 

historically Oncorhynchus spp. (e.g., chinook salmon, westslope cutthroat trout, steelhead), but 

Salmo and Salvelinus (introduced species) and even Rhinicthys and Catostomus (dace and 

suckers) are anticipated to be suitable hosts as well.

In Idaho, the historical range of M. falcata includes sites in the Snake, Coeur d'Alene, Lost, and 

Salmon River drainages (Frest 1999). Populations are thought to 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).

Western pearlshell is a state species of special concern in Idaho (S3) and also included on the 

Region 1 Sensitive Species list (USDA Forest Service 2011a).

Macroinvertebrate Assemblage (Management Indicator Species (MIS))

Macroinvertebrates are useful and convenient indicators of the ecological health of a waterbody 

or river. They are almost always present and are easy to sample and identify. Macroinvertebrates 

can be used to reveal pollution problems and are ideal bioindicators of water quality for several 

reasons: they live in the water for all or most of their life; stay in areas suitable for their survival; 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

192 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

easy to collect, differ in their tolerance to amount and types of pollution; relatively easy to 

identify in a laboratory; often live for more than 1 year; have limited mobility; and are 

integrators of environmental condition. For example, the macroinvertebrate orders 

Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Tricoptera (caddisflies) are considered 

the three most pollution intolerant species found in freshwater streams and rivers. Because of 

this characteristic, a high percentage of these orders collected at a specific site typically indicate 

good water quality.

The PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Team 

(PIBO monitoring crew), established by the Forest Service to evaluate the implementation and 

effectiveness of that decision, collects and analyzes this type of data annually using accepted and 

peer reviewed methods. Macroinvertebrates are sampled using the protocol recommended by the 

Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems, Utah State University 

(Hawkins et al. 2003). Samples are analyzed and summarized by the BLM/USU National 

Aquatic Monitoring Center using 10 metrics (Karr and Chu 1997). One summary attribute was 

developed by the Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems in 

cooperation with the National Aquatic Monitoring Center that provides an index of biological 

condition for each reach. Specifically, the River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification 

System describes the similarity of the invertebrate species composition at a reach (observed) to 

the species composition predicted to occur at a reference site within similar environmental 

conditions (expected) (Archer et al. 2009).

As of 2010, there have been numerous macroinvertebrate sample locations (both repeated and 

single samples) across the IPNF, with a sampling period beginning in 1998. An average river 

invertebrate prediction and classification system score of 0.89 for managed sites indicates

relatively high water quality and high quality aquatic habitat, as evidenced by the proportion of 

water quality indicator species present. A River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification 

System score below 0.68 is considered to significantly deviate from reference conditions.

Environmental Consequences

Effects of Forestwide Direction

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

Watersheds, Soils, Riparian and Aquatic Habitat/Species

Legacy effects from past timber harvest, mining, and other land management activities continue 

to affect watershed health and the aquatic ecosystem. As amended by the INFISH (USDA Forest 

Service 1995a), the 1987 Forest Plan direction had reduced the risk to watersheds, soils, riparian, 

and aquatic resources from new and ongoing activities. For some resources, the standards and 

guidelines in the previous Plan contain general direction for repairing past damage, although it is 

lacking for other resources, such as timber harvest. Under the direction of the 1987 Forest Plan, 

the intensity and risks associated with new and ongoing land management activities has been 

greatly reduced as compared to the last several decades. It is anticipated that vegetation 

treatments associated with timber production, vegetation restoration, and other projects 

harvesting timber will be lower over the past 20 to 25 years than historic levels.

Under the current Forest Plan, watershed, soil, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions would 

continue to improve, as a reflection of the current trend in reductions of timber harvest activities 

and associated ground disturbance.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 193

Soil conditions should reflect an ongoing reduction in harvest and disturbance levels and should 

improve in response to implementation of the Plan.

Management for riparian and aquatic habitat and species is based on direction outlined in the 

INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995a and b), which was amended to the Forest Plan in 1995, 

and was designed to provide protection but did not focus on restoration. It primarily provided 

direction for protection and passive restoration measures.

The PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Team 

(PIBO monitoring crew) was established by the Forest Service in order to evaluate the 

implementation and effectiveness of that decision on 21 Forest Service and seven BLM units 

within the Columbia River Basin, including the planning unit. Preliminary analysis of the first 3

years of data from repeated site visits across the Upper Columbia River basin suggests that land 

management strategies implemented for the protection of aquatic habitats may be meeting the 

intent of the 1998 Biological Opinion for bull trout, salmon, and steelhead. For complete PIBO 

summary information, visit the Forest Service Fish and Aquatic Ecology website.

Factors that may have contributed to a decrease in riparian area function include: improper 

livestock grazing, timber harvest, road construction, water diversions, and disturbances 

associated with recreational use. These types of management activities have altered riparian 

conditions by changing flow regimes, altering channel morphology, and changing plant 

communities. Natural disturbance in riparian areas may temporarily degrade conditions, but is

also necessary for the regeneration of many native plant species. Riparian ecosystems are tied to 

the surface and groundwater hydrology, natural sediment supply, and disturbance regime of a 

particular landscape and many riparian plant species reproduce only after flood disturbances. 

Appropriate hydrologic and sediment regimes are important for maintaining the integrity of these 

ecosystems. Changes in the sediment load within stream channels may lead to down cutting or 

lateral erosion, altering floodplains and water table relationships. Riparian areas can often be key 

sites for invasion of exotic plant species due to the relatively higher level of human uses in these 

areas. Loss of native vegetation can disrupt the functioning of riparian areas because of 

decreases in root densities, which are important for stream channel stability and changes in plant 

communities.

Another potential indicator of riparian condition and effects to water quality and aquatic habitats 

is the number of road crossings within a subwatershed. Although all stream crossings are not 

created equally, higher numbers of stream crossings and density indicate the potential for 

negative effects to riparian areas, water quality, and aquatic habitats. Current management 

activities to improve water quality and aquatic habitats have included a reduction of the number 

crossings or improvement of their condition. It is presumed that this emphasis in stream crossing 

improvements would continue over the course of the next planning period.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

As protection measures outlined in the 1998 INFISH Biological Opinion continues to be 

implemented, populations of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species will continue to 

remain stable or increase in population size and distribution.

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Under Alternative A, it is anticipated that the level of diversity for the water quality indicator 

macroinvertebrate assemblage across the planning unit will be at least maintained, at current 

proportions (River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System score = 0.81).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

194 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

INFISH is forestwide direction that has been brought forward through all action alternatives 

(FW-STD-RIP-03); therefore, the effects from implementation of this strategy described under 

Alternative A are also common to all of the action alternatives.

Watersheds, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats/Species

Forestwide objectives, standards, and guidelines would protect watershed health and aquatic 

habitats for vegetation management activities. The construction of few new roads is anticipated;

and existing roads will be routinely improved, upgraded, or removed as they are evaluated 

during planning efforts for individual management activities. Any miles of road construction will 

be greatly offset through miles of road decommissioning. The revised Forest Plan, does not 

include any objectives specifically for road construction as it relates to soil and aquatic resource 

protection or restoration; however, the Plan does include an objective for 10 to 15 miles of road 

decommissioning or placing roads into intermittent storage as an annual average over a 5 year 

period (FW-OBJ-AR-03).Consequently, watershed conditions are not expected to decline from 

the current level of management in the Plan and are expected to improve.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCAs): INFISH provides for protection from some 

effects of timber harvest and prescribed fire on riparian and aquatic habitats through the 

implementation of RHCAs, which buffer streams from non-point source sediment generated by 

land management activities. Riparian conservation areas are zones typically associated with 

riparian vegetation and stream channels, for the protection of riparian vegetation, streambank 

stability, shading characteristics, and aquatic habitat. Riparian conservation areas contribute to 

maintaining the integrity of aquatic ecosystems by influencing the timing and delivery of 

sediment, organic matter, and woody debris to streams; providing root strength for channel 

stability; and providing shade and thermal regulations to streams. Because of the importance of 

riparian systems to the integrity of aquatic ecosystems that support aquatic habitat, appropriate 

delineation of RHCAs during project analysis and implementation is critical. Recent studies

about the structure and dynamics of riparian zones have extended the scope of understanding 

about this landscape attribute and have important management implications for streams, riparian 

areas, and adjacent uplands (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, Spence et al. 1996). Riparian 

conservation areas allow specialists to determine the level of analysis that best suits the needs of 

a project based on potential effects, baseline conditions, management direction, and issues. 

Riparian conservation areas define the type and levels of management actions that are suitable 

within or adjacent to RHCAs. Riparian conservation areas establish a network of refugia that 

promotes the conservation of aquatic species while preserving and restoring riparian function 

and ecological processes.

Proposed forestwide direction includes specific standards associated with RHCAs, such as FWSTD-RIP-01 and FW-STD-RIP-02 that require specialists to evaluate the function and condition 

of RHCAs during project level planning. Based on this information, specialists can determine the 

level of analysis required for riparian areas that best suits the needs of a project. The direction 

also defines the type and level of management actions that are suitable within or adjacent to 

RHCAs. The revised direction would ensure that RHCAs provide a network of refugia that 

promotes the conservation of aquatic species while preserving and restoring riparian function 

and ecological processes.

Conservation and Restoration Subwatersheds

As described in the “Affected Environment” section of this document, subwatersheds were 

characterized as having conservation or restoration characteristics as a function of watershed 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 195

condition ratings and status of native salmonid species. Conservation watersheds contain 

excellent habitat, water quality, and strong populations of native fish species. Restoration 

watersheds may have degraded habitat conditions, water quality limitations, depressed 

populations of native fish species, or a combination of the above, but have a relatively higher 

potential for improvement.

All the action alternatives include a forestwide desired condition that states “Conservation

subwatersheds provide habitats that can support population strongholds of federally listed and 

sensitive species. Conditions in restoration watersheds improve to support population

strongholds” (FW-DC-AQH-03). Based on desired conditions, and language provided for in the 

definitions of these strategies, conservation and restoration subwatersheds would have a 

relatively high priority for the protection or restoration of listed fish species and sensitive 

species, monitoring, future multi-scale analyses, and expansion and re-colonization of aquatic 

dependent species into habitats in adjacent subwatersheds.

These conservation and restoration areas should provide a level of protection and identify areas 

that have a relatively higher need for restoration of native species and water quality limited 

drainages. These areas serve to reduce the risks associated with factors of decline and contribute

to the recovery and restoration of aquatic species, their habitats, water quality, and other aquatic 

resources. Land management in these priority subwatersheds is designed to complement other 

recovery/restoration plans and build on actions already taking place to recover species and 

improve the condition of water bodies that do not support designated beneficial uses.

Restoration activities implemented under the revised Forest Plan should be prioritized based on 

the presence and sensitivity of native fish species and subwatershed functional rating. This 

restoration prioritization approach formulates the template for recovery and restoration by 

applying the appropriate restoration approach (active or passive) and prioritization for 

subwatershed restoration to all subwatersheds within their respective subbasins across the Forest, 

thereby providing an efficient means to promote restoration activities and recovery of aquatic 

species and improvements in water quality and aquatic habitats. Watershed restoration is 

designed to facilitate the recovery of watershed functions and related physical, biological, and 

chemical processes that promote recovery of riparian and aquatic ecosystem structure and 

function and benefit native aquatic species. Proposed watershed restoration in the revised Forest 

Plan includes both passive and active components to achieve aquatic and riparian desired 

conditions depending on the opportunities provided for in different MAs such as MA1b 

(recommended wilderness) and MA6 (general forest).

Active restoration is the direct manipulation of ecosystems to re-establish or facilitate the 

improvement of selected ecosystem processes. It is generally applied through the use of 

integrated treatments strategically located and implemented at the watershed scale. Active 

restoration relies on identifying and treating root causes that have contributed to the loss of 

aquatic ecosystem health. Treatments that address several ecosystem characteristics can 

influence the desired trajectory of conditions at a subwatershed scale. It may be impossible to 

achieve former (pre-human disturbance) conditions through restoration; however, it is desirable 

to restore ecosystem patterns and processes to support native species even if the best that can be 

achieved is a facsimile of a former condition. Selection of high priority restoration 

subwatersheds considers the extent of habitat degradation and the degree to which their natural 

diversity and ecological processes are retained. Active restoration activities consider and 

complement recovery plans for fish, other riparian dependent species, and water quality. Active 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

196 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

restoration opportunities would be more prevalent in designated areas such as MA6 (general 

forest).

Passive restoration relies on the implementation of guidelines, other sources of design criteria 

(e.g., Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction), and BMPs to maintain watershed 

processes and aquatic habitat conditions and allow for natural rates of recovery. Because passive 

restoration primarily maintains current conditions, active restoration is often needed to move a 

degraded system toward recovery. Passive restoration opportunities would be more prevalent in 

MAs such as 1b and 1c that have wilderness characteristics.

To be successful at restoration it is important to have solid linkages to other plans (e.g., Idaho 

State Wildlife Conservation Plans, Federal Recovery Plans, state water quality plans) and strong 

working relationships with other land owners and stakeholders. Watershed scale restoration is an 

interdisciplinary effort and necessitates close coordination between multiple resource programs, 

watershed councils, adjacent landowners, and other stakeholders and partners. Cooperation with 

land owners and interested parties such as watershed councils, state agencies, tribes, and 

conservation districts, can result in large benefits and returns on investments because mutual 

priorities and opportunities are identified and resources can be pooled to accomplish 

conservation and restoration actions. Specific direction in the revised Forest Plan that provides 

for this restoration strategy can be found in FW-DC-AQS-01, 03, and 04.

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

context of existing budget levels and other land management priorities. Revised Forest Plan 

direction will be applied to these priority areas and merit special consideration of their values 

during the planning and implementation of project level management actions.

As the revised Forest Plan is implemented, there is an anticipated shift in the amount of active 

restoration towards conservation condition as habitats improve and restoration components in the 

Plan move subwatersheds from a rating of “moderate” or “high” towards a rating of “low” and 

native species move in to those improved habitats.

Watershed, soil, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions under Alternative B Modified are 

expected to improve more rapidly than under Alternative A or C, as a reflection of the current 

trend in reductions of timber harvest activities and associated ground disturbance, as well as 

proposed direction in the revised Forest Plan. For example, forestwide direction common to all 

action alternatives are designed to improve watershed condition (FW-OBJ-WTR-01 and 02); 

protect soil conditions, soil quality, and maintain soil productivity (FW-GDL-SOIL-01, 02, 03, 

and 04) restore riparian and aquatic habitats (FW-STD-RIP-01, 02, and 03, and FW-OBJ-AQH01, 02 and 03).

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

Alternative B Modified: Due to the protection and restoration measures outlined in the revised

Forest Plan, it is anticipated that these species will show a more rapid improvement than under 

Alternative A or C. As an example, statements FW-DC-AQS-04 and 05 describe desired 

conditions for bull trout and objective FW-OBJ-AQS-01 seeks to improve the condition of 

subwatersheds with sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic species.

Alternative C: Populations of these species are anticipated to show improvements under 

Alternative C, but those improvements will be achieved more slowly than other alternatives as a 

result from more passive restoration opportunities in MA1b.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 197

Alternative D: Populations of these species are anticipated to show improvements under 

Alternative D, and may be achieved more rapidly than other alternatives as a result from more 

potential for active restoration opportunities in land allocated to MA6 (general forest).

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Alternatives B Modified: The macroinvertebrate assemblage, used to indicate the condition of 

water quality and aquatic habitat conditions across the entire planning unit, is expected to 

improve. Measures in the revised Forest Plan that emphasize macroinvertebrates include 

direction such as FW-DC-AQS-01 and FW-OBJ-AQH-02.

Alternative C: Given the passive restoration nature of Alternative C, it is expected that the 

assemblage diversity will improve, but at a slightly slower rate than Alternative B Modified or 

D.

Alternative D: Given the active restoration nature of Alternative D, it is expected that the 

assemblage diversity will improve, but at a more rapid rate than Alternative C.

Effects of Management Area Direction

MA1b: Alternative C proposes more recommended wilderness (MA1b) and in order to 

retain the wilderness characteristics of those areas there would be an overall 

improvement to watershed, soil, riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. Although there 

are anticipated improvements, these benefits would be realized through more passive 

restoration activities and could actually be more slowly attained than A, B Modified, or 

D, because of limited opportunities for active restoration.

MA6: Under Alternative D, there could be relatively more improvement in watershed, 

soil, riparian and aquatic habitats relative to Alternatives A, B Modified, or C. This 

interpretation is based on the fact that there is more land area allocated to MA6 (general 

forest) which increases the possibility of more land management activities; it does not 

preclude as much potential active restoration opportunities associated with those 

activities as do the other alternatives. In other words, more activities are expected, 

allowing for more protection and restoration opportunities related to watersheds, soils, 

riparian and aquatic habitats and species.

Consequences to Watersheds, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources from Forest 

Plan Components Associated with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Roads

General Effects

Roads have the potential to affect aquatic ecosystems and aquatic organisms through several 

direct and indirect pathways and to modify natural drainage patterns which often lead to 

accelerated erosion of road surfaces and associated cut and fill slopes. This can lead to increased 

sediment delivery to streams. Excess fine sediment can fill interstitial spaces in gravels and 

cobbles, which reduces available habitat for aquatic macroinvertebrates. In addition, this fine 

sediment reduces the quality of spawning gravels for salmonids and can ultimately reduce 

reproduction. Excess sediment can also reduce the quantity and quality of pool habitats. Roads 

can affect stream channels directly if they are located on active floodplains or directly adjacent to 

stream channels. For example, a road located adjacent to a stream can be a chronic source of 

sediment. If the road changes the morphological characteristics of the stream, this can set forth a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

198 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

chain reaction of channel adjustments that can result in accelerated bed and bank erosion, which 

produces excessive sediment.

Roads can result in changes in channel morphology, especially at road crossing locations. Poorly 

placed roads can encroach on stream channel and floodplain areas. Many older roads were 

constructed very close to stream channel areas, often in the floodplain. Often streams were 

straightened to accommodate road routing. Sometimes roads capture flow out of the channel and 

can result in stream re-routing down the road. Unpaved roads are the most common source of 

sediment to streams on NFS lands. Excessive sediment loading often leads to changes in channel 

morphology because of pool filling, widening of the channel, and making the channel shallower. 

These types of changes in channel morphology are reflected in changes in width to depth ratios, 

number of pools, pool depth, bank angle, and amount of undercut bank. Roads can permanently 

affect wetlands by interrupting natural flow paths and reducing vegetation. Roads can be a 

source of invasive weed species. Road crossing locations often create migration barriers to fish 

and other aquatic species, thereby fragmenting habitat.

Roads result in a form of semi-permanent vegetation removal. Roads in riparian areas create a 

loss of riparian vegetation which can influence the amount of solar radiation and water 

temperature regimes and amount of wood available for recruitment into the stream ecosystem. 

Loss of riparian vegetation can influence the amount of solar radiation reaching a water body 

and increase water temperatures and amount of wood available for recruitment into the stream 

ecosystem. These changes can ultimately lead to shifts in dissolved oxygen and pH. In addition, 

removal of riparian vegetation can increase nitrate levels which can increase the biological 

activity in water. Greater temperature fluctuations (diurnal and seasonal) can also occur when 

riparian vegetation is removed or decreased. The addition of nutrients in the stream ecosystem

and reduced wood recruitment can affect the physical processes that create habitat complexity,

such as deep pools and material available for hiding cover.

Road systems can change a natural hydrologic regime by altering natural flow patterns, 

particularly on hill slopes, thereby reducing infiltration and increasing surface runoff that may 

desynchronize flow regimes. Where a dense road network is well connected to the stream 

network, it can be an “extension” of the actual stream network. This can result in a more rapid 

delivery of water to the mouth of a watershed during snow melts and storm events, which can 

increase peak flows. Wetlands may be easily dewatered by road intersections that increase 

drainage efficiency in those areas allowing for a conversion to upland plant communities or 

facilitate exotic plant invasion.

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

Recent activities have helped to improve soil and aquatic resource conditions through changes in 

road and travel management. Forest roads that are maintained on an annual basis are typically 

those roads that have the most administrative and visitor use. Roads that have been closed, or 

receive limited visitor use, or have been decommissioned have revegetated to some degree. 

During the last several years, many roads that are graded have had new surfacing such as gravel 

or oil to reduce the rate of road deterioration and subsequent erosion from road surfaces (INFISH 

RF-2 and RF-3). Several roads have been moved out of riparian areas or decommissioned. 

Culverts have been installed or removed at stream crossings that were contributing sediment 

directly to the aquatic ecosystem or impeding passage of aquatic organisms (INFISH RF-4 and 

RF-5). Although there have been improvements in the overall road network, roads and stream 

crossings will continue to provide effects to the soil and aquatic ecosystem. Maintenance, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 199

closure, and decommissioning of roads are expected to continue at similar levels or slightly 

increased levels compared to more recent management.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Forestwide direction common to all action alternatives will lead toward improvement regarding 

the effects of roads on watersheds, soils, riparian, and aquatic habitat and species.

As described under “General Effects,” roads are a key contributor to watershed condition (see 

also appendix D). FW-OBJ-WTR 01 and 02 aim to remove or mitigate risk factors that could 

include roads to improve watersheds and water quality.

The desired condition for access includes a transportation system that has minimal impacts on 

watersheds, riparian areas, and aquatic species including threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species (FW-DC-AR-07).

FS-OBJ-AQH-03 aims to reconnect fragmented habitat in streams to increase the distribution of 

aquatic and riparian associated species. Road crossings are a primary cause of habitat 

fragmentation; therefore, forestwide direction promotes reducing the effects of roads on 

fragmented habitat.

Regular road maintenance and decommissioning or placing roads into intermittent stored service 

is an access objective (FW-OBJ-AR-03). Project-level design criteria directs that roads to be 

decommissioned or put into storage be treated to make them hydrologically stable in order to 

avoid futures risks to watershed conditions (FW-GDL-WTR-02).

Opportunities for road construction are greatest under Alternative D as it contains the most acres 

of MA6 (general forest) and least under Alternative C, which contains the most acres of 

recommended wilderness (MA1b), and backcountry (MA5)1

, which only allows for temporary 

road construction under limited circumstances.

Effects from Timber Harvest and Prescribed Fire

General Effects

Riparian vegetation removal influences channel morphology through increased potential 

sediment delivery to water bodies, reduced large wood recruitment, and subsequent changes in 

pool depth and complexity. Prescribed fire along streambanks and shorelines can result in 

variable amount and distribution of ground exposure, but these activities typically result in 

moderate to light severity fires and have little influence on riparian vegetation and ground litter 

removal and subsequent surface erosion. Loss of riparian vegetation can influence the amount of 

solar radiation reaching a water body and increase water temperatures. Greater temperature 

fluctuations (diurnal and seasonal) can also occur when riparian vegetation is removed or 

decreased.

Timber harvest has the potential to cause accelerated erosion primarily through construction of 

temporary roads and skid trails. Timber harvest can also affect flow regimes by reducing 

evapotranspiration, interception, and snow accumulation patterns and by increasing soil moisture 

and surface runoff. Use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives and 

 1 This MA allows temporary road construction based on the May 28, 2010 - Secretary's Memorandum 

1042-155 - Authority to Approve Road Construction and Timber Harvesting in Certain Lands 

Administered by the Forest Service, and the June 18, 2010 - Secretary's Re-delegation of Authority for 

Certain Activities in Inventoried Roadless Areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

200 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

prescribed fire can affect flow regimes by reducing evapotranspiration, interception, and snow 

accumulation patterns, and by increasing soil moisture and surface runoff. Timber harvest 

directly adjacent to wetlands can reduce shade, raise water temperatures, and reduce the potential 

for recruitment of woody material. In the short-term, 2 to 3 years, prescribed fire can reduce 

vegetation upstream and around wetlands. This can cause delivery of sediment and nutrients 

from burned areas, as well as recruitment of woody material. Prescribed fire can also reduce the 

evapotranspiration demands and make more water available for wetlands. Over the long-term, 

greater than 2 to 3 years, prescribed fire is expected to improve riparian condition, if applied to 

meet site-specific riparian management objectives.

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

Timber harvest is prohibited in RHCAs except in specific situations, including when it can be 

used as a tool to improve riparian vegetation conditions (INFISH TM-1). Projects that use 

prescribed fire should be designed to improve riparian condition (INFISH FM-4).

A variety of timber harvest treatments, such as clearcut, partial cut, selection cut, and 

shelterwood have occurred in the past and most of those harvest units have been stocked, 

revegetated as a result of natural succession, or a combination of both. Historically, areas such as 

skid trails, temporary roads, and cutting units that included riparian vegetation removal or were 

constructed close to stream channels. Localized sedimentation and temperature increases are 

likely to have occurred. Overall, soil productivity and impacts to water quality and aquatic 

habitats may have occurred from past vegetation treatments, but natural recovery and 

improvements in present and future management techniques has mitigated or improved 

conditions of these resources.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Forestwide direction for all action alternatives aspires to protect watersheds, soils, riparian, and 

aquatic habitat and species from detrimental effects due to timber harvest and prescribed fire. As 

restoration activities trend vegetation towards desired conditions, watershed health is expected to 

improve. FW-DC-WTR-01 emphasizes the protection of water quality during all management 

activities. FW-STD-WTR-01 ensures that source water areas for public water supplies are 

protected from ground-disturbing activities, including timber harvest and prescribed fire.

Desired conditions for soils include maintaining soil productivity and hydrologic function (FWDC-SOIL-01), as well as minimizing effects and recovering areas that have incurred detrimental 

disturbance (FW-DC-SOIL-02). Restoring soil productivity on these areas is a forestwide 

objective (FW-OBJ-SOIL-01). Project-level design criteria contain direction to protect soils 

during vegetation treatment such as timber harvest and prescribed fire (FW-GDL-SOIL-01, 02, 

03, and 04). FW-GDL-VEG-09 protects peatlands from management activities that disturb soil, 

vegetation, above and below groundwater flows, and/or water chemistry. Such activities include 

timber harvest and prescribed fire.

Opportunities for more intensive types and amounts of timber harvest are greatest under 

Alternative D because it has the most acres in MA6 (general forest), which allows for timber 

production (scheduled on a rotation basis). Alternative C is expected to have the least intensive 

timber harvest opportunities because it has the most MA1b (recommended wilderness, which 

does not allow timber harvest of any kind), and MA5 (backcountry, which only allows for 

limited timber harvest based on provisions in the Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C)) 

combined. More effects to watersheds, soils, riparian, and aquatic resources are generally 

expected with more intensive timber harvest (Alternative D) and less effects in Alternative C, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 201

with effects from Alternative B Modified being in between. The forestwide direction common to 

all alternatives is in place to minimize these effects and protect these resources regardless of 

alternative.

There are no differences among action alternatives for prescribed fire opportunities because 

prescribed fire is an allowable activity in all MAs whose acres differ between alternatives.

Effects from Recreation

General Effects

Permanent development and campground facilities in riparian areas can result in sediment 

increases to nearby streams, loss of stream bank vegetation, and reduced water infiltration. 

Associated human activities, such as off-highway vehicle use on trails and stream bank 

trampling, can also decrease ground cover and increased soil disturbances. Direct effects to 

channel morphology include the loss of pool volumes, habitat complexity, and decrease in the 

size of stream channel substrate. Recreation use (primarily ATV use) can cause soil compaction 

and loss of vegetation in wetlands and/or directly adjacent to them. This can reduce sub-surface 

water flow and increase surface runoff. Increases in surface runoff may contribute sediment to 

streams and associated aquatic habitats, depending on the proximity or connectedness to the 

hydrologic network. Facilities can be similar to roads in terms of potential effects. Facilities can 

permanently affect wetlands by interrupting natural flow paths and reducing vegetation.

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

Off-highway vehicles are a popular choice for outdoor recreation, but they do have the potential 

to affect soils and aquatic resources; particularly if unmanaged motor vehicle use (in the absence 

of snow covered ground conditions) is allowed. However, the IPNF published motor vehicle use 

maps (MVUMs) in 2009 per 36 CFR 212, designating those roads, trails, and areas that are open 

to motor vehicle use. Motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated 

areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13. Although past impacts from recreation trails and 

developed recreation sites have likely contributed to effects on soil and aquatic dependent 

resources, limiting motor vehicle use to designated routes and areas minimizes the potential for 

these effects.

In addition, INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995a) directs recreation facilities, including trails 

and dispersed sites, to be located in a way that avoids adverse effects on riparian and aquatic 

resources, including relocating or closing sites that degrade riparian and aquatic habitats 

(INFISH RM-1). This direction also includes adjusting recreation practices that adversely affect 

riparian and aquatic resources (INFISH RM-2).

As populations increase and recreation technology improves, motorized recreation use is 

anticipated to increase. However, site-specific planning for route designations and management 

following INFISH would continue to minimize adverse effects to soils and aquatic resources.

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

currently has 449,246 acres closed to all motor vehicles for most or all of the winter months. 

These areas were closed because of critical wildlife habitat or because they are special nonmotorized areas for recreation under the 1987 Plan. No issues have been identified to indicate an 

impact to watersheds or soils from over-snow vehicle use. In the action alternatives, additional 

acres would be closed to over-snow use in recommended wilderness and RNAs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

202 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

The protections from INFISH and Travel Management Rule direction described under 

Alternative A are also common to all action alternatives.

The objective common to all action alternatives for dispersed recreation sites will benefit 

riparian and aquatic resources by improving conditions through interpretation and education, by 

implementing human waste management techniques, and by physically improving sites at 

heavily used areas near water on the IPNF (FW-OBJ-AR-01). Desired conditions for access and 

recreation include completing and implementing motor vehicle use designations (FW-DC-AR08), which will meet INFISH RM-2 by moving off-road vehicle use away from riparian and 

aquatic resources.

Current management and future trends in recreation management are likely to include relocation 

of trails and developed sites away from streams and riparian areas in order to meet the intent of 

the revised Forest Plan to protect water quality and aquatic habitats.

Effects from Mining

General Effects

Mining directly adjacent to wetlands, or within streams or floodplains that are connected to 

wetlands, can reduce water availability/flow and increase sedimentation and/or pollution. Mining 

of the stream channel causes direct increases of sediment. As equipment dredges stream 

channels, water flow immediately transports material downstream. In addition, placer mining can 

cause bank erosion from equipment use and loss of riparian vegetation. Loss of riparian 

vegetation through mining activities can influence the amount of solar radiation and water 

temperature regimes. These changes can ultimately lead to shifts in dissolved oxygen and pH. In 

addition, removal of riparian vegetation can increase nitrate levels that can increase the 

biological production in water.

Clean-up of mining related heavy metals contamination in the Coeur d'Alene basin under the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) will 

continue into the future through the life of the Plan. Settlements with several mining companies 

including ASARCO and Hecla will result in an accelerated pace of clean-up activities lead by the 

EPA. The EPAs 10 year implementation plan, released in November of 2012, shows the initial 

focus of this future work to be mainly in the developed areas of the Silver Valley along the South 

Fork Coeur d'Alene River. These activities will include property remediation, road surfacing, 

water treatment, and remedy protection projects. In addition, source areas in the 9-mile and 

Canyon Creek watersheds will be largely addressed by consolidating and containing 

contaminants in repositories. This work will be ongoing through the next 10 years with similar 

actions taken on subsequent priorities once completed.

In concert with the EPA clean-up effort the USDA, DOI, Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and the state of 

Idaho will jointly work towards implementing projects across the Coeur d'Alene basin 

supporting restoration of natural resources and services which were injured as a result of the 

heavy metals contamination. It is probable that these projects, also supported by settlement 

funds, will be implemented for multiple decades starting in 2015 and will likely be a 

combination of efforts that restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the injured 

natural resources and the services they provide.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 203

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

INFISH contains several standards and guidelines for minimizing effects of mining on riparian 

and aquatic resources (INFISH MM-1-6).

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

INFISH contains several standards and guidelines for minimizing effects of mining on riparian 

and aquatic resources (INFISH MM-1-6).

Effects from Dams and Diversions

General Effects

Dams and diversions can change the streamflow regimes, alter sediment transport through 

aquatic ecosystems, and affect water chemistry. Water released from the bottom of a reservoir is 

often much colder than natural streams and contains high concentrations of nutrients. Diversions 

can create changes in water chemistry by altering the temperature regime. Usually, smaller 

volumes of water tend to heat up faster than larger volumes. Higher water temperatures result in 

increased biological activity and decreased dissolved oxygen. These changes can often result in a 

different composition of aquatic biota downstream of a dam. Types of changes are a function of 

how a particular dam is operated to achieve power generation and flood control goals. If a dam is 

operated for power generation, flows often fluctuate on a daily basis (ramping) for peak power 

demand. Annual floods are often “buffered” by dams and their reservoirs, resulting in smaller 

annual floods. Diversions change flow regimes simply by making less water available, 

particularly during the summer months. Dams interrupt sediment transport in streams and rivers, 

and can change availability of sediment in two ways: (1) Immediately downstream of dams there 

is a deficiency of sediment which can cause channel degradation and accelerated bank erosion. 

These effects are variable and can be seen several miles downstream of a dam. (2) Dams also can 

cause channels to aggrades or “fill with sediment” because they reduce the frequency and 

magnitude of floods. Removal of water from streams during a substantial part of the year reduces 

the volume of water (energy) available to transport the sediment load and this can result in

aggradations downstream of the structure. Dams and diversions often create barriers to migrating 

aquatic species.

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

INFISH direction for dams and diversions is included in standards and guidelines (INFISH LH1, LH-2).

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

In addition to INFISH direction, forestwide direction common to all action alternatives includes 

desired conditions and objectives to protect or minimize effects from dams and diversions. Flow 

conditions that fully support beneficial uses and meet the ecological and habitat needs of aquatic 

species and provide for natural water and sediment conveyance as well as overall channel 

maintenance are supported in the desired conditions (FW-DC-WTR-02 and 03; FW-DC-RIP02). Connectivity between waterbodies to support migrating aquatic species is a desired 

condition (FW-DC-AQH-02) and is an objective (FW-OBJ-AQH-03). While most dams on the 

IPNF are stressors that are not under Forest Service control, cooperation and coordination with 

state agencies, federal agencies, tribes, and other groups may be used where possible to achieve 

upward trends of aquatic species (FS-DC-AQS-03), such as through connection of habitat 

around dams and diversions. There are no differences among action alternatives for dams and 

diversions because their construction is an allowable activity in all MAs whose acres differ 

between alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

204 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Effects from Livestock Grazing

General Effects

Livestock grazing near streams can result in changes in channel morphology (Belsky et al. 

1999). Livestock trailing, chiseling, and general soil displacement along stream bank areas can 

result in collapse of undercut bank areas and an overall increase in bank angle, loss of bank 

cover, and stream widening along the entire stream reach. Over long periods of time grazing can 

lead to the entire channel becoming down-cut to the point that a gully forms and a new channel 

is formed at the bottom of the gully. This type and extent of down-cutting results in an entire 

channel type change. Livestock trampling and hoof chiseling along streambanks can increase 

ground exposure, surface erosion, and increased sedimentation. Concentrated livestock waste 

can cause eutrophication of lakes and ponds. Livestock grazing directly in wetlands or 

immediately adjacent to them can cause soil compaction, hummocking, and loss of vegetation. 

This ultimately inhibits sub-surface water flow.

Removal of riparian vegetation through livestock management can influence the amount of solar 

radiation and water temperature regimes. These changes can ultimately lead to shifts in dissolved 

oxygen and pH. In addition, removal of riparian vegetation can increase nitrate levels which can 

increase the biological production in water. Loss of riparian vegetation can influence the amount 

of solar radiation reaching a water body and increase water temperatures. Greater temperature 

fluctuations (diurnal and seasonal) can also occur when riparian vegetation is removed or 

decreased. Livestock grazing has the potential to cause increased sediment delivery through 

trampling of stream banks and by removal of riparian vegetation.

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

Livestock grazing is a minor component of management on the planning unit and would 

continue to occur across all MAs. Although livestock grazing is not a large management 

component on the Forest, there may be localized effects of past management. Livestock 

management has only slightly changed since the last planning period and livestock stocking rates 

are less than historical levels.

INFISH standards and guidelines that protect or minimize effects to riparian and aquatic 

resources from livestock grazing include modifying grazing practices, locating new facilities 

outside of RHCAs, relocating or closing facilities, and limiting livestock handling efforts 

(INFISH GM-1, 2, and 3).

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Opportunities for more grazing are higher under Alternative B Modified and D than Alternative 

C, because C has more acres of recommended wilderness (MA1b), which does not allow 

grazing. It is unlikely that grazing will increase under any alternative because of the lack of nontransitory range land on the IPNF.

As allotment management plans are revised and incorporate forestwide direction common to all 

action alternatives (i.e., FW-GDL-RIP-02, and INFISH), these revisions will improve soil and 

water quality conditions within allotments for all action alternatives.

Effects from Fire Suppression

General Effects

Long-term fire suppression causes forest successional processes to continue which can increase 

evapotranspiration and interception, potentially resulting in less water available for wetlands. In 

many cases, lack of fire can lead to the encroachment of woody species (primarily shrubs) into 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 205

peatland habitats, which could lead to competitive exclusion of herbaceous species. Suppression

of natural fire regimes causes fuel loads to accumulate. When wildfire does occur, the intensity 

and severity are often higher than they would be with more natural levels of fuel. This can result 

in higher rates of fuel consumption and availability of ash and nutrients that can be delivered to 

aquatic environments. Severe fires may also remove virtually all riparian vegetation and ground 

cover; and result in soil erosion and sedimentation to nearby water bodies and loss of important 

transitional habitats for aquatic species such as amphibians and insects. Suppression of natural 

fire regimes results in forests that have more trees and associated leaf area. This results in higher 

evapotranspiration and interception levels, which leaves decreased amounts of water available 

for surface and sub-surface flow. Lower levels of stream flow can affect the aquatic species as a 

result of warmer water temperatures and changes in water chemistry. In addition, fire 

suppression can allow fuels to accumulate above natural levels, which can cause wildfires to 

burn more severely. This process can change infiltration characteristics of the soil and change 

hydrologic characteristics. Fire suppression activities, such as retardant use and drafting water 

from streams, can also affect riparian and aquatic resources.

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

INFISH standards and guidelines contain direction on fuel treatment and fire suppression 

strategies (INFISH FM-1), locating fire suppression centers for incident activities outside of

RHCAs (INFISH FM-2), avoiding delivery of chemical retardant to surface waters (INFISH 

FM-3), and immediately establishing emergency teams to rehabilitate areas significantly 

damaged by wildfire (INFISH FM-5).

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

In addition to protections provided by INFISH direction, forestwide direction common to all 

action alternatives included guidelines to minimize effects to RHCAs from fire suppression 

activities through the implementation of minimum impact suppression tactics (FW-GDL-RIP03), as well as to protect fish and aquatic organisms while drafting water by screening pumps 

and locating intakes away from spawning gravels (FW-GDL-RIP-04).

Cumulative Effects

Soil-and aquatic-dependent resources are greatly influenced by all activities occurring within the 

Forest boundaries and can be a good indicator of large-scale cumulative effects. Nearly all 

activities proposed in the revised Forest Plan have the potential to affect soil- and aquaticdependent resources. Of adverse effects, land management activities that disturb the soil surface 

have the greatest potential and risk. Risk increases with proximity or connectivity to the stream 

network and riparian habitats. Mitigation of the cumulative effects to soil-and aquatic-dependent 

resources is controlled through management direction provided for in the revised Forest Plan and 

through the use of BMPs and other watershed conservation practices at the project level. These 

practices will minimize the risk for ground-disturbing activities to have far reaching impacts to 

soil and aquatic resources by controlling the timing and location of these activities. Management 

activities on the Forest that may cumulatively affect water quality are: roads, vegetation 

management, recreation, livestock grazing, and mining.

The cumulative effect of these activities and uses will continue to be expressed in fish and 

amphibian populations as a result of improvements in the quality of aquatic habitats. Fish 

populations and other aquatic-dependent species will be maintained and are likely to increase, 

within the Forest boundary, as stream and riparian conditions are improved through restoration 

activities (although stochastic events such as disease, climate changes, natural disturbances, or 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

206 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

aquatic nuisance species will continue to have population effects beyond the control of 

management activities).

Climate Change

Effects of climate change on watershed processes and aquatic ecosystems in the West, including 

northern Idaho, are described in detail in the KIPZ Climate Change Report (USDA Forest 

Service 2010b). The paper concludes that the way to reduce impacts from climate change is to 

increase the resiliency of watersheds and forests to the changes in disturbance regimes that result 

from climate change. This synthesis suggests that the way to increase resiliency of watersheds is 

to maintain and restore watershed processes and aquatic ecosystems.

The following section is excerpted from the KIPZ Climate Change Report:

Over the last 50 years, average spring snowpack (April 1 snow water equivalent) has declined 

and average snowmelt runoff is occurring earlier in the spring. These trends are observed for 

northern Idaho, the entire Pacific Northwest, and much of the western U.S. Since the available 

data is limited to the last 50 years, it is not clear whether these trends are persistent long-term 

trends or reflect short-term decade-to-decade variability that may reverse in coming years. 

Several recent studies of the same trends across the entire western U.S. have concluded that 

natural variability explains some, but not all, of the west-wide trend in decreasing spring 

snowpack and earlier snowmelt runoff.

Potential changes in streamflow and rising stream temperatures are likely to increase risks to 

maintaining existing populations of native, cold-water aquatic species. Over the last century, 

most native fish and amphibians have declined in abundance and distribution throughout the 

western U.S., including northern Idaho. It is unknown whether, or to what degree, these changes 

are attributable to climate trends. Potential climate-induced trends of altered streamflow timing, 

lower summer flows, and increased water temperature will likely reduce the amount, quality, and 

distribution of habitat suitable for native trout and contribute to fragmentation of existing 

populations. Climate-related impacts are likely to add cumulatively to other stressors on native 

fish and amphibian species. Non-native trout and other aquatic species better adapted to warm 

water temperatures may increase in abundance and expand their existing ranges.

These climatic and hydrologic trends, combined with climate-related trends in wildfires and 

forest mortality from insects and diseases, can significantly affect aquatic ecosystems and 

species (Casola et al. 2005, Dunham et al. 2003, Dunham et al. 2007, Isaak et al. 2010). A 

growing body of literature has linked these hydrologic trends with impacts to aquatic ecosystems 

and species in western North America, often as a result of climate-related factors affecting 

stream temperatures and the distribution of thermally suitable habitat (Bartholow 2005, Isaak et 

al. 2010, Kaushal et al. 2010, Morrison et al. 2002, Petersen and Kitchell 2001). Lower summer 

streamflows and higher air temperatures, as observed over recent decades in northern Idaho, are 

generally expected to result in increased stream temperatures. However, stream temperatures are 

controlled by a complex set of site-specific variables including shading from riparian vegetation, 

wind velocity, relative humidity, geomorphic factors, groundwater inflow, and hyporheic flow 

(Caissie 2006).

Potential impacts to fish include:

• Egg incubation and fry emergence may be adversely affected due to flood flows, 

dewatering, and/or water temperatures. Shifts in the timing and magnitude of natural 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Watershed Resources 207

runoff will likely introduce new selection pressures that may cause changes in the most 

productive timing or areas for spawning.

• Spring/summer rearing may be adversely affected due to reduction in stream flow and 

higher water temperatures.

• Overwinter survival may be positively affected by higher winter water temperatures 

enabling fish to feed more actively, potentially increasing growth rates if sufficient food 

is available. If food is limited, the elevated metabolic demands could reduce winter 

growth and survival.

Bull trout is the native trout species most vulnerable to potential increases in stream temperatures 

because it has the coldest range of thermally suitable habitat among native salmonids in the 

Northern Rockies. For this species, increasing stream temperatures may cause a net loss of 

habitat because areas are not available further upstream to replace those that become unsuitably 

warm. For rainbow trout, which tolerates warmer stream temperatures better than bull trout and 

is often limited by upstream temperatures that are too cold, warming may only shift suitable 

habitats toward higher elevation stream reaches with little or no net change in total amount of 

thermally suitable habitat (Rieman and Isaak 2010). Cutthroat trout in high-elevation streams 

currently are commonly limited by low water temperatures and short growing seasons (Coleman 

and Fausch 2007, Harig and Fausch 2002). These populations may benefit from climate-induced 

increases in thermally-suitable habitat in higher elevation stream reaches (Rieman and Isaak 

2010). However, warmer stream temperatures may also lead to non-native fish and other aquatic 

species moving into previously unsuitable upstream areas where they will compete with native 

species (Rieman et al. 2007, Rahel and Olden 2008, Fausch et al. 2009, Haak et al. 2010)

Projected increases in air temperatures, along with projected decreases in summer stream flows, 

will likely lead to warmer stream temperatures in the Columbia River basin, particularly during 

summer low-flow periods (Casola et al. 2005). Recent scientific publications suggest that 

projected air temperature changes are likely to reduce the distribution of thermally-suitable natal 

habitat for bull trout, fragment existing populations, and increase risk of local extirpation 

(Rieman et al. 2007, Isaak et al. 2010). However, the risk of climate-induced extirpation in 

subbasins of northern Idaho may be less than other, relatively drier and warmer subbasins in the 

Columbia River basin (Rieman et al. 2007).

Other recent publications conclude that westslope cutthroat trout, which can generally tolerate 

warmer stream temperatures than bull trout, is at a low risk for increasing summer stream 

temperatures in most basins within its range, including the Clark Fork, Coeur d’Alene, and 

Kootenai basins of northern Idaho (Haak et al. 2010). These studies also conclude that stream 

temperature impacts resulting from projected climate-change-induced increases in wildfire 

extent and severity posed a moderate or high risk of cutthroat trout extirpation in 46 percent of 

occupied subwatersheds throughout the species’ occupied range. However, wildfire posed a 

moderate or high risk to cutthroat trout in only 3 percent of subwatersheds in the Coeur d’Alene 

and Kootenai basins, but 45 percent of subwatersheds in the Clark Fork Basin (Haak et al. 2010).

Kootenai River white sturgeon, spawn in May or June in water temperatures around 46.4-48.2°F

and cease to spawn at 53.6°F (Paragamian et al. 2001). Under future scenarios of warming water 

temperatures and reduced summer flows there is a possibility that the white sturgeon may be 

stimulated to spawn earlier than the May-June period. This may actually be advantageous for 

white sturgeon, for both egg incubation/survival as well as flow/velocity requirements for 

successful recruitment (ISAB 2007).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

208 Watershed Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Haak et al. (2010) conclude that risks to native trout resulting from projected increases in winter 

flood risk in north Idaho are greater than risks associated with climate-induced changes in 

wildfire, drought, or stream temperatures. They estimate that cutthroat trout in most 

subwatersheds in the Clark Fork, Coeur d’Alene, and Kootenai basins face high to moderate risk 

of increased winter flooding (Haak et al. 2010).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 209

Terrestrial Wildlife

This wildlife section of the FEIS is a condensed version of the extensive wildlife specialist’s 

report in the project record. For additional information and analysis beyond what is covered in 

this section of the FEIS, please see the wildlife specialist’s report.

Introduction

The revised Forest Plan would improve or maintain habitat conditions for native wildlife, guide 

habitat restoration efforts, and provide for the long-term sustainability of habitats.

The IPNF provides habitat for a great variety of wildlife. This includes almost 300 species of 

birds, from the calliope hummingbird to the bald eagle, and more than 50 species of mammals, 

from the little brown bat to the grizzly bear. Many of the species that exist today on the IPNF 

were present before European settlement. The AMS Technical Report (2003) provides a list of 

species known to occur in the Forest. Using information gathered during the revision process, 

this species list was updated to reflect appropriate changes (additions, deletions, and 

modifications).

Past resource use and the exclusion of fire for almost 100 years has caused changes in some 

wildlife habitats. These changes have benefited some species and been detrimental to others. As 

documented in the Forest Plan revision analysis, defining and measuring the status of ecosystems 

now, and comparing them to desired future conditions, is the foundation for sustainability of 

ecosystems on the IPNF. The vegetation features assessed as “key indicators” for the wildlife 

considered in the EIS are changes in forest composition, structure, and pattern in addition to 

security habitat (non-motorized areas). These features are very much related to the quality and 

quantity of wildlife habitats.

With more than 300 species on the IPNF, it is impossible to track them all, so certain groups are 

carried forward in this EIS. Landbirds are of interest not only for wildlife viewing but also 

because of the international interest in conservation and the protection afforded them through the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186. Threatened and endangered species are 

considered because of the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Northern Region 

sensitive species or their habitat found on the IPNF is discussed in detail. These species can be 

used to help insure continued diversity and viability of species as required in NFMA and 36 CFR 

219.19.

Threatened or endangered species for the IPNF includes Canada lynx, woodland caribou, and 

grizzly bear. Critical habitat for Canada lynx and woodland caribou occurs on the IPNF. In 2011, 

the Region 1 Sensitive Species list was amended (USDA 2011a). Proposed terrestrial MIS for the 

IPNF include Rocky Mountain elk, and a landbird assemblage of general insectivores (dusky 

flycatcher, olive-sided flycatcher, chipping sparrow, Hammond’s flycatcher, and hairy 

woodpecker).

The revised Forest Plan would establish direction for various wildlife habitats in relation to type, 

amount, spatial pattern, and function. The Plan would also include direction for the protection, 

enhancement, and restoration of threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, and their 

habitats. The interdisciplinary team worked closely to integrate plan direction during the 

development of the revised Forest Plan components; in particular wildlife, vegetation, fire, and 

access/recreation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

210 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Cooperation between the state of Idaho and federal agencies is useful to ensure proper 

management of the fish and wildlife resources. The Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy for Idaho (IDFG 2005), as well as other state species management plans (e.g., elk, wolf, 

mule deer, and white-tailed deer) has been reviewed during the development of the revised 

Forest Plan.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: The NFMA states that the 

Secretary shall “promulgate regulations,” under the principles of the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities 

based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall 

multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives of a land management plan 

adopted pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate to the degree practicable, for 

steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region 

controlled by the Plan” (P.L. 94-588, Sec. 5 (g)(3)(B)).

• Sikes Act of 1960: Forest Service policies recognize that state agencies and Indian Tribes 

are responsible for the management of animals and assign national forests a role in 

cooperatively managing wildlife habitat.

• The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918: Addresses concerns for migratory birds. In a 

subsequent MOU 2001, with the USFWS, the Forest Service agreed to: (a) incorporate 

migratory bird habitat and population objectives and recommendations into the agency 

planning process in cooperation with other governments, state, federal agencies, and nonfederal partners; (b) strive to protect, restore, enhance, and manage habitat of migratory 

birds, and prevent the further loss or degradation of remaining habitats on NFS lands.

• The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended: Provides requirements for federal 

agencies with regard to species listed under the act. Section 2 states that ". . . all federal 

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species 

and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this act." Section 5 directs 

the Secretary of Agriculture to "establish and implement a program to conserve fish, 

wildlife, and plants," including federally listed species. Section 7 directs federal departments 

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

to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats.

• Executive Order #13186 (January 10, 2001): This EO, “Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds,” was issued by President Bill Clinton in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts, 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National 

Environmental Policy Act. This order requires including effects of federal actions on 

migratory birds as part of the environmental analysis process. On January 17, 2001, the 

USDA Forest Service and the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding to complement the Executive Order.

Regulation and Policy

• Forest Service policy included within FSM 2670: States that regional sensitive species 

will be identified and management taken to ensure that these species do not trend toward 

federal listing as a result of management actions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 211

• The USDA policy: For wildlife, fish, and plant habitat management in NFS lands is 

presented in Departmental Regulation 9500-4. This policy states that by means of the 

planning process habitat goals will be established for plants and animals, including wildlife 

and fish species in demand for hunting, fishing, and trapping and those with special habitat 

needs. This regulation also directs the Forest Service to: (a) manage habitats for all existing 

native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife species in order to maintain at least 

viable populations of such species; (b) conduct activities and programs to assist in the 

identification and recovery of threatened and endangered plant and animal species; and (c) 

avoid actions which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered.

• Additional requirements for wildlife were also identified and included in the 1982 

Planning Procedures (36 CFR 219.19): This section of the 1982 Planning Regulations 

states that fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of 

existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. Management 

indicator species are selected under the 1982 Planning Regulations and objectives for the 

maintenance and improvement of habitat are established. Among other components of the 

1982 Planning Regulations, there is direction to consult with biologists from other agencies, 

as well as consider the effects of pest and fire management on fish and wildlife populations.

Key Indicators

• Changes in forest composition, structure, and pattern; and

• Security habitat (non-motorized areas).

Analysis Area

In general, the analysis area for wildlife includes all lands managed by the IPNF; however, for 

the purposes of this document it may include segments outside NFS boundaries. In some cases 

NFS lands may provide all or a high percentage of the habitat for a given species; however, in 

most instances, wildlife generally move from area to area and habitats on NFS lands may be 

important to a species survival. Cumulative effects analyses generally include lands within other 

ownerships immediately adjacent to the Forest, although for some wide-ranging species the 

analysis area may have been a little larger and included an evaluation of connectivity between 

larger areas of habitat (i.e., connectivity for grizzly bears between recovery zones).

In most cases, the temporal scale of analysis included the life of the revised Forest Plan. Some 

habitat analyses evaluated a longer timeframe. The ERG report (ERG 2012), for example, 

assessed habitat changes for the next five decades. Past actions were also considered as they play 

a role in determining the existing conditions and may interact cumulatively with the effects of 

the revised Forest Plan.

Please see the specific species’ sections for more information regarding specific analyses. For 

example, the grizzly bear section explains the various measures used to quantify habitat (e.g., 

core area, open motorized route density, total motorized route density).

The revised Forest Plan would have fewer MAs (7) than the 1987 Plan (19); they would be much 

larger and would generally follow distinguishable features on the landscape. Management 

direction for wildlife habitats and species in the revised Forest Plan would be included in 

forestwide and management area desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines and 

are to be incorporated into all land management activities. Additional direction can be found at 

the geographic area level.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

212 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Providing for ecological diversity is an outcome of the revised Forest Plan. It starts with a 

comparison of the current abundance and condition of various habitats with ecological reference 

conditions (historic range of variability) based on our knowledge of the past and on our 

understanding of ecological processes (e.g., fire, flooding, insects, and disease). This coarse filter 

approach to providing species viability is reflected in the vegetation desired conditions in the 

revised Forest Plan. The coarse filter approach forms the foundation of the analysis for each 

species. The report by ERG (2012) assessed the effects on selected species of moving towards 

the desired conditions for vegetation. It is important to note that ERG (2012) found that viability 

would be maintained for all the species analyzed in that report. The companion approach to 

ecosystem diversity (coarse filter) is the “fine filter” approach in which conservation strategies 

are used for individual species or groups of species to contribute to species diversity. The fine 

filter approach narrows the focus to those species that require habitat that may be outside the 

range of variation and are not covered under the coarse filter. In addition, there are species whose 

populations have been reduced to levels requiring special management considerations (i.e., some 

species listed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive). This fine filter approach is reflected in the 

specific direction in the wildlife sections of the revised Forest Plan. Each species’ assessment in 

this report evaluates the effects of the coarse filter, fine filter, and other components in the 

revised Forest Plan.

A disruption of natural processes (e.g., fire suppression) can impact diversity and lead to a 

departure from historic conditions (page 2-3 in CEQ 1993). The basic goal of biodiversity 

conservation is to maintain naturally occurring ecosystems, communities, and native species 

(page 5 in CEQ 1993). Maintaining or mimicking natural processes and naturally occurring 

structural diversity, promoting natural pattern and connectivity, restoring ecosystems, 

communities, and species, and protecting rare species or sensitive environments are all means to 

maintain biodiversity in an ecosystem (page 7 in CEQ 1993) and fit into the coarse filter/fine 

filter approach utilized in this Forest Plan revision process.

A variety of sources were used to determine historic and existing vegetation conditions on the 

IPNF. The development of management recommendations for the revised Forest Plan to maintain 

or restore ecological communities was based on the historic range of variability and desired 

future condition (influenced by climate change) (see “Vegetation” section of the EIS). Movement 

toward the desired conditions for vegetation under the revised Forest Plan would provide for an 

array of ecological communities of sufficient size, structure, and distribution that is expected to 

maintain habitats for the vast majority of native species that occur on the Forest.

Population changes can occur when there is a change in habitat (e.g., canopy cover, patch size, 

tree dominance type). However, fluctuations in species populations will occur even when there 

has not been a change in habitat. These fluctuations may be due to climatic changes, disease, 

predation, excessive harvest, competition or displacement from exotic species, and other factors 

not related to habitat changes. For migratory species, a change in population may not represent 

changes in local forest habitat conditions. Many species migrate at different times of the year and 

are influenced by activities or conditions that occur outside the Forest.

Habitat Restoration

One of the main outcomes of the direction in the revised Forest Plan is the restoration of habitat 

for native wildlife species. The revised Forest Plan provides more flexibility in the tools 

available to accomplish this habitat restoration in the long-term. This is particularly true with 

regard to fire and natural disturbance processes. Under the revised Forest Plan there is more 

emphasis and flexibility to use fire and natural disturbance processes to trend habitat towards the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 213

desired conditions for vegetation in the Plan. Those desired conditions are based on historic 

conditions and potential climate change, both of which consider natural disturbance. By allowing 

natural disturbance to function nearer to historic conditions, then the approximate quantity, 

quality, and pattern of wildlife habitat across the Forest would be nearer to what our native 

species evolved with in this part of their range. By moving towards the conditions they evolved 

with, species viability would be maintained.

Active restoration through mechanical treatments can help in moving towards the desired 

conditions. However, given the predicted budgets, this tool would have limited success in 

trending habitat towards the desired conditions. The tool that has the best chance of success is 

fire and natural disturbance (both active and passive restoration). Natural disturbance has greater 

influence over the rate at which the Forest trends towards the desired conditions. Many of the 

MAs in the revised Forest Plan provide for greater emphasis on natural disturbance processes 

compared to the 1987 Forest Plan. In particular, MAs 1 and 5 would have natural disturbance 

processes as the primary means of trending habitat towards desired conditions.

Security habitat is also important to a variety of species on the Forest. Areas with lower levels of 

human presence, in particular motorized access, are important for providing areas of limited 

human disturbance of native wildlife.

Connectivity is an important component of wildlife habitat restoration and maintenance. By 

managing with a greater emphasis on natural disturbance processes, the revised Forest Plan 

would provide for the kinds and pattern of habitats, and therefore, connectivity that our native 

species evolved with on the Forest. Connectivity would be improved over the 1987 Forest Plan. 

Additionally, in order to maintain or improve connectivity between large areas of NFS lands, 

there is increased direction in the revised Forest Plan to plan and protect crossing structures 

across highways and other potential barriers, and to protect the surrounding areas in order to 

promote connectivity.

This restoration philosophy forms the foundation of the entire wildlife analysis that follows in 

this document. The revised Forest Plan provides the tools to accomplish this restoration and 

maintenance of wildlife habitat, and the result would be maintained or improved viability of our 

native wildlife.

Federally Listed Species

Threatened, endangered, and proposed species are managed under the authority of the Federal 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (PL 93-205 as amended) which requires that federal 

agencies: 1) carry out programs for the conservation of listed species (Sec. 7(a)(1)) and 2) insure 

that any agency action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species (Sec. 

7(a)(2)).

Species listed under the ESA fall into one of four categories: threatened, endangered, proposed, 

or candidate. The Forest Service has a legal requirement to maintain or improve habitat 

conditions for threatened, endangered, and proposed species under the ESA. Table 35 displays 

changes in federally listed species from the 1987 Forest Plan to current (2013).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

214 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 35. Status of Federally Listed Species

Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Status 1987 Status 2013

Bald eagle1 Haleaeitus leucocephalus Endangered Delisted

Canada lynx2 Lynx Canadensis Not Listed Threatened

Gray wolf1 Canis lupus Endangered Delisted

Gray wolf1 Canis lupus – IPNF 

south of Interstate 90

Experimental 

non-essential

Delisted

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened Threatened

Peregrine falcon1 Falco peregrinus Endangered Delisted

Woodland caribou2 Rangifer tarandus Endangered Endangered

Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Not Listed Proposed Threatened

1 Analyzed under Sensitive Species section

2 Critical Habitat also present on the IPNF

Recovery plans and biological opinions are developed for threatened and endangered species by 

the USFWS and provide goals and actions needed to recover species. Recovery plans are used as 

a reference document in identifying activities and steps that can be incorporated into forest 

management to promote the recovery of the species.

National forests are responsible for ensuring that any action funded, authorized, or carried out be 

done in a manner that does not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered 

species or adversely modify their critical habitat. This responsibility, under Section 7 of the ESA 

is fulfilled through the development of biological assessments that examine the proposed actions

with respect to their potential for influencing threatened and endangered species or their habitat. 

If this objective analysis, conducted by qualified personnel, cannot clearly determine that the 

action will not affect threatened and endangered or their habitat, then consultation with the 

USFWS is initiated. Historically, the Forest has conducted frequent formal and informal 

consultations with the USFWS.

Management for threatened and endangered species will continue to use existing recovery plans 

and the most current scientific information available to aid in species recovery.

Retained Decisions Related to Terrestrial Threatened and Endangered Species

There are two previous decisions related to terrestrial threatened and endangered species that 

amended the 1987 Forest Plan and have been retained in this revised Forest Plan. The first was 

the 2007 Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD). The purpose of that 

decision was to incorporate management direction in land management plans that would 

conserve and promote the recovery of Canada lynx by reducing or eliminating adverse effects 

from land management activities on NFS lands while preserving the overall multiple-use 

direction of the plans. The direction found in the NRLMD is still valid and has been retained to 

provide the foundation for lynx habitat management under the revised Forest Plan. The retained 

NRLMD direction has been supplemented with additional direction in the revised Forest Plan 

relevant to lynx habitat management. The NRLMD has been extended to cover the life of the 

revised Forest Plan. The effects on critical habitat of managing the Forest under the NRLMD 

have been assessed as part of this Forest Plan revision process and the accompanying 

consultation with USFWS.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 215

The second decision retained that is relevant for terrestrial threatened and endangered species 

management was the 2011 Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within 

the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones (Access Amendment). The purpose 

of the Access Amendment was to amend the forest plans to include a set of motorized access and 

security standards that met the agency’s responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act to 

conserve and contribute to recovery of grizzly bears. This decision is still valid and is based upon 

the best available information for the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak recovery zones. The Access 

Amendment was retained and provides the foundation for grizzly bear security habitat 

management under the revised Forest Plan. The Access Amendment has been supplemented with 

additional direction in the revised Forest Plan relevant to grizzly bear habitat management.

Management Indicator Species

Table 36 summarizes the terrestrial management indicator species for the revised Forest Plan. 

More information can be found in the MIS section of this report and the KIPZ MIS selection 

documentation in the project record.

Table 36. MIS for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Species Habitat 

Association

Indicator Rationale for Selection

Rocky 

Mountain Elk 

Forested stands 

(cover), and 

grasslands/shrub 

(forage)

Security Areas 

(acres and percent)

Elk are of high social importance and are 

sensitive to the availability of security habitat. 

Management activities that impact road use 

can alter security habitat. Monitoring of 

security habitat would be feasible through 

remote sensing (ex: travel route GIS layers)

Landbird 

Assemblage 

(insectivores)

Varies: open forest 

structures, mature 

forests, and snags

Varies: open 

forests/openings, 

burned forests, 

mature forests, 

snags

Moving towards the desired conditions for 

vegetation would restore or maintain habitat 

for some species of insectivores. The Forest 

will monitor movement towards the desired 

conditions for vegetation

Old Growth, Pileated Woodpecker, Marten, and Northern Goshawk

The effect of the revised Forest Plan on old growth habitat is analyzed in the “Vegetation” 

section of the FEIS and vegetation specialist’s report. That analysis determined that the direction 

in the revised Forest Plan will retain existing old growth and develop additional old growth as 

the Plan is implemented. Therefore, old growth habitat will be retained for wildlife species that 

use that habitat, and additional habitat will be available in the future as this revised Forest Plan is 

implemented. There are no old growth obligate wildlife species that are solely dependent on this 

habitat on the Forest, although there are species that utilize old growth habitats if available. See 

the “Old Growth” section in the vegetation specialist’s report and FEIS for more information 

regarding the effects of implementing the revised Forest Plan on old growth habitat. 

Additionally, old growth is discussed in the individual TES and MIS species sections in this 

report if that species can use old growth as habitat.

Pileated woodpecker, marten, and northern goshawk are not TES or MIS species for the Forest, 

nor are they solely dependent on old growth. ERG (2012) did do an analysis of the revised Forest 

Plan and whether implementation of the Plan would provide sufficient habitat for these three 

species. The conclusion was that sufficient habitat will be maintained, and that it was natural 

disturbance processes (e.g., fire, insects, and disease) that played a large role in determining the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

216 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

amount of habitat on the Forest. Please see the ERG report (ERG 2012) for more information 

regarding the impacts of the revised Forest Plan on habitat for these three species.

Goshawk, marten, and pileated woodpecker habitats were modeled by Ecosystem Research 

Group (ERG) in 2012 (ERG 2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. 

Tables 37, 38, and 39 below display some of the relevant scenarios. The existing 1987 Forest 

Plan was modeled, as was a “no treatment” scenario where no mechanical treatment was 

modeled. This was done for comparison purposes and to put management under the 1987 Forest 

Plan into context. A warmer/drier climate over the next five decades as the climate changes was 

considered. Scenarios also considered that the current level of fire suppression would continue 

into the future and considered an increase in acres burned over time due to a warmer/drier 

climate and fuel loads.

The existing amount of goshawk habitat is below HRV and declines over the next five decades. 

The reason for the decline is natural disturbance which removes some habitat, but natural 

succession also adds some habitat over time, although not as much to compensate for the loss. 

Alternative B Modified results in more acres of goshawk habitat than the existing 1987 Forest 

Plan or the no treatment scenario, likely due to reductions in the amount of habitat lost to fire. As 

explained on page 97-98 in the Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) report (Ecosystem Research 

Group 2012), the results are very conservative. There are likely more habitats available to 

goshawks than shown in the analysis results because goshawks nest selection shows they use 

stands that are smaller or more open than used in this analysis. Additionally, territoriality 

determines the population density of goshawks on the Forest, not the total amount of habitat 

available. Habitat is well distributed across the Forest, so territoriality would be the determining 

factor, not total habitat quantity. The alternatives result in a similar amount of goshawk habitat. 

Goshawks are not at a viability risk under the revised Forest Plan (page 98 in ERG 2012).

Table 37. Acres of Goshawk Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No treatment Scenario 

(acres)

0 1,136,237 1,136,237 1,136,237

1 838,949 820,719 827,813

2 761,296 744,591 739,741

5 746,094 735,811 730,156

Source: Ecosystem Research Group 2012

Mehl et al. (2009) developed a report for the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) that examined 

IDL’s goal of restoring/maintaining a 20 percent representation of historic habitat conditions on 

their lands in north Idaho. They assumed that the same 20 percent would be met on other land 

ownerships as well. They determined that aiming for a 20 percent representation of historic 

habitat conditions for native species would preclude future federal listing of species in northern 

Idaho, including goshawk (page 211 in Mehl et al. 2009). They stated that the objectives are not 

to return the entire landscape to historic conditions, but to provide sufficient amounts of similar 

ecosystems represented across the landscape to maintain native species (page 43 in Mehl et al. 

2009). The revised Forest Plan for the IPNF does far more than aim to restore/maintain only 20

percent of historic habitat conditions for native species. The desired conditions for vegetation in 

the revised Forest Plan are based on historic conditions and natural disturbance processes rather 

than aiming for a lower percentage of representation of historic habitats.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 217

Marten habitat was analyzed in two ways by ERG (Ecosystem Research Group 2012). First, they 

analyzed the amount of all marten habitat across the Forest, and secondly they analyzed the 

amount of only the mesic habitat across the Forest. Marten habitat is within HRV and remains so 

at the end of the next five decades. The mesic component of that habitat is currently within HRV 

but drops below HRV over the next five decades. The reason for the decline is increased wildfire 

over time that converts climax grand fir-redcedar cover types back to Douglas-fir or larch. Even 

with all marten habitat, wildfire, root disease, insects, forest growth, and succession are the 

driving factors determining the amount and pattern of marten habitat on the Forest. All 

alternatives have similar outcomes. Because all marten habitat remains within HRV, there is 

likely no viability risk (page 96 in Ecosystem Research Group 2012).

Table 38. Acres of Marten Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No treatment Scenario 

(acres)

All Habitat Mesic All Habitat Mesic All Habitat Mesic

0 1,396,267 833,636 1,396,267 833,636 1,396,267 833,636

1 1,121,254 495,123 1,095,657 501,602 1,099,856 518,711

2 1,029,982 407,628 1,000,311 414,009 982,430 431,421

5 1,055,400 214,831 1,025,239 231,224 989,934 228,433

Source: Ecosystem Research Group 2012

Pileated woodpecker habitat was analyzed by ERG (ERG 2012). The existing amount of pileated 

habitat is within HRV and remains that way at the end of the next five decades. The results of all 

the alternatives are fairly similar. As stated on page 99 of ERG (2012), “...the effects of 

scenarios are minute compared to inevitable changes over time from wildfire, root disease, 

insects, and in-growth.” Based on the findings in ERG (2012), there doesn’t appear to be any 

viability concern with pileated woodpeckers.

Table 39. Acres of Pileated Woodpecker

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No treatment Scenario 

(acres)

0 572,687 572,687 572,687

1 436,163 425,938 436,474

2 575,268 562,038 577,227

5 588,103 566,215 571,846

Source: Ecosystem Research Group 2012

For these species, as with wildlife on the Forest in general, it is wildfire, insects/disease, ingrowth, and stand succession that largely determines the amount and pattern of habitat on the 

Forest for these species rather than management activities (pages ES-1 and ES-2 in ERG 2012).

Organization of the Following Analysis

Each species is analyzed separately in the order listed in table 35. Each individual species section 

begins with an “Affected Environment” section. Within the affected environment is information 

on the habitat/life history needs and key stressors. The “Key Stressors” section is an important 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

218 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

piece of the document and drives the effects analysis. The effects analysis looks at the direction 

in the revised Forest Plan in the form of goals, objectives, desired conditions, standards, and 

guidelines that impact the key stressors. It does not analyze direction in the Plan, or specific 

MAs or GAs, if they are not relevant to the key stressors or have some effect for the species. 

Stressors can be activities that have occurred in the past but may not be occurring presently, nor 

are they necessarily expected to occur in the future. These are simply activities that might impact 

lynx if not managed or mitigated. Stressors that are outside of Forest Service control include 

those activities that occur on non-NFS lands. Some, such as climate change, may have impacts 

on NFS lands but are not completely within the Forest's ability to stop or reduce all the impacts.

The “Environmental Consequences” section for each species is organized by “Effects Related to 

Key Stressors under Forest Service Control” (this is a section that addresses the key stressors 

specifically and ties the effects sections in the wildlife specialist’s report together) and 

“Cumulative Effects”. The effects related to “Key Stressors under Forest Service Control” 

section have been grouped by related stressors/themes to streamline the analysis. Lastly, there is 

an “Effects Determination” section that lays out the rationale for the effects determination.

Information on current management can be found in the “Affected Environment” section, and 

also under the “Effects” section if that information is relevant for comparisons to the effects 

analysis of the alternatives.

Changes between Draft and Final

Based on internal and public comments, feedback received during consultation with other 

agencies, new information, and updated analyses; several updates were made to the final wildlife 

specialist’s report.

• Supplemented analyses: many of the species sections underwent clarification and were 

supplemented with additional information. The report by Ecosystems Research Group (ERG 

2012), which analyzed habitat changes for selected species over the next 50 years under the 

revised Forest Plan, was also incorporated into the FEIS and wildlife specialist’s report 

through citation and summarization of key sections of the ERG report. This augmented the 

viability analysis for selected species;

• Updated acres treated, acres open to motorized use, and MA acres;

• Alternative B Modified replaced Alternative B;

• A big game section was added in order to analyze effects to native ungulates that were not 

covered elsewhere in the analysis;

• Increased analysis related to the effects of over-snow motorized use. This includes a 

clarification of what would be closed to over-snow motorized use after the revised Forest 

Plan is finalized and what are the desired conditions that would be implemented through 

later site-specific analysis;

• Revised elk security analysis, FW-OBJ-WL-02, FW-GDL-WL-13, and the definition of elk 

security in the glossary;

• Updated T&E species sections to match the final biological assessment that was submitted to 

the USFWS between the DEIS and FEIS, and additional corrections to some of the 

information included in the Biological Assessment This includes an analysis of the effects to 

woodland caribou critical habitat from the revised Forest Plan;

• Inclusion of the updated lynx habitat mapping for the IPNF;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 219

• Updated wolverine section to reflect the species being proposed for federal listing under the 

ESA and the threats identified by USFWS;

• The MIS section was updated and the KIPZ MIS selection documentation was finalized;

• Inclusion of a section disclosing effects of the revised Forest Plan on old growth, pileated 

woodpeckers, American marten, and northern goshawk;

• The wildlife forestwide desired conditions were rewritten to improve clarity while keeping 

the intent the same;

• Increased Geographic Area direction to provide wildlife connectivity;

• The forestwide wildlife objectives were adjusted to be realistic and achievable based on 

updated existing conditions; and

• Clarifications of the forestwide wildlife guidelines. The biggest change is to FW-WL-GDL01, which in the draft covered a variety of species. This guideline is now specific to grizzly 

bears and the other species have been covered under a series of new guidelines or through 

editing of other existing guidelines.

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species

The IPNF is home to two threatened species (Canada lynx and grizzly bear) and one endangered 

species (woodland caribou). Critical habitat occurs on the IPNF for both Canada lynx and 

woodland caribou. One proposed species also occurs: the North American wolverine.

Canada Lynx ─ Lynx canadensis

Affected Environment

Canada lynx are listed as a threatened species on the IPNF. Information on lynx biology and 

ecology can be found in; “Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States” (often 

referred to as the Lynx Science report) by Ruggiero, et al. (2000). In addition, a conservation 

strategy and management assessment of the current state of the knowledge on lynx habitat 

management was prepared by a group of federal interagency biologists (referred to as the Lynx 

Biology Team) and is entitled, “The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy” 

(LCAS), (Ruediger et al. 2000). The LCAS is currently undergoing revision with an expected 

completion date of September 2013.

Status

The Canada lynx is a low density, wide-ranging forest carnivore with limited local distribution. 

The species is a year-round resident on the IPNF. In March of 1998, an interagency (USFWS, 

USFS, BLM, and NPS) lynx coordination effort was initiated in response to the emerging 

awareness of the uncertain status of lynx populations and habitat in the conterminous United 

States and the onset of the listing process. The Canada lynx was listed on March 24, 2000 (65 

Federal Register 16052), as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act 1973 in 14 of 

the lower 48 states. The final lynx listing rule (Clark 2000) gives population and habitat status on 

a national scale.

The USDA Forest Service (2007) finalized the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

(NRLMD) in 2007 which is based upon the LCAS strategy. This decision amends the Forest 

Plans by providing lynx habitat management objectives, standards, and guidelines. It is being 

carried forward in all alternatives. The most recent lynx distinct population segment status is 

found in the Biological Opinion on the effects of the NRLMD (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007a). Additional information is located in the various references cited. On September 12, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

220 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

2005, the USFWS released a recovery outline for the contiguous United States Distinct 

Population segment of Canada lynx. This recovery outline categorized and identified three types 

of lynx habitat; core areas, secondary areas, and peripheral areas. Two out of three of these types: 

1) core areas (northwestern Montana/northeastern Idaho); and 2) secondary areas 

(northern/central Idaho (north of the Salmon River) were identified in the Northern Region (R1) 

of the Forest Service. No peripheral areas were identified in Region 1 (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2005). Only the northeast corner of the IPNF is identified as core habitat and the 

remainder of the Forest sis considered secondary habitat. Approximately 47 percent of the IPNF 

is considered lynx habitat, all of which is considered occupied (table C-1 in USDA 2007).

Canada lynx in the IPNF are in the Northern Rocky Mountains GA. Lynx populations in the 

IPNF are currently unknown.

The USFWS released their revised, final designation of critical habitat for Canada lynx on 

February 25, 2009 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a). A small portion of the IPNFs lynx 

habitat north of U.S. Highway 2 and east of the Moyie River is in critical lynx habitat.

Habitat and Life History Needs

Lynx in the contiguous United States are at the southern limits of a widely distributed range 

across Canada and Alaska. Lynx and lynx habitat are most abundant in the classic boreal forest 

ecosystem known as taiga in Canada and Alaska. Lynx extend south from this into the 

conterminous United States in a peninsular fashion and inhabit areas that are considered more 

marginal. Lynx occur primarily in moist, cold habitat types above 4,000 feet in elevation, where 

snow depths are generally deep throughout the winter. The further south one moves, the less 

suitable and less abundant habitats become.

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

snowshoe hares. Lynx usually use mature and late-successional forests where there are 

accumulations of down logs for denning (IDFG 2005, Koehler and Aubry 1994, and Ruggiero et 

al. 2000). Other key habitat features appear to be remote and secure habitats, and habitat 

connectivity (Claar et al. 2003, Koehler and Aubry 1994, Wisdom et al. 2000).

In the United States, lynx inhabit conifer and conifer-hardwood habitats that support their 

primary (snowshoe hare) and secondary prey. They are adapted for hunting snowshoe hares and 

other prey in the deep snow conditions of boreal forests (Koehler and Aubry 1994, Ruggiero et 

al. 2000, and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005).

Snowshoe hare is an important food source, comprising 35 to 97 percent of the diet throughout 

the range of lynx. In periods of low snowshoe hare densities, starvation can account for up to 

two-thirds of all natural lynx mortality. Other prey species include red squirrel, northern flying 

squirrel, grouse, marten, voles, and occasionally small birds. The primary limiting factor for this 

species appears to be suitable winter foraging habitat. Primary winter foraging habitat is found in 

multi-story mature or late-successional forests that hold good populations of snowshoe hare 

(Squires et al. 2006). Recent research in northwest Montana demonstrates that mature, multistoried forests provide important winter snowshoe hare habitat and are more important than 

younger stands (USDA 2007). Red squirrels may be an important prey species, especially when 

hare populations are low. Ongoing research in northwest Montana is identifying which types of 

stands support snowshoe hares in a high enough density to support lynx populations.

Lynx primarily use multi-story stands in the spruce-fir types during winter as these contain a 

high amount of horizontal cover and therefore snowshoe hare habitat (Squires et al. 2010). Lynx 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 221

will also use other stand types during the year, and snowshoe hare appear to occur in an array of 

stands as long as they provide abundant horizontal cover.

Summer foraging habitat (also good summer hare habitat) consists of early successional stages 

of dense, young (approximately 17 to 40-year old) forests. This short time-frame (about 23

years) does not last long on the landscape before growing into a structure that does not provide 

good foraging for lynx. A regular influx of early successional vegetation is important to maintain 

a level of summer foraging habitat through time. This can be created by any disturbance process, 

such as fire, windthrow, or vegetation management activities. Generally, maintaining no more 

than 30 percent of a lynx home range in early succession habitat is considered good for lynx 

management.

Denning habitat generally consists of mature stands of spruce-fir forests with high horizontal 

cover and abundant coarse woody debris (Squires et al. 2008). Lynx with kittens need welldistributed patches of denning habitat throughout their home range.

Both timber harvest and natural disturbance processes, including fire, insect infestations, wind 

events, and tree disease outbreaks can provide foraging habitat when resulting in high understory 

tree stem densities and structure. These vegetation characteristics provide dense, multi-layered, 

horizontal vegetation cover that maximizes cover and browse for snowshoe hare at or above the 

ground, and the mean snow level throughout the winter (Koehler and Aubry 1994, Ruggiero et 

al. 2000, and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005).

Risk Factors Affecting Canada Lynx

The LCAS (Ruediger et al. 2000) identified specific risk factors to lynx. Table 40 itemizes these 

in relationship to lynx productivity, mortality, and movements.

Table 40. Risk Factors Potentially Affecting Canada Lynx

Canada Lynx Population Parameters of Concern

Productivity Mortality Movements

Risk Factors Conversion or Alternation 

of Native Plant 

Communities

Highways & Associated 

Collisions

Highways and Associated 

Developments

Fire Suppression & 

Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction

Trapping Private Land Development

Precommercial Thinning Predator Control Activities

Timber Harvest Shooting

Recreational Use Predation by Other 

Species

Roads and Trails

Grazing

Source: Ruediger et al. 2000

These factors have varying effects on lynx, depending upon the nature, location, duration and 

timing of the activity (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a). Some present more likelihood of 

risks to lynx, others are relatively benign in effects.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

222 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Productivity: Conversion of native plant communities, fire suppression and hazardous fuels 

reduction, precommercial thinning, and timber management may result in effects to prey species 

and alter the abundance and/or availability of denning habitat and foraging habitat.

According to the LCAS, there is no compelling evidence to suggest management of 

forest/backcountry road and trail density is necessary to conserve lynx (Ruediger et al. 2000). 

The LCAS suggests that roads and trails may facilitate snowmobile and other human uses in 

winter time, allowing competing carnivores access into lynx habitat. However, the NRLMD 

(USDA Forest Service 2007) and Kolbe (2007) asserts that there is no conclusive evidence to 

indicate that compacted snow routes increase competition from other species to levels that 

adversely affect lynx populations. Access via roads may also increase the mortality risk to lynx 

from incidental trapping - a significant source of mortality for lynx in areas where lynx are 

legally trapped (Canada and Alaska) (Koehler and Aubry 1994).

Grazing by livestock and/or wild ungulates may increase forage competition with lynx prey or 

alter the native plant communities that may reduce the quantity and/or quality of snowshoe hare 

habitat.

Mortality: Major high use highways such as Interstate 90 (I-90), State Route 95 (SR-95), and 

SR-200 may result in lynx mortalities of both resident and dispersing individuals through vehicle 

collisions (Ruediger et al. 2000).

The states of Idaho, Montana, and Washington prohibit trapping of lynx; however, legal trapping 

of other species occurs in these three states. This includes predator control of the recently 

delisted gray wolf1

, where the 2011-2012 hunting season saw an increase in trapping and 

snaring. Both trapping and snaring have the potential to kill non-target species such lynx.

Conversely, British Columbia has a legal trapping season for Canada lynx north of IPNF 

boundary. Some lynx home ranges overlap this international border and are at risk from this 

potential source of mortality.

Big game hunting is legal throughout NFS lands within the action area and lynx may 

occasionally be shot during the hunting season. Predation by mountain lions and wolves may be 

a source of mortality in some locations.

Movement: Major highways and associated development within rights-of-way may also affect 

movement by lynx (Ruediger et al. 2000). Although empirical data are limited, anecdotal 

observations of radio-collared lynx indicate they have crossed divided interstate and secondary 

highways. However, it is not understood how highways and associated development may impact 

population connectivity. The highways that may have the highest potential of impacting lynx 

include SR-95 and I-90. Private land development, especially along road corridors in mountain 

valleys, may also fragment habitat and impede movement of lynx (Ruediger et al. 2000).

Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs), Designated Critical Habitat and Available Habitat

LAUs: Upon listing, lynx habitat management on Federal lands was guided by the Canada Lynx 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al. 2000). The LCAS directed 

agencies to delineate Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) which are intended to provide the 

fundamental unit for evaluating and monitoring the effects of management activities on lynx. A 

LAU is about the size of a female lynx home range (USDA Forest Service 2007), and should 

generally be between 16,000 – 32,000 acres (25-50 square miles) in size with at least 6,400 acres 

 1 The gray wolf was delisted in 2011 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 223

of primary habitat. Thirty-five LAUs are delineated on IPNF, with the majority of habitat located 

on the Priest Lake, Sandpoint, and Bonners Ferry Ranger Districts.

Designated Critical Habitat: The IPNF analysis area partially falls in designated critical lynx 

habitat within the Rocky Mountain critical habitat unit (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009a). 

This includes approximately 34,650 acres of designated critical habitat located north of U.S. 

Highway 2 and east of the Moyie River in the extreme northeast corner of the IPNF.

The physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species have 

been identified within the geographical area occupied by the lynx at the time of listing. These 

physical and biological features are the primary constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in a 

specific quantity and spatial arrangement to be essential to the conservation of the species. Based 

on this and the current knowledge of the life history, biology and ecology of the species, the PCE 

for lynx critical habitat is defined as boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing 

successional forest stages and containing the following:

• Presence of snowshoe hares and their preferred habitat conditions, which include dense 

understories of young trees, shrubs or overhanging boughs that protrude above the snow, and 

mature multistoried stands with conifer boughs touching the snow surface;

• Winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time;

• Sites for denning that have abundant coarse woody debris, such as downed trees and root 

wads; and

• Matrix habitat (e.g., hardwood forest, dry forest, non-forest, or other habitat types that do not 

support snowshoe hares) that occurs between patches of boreal forest in close juxtaposition 

(at the scale of a lynx home range) such that lynx are likely to travel through such habitat 

while accessing patches of boreal forest within a home range.

Available Habitat: As the available knowledge of lynx habitat requirements has increased, lynx 

habitat in North Idaho has been more narrowly defined to include only subalpine fir/Engelmann 

spruce habitats (primary habitat except on the Priest Lake RD, where moist cedar-hemlock is 

also considered primary vegetation) and cool/moist habitat types occurring adjacent to primary 

habitat to create a transition between lynx habitat and non-lynx habitat. Based on research 

findings, the distance agreed upon by the IPNF and the Canada Lynx Biology Team for this 

transition zone is generally limited to secondary habitat within 200 meters of primary habitat. 

Table 41 displays the amount of primary, secondary1

, and critical habitat2 available by LAU 

across the IPNF. A total of 582,979 acres of occupied lynx habitat occurs on the IPNF. This 

figure updates the values in the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007) and associated BO (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a).

 1 While primary and secondary habitat is differentiated in the tables in this section they will be referred to 

as ‘potential lynx habitat’ or ‘lynx habitat’ collectively throughout the remainder of the “Terrestrial 

Wildlife” section. 2 Critical habitat is a combination of primary and secondary habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

224 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 41. Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs), Total Size, Amount of Private/State Land and Potential Lynx Habitat on the IPNF, 2012

Lynx Analysis 

Unit(LAU)

Total Size of LAU 

(Acres)

Private & State Lands 

(Acres/% of Total)

Idaho Panhandle National Forests Potential Lynx Habitat (Acres)

Primary Secondary Critical Total

American-Canuck 24,610 0 - - 20,710 20,710

Blue-Grass 25,709 224 (<1) 13,135 5,118 0 18,253

Boulder 17,380 0 11,983 2,238 0 14,221

Cascade 22,403 1 12,889 2,640 0 15,529

Copper Ruby 19,768 0 6,532 4,245 0 10,777

Deer-Skin 23,092 0 - - 13,977 13,976

Five Lakes Butte 18,997 0 7,795 4,245 0 12,040

Fly Mosquito 28,767 911 (3%) 6,322 8,174 0 14,496

Gold Creek 27,352 0 6,657 9,396 0 16,053

Grouse 15,868 39 9,492 2,828 12,320

Hemlock 28,750 0 27,006 153 0 27,159

Hughes 20,592 0 19,569 65 0 19,634

Kalispell 24,744 94 (<1%) 22,043 351 0 22,394

Katka 17,750 0 6,525 3,237 0 9,762

Lightning 23,758 0 13,760 2,242 0 16,002

Little North Fork 38,316 3,330 (9%) 9,973 9,890 0 19,863

Lunch 17,100 0 11,184 3,554 0 14,738

Pack River 18,660 0 7,793 2,714 0 10,507

Parker 22,856 0 13,693 2,085 0 15,778

Red Ives 20,711 0 7,823 6,247 0 14,070

Round-Prairie 39,086 3,814 (10%) 9,831 4,226 0 14,062

Saddle-Cow 27,154 0 12,021 4,593 0 16,614

Sawtooth Canyon 41,231 7,162 (17%) 6,064 5,803 0 11,867

Scotchman 22,114 74 8,708 1,478 0 10,186

Sema 23,882 3,558 (14%) 17,630 1,533 0 19,163
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 225

Lynx Analysis 

Unit(LAU)

Total Size of LAU 

(Acres)

Private & State Lands 

(Acres/% of Total)

Idaho Panhandle National Forests Potential Lynx Habitat (Acres)

Primary Secondary Critical Total

Simmons 24,972 0 8,034 7,539 0 15,573

Snow 25,752 3,162 (13%) 11,907 3,300 0 15,207

St. Joe Headwaters 19,736 0 8,975 6,124 0 15,099

Stateline Quartz 39,278 484 (1%) 6,574 10,385 0 16,959

Tola-Pelke 16,463 532 (3%) 13,767 35 0 13,802

Trestle 31,560 0 12,986 5,139 0 18,125

Trout 24,083 0 15,350 2,603 0 17,953

Upper Priest 33,571 100 (3%) 29,521 588 0 30,109

Upper Smith 28,562 2,658 (9%) 13,958 3,475 0 17,434

Willow 37,074 306 (<1%) 30,347 2,199 0 32,546

Total 891,701 26,449 419,852 128,442 34,687 582,981
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

226 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Linkage Areas

Lynx linkage areas have been identified (Claar et al. 2003, USDA 2007) and are intended to 

maintain connectivity and allow for movement of animals between blocks of habitat that are 

otherwise separated by intervening non-habitat areas such as basins, valleys and agricultural 

lands, or where habitat naturally narrows due to topographic features. There are several (8) 

identified linkage areas (Claar et al. 2003, USDA 2007) for lynx in the analysis area. All eight of 

these are located on private lands (and non-lynx habitat) in valley bottoms and transect interstate 

or state highways (i.e., Interstate 90 (I-90), State Route 95 (SR 95), SR 200, and SR 2). None of 

these are located in critical habitat, although one provides potential linkage from critical habitat 

southward to other primary lynx habitat.

Current Management for Canada Lynx

Currently, management of lynx habitat on the IPNF is dictated by the 1987 Forest Plan (USDA 

Forest Service 1987) MA direction, the 2008 IRR, and the 2007 amendment to the plan with 

completion of the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007). Tables 42 and 43 disclose the existing 

distribution under the 1987 Plan MA direction and the allowable activities and uses within 

identified capable lynx habitat per the 1987 Plan MA direction and the 2008 IRR. Additionally, 

60 percent of capable lynx habitat overlaps with BMUs. The design elements in the Access 

Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2011b and 2011c) provide additional direction and limits in 

regards to motorized access for grizzly bears that may affect lynx habitat.

Table 42. Potential Lynx Habitat on NFS Lands by Existing (i.e., 1987 Forest Plan) Management 

Area Direction

Existing Condition (1987 Forest Plan) 

Management Areas (MAs)

Potential Lynx Habitat (Acres)

Primary Secondary Critical1 Total2

1 - Timber Production 70,591 31,712 5,170 107,474

2 - Timber Production within Grizzly Bear habitat 38,505 13,756 17,836 70,097

3 - Timber Production in Grizzly Bear & Big 2,967 24 0 2,990

4 - Timber Production within Big Game Winter 27,130 2,345 0 29,475

5 - Big Game Winter Range 103 115 0 218

6 - Timber Production within Elk Summer Range 11,255 12,203 0 23,458

7 - Caribou Management 74,578 19,190 0 93,769

9 - Non-Forest lands, lands non-suited 47,528 12,446 10,911 70,884

10 - Semi-primitive Recreation 45,793 9,293 0 55,086

11 - Existing and Proposed Wilderness 70,637 18,161 0 88,798

12 - Wild and Scenic River Systems 11,149 3,787 0 14,936

13 - Special Interest Areas 2,635 0 733 3,367

14 - RNA 2,208 341 0 2,549

15 - Primary Range3 0 0 0 0

16 – Riparian3 0 0 0 0

17 - Developed Recreation Sites 0 0 0 0

18 - Administrative Sites3 0 0 0 0

19 - Semi-primitive/Timber Production 11,421 2,292 0 13,713

20 - Semi-primitive unroaded with limited timber 2,951 2,639 0 5,590

Total 419,450 128,305 34,649 582,404

1 Critical habitat (CH) is composed of primary and secondary habitats

2 Total acres of primary, secondary, and critical habitats

3 Not mapped as an MA
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 227

Table 43. Potential Lynx Habitat by Allowable Uses and Activities under existing (1987 Forest Plan) 

Management Area direction and the Idaho Roadless Rule (2008)

Allowable Uses Under the Current Forest Plan 

Management Area Direction

Lynx Habitat Acres 

(% of Total1)

Critical Habitat

Acres (% of all CH2)

Timber Harvest 431,160 (79) 33,917 (98)(

Timber Production 114,276 (21) 23,009 (66)

Commercial Use – Special Forest Products & 

Firewood 547,755 (100) 34,649 (100)

Personal Use – Special Forest Products & Firewood 547,755 (100) 34,649 (100)

Planned Fire Ignition 542,571 (99) 33,916 (98)

Natural, Unplanned Fire Ignitions to meet Resource 

Objectives

88,798 (16) 0 (0)

Grazing 444,021 (81) 34,649 (100)

Motor Vehicle 459,567 (83%) 34,6495 (100)

Over-snow Motor Vehicle 489,260 (89%) 34,6495 (100)

Road Construction (permanent or temporary) 386,540 (71) 36,649 (100)

Minerals – Leasable 277,307 (51) 16,081 (46)

Minerals - Materials 490,120 (90) 33,916 (98)

The magnitude of actual use and activity is regulated by the 2007 NRLMD standards and guidelines (USDA Forest 

Service 2007) as well as other management direction and available budgets

1 Total of all potential lynx habitat other than critical habitat≈548,294 acres 

2 Total Lynx critical habitat≈34,687 acres

The 1987 Forest Plan was amended to incorporate direction from the 2007 NRLMD. The 

NRLMD was intended to address the major threats to lynx and the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms in order to reduce adverse effects and avoid jeopardy through its 

implementation. The NRLMD applies to all management actions in lynx habitat in LAUs in 

occupied habitat and in linkage areas (USDA Forest Service 2007). The primary issues addressed 

in the NRLMD included winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests, wildand fire risk, 

over-snow recreation, and the nature of management direction applied to grazing, mineral 

development, roads, and over-snow recreation. To that end, the NRLMD provided a series of 

general planning objectives, standards, and guidelines for each of 15 identified risk factors 

(denning habitat, foraging habitat, habitat conversions, vegetation thinning, fire management, 

landscape patterns, road management, develop recreation, non-winter recreation, winter 

recreation, minerals, connectivity, land adjustments, coordination, and monitoring) (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007a).

Specific management direction was provided for five categories including: 1) All management 

practices and activities; 2) vegetation management activities and practices; 3) livestock 

management; 4) human use (i.e., special uses, recreation, road, highways, mineral and energy 

development); and 5) linkage1 areas (USDA Forest Service 2007, and appendix D). This 

direction is carried forward into the Proposed Action. Key standards include:

 1 Linkage areas are places that connect blocks of lynx habitat. Eight (check) linkage areas were identified 

within the IPNF action area (USDA Forest Service 2007).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

228 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• New or expanded permanent development and vegetation management projects must 

maintain habitat connectivity in an LAU and/or linkage area (Standard ALL S1);

• Changes in LAU boundaries shall be based on site-specific habitat information and after 

review by the Forest Service Regional Office (Standard LAU S1);

• If more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in a LAU is currently in stand initiation structural 

stages that does not yet provide winter snowshoe hare habitat (formerly called “unsuitable”), 

no additional habitat may be regenerated by vegetation management projects. There is an 

exception to this standard for fuels treatment projects within the wildland urban interface 

(WUI)1 (Standard VEG S1);

• Timber management projects shall not regenerate more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on 

NFS lands within a LAU in a ten year period (Standard VEG S2). There is an exception to 

this standard for fuels treatment projects within the WUI;

• Precommercial thinning of lynx habitat is generally not allowed, but there are exceptions for 

fuels treatment projects within the WUI3 or other resource benefit (e.g., whitebark pine 

restoration) (Standard VEG S5); and

• Vegetation management projects that reduce snowshoe hare habitat in multi-story mature or 

late-successional forests are prohibited except for treatment around administrative sites2

, for 

research studies, or for incidental removal during salvage harvest (Standard VEG S6).

The NRLMD applies to all management actions in occupied lynx habitat in LAUs and linkage 

areas (USDA Forest Service 2007). This includes critical habitat which was designated after 

completion of the NRLMD. Two LAUs located on the IPNF have designated critical habitat per 

the 2009 final rule (table 4). This includes all potential lynx habitat located in the AmericanCanuck and Deer-Skin LAUs.

The 2009 final rule described three types of actions that may adversely affect critical habitat. 

Briefly, these are:

• Actions that would reduce or remove understory vegetation within boreal forest stands on a 

scale proportionate to the large landscape used by lynx....These activities could significantly 

reduce the quality of snowshoe hare habitat such that the landscape’s ability to produce 

adequate densities of snowshoe hares to support persistent lynx populations is at least 

temporarily diminished;

• Actions that would cause permanent loss or conversion of the boreal forest on a scale 

proportionate to the large landscape used by lynx....Such activities could eliminate and 

fragment lynx and snowshoe hare habitat; and

• Actions that would increase traffic volume and speed on roads that divide lynx critical 

habitat....These activities could reduce connectivity within the boreal landscape for lynx, 

and could result in increased mortality of lynx.

Although the NRLMD did not specifically address lynx critical habitat, it does contain direction 

that contribute to the maintenance of the lynx PCEs of critical habitat. Table 44 lists the NRLMD 

components and which PCE they address.

 1 Please see appendix C for an update of the number of acres that can be treated under this exception on 

the IPNF

2 Administrative sites, dwellings, outbuildings, recreation sites, and special use permit improvements 

including infrastructure within permitted ski are boundaries (appendix D—glossary terms).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 229

Table 44. NRLMD Components that Address Canada lynx Primary Constituent Elements of 

Critical Habitat. 

Canada Lynx Primary Constituent 

Elements (PCEs)

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

Applicable Objectives, Standards, and Guidelines

Snowshoe Hare Populations/Hare Habitat ALL O1, S1; VEG O1-O4; VEG S1-S6; VEG G1, G5, G10; 

GRAZ O1, G1; HU G01, G02, G05, and G08

Denning VEG G11

Matrix VEG G5; GRAZ G2-G4

Although the NRLMD pre-dates the designation of critical habitat, it maintains and addresses 

those habitat features that make up the PCE. It maintains the vegetation components of lynx 

habitat, particularly those habitats that provide for snowshoe hares. Direction for providing 

denning habitat is also included in the NRLMD. Matrix habitat is not specifically mentioned in 

the NRLMD objectives, standards, or guidelines. However, there is direction in the NRLMD 

related to habitat components that could be considered matrix habitat. There is direction related 

to linkage areas, grazing, hardwoods/shrubs, shrub-steppe, providing alternative prey, and using 

fire to restore ecological processes to maintain lynx habitat. This direction combines to 

maintain/improve not only lynx habitat where snowshoe hares would occur, but also the 

interconnecting “matrix” habitat as well.

Past and Ongoing Impacts Associated with Key Stressors

Timber Harvest: Table 451 is a summary of the current condition of IPNF LAUs in regards to 

percentage of habitat in the stand initiation stage and how timber management (via regeneration 

harvest) contributed to the acres of stand initiation stage over the last 10 years (2002-2011). It 

also includes the number of adjacent LAUs that exceed the 30 percent stand initiation standard. 

On the IPNF, there are no LAUs that exceed the 30 percent requirement, and the Forest has not 

regenerated more than 15 percent of any LAU over the past 10 years.

 1 Timber harvest associated with fuels treatments in the WUI is included in this table. Table 1 (appendix 

C) discloses the acres of lynx habitat by LAU that is located within the WUI (total=102,000 acres). Six 

percent of the total acres of lynx habitat =34,978 acres of fuels treatment allowed under the NRLMD. This 

figure updates the values in the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007) and associated BO (appendix E, 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

230 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 45. Status of Potential Lynx Habitat on NFS Lands, by LAU, in a Stand Initiation Stage of Development, 2011

Lynx Analysis

Unit (LAU)

Potential Lynx Habitat in 

LAUs on NFS Lands (Acres)

Stand Initiation Structural 

Stage Habitat (NFS Lands) 

(Acres (%))1

Habitat Changed to Stand 

Initiation Structural Stage 

Over Past 10 Years by Timber 

Management with 

Regeneration Harvests (NFS 

Lands) (Acres (%))2

Number of Adjacent LAUs that 

Exceed 30 % Lynx Habitat in a 

Stand Initiation Structural 

Stage

American-Canuck 20,710 1,034 (4.9) 183 (0.9) 0

Blue-Grass 18,253 225 (1.2) 102 (0.6) 0

Boulder 14,221 95 (0.7) 0 0

Cascade 15,529 208 (1.3) 88 (0.6) 0

Copper-Ruby 10,777 0 0 0

Deer-Skin 13,976 28 (0.2) 0 0

Five Lakes Butte 12,040 0 0 0

Fly Mosquito 14,496 244 (1.7) 45 (0.3) 0

Gold Creek 16,053 174 (1.1) 0 0

Grouse 12,320 5 (<.1) 0 0

Hemlock 27,159 952 (3.5) 0 0

Hughes 19,634 820 (4.2) 0 0

Kalispell 22,394 55 (0.2) 0 0

Katka 9,762 77 (0.8) 0 0

Lightning 16,002 503 (3.1) 0 0

Little North Fork 19,863 145 (0.7) 0 0

Lunch 14,738 157 (1.1) 0 0

Pack River 10,507 36 (0.3) 0 0

Parker 15,778 17 (0.1) 0 0

Red Ives 14,070 54 (0.4) 0 0

Round-Prairie 14,062 663 (4.7) 276 (1.9) 0

Saddle-Cow 16,614 147 (0.9) 106 (0.6) 0

Sawtooth Canyon 11,867 158 (1.3) 0 0
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 231

Lynx Analysis

Unit (LAU)

Potential Lynx Habitat in 

LAUs on NFS Lands (Acres)

Stand Initiation Structural 

Stage Habitat (NFS Lands) 

(Acres (%))1

Habitat Changed to Stand 

Initiation Structural Stage 

Over Past 10 Years by Timber 

Management with 

Regeneration Harvests (NFS 

Lands) (Acres (%))2

Number of Adjacent LAUs that 

Exceed 30 % Lynx Habitat in a 

Stand Initiation Structural 

Stage

Scotchman 10,186 3 (<.1) 0 0

Sema 19,163 18 (<.1) 0 0

Simmons 15,573 558 (3.6) 0 0

Snow 15,207 0 0 0

St. Joe Headwaters 15,099 901 (5.9) 0 0

Stateline Quartz 16,959 638 (3.8) 494 (2.9) 0

Tola-Pelke 13,802 124 (0.9) 0 0

Trestle 18,125 96 (0.5) 0 0

Trout 17,953 129 (0.7) 0 0

Upper Priest 30,109 2,309 (7.7) 0 0

Upper Smith 17,434 592 (3.4) 0 0

Willow 32,546 48 (0.2) 0 0

Totals 582,981 11,213 1,294 0

1 Lynx habitat in a stand initiation structural stage not yet providing winter snowshoe hare habitat (typically less than 16 years after treatment) 2 Regeneration harvest includes clearcutting, shelterwood, seed-tree, single-tree, and group selection
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

232 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Precommercial Thinning: Since finalization of the NRLMD in 2007, the IPNF has made 

decisions on three projects involving precommercial thinning in lynx habitat. A total of 717 acres 

of lynx habitat in five LAUs were affected with project implementation. These projects involved 

exclusions to Standard VEG S5 for treatment of white pine and restoration of whitebark pine.

Based on the remapping of lynx habitat, the IPNF projects up to 17,1201 acres of precommerical 

thinning could occur within occupied lynx habitat over the next 15 years.

Unplanned and Planned Fire Ignitions: Since the Canada lynx was listed in 2000, 1,681 

wildfire events have burned approximately 24,640 acres across the Forest. Five hundred of these 

events occurred within LAUs and burned approximately 13,180 acres within the LAU boundary. 

Approximately 1,585 acres of this occurred in critical habitat in the American-Canuck LAU. 

Since completion of the NRLMD in 2007, the IPNF has completed 1,342 planned prescribed 

burns covering 46,977 acres, with 144 of these operations burning approximately 4,330 acres 

within LAUs. None of these ignitions were located in designated critical habitat.

Roads, Highways, and Over-snow Routes and Play Areas: Table 46 summarizes existing 

motorized access within LAUs on the IPNF.

Table 46. Current Motorized Access within Identified Canada Lynx Habitat on the IPNF

Type of Allowed Access NFS Lands within LAUs

Non-Critical LAUs1 Critical Habitat LAUs2

Motorized Access Routes (miles)3 531 62

Highways (miles) 0 0

Over-snow Motorized Use (acres) 4 249,727 34,649

Designated Over-snow Play Areas (acres) 0 0

Groomed Over-snow Routes (miles) 123 6

1 Blue-Grass, Boulder, Cascade, Copper-Ruby, Five Lakes Butte, Fly Mosquito, Gold Creek, Grouse, Hemlock, Hughes, 

Kalispell, Katka, Lightning, Little North Fork, Lunch, Pack River, Parker, Red Ives, round-Prairie, Saddle-Cow, Sawtooth

Canyon, Scotchman, Sema, Sentinel, Simmons, Snow, St. Joe Headwaters, Stateline Quartz, Tola-Pelke, Trestle, Trout, 

Upper Priest, Upper Smith, Willow

2 American-Canuck and Deer-Skin LAUs 3 Some of these miles of motorized routes are located behind gates in the grizzly bear recovery zones

4 Many of these areas have limited accessibility for snowmobiling off-route due to tree densities and topography 

Recent efforts to complete Motorized Vehicle User Maps (MVUM) on the IPNF closed overland 

motorized travel and resulted in a reduction of motorized routes available throughout the action

area. In addition, there are no downhill ski areas2 located in lynx habitat on the IPNF.

A large portion of the recovery area for Canada lynx is also within the recovery zones for grizzly 

bear and caribou on the IPNFs. Canada lynx are afforded the security provided for bears and 

caribou in these areas. Controlling and/or managing motor vehicle access in grizzly bear and 

caribou habitat may be compatible with Canada lynx use by reducing the risk of displacement 

and other human effects. Most of the Selkirk, Purcell, and Cabinet Mountains LAUs in the 

northern part of the action area are currently included in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones and 

are influenced by the restrictions placed on motorized access (see page 74, Grizzly bear, for 

 1 Represents thinning for research, defensible space, and white pine/whitebark pine/aspen treatments. This 

updates table 1, appendix D of the NRLMD Biological Opinion (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a). 2 Lookout ski area is located on the IPNF but none of it is located within lynx habitat on the Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 233

details). Additionally, much of the Selkirk Mountains LAUs are closed to over-snow motorized 

use due to a 2007 federal court order to protect woodland caribou (see page 123, Woodland 

caribou, for details). This later closure will remain in place until the IPNF completes a Winter 

Travel Plan that addresses motorized over-snow travel in the Selkirk Mountains at some time in 

the next two-to-four years. The acreages in table 46 include this closure as part of the existing 

environmental baseline.

Livestock Grazing: In 1979, there were 73 allotments on the IPNF with the majority of forage 

produced on 7,500 acres of meadow and permanent grasslands. The 1987 IPNF Forest Plan 

permitted livestock use to be 6,700 Animal Unit Months (AUMs). However, cattle’s grazing has 

been declining on the Forest, with an average of only 3,086 AUMs from 1996 through 2009. 

Today there are only 14 allotments on the Forest with a total of 2,375 AUMs. This decline can be 

attributed to the re-growth of trees on transitory range, changing patterns of private lands use, 

and rising industry costs that make small allotments uneconomical (see the “Range” section of 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS)

There are three cattle grazing allotments covering 10,177 acres of lynx habitat in three LAUs 

within the IPNF Proposed Action area. None of these allotments are located in designated critical 

habitat.

Minerals (Locatable and Materials): There are currently 1,232 Plans of Operations for 

locatable minerals on the IPNF. Of these, 13 are located in lynx habitat and one is located in 

critical habitat. The majority of on-going activities are related to maintenance of existing 

facilities. Most locatable mineral operations are less than five acres in size. Potential for future 

mineral discovery is considered “low.”

There are approximately 434 active mineral material pits within the IPNF and of these 23 sites 

are within lynx habitat and another five are located in designated critical habitat. Sites typically 

range from less than one to five acres in size.

There are no leasable minerals located on the IPNF at this time.

Other On-Going Activities within the Project Area

Recreational Activities: The IPNF is easily accessed and has a growing and changing visitor 

base. Most of the visitation is local with strong ties to the Forest. Traditional uses include hiking, 

hunting, fishing, gathering, biking, water-based camping, and boating. Winter activities are snow 

dependent and focus on snowmobiling.

Outdoor recreation is the fastest growing use within the national forest and it is a use that is 

expected to increase in the future. Since the 1980, both motorized and non-motorized recreation 

use of the roads, trails, and general forest areas have increased. Foot, horse, and mountain bike 

travel have increased, and to a lesser degree, cross-country and backcountry skiing receive use as 

well.

Hunting in the United States and Canada: The province of British Columbia and the states1 of 

Montana, Idaho, and Washington continue to allow hunting and trapping of a variety of big game 

and fur bearer species. Lynx are not legally trapped, but may be incidentally captured during 

 1 State fish and game agencies include Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

234 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

trapping for other species, but trapping management is not under the jurisdiction of the Forest 

Service.

Recreation Special Use Permits (SUPs) and Agreements: Special use authorizations permit 

occupancy and use on NFS lands by federal, state and local agencies, private industry, and 

individuals. Recreation special use permits are of particular interest in evaluating effects to lynx 

due to their proximity to lynx habitat and their potential to generate some level of disturbance or 

displacement. The IPNF currently has 190 recreation Special Use Permits and agreements (see 

the “Access and Recreation” section). None of these involve winter recreation. However, there 

are seven challenge-cost share agreements that permit winter grooming of snowmobile trails on 

the IPNF, and five of these have some of their operations located within LAUs. None of these are 

located in critical habitat.

Key Stressors Affecting Canada Lynx

Of the management activities allowed under the Proposed Action, timber harvest, fire 

management, motorized access on Forest highways, over-snow vehicle use and associated road 

construction are the key stressors to Canada lynx.

Timber Harvest and Precommercial Thinning: In 2000, the FWS stated that “timber harvest 

and associated forest management can be benign, beneficial, or detrimental to lynx depending on 

harvest methods, spatial and temporal specifications, and the inherent vegetation potential of the 

site” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Even-aged harvest, for example, removes or alters 

stand structure, and temporarily eliminates snowshoe hare forage/cover and lynx cover until the 

site is regenerated to forest cover. In addition, this type of treatment reduces potential denning 

habitat by removing large trees and down logs from the site and reduces prey habitat (i.e. red 

squirrel) with the removal of large trees. Regeneration harvest can be a tool for creating high 

quality snowshoe hare habitat in the future, especially where natural regeneration would be 

expected to respond and provide dense young vegetation. Uneven-aged management, such as 

single tree selection or group selection, results in varying effects to snowshoe hare, red squirrel 

and lynx, depending on the stems removed, harvest system and post-sale treatments. This harvest 

method can be used to replicate or mimic forest gap dynamics. In drier forests, particularly at the 

southern edge of lynx range, snowshoe hare abundance may exhibit unimodal distribution, with 

peaks in old growth forests (Buskirk et al. 2000). Harvest in these stands may therefore have 

greater effects.

Reducing dense horizontal structure within forest stand understories through silvicultural 

thinning can reduce an area’s carrying capacity for snowshoe hares (Homyack et al. 2007). In 

northwestern Montana, Ausband and Baty (2005) found that within individual forest stands, 

hares had a significant affinity for dense, unthinned sapling patches. Research conducted in 

northwestern Montana found that precommercial thinning decreased snowshoe hare abundance, 

compared to both control and thinned stands where 80 percent of the entire stand was thinned but 

20 percent of the total stand was retained with saplings uncut (Griffin and Mills 2007). Declines 

were prominent in the second winter after treatment. In addition, estimated survival rates of 

snowshoe hares decreased as individuals spent proportionately more time in open young and 

open mature forest stand structure types (Griffin and Mills 2007). Additional research to 

investigate the relationship of various stand conditions to snowshoe hares is currently underway 

in several different regions of the western United States.

Vegetation treatments focused on fuel reduction or salvage of dead and dying trees can result in 

the removal of coarse woody material or negatively affect its recruitment into the stand. This 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 235

may reduce the areas potential use as denning habitat for lynx—although a lack of denning is not 

considered a limiting factor across the landscape. Additionally, fuel reduction projects have the 

potential to reduce or eliminate lynx habitat by simplifying stand structure and/or reducing stem 

densities below levels that provide suitable forage and cover conditions for snowshoe hares. 

These activities have the potential to diminish the landscape’s ability to produce adequate 

densities of snowshoe hares to support persistent lynx populations. Both effects are anticipated to 

be adverse to lynx (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a).

Fire (natural ignitions, planned ignitions): Fire exclusion has altered the pattern and 

composition of vegetation within lynx habitat within National Forests in Idaho (Hillis et al. 

2003). These patterns, especially within stand replacing fire regimes (predominately spruce-fir 

communities), were likely important in providing young age class snowshoe hare habitat across 

the landscape. Planned and unplanned ignitions could be used as a restoration tool for these 

ecosystems that have been impacted by fire exclusion.

These activities may temporarily reduce the quality of lynx habitat for several years following a 

burn (Fox 1978), as changes to understory may reduce snowshoe hare populations, remove 

cover, and possibly increase competition from coyotes in open habitats (Stephenson 1984, 

Koehler and Brittell 1990). However, in the longer term (10-15 years), areas burned may provide 

for higher densities of snowshoe hares than prior to treatment, resulting in a benefit to resident 

lynx.

Most prescribed burning in lynx habitat on the IPNF has been associated with post-harvest 

treatments although there have been a few landscape prescribed burns in recent years to promote 

habitat improvement for big game winter range and whitebark pine restoration. Short-term 

adverse effects to Canada lynx from prescribed fire could occur where implementation overlaps 

lynx activity in space and time.

Road Construction and Motorized Access: In general, construction and reconstruction of 

forest roads are not considered a primary threat to resident lynx populations in and of themselves 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000 and 2007). Vehicle speeds on forest roads are relatively

slow in comparison to highways or other public roads due to topography, substrate and road 

conditions. Thus, the potential for lynx mortality or injury due to collisions with vehicles is 

thought to be low on forest roads. Although recreational, administrative and commercial uses of 

forest roads are known to disturb many species of wildlife (Ruediger 1996), preliminary 

information suggests that lynx do not avoid roads (Ruggiero et al. 2000), except at high traffic 

volumes (Apps 2000). It is possible that summer use of roads and trails through denning habitat 

may have negative effects if female lynx are forced to move kittens because of associated human 

disturbance (Ruggiero et al. 2000). While some new road construction continues to occur in 

some watersheds throughout lynx habitat in the Northern Rockies—and many of these are 

already highly roaded—the effects on lynx are largely unknown. Access via roads may also 

increase the mortality risk to lynx from incidental trapping - a significant source of mortality for 

lynx in areas where lynx are legally trapped (Canada and Alaska) (Koehler and Aubry 1994). 

Further research directed at investigating the effects of road density on lynx is needed (Ibid).

Motorized Over-snow Access: The primary mechanism through which forest and backcountry 

roads could negatively impact Canada lynx is through facilitation of winter recreation, such as 

snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, or snow-shoeing. These snow-compacting activities may 

facilitate the movement of competing carnivores, primarily coyotes, along snow compacted 

routes into lynx habitat during winter. Lynx have very large feet in relation to their body mass, 

which provides them with a competitive advantage over other carnivores in deep snow 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

236 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

conditions. Various reports and anecdotal observations have documented coyotes using high 

elevation, deep snow areas (Buskirk et al. 2000). Research conducted in central Alberta, 

attributed the use of more open habitats by coyotes to greater snow compaction (Todd et al. 

1981). In another study in Alberta, coyotes were more selective of hard or shallow snow 

conditions than lynx (Murray et al. 1994). Over-snow motorized access may also increase the 

mortality risk to lynx from incidental trapping - a significant source of mortality for lynx in areas 

where lynx are legally trapped (Canada and Alaska) (Koehler and Aubry 1994).

Kolbe monitored coyotes over three winter seasons within lynx habitat in northwestern Montana 

to assess how coyotes interacted with compacted snowmobile trails (Kolbe 2005, Kolbe et al. 

2007). Coyotes remained in lynx habitat having deep snow conditions and traveled on 

compacted snowmobile trails more than random expectations. However, coyotes used compacted 

snowmobile trails for less than eight percent or their travel and used compacted and uncompacted roads similarly (Kolbe et al. 2007). Coyotes did strongly select for shallower and 

more supportive snow surfaces when traveling off of compacted trails. In this study, coyotes 

primarily scavenged ungulate carrion that was readily available during winter months, while 

snowshoe hare kills comprised only three percent of coyote feeding sites (Ibid). Kolbe (2005) 

concluded that there is no conclusive evidence to indicate that compacted snow routes increased 

competition from other species to levels that adversely affected lynx populations. In their BO for 

the NRLMD, the FWS stated, “The best information available has not indicated that compacted 

snow routes increase competition from other species to levels that adversely impact lynx 

populations, and under the [NRLMD], the amount of areas affected by snow compacted routes 

within the NRLA would not substantially increase. Thus the [NRLMD] would allow projects that 

may adversely affect individual lynx in some specific cases, however the [NRLMD] as a whole 

would avoid appreciable reductions in the reproduction, numbers, and distribution of lynx in 

core areas and all occupied habitat, and in the NRLA area” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007a).

Although lynx are generally tolerant of human presence, disturbance may be great enough to 

cause displacement of individual cats in some circumstances.

Mineral Extraction Activities: Generally, the impacts of mining on terrestrial wildlife species, 

including Canada lynx, result from the habitat loss and degradation from the footprint of the 

mining operation, required infrastructure (i.e., road construction and development), and the 

human disturbance where individuals are displaced from key habitats. All of these activities 

result in a decrease in habitat security for lynx.

There are no major mining operations on the IPNF at this time. Known oil and gas deposits on 

the IPNF, and geothermal energy potential is very low. As such, little commercial interest in 

leasing for such resources is anticipated. Future development of locatable minerals is expected to 

be very limited within the action area. Overall, the risk to lynx and lynx habitats due to all 

mining activities is expected to be very low.

Livestock Grazing: The NRLMD notes that livestock grazing may change, reduce, or eliminate 

snowshoe hare habitat in quaking aspen, willows, and riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 

2007). In shrub-steppe habitat, grazing may change plant composition where shrubs provide 

cover and connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat. These effects are likely to be localized 

since there is no evidence grazing poses a threat to lynx populations as a whole (Ibid).

Other Forest Products: Other Forest Products includes personal and commercial firewood 

collection, limited personal use permits for such items as rocks and trees, and all other 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 237

unpermitted use of forest products such as huckleberry or mushroom collection. Generally, the 

collection of forest products occurs in close proximity to roads and the density of people 

engaged in this activity diminishes with increasing distance from a road or trail. Disturbance and 

displacement due to human activity and motorized use would be the main effect from the 

collection of forest products (see effects from motorized access above).

The primary effect of collection of forest products on lynx habitat would be collection of 

Christmas trees, boughs, and posts and poles. In its ROD, the Forest Service clarified that under 

Standard VEG S5, thinning for Christmas trees can occur if winter snowshoe hare habitat is not 

reduced because, generally these activities are done on an individual tree basis and do not change 

the characteristics of the habitat (USDA Forest Service 2007).

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors Under Forest Service Control:

Timber Harvest: The NRLMD applies to the 1987 Forest Plan. Under Alternatives B Modified, 

C, and D FW-STD-WL-01 would be applicable. The vegetation components of the PCEs of lynx 

critical habitat would be maintained or improved. In addition to the management direction found 

in the NRLMD, Alternatives B Modified, C, and D would add another desired condition, FWDC-WL-01, which provides direction for den sites and would minimize the chance that timber 

harvest related disturbance at den sites would displace lynx. Additionally, timber harvest would 

be a tool to achieve the desired conditions for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 through FW-DCVEG-05, FW-DC-VEG-08, and FW-DC-VEG-11) in the revised Forest Plan and would maintain 

or improve lynx habitat. Moving conditions towards historic conditions in the lower elevation 

forests would reduce the chance of a large-scale fire beginning in those non-lynx habitats and 

moving into lynx habitat. FW-GDL-VEG-03 would retain downed wood, which would be useful 

for lynx denning habitat.

Fire (planned and unplanned ignitions): The use of fire to restore ecological processes and 

maintain or improve lynx habitat is included in the NRLMD and applies to the 1987 Plan. 

Alternative B Modified, C, and D would be consistent with the NRLMD with regard to using fire 

(implemented through FW-STD-WL-01 in the proposed Plan). The ecosystems in which lynx 

live are adapted to stand-replacing fires. That is how lynx habitat is rejuvenated over time and 

how habitat mosaics are created. Lynx have evolved with fire as an integral component in 

shaping habitat. Although fire removes downed wood and potential downed wood (snags), it also 

creates downed wood and snags. Generally, denning habitat is not limiting for lynx. However, 

under a scenario where a key piece of denning habitat may need to be protected from a fire, part 

of FW-DC-FIRE-03 allows for the suppression of undesirable fires where necessary to protect 

key resources.

Fire suppression: Fire and fire suppression have had a large impact on the distribution and 

amount of lynx habitat available on the IPNF. Management under the 1987 Plan includes fire 

suppression in many instances, but also the use of natural unplanned ignitions (see Fire resource 

section). Fire suppression leads to changes in the amount and pattern of lynx habitat across the 

Forest. Fire is a natural disturbance process that plays a large role in determining the quantity 

and distribution of lynx habitat. Fire suppression has increased the risk of a large-scale 

disturbance (fire) converting a broad area to unsuitable habitat in one event. The patch size of 

such an event would likely be larger than what would have been expected historically.

Allowing fire to play a more natural role over time would potentially create smaller scale 

disturbances and therefore a mosaic of different stand ages/structures contributing to future lynx 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

238 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

habitat. Alternatives B Modified, C, and D have FW-DC-FIRE-03 that provides direction to 

allow the increased role of fire in helping trend vegetation towards desired conditions. Those 

desired conditions are based on historic conditions where fire was a natural part of the 

ecosystem. Lynx evolved with those conditions and consequently would have the amounts and 

arrangements of habitats similar to what they evolved with.

Under the revised Forest Plan there would be varying amounts of predicted active fuels reduction 

among the action alternatives. Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) would be more 

likely to result in continued suppression of most fires and therefore less passive 

restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. The action alternatives have more flexibility to use 

fire to restore/maintain habitat. The use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) 

would be more likely in MA1, and Alternative C (165,184 acres) would have the most MA1, 

followed by B Modified (93,071 acres), and D (92,636 acres), and A (88,798 acres equivalent to 

MA1). Fire may also be used more in MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives B Modified 

(211,7761 acres) and C (176,9212 acres) have more than D (280,2993 acres). Both passive and 

active restoration, and a general trend towards the desired conditions for vegetation under the 

proposed Plan, would aid in creating more resilient and sustainable lynx habitat. Passive 

restoration would be a more realistic option in places such as wilderness areas. Those lowerelevation forests with a greater departure from historic conditions may require active restoration 

(mechanical treatments) before fire can be reintroduced to those landscapes. The risk of standreplacing fire over large scales would be reduced under the action alternatives, thereby allowing 

patch sizes to better approximate historic conditions and maintain heterogeneity of stand 

conditions. Even where lynx habitat would be within historic conditions, restoring non-lynx 

habitat to historic conditions would reduce the chance of a large-scale fire starting in the lowerelevation forests and moving into lynx habitat. Implementation of FW-DC-FIRE-03 would be 

useful to maintain or improve lynx habitat conditions and allow fire to play a more natural role 

in the ecosystem. Further direction in the revised Plan that supports expanded use of natural,

unplanned ignitions and planned ignitions includes: MA1a-DC-VEG-01, MA1a-DC-FIRE-01, 

MA1a-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1b-DC-VEG-01, MA1b-DC-FIRE-01, MA1b-GDL-FIRE-01 

and 02, MA1c-DC-VEG-01, MA1c-DC-FIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1e-DCVEG-01, MA1e-DC-FIRE-01, MA1e-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA2a-DC-FIRE-1, MA2a-DCVEG-01, MA2a-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA2b-DC-VEG-01, MA2b-DC-FIRE-01, MA2bGDL-FIRE-01 through 03,MA5-DC-VEG-01, MA5-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5-GDL-FIRE-01.

Landscape connectivity: Connectivity of lynx habitat is incorporated into the 1987 Plan 

through the NRLMD. In Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, FW-STD-WL-01 applies the 

NRLMD. FW-DC-WL-18 and FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17 also provide direction relative to 

connectivity. Crossing structures would be developed through interagency cooperation and NFS 

lands around those structures would be managed to maintain their function. The vegetation

components of connectivity would be managed according to FW-DC-VEG-01 through FW-DCVEG-05, FW-DC-VEG-08, FW-DC-VEG-11, FW-GDL-VEG-03, and FW-DC-FIRE-03. In 

doing so, the arrangement and amount of lynx habitat, and therefore connectivity, would be 

similar to conditions that lynx evolved with in this ecosystem. Allowing fire to play a more 

natural role would aid in maintaining or restoring connectivity habitat to what lynx evolved with 

on the Forest. Geographic Area direction that provides for connectivity within the Forest, and to 

adjacent land ownerships (including Canada) includes: GA-DC-WL-CDA-03, GA-DC-WL-LK-

 1 This figure includes 6,826 acres of critical habitat. 2 This figure includes 6,826 acres of critical habitat.

3 This figure includes 4,955 acres of critical habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 239

01 and 02, GA-DC-WL-PO-01, GA-DC-WL-PR-01 and 03, and GA-DC-WL-SJ-02. Combined, 

all this direction would provide connectivity within the Forest and to habitats outside the Forest.

Road/trail maintenance and construction: The Motorized Access Management within the 

Selkirk and Cabinet Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones EIS and ROD amended the existing Plan 

(Access Amendment). In Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, FW-STD-WL-02 states that the 

Access Amendment would be applied. Although this was designed to reduce road related impacts

to grizzly bears, benefits would also occur for other species such as lynx. FW-GDL-WL-13 gives 

direction to retain security habitat for elk, and this would benefit other species such as lynx, 

providing further security habitat late in the fall for those LAUs located south of Lake Pend 

Oreille. The security areas for elk would include areas that are not within the grizzly bear 

recovery zone but may still be lynx habitat, providing further security habitat that may be 

suitable for lynx across the Forest in the fall. Direction to provide security habitat for lynx and 

other threatened and endangered species would be found in FW-DC-WL-03. The transportation 

system on the Forest would be to have minimal impacts on threatened and endangered species, 

as directed in FW-DC-AR-07. Management Area direction that provides for large remote areas 

with little human disturbance (wilderness and roadless) include: MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DCWL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA1e-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, and MA5-DC-WL-01. 

Combined, all this direction provides secure habitat for lynx across the Forest.

There would be no difference in the specific roads or trails open to motorized use between the 

alternatives. The acres available for cross-country motorized use would also not change. There 

would be a difference in the acreage where roads/trails may be designated for motorized use. 

Alternatives A (459,567 acres and 34,649 acres of critical habitat) would have the most acres 

available in that regard, followed by D (433,499 acres and 31,469 critical habitat) B Modified 

(427,294 acres and 31,570 acres of critical habitat), and C (191,321 acres and 31,570 acres of 

critical habitat). The acreage available for over-snow vehicle use and mechanized use would be 

greatest under Alternative A (489,260 acres and 34,649 acres of critical habitat), followed by 

Alternatives D (439,973 acres and 31,570 acres of critical habitat), B Modified (439,530 acres

and 31,570 acres of critical habitat), and C (375,389 acres and 31,570 acres of critical habitat). 

The acreage available road construction (both temporary and permanent) could occur would be 

greatest under Alternatives D (439,973 acres and 31,570 acres of critical habitat), followed by B 

Modified (427,294 acres and 24,744 acres of critical habitat), Alternative A (386,540 acres and 

34,649 acres of critical habitat) and C (375,389 acres and 31,570 acres of critical habitat). The 

more acres available for these type of uses, the greater the chance of disturbance to individual 

lynx. However, there would be habitat available on the Forest where motorized use would not 

occur or some uses would be restricted, including wilderness, IRAs, and non-motorized 

backcountry. Thus lynx would have acres available with less human presence, with the greatest 

amount under Alternative C, followed by Alternative B Modified, then D and A.

The NRLMD applies to the 1987 Plan and includes direction related to roads and recreation, 

including snow-compacting activities, which are designed to maintain or improve lynx habitat. 

In Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, FW-STD-WL-01 states that the NRLMD would be 

applied. 

Recreational use: The direction listed above for road/trail maintenance and construction would 

also reduce impacts from recreation. Recreational use would be generally dependent on a road 

and trail system to facilitate access. Although lynx are generally tolerant of human presence, 

disturbance may be great enough to cause displacement of individual cats in some 

circumstances. FW-STD-WL-02, MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

240 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

MA1e-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, and MA5-DC-WL-01 create and maintain large, remote 

security habitats that are likely to have a lower amount of recreational use due to the difficulties 

of access. Therefore, areas with lower recreational use would be available across the Forest for 

lynx to use.

The NRLMD applies to all alternatives (FW-STD-WL-01) and includes direction for limiting the 

effects of human uses on lynx and their habitats.

Mining: The NRLMD applies to the 1987 Plan and contains direction related to mineral 

activities in lynx habitat. Alternatives B Modified, C, and D would be consistent with that 

direction (implemented through FW-STD-WL-01).

FW-DC-WL-03 states that populations of threatened and endangered species trend towards 

recovery and that habitat would be available on NFS lands for occupation. Den sites would be 

protected through FW-DC-WL-01. Depending on the individual circumstances, a haul/supply 

route could have substantial traffic and may impact connectivity. If so, then FW-DC-WL-18 and 

FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17 would provide direction for maintaining connectivity and applies 

not only to highways, but also to high-use Forest roads such as a haul/supply routes.

Cumulative Effects

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. The period 

considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years.

All past activities on the Forest has resulted in the current habitat conditions. Those current 

habitat conditions have multi-storied foraging habitat within HRV. Past timber harvest, fuels 

reduction, and fire suppression have created conditions that provide the amount of multi-storied 

foraging habitat that lynx would have evolved with under natural disturbance processes in this 

landscape. Past vegetation management has additionally created stand-initiation foraging habitat. 

The small amount of treatment in recent years, coupled with fire suppression, has diminished the 

amount of new stand-initiation foraging habitat on the Forest, although the more important 

multi-storied foraging habitat remains within HRV.

All the action alternatives would contribute towards maintaining or improving lynx habitat. 

Timber harvest occurring on private, State, or Canadian lands may impact the distribution, 

amount, and quality of lynx habitat and may impact connectivity between NFS lands. The 

desired conditions for vegetation in the revised Forest Plan and the NRLMD would maintain or 

improve connectivity for lynx on the IPNF. Critical habitat for lynx was identified on both IPNF 

and lands in other ownerships, so all owners would have to consider the PCEs of critical habitat. 

The designation of critical habitat for lynx is currently under reconsideration by the USFWS due 

to court decision and therefore more critical habitat may be established in the future. This would 

make little difference on the IPNF because habitat is already managed according to the NRLMD.

The Idaho State wildlife Conservation Strategy would improve habitat for lynx, and when 

utilized on non-NFS ownerships should complement habitat improvement/maintenance on NFS 

lands. Lynx is currently included in the conservation strategy and general conservation 

measures/strategies are listed, including recommendations to maintain snowshoe hare habitat and 

lynx habitat connectivity.

The desired condition for connectivity in the revised Forest Plan would direct the IPNF (FWDC-WL-18, FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17) to work with other agencies and landowners when 

highways are proposed to be constructed or reconstructed to incorporate crossing structures 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 241

where needed. The Plan would be in compliance with the NRLMD relative to connectivity. This 

would also aid in maintaining some connectivity between NFS lands as private lands are 

subdivided in the future. As other land ownerships increase roads to support expanding human 

populations and recreational needs, the importance of NFS lands to provide connectivity would 

increase.

Climate change would have the potential to alter the amount and distribution of lynx habitat on 

the IPNF and adjacent ownerships. Coupled with past fire suppression, climate change can 

increase the impact of insects and disease and reduce the amount of habitat available for lynx. 

The desired conditions for vegetation and fire (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 05, FW-DC-VEG-08, 

FW-DC-VEG-11, and FW-DC-FIRE-03) in the revised Forest Plan would shift vegetation to a 

more sustainable and resilient condition better able to adapt to climate change. That would make 

lynx habitat more likely to be sustainable and resilient in the long term as the climate changes. 

Maintaining connectivity of lynx habitat in the face of climate change may be challenging, but 

by trending towards the vegetation desired conditions, connectivity would be more likely to 

persist. Maintaining connectivity is important as distributional shifts are one way species 

respond to climate change (page 90 in USDA 2010). One of the primary constituent elements 

(PCE) of lynx critical habitat is light, deep, snow. Climate change may influence the availability 

of this PCE in the future, and it is outside the control of the IPNF to dictate the location of this 

PCE on the landscape. This PCE may be located higher in elevation and patches separated by 

greater distances in the future if the climate become warmer.

Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads 

or trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent/amount of the impact over 

the life of the Plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence the amount and 

location of Border Patrol activity. Generally speaking, the likelihood of Border Patrol presence 

increases with decreasing distance from the border.

Past mining, ski area development, utility corridor construction, and other land uses on all 

ownerships has decreased lynx habitat to varying extents. Although there are no known current 

proposals for these types of developments on non-NFS lands, it is possible that there could be 

proposals in the future. Those developments could result in a loss of lynx habitat or reduced 

connectivity. Cleanup of the heavy metals contamination from mining in the Coeur d'Alene basin 

is ongoing and likely to continue into the future. This cleanup work would improve wildlife 

habitat over time, although the complete extent of improvement and how those effects overlap 

with effects from the revised Forest Plan is uncertain.

Grazing has occurred and would continue to take place on lands belonging to various entities, 

potentially impacting deciduous or riparian habitat for lynx prey species.

Fuels reduction efforts are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

residences. If these are done in such a way that they restore habitat that has been degraded by 

fire suppression, then habitat for wildlife can be improved. If not, then habitat can be lost for 

some species and connectivity impacted.

Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownership types, if for no other reason than human 

population growth. This would increase human disturbance and cause the portions of NFS lands 

that have lower human disturbance to become more important.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

242 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Legal trapping occurs north of the Forest in Canada and could impact the number of lynx near 

the border. It is not legal to trap lynx in Idaho/Montana/Washington, but trapping for other 

species is permitted, potentially leading to non-target species like lynx being impacted.

In Canada, the main human activities that have and will continue to impact lynx range are timber 

harvesting, oil and gas exploration and development, coal mining and the proliferation of access 

that comes from all these industries. Loss of habitat in Canada, and a decline in lynx populations, 

could impact populations on the Forest due to the Forest being at the southern extent of the range 

for lynx (Schwartz et al. 2002). Populations in Canada provide gene flow into lynx populations 

south of the border. This emphasizes the desire to provide connectivity on the Forest as discussed 

under the Effects sections so that lynx populations on the Forest are connected to populations 

elsewhere in Idaho/Montana/Washington.

Effects Determination

Each action alternative may affect, and is likely to adversely affect Canada lynx and Canada lynx 

critical habitat.

Rationale for Determination: In spite of a general reduction in most allowable activities from 

current management direction, timber harvest (including thinning) and fire management 

activities, motorized access, road construction and reconstruction, and the low potential for 

mining, activities under the action alternatives—particularly in the General Forest MA—have 

the potential to adversely affect individual Canada lynx and their habitat via increased human 

disturbance, displacement and habitat alternation. At the project level, all activities would be 

subject to existing plan components such as standards and guidelines designed to avoid or 

minimize adverse effects to individual lynx and the habitats they occupy on Federal lands as well 

as the NRLMD standards and guidelines. Given that we cannot predict exact locations of future 

projects nor are there restrictions on the distribution of effects spatially or temporally, we cannot 

discount the potential for adverse effects to the Canada lynx and lynx critical habitat.

Grizzly Bear -- Ursus arctos horribilis

Affected Environment

Grizzly bears are identified as threatened in the two populations that reside (in part) on the IPNF. 

Two recovery zones overlap the IPNF: the Selkirk Recovery Zone (SRZ) and the Cabinet-Yaak 

Recovery Zone (CYRZ).The CYRZ is situated in the IPNF, KNF, and a small portion of the Lolo 

National Forest. The SRZ is situated in the IPNF, Colville National Forests, and British 

Columbia. The Ecosystems/Recovery Zones are also tied to areas in Canada, with the back and 

forth movement of bears between the two countries.

Habitat and Life History Needs

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) are habitat generalists, using a variety of habitats 

including the coniferous forests of northwest Montana and north Idaho. Habitat is generally 

dictated by food availability and distribution, as well as security from human disturbance and 

mortality. In Montana, grizzlies primarily use meadows, seeps, riparian zones, mixed shrub 

fields, closed timber, open timber, side hill parks, snow chutes, and alpine slabrock habitats. 

Habitat use is highly variable between areas, seasons, local populations and individuals 

(Servheen 1983, Almack 1985, Volsen 1994, Slone 2007, Weilgas 1994, Kasworm et al. 2010). 

Because grizzly bears have large home ranges, large areas of habitat are required. Grizzlies 

occupy low-elevation riparian areas, snow chutes and meadows in the spring and late fall, and 

move up to higher subalpine forests in the summer, early fall and winter.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 243

Grizzlies are opportunistic and adaptable omnivores. Grizzly bears have a large vegetation

component (more than half) to their diet and have evolved longer claws for digging and larger 

molar surface area to better exploit vegetation food sources. Grizzlies feed on carrion, fish, large 

and small mammals, insects, fruit, grasses, bark, roots, and mushrooms. They often cache food 

and guard it. Grizzlies are known to feed on a wide variety of plants (36 to 74 species). Food 

habits vary locally, seasonally and individually.

Grizzly bears occupy higher elevation subalpine forests and shrub fields in the summer, early fall 

and winter. Natural caves or excavated dens (typically above 5,000 feet in the SRZ and above 

4,400 feet in the CYRZ) are entered after the first snowfall and occupied for four to five months 

(USDA Forest Service 2011b)1

. After emerging from the den, grizzly bears typically move to the 

areas where they can take advantage of food sources such as early greening herbaceous 

vegetation at low elevations, riparian areas and in melted-out avalanche chutes (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1993a). These habitats consist of warmer sites or areas that are most likely to 

lose snow early and have an earlier green-up. Research has shown that grizzly bears, particularly 

sows with cubs-of-the-year, remain close to their den sites for a few weeks or more postemergence (Craighead and Craighead 1972, Vroom et al. 1977, Schoen 1986, Mace and Waller 

1997) and continue to rely on fat reserves during this time (Craighead and Sumner 1980 in 

Volsen 1994).

Additional information on population ecology, biology, habitat description and relationships are 

described in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a) and the 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2011a) 5-Year Review. Local research efforts for the SRZ 

include research by Almack (1985), Slone (2007), Volsen (1994), and Wakkinen and Johnson 

(2000), while Kasworm et al. (2011) provides specific research findings for the CYRZ grizzly 

bears.

Risk Factors Affecting Grizzly Bears

When grizzly bears in the lower 48 States were listed in 1975, the vast reduction in their historic 

range, increases in motorized and non-motorized routes and associated recreational use, high 

levels of human-caused mortality, livestock use, lack of population data, and genetic isolation 

were identified as factors affecting their conservation status (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

1975). All of these threats have been addressed to varying degrees over time in the occupied 

grizzly bear ecosystems (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). Recently, the FWS synthesized 

these threats into five grizzly bear risk factors and evaluated the situation in each of the six 

ecosystems (table 47) (Ibid).

Table 47. Five Risk Factors Potentially Affecting Grizzly Bear Conservation

GRIZZLY BEAR RISK FACTORS

Lack of effective Security Habitat

Mortality due to scientific or recreational purposes

Mortality from humans

Lack of regulatory mechanisms (e.g. motorized access management, oil & gas development, food storage 

orders/sanitation)

 1 The “active bear year” (time when a grizzly bear is active (i.e., not in the den) differs between the Selkirk 

and Cabinet-Yaak populations. Research on radio-collared bears demonstrated that most bears in the 

Selkirk ecosystem are active between April 1 and November 15th. Conversely, Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bears 

are active between April 1 and November 30th (Johnson 2008).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

244 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

GRIZZLY BEAR RISK FACTORS

Genetic isolation; climate change; willingness of public to accept recovery efforts

Source: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a

The FWS concluded that the major threats to grizzly bears in the Selkirk population at this time 

were incomplete habitat protection measures (motorized access management), inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms including a lack of food storage orders and institutionalized access 

management, high levels of human-caused mortality, small population size, and population 

fragmentation that produces genetic isolation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). Similarly, 

the FWS noted that the major threats to the Cabinet-Yaak population were incomplete habitat 

protection measures, unsustainable human-cause mortality, small population size, and population 

fragmentation that resulted in genetic isolation (Ibid).

Habitat Effectiveness: The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

1993a) identified adequate effective habitat as the most important element in grizzly bear 

recovery. Effective habitat is a reflection of an area’s ability to support grizzly bears based on the 

quality of the habitat and they type/amount of human disturbance imposed on it. Effective habitat 

allows for sufficient space for grizzly bears to roam and effectively use available habitats. By 

definition, effective habitat is an area or space outside or beyond the influence of high levels of 

human activity. Open roads, vegetation and fuels projects, and high-use recreational areas such 

as trails or campground are examples of activities that reduce the amount of secure habitat that is 

available and may result in displacement, habituation, or mortality of bears.

Secure habitat1 is defined as areas greater than 500 meters (0.31 miles) from a motorized route2

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). Unmanaged human use of motorized routes within 

grizzly bear habitat may produce or facilitate several kinds of effects to grizzly bears, including 

the following:

• Displacement from preferred habitat by human activities associated with road use with a 

resultant reduction in habitat availability and potential negative effects on nutrition and 

reproduction;

• Direct shooting mortality via mistaken identity while hunting for black bears or other game 

animals, defense of life actions, poaching for trophy animals, or through malicious killing; 

and

• Lethal attractants (human and animal foods/garbage) that arrive in grizzly bear habitat in 

motorized vehicles (excluding over-snow vehciles) may result in habituated bears that may 

ultimately be removed or euthanized.

Another potential source of motorized access disturbance and displacement to grizzly bears is 

over-snow motorized activity. The FWS noted that “snowmobiling has the potential to disturb 

bears while in their dens and after emergence from their dens in the spring” in their recent 5-year 

review (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). After reviewing the available research and data, 

they concluded that the available data was anecdotal in nature but suggested the primary concern 

is the potential displacement of females with cubs from the immediate vicinity of the den site 

after they emerge in the spring (i.e., Haroldson et al. 2002). However, litter abandonment by 

 1 Also referred to as “core area”

2 Based on research examining the effect of roads and trails used by wheeled motorized vehicles during the 

non-winter months (i.e., passenger vehicles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs)).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 245

grizzlies due to snowmobiling activity has not been documented to date in the lower 48 States 

(Hegg et al. 2010 and Servheen 2010 (as cited in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a)). The 

FWS concluded that “while the potential for disturbance exists, the best available information 

suggests that current levels of snowmobile use are not appreciably reducing the survival or 

recovery of grizzly bears” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). However, they supported 

monitoring efforts focused at adaptive management decisions to “limit snowmobile use in areas 

where disturbance is documented or likely to occur” (Ibid).

Mortality: Human-caused mortality is considered to be one of the leading factors limiting 

grizzly bear recovery in the SCYEs. Human-caused mortality may result from any of the 

following:

• Hunting (legal and mistaken identity) and poaching;

• Attraction of grizzly bears to agricultural operations, improperly stored food, garbage, or 

improperly disposed dead livestock carcasses;

• Increased human occupancy of grizzly bear habitat, causing increased interactions, stress 

and/or self-defense killings;

• Interactions between livestock and grizzly bears leading to depredation on livestock; and

• Direct vehicle collision mortality may occur along major highways and railways within and 

between the recovery zones, both on NFS and private lands.

Human caused mortalities on NFS lands tend to be associated with poaching, mistaken bear 

identification and self-defense often associated with big game hunting activities (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2011b). Other key sources of mortality outside the action area and off NFS 

lands include sanitation/habituation removals in B.C. and deaths dues to highways and railway 

collisions. Grizzly mortalities associated with grazing operations on the IPNF are not an issue.

Hunting on both sides of the international boundary within the recovery zones has the potential 

to add cumulatively to legal, illegal, or mistaken identity mortality of grizzly bears within the 

cumulative effects area. The province of British Columbia and the states of Montana, Idaho, and 

Washington continue to allow hunting for black bears, as well as other wildlife species, on both 

sides of the border within and around the recovery zones. Legal hunting1 of grizzly bears no 

longer occurs but grizzly bears are taken by poachers and occasionally are mistakenly killed 

during the black bear hunting season. As a result, Idaho began a voluntary black bear hunter 

testing and certification program in 2011 to help educate hunters in distinguishing species and 

reducing mistaken identity and reducing grizzly bear mortalities. This effort emulates an effort 

begun by the state of Montana who instituted a mandatory identification test in 2002.

A lack of sanitation measures or the preponderance of unsecured foodstuffs at developed and 

dispersed recreational sites, agricultural operations (i.e., orchards or grain crops), or hunting 

camps within grizzly bear habitat has the potential to habituate grizzly bears to humans. This 

may result in human/grizzly bear encounters and potential death/injury to humans as well as the 

removal or death of the bear.

Regulatory Mechanisms: A lack of regulatory mechanisms, especially in regards to motorized 

access and sanitation, mining development, and livestock grazing, may have significant negative 

effects on the ultimate recovery of grizzly bears (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a).

 1 Hunting of grizzly bears was legal in British Columbia until 2008 (British Colombia Ministry of 

Environment 2008, Mowat 2007, Mowat pers. comm. 2008).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

246 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Motorized access management and its effect on secure habitat (see section above) is one of most 

important regulatory mechanisms available to maintain and/or enhance grizzly bear habitat and

reduce the risk of mortality. Likewise, sanitation storage and removal methods at developed and 

dispersed recreation sites, outfitter or individual hunting camps, and within livestock allotments, 

and/or universal forest-wide food storage orders all reduce the likelihood of habituation and 

subsequent grizzly bear removal or euthanasia. Oil and gas development and the potential for an 

increase in livestock developments within recovery zones also have the potential to negatively 

impact grizzly bear recovery (Ibid).

Genetics, Climate Change, Public Attitudes: Genetic isolation and an associated decrease in 

genetic diversity may reduce a species ability to adapt to selective pressures over time. Small 

populations of grizzly bears, such is the case with the SCYEs, are more likely to be at risk to 

reduced genetic diversity.

Additionally, climate change can potentially alter the distribution and amounts of bear forage by 

altering temperatures and disturbance processes (i.e., fire regimes and insect and disease 

outbreaks) (Ibid). However, he FWS does not anticipate that habitat changes predicted under 

climate change scenarios will directly threaten grizzly bears (Servheen and Cross 2010).

Some people’s attitudes toward grizzly bears are associated with how they view management 

actions (e.g., changes in motorized vehicle access and associated reductions in timber harvest, or 

livestock grazing, or hunting access or food storage orders) done to benefit grizzly bears (Canepa 

et al. 2008). If viewed as a loss of “freedom” to use their national forest, it may result in higher 

mortality risk for grizzly bears. However, in general, there has been an improvement in public 

attitudes toward grizzly bears over the last several decades (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2011a). Effective ‘Information and Education’ programs increase public understanding of grizzly 

bears and reduce the likelihood of bear/human conflicts and bear mortalities while increasing 

human safety (Ibid).

Please see USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2011a) for additional details regarding these five 

threats.

Bear Management Units, Critical Habitat, Bears Outside Recovery Zones, and Available 

Habitat

BMUs: Recovery zones are divided into areas known as Bear Management Units or BMUs, to 

facilitate population monitoring and habitat evaluation with each ecosystem. Each BMU is 

approximately the home range size of an adult female grizzly bear (average size about 100 

square miles) (Christensen and Madel 1982). These BMUs assist in characterizing grizzly bear 

numbers and distribution within each ecosystem as well as analyzing and tracking cumulative 

effects (Ibid, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a).

The U.S. portion of the SRZ is comprised of ten BMUs, including five on the IPNF, four shared 

between the IPNF and CNF, and one BMU located exclusively on the Idaho Department of 

Lands. One of these BMUs, LeClerc, (which is primarily on the CNF with a minor portion on the 

IPNF) is less than 75 percent Federal ownership. Two of these BMUs, Kalispell-Granite and 

Lakeshore, were added to the recovery zone when the Recovery Plan was revised in 1993 due to 

seasonal use by grizzly bears in the mid-to-late 1980s (Servheen et al. 1991, USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1993a). Although portions of the SRZ are within British Columbia, Canada, 

BMUs have not been formally designated in British Columbia.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 247

There are twenty-two BMUs contained within the CYRZ, but only four BMUs are located on the 

IPNF and another two are shared between the KNF and IPNF. The Grouse BMU on the IPNF is 

less than 75 percent Federal ownership.

Critical Habitat: There is no critical habitat designated for grizzly bears.

BORZ: The 1993 Recovery Plan recognized that grizzly bears would occur outside the recovery 

zone lines and that the mere presence of bears outside of the recovery zone line is not sufficient 

reason to change the recovery zone lines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a). In recent years, 

credible observations of grizzly bears and radio-telemetry research data on collared grizzly bears 

have documented use in areas outside of existing recovery zone boundaries. These areas are 

called ‘Bears Outside Recovery Zones’ (BORZ) for the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear 

ecosystems, and they were subsequently incorporated into the amendments to the Kootenai 

(KNF), Idaho Panhandle (IPNF), and Lolo (LNF) National Forest Plans in 2011 (USDA Forest 

Service 2011b and 2011c). While observation data is limited and these habitats have not been 

evaluated to determine if they are of significant biological value it is recognized that on-going 

and future land management activities in these areas could result in adverse effects (e.g.,

incidental take) to grizzly bears (Allen 2011, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b).

A total of seven BORZ areas were identified as part of this process but only three of these are 

located within the action area: two BORZ associated with the SE (Priest Lake and Pack River) 

and one BORZ associated with the CYE (Mission-Moyie). The IPNF administers the majority of 

land included in these BORZ (Allen 2011). The BORZ areas are highly variable in size, ranging 

from less than 53 square miles (Pack River) to nearly 126 square miles (Mission-Moyie). 

Additionally, the boundaries of these areas are not static, but may be adjusted as grizzly bear use 

patterns are reevaluated 1 in future years (Ibid). Potential impacts from the Proposed Action will 

only address the three BORZ located within the action area.

BORZ areas have not been identified by the FWS as areas that are essential to the recovery of 

grizzly bears in the SCYEs and therefore the same set of management standards and conditions 

applicable to BMUs would not be appropriate to apply to these areas. If and when these areas are 

deemed essential they would be formally appended to the Recovery Zones through FWS action.

Available Habitat: Establishing a habitat model for grizzly bears in the Selkirk and CabinetYaak recovery zones has been a high priority of the SCYE Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 

(IGBC 2011). Three seasonal time periods are recognized as being important to grizzly bears in 

the SCYE: spring (April 1st – June 15th); summer (June 16th – September 15th); and fall 

(September 16th – November 15th (SE) or November 30th (CYE) (USDA Forest Service 

2011b). Local research efforts documented habitat preferences of the SCYE grizzly bears, but 

did not result in comprehensive seasonal habitat maps (e.g., Kasworm et al. 2011, Volsen 1994). 

Most recently, Slone (2007) completed an assessment of seasonal habitat use of grizzly bears in 

the SCYEs. However, the two researchers that provided their data to Slone for his assessment 

felt that the Resource Selection Function (RSF) Slone developed did not accurately characterize 

the seasonal habitats in the recovery zones (Wakkinen pers. comm. 2008). Consequently, the 

Forest Service has no detailed seasonal habitat map to rely on for inclusion into the project 

analysis at this time.

 1 The forests coordinate with State and federal agency biologists to collect credible grizzly bear 

observations that occur outside of the recovery zone boundaries and add this information to a 6th order 

HUC data based for inclusion into an annual report to the FWS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

248 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Connectivity

Habitat connectivity within and between the SRZ and CYRZ has been identified as a possible 

factor that influences habitat (Servheen et al. 2003, Proctor et al. 2002 and 2005). Lack of habitat 

connectivity or “linkage” is associated with major highways and railways and the habitat within 

the approach zones near these features. The main “fracture zones” identified in Servheen et al. 

(2003) of concern area as follows: 1) CYRZ – SR-2 and SR-56 and the railway lines that parallel 

SR-2; 2) SRZ – B.C. Highway 3 (in Canada); 3) Between the SRZ and CYRZ – SR-95 and the 

parallel railway; 4) Between the CYRZ and the Bitterroot Mountains – SR-200 and the parallel 

railway; and 5) Between the CYRZ and the NCDRZ – SR-2 and SR-93. SR-95 and portions of 

SR-2 are located within the action area of the Proposed Action.

Additional work is ongoing throughout the Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk, and Bitterroot Recovery 

Zones to further our understanding of linkage and movement (Kasworm et al. 2009). Servheen et 

al. (2001 and 2003) concluded that connectivity between recovery zones will rely on actions 

outside the jurisdiction of the Forests.

Within the IPNF, the “fracture zones” and “linkages” that overlap the Forest are within the SRZ 

(Priest Lake area) and between the SRZ and CYRZ (Highway 95). Although the other “fracture 

zones” listed above may concern the recovery zones that overlap the IPNF, those “fracture 

zones” and “linkages” do not overlap the IPNF. One occurrence of grizzly bear movement 

between the SRZ and CYRZ has been documented and another SRZ bear is suspected of moving 

to the Bitterroot ecosystem (Kasworm and Johnson 2008). In addition, occurrences of bear 

movement between the CYRZ and NCDE have been confirmed (Ibid). Genetic studies are ongoing and at this time incomplete. These studies have not yet determined the relationship 

between these three populations.

Proctor et al. (2012) looked at population fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of 

grizzly bears in the northern US and western Canada. It is important that a small population like 

the Cabinet-Yaak is connected to larger populations in the NCDE and north in Canada to allow 

movement of bears, particularly females, into the CYE.

Current Management for Grizzly Bears

Current grizzly bear management in these ecosystems is governed in part by their threatened 

classification under the Endangered Species Act. Under the ESA no federal actions can cause 

jeopardy of grizzly bears. Interagency grizzly bear management guidelines have been developed 

for these managed lands and are part of the current Forest Plan on the IPNF. In addition the State 

of Montana has a grizzly bear policy (MCA 12.9.103) that outlines policy guidelines for 

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) to promote the conservation of grizzly bears in 

Montana.

Tables 48 and 49 disclose the existing distribution of habitat under the 1987 Plan MA direction 

and the allowable activities and uses within identified grizzly bear habitat per the 1987 Plan MA 

direction and the 2008 IRR. Additionally, 51 and 10 percent of the SRZ and CYRZ (on the 

IPNF) overlaps, respectively, with LAUs. The standards and guidelines in the NRLMD (USDA 

Forest Service 2007) provide additional direction and limits in regards to vegetation treatments 

for lynx that may affect grizzly bear habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 249

Table 48. Grizzly Bear Habitat on NFS Lands by Existing (i.e., 1987 Forest Plan) Management Area 

Direction

Existing Condition (1987 Forest Plan) Management 

Areas (MAs)

Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone

Selkirk Cabinet-Yaak

1 - Timber Production 40,206 2,395

2 - Timber Production within Grizzly Bear habitat 38,066 126,170

3 - Timber Production in Grizzly Bear & Big Game 

Habitat 4,399 12,324

4 - Timber Production within Big Game Winter Range 33,536 692

5 - Big Game Winter Range 0 0

6 - Timber Production within Elk Summer Range 0 0

7 - Caribou Management 116,792 0

9 - Non-Forest lands, lands non-suited 50,030 28,289

10 - Semi-primitive Recreation 33,500 32,801

11 - Existing and Proposed Wilderness 54,726 23,352

12 - Wild and Scenic River Systems 6,005 0

13 - Special Interest Areas 4,420 1,764

14 - RNA 2,876 1,503

15 - Primary Range1

NA 0

16 – Riparian1

NA 0

17 - Developed Recreation Sites 0 0

18 - Administrative Sites1

0 0

19 - Semi-primitive/Timber Production 0 19,295

20 - Semi-primitive unroaded with limited timber harvest 0 0

Total 384,556 248,582

1

Not mapped as an MA

Table 49. Grizzly Bear Habitat by Allowable Uses and Activities under Existing (1987 Forest Plan) 

Management Area Direction and the Idaho Roadless Rule (2008)

Allowable Uses Under the Current Forest Plan 

Management Area Direction

Selkirk RZ Acres (%) Cabinet-Yaak RZ 

Acres (%)

Timber Harvest 296,966 (77) 219,540 (88)

Timber Production 232,261 (60) 142,349 (57)

Commercial Use – Special Forest Products & Firewood 384,556 (100) 248,582 (100)

Personal Use – Special Forest Products & Firewood 384,556 (100) 248,582 (100)

Planned Fire Ignition 377,260 (98) 245,315 (99)

Natural, Unplanned Fire Ignitions to meet Resource 

Objectives

54,726 (14) 23,352 (9)

Grazing 323,8251 (84) 225,2301 (91)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

250 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Allowable Uses Under the Current Forest Plan 

Management Area Direction

Selkirk RZ Acres (%) Cabinet-Yaak RZ 

Acres (%)

Motor Vehicle 320,706 (83) 246,387 (99)

Over-snow Motor Vehicle 2 320,706 (83) 246,387 (99)

Road Construction (permanent or temporary) 284,143 (74) 188,930 (76)

Minerals – Leasable 158,587 (41) 94,194 (38)

Minerals - Materials 348,180 (91) 214,278 (97)

The magnitude of actual use and activity is regulated by the 2007 NRLMD and the 2011 Access Amendment standards 

(USDA Forest Service 2011) as well as other management direction and available budgets 1 With no increase in existing allotments and no sheep on 37,935 of the Selkirk RZ and 138,494 acres of the CabinetYaak RZ

2 Does not include the current court-ordered snowmobile closure in the calculations

The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan identifies recovery goals, objectives, and tasks necessary for 

recovery of the species. Many of these items relate to reducing human-caused mortality. Human 

access by motorized roads and trails can be a contributing factor to human-caused mortality of 

bears. The IGBC provided guidance for developing consistent management standards related to 

management of motorized vehicle access within the SRZ and CYRZ.

Most of the management strategies for grizzly bears are focused on three major themes:

• Management of habitat to ensure grizzly bears have large expanses of suitable 

interconnected lands in which to exist;

• Management related to grizzly/human interactions that most often result in the death of bears 

(and sometimes humans). This is a particularly important concern for female bears because 

their removal may have significant impacts on the demography of isolated populations; and

• Research to determine the population size and trends to ensure that grizzly bear populations 

are not being jeopardized.

The goal for grizzly bear management is to provide sufficient quantity and quality of habitat to 

facilitate grizzly bear recovery. An integral part of the goal is to implement measures within the 

authority of the Forest Service to minimize human-caused grizzly bear mortalities. This goal is 

accomplished by achieving a number of measures.

All of the lands within each recovery zone have been delineated into one of three management 

situations; MS1, MS2, and MS3. MS 1 lands are those areas managed for grizzly bear habitat 

maintenance, improvement and minimization of grizzly-human conflict. Management decisions 

will favor the needs of the grizzly bear when grizzly habitat and other land use values compete. 

MS3 lands include private lands, campgrounds or other lands where grizzly bear presence and 

factors contributing to their presence will be actively discouraged.

Key components of grizzly bear management on the IPNF include motorized access (excluding 

over-snow vehicles) management, sanitation, and information and education of forest visitors.

Access Management (except for over-snow vehicles): Past management actions on NFS lands 

related to motorized access (e.g., timber sales and associated road construction, road 

maintenance, and watershed improvements through sediment reduction from roads – including 

road decommissioning) have led to the existing motorized vehicle route system on the landscape. 

The Forest Plan Amendment for Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 251

Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones (USDA 2011) established standards for core, Open 

Motorized Route Density (OMRD) and Total Motorized Route Density (TMRD) for each BMU 

in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zones. Route densities include both roads and

motorized trails. The standards that were established and their current status are displayed in 

table 50.

The Access Amendment used the best available science for these grizzly bear ecosystems to 

examine core areas, open motorized route density, and total motorized route density (Wakkinen 

and Kasworm 1997, Allen et al. 2011).

Core areas: The requirements of a core area include no motorized access (roads or motorized 

trails) during the active bear season, and a buffer of at least 0.31 miles (or 500 meters) from 

motorized routes (including open or gated roads). The goals are to incur no net loss of core area 

on NFS lands within all BMUs until all BMUs within the ecosystem meet all access standards. 

There is no minimum size for core area blocks in the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak recovery zones 

(USDI 2011 page 13, USDA 2011 Access Amendment FEIS page 78 and 335-340, USDA 2011 

Access Amendment ROD page 60).

Open Motorized Route Density (OMRD) is calculated on a BMU basis using movingwindows analysis.

Total Motorized Route Density (TMRD) is calculated on a BMU basis using moving-windows 

analysis.

The Access Amendment also established timeframes in which all standards in individual BMUs 

in the SRZ and CYRZ would be met. Actual accomplishment dates will depend on management 

priorities, funding, and the completion of required environmental analyses (National 

Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]).

Table 50. Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Bear Management Unit Summary for the 2011 Bear

Bear Management 

Unit

Open Roads >1 

mi/mi2 (%)

Total Roads >2 

mi/mi2 (%)

% Federal 

Land % Core Priority

Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone

1 (Cedar) 15 (15) 8 (15) 99 83 (80) 2

2 (Snowshoe) 18 (20) 16 (18) 94 77 (75) 2

3 (Spar) 30 (33) 26 (26) 95 62 (59) 3

4 (Bull) 38 (36) 29 (26) 84 62(63) 2

5 (St. Paul) 29 (30) 23 (23) 97 58 (60) 1

6 (Wanless) 32 (34) 34 (32) 85 53 (55) 1

7 (Silver Butte) 24 (26) 23 (23) 92 63 (63) 2

8 (Vermilion) 32 (32) 24 (20) 93 55 (55) 3

9 (Calahan) 28 (33) 27 (26) 90 58 (55) 2

10 (Pulpit) 45 (44) 27 (34) 95 54 (52) 2

11 (Roderick) 28 (28) 27 (26) 96 54 (55) 1

12 (Newton) 43 (45) 32 (31) 92 56 (55) 1

13 (Keno) 33 (33) 25 (26) 99+ 59 (59) 1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

252 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Bear Management 

Unit

Open Roads >1 

mi/mi2 (%)

Total Roads >2 

mi/mi2 (%)

% Federal 

Land % Core Priority

14 (NW Peak) 28 (31) 26 (26) 99+ 56 (55) 1

15 (Garver) 31 (33) 26 (26) 94 54 (55) 1

16 (EF Yaak) 29 (33) 27 (26) 96 54 (55) 1

17 (Big Creek) 31 (33) 16 (26) 99 56 (55) 2

18 (Boulder) 34 (33) 35 (29) 92 49 (55) 3

19 (Grouse)3 60 (59) 59 (55) 54 32 (37) 3

20 (North Lightning) 35 (35) 19 (20) 94 64 (61) 1

21 (Scotchman) 37 (34) 27 (26) 81 63 (62) 2

22 (Mt. Headley) 38 (33) 37 (35) 89 51 (55) 3

Selkirk Recovery Zone

Blue Grass 35 (33) 28 (26) 96 50 (55) 1

Long-Smith 21 (25) 14 (15) 92 73 (67) 1

Kalispell-Granite 36 (33) 27 (26) 96 52 (55) 1

Salmo-Priest 30 (33) 24 (26) 99 67 (64) 2

Sullivan-Hughes 25 (24) 19 (19) 99 63 (61) 1

Myrtle 30 (33) 20 (22) 85 60 (56) 2

Ball-Trout 18 (20) 11 (13) 94 72 (69) 2

Lakeshore 81 (82) 50 (56) 86 21(20) 3

Le Clerc4 46 58 64 27 3

Administrative use limitations are applied on individual roads. The Access Amendment 

established the amount of administrative use that may occur on each individual gated road within 

the recovery zone, based on the bear year (spring, summer, and fall). Each district retains a count 

of use that occurs by road and reports that information to the USFWS.

Motorized access is also a concern in the (afore mentioned) BORZ. There are three areas (BORZ 

polygons) on IPNFs near the CYRZ and SRZ. Within each polygon, baseline conditions have 

been established for linear miles of open roads and total roads. The Access Amendment 

established that there will be no net increase in either open or total road linear miles above these 

baseline conditions. Baseline conditions are displayed in table 51.

Table 51. Bear Year 2011 Motorized Access Conditions for Bears Outside of Recovery Zone 

(BORZ) Areas Situated on the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai National Forests

BORZ Name Grizzly Bear 

Ecosystem

National 

Forest

Total

Size

(Acres)

NFS1

Lands 

(Acres)

Total Roads on

NFS Lands

(Linear Miles) 

2011/20102

Open Roads on

NFS Lands 

(Linear Miles)

2011/20102

Priest Selkirk IPNF 80,733 75,793 316.4 (316.4) 314.4 (314.4)

Pack River Selkirk IPNF 33,869 28,097 37.7 (41.9) 33.7 (37.9)

MissionMoyieCabinet-Yaak IPNF 71,545 58,472 200.3 (200.3) 167.3 (167.3)

1 National Forest System Lands

2 2010 represents the environmental baseline identified in the amendments to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 

2011b and 2011c)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 253

Tables 52 and 53 disclose the existing distribution of acreages within the three BORZ areas 

under the 1987 Plan MA direction and the associated allowable activities. Additionally, 27 and 

62 percent of the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem BORZ (on the IPNF) overlaps, 

respectively, with LAUs. The standards and guidelines in the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 

2007) provide additional direction and limits in regards to vegetation treatments for lynx that 

may affect vegetation within the BORZ.

Table 52. Bears Outside Recovery Zone (BORZ) Area on NFS Lands by Existing (i.e., 1987 Forest 

Plan) Management Area Direction

Existing Condition (1987 Forest Plan)

Management Areas (MAs)

Grizzly Bear BORZ

Selkirk Cabinet-Yaak

1 - Timber Production 79,192 35,182

2 - Timber Production within Grizzly Bear habitat 376 68

3 - Timber Production in Grizzly Bear & Big Game 

Habitat 0 0

4 - Timber Production within Big Game Winter Range 13,043 8,663

5 - Big Game Winter Range 0 0

6 - Timber Production within Elk Summer Range 0 0

7 - Caribou Management 3,631 0

9 - Non-Forest lands, lands non-suited 4,512 14,229

10 - Semi-primitive Recreation 2,900 0

11 - Existing and Proposed Wilderness 0 0

12 - Wild and Scenic River Systems 0 0

13 - Special Interest Areas 0 0

14 - RNA 1 2

15 - Primary Range1

0 0

16 – Riparian1

0 0

17 - Developed Recreation Sites 0 0

18 - Administrative Sites1

0 0

19 - Semi-primitive/Timber Production 0 0

20 - Semi-primitive unroaded with limited timber harvest 0 0

Total 103,655 58,143

The Selkirk ecosystem BORZ includes Priest and Pack River while the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem includes the MissionMoyie BORZ. The suitability of these acres for grizzly bears is unknown
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

254 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 53. Bears Outside Recovery Zone (BORZ) Areas on NFS Lands by Allowable Uses and 

Activities under Existing (1987 Forest Plan) Management Area Direction and the Idaho Roadless 

Rule (2008)

Allowable Uses Under the Current Forest Plan 

Management Area Direction

Selkirk BORZ Acres 

(%)

Cabinet-Yaak BORZ 

Acres (%)

Timber Harvest 103,654 58,143

Timber Production 96,242 43,914

Commercial Use – Special Forest Products & 

Firewood

103,655 58,143

Personal Use – Special Forest Products & Firewood 103,655 58,143

Planned Fire Ignition 103,654 58,143

Natural, Unplanned Fire Ignitions to meet Resource 

Objectives

0 0

Grazing 103,655 58,143

Motor Vehicle 103,655 58,143

Over-snow Motor Vehicle 103,655 58,143

Road Construction (permanent or temporary) 103,654 58,143

Minerals – Leasable 103,279 58,075

Minerals - Materials 100,754 58,143

The magnitude of actual use and activity is regulated by the 2007 NRLMD and the 2011 Access Amendment standards 

(USDA Forest Service 2011b and 2011c) as well as other management direction and available budgets. The Selkirk 

ecosystem BORZ includes Priest and Pack River while the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem includes the Mission-Moyie BORZ. 

The suitability of these acres for grizzly bears is unknown

Sanitation: The presence of food attractants may result in bear/human encounters that often lead 

to the relocation or the death of the bear. After the two BMUs were added to the SRZ in the 

Priest Lake area in 1994 (i.e., Kalispell-Granite and Lakeshore), it was recognized that the 

increasing negative incidents of black bear encounters with humans due to poor sanitation 

practices on NFS and private lands in the area may result in habituation and/or death of a grizzly 

bear. Since 1998, there has been a concerted effort to improve sanitation on NFS lands 

throughout the ecosystem, with many campgrounds retrofitted—or scheduled to be retrofitted—

with bear resistant garbage and/or food storage containers to reduce encounters and the potential 

for habituation. To date, there have been no grizzly bear deaths associated with food attractants 

on IPNF lands in the Selkirk or Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone. Additionally, all resort and 

recreation residence special use permits renewals in-or-near the recovery zones boundaries 

incorporate sanitation guidelines as part of the special use permit1

. Finally, all four Forests that 

encompass these two recovery zones have implemented mandatory food storage orders that 

assist in minimizing this impact (USDA Forest Service 1989a, 2011d, 2011e).

Public Education: Public education is an important element of any program designed to reduce 

grizzly bear mortalities. Through education, people can learn to live in a way that is more 

compatible with the needs and behaviors of bears. Education programs can reduce bear 

mortalities in instances of self-defense and habituation to unnatural foods. The IPNF and 

cooperating agencies (Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Department of Lands) 

 1 According to Forest Service records, there has been one black bear/sanitation incidences associated with 

the Forest Service recreation residences. This involved a black bear breaking into an outhouse.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 255

maintain and financially support a regular program of public information and education within 

the SRZ and CYRZ.

Key Stressors Affecting Grizzly Bears

Of the management activities allowed under the Proposed Action, motorized access and 

associated road construction, mineral extraction, livestock grazing and timber harvest are the key 

stressors to grizzly bears. Planned fire ignitions are typically associated with timber harvest; 

therefore it is considered interrelated and interconnected to timber harvest. Conversely, natural 

ignitions may have impacts on grizzly bear habitat but are not completely within the Forest’s 

ability to stop or reduce all impacts. Both of these topics are considered under the heading of 

Fire. Improperly stored attractants associated with livestock grazing, special use permittees, 

recreation residences, outfitter and guide hunting activities, and livestock grazing activities is 

also considered a key stressor to grizzly bears. The latter is discussed where it may occur under 

the appropriate allowable management activity (i.e., grazing) that is part of the Proposed Action.

Finally, collection of other forest products is allowed under the Proposed Action. This activity is 

typically interrelated and interconnected to motorized access.

Road Construction and Motorized Access: The relationship between grizzly bears and roads 

has been studied extensively (i.e., Aune and Kasworm 1989, Kasworm and Manley 1990, Mace 

and Manley 1993, Mace et al. 1996, Mace and Waller 1997, Mattson et al. 1987, McLellan and 

Shackleton 1988, Wakkinen and Kasworm 1997, Schwartz et al. 2010). Unmanaged human use 

of motorized roads and trails within occupied grizzly bear habitat may produce or facilitate 

several kinds of adverse effects to grizzly bears, including the following:

• Bears may be displaced from preferred habitat by the human disturbance associated with 

road use, with a resultant reduction in habitat availability and quality and potential effects on 

nutrition and reproduction;

• Direct shooting resulting in injury or mortality may occur through mistaken identity for 

black bears or other game animals, through defense of life actions, through poaching for 

trophy animals, and through malicious killings;

• Attractants (human and animal foods and garbage) brought into grizzly bear habitat in 

motorized vehicles may result in habituated bears that may eventually need to be destroyed, 

or may result in human/bear conflicts that result in a poor outcome for the bear;

• Some bears may become conditioned to the presence of vehicles and humans on roads and 

thus become more vulnerable to direct mortality through the means identified above; and

• Direct vehicle collision mortality may occur along major highways within and between the 

SRZ and CYRZ, both on NFS and private lands.

Habitat security is an important element of grizzly bear management, helping to minimize 

human-caused bear mortalities and displacement from preferred habitats. By definition, security 

habitat is an area or space outside or beyond the influence of high levels of human activity. 

Motorized access is an important component of providing sufficient secure and effective habitat 

for grizzly bears. Motor vehicle use on roads under the existing condition and the Proposed 

Action within grizzly bear habitat is guided by the Access Amendment. The Access Amendment 

set criteria for such things as administrative use on gated roads, OMRD, TMRD, and Core within 

the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak ecosystems (SCYE). It also sets caps on the linear miles of road 

within the BORZ areas.

Motorized Over-snow Access: Over-snow vehicles are considered to be motorized vehicles and 

presumably are somewhat similar in their disturbance effects to grizzly bears as other motorized 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

256 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

vehicles. However, direct or indirect impacts from over snow vehicles to hibernating bears are 

not well documented. Additionally, because the potential response of individual bears to 

disturbance in winter varies greatly from no response to den abandonment, the possible impacts 

to individual bears is difficult to measure. Therefore, the disturbance intensity and the severity of 

over snow vehicle use on grizzly bears are difficult to quantify or describe directly.

In 2000, scientists, wildlife managers and academia participated in a workshop to assess the 

effects of over-snow vehicles on wildlife, including grizzly bears (Graves and Reams 2001). The 

participants discussed possible effects to bears and determine that impacts to grizzly bears from 

over snow vehicles during den emergent posed a greater threat than those to denning bears. As 

mentioned previously, this conclusion was supported by the FWS in their recent 5-year review 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a), specifically “Our best information suggests that current 

levels of snowmobile use are not appreciably reducing the survival or recovery of grizzly bears.” 

Also in the 5-year review, USFWS stated, “We found no studies in the literature specifically 

addressing the effects of snowmobile use on any denning bear species and the information that is 

available is anecdotal in nature.” Additionally, they supported monitoring efforts focused at 

adaptive management decisions to “limit snowmobile use in areas where disturbance is 

documented or likely to occur” (Ibid).

A key component of understanding the potential impact to grizzly bears from over snow vehicles 

is addressing the expected level of use and distribution of over snow vehicles across the 

landscape, particularly during den emergence. On the IPNF during the month of November, 

over-snow vehicle use is rare to non-existent due to the lack of snow or poor snow conditions. 

Over-snow vehicle use begins to increase starting in December and decreases in March, with the 

peak of use being January and February. During the month of April, over-snow vehicle use is 

minimal based on decreasing snowpacks and avalanche danger, with local, dedicated users 

attempting to access high elevation openings. Over-snow vehicle use continues to be rare to nonexistent in May due to the lack of snow or the lack of drivable access to areas containing 

sufficient snow due to soft roadbed conditions. Even during the highest peaks of over-snow 

vehicle use, activity is far greater on weekends along established routes and use areas than at any 

other time or location. During the week or in off trail areas there is a precipitous drop in oversnow vehicle use1

.

Mineral Extraction Activities: Generally, the impacts of mining on terrestrial wildlife species, 

including grizzly bears, result from the habitat loss and degradation from the footprint of the 

mining operation, required infrastructure (i.e., road construction and development), and the 

human disturbance where individuals are displaced from key habitats. All of these activities 

result in a decrease in habitat security for grizzly bears.

There are no major mining operations on the IPNF at this time. Known oil and gas deposits on 

the IPNF, and geothermal energy potential is very low. As such, little commercial interest in 

leasing for such resources is anticipated. Future development of locatable minerals is expected to 

be very limited within the action area. However, there are active and planned major mining 

activities in the CRZ outside the action area on the KNF (i.e., Rock Creek, Montanore, and Troy 

Mines).

Livestock Grazing: The 1975 listing identified “...livestock use of surrounding national 

forests” as detrimental to grizzly bears “...unless management measures favoring the species are 

 1 Data is based on on-the-ground monitoring by recreation and law enforcement staff as well as some 

aerial monitoring.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 257

enacted” (Federal Register 1975). The FWS noted in their 5-year review that grizzly bears 

frequently coexist with cattle without depredating them but often depredate on sheep (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2011a). This may lead to relocation or removal of the bear. Additionally, 

cattle or sheep that die on the allotment from natural or other causes and are subsequently 

scavenged by a grizzly bear have the potential to habituate bears to livestock as a food source 

(Servheen 1981, Aune and Stivers 1983).

Cattle grazing are currently permitted in two allotments that overlap BMUs in the SRZ (14,328 

acres) on the Forest. There is no opportunity to increase the number of allotments allowed within 

most of the grizzly bear habitat that would be suitable for grazing within the two recovery zones

under the current Forest Plan. Furthermore, there are no known incidents of grizzly bears 

depredating on cows in these allotments. Grazing permits include sanitation measures to reduce 

the likelihood of bears becoming habituated to livestock carcasses.

Timber Harvest: In general, grizzly bears are considered habitat generalists, where the most 

important habitat characteristics revolve around the availability of sufficient food resources and 

areas free from human disturbance (i.e., secure habitat). In the absence of the large wildfires 

(which was common before fire exclusion practices) silviculture methods can provide similar 

early seral plant communities (Johnson and Gautreaux 2008). However, timber harvest has the 

potential to alter both habitat quality/quantity and the amount of human disturbances as follows 

(IGBC 1987):

• Vegetation management, including timber cutting, in grizzly bear habitat may alter forest 

conditions sufficiently to change the composition, distribution, and abundance of forage for 

grizzly bears;

• Existing water regimes may be indirectly impacted by timber harvest activities, where 

changes in surface and/or subsurface water movement and/or distribution contribute to 

changes in key grizzly bear foraging habitats, such as carex spp. Meadows;

• Timber cutting activities that require construction of new roads or reconstruction of currently 

un-drivable roads may increase human access to grizzly bear habitat previously remote from 

such activities, which as discussed above, has the potential to increase grizzly bear mortality 

where human/bear interactions result; and

• Timber cutting activities in and of themselves introduce human disturbance into the 

environment during implementation, which can displace bears from key habitats, at least 

temporarily.

However, timber harvest is usually associated with road construction and multiple years of 

harvest and post-harvest activities which create disturbance and cause grizzlies to avoid the area. 

Additionally, many timber harvest operations include helicopter logging. If the latter occurs in 

grizzly bear core habitat, it can affect grizzly bears resulting in their displacement (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2010).

The acres of grizzly bear habitat where timber harvest will be allowed are reduced under the 

Proposed Action in both recovery zones on the IPNF but remain unchanged in the BORZs. This 

will reduce the disturbance, displacement and potential mortality risk associated with motorized 

access, helicopter logging, and harvest/post-harvest activities.

Fire (natural ignitions, planned ignitions): Seral plant communities, which historically 

originated from wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks, provide many key grizzly bear foods. 

Fire in grizzly bear habitat can be beneficial or detrimental depending on when and where it 

occurs, and the scale at which it occurs. In general, fire is thought to have a positive effect on 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

258 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

grizzly bear habitat and the decline of grizzly bear populations has been attributed to fire 

suppression (Contreras and Evans 1986 and Tirmenstein 1983). Grizzly bears are an 

opportunistic species with very large home ranges and their populations change little in response 

to fire (Smith 2000). Fires promote and maintain many important berry-producing shrubs and 

forbs and provide a medium for insects and sometimes carrion (associated primarily with very 

large fires). However, fire can also affect other food sources such as the availability of whitebark 

pine nuts. So, although grizzly bears may benefit from improved habitat quality due to periodic 

burns, a very large fire could destroy key habitats resulting in habitat fragmentation (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2011b).

Conversely, fire suppression throughout the western U.S. over the past 50 to 100 years has 

substantially altered the natural succession of many forested ecosystems, whereas early 

successional forest stages have been reduced or eliminated (Lee and Jonkel 1981, Zager 1980 (as 

cited in IGBC 1987)). Such changes have likely impacted the availability of many key forage 

species for bears. Use of prescribed fire has the potential to improve grizzly bear habitat, 

particularly where it creates openings which can support berries, bulbs and other important 

grizzly foods, reduces conifer encroachment into brushfields, meadow habitats and highelevation whitebark pine1 stands, and increases understory plant growth where nutrients are 

released from conifer litter.

Most prescribed burning in grizzly bear habitat on the IPNF has been associated with postharvest treatments although there have been a few landscape prescribed burns in recent years to 

promote habitat improvement for big game winter range and whitebark pine restoration. Shortterm adverse effects to grizzly bears from prescribed fire could occur where implementation 

overlaps grizzly bear activity in space and time. Limited operating periods applied at the project 

level may assist in minimizing negative effects during periods of high grizzly bear use.

Other Forest Products: Other Forest Products includes personal and commercial firewood 

collection, limited personal use permits for such items as rocks and trees, and all other 

unpermitted use of forest products such as huckleberry or mushroom collection. Generally, the 

collection of forest products occurs in close proximity to roads and the density of people 

engaged in this activity diminishes with increasing distance from a road or trail. Disturbance and 

displacement due to human activity and motorized use would be the main effect from the 

collection of forest products (see effects from motorized access above). There may be some loss 

of resources for bears due to the collection of forest products (mushrooms or berries), but again, 

the areas where collection would be likely to occur would be near roads. Bears would be less 

likely to use resources near roads due to this disturbance.

Past and Ongoing Impacts Associated with Key Stressors

Timber Harvest, Unplanned and Planned Fire Ignitions: Seral plant communities, which 

historically originated from wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks, provided many key 

grizzly bear foods. In the absence of the large wildfires (which was common before fire 

exclusion practices) silviculture methods can provide similar plant communities (Johnson and 

Gautreaux 2008).

The quantity and distribution of grizzly habitat has changed over time on the Forest due, in part, 

to fire suppression over the last several decades. Conversely, timber harvest over the last several 

 1 Unlike the situation in the GYE and parts of the NCDE where whitebark pines can be an important part 

of the grizzly bear population diet, whitebark pine is not a key food source in the SCYEs (page A-35 in 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011b).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 259

decades created seral conditions that may provide excellent grizzly forage, but was usually in 

close proximity to high road densities and likely avoided by bears. Approximately 14,100 acres 

of timber harvest has occurred within the two recovery zones since the 1987 Forest Plan was 

implemented. The lower elevation, drier forests have been the most impacted by fire suppression 

which likely contributes to lower forage availability on spring range. In addition, approximately 

14,561 acres of timber harvest occurred within the BORZ since the Forest Plan was 

implemented. This includes 6,209 acres and 8,352 acres in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak BORZ, 

respectively.

Since 1987, 3,695 wildfire events have burned approximately 24,000 acres across the Forest.

Seven hundred and forty-three of these events occurred within BMUs and burned approximately 

13,300 acres. This includes 473 (9,745 acres) and 263 (3,567 acres) fire events in the Selkirk and 

Cabinet-Yaak recovery zones, respectively. These fire events provide opportunities for creation 

of important early seral habitat for grizzly bears, where extensive huckleberry shrub fields (e.g.,

the SRZ 1967 Trapper Creek burn) can provide key seasonal habitat for local grizzly bear 

populations (Volsen 1994). In addition, there were 190 fire events that occurred within the 

BORZ and burned approximately 221 acres. This includes 106 (168 acres) and 84 (52 acres) fire 

events in the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak BORZs, respectively.

Most prescribed burning in grizzly bear habitat has been associated with post-harvest treatments 

although there have been a few landscape prescribed burns in recent years. Since 1987, the IPNF 

has completed 1,342 planned prescribed burns covering 47,000 acres, with approximately 600 

acres of treatment occurring within three BMUs in the two recovery zones. Another 193 

prescribed fires were ignited within the BORZ during this same time period that burned 

approximately 3,573 acres. This includes 166 (2,920 acres) and 27 (654 acres) fire events in the 

Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak BORZs, respectively.

Motorized Over-snow Routes: There are 14 miles of groomed routes located in approximately 

118,200 acres of available modeled grizzly bear denning1 habitat within the SRZ portion of the 

action area. Additionally, there are 26 miles of groomed trails within 74,750 acres of modeled 

grizzly bear denning habitat within the CYRZ portion of the IPNF. Off-route use occurs on 

approximately 7,440 and 24,600 acres of the IPNF portion of the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak

recovery zones, respectively. Both on and off-route snowmobile travel combined occurs on about 

six and 192 percent of modeled denning habitat on the IPNF portion of the SRZ and CYRZs, 

respectively. However, the actual magnitude and location of this use during the post-emergence 

period (i.e., after April 1) is greatly reduced due to a combination of limited public participation 

and snow conditions. Table 54 summarizes the existing over-snow motorized access within 

BMUs and denning habitat on the IPNF. Snowmobiling also occurs on approximately 95 miles 

of groomed trails in the Priest and Pack River BORZ. There are no groomed trails within the 

Mission-Moyie BORZ.

The IPNF is in the process of completing a Winter Travel Plan that addresses over-snow 

motorized use in the SRZ. It is anticipated that this will be completed in the next two-to-four 

years.

 1 Grizzly bear denning habitat was modeled separately for the two ecosystems using local research data. 2 Over-snow motorized use occurs on approximately nine percent of the entire Cabinet-Yaak recovery 

zone.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

260 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 54. Current Motorized Over-snow Access within Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones on the IPNF

Type of Allowed Access Selkirk Recovery Zone Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone

BMU Denning BMU1 Denning

Total Area with the IPNF (acres) 384,560 118,200 247,460 74,760

Total Area where Over-snow Use is 

Allowed (acres)2 320,700 99,960 246,400 74,760

Groomed Over-snow Routes (miles) 1303 143 86 9

Over-snow Motorized Use (acres)2 19,9303 & 4 7,4403 & 4 47,740 14,250

1 Includes IPNF data from the Boulder, Grouse, North Lightning, Northwest Peaks, Keno, and Scotchman BMUs only. 

Total recovery zone=1,649,300 acres; total denning=489,720 acres

2 Many of these areas have limited accessibility for snowmobiling off-route due to tree densities and topography (USDA 

Forest Service 2011b and 2011c) 3 The Selkirk Recovery Zone includes the 2007 federal court order to protect woodland caribou, which will be lifted once 

winter travel planning is complete (likely 2014-15). The current use reflects this closure 4 Motorized over-snow activities is precluded on 95 percent of these acres from March 15 – 30 or April 1 – June 30 under 

closure orders to protect grizzly bears

Livestock Grazing: In 1979, there were 73 allotments on the IPNF with the majority of forage 

produced on 7,500 acres of meadow and permanent grasslands. The 1987 Forest Plan permitted 

livestock use to be 6,700 AUMs. However, cattle grazing have been declining on the Forest, with 

an average of only 3,086 AUMs from 1996 through 2009. Today there are only 14 allotments on 

the Forest with a total of 2,375 AUMs. This decline can be attributed to the re-growth of trees on 

transitory range, changing patterns of private lands use, and rising industry costs that make small 

allotments uneconomical. The number of allotments and number of AUMs is expected to remain 

the same over the next 10-15 years (see the “Range” section).

There are two cattle grazing allotments covering 14,328 acres of grizzly bear habitat situated in 

two BMUs within the IPNF Proposed Action Area. No increase in livestock operations within 

grizzly bear habitat located in MA2 and MA3 (181,378) is allowed under the existing Forest 

Plan direction. The IGBC Guidelines concerning grazing are used in managing these allotments 

(IGBC 1986).

Portions of two additional cattle grazing allotments (approximately 3,930 acres) are situated in 

the Priest River BORZ within the IPNF Proposed Action Area.

Minerals (Locatable and Materials): There are no major mining operations on the IPNF at this 

time. There are currently 1,232 Plans of Operations for locatable minerals on the IPNF. Of these, 

17 are located in grizzly bear recovery zones (SRZ=4; CYRZ=13) and 14 are located in BORZ 

(Selkirk1

=3; Cabinet-Yaak2=11). The majority of on-going activities are related to maintenance 

of existing facilities. Most locatable mineral operations are less than five acres in size. Potential 

for future mineral discovery is considered “low.”

There are approximately 434 active mineral material pits and quarries within the IPNF and of 

these 62 sites are located in the recovery zones (SRZ=26; CYRZ=36) and 19 are located in the 

BORZ (Selkirk=8; Cabinet-Yaak=11). Sites are typically from less than one acre to five acres in 

size.

 1 Priest River and Pack River BORZs

2 Mission-Moyie BORZ
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 261

There are no leasable minerals located on the IPNF at this time and potential is considered 

“low.”

Other On-Going Activities within the Project Area

Recreational Activities: The IPNF is easily accessed and has a growing and changing visitor 

base. Most of the visitation is local with strong ties to the Forest. Traditional uses include hiking, 

hunting, fishing, gathering, biking, water-based camping, and boating. Winter activities are snow 

dependent and focus on snowmobiling.

Outdoor recreation is the fastest growing use within the national forest and it is a use that is 

expected to increase in the future. Since the 1980, both motorized and non-motorized recreation 

use of the roads, trails, and general forest areas have increased. Food, horse, and mountain bike 

travel have increased, and to a lesser degree, cross-country and backcountry skiing receive use as 

well.

Hunting in the United States and Canada: The province of British Columbia and the states1 of 

Montana, Idaho, and Washington continue to allow hunting for black bears, as well as other 

wildlife species, on both sides of the border within-and-around the SRZ and CYRZ2

, although 

black bear hunting seasons have also been shortened in recent years. Idaho prohibits baiting and 

hunting bear with hounds in grizzly bear recovery zones3

, and has supported a grizzly bear law 

enforcement and education position in the SRZ to facilitate public education and hunter 

awareness since 1990 (Allen-Johnson 1991, Wakkinen et al. 2009). Hunting of grizzly bears in 

British Columbia is no longer permitted in the areas north of the SRZ and CYRZ (G. Mowat 

pers. comm. 2008, British Columbia Ministry of Environment 2008, Mowat 2007).

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks instituted a voluntary bear identification course for hunters in 

2001 and made it mandatory in 2002 to assist with reducing grizzly bear mortality within the 

state. The states agencies for Idaho and Washington recently instituted a voluntary program in 

their respective states (IGBC SCYE 2011).

Special Use Permits (SUPs) and Agreements: Special use authorizations permit occupancy and 

use on NFS lands by federal, state and locate agencies, private industry, and individuals. 

Recreation special use permits are of particular interest in evaluating effects to grizzly bears due 

to their proximity to grizzly bear habitat and their potential to create sanitation issues or generate 

some level of disturbance or displacement. The IPNF currently has 190 recreation Special Use 

Permits and agreements (see the “Access and Recreation” section). One hundred and forty-five 

of these are recreation residences with 119 of these are located in the Priest Lake area in-or-near 

the SRZ boundary. In addition, three resorts operate in the Priest Lake area but these are not 

located within the recovery zone boundary. All of these SUPs include sanitation guidelines4

.

There are seven challenge-cost share agreements that permit winter grooming of snowmobile 

trails on the IPNF, and two of these are located in grizzly bear habitat. Outfitter and Guides (for 

hunting and fishing) also operate on NFS lands under special use permit. This includes two 

outfitter and guides which operate within the SRZ with one of these extending their operations 

 1 State fish and game agencies include Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

2 The states complete consultation with the FWS for these activities.

3 IDF&G is allowing 15 permit holders to hunt with dogs in portions of Unit 1 that include Priest Lake and 

Mission-Moyie BORZ areas in 2012. 4 All residential SUPs expired in 2008. Sanitation guidelines were subsequently included in all reissued 

SUPs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

262 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

into the Priest Lake BORZ. Three additional outfitter and guides operate in the CYRZ. Three of 

these Outfitter and Guides are allowed to use snowmobiles as part of their permit (i.e., two in the 

SRZ; one in the CYRZ).

The permitting of special uses will not be changed with implementation of the Proposed Action, 

including the requirement for a permit specific analysis for any renewals or modifications to 

existing permits or proposed new permits to insure compliance with the Forest Plan.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Attractants: A mandatory food storage order was implemented in 2011 for the Sandpoint, 

Bonners Ferry, and Priest Lake Ranger Districts. This applies to all alternatives, including 

Alternative A. Additionally, under the action alternatives, FW-STD-WL-03 states that permits 

and operating plans should have sanitation measures included to reduce wildlife/human conflicts 

by making attractants inaccessible through proper storage and disposal. This would include 

garbage, food, and livestock carcasses.

Motorized Routes: Current management of roads within grizzly bear habitat is guided by the 

Access Amendment. This would be also true under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D. Under the 

action alternatives, FW-DC-WL-02, FW-DC-WL-04 and 05, FW-DC-WL-07, FW-STD-WL-02, 

MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA1e-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL01, MA5-DC-WL-01, GA-DC-WL-LK-03, and GA-DC-WL-PO-02, GA-DC-WL-PR-02,GADC-WL-SJ-01 reduce the possibility of road related impacts by creating security habitat with 

lower human presence due to lack of motorized access. This security habitat provides areas on 

the Forest where bears can escape the disturbance associated with roads. The chance of 

persecution and therefore poaching would be less in these areas compared to those with open 

roads.

FW-STD-WL-02 in particular would be useful for minimizing road impacts to grizzly bears 

because it states that the Access Amendment would be applied. Motorized routes facilitate 

human access, so limiting the availability of motorized routes provides more habitat for bears 

where the likelihood of human presence would be lower. Non-motorized access can still occur 

throughout the IPNF, and although there would be still a chance of human-bear interactions 

resulting in disturbance to the bears, there would be a lower probability due to lower human 

densities in those areas without motorized routes. There are also wilderness, roadless, and other 

areas with limited or unlikely motorized use and therefore places where disturbed bears can shift 

their habitat use. FW-DC-WL-18 and FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17 would reduce the impacts of 

roads on connectivity.

There would be no change in roads or trails open to motorized use in the alternatives. The acres 

available for cross-country motorized use would also not change. There would be a difference in 

the acreage where roads/trails may be designated for motorized use. Within the grizzly bear 

recovery zones (633,138 acres total), Alternative C (486,448 acres motorized; 77 percent) would 

have the least acreage allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (502,653 

acres motorized; 79 percent), D (520,341 acres motorized; 82 percent) and A (567,093 acres

motorized; 90 percent). The acreage where road construction (both temporary and permanent) 

could occur would be greatest under Alternatives D (516,863 acres), followed by B Modified 

(500,975 acres), Alternative C (486,449 acres) and A (473,073 acres).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 263

Livestock Grazing: FW-GDL-WL-18 states that the elements in the IGBC Guidelines would be 

applied, which includes direction on grazing. The IGBC Guidelines also applies under current 

management. Grazing does not occur on a lot of the Forest, and all grazing permits would have 

sanitation measures to reduce attractants that would cause a human/livestock/bear conflict (FWSTD-WL-03). FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that grazing occurs at sustainable levels while protecting 

resources and FW-DC-WL-03 states that recovery of threatened and endangered species would 

be the long-term desired condition. If any livestock/grizzly problems occur in the future, this 

direction from the revised Plan would aid in resolving the conflict.

Motorized Over-snow: This would be primarily a concern during spring emergence (essentially 

the month of April). Alternative A would have acres open to over-snow motorized use. Under the 

action alternatives, FW-DC-WL-01 states that dens for threatened and endangered species are 

relatively free of human disturbance when they are in use. With FW-DC-WL-03 recovery of 

threatened and endangered species would be the long-term desired condition. FW-DC-WL-04 

also states that low levels of disturbance exist in BMUs to facilitate bear use such as denning. 

FW-GDL-WL-01 restricts activities during spring emergence where predicted denning habitat 

occurs.

Alternative C (486,449 acres over-snow motorized) would have the least acreage of grizzly bear 

habitat located within the recovery zones allowing over-snow motorized use, followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (520,300 acres over-snow motorized), D (527,617 acres over-snow 

motorized) and A (567,093 acres over-snow motorized)1

.

Only 6-9 percent of modeled grizzly bear denning habitat current has snowmobile use during 

spring emergence in the CYRZ and 6 percent of the SRZ. Alternative B Modified would 

potentially reduce this figure even lower.

FW-STD-WL-04 states that no grooming of snowmobile routes in grizzly core habitat would 

occur in the spring after April 1 of each year. This would reduce the chance that disturbance 

could occur during spring emergence due to snowmobile use.

Mining FW-GDL-WL-18 states that the elements in the IGBC Guidelines would be applied; this 

includes direction on minerals activities. Major mining activities (i.e., Rock Creek, Montanore, 

and Troy Mines on the KNF) are active or are planned in the CYRZ. Each of these projects 

includes a substantial mitigation plan that addresses multiple risk factors including changes in 

motorized vehicle access, potential displacement, attractants, and law enforcement. These 

changes are not expected to provide security levels above those in the decision for the Access 

Amendment, but rather are expected to assure achievement of proposed standards, which result 

in an improvement over existing conditions.

FW-DC-WL-01, FW-DC-WL-03, and FW-DC-WL-04 would reduce impacts to grizzly bears. 

Additionally, the Access Amendment (applied through FW-STD-WL-02) set access standards 

that each BMU would trend towards, so mitigation would likely entail offsetting any increases in 

access and decreases in core habitat. FW-DC-WL-18 and FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17 would 

reduce the impacts of a high use haul/supply route on connectivity if that was considered an 

issue.

 1 There is virtually no difference in the amount acres where over-snow activities is allowed within the 

BORZ among the alternatives. Alternative C has approximately 2,759 acres less than the others but 

virtually all of the BORZ are open to over-snow motorized activities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

264 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Cumulative Effects

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. The period 

considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years.

The primary reason for the low population of grizzly bears in these recovery zones is past 

persecution and killing of bears. Legal protections are now in place to protect grizzly bears. 

Information/education programs, sanitation programs, and access management have all been 

used, and are still being used, to help these populations recover.

Timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression on NFS lands have contributed to the 

amount and pattern of habitat present today. Openings created by management activities, 

depending on the location, can provide forage for grizzly bears. Fire suppression in some areas 

may have allowed conifers to encroach upon openings and limited the amount of new openings 

created that could provide forage. Access management to limit the amount of roads and thereby 

reduce the chance of a human-grizzly interaction has increased over the years and resulted in the 

recently adopted Access Amendment.

Timber harvest occurring on private, State, or Canadian lands may impact the distribution, 

amount, and quality of grizzly habitat and may impact connectivity between NFS lands. The 

SRZ and CYRZ include approximately 229,000 acres of private and State lands. Activities here 

may cause avoidance of these areas, or conversely, increase the potential for habituation and 

subsequent removal or death of these bears for public safety. To date, there have been two 

incidents of grizzly bears becoming habituated to homes and food attractants that have resulted 

in relocation or mortality of problem bears. The desired conditions for vegetation in the revised 

Forest Plan would maintain or improve connectivity for grizzlies within the IPNF, and contribute 

toward maintaining or improving grizzly habitat on NFS lands.

The desired condition for connectivity (FW-DC-WL-18 and FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17) in the 

revised Forest Plan would direct the IPNF to work with other agencies and landowners when 

highways are proposed to be constructed or reconstructed to incorporate crossing structures 

where needed. This would also aid in maintaining some connectivity between NFS lands as 

private lands are subdivided in the future. It would also help reduce road related grizzly bear 

mortalities. The most likely places for private lands to be subdivided would be in the valleys 

where communities already exist or nearby. These are the areas that already pose difficulties for 

connectivity.

The decision for the Access Amendment established management direction for NFS lands within 

grizzly bear habitat. However, the SRZ and CYRZ also include State, corporate and private 

lands. Decisions made by these landowners regarding management on their lands could 

potentially result in cumulative disturbance or displacement effects to grizzly bears. In many 

cases, the Forest Service would ultimately mitigate for these effects through additional motorized 

vehicle access management on NFS lands. The numbers used for road densities and Core Area in 

this analysis include consideration of roads on State and private lands within grizzly bear habitat, 

even though the standards apply only to NFS lands.

Past mining, ski area development, utility corridor construction, and other land uses on all 

ownerships have decreased grizzly habitat to varying extents. These types of activities may

continue in the future and result in further loss of habitat or displacement of grizzlies. Grazing 

has occurred and would continue to take place on lands belonging to various entities, potentially 

creating an attractant such as carcasses, and leading to human-wildlife conflicts.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 265

The Idaho State Wildlife Conservation Strategy would improve habitat for a variety of species, 

and when utilized on non-NFS ownerships should complement habitat 

improvement/maintenance on NFS lands. Concerns and conservation strategies for grizzly bears 

listed in the State Wildlife Conservation Strategy include reducing road related impacts, reducing 

human-bear conflicts due to attractants, and protection of important habitats.

Fuels reduction efforts are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

residences. If these are done in such a way that they restore habitat that has been degraded by 

fire suppression, then habitat can be improved. If not, then habitat can be lost and connectivity 

impacted.

Climate change can possibly have varied impacts on grizzly bears and their habitats, especially 

when combined with fire (or fire suppression), insects, and disease effects on habitat. Past fire 

suppression has led to an increase in fuels, denser forests that are more susceptible to insects and 

disease, and forests that are less resilient and sustainable. Large, stand-replacing disturbance 

would be more likely under current conditions and may be exacerbated as the climate changes. A 

trend towards the desired condition for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 06, FW-DC-VEG10 and 11) in the revised Forest Plan would move stands closer to historic conditions and make 

them more resilient and sustainable. Climate change induced shifts in vegetation may impacts 

grizzly bear forage availability (page 91 in USDA 2010). Grizzly bears are generalists and eat a 

variety of foods, so it is difficult to determine the exact effects of climate change on the 

availability of different plant foods.

Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads 

or trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent/amount of the impact over 

the life of the Plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence the amount and 

location of Border Patrol activity. Generally speaking, the likelihood of Border Patrol presence 

increases with decreasing distance from the border.

Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownership types, if for no other reason than human 

population growth. This would increase human disturbance and cause the portions of NFS lands 

that have lower human disturbance to become more important for grizzlies. Increased human 

presence on all land ownerships increases the chance of a human/bear conflict.

There is a segment of the human population that has developed a negative attitude towards bears 

that makes it difficult for them to coexist with bears. In some individuals that negative attitude 

towards bears may result in persecution of bears and possibly even poaching of bears.

Attitudes toward grizzly bears are associated with how humans view management actions (e.g. 

changes, in motorized vehicle access) implemented to benefit grizzly bears (Canepa et al. 2008). 

If viewed as a loss of “freedom” to use the national forest, the result may be a higher mortality 

risk for grizzly bears. Reducing motorized vehicle access may increase this type of attitude, 

which could result indirectly in higher bear mortality risk.

Black bear hunting on both sides of the international boundary within the SRZ and CYRZ has 

the potential to add cumulatively to illegal or mistaken identity mortality of grizzly bears within 

the cumulative effects area. The province of British Columbia and the States of Montana, Idaho, 

and Washington continue to allow hunting for black bears, as well as other wildlife species, on 

both sides of the border within and around the SRZ and CYRZ. Hunter encounters with grizzly 

bears may result in a bear death due to mistaken bear identification, self-defense, or 

opportunistic poaching. Changes in access availability with implementation of the Access 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

266 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Amendment may influence habitat use and attendant mortality risk by reducing access within the 

United States portion of the SRZ and CYRZ.

Wildlife attractants on private lands can lure bears into conflict situation. This may be in the 

form of garbage, pet food, fruit trees, or others. Bears that become habituated or a nuisance may 

lead to the bear being killed. Additionally, the more a bear comes into contact with humans, the 

higher the likelihood that someone would poach that bear.

The Roads Management Policy (USDA 2001) directs the Forest Service to examine the road 

network and give priority to reconstructing and maintaining needed roads and decommissioning 

unneeded roads. It also directs the Forest Service in a similar manner under the 2005 Travel 

Management Rule (USDA 2005). This policy is complimentary to road management objectives 

in grizzly bear habitat and may serve as a method for implementing road management decisions.

Effects Determination

Each action alternative may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear.

Rationale for Determination: In spite of a general reduction in most allowable activities from 

current management direction, timber harvest (including thinning) and fire management 

activities, motorized access, road construction and reconstruction, and the low potential for 

mining, activities under the action alternatives—particularly in the General Forest MA—have 

the potential to adversely affect individual grizzly bears via increased human disturbance and 

displacement and habitat alternation. At the project level, all activities would be subject to 

existing plan components such as standards and guidelines designed to avoid or minimize 

adverse effects to individual grizzly bears and the habitats they occupy on Federal lands. Given 

that we cannot predict exact locations of future projects nor are there restrictions on the 

distribution of effects spatially or temporally, we cannot discount the potential for adverse effects 

to the grizzly bear.

Woodland caribou – Rangifer tarandus caribou

Affected Environment

Woodland caribou are identified as endangered on the IPNF. The only known population in the 

lower 48 states is located in the Selkirk Mountains of Idaho, Washington, and British Columbia, 

which is the recovery area for the species. Although the U.S. and British Columbia Forest 

Service are responsible for a majority of the caribou habitat, management of this caribou herd is 

a responsibility shared by many landowners including the state of Idaho Department of Lands, 

British Columbia Parks, and private landowners. In addition, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, 

Canadian Wildlife Service, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have management 

responsibilities for caribou although they do not directly control caribou habitat.

In 1971, the International Mountain Caribou Technical Committee (IMCTC) was formed to 

provide research and management recommendations for the Selkirk Mountains woodland 

caribou herd.

It is made up of an international, multi-agency group of researchers, biologists, resource 

managers, industry representatives, and other concerned people interested in recovering the 

endangered woodland caribou in the southern Purcell Mountains of British Columbia and the 

southern Selkirk Mountains of northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, and southern British 

Columbia. The USDA Forest Service is a cooperating agency member of this committee. This 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 267

group provided the first habitat management guidelines for woodland caribou in 1976 (Johnson 

et al. 1977, 1981) which were later incorporated in the 1987 Idaho Panhandle Forest Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 1987, appendix N).

Habitat and Life History Needs

Research on the Selkirk population of woodland caribou has documented their preference for 

mature and old growth subalpine fir forests, while mature and old growth western red cedar and 

western hemlock forests generally above 4,500 feet elevation, and the ecotone between these two 

communities, have been identified as important early winter habitat, October through early 

January (Freddy 1974, Scott and Servheen 1985, Rominger and Oldemeyer 1989, Servheen and 

Lyon 1989, Allen 1998b, Kinley and Apps 2007). Woodland caribou are elevational migrants 

during the transition between seasonal habitats and do not demonstrate the extensive seasonal 

migrations associated with the barren ground caribou (Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus).

Arboreal lichens, especially the genus Bryoria, comprise a critical source of food for mountain 

caribou during the winter months (Freddy 1974, Scott and Servheen 1985, Rominger and 

Oldemeyer 1989, Rominger 1995, Allen 1998a, and MCTAC 2002). Woodland caribou are 

primarily grazers during the non-winter months, consuming grasses, carex, and juncus as well as 

a variety of forbs and shrub leaves (e.g., huckleberry and Pachistima spp.).

Woodland caribou have a very low reproduction rate with females usually giving birth to their 

first calf at three years of age. Single calves are the norm, and a cow will average six calves over 

her lifetime. Calf mortality is high for the first few months of life and can be as much as 50 

percent or higher. This low reproductive rate is a major limiting factor to stabilizing or increasing 

woodland caribou populations (Paquet 1997).

Additional information on population ecology, biology, habitat description and relationships are 

described in the Woodland Caribou Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994), the 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2008d) 5-Year Review, and final critical habitat rule (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). Local research efforts for the population include research by 

Allen (1998a, 1999), Almack (1998, 2000), Freddy (1974), Rominger and Oldemeyer (1989), 

Scott and Servheen (1984, 1985), Servheen and Lyon (1989), Wakkinen and Slone (2010), 

Warren et al. (1995) and annual winter census reports by Degroot and Wakkinen (2012), Degroot 

et al. (2011) and Wakkinen et al. (2008, 2009, 2010).

When woodland caribou were listed in 1984, hunting (legal and illegal), road collision mortality 

along B.C. Highway 31

, and habitat modification by logging and fire were identified as factors 

affecting their conservation status (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). These threats have 

been addressed to varying degrees over time in the Selkirk woodland caribou ecosystem (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2008d). More recently, the FWS reevaluated the threats to woodland 

caribou and summarized six risk factors that the southern Selkirk population is facing (table 55) 

(Ibid).

 1 B.C. Highway 3 was completed in 1963 and is situated in the center of the southern Selkirk Mountain 

seasonal home range. It has been a chronic source of caribou mortality due to its proximity to occupied 

caribou habitat, winter time salting of the surface which attracts caribou, avalanche control activities, high 

traffic speeds, and limited winter time visibility.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

268 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 55. Six Risk Factors Potentially Affecting the Southern Selkirk Mountains Woodland Caribou 

Conservation (from USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008d)

WOODLAND CARIBOU RISK FACTORS

Past and Ongoing Habitat Destruction/Fragmentation

Mortality Due to Predation by Mountain Lions and Possible Wolves

Human Access

Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms (e.g., timber harvest and motorized winter recreation on some 

lands)

Small Population Size

Climate Change

The FWS concluded that the major threats to woodland caribou in the Selkirk population at this 

time were past and ongoing habitat destruction/fragmentation, predation (by mountain lions and 

wolves), human access, inadequate regulatory mechanisms (to address timber harvest and winter 

recreation on some Federal, State and private lands), small population size, and potentially 

climate change (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008d).

Habitat Alteration and Fragmentation: The FWS identified ongoing loss and fragmentation of 

contiguous old growth forests as the primary long-term threat to mountain caribou based on 

numerous studies in B.C. (i.e., Apps and McLellan 2006, Cichowski et al. 2004, MCTAC 2002, 

and Stevenson et al. 2001). Habitat loss and/or modification may have the following effects on 

caribou (from Cichowski et al. 2004 as stated in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008d):

• Reduction in the carrying capacity of an area to support caribou by reducing the overall area 

available and food resources (i.e., arboreal lichens);

• Alternation of movement patterns which may affect the caribou’s use of the remaining 

habitat as suitable habitat becomes smaller and more discontinuous; and

• Increase rates of predation as available habitat becomes more fragmented and compressed.

The FWS noted that “logging and wildfires have eliminated a significant amount of historic 

caribou habitat”...and...”the threat of habitat loss from wildfires is ongoing” (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2008d).

Mortality: Predation-caused mortality is considered to be one of the leading factors limiting 

woodland caribou recovery in the southern Selkirk population.

Other sources of mortality outside the action area and off NFS lands are deaths due to vehicular 

collisions along B.C. Highway 3. Mortality due to poaching or mistaken identity is not expected 

to significantly affect the Selkirk caribou population (Ibid).

Human (Motorized) Access: Motorized road access in caribou habitat could facilitate poaching 

opportunities, movement of predators within caribou habitat and result in vehicular collisions 

and death (i.e., B.C. Highway 3).

Another potential source of disturbance and displacement to woodland caribou includes 

increasing levels of winter recreation (e.g., snowmobiling, skiing). The FWS noted that 

snowmobiling within the recovery area is a growing threat to caribou with some efforts being 

made to address the issue on federal, provincial and some private lands, but no standards in place 

on state and many private lands (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008d).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 269

While not mentioned in their 2008 review, the FWS stated in 2001 that increasing summer (as 

well as winter) recreation pressure was decreasing habitat effectiveness for caribou in the Selkirk 

ecosystem (USDI Fish and Wildlife 2001). This is supported by observations in the field on 

transplanted caribou (Allen 1998a, Warren 1990).

Regulatory Mechanisms: As stated earlier, both habitat alternation/modification and motorized 

over-snow recreation are recognized as a threat to the recovery of woodland caribou. Inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms, particularly on state and private lands, may have significant negative 

effects on the ultimate recovery of woodland caribou (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008d).

Small Population Size: The contracting range of the Selkirk woodland caribou population, the 

small number of animals in the population and the limited genetic exchange between this 

population and adjacent populations threatens their long-term population viability (Ibid).

Climate Change: Additionally, climate change can potentially alter the distribution and amounts 

of woodland caribou habitat by altering disturbance processes (i.e., fire regimes) and winter 

snowpack depths (Ibid).

Please see USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2008d) for additional details regarding these six 

threats.

Critical Habitat, Caribou Management Units (CMUs) and Available Habitat

The Selkirk woodland caribou recovery area includes portions of the Colville National Forest in 

Washington, the northern portion of the IPNF, the Idaho Department of Lands, and a portion in 

British Columbia, Canada. The recovery area for caribou in the Selkirk Mountains is comprised 

of approximately 1,477 square miles in southern British Columbia, northeastern Washington and 

northern Idaho. Fifty-three percent of the recovery area is located in British Columbia, while the 

remaining 47 percent falls into the U.S. (table 56). Twenty-nine percent of the caribou habitat in 

the Selkirk recovery area and 61 percent of the caribou habitat in the U.S. portion of the Selkirk

recovery area is on the IPNF. State and private lands are included within both recovery zones, 

with the recovery area incorporating 99 square miles of habitat on the Idaho Department of 

Lands.

Table 56. Existing Land Management Jurisdiction within the Woodland Caribou Recovery Area

Land Ownership Entity Size & Percent of Total (Acres/%)

Idaho Panhandle National Forests 252,785/27

Colville National Forest 102,907/10

Idaho Department of Lands 61,882/7

U.S. Private1 27,713/3

British Columbia 501,112/53

Total 946,400

1 Within the boundaries of the Colville NF=9,351; Idaho Panhandle NF=18,362 acres

Critical Habitat: The IPNF analysis area partially falls in designated critical woodland caribou 

habitat within the South Selkirk woodland caribou population (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

2012a). This includes approximately 8,501 acres of designated critical habitat located in the 

extreme northeast corner of the IPNF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

270 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species have 

been identified within the geographical area occupied by woodland caribou at the time of listing. 

These physical and biological features are the primary constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in a 

specific quantity and spatial arrangement to be essential to the conservation of the species. Based 

on this and the current knowledge of the life history, biology and ecology of the species, the 

PCEs for woodland caribou critical habitat is defined as follows:

• Mature to old-growth western hemlock/western red cedar climax forest, and subalpine 

fir/Engelmann spruce climax forest at least 5,000 feet in elevation with moderately open to 

closed canopies (>26 percent);

• Ridge tops and high-elevation basins that are generally 6,000 feet in elevation or higher, 

associated with mature to old stands of subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce climax forest, with 

relatively open (approximately 50 percent) canopy;

• Presence of arboreal hair lichens; and

• High-elevation benches and shallow slopes, secondary stream bottoms, riparian areas, and 

seeps, and subalpine meadows with succulent forbs and grasses, flowering plants, horntails, 

willow, huckleberry, dwarf birch, sedges and lichens;

Corridors/Transition zones that connect the habitats described above. If human activities occur, 

they do not impair the ability of caribou to use these areas.

CMUs: The recovery area is divided into areas known as Caribou Management Units (CMUs) to 

facilitate habitat evaluation within the ecosystem. Each CMU is approximately the size of the 

average home range of woodland caribou in the Selkirk Mountains (about 30 square miles or 

19,200 acres) (USDA Forest Service 1985). These CMUS assist with analyzing and tracking 

cumulative effects (Ibid).

The U.S. portion of the recovery area is comprised of 17 CMUs, including 12 on the IPNF, four 

situated on the CNF, and one CMU located exclusively on the Idaho Department of Lands. 

Although a significant portion of the recovery area is located within B.C., CMUs have not been 

formally designated in B.C.

Potential impacts from Alternative B Modified will only address the 12 CMUs located within the 

action area.

Available Habitat: Seasonal habitat selection by mountain caribou is characterized by changes 

in elevation which is largely driven by access to available forage and the influence of snow 

conditions (Stevenson et al. 2001). The 1985 and 1994 Recovery Plans relied on the original 

research conducted by Idaho Fish and Game (Scott and Servheen 1985; Servheen and Lyon 

1989) in identifying six seasonal habitats for the Selkirk population based on a combination of 

elevational shifts and behavior from 1983-1987 (i.e., early winter, late winter, spring, calving, 

summer, fall/rut1

) (Scott and Servheen 1985, Servheen and Lyon 1989). A more recent analysis 

by Kinley and Apps (2007) identified just five based on distinct shifts in elevation use, with 

habitats occurring primarily within two vegetation zones: mature and older2 western 

hemlock/western red cedar and subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce forests. Seasonal habitats are 

characterized as follows:

 1 Early winter (November 1 – January 15), later winter (January 16 – May 15), spring (May 16 – July 15), 

calving (June 2 – July 15), summer (July 16 – September 15) and fall (September 16 – October 31). 2 The FWS defined mature and old growth as being older than 100-125 years (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2012a).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 271

Early Winter: Early winter is a period of rapid snow accumulation and generally 

encompasses from October 17 to January 19 (Kinley and Apps 2007). Kinley and Apps 

(2007) reported that during this time caribou are often associated with landscapes dominated 

by spruce and subalpine fir stands with a forest canopy closure of at least 26-50 percent and 

strongly preferred old forest habitats. At a finer scale, Scott and Servheen (1984) found that 

during winter caribou selected stand conditions that minimized snow depth with dense 

canopies of 76-100 percent in old growth western hemlock/cedar forests with large, lichen 

bearing branches. Caribou seek out these more closed canopy timber stands where they feed 

on a combination of lichen on windthrown trees, and lichens that have fallen from standing 

trees (litterfall) (MCTAC 2002). If available, shrubs and other forbs that remain accessible in 

snow wells under large trees are also consumed. A conifer canopy that intercepts snow and 

allows access to feeding sites is important (MCTAC 2002) until the snowpack consolidates 

and the caribou can move to higher elevations (USDA Forest Service 2004). However, these 

elevational shifts can be quite variable within and between years, depending on snow levels 

(Apps et al. 2001, Kinley et al. 2007). All mountain caribou experience. Recently, Wakkinen 

and Slone (2010) identified the poorest mobility and food availability of any season during 

early winter because of the typically deep, soft snow (MCTAC 2002).

Late Winter: Late winter generally starts around January 19 and extends to about April 19 

(Kinley and Apps, 2007). During this time, the snowpack is deep - up to 16 feet (or 5 meters) 

on ridge tops - and firm enough to support the animal’s weight, which allows easier 

movement. These upper slopes and ridge tops are generally higher in elevation, support 

mature to old stands of subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce with preferred canopies similar to 

early winter at generally 26 to 50 percent cover (Kinley and Apps 2007), and have high levels 

of arboreal lichen (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994, MCTAC 2002, USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2008d). Late winter encompasses January 19 through April 19 in the Selkirk 

ecosystem (Wakkinen and Slone 2010).

Spring: In spring (April 20 – July 7), Selkirk caribou move to areas with green vegetation 

(Servheen and Lyon 1989, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994), which become the primary 

food source. These areas often overlap with early and late winter ranges at elevations where 

new, green vegetation is appearing (Servheen and Lyon 1989, MCTAC 2002), which allows 

the animals to recover from the effects of winter (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

Calving: Pregnant females will move to spring habitats for forage, but during the calving 

season from June 1 to July 7, the need to avoid predators influences habitat selection. Areas 

selected for calving are typically high elevation alpine ridgetops and non-forested areas in 

close proximity to old-growth forests, as well as high-elevation basins that can be food 

limited, but which may have much lower densities of predators (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1994, MCTAC 2002, Cichowski et al. 2004, Kinley and Apps 2007). Arboreal lichen 

becomes the primary food source for pregnant females and females with calves, since green 

forage is unavailable in these secluded and high-elevation habitats. Within in several weeks 

of birthing, cows with their calves begin moving to meadows to forage on more succulent 

greener vegetation while remaining in close proximity to escape cover on nearby ridges and 

benches.

Summer: July 8 to around October 16 is considered to be the summer habitat season for 

caribou. During this time, Kinley and Apps (2007) report that Selkirk caribou are associated 

with spruce and subalpine fir that also provides thermal cover, although summer habitat is in 

higher elevations with a preference for valleys (Kinley and Apps 2007), and habitat with high 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

272 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

forage availability (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). In the Selkirk Mountains, the 

shallow slopes used in late summer are characteristically high elevation benches, secondary 

stream bottoms and riparian areas, and seeps where forage is lush and abundant (Servheen 

and Lyon 1989).

As part of the 1985 Recovery Plan and the IPNFs 1987 Forest Plan a cumulative effects 

submodel routine was developed to determine habitat suitability of woodland caribou habitat 

with the recovery area (USDI Forest Service 1985). Due to database and computer limitations at 

the time, the original habitat suitability Index (HSI) was not commonly used in project analysis. 

A stand-based habitat suitability index (HSI) and habitat capability index (HCI) was developed 

in 1993 and updated in 1998 based on stand-level use by radio-collared caribou (Allen and 

Deiter 1993, and Allen 1998). This model was used in an initial evaluation of much of the 

caribou habitat on the IPNF and IDL (Allen 1999, Allen 2001, USDA Forest Service 2004).

In 2007, a landscape level habitat priority model was developed to facilitate a unified assessment 

of caribou habitat throughout the Selkirk Recovery Area (Kinley and Apps 2007). The 

probability of habitat selection by caribou was categorized as high (0.7 to 0.99), moderate (0.3 to 

0.69), and low (0.1 to 0.29) (ibid). This effort provided a statistically rigorous approach to 

habitat selection than the more simplistic, expert opinion derived HSI models (Antifeau 1998). 

However, this model is ecosystem-based and not intended for stand or drainage-level use (Kinley 

and Apps 2007) and was run using 2006 and older1 vegetation data, making it less useful for 

project-specific land management analyses after 2007.

The FWS proposed critical habitat for the woodland caribou in 2011 and subsequently finalized 

it the following year (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011c, 2012). As part of that process, the 

agency generally characterized woodland caribou habitat as mature and old-growth Engelmann 

spruce/subalpine fir (SAF) and western red cedar/western hemlock (CH) habitats. Accordingly, 

the Forest Service quantified woodland caribou habitat into three age categories (0-99, 100-150, 

and 151+ years old) and three dominate cover types (SAF, CH, CH/Other2

) to provide an up-todate (2011) estimate of available caribou habitat on the IPNF by CMU regardless of fixed 

topographical features (i.e., slope, elevation, aspect) that may also influence seasonal habitat 

selection. This approach is more useful when discussing potential affects due to land 

management activities on habitat (e.g., timber harvest, prescribed burning) because of its 

simplicity and emphasis on existing vegetation conditions in terms of cover type and stand age3

. 

Table 57 is a summary of available forested woodland caribou habitat on the IPNF as of 2011.

Currently, the majority of SAF, CH, and CH/Other habitat within the recovery area is greater 

than 100 years old, and these habitats are well distributed throughout the designated CMUs 

(table 57). Habitat is not considered to be limiting the growth of this population at this time 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008d).

Designated critical habitat is only found in the Big Snowy CMU (Total acres=8,501) within the 

action area. This includes a total of 6,508 and 1,006 acres of SAF and CH habitats, respectively, 

and is dominated by older age classes (>100 years old=66 percent). Another 987 acres is 

comprised of non-forested high-elevation habitat.

 1 The model was developed and run by a B.C. consulting firm and the USFS does not have the capability 

to rerun the analysis using more recent data.

2 “CH/Other” category represents cedar/hemlock habitat types and a combination of cedar, hemlock, 

lodgepole, Douglas fir, white fir, western larch cover types which may/may not provide the characteristics 

associated with mature and old growth cedar/hemlock stands used by woodland caribou during the early 

winter period.

3 Stand age is a useful predictor of arboreal lichen abundance (Stevenson et al. 2001).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 273

Table 57. Woodland Caribou Habitat by Caribou Management Unit, General Cover Type and Stand Age on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, 2012

Caribou 

Management

Unit (CMU)

Size of CMU 

(Acres)

Spruce/Subalpine Fir1 Cedar/Hemlock CH/Other2 Total Forested

Caribou Habitat 

(Acres) Age Age Age

<100 100-149 >150 <100 100-149 >150 <100 100-149 >150

Big Snowy3 24,762 2,318 5,099 0 3,585 8,001 33 1,393 2,253 0 22,682

Cow 24,975 4,805 3,484 2,022 478 967 1,197 5,856 1,763 854 21,426

Grass 26,160 4,210 5,207 1,440 135 829 1,323 4,145 4,277 1,027 22,593

Grassy Top 16,558 4,615 556 0 1,008 487 0 6,250 297 0 13,213

Gold 21,856 1,539 2,054 0 2,409 6,829 0 5,131 1,397 0 19,359

Long 31,186 4,446 9,601 6,390 236 769 1,328 1,184 1,767 968 26,689

Myrtle 21,992 1,213 1,933 6,500 244 180 912 2,103 851 1,151 15,087

Pack River 19,566 4,192 4,354 511 8 216 0 2,242 1,271 0 12,794

Smith 22,517 2,678 1,458 4,071 525 297 1,128 1,198 918 1,099 13,372

Snow 19,953 3,074 1,730 21 146 306 0 2,684 1,014 0 8,975

Trout-Ball 25,703 2,983 4,847 8,285 18 434 702 1,235 1,241 1,790 21,535

Upper Priest 16,825 1,511 249 930 1,511 3,696 3,396 1,403 1,099 861 14,656

Total 272,053 37,584 40,572 30,170 10,303 23,011 10,019 34,824 18,148 7,750 212,381

1 Includes whitebark pine dominated high elevation sites

2 Other category represents cedar/hemlock habitat types with a combination of cedar, hemlock, lodgepole, Douglas fir, white fir, western larch cover types which may/may not provide 

the characteristics associated with mature and old growth cedar/hemlock stands used by woodland caribou during the early winter period 3 Big Snowy is the only CMU on the IPNF that contains designated critical habitat. This includes a total of 6,508 and 1,006 acres of SAF and CH habitats, respectively. These habitats 

are dominated by older age classes (>100 years old=66 percent). Another 987 acres is comprised of non-forested high-elevation habitat
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

274 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Linkages and Movement

Ensuring connectivity between existing woodland caribou core use areas in B.C. and suitable 

habitats in the United States is important for maintaining demographic stability, and ultimately 

achieving the recovery plan goal of having a herd or subpopulation in the United States. 

Identification of potential linkages must take into account both temporal and spatial aspects of 

caribou behavior. The 1987 Forest Plan included direction for the “retention and management of 

established caribou travel corridors that occur in mature timber” (USDA Forest Service 1987). 

Regional forest management prescriptions in British Columbia also support maintenance of 

movement corridors (MCTAC 2002). Specifically, the Kootenay Boundary Land Use Plan which 

covers the South Selkirks, includes direction to “maintain continuous broad corridors of oldgrowth and mature at regular intervals to connect pockets of old growth forest” (ibid).

“Established” travel corridors have never been formally identified for the Selkirk caribou 

population, although Freddy (1979) identified routes in British Columbia that south Selkirk 

woodland caribou used repeatedly. His research indicated that caribou “consistently followed 

specific travel routes between and within drainages...Routes commonly incorporated natural 

passes along ridges, frequently followed stream bottoms, invariably proceeded through forested 

areas, and generally connected feeding and resting areas used by caribou. Most routes were 

utilized during all seasons.” In terms of movement across the international border, he 

documented caribou travel from Kootenay Pass (B.C.) southward to Snowy Top Mountain, as 

well as movement from Monk Creek and Nun Creek (B.C.) to Continental Mountain via the 

Upper Priest River/American Falls drainage at about 4,000 feet elevation, and presented likely 

movement routes based on historical information as well (Freddy 1974).

More recently, Wakkinen and Slone (2010) examined 20 years of Selkirk caribou radio telemetry 

data (1987 to 2006) in tandem with the landscape habitat model (Kinley and Apps 2007) to 

examine potential caribou movement corridors. They mapped 12 potential movement corridors 

from one area of high quality habitat to the next. Seven of these are located within the Action 

Area. Factors which may influence the overall effectiveness and utility of these modeled 

potential travel corridors by caribou movements include: (1) the presence of roads—particularly 

roads receiving frequent and high speed vehicular traffic which may influence caribou 

movements and survival year-round (i.e., B.C. Highway 3 through Stagleap Park and core 

caribou habitats)(Johnson 1976, Freddy 1979, Johnson 1985, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

1994); (2) early seral vegetation conditions (due to timber harvest or large stand-replacing burns) 

which may impede movements across the landscape if the area is large enough and habitat 

quality is limited (Simpson et al. 1997, Heard and Vagt 1998) and associated higher rates of 

predation (Wittmer et al. 2007); (3) topographic features, including steep cliff faces1 and 

avalanche prone slopes (Scott and Servheen 1985, Servheen and Lyon 1989), and (4) 

recreational activities, including snowmobile activity which may influence caribou movements 

during the winter season (Simpson 1987, Simpson and Terry 2000).

Current Management for Woodland Caribou

Currently, management of woodland caribou habitat on the IPNF is dictated by the 1987 Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987) MA direction and the 2008 IRR. Tables 58 and 59 disclose the 

existing distribution of habitat under the 1987 Plan MA direction and the allowable activities and 

uses within identified woodland caribou habitat per the 1987 Plan MA direction and the 2008 

IRR. Specific Forest Plan desired future condition for caribou included the following:

 1 The Selkirk woodland caribou population tends to use gentle (< 30 percent) slopes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 275

• Caribou habitat will be maintained and improved. Caribou habitat will be provided by 

maintaining a balance of seasonal habitats. These seasonal requirement may require 

vegetation manipulation to maintain the require balance. Habitat for caribou will be managed 

to support the IPNF share of recovered populations, as per the Recovery Plan for the species.

Additionally, 58 and 96 percent of the woodland caribou recovery area overlaps with the Selkirk 

LAUs and BMUs, respectively. The standards and guidelines in the NRLMD (USDA Forest 

Service 2007) and the design elements in the Access Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2011b 

and 2011c) provide additional direction and limits in regards to vegetation treatments for lynx 

and motorized access for grizzly bears that may affect caribou habitat.

The majority of woodland caribou in the U.S. is managed by the Forest Service under the 

guidance of forestwide standards and habitat management guidelines included in the 1987 Forest 

Plan. Relevant forestwide standards for woodland caribou include:

• Management of habitat and security needs for threatened and endanger species will be given 

priority in identified habitat;

• Actively initiate and participate in an information/education program to promote a better 

understanding of endangered species conservation and recovery both within and outside the 

Forest Service; and

• Consider cumulative effects when evaluating activities within identified habitat.

Caribou Management Area (MA7) Specific Standards

• Manage for roaded natural and where possible toward semi-primitive motorized and nonmotorized recreation. Restrict motorized use when needed to protect caribou;

• Seasonal closures of some or all uses may be needed to protect caribou;

• Retain and manage established caribou travel corridors that occur in mature timber;

• Collector and local roads generally closed to vehicles with physical barriers preferred. 

Arterial roads may be closed as need to meet threshold level for each CMU Additional 

seasonal closures as needed to protect caribou;

• Contain and control fires within the management area to prevent loss of coniferous species 

in all size classes;

• Road construction through old-growth cedar/hemlock stands should be limited to those 

instances in which no other reasonable access to stands to be harvested is available. Snow 

roads are encouraged where possible; and

• Provide seasonal habitat requirements in accordance with the Caribou Management 

Guidelines (appendix N, USDA Forest Service 1987). These guidelines are used for 

preparation of silvicultural prescriptions necessary to provide seasonal habitat within 

identified caribou habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

276 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 58. Woodland Caribou Habitat on NFS Lands by Existing (i.e., 1987 Forest Plan) 

Management Area Direction

Existing Condition (1987 Forest Plan) 

Management Areas (MAs)

Woodland Caribou Habitat (Acres) Non-Habitat

Forested Habitat by 

Habitat & Cover 

Type

NonForested

Habitats1

Critical 

Habitat

Other 

Forested 

Areas SAF CH/Other

1 - Timber Production 593 2,742 616 155 1,036

2 - Timber Production within Grizzly Bear 

habitat

72 5,235 46 0 840

3 - Timber Production in Grizzly Bear & 

Big Game 

0 183 0 0 0

4 - Timber Production within Big Game 

Winter Range

0 59 26 0 24

5 - Big Game Winter Range 0 0 0 0 0

6 - Timber Production within Elk Summer 

Range

0 0 0 0 0

7 - Caribou Management 41,876 63,774 2,432 0 11,229

9 - Non-Forest lands, lands non-suited 21,232 5,007 5,934 0 3,062

10 - Semi-primitive Recreation 18,332 5,879 3,160 0 2,123

11 - Existing and Proposed Wilderness 19,639 15,835 9,204 8,346 2,287

12 - Wild and Scenic River Systems 15 3,666 51 0 6

13 - Special Interest Areas 0 0 0 0 19

14 - RNA 346 613 143 0 0

15 - Primary Range2 0 0 0 0 0

16 – Riparian2 0 0 0 0 0

17 - Developed Recreation Sites 0 0 0 0 0

18 - Administrative Sites2 0 0 0 0 0

19 - Semi-primitive/Timber Production 0 0 0 0 0

20 - Semi-primitive unroaded w/ limited 

timber harvest

0 0 0 0 0

Total 102,105 102,993 21,612 8,501 20,626

1 Includes all acres on NFS lands within the recovery area such as high elevation non-forested areas, meadows, and 

rock/scree areas

2 Not mapped as an MA
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 277

Table 59. Woodland Caribou Habitat by Allowable Uses and Activities under Existing (1987 Forest 

Plan) Management Area Direction and the Idaho Roadless Rule (2008)

Woodland Caribou Habitat Non-Habitat

Forested Habitat by Habitat 

and Cover Type 

NonForested

Habitats1

Critical 

Habitat

Other 

Forested 

Areas SAF CH/Other

Acres (%)

Timber Harvest 67,101 (66) 81,679 (79) NA 155 16,860 (82)

Timber Production 27,522 (27) 67,127 (65) NA 0 11,663 (57)

Commercial Use – Special 

Products & Firewood

102,105 (100) 102,993 (100) 21,612 (100) 8,501 (100) 20,626 (100)

Personal Use – Special 

Forest Products & 

Firewood

102,105 (100) 102,993 (100) 21,612 (100) 8,501 (100) 20,626 (100)

Planned Fire Ignition 101,759 (100) 102,380 (99) 21,612 (100) 8,501 (100) 20,626 (100)

Natural, Unplanned Fire 

Ignitions to meet Resource 

Objectives

19,639 (19) 15,835 (15) 9,204 (43) 8,191 (96) 2,287 (11)

Grazing 82,4662 (81) 87,1582(85) 12,408(12) 0 18,333 (89)

Motor Vehicle 81,322 (80) 93,795 (91) 17,911 (83) 8,501 (100) 19,626 (95)

Over-snow Motor Vehicle 81,322 (80) 93,795 (91) 17,911 (83) 8,501 (100) 19,626 (95)

Road Construction 

(permanent or temporary)

61,115 (60) 87,228 (85) 12,406 (57) 0 16,060 (78)

Minerals – Leasable 26,134 (26) 12,678 (12) 7,756 (36) 0 4,871 (24)

Minerals - Materials 83,427 (82) 96,501 (94) 18,309 (85) 8,501 (100) 18,503 (90)

The magnitude of actual use and activity is regulated by the 2007 NRLM and the 2011 Access Amendment standards 

(USDA Forest Service 2011) as well as other management direction and available budgets

1 Includes all acres on NFS lands within the recovery area such as high elevation non-forested areas, meadows, and 

rock/scree areas

No increase in livestock operations is allowed in MA 2 and MA3 under the 1987 Forest Plan direction for grizzly bears. 

This includes another 71 acres of SAF and 5,518 acres of CH/Other

One CMU (63,450 acres) is managed primary for timber production by the Idaho Department of 

Lands (IDL). IDL received financial assistance in 2003 to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) that would protect caribou and other listed species on their lands (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2003a). The HCP is not completed at this time. Currently, there are no regulatory 

mechanisms addressing caribou habitat management and/or protection on private lands within 

the U.S., while B.C. has regulatory mechanisms in place on Provincial and some private land 

within the recovery area.

The 2012 final rule described four types of actions that may adversely affect designated critical 

habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). These are:

• Actions that would reduce or remove mature old-growth vegetation (greater than 100-125 

years old) within the cedar/hemlock zone and subalpine fir/Engelmann spruce zone at higher 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

278 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

elevations stands (at or greater than 5,000 feet , including the ecotone between these two 

forest habitats. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, forest stand thinning, 

timber harvest, and fuels treatment of forest stands. These activities could significantly 

reduce the abundance of arboreal lichen habitat, such that the landscape’s ability to produce 

adequate densities of arboreal lichen to support persistent mountain caribou populations is at 

least temporarily diminished;

• Actions that would cause permanent loss or conversion of old-growth coniferous forest on a 

scale proportionate to the large landscape used by the southern Selkirk woodland caribou 

population. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, recreational area 

developments, certain types of mining activities (e.g., open-pit mining), and road 

construction. Such activities could eliminate and fragment mountain caribou and arboreal 

lichen habitat;

• Actions that would increase traffic volume and speed on roads within the Selkirk Mountains 

caribou population. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, transportation 

projects to upgrade roads or development, or development of a new tourist destination. 

These activities could reduce connectivity within the old-growth coniferous forest landscape 

for woodland caribou; and

• Actions that would increase recreation in critical habitat. Such activities could include 

recreational developments that facilitate winter access into mountain caribou habitat units, or 

management activities that increase recreational activities within designated critical habitat 

throughout the year, such as snowmobiling, OHV use, and backcountry skiing. These 

activities have the potential to displace the southern Selkirk Mountain woodland caribou 

population from suitable habitat or increase their susceptibility to predation. Displacement

may result in: (1) additional energy expenditure when they vacate an area to avoid 

disturbance; (2) an effective temporary loss of available habitat, and (3) potential long-term 

habitat loss if they abandon areas affected by chronic disturbance.

Key Stressors Affecting Woodland Caribou

Of the management activities allowed under the action alternatives, habitat 

reduction/fragmentation via timber harvest, fire (planned, unplanned, and suppression), mineral 

extraction, motorized access and associated road construction are the key stressors to woodland 

caribou.

Timber Harvest: The mountain ecotype of woodland caribou are closely tied to later 

successional coniferous forests in British Columbia and the U.S. and their survival depends on 

their ability to spread out over large areas of suitable habitat where it is difficult for predators to 

find them. Consequently, timber cutting activities that result in the removal of older subalpine fir 

and/or cedar-hemlock stands within the recovery area are a concern.

As stated earlier, timber cutting activities typically modify vegetation structure and composition, 

which can have the following impacts on the quality and quantity of caribou habitat:) a reduction 

in arboreal lichens, the caribou’s key winter food source; 2) alteration of caribou migration and 

habitat use patterns, particularly where old growth forests are fragmented; and 3) increased 

predation risk where security cover has been removed or modified. Timber harvest can have 

adverse effects on critical habitat.

The 1987 Forest Plan included direction on maintaining seasonal habitats in accordance with 

silvicultural prescriptions. These guidelines were originally developed based on professional 

input and endorsement from the IMCTC in the 1970s (Johnson et al. 1977, 1981) However, 

researchers in B.C. have been investigating the use of various silvicultural practices (e.g., partial 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 279

cutting) and habitat enhancement techniques that could protect and/or enhance caribou habitat 

while allowing some level of timber harvest since the 1980s. Stevenson et al. (2001) summarized 

their findings.

Fire (suppression, natural ignitions, and planned ignitions): In general, fire exclusion 

throughout the western U.S. over the past 50 to 100 years has substantially altered the natural 

succession of many forested ecosystems, whereas early successional forest stages have been 

reduced or eliminated (Lee and Jonkel 1981, Zager 1980, as cited in IGBC 1987). Where the fire 

regime has been interrupted, forested stands may be more susceptible to uncharacteristic, standreplacing fire events where there has been significant fuel buildup. At a landscape scale, standreplacing fire could change the configuration and availability of forested stands which affects the 

cover and security these stands provide caribou from predators, human disturbance, and the 

elements (Courtois et al. 2007, Shepherd et al. 2007). Impacts of wildfire on caribou habitat have 

been identified as a concern in the Recovery Plan for the species (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1994). To avoid such impacts, the judicious use of planned and management of 

unplanned ignitions would assist in protecting and/or restoring caribou habitat in the long-term 

with the understanding that short-term impacts to forage availability may occur.

Use of fire in forested ecosystems has the potential to affect woodland caribou through a number 

of mechanisms. At the site-specific scale, fire may alter the vegetation composition and 

abundance within caribou habitat, including arboreal lichens, the primary food source for caribou 

through the winter months. Caribou habitat that has burned in wildfire experiences a short-term 

reduction in suitability where arboreal lichens have burned or are less accessible due to increased 

snow accumulations where crown cover has burned (Metsaranta et al. 2003). Fire can also 

contribute to increased deadfall in forested stands, which may impede travel by caribou (ibid). 

Looking over longer time frames, fire appears to stimulate forage growth, particularly in the 40 

years following a fire event, which may result in improved habitat conditions for caribou in the 

long term.

Mineral Extraction Activities: Generally, the impacts of mining on terrestrial wildlife species, 

including woodland caribou, result from the habitat loss and degradation from the footprint of 

the mining operation, required infrastructure (i.e. road construction and development), and the 

human disturbance where individuals are displaced from key habitats.

Road Construction and Motorized Access: In general, woodland caribou appear relatively 

sensitive to the effects of roads, particularly the activities they facilitate. Roads contribute to 

changes in habitat quality and availability by fragmenting habitats in previously intact 

landscapes. As road densities increase, edge habitats increase and interior patches decrease, 

reducing habitat available to species requiring interior habitats. As fragmentation increases, 

patches of remaining habitat may become sufficiently small in size and/or isolated to the point 

that they are no longer be used these wildlife species, thus resulting in effective habitat loss. This 

has been demonstrated in numerous species, including woodland caribou (Joly et al. 2006). 

Roads the result in the creation of new non-motorized trails that access preferred caribou 

summer ranges also have the potential to negatively affect caribou (Dumont 1993). Conversely, 

some roads may facilitate hunter access, which can help moderate predator populations (Apps et 

al. 2013, Hayden et al. 2007, Hayden and L. Allen 05/24/2013 pers. comm).

Reduced use of habitat in response to roads has been exhibited in numerous ungulate species, 

including woodland caribou. Woodland caribou can be displaced from important habitats like 

calving grounds (Joly et al. 2006) due to their avoidance of roads (Dyer et al. 2002). Weir et al. 

(2007) documented avoidance by caribou in response to construction and operation of a mine 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

280 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

during five seasons, illustrating the exceptional sensitivity of caribou to anthropogenic activities. 

Apps and McLellan (2006) found that ‘remoteness from human presence, low road densities, and 

limited motorized access’ were important factors in explaining habitat occupancy in current 

caribou subpopulations.

Motorized Over-snow Access: Early and late winter is a time of high energy expenditure and 

potential stress for woodland caribou due to increasing snowfall and the shift from herbaceous 

forage to arboreal lichens (Rominger and Oldemeyer 1989, Servheen and Lyon 1989). 

Management activities that may negatively impact caribou during this time period include 

motorized and non-motorized recreation, with the snowmobiling identified as a key stressor for 

the species.

Snowmobiling activities have the potential to displace caribou from suitable habitat, resulting in 

additional energy expenditure by caribou when they vacate an area to avoid disturbance (Tyler 

1991). This results in an effective loss of habitat availability temporarily, and potentially for the 

long term if caribou abandon areas characterized by chronic disturbance. Simpson (1987) 

concluded that large groups of fast moving snow-mobile machines in combination with human 

scent caused mountain caribou to abandon an area previously used as winter habitat. Seip (2007) 

reported similar adverse effects of snowmobiling on caribou where abandonment of high quality 

habitat could not be explained by habitat conditions alone. It has also been suggested that 

snowmobile trails provide hard packed travel corridors for predators, like wolves, to move into 

the alpine (Bloomfield 1979, Neumann and Merriam 1972). Wolf predation is often responsible 

for adult mortality and low recruitment in caribou populations within Canada (Bergerud and 

Ballard 1988, Gasaway et al. 1983, Seip 1991) but this has not been documented as a significant 

problem in the Southern Selkirk population.

Past and Ongoing Impacts Associated with Key Stressors

Timber Harvest, Unplanned/Planned Fire Ignitions and Fire Suppression: Except for some 

documented spring habitat use (Scott and Servheen 1985, Servheen and Lyon 1989), seral 

forested communities—which historically originated from wildfires and insect and disease 

outbreaks—do not provide habitat for woodland caribou. Currently, more than 61 percent of all 

caribou habitat types that are capable of growing trees are 100 years or older (SAF=65 percent; 

CH/Other=57 percent). Wildfire and the impact of insects and disease continue to be the primary 

factors affecting changes in caribou habitat conditions, as there have been essentially no changes 

to caribou habitat on NFS lands in the past 20 years as a result of timber harvest on NFS lands1

.

In spite of fire suppression efforts, sixteen wildfires2 have occurred on NFS lands within the 

recovery area boundary since 1988, resulting in mixed-severity or stand-replacing effects to 

approximately 7,700 acres of caribou habitat. This includes nine natural ignitions in critical 

habitat that burned approximately 2,170 acres. To put this in perspective, site-specific landscape 

analyses of changes in vegetation over time demonstrate an increase and/or maintenance in the 

amount and distribution of larger size classes of subalpine fir and moist, mixed-conifer (cedar, 

hemlock, grand fir, and larch forest) as the ecosystem recovered from large wildfires from 1880 

to 1890 and 1910 to 1946 (Allen 1999, USDA Forest Service 2000, USDA Forest Service fire 

 1 Prior to 1987, the Forest Service completed approximately 7,100 acres of stand replacing timber harvest 

within the caribou recovery area. Since 1987, there is been less than 5,400 acres of timber harvest on the 

IPNF and these treatments were designed to move unsuitable habitat conditions towards suitable habitat. 2 Only fires greater than four acres in size were considered. Average fire size was less than 480 acres but 

not all of the acres were located in quality caribou habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 281

history maps)1. This goes counter to the argument that wildfires has eliminated a great deal of 

mature and older caribou habitat in recent decades2

, and suggests an overall pattern of recovery 

from fires in the late 1800’s for a large portion of the Southern Selkirk recovery area in the U.S. 

Most prescribed burning within the caribou recovery area been associated with post-harvest 

treatments although in recent years there has been several wildlife-oriented burns conducted on 

dry-site habitats at lower elevations and another landscape burn to benefit whitebark pine. Since 

2000, the IPNF has conducted 17 prescribed fire operations and burned approximately 640 acres 

within five CMUs in the recovery area. None of these occurred in critical habitat.

Minerals (Locatable and Materials): There are no major mining operations on the IPNF at this 

time. There are currently 1,232 Plans of Operations for locatable minerals on the IPNF. Of these, 

three are located in cedar/hemlock habitat types in the woodland caribou recovery area. The 

majority of on-going activities are related to maintenance of existing facilities. Most locatable 

mineral operations are less than five acres in size. Potential for future mineral discovery is 

considered “low.”

There are approximately 434 active mineral material pits and quarries within the IPNF and of 

these two sites are located in the caribou recovery area. Sites are typically from less than one 

acre to five acres in size. Neither is located in critical habitat.

There are no leasable minerals located on the IPNF at this time and potential is considered 

“low.”

Motorized Routes: Controlling and/or managing motorized access improves woodland caribou 

use by reducing the risk of disturbance, displacement and mortality.

The majority of the woodland caribou habitat on the IPNFs (i.e., 96 percent) is also within the 

Selkirk grizzly bear recovery zone and caribou are afforded the security provided for bears in 

this recovery area. Motor vehicle access management strategies for grizzly bear were analyzed 

during completion of the Access Amendment and will result in lower levels of motorized vehicle 

(excluding over-snow vehicle) access and an increase in the amount of core (secure) habitat 

which in turn would provide higher levels of security for caribou (USDA Forest Service 2011b 

and 2011c). More specifically, approximately 55,400 acres of secure habitat (i.e. devoid of 

motorized routes) has been created within the caribou recovery zone on NFS lands from the mid1980s to 2009 (ibid). However, motorized routes do provide access to non-motorized trailheads 

in the Selkirks, with hiking trails constructed/maintained to 90 percent of the high elevation 

lakes, meadows and basins. These areas represent preferred summer range for woodland caribou. 

Currently, there are approximately 190 miles of road located within the woodland caribou 

recovery area, and many of these are located behind gates closed to public use (table 60). There 

are no roads located in critical habitat.

Additionally, there are 30 miles of groomed routes and designated over-snow routes located 

within the caribou recovery area. Off-route use occurs on approximately 23,313 acres within the 

 1 Of the habitat that is less than 100 years old, approximately 70,329 acres of immature habitat was the 

result of wildfires that occurred after 1911.

2 The 1967 Trapper Creek burn is the largest fire to burn within the recovery area in recent decades. It 

burned approximately 7,600 acres of spruce/fir and 1,500 acres of cedar/hemlock habitat on NFS lands. 

This fire event currently provides important early seral habitat for grizzly bears (i.e., extensive huckleberry 

shrub fields (Volsen 1994)).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

282 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

entire recovery area (table 60). There are no groomed routes, designated over-snow routes or use 

areas located in critical habitat.

Table 60. Current Motorized Over-snow Access within the Woodland Caribou Recovery Area on 

the IPNF

Type of Allowable 

Access1

Non-Habitat 

in the 

Recovery 

Area

Woodland Caribou Habitat

NonForested

High Elevation Low Elevation Critical 

Habitat

Spruce/Fir Cedar/Hemlock

Motorized Access Routes 

(miles) 25 1 24 141 0

Groomed & Designated 

Over-snow Routes (miles) 2 0 3 25 0

Over-snow Motorized Use 

(acres) 2 2,212 3,620 10,554 6,925 0

1 The Selkirk recovery area includes the 2007 federal court order to protect caribou. It will be lifted once winter travel 

planning is complete

2 Includes all acres on NFS lands within recovery area including high elevation non-forested areas, meadows, and drysite forested areas

3 Many of these areas have limited accessibility for snowmobiling off-route due to tree densities and topography

Beginning in 1993, the IPNF implemented site-specific motorized over-snow closures to protect 

caribou on the Forest. In 2007, a protective closure (Court Order NO. CV-05-0248-RHW) was 

put in place within portions of the recovery area and is considered in the current environmental 

baseline for the action area. This closure order limits motorized over-snow vehicle access within 

NFS lands until a Winter Travel Plan is completed. A Winter Travel Plan for the Selkirk 

Mountains is in currently in progress with completion anticipated in the next two-to-four years.

Other On-Going Activities within the Project Area

Livestock Grazing: Cattle grazing is currently permitted in two allotments that overlap CMUs 

on the Forest. Under current direction, there is no opportunity to increase the number of 

allotments in MA2 and MA3 in support of grizzly bear recovery. Much of the area where cattle 

grazing occurs in located in-and-around the 1967 Trapper Creek burn in the Cow, Beaver, and 

Grass Creek drainages. Grazing is typically centered in the lower elevation meadows of these 

areas (below 4,500 feet). As this area recovers and the amount of transitory range decreases, 

AUMs will need to be adjusted downward.

Both woodland caribou (during the spring/summer/fall months) and domestic cattle are primarily 

grazers. In theory, this presents the possibility of forage competition between caribou and cattle 

during the summer months and the risk of noxious weed infestation of high elevation meadow 

complexes. However, given the low number of cattle on the allotments, the low level of likely 

overlap between the two in the summer months, and the existing lack of caribou residing in these 

drainages the risk of competition is considered negligible. However, the risk of noxious weed 

infestation remains. Both allotments include several miles of drift fencing. Shorter sections of 

fence are not considered an impediment to caribou movement, but longer sections may impede 

travel and contribute to caribou mortality. In the mid-1990s a dead bull caribou was found 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 283

tangled in a single strand of smooth wire fence within the Beaver Creek pasture of the Cow 

Creek allotment.

Recreational Activities: The IPNF is easily accessed and has a growing and changing visitor 

base. Most of the visitation is local with strong ties to the Forest. Traditional uses include hiking, 

hunting, fishing, gathering, biking, water-based camping, and boating. Winter activities are snow 

dependent and focus on snowmobiling. Outdoor recreation is the fastest growing use within the 

national forest and it is a use that is expected to increase in the future. Since the 1980, both 

motorized and non-motorized recreation use of the roads, trails, and general forest areas have 

increased. Foot, horse, and mountain bike travel have increased, and to a lesser degree, crosscountry and backcountry skiing and receive use as well.

High elevation basins that include meadows and riparian areas are preferred habitat by woodland 

caribou. Such areas are often snow-free earlier in the season, provide good visibility, and include 

an abundance of arboreal lichen, grasses, and forbs. This makes them ideal habitat for caribou in 

general, and especially cows with calves. These areas also provide some of the most popular 

recreation destinations for backpacking, hiking and camping from July through October, with 

significantly increasing human use observed over the last two decades due to publicity from 

local advertisement and guide books. Dumont (1993) noted that interactions between caribou 

and hikers on preferred summer range likely increases caribou susceptibility to predation by 

pushing caribou into areas of reduced visibility.

Hunting in the United States and Canada: The province of British Columbia and the states of 

Idaho, and Washington continue to allow hunting for big game on both sides of the border 

within-and-around the recovery area.

Special Use Permits (SUPs) and Agreements: Special use authorizations permit occupancy and 

use on NFS lands by federal, state and locate agencies, private industry, and individuals. 

Recreation special use permits are of particular interest in evaluating effects to caribou due to 

their proximity to caribou habitat and their potential to generate some level of disturbance or 

displacement. The IPNF currently has 190 recreation Special Use Permits and agreements (see 

the “Access and Recreation” section). This includes three resorts that operate in the Priest Lake 

area and have winter-time operations on NFS lands.

There are seven challenge-cost share agreements that permit winter grooming of snowmobile 

trails on the IPNF, and two of these are located in woodland caribou habitat. Outfitter and Guides 

also operate on NFS lands under special use permit. Two outfitter and guides operate within the 

woodland caribou recovery area on the IPNF, and both are allowed to use snowmobiles as part of 

their permit. None of these are located in critical habitat. The permitting of special uses would 

not be changed with implementation of the Action Alternatives.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Habitat Alteration: Across the entire IPNF, Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) would have the 

most active restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified (9,465 acres/year), and D (7,912 

acres/year) under constrained budgets. Alternative A would treat 10,867 acres/year. With an 

unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (14,190 acres/year) would have the most active 

restoration followed by Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year) and D (10,790 acres/year). Alternative 

A would treat 11,537 acres/year.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

284 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Caribou habitat is not currently limiting. Non-caribou habitat adjacent to caribou habitat may be 

maintained or restored, depending on whether it is outside of historic conditions. The revised 

Forest Plan would maintain old growth and manage vegetation towards a desired condition based 

on historic conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 03, FW-DC-VEG-05, FW-DC-VEG-11, FWSTD-VEG-01, and FW-GDL-VEG-01 and 02). FW-DC-FIRE-03 would be implemented to 

allow fire to play a more natural role in the ecosystem. Combined, the desired conditions for 

vegetation and FW-DC-FIRE-03 would maintain caribou habitat and natural disturbance 

processes similar to the conditions that caribou evolved with in this ecosystem.

Past fire suppression has led to increased fuels, both ladder fuels and snags/downed wood as 

trees are killed due to insects and disease. As stand densities increase and trees become stressed 

due to competition for resources, then the likelihood of insects and disease increases. The patch 

size of a stand replacing fire under those conditions may be larger than what would have 

occurred historically. Although caribou habitat is not limiting and may have typically had stand 

replacing fire, there would potentially be a higher likelihood of a fire starting in non-caribou 

habitat and burning into caribou habitat. Fuels reduction, mainly in the lower elevation noncaribou habitat, would reduce the chance of a large, stand replacing fire starting there and 

burning into caribou habitat. Additionally, passive restoration/maintenance (utilizing natural fire 

for resource management) may have both positive and negative impacts on caribou habitat. In 

the short term, fires may burn currently suitable habitat. However, if caribou habitat naturally 

had stand-replacing fire, then loss of some habitat to fire would be normal and useful for creating 

a mosaic and future habitat. In the long term, maintaining or restoring natural disturbance 

processes would maintain caribou habitat in a condition within historic conditions (FW-DCFIRE-03). Conditions within historic conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 03, FW-DC-VEG05, FW-DC-VEG-11, FW-STD-VEG-01, and FW-GDL-VEG-01 and 02) would be more 

sustainable and resilient to large-scale disturbance.

Timber harvest has not occurred often in the recent past in caribou habitat1

. It would be possible 

that timber harvest may be a tool to maintain habitat or mimic natural disturbance processes. It 

would be more likely that timber harvest would be used as a restoration tool in non-caribou 

habitat that is outside of historic conditions. When done as part of a fuels reduction effort in noncaribou habitat, then it may aid in maintaining the natural disturbance processes in caribou 

habitat. It would do so by reducing the likelihood of a large scale stand replacing fire starting in 

non-caribou habitat and carrying into caribou habitat. Under that scenario, the patch size of the 

disturbance may be different than what would have occurred under historic conditions. FWGDL-WL-02 states that management activities within capable habitat should enhance or 

facilitate the development of suitable habitat. Timber harvest may cause disturbance to caribou, 

even if it occurs adjacent to caribou habitat but not within. It may also cause disturbance from 

the use of the roads associated with the timber harvest. IRAs, FW-STD-WL-02, MA1a-DC-WL01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA1e-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, and MA5-

DC-WL-01 create and maintain large, remote security habitats that are likely to have a lower 

amount of human presence due to the difficulties of access.

Motorized Over-snow Vehicles: There would be no change in roads or trails open to motorized 

use in the alternatives. The acres available for cross-country motorized use would also not 

change. There would be a difference in the acreage where roads or trails may be designated for 

 1 Prior to 1987, the Forest Service completed approximately 7,100 acres of stand replacing timber harvest 

within the caribou recovery area. Since 1987, there is been less than 5,400 acres of timber harvest on the 

IPNF and these treatments were designed to move unsuitable habitat conditions towards suitable habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 285

motorized use. Within the woodland caribou recovery area, Alternative C (142,834 acres) would 

have the least acreage allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (171,819 

acres), D (174,691 acres) and A (209,654 acres). The acreage where road construction (both 

temporary and permanent) could occur would be greatest under Alternative A (176,809 acres) 

followed by Alternatives D (163,707 acres), Alternative C (143,364 acres) and B Modified 

(116,849 acres). No road construction would be allowed in critical habitat under any of the 

action alternatives.

Alternative A would have most acres available for over-snow motorized use. Under the action 

alternatives, Guideline FW-GDL-WL-04 in the revised Forest Plan states that disturbance from 

over-snow vehicles during 12/1-4/30 should be avoided or minimized in areas known to be 

occupied by caribou. Additionally, winter travel planning is ongoing for the recovery zone due to 

a court order and protective closure for caribou. That effort, in addition to the FW-GDL-WL-04 

in the proposed Forest Plan, would result in lower disturbance in winter in caribou habitat 

compared to conditions prior to the court order. Alternative C (142,834 acres) would have the 

least acreage allowing over-snow motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (171,819 

acres), D (174,691 acres) and A (218,155 acres).

FW-STD-WL-04 states that no grooming of snowmobile routes in grizzly core habitat would 

occur in the spring after April 1 of each year. This would reduce the chance that disturbance to 

caribou could occur in those areas of grizzly bear core habitat.

Cumulative Effects

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. The period 

considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years.

Past activities on NFS lands impacted caribou. Over-snow motorized use, prior to the courtordered closure, may have caused disturbance to caribou. Past fire suppression may have 

influenced the current risk of large-scale fire within caribou habitat.

All the action alternatives would contribute towards maintaining or improving caribou habitat. 

Timber harvest occurring on private, State, or Canadian lands may impact the distribution, 

amount, and quality of caribou habitat and may impact connectivity within the Recovery Zone.

Habitat loss due to timber harvest has not occurred much on NFS lands, as evidenced by caribou 

habitat being within historic conditions. However, habitat has been lost on State and Canadian 

lands. If this continues, or if subdivision occurs on any private lands in Canada or the US, then 

more habitat may be lost. FW-DC-WL-18 and FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17 address connectivity 

and would improve conditions for caribou.

Utility corridor construction and mining are all possible future effects that could impact habitat

or cause disturbance.

The Idaho State Wildlife Conservation Strategy would improve habitat for a variety of species, 

and when utilized on non-NFS ownerships should complement habitat 

improvement/maintenance on NFS lands. Woodland caribou is included, and the strategy 

Identified concerns that include timber harvest, winter recreation, and predation.

Fuels reduction efforts are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

residences. If these are done in such a way that they restore habitat that has been degraded by 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

286 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

fire suppression, then habitat can be improved. If not, then habitat can be lost and connectivity 

impacted.

Essentially all of the habitat loss on NFS lands in the last two decades has been due to insects, 

disease, and fire. As the climate changes, coupled with past fire suppression, it would be more 

likely that a large scale disturbance may occur. Even if the wetter sites where caribou habitat 

occurs had stand replacing fire naturally, the patch size of future disturbance may be larger due 

to the increase in fuels. As insects and disease create more fuels in non-caribou habitat, the 

likelihood that a stand-replacing fire would start in those stands and move into caribou habitat 

increases. Additionally, if snowfall changes due to climate change, then winter habitat or 

predation may change for caribou. For example, if snow depths lessen, then it would be easier 

for predators to access current caribou winter habitat. It may cause caribou to shift habitat use to 

areas with greater snowfall but lesser quality habitat. Distributional shifts are one way species 

can respond to climate change (page 90 in USDA 2010). Large, stand-replacing disturbance 

would be more likely and may be exacerbated as the climate changes. Large-scale disturbances 

could convert a large area of caribou habitat from forested to open in one event. This would 

significantly alter the availability of arboreal lichen and potentially change how caribou use the 

landscape. The exact results are difficult to predict due to all the variables involved. The desired 

conditions for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 03, FW-DC-VEG-05, FW-DC-VEG-11, 

FW-STD-VEG-01, and FW-GDL-VEG-01 and 02) would maintain caribou habitat at historic 

conditions levels and resiliency.

Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads 

or trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent/amount of the impact over 

the life of the Plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence the amount and 

location of Border Patrol activity. Generally speaking, the likelihood of Border Patrol presence 

increases with decreasing distance from the border.

Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownership types, if for no other reason than human 

population growth. This would increase human disturbance and cause the portions of NFS lands 

that have lower human disturbance to become more important for caribou.

A combination of access management on NFS lands and predator population management by the 

State agencies may have an effect for caribou. If the State tries to actively reduce predator 

numbers, such as mountain lions and wolves, then the lower mortality risk for caribou may help 

the population. However, access management on NFS lands may restrict when and where 

motorized use may occur. That may impact the success of mountain lion hunters and wolf 

trappers who start their hunt by covering a lot of ground looking for tracks. On the other hand, 

limiting access to roads would decrease disturbance, as would potential restrictions on where 

snowmobiling could occur. If roads are allowed to revegetate or are obliterated, that may allow 

caribou to better utilize the habitat near those old road beds if they no longer are an obvious 

"linear feature" on the landscape.

Big game hunting continues on both sides of the U.S./Canada border. Encounters with hunters 

may result in a caribou death due to mistaken identification. Legal harvest of caribou by Treaty 

Indians does occur, but with few statistics on the number of animals taken it is difficult to 

evaluate the significance of this factor. Fatal collisions with automobiles occur on open roads in 

woodland caribou habitat (Scott and Servheen 1985) and are likely to continue. Predation by 

mountain lions, wolves and others predators will continue, depending in part on big game 

populations, predator populations and other factors. Even a relatively small increase in predation 

rate, perhaps coupled with increased losses to illegal hunting, can lead to population declines 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 287

over the long term. FW-STD-WL-02 states that the Access Amendment for grizzly bear would 

be applied, and this can benefit caribou as well. A reduction in motorized access would reduce 

the odds of a chance encounter between hunters and caribou.

An adequate amount of suitable habitat is a key factor in maintaining viable caribou populations. 

Human use of caribou range can result in loss, fragmentation or alteration of important habitat 

elements, such as winter ranges, calving area or migration routes. In Canada, the main human 

activities that have and will continue to impact caribou range are timber harvesting, oil and gas 

exploration and development, coal mining and the proliferation of access that comes from all 

these industries. In the north, peat land development to harvest peat moss has the potential to 

impact important caribou habitat.

Decisions made by private and state land holders regarding management of motorized roads and 

trails on their lands could potentially result in impacts to caribou. Timber harvest occurring on 

private or State lands may impact the distribution, amount, and quality of caribou habitat and 

may impact connectivity between NFS lands. The recovery area includes approximately 67,000 

acres of private and State lands. Activities here may cause avoidance of these areas.

One important factor is how or if Canadian officials decide to manage this herd. In B.C. portion 

of the recovery area, the main human activities that have and will continue to impact caribou 

range are maintenance of gas, powerline, and the international border corridors (i.e., vegetation 

removal), recreation activities (e.g. snowmobiling, backcountry skiing), limited timber harvest, 

and maintenance of a major provincial highway (B.C. Highway 3) which includes avalanche 

control, salting, and jersey barriers along several miles of key woodland caribou habitat. Caribou 

appear to have habituated to the motorized activity based on their continued observation along 

this transportation corridor. However, with the majority of the existing herd using habitats north 

of this highway, movement of appreciable numbers of caribou southward into the United States 

may be reduced due to short term displacement or death while attempting to cross this highway.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives, may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the woodland caribou 

and designated woodland caribou critical habitat.

Rationale for Determination: In spite of a reduction in most allowable activities from current 

management direction, timber harvest and fire management activities, motorized access, road 

construction and reconstruction, and the low potential for mining, activities under the action 

alternatives—particularly in the General Forest MA—have the potential to adversely affect 

individual woodland caribou and their habitat via increased human disturbance and displacement 

and habitat alteration. Likewise, the increase but judicious use of natural ignitions across the 

landscape has the potential to adversely affect individual caribou and their habitat via 

displacement, disturbance and habitat loss. The management of natural ignitions is the one 

activity that has the greatest potential impact on designated caribou critical habitat on the IPNF. 

At the project level, all activities would be subject to existing plan components such as standards 

and guidelines designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects to individual woodland caribou and 

the habitats they occupy on Federal lands. Given that we cannot predict exact locations of future 

projects nor are there restrictions on the distribution of effects spatially or temporally, we cannot 

discount the potential for adverse effects to the Selkirk woodland caribou or caribou critical 

habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

288 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

North American Wolverine – Gulo gulo luscus

Affected Environment

The wolverine is one of several species of carnivores that occur on the Forest. Carnivores are 

important indicators of ecosystem integrity in that they influence the structure and reflect the 

vigor of the trophic levels upon which they depend. Several carnivores in the western United 

States have declined dramatically in the last century and a half and are listed as threatened or 

endangered species (e.g., grizzly bear, Canada lynx), proposed as threatened (wolverine), or are 

considered sensitive by land management agencies (Noss et al. 1996, cited in Witmer et al. 

1998). These species are mostly far ranging, elusive, shy and inconspicuous, occur in low 

densities, and are active mainly at night (Kucera and Zielinski 1995). Many of these species tend 

to be wilderness-oriented and have large spatial requirements.

The current knowledge of wolverine population biology, ecology, and habitat descriptions are 

described in (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, Copeland et al. 2010, Copeland et al. 2007, 

Copeland 1996, Inman et al. 2012 and 2012b, Ruggiero et al. 1994, Thomas 1995, USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2003b, IDFG 2005) and incorporated by reference. Additional information 

is provided by the Montana Natural Heritage Program, the Idaho Data Conservation Center and 

NatureServe databases.

Information on population numbers, trends, and distribution are based on reported 

observations/sightings of either the species or tracks recorded in forest or state databases. No 

research has been conducted for wolverine on the Forest that would estimate population levels. 

Informal surveys are periodically conducted by Forest personnel during snotel measurements, or 

during aerial flights conducted by the Forest and/or other agencies. Studies or research on

wolverine has occurred in the adjacent Flathead NF (Hornocker and Hash 1981) and Glacier 

National Park (Squires et al. 2007) and in Canada (COSEWIC 2003), just north of the Forests.

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis boundaries, although in some cases activities 

occurring on adjacent areas were also evaluated (i.e., cumulative effects to connectivity). Areas 

with persistent spring snow were the primary focus of the analysis because of the importance of 

these areas as wolverine habitat. In general, the period considered for this analysis is the 

anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years.

Habitat and Life History Needs

Wolverines generally select areas that are cold and have persistent spring snow, but they do not 

select for any specific vegetation/habitat type (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a page 

7867).

Wolverines occupy a variety of habitats, but require large tracts of land to accommodate large 

home ranges and extensive movements (IDFG 2005, Banci 1994). Individual animals have large 

territories and can cover large distances in short time periods. In Montana and northern Idaho, 

home ranges have been documented as large as 384 square kilometers for males, although female 

ranges tend to be smaller. They use several habitats and have been located in forested drainage 

bottoms to high-elevation, sparsely timbered cirque basins.

Due to their large home range size and habitat needs, this species is rare and uncommon and 

most likely always has been. Wolverines use higher elevation, steep, remote habitat. Wilderness 

and roadless lands account for much of the areas wolverines are known to use, although it is 

unknown if this is due to avoidance of people, or that wolverine tend to choose areas that are not 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 289

conducive to human development (Copeland et al. 2007). Wolverines appear capable of adjusting 

to human disturbance (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a, page 7880)

The primary habitat during the winter is mid-elevation conifer forest, and summer habitat is 

subalpine areas associated with high-elevation cirques (IDFG 2005). Summer use of high 

elevation habitats is related to the availability of prey and den sites. Forest types used by 

wolverines in northwest Montana include subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and 

Douglas-fir/western larch. More than 70 percent of summer locations and more than 50 percent 

of fall locations occurred in the subalpine fir forest types (Hornocker and Hash, 1981). High 

elevation habitats are used for relief from heat and denning (Copeland et al. 2007). Wolverines 

were more frequently found in low to moderately stocked stands of mature timber.

Inman et al. (2012) described wolverine habitat as “steep terrain with a mix of tree cover, alpine 

meadow, boulders, and avalanche chutes” (page 785 in Inman et al. 2012). They also state that 

wolverines experience a trade-off “...between resource acquisition on one hand and avoidance of 

predation and competition on the other. Wolverines balance these competing interests by 

exploiting an unproductive niche where predation and interspecific competition are reduced,” 

(page 785 in Inman et al. 2012).

Females give birth to two-three young in late winter to early spring. Young are born in dens dug 

through the snow to ground level. Dens are located in the upper subalpine zone, at or near 

treeline and are associated with boulder fields, avalanche debris, or log jams. A source of carrion 

or other food is usually nearby.

Wolverines appear to be highly selective in choice of natal denning and kit rearing habitat. 

Denning habitat may be a factor limiting distribution and abundance (Copeland 1996), and the 

persistence of snowpack into late spring is a strong determining factor in wolverine presence due 

to its importance in denning (Copeland et al. 2010, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a). 

Persistent spring snow cover may also be a determining factor in wolverine dispersal and has 

consequences on gene flow (Schwartz et al. 2009)

The wildlife specialist’s report in the project record contains a map that depicts those areas of the 

IPNF that tend to have persistent spring snow cover. The map shows areas with persistent snow 

as considered by Copeland et al. (2010). That map highlights the areas with persistent spring 

snow in an average of at least 6 out of 7 years. In other words, those were the areas to most 

likely have persistent spring snow and the most likely places for wolverine dens (Copeland et al. 

2010, page 239). Among those areas most likely to have wolverines are the Selkirks, West 

Cabinets, and a few areas along the southern periphery of the Forest.

Inman et al. (2012b) found a link between persistent snow and wolverine foraging strategy. 

Wolverines appear to rely on the cold and snow to cache carrion. Cold, structured microsites are 

used to cache food and this reduces competition from insects, bacteria, and other scavengers for 

this food source. The authors referred to this as the “refrigeration-zone” hypothesis (Inman et al. 

2012b).

In the northern Rockies wolverine natal dens have been found under snow-covered tree roots, 

logjams, and rocks/boulders (Hash 1987). In central Idaho, Copeland (1996) found natal den 

sites in boulder talus areas with a north aspect within subalpine cirques. No information is 

available on den sites on the Forest, however, it is expected that they would be similar to 

surrounding area den sites.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

290 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Wolverines are opportunistic feeders and consume a variety of foods depending on availability. 

They primarily scavenge on carrion, but also prey on small animals and birds, and eat fruits, 

berries, and insects (Hornocker and Hash 1981 page 1290, Banci 1994, pages 111-113). They are 

primarily scavengers and feed upon carrion or ungulates killed by large predators, such as 

wolves, bears, cougars, and humans or animals that have died from natural causes. They 

occasionally kill their own prey when the opportunity arises, typically small mammals. The 

constant search for food keeps them moving throughout their range; daily movements of 20 

miles are common. Hornocker and Hash (1981) suggested that food availability is the main 

factor determining movements and range of wolverines in the South Fork drainage.

Connectivity between wolverine populations and habitat patches is generally tied to persistent 

spring snow, and wolverines appear to currently be able to disperse between habitats and through 

areas where human developments occur (Schwartz et al. 2009, USDI 2013 page 7879). As 

concluded in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2013a on page 7879), “The available evidence 

indicates that dispersing wolverines can successfully cross transportation corridors.”

Key Stressors Affecting Wolverine

The stressors may cause loss of habitat, loss of connectivity, displacement, or mortality.

Stressors Outside Forest Service Control

• Loss and fragmentation of habitat may isolate populations, reduce genetic diversity, and 

increase the risk of population extirpation (Copeland and Whitman 2004 cited in IDFG 

2005). These risks result from three main factors: 1) small total population size; 2) effective 

population size below that needed to maintain genetic diversity and demographic stability; 

and 3) the fragmented nature of wolverine habitat in the contiguous United States that results 

in smaller isolated “island” patches separated by unsuitable habitats. Loss of persistent 

spring snow related to climate change is the main factor in loss/fragmentation of wolverine 

habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a page 7865); and

• Harvest is considered the factor affecting wolverine survival, with trapping accounting for 

the greatest number of individuals (Hornocker and Hash 1981, Banci 1994, Krebs et al. 

2004, Squires et al. 2007). Although harvest of wolverines is illegal in Idaho, incidental 

trapping may contribute to mortality in that state. The state of Montana, in its most recent 

regulations for fur trapping, identified wolverine management units with the KNF in WMU 

4, the central insular mountains. The trapping quota for this WMU is zero wolverine. In 

order to achieve dispersal and gene flow among the areas identified as core (NCDE, Salmon 

Selway, and Yellowstone ecosystems) for wolverine, wolverines are protected in WMU 4. 

This protection could result in higher adult female survival, which is influential in 

population growth rate, but could also result in higher survival of young dispersing 

wolverines as they move through the various mountain ranges. Overall, the statewide quota 

is 3-5 wolverines. However, the USFWS proposed listing the wolverine as threatened in 

February of 2013, so the continuation of the trapping season in Idaho is uncertain.

There are no Forest Service management activities that threaten wolverines (direct effects) or 

high-elevation habitats (indirect effects). Activities on NFS lands do not pose a threat to the 

viability of the species. Activities that are not likely to disturb wolverines, or habitat, and 

therefore threaten the viability of the species include (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a 

pages 7890 and 7877-7880):

• Dispersed recreation such as snowmobiling, skiing, backpacking, and hunting for other 

species;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 291

• Management activities such as timber harvest, wildland firefighting, prescribed fire, and 

silviculture; and

• Mining.

Wolverines have been documented to persist and reproduce in areas with high levels of human 

use and disturbance (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a page 7877). There appears to be no 

evidence that the activities listed above (e.g., snowmobiling, skiing, timber harvest, and mining) 

translate to threats to subpopulations, populations, vital rates, gene flow, and population 

persistence (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2013a page 7877). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

(2013a) cited ongoing research into the impacts of high levels of recreational use on wolverines 

in central Idaho. The ongoing research has documented wolverines living in areas of high 

recreational use (i.e., disturbance) (USDI 2013 page 7878, Heinemeyer 2012, Heinemeyer and 

Squires 2012).

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

There are no stressors under Forest Service control that would impact wolverine populations.

There is no direction in the action alternatives that will impact wolverine populations. 

Wolverines are not tied to a specific vegetation type, Forest activities would not change the 

amount of persistent spring snow, and the types of activities allowed on the Forest fit under the 

list on page 7890 of USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2013a). The action alternatives will not 

impact the extent of persistent spring snow, or the impact of trapping mortalities. Those are the 

two factors identified as most likely to impact wolverine populations (Ibid).

Cumulative Effects

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. Areas with 

persistent spring snow were the primary focus of the analysis because of the importance of these 

areas as wolverine habitat. In general, the period considered for this analysis is the anticipated 

life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, for some effects, a longer timeframe was considered (e.g., 

climate change).

Climate change may alter temperature and precipitation, which in turn may affect the persistence 

of spring snow cover. Cold adapted species such as wolverines are the most likely to be impacted 

by warming climates (page 91 in USDA Forest Service 2010). If the area with snow cover into 

late spring diminishes, then the amount of habitat available for wolverines would diminish. As 

habitat diminishes, wolverine reproduction may decline (i.e., lack of suitable denning habitat) 

and populations may become isolated (USDI 2013 page 7880).

Trapping, which includes illegal, incidental, and legal, can limit population growth or contribute 

to a decline. Trapping for wolverines is not allowed in Idaho but it was in Montana, although it is 

currently not allowed in the management unit that overlaps the KNF. The continuation of 

trapping in Montana is in question due to the proposed listing of wolverine as threatened (USDI 

2013).

Effects Determination

None of the action alternatives is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the wolverine.

This determination is based in part on:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

292 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• There is no direction in the action alternatives that will impact wolverine populations. 

Wolverines are not tied to a specific vegetation type, Forest activities would not change the 

amount of persistent spring snow, and the types of activities allowed on the Forest fit under 

the list on page 7890 of USDI (2013a). The action alternatives will not impact the extent of 

persistent spring snow, or the impact of trapping mortalities. Those are the two factors 

identified in USDI (2013a) as most likely to impact wolverine populations.

Sensitive Species

The sensitive species analysis in this document and the wildlife specialist’s report in the project 

record meet the requirements for a biological evaluation as outlined in FSM 2672.42.

Sensitive species are administratively designated by the regional forester (FSM 2670.5) and 

managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act. FSM 2670.22 requires the 

maintenance of viable populations of native and desired non-native species and to avoid actions 

that may cause a species to become threatened or endangered.

The National Forest Management Act (36 CFR 219.19) directs the Forest Service to manage 

habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate 

species. A viable population is defined as one that has the estimated numbers and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area, 

the IPNF.

Region 1 updated the sensitive species list in 2011.

American Peregrine Falcon - Falco peregrinus anatum

Affected Environment

Peregrine falcon population biology, ecology, habitat description and relationships identified by 

research are described in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1999, 2003) and incorporated by 

reference. Additional information on the species is included in Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

(2005, 2007), the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP and MFWP 2011) and 

NatureServe (2011)

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. Consideration was given to any 

effects that may last beyond the life of the Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Habitat and Life History Needs

The peregrine falcon inhabits a wide range of habitats from Arctic tundra, sea coasts, and prairies 

to urban centers. Most falcons nest on cliff ledges or crevices, but some will also use tall 

buildings and bridges near good foraging areas. Nests are scraped in substrate on cliff ledges. 

Adult falcons demonstrate a high degree of breeding fidelity and are known to reuse the same 

nest site for several decades (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003c). Peregrine falcons feed 

primarily on birds (medium size passerines up to small waterfowl). They have occasionally been 

reported to prey on small mammals (e.g., bats, lemmings), lizards, fishes, or insects (by young 

birds). Prey is pursued from a perch or while soaring (MTNHP 2007).

On the Forest, cliffs or rock substrates suitable for nesting are found along the main river 

corridors and adjacent valley bottoms, including the Kootenai, Clark Fork, etc., which are used 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 293

as feeding sites. However, according to biologists with the Peregrine Fund (Sumner and Rogers 

2006), quality potential nesting sites consisting of sheer vertical cliffs adjacent to feeding habitat 

are rare on the IPNF. Natural nesting habitat has not changed significantly since populations 

crashed and is still largely available.

Key Stressors

Activities on NFS lands within peregrine falcon nest territories have the potential to impact 

falcons during the nesting period, depending on the type of activity and the distance of the 

activity from an active nest site. Falcon nests are generally constructed in areas where human 

activities do not occur; however, activities within 1⁄2 mile of an active nest site have the potential 

to impact falcons (Hamann et al. 1999). Disturbance can displace individuals and cause nest 

abandonment. Nesting and fledging activity is generally between February 1 and August 31.

Forest Service activities that may have direct or indirect impacts on the peregrine falcon include 

timber harvest, road construction, quarry development, prescribed fire, fire suppression, and 

human activities that could alter habitat or disturb nesting birds. Nest failure can occur due to 

human disturbance such as recreational climbing (USDI 1999), or industrial activities, such as 

helicopter use or blasting. Habitat altering activities can remove nesting habitat or diminish the 

suitability of that habitat. Activities that alter habitat for prey species (e.g., migratory birds) can 

also impact peregrine habitat use and may lead to displacement.

Factors beyond Forest Service control include (cumulative effects): pesticide use, persecution, 

collection of young for falconry, mortality from illegal shooting and collision with wires, fences, 

cars, buildings, and threats during migration and on their wintering grounds. A potential new 

threat that may impact falcon populations includes chemicals commonly used in fire retardants 

(memo associated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2004). These 

chemicals have been found in peregrine falcon eggs; however, the effect of these compounds on 

eggs is unknown and is being studied in the peregrines North American range (memo associated 

with the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2004).

Environmental Consequences – American Peregrine Falcon

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Disturbance: Under current management, sensitive species habitat is managed based on the best 

available information. Disturbance associated with motorized use would be limited by the 

topography where peregrine falcons like to nest. Cliffs can be found near roadways, but 

peregrine falcons have proven to be somewhat tolerant of traffic related noises because they can 

be found nesting in other parts of their range on buildings or bridges. Recreationists near nest 

sites may cause greater disturbance. In particular, rock climbing in the vicinity of a nest may 

cause nest failure. Disturbance from a variety of activities on NFS lands can cause peregrines to 

be displaced or abandon nests. FW-DC-WL-01, FW-DC-WL-08, and FW-GDL-WL-20 will 

limit disturbance around peregrine nests and will decrease the likelihood of displacement or nest 

abandonment. In particular, FW-GDL-WL-20 provides direction to place a timing restriction and 

distance buffer around known active nests where management activities should avoid or 

minimize disturbance. Helicopters and other equipment and human presence associated with fire 

suppression and prescribed burning could also disturb falcons and cause them to avoid the area. 

Nest failure would be another possibility. Smoke related to fires, natural, prescribed, or other 

human caused may cause falcons to avoid an area. Depending on the duration and intensity, that 

disturbance may last days or weeks. If that occurs during the time a nest is active, it may cause 

nest abandonment. Timber harvest will not remove nesting habitat, although activities near a nest 

may cause disturbance, particularly if the logging operation includes helicopters. Options include 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

294 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

timing restrictions and specifying a distance from the nest within which helicopter flights could 

not occur.

Habitat Alteration: Under current management, sensitive species habitat is managed based on 

the best available information. Given the inaccessible nature of peregrine nests, they are unlikely 

to be directly removed by management activities. However, management activities that impact 

prey species habitat can displace peregrines. FW-DC-VEG-01 through 08, FW-DC-VEG-10 and 

11, FW-STD-VEG-01 and 02, FW-GDL-VEG-01 through 06, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FW-DC-WL08, FW-DC-WL-10 through 15, FW-GDL-WL-08, and much of the direction found in the 

“Watershed, Soil, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section will maintain or improve habitat for 

peregrine prey species. Primarily this will be improved or maintained habitat for migratory birds. 

Implementation of FW-DC-FIRE-03 will allow fire to play a more natural role in the ecosystem, 

and the vegetation will be managed for historic conditions and improved resiliency to large-scale 

disturbance processes. Migratory bird species will react differently to this with some species 

declining and some increasing. The quantity and arrangement of habitats will be nearer to what 

these species will have evolved within these ecosystems. Peregrines, also having evolved in 

these ecosystems under those conditions, may shift prey preference to more abundant species. 

Canopies will be more open, which may aid in peregrines being able to spot prey. Large scale 

fires will also be less likely, so smoke that would cause falcons to abandon a nest will be shorter 

in duration.

Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (9,465 acres/year), and D (7,912 acres/year under constrained budgets. Alternative A 

will treat 10,867 acres/year. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (14,190 

acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year) 

and D (10,790 acres/year). Alternative A will treat 11,537 acres/year. Approximately 5,000 

acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 6,000 

acres/year in Alternative A.

Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) will be more likely to result in continued 

suppression of most fires and therefore less passive restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. 

The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire for habitat restoration/maintenance. The 

use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) will be more likely in MA1, and 

Alternative C (335,300 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), 

and D (156,800 acres), and A (153,900 acres equivalent to MA1). Fire may also be used more in 

MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives B Modified (681,200 acres) and C (630,000 acres) 

have more than D (624,900 acres).

Cumulative Effects

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. Consideration 

was given to any effects that may last beyond the life of the Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past activities on NFS lands probably did not have a great impact on peregrine falcons on the 

Forest. Recreational activities are the most likely candidate to have caused direct disturbance to 

peregrines. Indirectly, past timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression may have altered 

migratory bird habitat on the Forest and therefore prey distribution/availability for peregrine 

falcons. Water impoundments on all ownerships may have created waterfowl habitat and 

therefore increased prey availability in some locations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 295

The effects of climate change on potential prey of peregrine falcons is likely greater than the 

direct effects for this species. As vegetation habitat changes in relation to climate change, then 

the bird populations and species distribution may change (page 90 in USDA Forest Service 

2010). This may mean peregrine falcon prey preference would shift to species that become more 

abundant as the climate changes. FW-DC-VEG-01 through 08, FW-DC-VEG-10 and 11, FWSTD-VEG-01 and 02, FW-GDL-VEG-01 through 06, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FW-DC-WL-08, FWDC-WL-10 through 15, FW-GDL-WL-08, and much of the direction found in the “Watershed, 

Soil, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section will maintain or improve habitat for peregrine 

prey species. Primarily this would be improved or maintained habitat for migratory birds. 

Implementation of FW-DC-FIRE-03 will allow fire to play a more natural role in the ecosystem, 

and the vegetation will be managed for historic conditions and improved resiliency to large-scale 

disturbance processes.

Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownership types, if for no other reason than human 

population growth. This would increase human disturbance and potentially impact nesting 

habitat on all ownerships.

Due to restrictions on pesticides, mortality on peregrine falcons has decreased.

Persecution, collection of young for falconry, mortality from illegal shooting and collision with 

wires, fences, cars, buildings, and threats during migration and on their wintering grounds also 

impact peregrine populations. Chemicals from fire retardant have been found in peregrine eggs 

but the effects are still being studied (memo associated with the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science 2004).

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for peregrine falcon. This determination is 

based in part on:

• FW-DC-WL-01, FW-DC-WL-08, and FW-GDL-WL-20 will limit disturbance around 

peregrine nests and will decrease the likelihood of displacement or nest abandonment. In 

particular, FW-GDL-WL-20 provides direction to place a timing restriction and a distance 

buffer around known active nests where management activities should avoid or minimize 

disturbance; and

• Given the inaccessible nature of peregrine nests, they are unlikely to be directly removed by 

management activities. However, management activities that impact prey species habitat can 

impact peregrines. FW-DC-VEG-01 through 08, FW-DC-VEG-10 and 11, FW-STD-VEG01 and 02, FW-GDL-VEG-01 through 06, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FW-DC-WL-08, FW-DC-WL10 through 15, FW-GDL-WL-08, and much of the direction found in the “Watershed, Soil, 

Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section will maintain or improve habitat for peregrine prey 

species. Primarily this will be improved or maintained habitat for migratory birds.

Bald Eagle – Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Affected Environment 

Bald eagle population biology, ecology, habitat description and relationships identified by 

research are described in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1986, 2007b), and the Birds of North 

America Online (Buehler 2000) and incorporated by reference. Additional information is 

included in the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP and MFWP 2011); and NatureServe 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

296 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

databases (2011) and in the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007b).

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetation changes).

Habitat and Life History Needs

In Idaho, as elsewhere, the bald eagle is primarily a species of riparian and lacustrine habitats 

(forested areas along rivers and lakes), especially during the breeding season. Important yearround habitat includes: wetlands, major water bodies, spring spawning streams, ungulate winter 

ranges, and open water areas (MBEWG 1994).

Habitat for bald eagles on the Forest not only involves existing breeding areas (nest territories), 

but also suitable nesting habitat, and wintering and migration habitat as well. Nesting sites (both 

current nesting and suitable habitats) are generally located within larger forested areas near large 

lakes and rivers where nests are usually built in the tallest, oldest, large-diameter trees, primarily 

along the Kootenai, Clark Fork, and Pend Oreille River corridors and associated lakes and 

reservoirs. Nesting site selection is dependent upon maximum local food availability and 

minimum disturbance from human activity (Montana Bald Eagle Working Group 1994). The 

majority of their diet is comprised of fish. Important prey for bald eagles includes; waterfowl, 

especially in the winter, salmonids, suckers, whitefish, carrion, and small mammals and birds 

(MNHP and MFWP 2011).

Nearly all current nests on the Forest are located within one-quarter mile of, and overlook an 

adjacent water body. The Forest, in concurrence with the FWS, has mapped potential nesting 

habitat along all major river corridors and has maintained mature trees within those areas for 

current and future use by bald eagles. Suitable unused nesting habitat for bald eagles remains 

available throughout portions of the Forest and it is likely they will continue to expand. Both 

resident and seasonal winter use also occurs on the Forest.

Key Stressors Affecting the Species (Risks and Threats) – Indirect Effects

Activities on NFS lands within bald eagle nest territories have the potential to impact eagles 

during the nesting period, depending on the type of activity and the distance of the activity from 

an active nest site. Although eagles construct and use nests in areas with ongoing activity, it is 

generally activities beyond those under which nests were constructed which have the potential to 

displace eagles. Based on Forest monitoring, the period in which activities have the greatest 

influence on nesting and rearing activities generally occurs between February 1 and July 15. 

Forest Service activities that may have direct or indirect impacts on bald eagles include timber 

harvest, road construction, prescribed fire, and fire suppression that could alter habitat or disturb 

nesting birds. Nest failure can also occur due to human disturbance from recreation or industrial 

activities, such as helicopter use or blasting.

Human activities near or within communal roost sites may prevent eagles from feeding or taking 

shelter, especially if there are no other undisturbed and productive feeding and roosting sites 

available (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b). Activities that permanently alter communal 

roost sites and important foraging areas can altogether eliminate the elements that are essential 

for feeding and sheltering eagles (Ibid).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 297

Stressors outside Forest Service control (cumulative effects) include pesticide use, persecution, 

private development of lands in nesting or foraging habitat, mortality related to other factors 

such as powerlines and collisions with vehicles, and the possible take of bald eagles allowed 

under the USFWS 2007 rule.

Environmental Consequences 

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Nesting: As a sensitive species, nests are currently protected from destruction and disturbance. 

The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007b) also apply to current management. 

Management activities that could impact nesting habitat include prescribed fire, timber harvest, 

roads, and others. FW-GDL-WL-05 places timing restrictions and distance buffers around bald 

eagle nests that will reduce the chance of disturbance that would displace eagles or cause nest 

abandonment. FW-DC-WL-01, GDL-WL-06 and 07 will protect nest trees and maintain nest site 

habitat suitability. Other direction that will improve or maintain stand conditions and therefore 

nesting habitat includes: FW-DC-VEG-01 through 07, FW-DC-VEG-11, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FWDC-WL-06, FW-DC-WL-12 and 13, and much of the “Watershed, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic 

Resources” section of the revised Forest Plan.

Roosting/Foraging: Under current management, roost and foraging areas are protected through 

the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007). Management activities can remove 

roosting habitat or cause disturbance that displaces bald eagles. FW-GDL-WL-05 places timing 

restrictions and distance buffers around bald eagle roosts that will reduce the chance of 

disturbance that would displace eagles. FW-GDL-WL-05 and 06 protects roost sites and reduces 

the chance of disturbance as well. Big game is a source of carrion in winter. Big game habitat 

will be maintained or improved through FW-DC-VEG-01 through 05, FW-DC-VEG-10 and 11, 

FW-DC-FIRE-03, FW-DC-WL-17, FW-GDL-WL-11 through 14, GA-DC-WL-CDA-02, and 

GA-DC-WL-SJ-01.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression has altered the pattern and availability 

of ungulate habitat, which in turn impacts the availability of carcasses for bald eagles to feed on. 

Recreational activities on NFS lands are the most likely to have had direct impacts on bald 

eagles on the Forest. Water impoundments on all ownerships have potentially altered the 

availability of prey (e.g., fish and waterfowl).

Climate change could impact bald eagles. It could change the duration and average temperature 

in winter. That could change how long ice lasts on some waterbodies. Therefore, access to water 

for foraging may change (i.e., a shift in seasonally available food sources, page 90 in USDA 

Forest Service 2010). On the other hand, less severe winters in terms of cold and snow may lead 

to better survival for ungulates. That would reduce the number of carcasses available for eagles. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

298 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Big game habitat will be maintained or improved through FW-DC-VEG-01 through 05, FW-DCVEG-10 and 11, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FW-DC-WL-17, FW-GDL-WL-11 through 14, GA-DC-WLCDA-02, and GA-DC-WL-SJ-01. Direction that will improve the resiliency of nest stands to 

climate change includes FW-DC-VEG-01 through 07, FW-DC-VEG-11, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FWDC-WL-06, FW-DC-WL-12 and 13, and much of the Watershed, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic 

resources section of the revised Plan.

Due to restrictions on pesticides, and reduced poaching, mortality on eagles has decreased.

Persecution, private development of lands in nesting or foraging habitat, mortality related to 

other factors such as powerlines and collisions with vehicles, and the possible take of bald eagles 

allowed under the USFWS 2007 rule can all impact bald eagles.

The action alternatives will contribute towards improving nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat 

for bald eagles. This is due to returning conditions nearer to historic conditions, facilitating the 

development of large trees, and restoring habitat to a more sustainable and resilient condition for 

ungulates.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for bald eagle. This determination is based 

in part on:

• FW-GDL-WL-05 set timing restrictions and distance buffers around nests and roosts in order 

to reduce effects from disturbance;

• Additional plan direction that will protect or maintain bald eagle habitat, or food availability, 

include: FW-DC-WL-01, FW-DC-WL-06, FW-DC-WL-12, FW-DC-WL-13, FW-GDLWL-05 through 07, FW-GDL-WL-11 through 14; and

• Additionally, much of the direction in the “Watershed, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic 

Resources” section of the revised Forest Plan will maintain or improve the aquatic resources 

that bald eagles rely upon.

Bats – (Myotis thysanodes) and Townsend’s Big-eared Bat – (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Affected Environment

This group includes the fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) and Townsend's big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii).

Bats are an important component to the health of ecosystems and their role as the main predators 

of nocturnal insects, especially agricultural and forest pests, also contribute economic benefits. 

From an ecological perspective, bats regulate nocturnal insect populations which are inherently 

vital to nutrient cycling. As a group, bat numbers are poorly understood and there are few 

quantitative data with which to determine their population status and trends. Information on 

distribution, habitat requirements, migration routes, hibernation areas, and population trends is 

lacking for most bat species (Lenard et al. 2009). The current knowledge of their life histories, 

habitat requirements, distribution, ecology, and status of this group varies (Miller et al. 2005, 

IDFG 2005, and MFWP 2005). Additional investigative work has been done by the Northern 

Region of the Forest Service in cooperation with the state agencies in Idaho and Montana. More 

detailed information on specific species is located in the various references cited.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 299

Information on source habitats and special habitat features are described in Wisdom et al. (2000). 

Management for bats is tiered to the Townsends Big-Eared bat species conservation assessment 

and conservation strategy (Pierson et al. 1999), and the Idaho Bat Conservation Plan (Miller et 

al. 2005). Additional information and management direction is found in various databases such 

as Bat Conservation International.

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetation changes).

Habitat and Life History Needs

Surveys (Hendricks and Maxell 2005) conducted on the IPNF identified that bats were detected 

in most habitat types, from early seral “disturbance” sites in recent clearcuts and burns to mature 

and late-successional stands, in ponderosa pine and riparian sites at low elevation to Engelmann 

spruce and subalpine fir at moderate elevation. Riparian, “disturbed,” and latesuccessional/mature sites accounted for over 72 percent of the 188 sites sampled with bat 

detectors (Hendricks et al. 1996). However, bat activity occurred significantly more frequently in 

late-successional/mature forest (71.4 percent) than in “disturbed” forest stands (46.7 percent of 

sites). This is similar to other studies in western America (Hendricks et al. 1996). Latesuccessional and mature forests, which have a more complex structure often show greater bat 

activity than younger or disturbed forest stands (Perkins and Cross 1988, Thomas 1988, Thomas 

and West 1991).The availability of large snags, a component infrequently found in young and 

disturbed stands, is recognized as one of the most important attributes of late-successional and 

mature forests for bats in western North America (Hendricks et al. 1996), as large snags provide 

important roost sites.

In Idaho, fringed myotis have been encountered most frequently at low- and mid-elevation 

mines. Dominant vegetation at capture sites has included sagebrush, mountain mahogany, and 

ponderosa pine. The species has often been encountered in steep river valleys, large canyons, or 

other sites having steep and rocky terrain. No information is available to indicate what habitats 

or roost sites are used as maternity sites or hibernacula. This species is likely a short distance 

migrant to hibernacula; elsewhere hibernacula have been found only in buildings and mines 

(e.g., O’Farrell and Studier 1980 in IDFG 2005).

Fringed myotis roost sites include tall snags (>21 in dbh) in the early stages of decay and 

multiple roosts within a stand (Weller and Zabel 2001 in Schwab and Dubois 2006). This species 

can also roost in caves, mines, rock crevices, bridges, and buildings (Genter and Jurist 1995 in 

Schwab and Dubois 2006). Hibernacula have primarily been documented in abandoned mines.

The lack of association of Townsend’s big-eared bat to any forest type during Montana surveys is 

consistent with its known habits of roosting in buildings, bridges, caves and mines (Christy and 

West 1993, Wunder and Carey 1996). Townsend’s big-eared bats are considered forest 

generalists within the subalpine, montane, upland woodland, and riparian woodland community 

groups (Wisdom et al. 2000). Bats appeared in equal proportions of late successional/mature and 

riparian sites. This is not considered surprising as bats need water and insect activity is often 

high at water sources (Christy and West 1993).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

300 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Caves and abandoned mines are the primary roost sites for Townsend’s big-eared bat throughout 

most of its range though buildings have been used by maternity colonies in the northern cooler 

portions of the range. Bridges can be used as night roosts. Solitary males can often be found in 

smaller caves, mines, root cellars, buildings and hollow trees that are unsuitable as maternity 

roosts (Schwab and Dubois 2006).

The term roost is used to describe any place a bat may use to rest, digest, socialize, mate, give 

birth, or sleep. Bats may use a wide variety of roosts for different purposes. During the day, bats 

sleep or enter a semi torpid state in a day roost. Some bats use a night roost to rest and digest 

evening and night meals. Day and night roosts are usually separate locations. Pregnant females 

congregate in maternity roosts to give birth and raise their young. Males and non-reproductive 

females gather in separate locations called bachelor colonies. Bats that do not migrate in winter 

hibernate in hibernacula.

Different purposes require different characteristics for each kind of roost. Bats select roosts that 

protect them from predation and disturbance. Environmental considerations also determine the 

qualities of a roost. Day roosts must block sunlight. Maternity roosts must be warm and near 

foraging areas. Warm temperature is important for maternity colonies because it speeds up fetal 

and juvenile development. Hibernating bats choose roost sites with cold stable temperatures to 

conserve energy, and humid climates to prevent dehydration during hibernation. The least known 

types of roosts are those used during migration. These roosts may be used for a limited time each 

year. Just as wetlands provide important stop over areas for migrating waterfowl migration roosts 

may provide important habitat for maintaining populations of migrating bats. 

Bats forage upon arthropods, mainly nocturnal flying insects, although the mode of prey capture 

is highly variable. A wide variety of insects are taken including moths, beetles, flies, bees and 

wasps, and true bugs.

Habitat Estimates

There are very few natural caves on the Forests. Abandoned/inactive mines are scattered 

throughout the Forests. Not all of these sites are suitable for roosting activities, but the 

possibility exists that some of them do and may currently provide habitat for bats. Rock/talus 

slopes are present throughout the Forest especially along the river and stream systems on the 

Forest and many of the larger lake and wetland areas. Use of snags, bridges, buildings, and rock 

crevices are available throughout the Forest and provide habitat for roosting and foraging. Bat 

maternity roosts and hibernacula have been documented in Idaho and on the IPNF, although they 

are rare.

The current extent of habitat is similar to historical distribution, although the abundance of 

habitat has changed in some areas. The number of caves likely has stayed the same from 

historical to present periods, but human disturbance from recreation has increased, thereby 

causing some caves to be abandoned by bats (Idaho conservation effort 1995 in Wisdom et al. 

2000). Mines proliferated in the early part of the historical period and provided additional habitat 

but during the 1980s thousands of abandoned mines throughout the west were closed resulting in 

unknown loss of established roosts (Ibid). The extent of cliffs and rocky areas has not changed 

since the historical period, but habitat quality of some cliffs has declined because of human 

disturbances (Lehmkuhl et al. 1997 cited in Wisdom et al. 2000).

Large Size Class/Late-Successional Forest

Wisdom et al. (2000) identified that there has been a strong decline in source habitats throughout 

the Interior Columbia Basin for species dependent on late-successional forest habitats present 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 301

over broad elevations. However, late-successional forests are still considered to be well

distributed across the Forest. In addition to current late-successional, the Forest is managing 

additional lands for their late-successional characteristics, such as large trees. The current trend 

is such that late-successional forests are no longer targeted for timber harvest and there is an 

increase in the number of large diameter trees retained in areas of vegetation management. Over 

the short- and long-term natural vegetation succession will result in an increase in the amount of 

lands in the large size class and subsequently in the amount of late-successional forest 

components, such as snags, important for these species.

Snags

Rabe and others (1998 cited in Wisdom et al. 2000) suggest that snag roosting bats may require 

higher densities of snags than cavity nesting birds because the stage at which snags are suitable 

for bat roosts (exfoliating bark) is extremely short-lived, requiring the use of several snags over 

the course of a lifetime of a bat. Bats frequently shift maternity roosts, possibly to find snags 

with better thermal conditions when the bark on the previous roost is no longer suitable (Ibid).

A snag analysis recently conducted for the Forest (Bollenbacher et al. 2009) provides an estimate 

of the number of snags currently existing throughout the forested portion of the Forest. The 

analysis compared the amount of snags in wilderness/roadless areas versus those outside 

wilderness/roadless areas. The analysis also identified however, that areas outside of 

wilderness/roadless areas have fewer snags per acre than those in wilderness/roadless areas. The 

snag densities within wilderness/roadless areas provide insight into natural snag abundance and 

distribution, and this can be compared to areas outside of wilderness/roadless (page 4 in 

Bollenbacher et al. 2009). The 90 pecent confidence intervals for wilderness/roadless area snags 

overlap with the confidence intervals for areas outside of wilderness/roadless (table 2 in 

Bollenbacher et al. 2009). In other words, the number of snags outside of wilderness/roadless 

areas, which represents natural snag abundance, is not very different than the number of snags 

outside of wilderness/roadless. Please see the snag discussion in the “Vegetation” section of the 

FEIS and DEIS (pages 65-68 in the DEIS) for more information regarding the findings of 

Bollenbacher et al. 2009 and the amount of snags available on the Forest.

Key Stressors Affecting Bats

Miller et al. described the main threats to bats in Idaho. All species are vulnerable to habitat loss, 

and disturbances can cause habitat displacement or abandonment of roosting, hibernation, or 

maternity sites. This can occur from the removal or degradation of suitable habitat conditions 

due to timber harvest or fire, or from human disturbance.

The main threats to bats are:

• Disturbance of roosting sites, especially hibernacula and maternity sites;

• Environmental contaminants, including pesticides, heavy metals, and petroleum;

• Habitat degradation;

• Timber harvest;

• Fire;

• Mine closure and reclamation projects that close bat access to mines;

• Destruction of cliff roosts;

• Increased recreation in caves;

• Grazing practices may alter vegetation, which may alter the invertebrate community;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

302 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Wind farms and other large energy developments;

• Water resources;

• Hazards at stock tanks;

• Pollution;

• Lack of information, especially about migration; and

• Intolerance of bats by people.

Stressors to bats that are outside the control of Forest Service management may include 

(cumulative effects):

• Global warming (climate change): may increase the risk of changes in forest composition 

due to increased and prolonged summer temperatures and/or drought conditions, and/or the 

increased risk of fire that may impact forest cover and structure;

• Private land development: developments to support increased human populations that may 

impact suitable forest cover on non-public lands, and impact roost sites off public lands;

• More recently a disease known as white nose syndrome has been observed in many bats of 

the eastern US: if WNS continues to spread at its current rate it has the potential to threaten 

entire species (Frick et al. 2010);

• Wind farms and other large energy developments: some bat species are susceptible to 

mortality from collisions with wind turbines;

• Water resources:

• 1. Hazards at stock tanks; and

• 2. Pollution;

• Lack of information especially about migration; and

• Intolerance of bats by people may result in the purposeful killing of roosting bats.

The following Forest Service management activities may impact bats or their habitat (indirect 

effects) and cause disturbance, roost abandonment, or mortality:

• Disturbance of roosting sites, especially hibernacula and maternity sites, primarily by 

recreational activities in or near caves but also from mining, road construction, and any other 

activities near roosts (Idaho conservation effort 1995 in Wisdom et al. 2000, page 310);

• Environmental contaminants, including pesticides, heavy metals, and petroleum; the use of 

insecticides in foraging areas has the potential to impact bat species primarily by reducing 

the prey base;

• Habitat degradation, alterations, and disturbances of any structures used for day roosts, 

nursery colonies, or hibernacula (caves, mines, old buildings) could affect the persistence of 

individual colonies (Wisdom et al. 2000);

• Timber harvest directly reduces the availability of roost sites (snags) and indirectly reduces 

prey populations due to changes in forest composition and structure;

• Fire (both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) also reduces roost site 

availability, but in turn can produce additional roosting sites, or direct mortality; long-term 

fire suppression may alter the vegetation community, interrupt snag recruitment and increase 

fire severity;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 303

• Caves and/or abandoned mines and buildings may be removed or closed due to human safety 

concerns resulting in habitat loss, or those sites used by roosting bats may be vulnerable to 

human disturbances due to recreational use;

• Destruction of cliff roosts;

• Increased recreation in caves;

• Grazing practices may alter vegetation, which may alter the invertebrate community; and

• Road and right-of-way construction could result in the direct removal of snag or cliff habitat, 

as well as the additional loss over time of snags along open roads due to fuel wood cutting.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Disturbance/Access: The existing level of disturbance and access to mines/caves will be 

expected to continue under Alternative A. Access and recreation will have the potential to impact 

roosting bats or alter habitat. Most firewood cutting occurs in close proximity to open roads, and 

the loss of snags reduces the amount of potential roosting habitat for bats. Open roads also 

facilitate increased human presence for recreation and the collection of forest products which can 

cause disturbance to bats. Recreational caving or exploration of old mines not only disturbs 

roosting bats and can cause displacement or the expenditure of limited fat reserves, but it can 

also spread the fungus responsible for white-nose syndrome. If useful for bat protection, FWGDL-WL-09 allows the installation of bat gates on abandoned mines. FW-GDL-WL-21 provides 

direction to avoid or minimize disturbance to active roosts or hibernacula, and this guideline can 

be used to close caves and abandoned mines (distance buffer) to protect bats from management 

activities. This guideline and FW-DC-WL-01 can be used to reduce disturbance at 

birthing/rearing areas (certain roosts) from not only recreation but from other activities as well. A 

letter dated July 28, 2010 from Forest Service Deputy Chief Holtrop implements an Interim 

Response Strategy that includes applying decontamination protocols at all abandoned mines and 

caves by 10/1/2010 (Holtrop 2010). This includes public entry/exit. Combined, these measures 

should reduce the likelihood of white-nose syndrome spreading to the Forest.

Loss of Roosts/Hibernacula: Fires can both create and destroy bat habitat. Fires burn existing 

snags that may be used for roosting, but they also create new snags. Fires also alter vegetation

structure and patterns, which in turn impact bat habitat and prey abundance. Increased fuels 

retard the development of large trees, and large trees eventually become snags that can be used 

for roosting. Fires are more likely to be suppressed under Alterative A. Under the action 

alternatives, fuels reduction treatments that are done to move towards historic conditions and the 

desired conditions for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 08, FW-DC-VEG-11, and FW-DCFIRE-03) will restore/maintain the vegetation component of bat habitat nearer to what will have 

been present under natural disturbance processes.

Timber harvest can remove snags potentially used for roosting, but FW-DC-VEG-07, FW-GDLVEG-04 and 05, FW-DC-WL-13, and FW-DC-WL-16, provide direction for retaining or 

improving snag habitat. If timber harvest is done to trend stands towards historic conditions and 

the desired conditions for vegetation, then vegetation will be nearer to what would have been 

present under natural disturbance processes. This will provide the snag and vegetation

components of bat habitat similar to the conditions and natural disturbance processes they 

evolved with. FW-DC-WL-15 and FW-GDL-WL-08 provides direction for maintaining 

unlogged conditions post-fire. This will also aid in providing snags for bat roosting.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

304 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

FW-GDL-WL-09 and 10 protect abandoned mines/caves and buildings that are used by bats. 

Both snags and large trees will increase under all alternatives over the next 50 years, as described 

under the forestwide direction analysis.

There could be a loss of habitat associated with special use permits. Primarily this would be 

through the loss of snags. Special use permits that involve old buildings can disturb bats or affect 

roosting habitat. FW-GDL-WL-10 states that buildings should be inspected prior to removal or 

demolition to determine bat use and then disturbance avoided until bats are gone for the season 

or removed. FW-GDL-WL-21 provides direction to avoid or minimize disturbance to active 

roosts or hibernacula.

Minerals development both creates and removes habitat for bats. Underground mines create 

potential roosting habitat, as do some buildings. The footprint of a mine would remove snags and 

the potential for snags until reclamation has been completed. New mining developments may be 

in areas of historic mining, so there may be some disturbance or loss of habitat associated with 

the loss of old underground mines or buildings. Minerals objective FW-OBJ-MIN-01 for 

abandoned mines would have a desired outcome of one reclaimed abandoned mine annually. In 

abandoned mines where bats occur, bat gates or similar structures should be installed as per FWGDL-WL-09.

Prey Availability: Most fires will continue to be actively suppressed under Alternative A, and 

the current level of vegetation treatments would continue.

The revised Forest Plan has more flexibility to use fire to trend vegetation towards desired 

conditions. The desired conditions for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 08, FW-DC-VEG11, and FW-DC-FIRE-03) will provide the stand structures similar to what will have been 

present under natural disturbance processes, and therefore, the habitats that these bats and their 

prey evolved with in these ecosystems.

Much of the direction under the “Watershed, Soil, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section of 

the revised Forest Plan will help maintain riparian areas that often provide foraging habitat for 

bats.

Grazing can impact vegetation, which effects prey abundance. There are no water troughs on the 

Forest, so there should be no issues with wildlife drowning in them. FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that 

grazing will occur at sustainable levels while protecting resources. This will reduce the chances 

of vegetation alteration affecting important sensitive species habitat.

The use of pesticides to control insect outbreaks will potentially kill non-target species and 

reduce the availability of prey for bats.

Additional direction in the Plan that contributes to prey availability: FW-DC-WL-10, FW-DCWL-11, FW-DC-WL-12, and FW-DC-WL-14.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 305

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetativon changes).

Past activities on NFS lands have potentially impacted bat habitat. Past timber harvest, fuels 

reduction, and fire suppression have likely altered snag availability in some locations, although 

across the landscape abundant snags remain. Past mining activities likely created roosting habitat 

for bats. Old buildings on NFS lands may also provide bat roosting habitat in some instances. 

Bridges are also another potential roost site for bats that would not have existed historically. 

Timber management is likely to continue on non NFS ownerships. Their effects would depend 

on how many snags are retained, whether forest habitat that is outside of historic conditions is 

restored, whether large trees are maintained, and the amount of disturbance to bat roosts.

Fuels reduction efforts are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

residences. If these are done in such a way that they restore habitat that has been degraded by 

fire suppression, then habitat for bats can be improved. If not, then habitat can be lost and 

connectivity impacted.

White-nose syndrome continues to spread and decimate bat populations. It has not yet reached 

the western US. Recreational cave/mine exploration on all land ownerships can lead to increased 

rate of spread of the disease. There is a decontamination protocol in place for NFS owned lands, 

which should aid in slowing the spread on NFS lands. Cave/mine closures on all ownerships may 

also aid in slowing the spread.

Grazing will continue on other ownerships, and if it reduces the availability of grasses and 

shrubs there may be a reduction in bat foraging habitat.

Ski area expansion, utility corridor construction, and mining are all possible future effects that 

could impact habitat or cause disturbance. Wind turbines can cause mortality to bats and birds.

A changing climate may impact the suitability of habitat and alter prey abundance. As 

temperatures and moisture regimes change, the peak abundance of insects may shift (e.g., a shift 

in seasonally available foods for the insects themselves and the bats in turn, page 90 in USDA 

Forest Service 2010). This may affect the abundance of prey during key periods such as when 

female bats are caring for their young. Surface temperature changes may change the interior 

temperatures of caves and abandoned mines due to airflow into the caves. As bats are selective in 

the microclimates in which they will roost, this may cause bats to shift their use elsewhere inside 

caves/mines or abandon them altogether. Riparian areas host an abundance of insects, in addition 

to water for bats, and climate change could alter the quantity/quality of this kind of habitat.

Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownership types, if for no other reason than human 

population growth. This will increase human disturbance and potentially impact bats on all 

ownerships. Additionally, many people are intolerant of bats and this can lead to disturbance of 

bats, loss of access to roost sites, or mortality.

Water pollution can impact prey abundance and also directly impact bats; and stock tanks used 

for grazing can cause drowning if there are no escape ramps in place.

Impacts to bats during migration are not well understood. Habitat loss along migration routes, 

including roost sites, may cause populations declines in bats.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

306 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for Townsend’s big-eared bat. This 

determination is based in part on:

• FW-GDL-WL-09 and 10 protect abandoned mines/caves and buildings that are used by bats. 

Additional direction in the revised Forest Plan that protects roosts/hibernacula and 

minimizes disturbance includes FW-DC-WL-01 and FW-GDL-WL-21;

• FW-DC-WL-16 states that caves, mines, and snags provide areas for roosting, hibernation, 

or maternity sites for various species of bats;

• FW-GDL-WL-10 states that buildings should be inspected prior to removal or demolition to 

determine bat use and then disturbance avoided until bats are gone for the season or 

removed. FW-GDL-WL-21 provides direction to avoid or minimize disturbance at active 

roosts or hibernacula;

• Direction in the revised Forest Plan that maintains snag habitat includes: FW-DC-VEG-07, 

FW-GDL-VEG-04 and 05, and FW-DC-WL-13. Snags may be used as roosting habitat by 

bats; and

• The revised Forest Plan will move vegetation conditions towards a desired condition that 

will be based on historic conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 08, FW-DC-VEG-11, and 

FW-DC-FIRE-03). The distribution and amount of bat habitat should be nearer historic 

levels.

Black-backed Woodpecker – Picoides arcticus

Affected Environment

Burned conifer forests and other insect infested forests provide key conditions necessary for both 

nesting and foraging for black-backed woodpeckers.

Black-backed woodpecker population biology, ecology, habitat description, and relationships are 

described in the Birds of North America Online (Dixon and Saab 2000), and incorporated by 

reference. Additional information is included in the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP 

and MFWP 2011), and NatureServe databases (2011) and in Partners in Flight bird Conservation 

Plan (PIF 2000).

In 2006 Samson completed “A conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, black-backed 

woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest 

Service” and estimated the amounts of black-backed woodpecker habitat in the northern region, 

the Northern Rockies Ecoregion and for each of the Northern Region National Forests. Samson 

also developed habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of each of these species 

including the black-backed woodpecker in Region 1 (Samson 2006). Bush and Lundberg (2008) 

provided an update of habitat estimates for the Region One Conservation Assessment.

Hoffman (1997 cited in Bonn et al. 2007) suggests that an analysis for species such as the blackbacked woodpecker (such as viability analysis) should be conducted at the regional scale. This 

write-up discusses the black-backed woodpecker at both the regional scale as well as for the 

IPNF.

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 307

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetation changes). The ERG analysis (ERG 2012) looked at vegetation changes over the next 

50 years. Consideration was also given to a broader context for black-backed woodpeckers 

compared to some of the less mobile species due to their known ability to move great distances 

to recently burned habitat.

Habitat and Life History Needs

Wisdom et al. (2000) identify source habitats for black-backed woodpeckers as late seral multi -

and single-layered stages of the subalpine, montane, and lower montane communities. They have 

a preference for dead and decaying trees for perching and foraging, and are highly associated 

with recent burns. Stand replacing large burns and other beetle infested stands provide high 

concentrations of prey (wood boring beetles) for black-backed woodpeckers (Koplin 1969 cited 

in Wisdom et al. 2000).

Black-backed woodpeckers are highly responsive to forest fire and other processes, such as 

spruce budworm outbreaks, that result in high concentrations of wood boring insects invading 

dead trees. Local and regional irruptions and range extensions have been observed in response to 

burns and wood borer outbreaks (Yunick 1985 in NatureServe 2011). In Montana, habitat 

includes early successional, burned forest of mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, and 

spruce-fir (Hutto 1995a, 1995b cited in MNHP and MFWP 2011) although they are more 

numerous in lower elevation Douglas-fir and pine forest habitats than in higher subalpine spruce 

forest habitats (Bock and Bock 1974 cited in MNHP and MFWP 2011). They appear to 

concentrate in recently burned forest and remain for several years (3 to 5) before leaving due to 

prey source decline (Harris 1982 cited in MNHP and MFWP 2011). Two post fire factors appear 

to be necessary for the black-backed woodpecker; nests found were in snags that had evidence of 

decay before the fire and a healthy number of snags before a fire is important.

Black-backed woodpeckers nest in live and dead trees of various species and often excavate a 

nest in sapwood, which decays more quickly than heartwood (Dixon and Saab 2000). The bulk 

of the diet of black-backed woodpeckers is wood-boring beetle larvae (including Monochamus 

spp. and Englemann spruce beetle, Dendroctonus englamanni), but they also feed on other 

insects (e.g., weevils, beetles, spiders, ants). Occasionally they will eat fruits, nuts, sap, and 

cambium. Foraging in western Montana was primarily by pecking, with scaling the next most 

common technique (NHP 2007). To provide plenty of wood-boring beetle grubs to feed their 

young, dead trees have to be plentiful and clumped close together. In between burns, blackbacked woodpeckers disperse and must rely on stands of insect ridden trees for survival 

generally in late seral forests and riparian woodlands (Wisdom et al. 2000). Snags (ponderosa 

pine, lodgepole pine and larch) are a special habitat feature for black-backed woodpecker.

Habitat Estimates

Burned Forest/Insect and Disease Forests

Samson (2006a) in his conservation assessment for the black-backed woodpecker found that 

there has been a significant increase in the amount of fire throughout Region 1 when he 

compared the amount of fire between two timeframes 1990-1993 (66,743 acres) and 2000-2003 

(1,139,537 acres). He also found a similar situation related to insect and disease throughout the 

region, including the IPNF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

308 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Throughout the northern region (including the Forest) Samson (2006a) in his conservation 

assessment demonstrated that habitat for black-backed woodpecker is well distributed, well 

connected, and there are no gaps that would limit black-backed woodpecker movements.

Table 61 displays by decade the amount of acres burned on the IPNF over the past several 

decades.

Table 61. Estimated Acres Burned by Decade on the Forest

Decade Acres Burned

2000 - present 17,600

1990 - 1999 6,800

1980 - 1989 4,800

1970 - 1979 10,700

After extensive fires in the early part of the century (1910 – 1930) that burned well over a 

million acres, the amount of burned forest on the IPNF has been relatively small. Large acreages 

of fire also burned between the years of 1960-1969 (>78,000 acres) and most recently there has 

been an increase from the previous two decades. It is likely that the amount of burned forest, in 

combination with insect and disease killed stands, provided a large amount of habitat for both 

species over the past decade.

Black-backed woodpecker habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 

(ERG 2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 62 displays two of 

the relevant scenarios. The existing 1987 Forest Plan was modeled, as was a “no treatment” 

scenario where no mechanical treatment was modeled. This was done for comparison purposes 

and to put management under the 1987 Forest Plan into context. Both consider a warmer/drier 

climate over the next five decades as the climate changes. Both of these scenarios also 

considered that the current level of fire suppression would continue into the future and both 

considered an increase in acres burned over time due to a warmer/drier climate and fuel loads. 

Under both scenarios the acreage of black-backed woodpecker habitat is comparable to existing 

conditions after about five decades.

Table 62. Acres of Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No Treatment Scenario (acres)

0 14,074 14,074

1 6,069 7,586

2 7,298 8,168

5 17,447 18,505

Source: Ecosystem Research Group 2012. Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

Wisdom et al. (2000) identified that throughout the interior Columbia Basin there has been a 

widespread decline (but less severe than the strongest declines identified) in source habitats for 

species dependent on late-successional forest habitats present over broad elevations, which 

includes the black-backed woodpecker. Analysis conducted for the Forest (see the “Vegetation” 

section or this document) also identified a fairly significant reduction in late-successional forest 

habitats. However, late -successional habitats are still considered to be well distributed across the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 309

Forest. In addition to current late-successional stands, the Forests are managing additional lands 

for their late-successional characteristics. The current trend is such that late-successional forests 

are no longer targeted for timber harvest. Over the short- and long-term natural succession will

result in an increase in the amount of lands in the large size class and subsequently in the amount 

of late-successional forest components, such as snags and down wood important.

Snags

A snag analysis recently conducted for the Forest (Bollenbacher et al. 2009) provided an 

estimate of the number of snags currently existing throughout the forested portion of the Forest. 

The analysis compared the amount of snags presently occurring in wilderness/roadless areas 

versus those outside wilderness/roadless areas. The analysis identified that areas outside of 

wilderness/roadless areas have similar snags per acre to those in wilderness/roadless areas. The 

snag densities within wilderness/roadless areas provide insight into natural snag abundance and 

distribution, and this can be compared to areas outside of wilderness/roadless (page 4 in 

Bollenbacher et al. 2009). The 90 pecent confidence intervals for wilderness/roadless area snags 

overlap with the confidence intervals for areas outside of wilderness/roadless (table 2 in 

Bollenbacher et al. 2009). In other words, the number of snags outside of wilderness/roadless 

areas, which represents natural snag abundance, is not very different than the number of snags 

outside of wilderness/roadless. Please see the snag discussion in the vegetation section of the 

FEIS and DEIS (pages 69-72 in the DEIS) for more information regarding the findings of 

Bollenbacher et al. 2009 and the amount of snags available on the Forest. As the amount of 

firewood adjacent to roads accessed by the public continues to diminish; access away from roads 

to patches of snags, especially in late-successional stands, has increased.

Key Stressors

Fire suppression and postfire salvage logging are detrimental to this species.

The following Forest Service management activities may have had direct or indirect effects on 

black-backed woodpeckers or their habitats that resulted in habitat loss and/or displacement of 

individuals:

• Timber harvest (salvage logging);

• Fire suppression;

• Removal of fire killed or insect infested trees;

• Conversion of mature and late-successional forests to young stands with few decayed 

trees; and

• Human disturbance near nest sites (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 2005).

Their strong association with dying or dead trees infested with beetles may be a key to blackbacked woodpecker management. It is the conservation of specific forest seral stages (mainly 

mature and late-successional), therefore that may ultimately determine the baseline populations 

and viability of black-backed woodpeckers. Focusing only on burned areas as a management 

approach may jeopardize their long-term viability. Mature and late-successional forests 

containing patches of beetle infested trees may provide adequate habitat to support baseline 

populations of black-backed woodpeckers when burned areas are not available (Goggans et al. 

1988). It is important to recognize that large scale disturbances may be more important in 

maintaining their populations now than in historical times due to the reduction of all latesuccessional forests and the increase in “salvage” logging techniques which remove dying, and 

recently killed trees throughout North America (Ibid).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

310 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Timber Harvest/Salvage: Fire creates habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. Fuels have 

accumulated due to fire suppression, and fires are more likely to create larger patches than under 

historic conditions due to the continuity of fuels. Under historic conditions and without fire 

suppression, patch sizes would likely have been smaller and there would have been a mosaic of 

stand ages; although, even under historic conditions large scale disturbance was possible (e.g., 

1910 fires). Fuels reduction/burning (active restoration) and the use of natural, unplanned 

ignitions (passive restoration) will restore/maintain conditions nearer to historic conditions and 

make them more sustainable and resilient to large-scale disturbance. Instead of having largescale disturbance and converting large acreages to black-backed woodpecker habitat in the shortterm, smaller scale disturbances will create a mosaic of habitat conditions and allow for a 

continued supply of black-backed woodpecker habitat over time. FW-DC-WL-15 and FW-GDLWL-08 will maintain habitat post-disturbance to provide for the habitat requirements of species 

such as the black-backed woodpecker that rely on recently burned/disturbed forest. Use of 

natural, unplanned ignitions, implemented through FW-DC-FIRE-03, will be useful for 

maintaining burned habitat for black-backed woodpeckers over time.

Salvage logging reduces the amount of black-backed woodpecker habitat; however, adequate 

habitat will be retained for wildlife habitat as per FW-DC-TBR-01.

Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912 acres/year), and A (10,867 acres/year) under 

constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (14,190 acres/year) 

will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year), D (10,790

acres/year), and A (11,537 acres/year). Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning 

will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in 

Alternative A. Of the alternatives, B Modified (1,683 acres) will be expected to have more 

regeneration treatments per year under constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C

(1,677 acres), D (1,607 acres) and then A (1,474 acres). Of the alternatives, B Modified (5,884

acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained 

budgets in the first decade, followed by C (5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres) and then A (5,537

acres).

Fire wood gathering will be facilitated by open roads, but due to tree density and topography it 

will be difficult for firewood gathers to cut snags very far off of a road. Although firewood 

gathering does result in a loss of snags, typically there are far more acres that are inaccessible to 

firewood gathers on the Forest that provides black-backed woodpecker habitat.

Fire Suppression: The use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) will have a much 

greater likelihood of maintaining or improving habitat pattern across the Forest. Most fires are 

likely to be suppressed under Alternative A. Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) 

will be more likely to result in continued suppression of most fires and therefore less passive 

restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. The action alternatives have more flexibility to use 

fire to restore/maintain habitat. The use of natural unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) 

would be more likely in MA1, and Alternative C (335,300 acres) would have the most MA1, 

followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D (156,800 acres), and A (153,900 acres equivalent 

to MA1). Fire may also be used more in MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives B Modified 

(681,200 acres) and C (630,000 acres) have more than D (624,900 acres).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 311

In addition to FW-DC-FIRE-03, MA direction in the revised Forest Plan that supports expanded 

use of natural, unplanned ignitions and planned ignitions includes: MA1a-DC-VEG-01, MA1aDC-FIRE-01, MA1a-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1b-DC-VEG-01, MA1b-DC-FIRE-01, MA1bGDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1c-DC-VEG-01, MA1c-DC-FIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, 

MA1e-DC-VEG-01, MA1e-DC-FIRE-01, MA1e-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02,MA2a-DC-FIRE-01, 

MA2a-DC-VEG-01, MA2a-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA2b-DC-VEG-01, MA2b-DC-FIRE01, MA2b-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03,MA5-DC-VEG-01, MA5-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5-GDLFIRE-01. Fire will be more likely to play a more natural role on more of the landscape under the 

action alternatives compared to Alternative A.

Black-backed woodpecker habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 

(ERG 2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 63 displays three 

of the relevant scenarios. The existing 1987 Forest Plan was modeled, as was a “no treatment” 

scenario where no mechanical treatment was modeled. This was done for comparison purposes 

and to put management under the 1987 Forest Plan into context. These scenarios consider a 

warmer/drier climate over the next five decades as the climate changes. These scenarios also 

considered that the current level of fire suppression would continue into the future and 

considered an increase in acres burned over time due to a warmer/drier climate and fuel loads. 

Under all alternatives the acreage of black-backed woodpecker habitat increases from decade 1 

through decade 5. The lesser amount at decade 5 for Alternative B Modified is likely due to the 

anticipated success of management actions to reduce the severity of fire. ERG concluded that 

black-backed woodpeckers are at no risk region-wide. This conclusion is based on the ability of 

black-backed woodpeckers to migrate across forest boundaries to exploit wildfires and their 

genetic relatedness suggests that they readily do this. The IPNF is expected to provide substantial 

burned forest habitat over time (page 83 in ERG 2012).

Table 63. Acres of Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 

(acres)

1987 Forest Plan (acres) No Treatment Scenario 

(acres)

0 14,074 14,074 14,074

1 4,934 6,069 7,586

2 6,799 7,298 8,168

5 15,122 17,447 18,505

Source: Ecosystem Research Group 2012. These scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

For black-backed woodpeckers, as with wildlife on the Forest in general, it is wildfire, 

insects/disease, in-growth, and stand succession that largely determines the amount and pattern 

of habitat on the Forest for this species rather than management activities (pages ES-1 and ES-2 

in ERG 2012).

Mehl et al. (2009) developed a report for the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) that examined 

IDL’s goal of restoring/maintaining a 20 percent representation of historic habitat conditions on 

their lands in north Idaho. They assumed that the same 20 percent would be met on other land 

ownerships as well. For black-backed woodpeckers, the high likelihood of future fires, 

particularly high severity fires due to climate change, would maintain habitat conditions into the 

future (page 210 in Mehl et al. 2009). They stated that the objectives are not to return the entire 

landscape to historic conditions, but to provide sufficient amounts of similar ecosystems 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

312 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

represented across the landscape to maintain native species (page 43 in Mehl et al. 2009). The 

revised Forest Plan for the IPNF does far more than aim to restore/maintain only 20 percent of 

historic habitat conditions for native species. The desired conditions for vegetation in the revised 

Forest Plan are based on historic conditions and natural disturbance processes rather than aiming 

for a lower percentage of representation of historic habitats.

Disturbance at Nests: Most disturbances are likely to occur near roads due to the ease of human 

access. Alternative A will retain the existing amount of recommended wilderness and nonmotorized areas. Large areas with limitations on motorized use can aid in providing habitat for 

black-backed woodpeckers that will be relatively disturbance free. Alternative C (2,129,490

acres motor vehicle use) will have the least acreage allowing motor vehicle use, followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (2,268,390 acres motor vehicle use) D (2,279,590 acres motor vehicle 

use) and A (2,399,138 acres motor vehicle use).Alternative C (335,300 acres) would have the 

most land in MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D (156,800 acres), and 

Alternatives A (153,900 acres).

FW-GDL-WL-25 sets timing restrictions and distance buffers around known nest sites of 

sensitive species using the best available information to reduce disturbance. FW-DC-WL-01 

states that sensitive species nest sites are relatively free of human disturbance.

Recreation most often occurs near open roads, which is also the same area where firewood 

gathering will be most likely to occur. Recreation/human presence may cause disturbance that 

will cause black-backed woodpeckers to avoid the area, in particular near open roads. 

Disturbance due to firewood gathering could also cause them to avoid those areas. There will be 

bark beetle infested trees found away from roads on the Forest that will provide habitat for 

black-backed woodpeckers with less human presence.

Mining activities could reduce the amount of potential habitat, but the footprint will likely be 

small in comparison to the entire Forest. A mine will remove trees and therefore those trees will 

not have a chance to die in a fire or other disturbance. Until the mine site is reclaimed, there will 

not be any black-backed woodpecker habitat on that site. A haul/supply route could also remove 

trees, and if that route is open to the public it could increase firewood harvest along that road if it 

is not an existing open road. Disturbance associated with the mine or haul/supply route may 

cause black-backed woodpeckers to avoid the area adjacent to the activities. Livestock 

management activities (e.g., fence building), special use permits, and the collection of forest 

products could all result in disturbance to black-backed woodpeckers. Suitable habitat is 

ephemeral, so activities that currently do not disturb black-backed woodpeckers may do so in the 

future if suitable habitat develops nearby. FW-GDL-WL-25 sets timing restrictions and distance 

buffers around known nest sites of sensitive species using the best available information to 

reduce disturbance. FW-DC-WL-01 states that sensitive species nest sites are relatively free of 

human disturbance.

Large areas with limitations on motorized use can aid in providing habitat for black-backed 

woodpeckers that would be relatively disturbance free. Alternative C (2,129,490 acres motor

vehicle use) would have the least acreage allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B 

Modified (2,268,390 acres motor vehicle use), D (2,279,590 acres motor vehicle use) and A 

(2,399,138 acres motor vehicle use).Alternative C (335,300 acres) would have the most land in 

MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D (156,800 acres), and Alternatives A 

(153,900 acres).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 313

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past fire suppression and then salvage logging when fires did occur likely altered the availability 

and pattern of habitat for black-backed woodpeckers on the Forest.

Timber management and salvage logging are likely to continue on non-NFS ownerships. Stands 

burned on private lands are more likely to be salvaged logged than on the Forest. This will 

reduce the amount of habitat available following those disturbances.

Climate change could impact the amount and distribution of black-backed woodpecker habitat 

on the Forest. Combined with past fire suppression, climate change may lead to an increase in 

black-backed woodpecker habitat. This is because of the increased susceptibility to large-scale 

disturbance as more of the Forest moves outside of historic conditions. More, and larger, bark 

beetle outbreaks will provide a more abundant food source for black-backed woodpeckers. 

However, as bark-beetles decline in impacted stands after the first several years of an attack, the 

suitability of those stands as black-backed woodpecker habitat will decline over time following 

an outbreak. If these outbreaks are over a large-scale, then the long-term sustainability of blackbacked woodpecker habitat may be impacted. If stands are restored nearer to historic conditions, 

and are more sustainable and resilient to large-scale disturbance, then disturbances will likely 

occur at smaller scales. That will provide a mosaic of stand conditions across the Forest and 

sustain a moving distribution of black-backed woodpecker habitat in the long-term. Highly 

mobile species, such as the black-backed woodpecker, are able to respond better to climate 

change (page 91 in USDA Forest Service 2010).

Fire is more likely to be suppressed near homes, and dead/dying trees salvaged logged to reduce 

fuels.

The action alternatives will contribute towards improving habitat for black-backed woodpeckers. 

This is due to returning conditions nearer to historic conditions, facilitating the development of 

smaller amounts of suitable habitat over time rather than one large influx of habitat due to a 

large-scale disturbance.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for black-backed woodpecker. This 

determination is based in part on:

• FW-DC-WL-15 and FW-GDL-WL-08 will maintain some burned, unlogged habitat for 

species such as black-backed woodpeckers. Other direction in the revised Forest Plan that 

maintains snag habitat includes: FW-DC-VEG-07, FW-GDL-VEG-04 and 05, and FW-DCWL-13;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

314 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• The percentage of the Forest with high snag densities will increase over the next five 

decades;

• Use of natural, unplanned ignitions implemented through FW-DC-FIRE-03 and MA 

direction, will be useful for maintaining burned habitat for black-backed woodpeckers over 

time;

• The IPNF is expected to provide substantial burned forest habitat over time (page 83 in ERG 

2012);

• Salvage logging reduces the amount of black-backed woodpecker habitat; however, adequate 

habitat will be retained for wildlife habitat as per FW-DC-TBR-01; and

• Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action 

alternatives.

Black Swift– Cypseloides niger

Affected Environment

Black swift population biology, ecology, habitat description and relationships are described in 

the Birds of North America Online (Lowther and Collins 2002) and incorporated by reference. 

Additional information is included in the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP and 

MFWP 2011), NatureServe databases (2011) and in Montana Partners in Flight bird 

Conservation Plan (PIF 2000).

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetation changes).

Habitat and Life History Needs

Known breeding populations of black swifts are closely associated with mountain waterfalls, 

caves or coastal cliffs. They forage over forests and in open areas by catching insects in the air, 

often at great heights and feed on caddisflies, mayflies, beetles, flesh flies, hymenoptera and 

other insects (Groves et al. 1997a). Requirements for nesting include water, high relief, 

inaccessibility, darkness, and unobstructed flyways (MNHP and MFWP 2011). Other nesting 

habitat requirements appear to be; cliff sites that are inaccessible from ground predators, ledges 

or pockets on cliff walls, and moss availability. Where adequate space allows, nesting is often 

colonial.

There are several waterfalls scattered throughout Forests. The majority of these are associated 

with forested environments and do not provide suitable habitat for foraging by black swift. High 

elevation habitats that contain waterfalls with rock cliffs and open type environments similar to 

those required occur in only a limited number of locations on the Forests. There has been no 

change in these habitat components on the Forests. Black swifts have been sighted at several 

waterfalls on the Forest during the nesting season.

Key Stressors

Throughout its range; a decrease in water flows, and recreational use of nest sites by rock 

climbers, swimmers, and hikers are two of the biggest threats to this species (MPIF 2000). This 

can cause disturbance, displacement, or nest abandonment. On the IPNF there are two 

documented nesting sites and a number of suitable falls with potential nesting habitat. Given the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 315

location of black swift nest sites on cliffs with limited accessibility and the relatively low level of 

recreation around possible black swift nesting sites, the potential for nest site disturbance is 

considered relatively low, although still possible.

Environmental Consequences — Black Swift

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Disturbance at Nests: On the Forest, recreation would be the most likely cause of disturbance 

for the black swift. However, this effect would be considered small due to the limited 

accessibility of potential nest sites and the relatively low level of recreation near those sites. 

Recreational activities that may impact black swifts are rock climbers, hikers, or swimmers 

attracted by the waterfalls where these birds nest. The areas where suitable waterfalls are found 

are generally at higher elevations on the Forest and in open habitats. Those are more likely to be 

found in wilderness or other areas with limited access. If disturbance does occur, it may cause 

individual birds to at least temporarily avoid the area. Nest abandonment could occur if the 

disturbance becomes great enough, and nesting habitat is naturally limited on the Forest. 

However, given the limited accessibility of these sites, nest site disturbance would be considered 

relatively low. FW-DC-WL-01 states that lands surrounding nests of sensitive species are 

relatively free of human disturbance and FW-GDL-WL-25 states that timing restrictions and 

distance buffers around nests would be used in order to reduce effects from disturbance.

Special uses are likely not currently impacting black swift habitat or causing disturbance due to 

the limited extent and inaccessible nature of nesting habitat. Disturbance related to other 

management activities such as timber harvest are expected to be minimal or nonexistent due to 

the inaccessible nature of nest sites and the lack of active management in those areas.

There would likely be very limited effects from the collection of other forest products on black 

swift habitat. Nesting habitat for black swifts generally does not have forest products such as 

firewood, Christmas trees, boughs, mushrooms, or other commonly collected items. Because of 

this, there would be a low likelihood of disturbance effects to black swifts.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Black swift habitat, because it occurs at higher elevation, relatively inaccessible sites, is more 

likely to occur on the Forest rather than other ownerships. Any potential habitat on other 

ownerships would likely be exposed to similar kinds of disturbance and effects. High elevation 

waterfalls tend to be inaccessible, and black swifts prefer open habitats, so timber management is 

likely to result in only small effects. Recreational activities are the most likely impact on NFS 

lands to black swifts, although the level of impact is likely tied to the accessibility of the site.

If climate change causes a shift in snowfall amounts/timing, spring melt off amounts/timing, and 

other habitat changes, then black swifts could be affected. Black swifts nest near waterfalls and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

316 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

feed on insects. A change in water flow may alter the suitability of the habitat. Changes in 

temperatures and humidity on the cliff faces may alter the availability of mosses used for 

nesting. Insect hatches may be affected by climate change, so prey availability may change at the 

nest sites (page 90 in USDA Forest Service 2010). The exact effects and extent of climate change 

at the nest sites would be difficult to predict, so the response of black swifts would be difficult to 

predict. If nesting habitat changes to the extent that it becomes unsuitable, then black swifts 

would have to use habitat elsewhere. Given the limited availability of habitat, it may be difficult 

to find habitat elsewhere on the Forest. It would be unknown or difficult to predict if any 

waterfalls that currently exist on the Forest that do not provide suitable habitat because they are 

within forested habitats would someday become suitable due to climate change.

Subdivision of private property is unlikely to impact black swift habitat because subdivision isn't 

likely to occur at higher elevation, inaccessible sites.

The action alternatives would contribute towards maintaining habitat for black swifts. This is due 

to maintaining or increasing the amount of non-motorized backcountry or wilderness.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for common loon. This determination is 

based in part on:

• On the Forest, recreation would be the most likely cause of disturbance for the black swift. 

However, this effect would be considered small due to the limited accessibility of potential 

nest sites and the relatively low level of recreation near those sites;

• FW-DC-WL-01 states that sensitive species' nests are surrounded by lands that are relatively 

free of human disturbance during the periods the species would be active at the site. FWDC-WL-25 sets timing restrictions and distance buffers around known nests based on the 

best available information for the species. This direction would reduce potential disturbance 

to nesting black swifts; and

• Much of the direction under the Watershed, Soil, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources section of 

the revised Forest Plan would maintain or improve riparian habitats and would therefore 

maintain or improve habitat for black swifts. That direction would provide the riparian and 

aquatic habitat useful to provide the insect prey base for black swifts.

Common loon – Gavia immer

Affected Environment

Common loon population biology, ecology, habitat description, and relationships identified by 

research are described in Skaar (1990), Dolan (1994), Evers (2004) and Bissell (2005) and 

incorporated by reference. Sources of ecological and occurrence information is available from 

state agencies, Montana Natural Heritage Program, and Federal agencies that have developed 

shorebird and waterbird conservation plans.

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 317

Habitat and Life History Needs

Successful nesting requires both nesting sites and nursery areas sheltered from winds and 

disturbances. In Montana common loons will generally not nest on lakes less than about 13 acres

in size or over 5,000 feet in elevation (Skaar 1990 in PIF 2000). If nesting on a small lake, they 

may use an adjacent lake for supplementary foraging (Ibid). Small islands (preferred) or 

herbaceous shoreline areas are selected for nesting and sheltered shallow coves with abundant 

insects and small fish are used as nursery areas (Skaar 1990 in PIF 2000). Most lakes inhabited 

by loons are relatively oligotrophic and have not experienced significant siltation or other 

hydrological changes. During migration a wide variety of open water habitats are used, but larger 

lakes and rivers are preferred (PIF 2000).

Water quality is an important habitat feature for breeding loon success. Loons are visual 

predators; therefore, clear water is crucial for foraging efficiency. Loons nest in close proximity 

to the water’s edge and prefer small islands, floating bog mats, and marshy hummocks (Evers 

2004). Nest sites are generally located within 4 feet of the water’s edge and sites are selected that 

provide shelter from wind, cover, view of open water, and near a drop off steep enough for 

underwater approach. Once the eggs have hatched and the young are ready to leave the nest, the 

family moves to a nursery area, a shallow water area protected from wind, waves, and other 

loons. Loons feed mostly on small fish such as yellow perch and various minnow species. Other 

aquatic organisms may also be consumed.

Because disturbance of nesting pairs is one of the major stressors of loons, land ownership 

around nesting lakes is considered important, and is a primary factor in the management 

opportunities available for this species. It is likely that development around many of these lakes 

will continue in the future and potentially impact loon nesting and rearing activities. NFS lands 

provide access to several lakes with loon nesting activity, generally in the form of recreation 

sites, such as campgrounds and boat access sites.

Key Stressors to the Species (Risks and Threats)

Evers (2004) and NatureServe (2011) identified the following threats to common loons 

considered to be outside the control of the forest. These may also cause mortality, nest 

abandonment, or displacement:

• Direct anthropogenic take – (illegal take through hunting). Subsistence hunting is still 

common and practiced across Alaska, northern Canada, and Greenland;

• Commercial fishing activities – incidentally caught in nets by commercial and tribal fishing 

interests;

• Environmental pollutants such as – marine oil spills, contaminants (mercury, lead, organic 

pollutants), acid rain;

• Diseases and parasites – botulism, aspergillosus, and other diseases;

• Reservoir management – water level fluctuation;

• Emaciation syndrome – a regular mortality problem for wintering loons and may be one of 

the greatest threats to common loons; and

• Nest predation.

The following stressors may also cause mortality, nest abandonment, or displacement.

Common loons are vulnerable to habitat loss and/or degradation on both breeding and wintering 

grounds. Major threats to loons are disturbances to nesting pairs caused by recreational activities, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

318 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

habitat loss due to shoreline development, and water pollution (Evers 2004, NatureServe 2011, 

and PIF 2000). Human recreational use of nesting and nursery sites may force loons into 

marginal, less protected nesting sites where chicks are more susceptible to predation when forced 

to separate from their parents by boats, jet skis, or any human intrusion. Chicks are also killed by 

direct impact from outboard propellers and more often jet skis (McIntyre and Barr 1997 in IDFG 

2005).

Water quality degradation from point sources such as faulty septic systems, or more generally 

from road building, timber harvest, or other activities near nesting lakes also has the potential to 

change prey populations and vegetation patterns at nesting lakes. Resultant changes in nest site 

suitability or nest success may occur. Manipulation of water levels can also reduce the suitability 

of lakes and reservoirs as feeding or nesting sites.

Montana Partners in Flight (PIF 2000) identify that minimization of development and recreation 

activities on known nesting lakes, at least during useful portions of the breeding cycle, is perhaps 

the best means of managing loon habitat. Posting of nesting or nursery lakes most susceptible to 

disturbance has been shown to be effective.

Activities on national forest lands that may impact common loons include; water level 

fluctuations, human disturbance of nest sites, development, and access. The majority of the lakes 

used by these species are situated on private lands or managed by other federal (waterfowl 

production areas and refuges managed by USFWS) or state agencies. There are occasions 

however, where Forest Service lands may occur adjacent to these open water systems and may 

indirectly affect species by providing access and/or resulting in disturbance.

Environmental Consequences 

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Disturbance: Disturbance effects are the most likely to occur on NFS lands or be facilitated by 

access through NFS lands. Some lakes that have loons are adjacent to private or state lands, and 

most disturbances are likely to come from the private lands/residences. NFS roads, 

campgrounds, and boat ramps that facilitate access to lakes with loons can contribute to 

disturbance as well. Lakes tend to be popular recreation destinations, so on lakes with mixed 

ownerships disturbance will be likely.

Lakes where disturbance of loons was considered a problem under current management, in 

coordination with the state, restrictions on motorized use have been put in place. FW-GDL-WL24 provides direction to avoid or minimize disturbance near nests, and FW-DC-WL-01 states 

that sensitive species nest sites are relatively free of human disturbance. FW-DC-WL-10 states 

that aquatic/riparian species find a mosaic of aquatic and riparian habitats and a low level of 

disturbance exists in these areas. Special uses that occur on or adjacent to lakes may cause 

disturbance to loons. Minerals development that may occur adjacent to lakes may disturb loons 

and cause them to avoid the area. Additionally, any haul/supply route that passes a lake and 

greatly increases noise and traffic may add to disturbance to loons. Disturbance caused by the 

collection of forest products will not likely be great. For disturbance to occur it would require 

people to be immediately adjacent to a section of lake that a loon was using. It would be 

relatively rare for this to occur, but if it did, loons may temporarily shift their use to another part 

of the lake.

Fire may cause some disturbance to loons due to smoke, but the most impactful disturbance may 

be associated with fire suppression activities. Helicopters in particular, either flying low over a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 319

lake or dipping water, can cause disturbance to loons. Fire suppression has led to a buildup of 

fuels, and fuels reduction activities in close proximity to lakes with loons can potentially cause 

disturbance. Lakes with private residences around them are the most likely to have active fire 

suppression in order to protect the private property and people.

Timber harvest that includes helicopter logging would be the most likely to disturb loons. FWDC-WL-01, FW-DC-WL-11, and FW-GDL-WL-224 will be the direction in the revised Forest 

Plan that would minimize disturbance to loons.

A trend towards the desired conditions for vegetation may improve habitat conditions for loons 

by reducing the duration and intensity of smoke during a fire. Moving towards historic 

conditions, reducing fuels, and making stands more resilient to large-scale disturbance may 

increase the frequency of smoke exposure, but will decrease the likelihood of a large, standreplacing fire. Smaller, more frequent burns will be more likely on drier sites.

Water Levels: INFISH guides current management of aquatic/riparian resources and has been 

incorporated into the revised Plan. Much of the direction in the “Watershed, Soil, Riparian, and 

Aquatic Resources” section of the revised Forest Plan will aid in maintaining water levels and 

quality and will therefore maintain or improve loon habitat. Climate and annual precipitation 

primarily determine water levels on lakes adjacent to NFS lands, but they can also be determined 

by water uses that are outside the control of the Forest Service (e.g., irrigation, hydro-power). 

The Forest Service may, in some cases, have little control over water levels on lakes that are not 

completely managed by the Forest Service.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan.

Recreational activities are the most likely activity to have caused disturbance or impacted loons 

on NFS lands. Information/education efforts have been utilized to limit those effects.

Timber management, including helicopter logging, may continue on non-NFS ownerships. If 

done near a lake, disturbance to loons could result.

Climate change could affect loons through changes in water levels, temperatures, and vegetation. 

If climate change alters precipitation and spring melt, water levels may fluctuate more in the 

spring during nesting then they may have previously. This may impact nesting if nests become 

submerged or become elevated as the water level decreases. Water temperatures may impact the 

suitability of lakes for different fish species, thereby changing prey abundance. Aquatic 

vegetation, important for nests, may change locations in a lake due to water level fluctuations, 

and this may change nest site availability. This changing phenology is one of the consequences 

of climate change for migratory birds (page 90 in USDA Forest Service 2010).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

320 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownership types, if for no other reason than human 

population growth. This would increase human disturbance and potentially impact lake habitat 

on all ownerships. As on NFS lands, disturbance associated with human presence and most 

management activities would likely continue. Subdivision of private property has the potential to 

alter areas around lakes and increase disturbance. Fire is more likely to be suppressed near 

homes, and dead/dying trees salvaged logged to reduce fuels.

Loons may be directly killed by illegal hunting, subsistence hunting in Canada, or getting caught 

in commercial fishing nets on their wintering waters. Environmental pollutants can kill loons 

through lead or mercury poisoning and marine oil spills. Habitat can be degraded through 

pollution, including impacts on loon prey and consequently displacing loons. Land use activities 

near waterbodies that support nesting loons can contribute pollution, such as faulty septic 

systems.

Diseases and parasites (botulism, aspergillosus, and other diseases), and emaciation syndrome, 

can cause mortality to loons and impact the population. Nest predation, or predation on juveniles 

when they become separated from adults, also can impact a population.

Reservoir management can cause water level fluctuation and consequently nest failure. Shoreline 

development increases disturbance and can degrade habitat. Because loons are susceptible to 

disturbance, increases in recreation can cause displacement, nest abandonment, or direct 

mortality.

The action alternatives will contribute towards improving or maintaining habitat for loons. FWGDL-WL-24 provides direction to avoid or minimize disturbance from Forest Service activities 

near nests.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for common loon. This determination is 

based in part on:

• FW-GDL-WL-24 provides direction to avoid or minimize disturbance near nests, and FWDC-WL-01 states that sensitive species nest sites are relatively free of human disturbance. 

FW-DC-WL-11 states that aquatic/riparian species find a mosaic of aquatic and riparian 

habitats and a low level of disturbance exists in these areas. This direction works best where 

lakes are completely surrounded by NFS lands; and

• Much of the direction in the “Watershed, Soil, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section of 

the revised Forest Plan will aid in maintaining water levels and quality and will therefore 

maintain or improve loon habitat.

Fisher – Martes pennanti

Affected Environment

The fisher is one of a group of carnivores that occur on the Forest. Carnivores are important 

indicators of ecosystem integrity in that they influence the structure and reflect the vigor of the 

trophic levels upon which they depend. Information on carnivore conservation and management 

is discussed in Witmer et al. (1998) for the Interior Columbia Basin. Several carnivores in the 

western United States have declined dramatically in the last century and a half and are listed as 

threatened or endangered species or are considered sensitive by land management agencies 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 321

(Noss et al. 1996, cited in Witmer et al. 1998). These species are mostly far ranging, elusive, shy 

and inconspicuous, occur in low densities and are active mainly at night (Kucera and Zielinski 

1995). Many of these species tend to be wilderness-oriented, are largely intolerant of human 

activities, and have large spatial requirements. Therefore, the key common feature appears to be 

remote and secure habitats.

Fisher population ecology, biology, habitat description, and relationships identified by research 

are described in Powell and Zielinski (1994), Heinemeyer and Jones (1994), Rugierro et al. 

(1994) and Vinkey (2003). That information is incorporated by reference. Additional information 

is found in the Montana Natural Heritage Program, Idaho Data Conservation Center and 

NatureServe databases. Additional research and data collection are in progress by the researchers 

and state agencies elsewhere in Montana and Idaho. Information on fisher 

augmentation/introduction is described by Vinkey (2003). Information on source habitats is 

described in Wisdom et al. (2000).

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetative changes). The ERG analysis (ERG 2012) looked at vegetation changes over the next 

50 years.

Habitat and Life History Needs

Fishers are a rare predator found in mature to late-successional forests with high canopy closure 

and large tree (both live and dead) structure. They avoid large openings. Natal dens have been 

located in pileated woodpecker cavities (Aubry and Raley 2002) and other forest structures. 

Fishers are found in forested habitats that display extensive physical structure, including snags 

for dens, multilayered canopies to protect against predation, down logs for denning and resting 

(Aubry 2005, Powell and Zielinski 1994, Wisdom et al. 2000), and coarse woody debris to 

provide prey (Douglas and Strickland 1987, Buskirk and Powell 1994, Powell and Zielinski 

1994, all cited in Vinkey 2003). Moist forested habitats with continuous overhead cover and 

riparian zones are frequently utilized (Arthur et al. 1989, Jones 1991, Weir 1995 all cited in 

Vinkey 2003) and stream courses may be used as travel corridors (IDFG 2005).

Fishers hunt for prey on the forest floor and in trees and snags (Spahr et al. 1991). Fisher are 

noted for their ability to prey on porcupines; however, their list of prey species is extensive 

including numerous small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, bird eggs, fish, and fruit (Heinemeyer 

and Jones 1994;pages 7-8). Major winter foods include carrion, snowshoe hare, mice, and voles.

Vegetation management and fire suppression have influenced habitat of this species and its prey 

by altering composition and structure. High quality habitats for the fisher, unlike that for grizzly 

bear, are not strongly associated with low levels of human population and roads (Carroll et al. 

2001).

Habitat Estimates

Estimates of the amount of habitat currently available for the fisher (Bush and Lundberg 2008) in 

the northern region (Samson 2006a), show that habitat is abundant and well distributed across 

the Northern Region by Ecological Province and National Forest. Habitat estimates for the 

Northern Region, the Northern Rocky Mountain Ecological Province (which includes the Forest) 

(Bush and Lundberg 2008).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

322 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 64. Habitat Estimates for Fisher (acres)

Region 1 Northern Rocky Mountain Ecological Province

Winter Habitat 6,251,386 4,043,154

Summer Habitat 2,293,408 1,526,712

Fisher habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 (ERG 2012). ERG 

modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 65 displays two of the relevant 

scenarios. The existing 1987 Forest Plan was modeled, as was a “no treatment” scenario where 

no mechanical treatment was modeled. This was done for comparison purposes and to put 

management under the 1987 Forest Plan into context. Both consider a warmer/drier climate over 

the next five decades as the climate changes. Both of these scenarios also considered that the 

current level of fire suppression would continue into the future and both considered an increase 

in acres burned over time due to a warmer/drier climate and fuel loads. Over the next five 

decades wildfire and root disease are the expected causes of the decline in fisher habitat 

availability. Even though habitat declines, it remains within HRV and there is no indication that 

fisher viability is at risk (page 85 in ERG 2012).

Table 65. Acres of Fisher Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No Treatment Scenario (acres)

0 1,156,387 1,156,387

1 857,677 862,631

2 772,544 761,735

5 755,169 739,428

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

Habitat Threshold

Samson (2006a) in his conservation assessment estimated the critical habitat threshold for a 

minimum viable population of fisher for the Northern Region. For his assessment Samson 

estimated that the amount of habitat needed for a minimum viable population of fisher is 100,077 

acres (approximately 405 km2). Based on an estimate of the amount of habitat available (Bush 

and Lundberg 2008), the Northern Region (2,293,408 acres) easily provides enough habitat to 

support a minimum viable population of fisher. In fact, habitat estimates (Bush and Lundberg 

2008) identify that habitat in the Northern Rocky Mountain Ecological Province and in 8 of the 

12 National Forests in the Northern Region (including the Kootenai) exceed the amount of 

habitat needed to support a minimum viable population of fisher.

Key Stressors

The following Forest Service management activities may have direct or indirect effects on 

forested and riparian habitats:

• Timber Harvest – changes in mature and late-successional forest stand composition and 

structure affecting canopy cover and the amount and availability of large down wood; and

• Fire (both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) – removal of standing snags 

and down wood, reduction of canopy coverage, or direct mortality.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 323

Stressors to this species group that are outside the control of Forest Service management may 

include (cumulative effects):

• Global warming (climate change) – increased and prolonged summer temperatures and/or 

drought conditions, and/or the increased risk of fire that may impact forest cover and down 

wood;

• Private land development – developments to support increased human populations that may 

impact suitable forest cover on non-public lands, and impact connectivity between public 

lands;

• Over-harvesting by trappers – both allowable and incidental trapping with marten traps may 

be an important source of mortality, particularly where populations are small and fragmented 

(cumulative effect);

• Habitat loss and degradation – loss of forested habitat, particularly late-successional forests, 

to fire and timber harvest results in the reduction and fragmentation of suitable habitat. Loss 

of habitat cover and structure near streams, loss of down and woody material near streams; 

and

• Small, isolated populations – may lose genetic diversity and have a higher probability of 

extinction. It is unknown if a sufficient number of individuals exist to sustain the populations 

across the full range of environmental and demographic stochasticity (Vinkey 2003) 

(cumulative effect).

Stressors may cause loss of habitat, displacement, or mortality.

Environmental Consequences – Fisher

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Timber Harvest/Fire: Fishers evolved to use a habitat that tends to have stand-replacing 

disturbance due to the dense nature of the stands and large amount of fuels. The likelihood of a 

large, stand-replacing disturbance will be greater today due to fire suppression increasing stand 

densities and fuels, in particular on drier sites. Trending towards the desired conditions for 

vegetation will return stands nearer to historic conditions and enable them to be more sustainable 

and resilient to large-scale, stand replacing disturbance. This will improve and maintain fisher 

habitat in a distribution and amounts better approximating what would have been present under 

natural disturbance processes. There will be a lower likelihood of a stand-replacing event starting 

in the lower elevation, drier forests, and carrying into the moist forest types (fisher habitat).

Timber harvest designed to move toward the desired conditions for vegetation and historic 

conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 09, FW-DC-VEG-11, and FW-DC-FIRE-03) will aid in 

maintaining fisher habitat in a sustainable and resilient condition. FW-DC-VEG-07 and 08, FWGDL-VEG-03 through 06, FW-DC-WL-13 and 14 will retain snags and downed wood that are 

important to fishers in a distribution and quantity nearer to what will have been present under 

natural disturbance processes. Timber harvest may cause disturbance to fishers and lead them to 

at least temporarily avoid the areas adjacent to logging activities. FW-GDL-WL-25 will protect 

den sites with timing restrictions and distance buffers.

Fisher habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 (ERG 2012). ERG 

modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 66 displays some of the relevant 

scenarios. The existing 1987 Forest Plan was modeled, as was a “no treatment” scenario, where 

no mechanical treatment was modeled. This was done for comparison purposes and to put 

management under the 1987 Forest Plan into context. A warmer/drier climate over the next five 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

324 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

decades as the climate changes was considered. Scenarios also considered that the current level 

of fire suppression would continue into the future and considered an increase in acres burned 

over time due to a warmer/drier climate and fuel loads. Over the next five decades wildfire and 

root disease are the expected causes of the decline in fisher habitat availability. Even though 

habitat declines, it remains within HRV for the alternatives and there is no indication that fisher 

viability is at risk (page 85 in ERG 2012). The other alternatives are similar to Alternative B 

Modified.

Table 66. Acres of Fisher Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No Treatment Scenario 

(acres)

0 1,156,387 1,156,387 1,156,387

1 882,433 857,677 862,631

2 803,708 772,544 761,735

5 785,040 755,169 739,428

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the current 

level of fire suppression

For fisher, as with wildlife on the Forest in general, it is wildfire, insects/disease, in-growth, and 

stand succession that largely determines the amount and pattern of habitat on the Forest for this 

species rather than management activities (pages ES-1 and ES-2 in ERG 2012).

Mehl et al. (2009) developed a report for the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) that examined 

IDL’s goal of restoring/maintaining a 20 percent representation of historic habitat conditions on 

their lands in north Idaho. They assumed that the same 20 percent would be met on other land 

ownerships as well. For fisher, restoring/maintaining 20 percent representation of historic habitat 

conditions for native species maintain sufficient habitat (page 210 in Mehl et al. 2009). Habitat 

connectivity for fisher would not be limited under such a scenario (page 211 in Mehl et al. 2009). 

They stated that the objectives are not to return the entire landscape to historic conditions, but to 

provide sufficient amounts of similar ecosystems represented across the landscape to maintain 

native species (page 43 in Mehl et al. 2009). The revised Forest Plan for the IPNF does far more 

than aim to restore/maintain only 20 percent of historic habitat conditions for native species. The 

desired conditions for vegetation in the revised Forest Plan are based on historic conditions and 

natural disturbance processes rather than aiming for a lower percentage of representation of 

historic habitats.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 325

Past timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression have intermixed to result in the amount 

and pattern of fisher habitat on NFS lands. Overall, the amount of habitat on the Forest is above 

HRV (pages 84-85 in ERG (2012). Some disturbance may have occurred to individual fishers 

during project activities or by recreational activities.

Timber management is likely to continue on non-NFS ownerships. If done in moist forest types 

with dense canopies, then fisher habitat may be altered. Snags and downed wood may be 

reduced, particularly on private lands. The focus on private lands may not be on restoration, 

historic conditions, and creating resilient stands, but on monetary factors.

Climate change is likely to alter the distribution and extent of fisher habitat. A warmer climate 

will reduce the extent of dense, closed canopy forest. Those stands will be more susceptible to 

large-scale, stand replacing disturbance like fire or insects. Both may at least temporarily 

increase the amount of snags and downed wood until the next fire, but there will be an open 

canopy and the stands will not be suitable for fisher. Distributional shifts are one way species 

respond to climate change (page 90 in USDA Forest Service 2010).

Trapping mortality, both legal and incidental (marten trapping), can contribute to population 

declines or prevent a population from increasing.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for fisher. The determination is based in part 

on:

• Both snags and the large/very large size class increase under all alternatives;

• FW-DC-VEG-07 and 08, FW-GDL-VEG-03 through 06, FW-DC-WL-13 and 14 will retain 

snags and downed wood that are important to fishers;

• A trend towards historic conditions and the desired conditions for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG01 through 09, FW-DC-VEG-11, and FW-DC-FIRE-03) will change the distribution and 

amount of fisher habitat nearer to what will have been present under natural disturbance 

processes;

• Even though habitat declines, it remains within HRV for the alternatives and there’s no 

indication that fisher viability is at risk (page 85 in ERG 2012). The decline is driven by root 

disease and fire; and

• Geographic Area direction that improves or maintains connectivity includes: GA-DC-WLCDA-03, GA-DC-WL-LK-01 and 02, GA-DC-WL-PO-01, GA-DC-WL-PR-01 and 03, and 

GA-DC-WL-SJ-02. Additionally, FW-DC-WL-18, and FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17 also 

maintain connectivity.

Flammulated owl – Otus flammeolus

Affected Environment

Flammulated owl population biology, ecology, habitat description, and relationships identified 

by research are described in the birds of North America Online (McCallum 1994), Groves et al. 

(1997b), Hayward and Verner (1994) and Samson (2006a, 2006b) and incorporated by reference. 

Additional information is provided in the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP), Idaho 

Data Conservation Center and NatureServe databases and in COSEWIC (2001). Formal surveys 

were conducted throughout the region, including the Forest, by the Avian Science Center 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

326 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

(Smucker and Cilimburg 2008) and for several years by Forest representatives using protocol 

developed by the MNHP (included in the Forest files).

Samson (2006a) completed “A conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, black-backed 

woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest 

Service” and estimated the amount and distribution of flammulated owl habitat in Region One 

and for each of the Northern Region National Forests. Samson (2006b) also developed habitat 

estimates for maintaining viable populations of flammulated owl in Region One. Bush and 

Lundberg (2008) provided an update of habitat estimates for the Region One Conservation 

Assessment.

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetation changes). The ERG analysis (ERG 2012) looked at vegetation changes over the next 

50 years.

Habitat and Life History Needs

McCallum (1994) and Hayward and Verner (1994) provide substantive reviews of flammulated 

owl habitat, behavior, and general ecology. Breeding habitat is primarily ponderosa pine or forest 

with similar characteristics (i.e., dry montane coniferous forest or aspen forests, with brushy 

understory or open grasslands nearby). The preferred breeding habitat hosts a high diversity or 

abundance of nocturnal arthropods (mainly insects). Prey availability appears to be the primary 

factor for migration and patterns in migration and winter habitat requirements are poorly known.

Wisdom et al. (2000) identify source habitats as late-seral multi- and single-layered stages of the 

montane community group. Source habitats also include unmanaged young forests that contain 

sufficient large diameter snags and logs needed for various life functions for the species. Latesuccessional forests of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir seem to be the key components of 

flammulated owl home ranges (Reynolds and Linkhart 1992 cited in Wisdom et al. 2000). 

Variability in the structure of these late-successional stands seems important to support life 

functions of flammulated owls. Roosting occurs in fairly dense stands, whereas relatively open 

stands seem to be selected for foraging (Linkhart 1984 cited in Wisdom et al. 2000) and open 

mature stands are selected for nest sites (McCallum 1994). Flammulated owls nest in cavities in 

both snags and large live trees, (Bull et al. 1990 cited in Wisdom et al. 2000). Flammulated owls 

have been known to nest in cavities excavated by pileated woodpeckers (Aubry and Raley, 

2002). In two Oregon studies mean dbh of nest trees were 22.2 inches (Goggans 1986) and 28.4 

inches (Bull et al. 1990) both cited in Wisdom et al. (2000).

Nesting and foraging habitat for this species has been identified as mature to late-successional 

ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands. Within these stands this owl nests in cavities excavated by 

woodpeckers, especially larger woodpeckers such as the pileated woodpecker. Mature ponderosa 

pine stands also serve as foraging habitat. The stands support high numbers of prey (insects) and 

their open nature is compatible with the owl’s hunting strategy of capturing insects in flight. 

Roosting habitat or areas where individual flammulated owls spend the day resting, has been 

identified as dense, mixed conifer stands (Ibid).

Habitat Estimates

Estimates of the amount of habitat currently available for the flammulated owl (Bush and 

Lundberg 2008) in the northern region (Samson 2006a), show that habitat is abundant and well 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 327

distributed across the Northern Region by Ecological Province and National Forest. Habitat 

estimates for the Northern Region, the Northern Rocky Mountain Ecological Province (which 

includes the Forest) are displayed in table 67 (Bush and Lundberg 2008).

Table 67. Estimated Habitat for Flammulated Owl (acres)

Region One Northern Rocky Mountain Ecological Province

Habitat 184,952 105,290

Flammulated owl habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 (ERG 

2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 68 displays two of the 

relevant scenarios. The existing 1987 Forest Plan was modeled, as was a “no treatment” 

scenario, where no mechanical treatment was modeled. This was done for comparison purposes 

and to put management under the 1987 Forest Plan into context. Both consider a warmer/drier 

climate over the next five decades as the climate changes. Both of these scenarios also 

considered that the current level of fire suppression would continue into the future and both 

considered an increase in acres burned over time due to a warmer/drier climate and fuel loads.

Table 68. Acres of Flammulated Owl Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

Actual Habitat Potential Habitat Actual Habitat Potential Habitat

0 22,286 41,017 22,286 41,017

1 18,161 48,978 18,412 51,942

2 9,258 63,052 8,825 71,350

5 12,950 69,567 11,573 69,701

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

”Actual” habitat are those acres expected to exist at a particular point in time. “Potential” habitat is those acres that do not

quite meet all the criteria of being habitat at a particular point in time, but are on the trajectory to become “actual” habitat

Habitat Threshold

Samson (2006a) in his conservation assessment estimated the critical habitat threshold for a 

minimum viable population of flammulated owls for the Northern Region. For his assessment 

Samson estimated that the amount of habitat needed for a minimum viable population of 

flammulated owls is 4,700 acres (approximately 19 mi2). Based on the estimate of the current 

amount of habitat available (Bush and Lundberg 2008) displayed in the table 67above, the 

Northern Region provides more than enough habitat to support a minimum viable population of 

flammulated owls. In fact, habitat estimates (Bush and Lundberg 2008) for the Northern Rocky 

Mountain Ecological Province and for 11 of the 12 National Forests in the Northern Region 

(including the Idaho Panhandle) exceed that required to support a minimum viable population of 

flammulated owls.

Large Size Class/Late-Successional Forest

Wisdom et al. (2000) identified that there has been a strong decline in source habitats throughout 

the Interior Columbia Basin for species dependent on late-successional forest habitats present 

over broad elevations which include the flammulated owl. Analysis of late-successional and/or 

the large size class on the Forest (see vegetation write-up in this EIS) has also identified that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

328 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

there has been a fairly significant reduction in the amount of late-successional forests and stands 

in the large size class. However, late-successional forests are still considered to be well 

distributed across the Forest. In addition to current late-successional stands, the Forest is 

managing additional lands for their late-successional forest characteristics, such as large trees. 

The current trend is such that late-successional forests are no longer targeted for timber harvest 

and there is an increase in the number of large diameter trees retained in areas of vegetation 

management. Over the short- and long-term natural vegetation succession will result in an 

increase in the amount of lands in the large size class and subsequently in the amount of latesuccessional forest components, such as snags, and down wood important for these species.

Snags

A snag analysis recently conducted for the Forest (Bollenbacher et al. 2009) provides an estimate 

of the number of snags currently existing throughout the forested portion of the Forest. The 

analysis compared the amount of snags in wilderness/roadless areas versus those outside 

wilderness/roadless areas. The analysis identified that areas outside of wilderness/roadless areas 

have fewer snags per acre than those in wilderness/roadless areas. The snag densities within 

wilderness/roadless areas provide insight into natural snag abundance and distribution, and this 

can be compared to areas outside of wilderness/roadless (page 4 in Bollenbacher et al. 2009). 

Although there are fewer snags outside of wilderness/roadless areas, the 90 percent confidence 

intervals for wilderness/roadless area snags overlaps the mean snags/acre for all but the 15”+ dbh 

in areas outside of wilderness/roadless (table 2 in Bollenbacher et al. 2009). In other words, the 

number of snags outside of wilderness/roadless areas, which represents natural snag abundance, 

is not very different than the number of snags outside of wilderness/roadless. Please see the snag 

discussion in the “Vegetation” section of the FEIS and DEIS (pages 65-68 in the DEIS) for more 

information regarding the findings of Bollenbacher et al. 2009 and the amount of snags available 

on the Forest.

It appears very likely that the flammulated owl distribution has not contracted in North America 

(McCallum 1994). Available evidence, all of which is circumstantial, suggests that the North 

American distribution of the species has not changed since the first specimen was obtained in 

1860 (Ibid). Habitat loss from logging, fire suppression, and type conversions make it likely that 

owl numbers have decreased in the last century; however, there is no reliable evidence that the 

flammulated owl abundance has changed anywhere in North America (Ibid). Loss of winter 

habitat, presumably in southern Mexico, through logging, adds to the likelihood that owl 

numbers have decreased. The bottom line is that it is not known whether flammulated owl 

populations are secure or declining, but the species currently occupies all of its known range in 

what appears to be good numbers (Ibid).

Habitat for the flammulated owl has and will continue to decline due in part to fire suppression 

(PIF 2000). Virtually every author working with the flammulated owl suggests fire suppression 

has been a negative influence on habitat (Ibid). Fire suppression permits young Douglas-fir trees 

to suppress the recruitment of shade intolerant and large diameter trees important to the 

flammulated owl and to reduce the amount of open understory needed by the owl as foraging 

areas. Whether enough fire can be introduced is unknown, and mechanical removal of understory 

may serve as an effective alternative to fire (Ibid).

Key Stressors

Stressors outside Forest Service control include:

• The private development of montane forests;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 329

• Avian predators (great horned owl, northern goshawk, coopers hawk);

• Loss of dry conifer forests on wintering grounds;

• Threats associated with migration and while in wintering habitat; and

• Decline in riparian habitats.

The following Forest Service management activities may have direct or indirect effects on snags 

and cavity habitat. (McCallum 1994, Groves et al. 1997b cited in IDFG 2005):

• Fire (both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) – removal of standing snags 

and down wood or direct mortality;

• Road maintenance and construction – habitat loss and loss/reduction in secure habitat;

• Recreational use – habitat loss or disturbance during use in sensitive habitats;

• Fire suppression – the main effect has been to decrease ponderosa pine regeneration 

(decreased breeding habitat for owls) but increase Douglas-fir thickets (which provide 

security cover from predators);

• Human disturbance – during breeding, nesting and rearing periods (Taylor and Knight 2003) 

(May through July);

• Selective cutting trees – for firewood can alter breeding habitat structure and have adverse 

effects on nesting owls, especially between May and August when nest trees may be 

removed;

• Loss of mature and late-successional dry pine forest and the reduced numbers of snags, 

particularly large snags;

• Decline in late-successional forests of cottonwood and aspen;

• Decline in availability of large snags and trees for foraging and nesting;

• Any action that removes deciduous trees and snags from riparian areas and aspen stands;

• Declines in shrub understories of montane and lower montane forests;

• Fragmentation of late-successional forest habitat;

• Loss of down wood;

• Use of herbicides and pesticides in forests may negatively affect non-target species such as 

moths on which flammulated owls and Lewis’s woodpecker depend for food;

• Selective timber harvesting with subsequent replanting of closely spaced seedlings; and

• Intensive grazing that may remove the shrub and grass understory.

These stressors may result in habitat loss, displacement, nest failure, or mortality.

Environmental Consequences – Flammulated Owl

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Fire/Vegetation Management: Fire suppression has reduced habitat quality for flammulated 

owls. It has increased encroachment by shade-tolerant conifers, created a dense understory and 

eliminated foraging habitat, and retarded the development of large ponderosa pine that are useful 

for large snags and nesting cavities. The increase in fuels puts the existing large ponderosa pine 

at an increased risk of being lost in a stand-replacing event. Alternative A will be more likely to 

continue the active suppression of most fires. The action alternatives have more flexibility to use 

fire to restore/maintain habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

330 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Fuels reduction, in particular when done to trend towards the desired conditions for vegetation 

(FW-DC-VEG-01 through 08, FW-DC-VEG-11, and FW-DC-FIRE-03), will improve or 

maintain flammulated owl habitat. Expanded use of natural, unplanned ignitions through FWDC-FIRE-03 will be useful for maintaining and improving flammulated owl habitat.

FW-STD-VEG-01, FW-GDL-VEG-01 and 02, FW-GDL-VEG-04 and FW-GDL-VEG-05, FWDC-WL-10, FW-DC-WL-11, FW-DC-WL-12, FW-DC-WL-13 move habitat conditions towards 

historic conditions, make stands more resilient to disturbance, and maintain or improve snag 

habitat.

By moving towards the desired conditions for vegetation, the amount and distribution of 

flammulated owl habitat will approximate what would have been present under natural 

disturbance processes. Drier forests, which are the most likely to be outside of historic conditions 

due to fire suppression, will be more resilient to large-scale disturbance.

Flammulated owl habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 (ERG 

2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 69 displays some of the 

relevant scenarios. The existing 1987 Forest Plan was modeled, as was a “no treatment” scenario 

where no mechanical treatment was modeled. This was done for comparison purposes and to put 

management under the 1987 Forest Plan into context. Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate 

over the next five decades as the climate changes. These scenarios also considered that the 

current level of fire suppression would continue into the future and both considered an increase 

in acres burned over time due to a warmer/drier climate and fuel loads. There is an increase in 

the amount of actual and potential flammulated owl habitat over time under all the alternatives. 

Potential habitat is within HRV and remains there over the next five decades, although at the low 

end of the range of variability. The model may have difficulty predicting open forest conditions 

used by flammulated owls due to low/moderate severity wildfires and/or treatments. The model 

may not provide enough activities in the low elevation, dry forest habitats to restore historic 

stand structures. With the predicted increase in low/moderate severity wildfires, the 

improvement in suitable habitat should have been more pronounced; therefore the level of 

certainty for the predicted outcomes is likely low (page 87 in ERG 2012). The increase in 

low/moderate severity fire and forest growth increases the amount large/very large trees over 

time. This is seen in the increase in “potential” habitat over time. However, the smaller increase 

in suitable habitat suggests that the increase in large trees is accompanied by dense stand 

structures that do not provide the best flammulated owl habitat (page 86 in ERG 2012).

Flammulated owl habitat may be restored or improved to a greater degree if more treatments are 

focused on the potential flammulated owl habitat in order to open up the stands. The revised 

Forest Plan provides the flexibility to do this kind of work.

Table 69. Acres of Flammulated Owl Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

Actual 

Habitat

Potential 

Habitat

Actual 

Habitat

Potential 

Habitat

Actual 

Habitat

Potential 

Habitat

0 22,286 41,017 22,286 41,017 22,286 41,017

1 16,423 47,003 18,161 48,978 18,412 51,942

2 7,840 57,970 9,258 63,052 8,825 71,350

5 11,890 59,984 12,950 69,567 11,573 69,701

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the current 

level of fire suppression

”Actual” habitat are those acres expected to exist at a particular point in time. “Potential” habitat is those acres that do not

quite meet all the criteria of being habitat at a particular point in time, but are on the trajectory to become “actual” habitat
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 331

For flammulated owl, as with wildlife on the Forest in general, it is wildfire, insects/disease, ingrowth, and stand succession that largely determines the amount and pattern of habitat on the 

Forest for this species rather than management activities (pages ES-1 and ES-2 in ERG 2012).

Mehl et al. (2009) developed a report for the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) that examined 

IDL’s goal of restoring/maintaining a 20 percent representation of historic habitat conditions on 

their lands in north Idaho. They assumed that the same 20 percent would be met on other land 

ownerships as well. For flammulated owl, restoring/maintaining 20 percent representation of 

historic habitat conditions for native species would substantially increase habitat (page 211 in 

Mehl et al. 2009). They stated that the objectives are not to return the entire landscape to historic 

conditions, but to provide sufficient amounts of similar ecosystems represented across the 

landscape to maintain native species (page 43 in Mehl et al. 2009). The revised Forest Plan for 

the IPNF does far more than aim to restore/maintain only 20 percent of historic habitat 

conditions for native species. The desired conditions for vegetation in the revised Forest Plan are 

based on historic conditions and natural disturbance processes rather than aiming for a lower 

percentage of representation of historic habitats.

Under current management (Alternative A), the percentage of the Forest with high snag densities 

will increase over the next five decades. The percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 

10"-20" dbh range will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 75 percent in 

decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 78 percent with constrained budgets. 

The percentage of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from 

approximately 11 percent in decade 1 to 35 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget 

and 11 percent to 36 percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative B Modified, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh 

range will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 75 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 81 percent with constrained budgets. The percentage of 

the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from approximately 12 

percent in decade 1 to 36 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 12 percent to 37 

percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative C, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh range 

will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 76 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 83 percent with constrained budgets. The percentage of 

the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from approximately 12 

percent in decade 1 to 37 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 12 percent to 39 

percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative D, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh range 

will remain steady from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 73 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and increase from 73 percent to 80 percent with constrained budgets. The 

percentage of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from 

approximately 11 percent in decade 1 to 34 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget 

and 11 percent to 37 percent with constrained budgets.

Direction in the revised Forest Plan that maintains snag habitat includes: FW-DC-VEG-07, FWGDL-VEG-04 and 05, and FW-DC-WL-13.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

332 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Several variables determine the amount of flammulated owl habitat across the Forest. Fire, fire 

suppression, climate change, and vegetation management combine and contribute to the 

availability of habitat. The revised Forest Plan will move vegetation conditions towards a desired 

condition that will be based on historic conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 08, FW-DC-VEG11, and FW-DC-FIRE-03). The distribution and amount of flammulated owl habitat should be 

nearer historic levels if natural disturbance processes are allowed to function, particularly fire

(FW-DC-FIRE-03).

The difference between the alternatives will be primarily how much vegetation treatment will be 

predicted each year to trend conditions toward the desired conditions for vegetation. Alternative 

C (11,031 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified 

(9,465 acres/year), D (7,912 acres/year), and A (10,867 acres/year) under constrained budgets. 

With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (14,190 acres/year) will have the most 

active restoration followed by Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year), D (10,790 acres/year), and A 

(11,537 acres/year). Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted 

under the action alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the 

alternatives, B Modified (1,683 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per 

year with constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C (1,677 acres), D (1,609 acres), 

and then A (1,474 acres). Of the alternatives, B Modified (5,884 acres) will be expected to have 

more regeneration treatments per year with unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed 

by C (5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres), and A (5,537 acres).

Given the predicted amounts of harvest, active restoration will have little impact on habitat 

pattern at the Forest scale compared to the potential impacts of fire use. The use of natural, 

unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) will have a much greater likelihood of maintaining or 

improving habitat pattern across the Forest. Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) 

will be more likely to result in continued suppression of most fires and therefore less passive 

restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. The action alternatives have more flexibility to use 

fire for habitat restoration/maintenance. Under the action alternatives, FW-DC-FIRE-03 will be 

the most useful component in the revised Forest Plan for improving flammulated owl habitat. 

FW-DC-FIRE-03 reads, "The use of wildland fire (both planned and natural, unplanned 

ignitions), increases in many areas across the Forest. Fire plays an increased role in helping to 

trend the vegetation towards the desired conditions while serving other important ecosystem 

functions. However, when necessary to protect life, property, and key resources many wildfires 

are still suppressed."

The large/very large size class is currently below desired conditions (historic conditions) for 

stands on the Forest. With unconstrained budgets, there will be an increase in acres in this size 

class in the next 50 years for Alternatives B Modified (+54,243 acres), C (+51,566 acres) and D 

(+34,730 acres). Alternative A would decline (-10,836 acres). With constrained budgets, there 

will be an increase in acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives C (+109,175 

acres), B Modified (+102,149 acres), D (+105,372 acres) and A (+83,235 acres). The large/very 

large size class would remain within HRV.

This means that flammulated owls will find an increase of stands in the large/very large size 

class and an abundance of snags under all alternatives in the next 50 years.

Access/Disturbance: Alternative C (2,129,490 acres motorized) will have the least acreage 

allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (2,268,390 acres motor vehicle 

use), D (2,279,590 acres motor vehicle use) and A (2,399,138 acres motor vehicle use).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 333

Open roads facilitate access for firewood cutters, and the loss of snags near roads can reduce the 

availability of habitat. Flammulated owls use cavities in large snags for nesting, so it is likely 

that the quality of habitat near roads will be less than elsewhere due to the relative lack of snags. 

Recreation can disturb individuals and cause them to temporarily avoid an area, and human 

presence tends to be highest near roads.

FW-GDL-WL-20 and FW-DC-WL-01 will reduce or eliminate the chance of disturbance to 

flammulated owls. Timber sales/fuels reduction activities can cause disturbance to flammulated 

owls. Individual special use permits may have disturbance effects, but generally will have a 

small footprint and cause little or no loss of habitat.

The effects of any potential minerals development within flammulated owl habitat will depend 

on the footprint of the mine, as well as whether it was an above-ground or below-ground mine. 

Mining activities and the haul/supply route may contribute to disturbance of flammulated owls. 

Disturbance may result in owls utilizing other area of the Forest.

The collection of forest products may cause disturbance, but most of that disturbance will be 

concentrated near open roads.

Impacts on Invertebrate Prey: Grazing can reduce the amount of grasses and shrubs in the 

understory and consequently reduce the quality of foraging habitat for flammulated owls. 

Changes in the understory impact the abundance and species presence of arthropods that form 

the prey base for flammulated owls. Current grazing will continue under Alternative A. Under 

the action alternatives, FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that grazing will occur at sustainable levels while 

protecting vulnerable resources such as wildlife habitat. That desired condition, along with FWDC-WL-10, will maintain habitat for flammulated owls. Therefore, the grazing effects to 

flammulated owls and other wildlife should be limited.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression have changed the pattern and 

availability of flammulated owl habitat on NFS lands. Fire suppression in particular is likely to 

have had an impact on suitable flammulated owl habitat by leading to an increase in tree density 

in formerly open-canopied stands. Potential habitat on the Forest is currently within HRV (page 

87 in ERG 2012). Firewood harvest near open roads may have reduced the availability of large 

snags for nesting.

Timber management is likely to continue on non NFS ownerships. Their effects would depend 

on how many snags are retained, whether dry forest habitat that is outside of historic conditions 

is restored, whether large trees are maintained, and the amount of disturbance to individual 

flammulated owls. The development of private land may also lead to habitat loss and 

disturbance.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

334 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

If the climate becomes warmer, it will favor the vegetation conditions that flammulated owls 

prefer (open, ponderosa pine or dry forest habitats). Unfortunately, fire suppression has led to 

increased stand densities and ladder fuels. Those stands that contain larger ponderosa pine may 

be at a higher risk of stand replacing disturbance (fire/insects) which will reduce flammulated 

owl habitat. Active restoration may be useful to move towards the desired conditions for 

vegetation and historic conditions, making these stands more resilient and able to handle 

disturbance. The use of fire for restoration will be the most useful tool rather than mechanical 

treatments due to the large acreages that can be improved or maintained with fire relatively

cheaply. Changes in the timing of prey availability may also affect flammulated owls (page 90 in 

USDA Forest Service 1990).

Declines in riparian habitat, threats to wintering ground habitat, and mortality while migrating or 

on wintering grounds can all lead to declines in the flammulated owl population. Avian predators 

on winter and summer ranges can also cause population declines or limit population increases.

Grazing will continue on other ownerships, and if it reduces the availability of grasses and 

shrubs there may be a reduction in flammulated owl foraging habitat.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for flammulated owl. This determination is 

based in part on:

• Under the revised Forest Plan, snag densities and the amount of the Forest in a large tree size 

class will increase over the next 50 years;

• Direction in the revised Forest Plan that maintains snag habitat includes: FW-DC-VEG-07, 

FW-GDL-VEG-04 and 05, and FW-DC-WL-13;

• The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire for habitat restoration/maintenance; 

and

• There is an increase in the amount of actual and potential flammulated owl habitat over time 

under all the alternatives (page 87 in ERG 2012).

Gray Wolf – Canis lupus

Affected Environment – Gray Wolf

Gray wolf population biology, ecology, habitat description, and relationships identified by 

research are described in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service et al. (2009), USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service (2009b), Idaho Wolf Legislative Oversight Committee’s Idaho wolf conservation 

management plan (2002),and the Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan 

(2004) and incorporated by reference. Additional information is included in the Montana Natural 

Heritage Program (MNHP and MFWP 2011); and NatureServe databases (2011). Information on 

wolf numbers are described in Sime et al. (2011) for the State of Montana and Mack et al. (2010) 

for the state of Idaho, including information for the Forests, based on annual monitoring.

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetation changes).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 335

Habitat and Life History Needs

Wolves prey primarily on elk, deer, and moose. Domestic livestock such as cattle and sheep are 

also preyed upon. Wolves may also eat alternative prey, such as rodents, vegetation, and carrion. 

Wolves commonly hunt in packs, but lone wolves and pairs are able to kill prey as large as adult 

moose (MNHP and MFWP 2011). Wolf packs are family groups that consist of a breeding pair 

and their offspring of the current year and/or previous years and occasionally unrelated wolves. 

Offspring usually disperse from the natal pack at 1, 2, or 3 years of age.

The gray wolf exhibits no particular habitat preference except for the presence of native 

ungulates within its territory on a year-round basis. Pack activity is centered on the den site and 

nearby rendezvous sites from late April until September (MFWP 2003). Pack territories are 

dynamic and change from year to year depending on prey availability, wolf populations, and 

relationships with neighboring packs (MNHP and MFWP 2011). Idaho wolf pack territories 

average around 200 square miles in size and can be 300 square miles or larger. Dispersal 

distances in the Northern Rockies average about 60 miles, but dispersals over 500 linear miles 

have been documented (Mack et al. 2010).

As the number of wolves has increased, so have the number of depredations and the number of 

wolves removed as a result. In Montana a total of 727 wolves have been killed from 1987-2010 

to help resolve conflicts with livestock (Sime et al. 2011). In Idaho, from 1995 to 2010, 462 

wolves were controlled for livestock depredations (Sime et al. 2011).

Key Stressors

Forest Service activities in the past that may have had direct or indirect impacts on wolves, 

causing displacement or mortality, include:

• Factors that affect habitat conditions for big game including timber harvest, prescribed fire, 

and fire suppression;

• Human access to dens and rendezvous sites during critical life history periods may result in 

abandonment of dens and/or young; and

• Road access.

Stressors outside Forest Service control that may cause displacement or mortality include 

(cumulative effects):

• Potential spread of diseases such as canine distemper virus, canine parvovirus, and others;

• Vehicle caused mortality;

• Persecution;

• Private development of wildlands;

• Factors affecting big game populations such as hunting, the spread of invasive plant species 

(weeds) that reduce forage values and habitat capacity for prey species, and major weather 

events that can contribute to high ungulate mortality;

• Connectivity loss could be a problem where urban areas or transportation corridors act as 

barriers;

• Illegal mortality;

• Legal mortality as a result of depredation concerns; and

• Legal mortality as a result of delisting and state public hunting strategies.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

336 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Environmental Consequences 

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Ungulate Habitat: Big game habitat is managed under the1987 Plan (Alternative A). Under the 

action alternatives, FW-DC-WL-09 states that wolves will find an abundance of big game for 

prey. FW-DC-WL-17 states that ungulate habitat will be managed in coordination with state 

agencies, but that cover will be managed according to the desired conditions for vegetation (FWDC-VEG-01 and 02, FW-DC-VEG-04 and 05, and FW-DC-VEG-11). Fire will be desired to 

play a more natural role in the ecosystem through implementation of FW-DC-FIRE-03. Doing so 

will restore/maintain the vegetation component of ungulate habitat to what would have been 

present under natural disturbance processes. Those are the conditions that native ungulates 

evolved with, and therefore what wolves evolved with in these ecosystems. Disturbance to 

ungulates on winter range would be minimized through FW-GDL-WL-11 and 12, and 

disturbance in during the birthing period would be minimized by FW-GDL-WL-14. Security 

habitat for ungulates would be provided through FW-DC-WL-02, FW-DC-WL-04 and 05, FWDC-WL-09, FW-STD-WL-02, MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, 

MA1e-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, MA5-DC-WL-01, GA-DC-WL-CDA-02, and GA-DCWL-SJ-01.

Fire and fuels can have a tremendous effect on ungulate habitat. Past fire suppression and past 

timber harvest practices have combined to push vegetation conditions outside of historic 

conditions. This has altered the amount, distribution, and quality of ungulate habitat on the IPNF. 

Combined with future climate change, insects, and disease, it is likely that ungulate habitat will 

be further altered if conditions remain on their current trajectory. Vegetation management under 

current management is less likely to be influenced by historic conditions than the action 

alternatives. Additionally, there is less emphasis on utilizing natural, unplanned ignitions under 

current management compared to the action alternatives, and there is less predicted prescribed 

fire that will help maintain or restore big game habitat. Alternative A is predicted to mechanically 

treat approximately 4,867 ac/yr (constrained budget), or 5,537 acres/year (unconstrained budget) 

and have 6,000 acres/year prescribed fire. More unplanned ignitions are expected to be actively 

suppressed compared to the action alternatives.

However, active restoration efforts to move towards historic conditions and the desired 

conditions for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 and 02, FW-DC-VEG-04 and 05, and FW-DCVEG-11) will make ungulate habitat more sustainable and resilient to large-scale disturbance 

under the action alternatives. Large-scale disturbance will create large patches of homogenous 

habitat. Moving towards the desired conditions for vegetation will maintain better habitat 

diversity and heterogeneity. Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have the most predicted active 

restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912 acres/year), and A 

(10,867 acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B 

Modified (14,190 acres/year) will have the most predicted active restoration followed by 

Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year), D (10,790 acres/year), and A (11,537 acres/year). 

Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action 

alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the alternatives, B 

Modified (1,683 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year with 

constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C (1,677 acres), D (1,609 acres), and then A 

(1,474 acres). Of the alternatives, B Modified (5,884 acres) will be expected to have more 

regeneration treatments per year with unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C 

(5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres), and A (5,537 acres).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 337

Pattern (size and arrangement of habitat patches) will be addressed through the desired 

conditions for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-05). It is also affected by other direction for vegetation 

and fire (FW-DC-VEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-04, FW-DC-VEG-08, FW-DC-VEG-11, FWGDL-VEG-03, and FW-DC-FIRE-03). The desired conditions are based on historic conditions 

and natural disturbance processes, which mean the pattern of wolf/big game habitat across the 

Forest, will be similar to what would have been present under natural disturbance processes. This 

is even more likely if FW-DC-FIRE-03 is implemented. Given the predicted amounts of harvest, 

active restoration will have little impact on habitat pattern at the Forest scale compared to the 

potential impacts of fire use. The use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) will 

have a much greater likelihood of maintaining or improving habitat pattern across the Forest. 

Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) will be more likely to result in continued 

suppression of most fires and therefore less passive restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. 

The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire to restore/maintain habitat. The use of 

natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) will be more likely in MA1, and Alternative C 

(335,300 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D 

(156,800 acres), and A (153,900 acres equivalent to MA1). Fire may also be used more in MA5 

compared to MA6, and Alternatives B Modified (681,200 acres) and C (630,000 acres) have 

more than D (624,900 acres).

Human Access/Roads: High road densities have been negatively linked to wolf survival or 

persistence in an area (Thiel 1985).

Current management protects known dens and rendezvous sites. Under the action 

alternatives,FW-DC-WL-09 states a desired condition that there would be a low level of 

disturbance around wolf dens and rendezvous sites, and FW-GDL-WL-22 sets timing restrictions 

and distance buffers around those sites. FW-DC-WL-02, FW-DC-WL-04 and 05, FW-DC-WL09, FW-STD-WL-02, MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA1e-DCWL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, MA5-DC-WL-01, GA-DC-WL-CDA-02, and GA-DC-WL-SJ-01 

also reduce the possibility of disturbance around dens and rendezvous areas by creating security 

habitat with lower human presence due to lack of motorized access. Opportunistic poaching of 

wolves and harvesting wolves during hunting/trapping season may be more difficult due to the 

reduced road densities.

Alternative A will retain the existing amount of recommended wilderness and non-motorized 

areas. Alternative C (2,129,490 acres motorized, 1,598,067 acres over-snow motorized) would 

have the least acreage allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (2,268,390 

acres motorized, 1,756,980 acres over-snow motorized), D (2,279,590 acres motorized, 

1,759,738 acres over-snow motorized) and A (2,399,138 acres motorized, 1,970,537 acres oversnow motorized). Alternative C (335,300 acres) would have the most land in MA1, followed by 

B Modified (188,700 acres), and D (156,800 acres), and Alternatives A (153,900 acres).

The Access Amendment reduced road densities in grizzly bear habitat (included by FW-STDWL-02), benefiting not only grizzlies, but wolves as well. The Access Amendment applies to 

current management as well as the action alternatives. Opportunistic poaching of wolves may be 

more difficult due to the reduced road densities.

Recreation, both motorized and non-motorized, can disturb wolves or their prey and cause them 

to avoid an area. FW-DC-WL-02 states that a forestwide system of large remote areas will be 

available for species with large home ranges.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

338 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression have likely altered the pattern and 

availability of ungulate habitat on NFS lands, and therefore the distribution and availability of 

prey for wolves. Fire suppression in particular may have altered the pattern and availability of 

forage habitat for ungulates due to increased tree density, the closure of formerly open-canopied 

stands, and the encroachment of conifers into natural openings. Access management has trended 

towards reducing the amount of open roads and therefore the opportunities for a human-wolf 

encounter on NFS lands. That decreases the possibility of disturbance to wolves and makes it 

more difficult for wolves to be killed by providing more security habitat.

All the action alternatives will contribute toward maintaining or improving wolf and ungulate 

habitat. Timber harvest occurring on private, state, or Canadian lands may impact the 

distribution, amount, and quality of wolf and ungulate habitat and may impact connectivity 

between NFS lands. The desired conditions for vegetation in the revised Forest Plan would 

maintain or improve connectivity for wolves on the IPNF.

The desired condition for connectivity FW-DC-WL-18, and FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17, in the 

revised Forest Plan will direct the IPNF to work with other agencies and landowners when 

highways are proposed to be constructed or reconstructed to incorporate crossing structures 

where needed. This should aid in minimizing the risk of vehicle collisions with wolves and other 

large wildlife. This will also aid in maintaining some connectivity between NFS lands as private 

lands are subdivided in the future. Not only is wolf habitat/connectivity impacted due to 

subdivision of private lands, but it reduces ungulate habitat, including winter range.

Grazing has occurred and will continue to take place on lands belonging to various entities, 

potentially diminishing the amount of forage available for native ungulates or displacing them. 

Human-wolf conflicts can occur when wolves prey upon livestock, sometimes leading to 

removal of individual wolves or packs.

Factors affecting big game populations such as hunting, the spread of invasive plant species 

(weeds) that reduce forage values and habitat capacity for prey species, and major weather 

events that can contribute to high ungulate mortality can reduce the availability of prey for 

wolves.

Wolves are habitat generalists, so the greatest effect on climate change on wolves would not be 

on the species directly, but on their prey species. A trend towards the desired conditions for 

vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 and 02, FW-DC-VEG-04 and 05, FW-DC-VEG-10 and 11) in the 

revised Forest Plan will make ungulate habitat more sustainable and resilient to disturbance than 

it is currently. The vegetation components are outside of historic conditions on the IPNF, making 

them more susceptible to large-scale disturbance (fire, insects, and disease). Winter range for 

ungulates has been lost or altered due to subdivisions and other human developments. As 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 339

climates change, the winter range may shift, possibly higher in elevation away from human 

developments, and the timing of winter range use may shift as well (page 92 in USDA Forest 

Service 2010). The extent of the change and the extent of the effects (positive or negative) are 

hard to predict. Trending towards historic conditions will allow landscapes to be more resilient 

and sustainable in the face of climate change. Use of FW-DC-FIRE-03 to let fire play a more 

natural role in the ecosystem will improve habitat conditions for ungulates, restore/maintain it 

towards historic conditions, and increase its resilience.

In 2009, a wolf hunting season occurred, however a court decision in 2010 reinstated the ESA 

protections for the gray wolf. In 2011 wolves were delisted again and hunting/trapping is 

occurring. The currently expanding wolf population may see a decreased growth rate, or see a 

population decline (while still meeting recovery objectives). If the wolf population continues to 

meet recovery objectives, then wolves are likely to continue to be present to occupy habitat on 

the IPNF.

Wolves are also sometimes killed (legally) due to depredation problems. This form of mortality 

has not kept wolf populations from exceeding recovery goals.

Canine distemper, parvovirus, and other diseases have the potential to decrease or limit wolf 

populations.

Persecution of wolves due to some people's negative attitudes towards them can lead to illegal 

wolf mortality. FW-DC-WL-02, FW-DC-WL-04 and 05, FW-DC-WL-09, FW-STD-WL-02, 

MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA1e-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL01, MA5-DC-WL-01, GA-DC-WL-CDA-02, and GA-DC-WL-SJ-01 can provide security 

habitat on NFS lands and lessen the chance of persecution of wolves on NFS lands and limits 

motorized access for hunting/trapping of wolves.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for gray wolf. The effects determination is 

based in part on:

• FW-DC-WL-09 states that wolves will find an abundance of big game for prey;

• Den/rendezvous sites will be protected through FW-DC-WL-01 and FW-GDL-WL-22;

• FW-DC-WL-02, FW-DC-WL-04 and 05, FW-DC-WL-09, FW-STD-WL-02, MA1a-DCWL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA1e-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, 

MA5-DC-WL-01, GA-DC-WL-CDA-02, and GA-DC-WL-SJ-01 also reduce the possibility 

of disturbance around dens and rendezvous areas by creating security habitat with lower 

human presence due to lack of motorized access. These would also provide security for big 

game; and

• Vegetation conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-05, FW-DC-VEG-08, FWDC-VEG-11, FW-GDL-VEG-03, and FW-DC-FIRE-03), under all action alternatives, will 

be maintained or improved for wolves and their prey in the long-term.

Harlequin duck – Histrionicus histrionicus

Affected Environment

Harlequin duck population biology, ecology, habitat description, and relationships identified by 

research are described in Cassirer et al. (1996), Carlson (2004), Hendricks and Reichel (1998) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

340 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1998) and incorporated by reference. Sources of ecological 

and occurrence information is available from state agencies such as Montana and Idaho Partners 

in Flight, and federal agencies that have developed shorebird and waterbird conservation plans. 

Observation data and use information for the Forest is based on formal surveys conducted 

periodically throughout the Forest.

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan.

Habitat and Life History Needs

Harlequin ducks use clear, fast-flowing rivers and streams for breeding; diving to river bottoms 

to pick larval insects from rocky substrates. After breeding, individuals migrate to the coasts of 

North American and Greenland. Four habitat characteristics were noted at more than 50 percent 

of harlequin duck observations in the Tetons (Wallen 1987 as cited in MFWP 2005): 1) 

streamside perennial shrub vegetation; 2) meandering (braided) channel types; 3) more than 

three loafing sites/10 m; and 4) areas unused by humans. Harlequins prefer stream size of second 

order or greater, stream gradients between 1 percent and 7 percent, and some areas of shallow 

water (riffles) (PIF 2000). They also prefer clear water, with gravel to boulder size substrate. 

Harlequins feed primarily on crustaceans, mollusks, insects, and a few small fishes (NatureServe 

2011).

Suitable habitat, although uncommon, is fairly well distributed across the Forest. In many 

instances the confluence of these streams with the major river systems are situated on private 

lands and have been developed. In the 1970s and early 1980s large wood was removed from 

many of the streams on the Forest, which may have been a factor in use by harlequin ducks. 

However, large wood has been put back into many of those streams either as a result of 

restoration or from natural events. Overall, habitat for harlequin ducks has not changed 

significantly on NFS lands on the Forest.

Key Stressors

These stressors can lead to habitat loss or degradation, disturbance, nest abandonment, or even 

mortality.

Potential risks and threats to harlequin ducks considered to be outside Forest control (cumulative 

effects):

• Harlequins are present on the Forest only during the nesting and brood rearing seasons, then 

migrate to the coasts of Washington and Oregon to winter. A change in population may not 

represent changes in habitat conditions on the Forest but may be influenced by activities off 

Forest, particularly in wintering areas (NatureServe 2011);

• Demographic models have suggested that harlequin duck population growth rates are most 

sensitive to changes in adult survival (Goudie et al. 1994 cited in Carlson 2004). The most 

easily managed threat that directly affects adult survival is hunting (Carlson 2004);

• Another major factor that directly affects the survival of adult harlequins is oil pollution 

(Ibid);

• Nest predation can lead to population declines or hinder population increases;

• Heavy metal poisoning can cause harlequin mortality; and
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 341

• Illegal shooting and trapping can cause harlequin mortality.

Potential risks and threats to harlequin ducks from activities on NFS lands (indirect effects):

• Loss or degradation of habitat – Activities that result in streambank or channel alteration that 

eliminates or reduces cover and food supply (PIF 2000, NatureServe 2011, and Carlson

2004). These include channelization, damming, livestock grazing, brush removal, timber 

harvest, gravel extraction, logjam removal, dredging, bank rip-rap, and road construction 

(PIF 2000);

• Disturbance at the nest site or of nesting colonies – Human activity, either instream or on the 

bank may displace birds and indirectly impact reproduction. Activities include boating use, 

angler use, hiking, camping, and land management activities in and along streams during the 

breeding season (PIF 2000, Spahr et al. 1991, NatureServe 2011, (Carlson 2004);

• Water level fluctuation – High water during nesting and brood rearing can reduce or 

eliminate productivity. Low water will render feeding and brood rearing habitats unavailable. 

These activities include hydropower development, stream diversion or damming, timber 

harvest and road construction (PIF 2000, NatureServe 2011, PIF 2000, Carlson 2004) and

• Wetland contamination/pesticide reduction of favored insect foods – Sedimentation and toxic 

chemical pollution may reduce the supply of macroinvertebrates or reduce the ducks ability 

to find prey. These activities include road construction, timber harvest, livestock grazing, 

toxic chemical spills, and mining (PIF 2000, NatureServe 2011, MPIF 2004, Carlson 2004).

Environmental Consequences 

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Habitat Loss/Degradation (nesting, prey availability, and water fluctuations): FW-DC-AR07 states that the desired condition will be for a transportation system that will be 

environmentally compatible, and will have minimal impacts on resources such as sensitive 

species. Newly constructed or reconstructed roads will not encroach into riparian areas and 

streams in such a way that it impacts channel function or geometry. This desired condition will 

therefore reduce the effects of roads/trails on harlequin habitat.

Fires, in particular large fires, have the potential to affect harlequin habitat. Not only may fires 

burn riparian areas, but the potential for sediment, changes in water flows, and changes in 

downed wood increases post-fire. Fire suppression could alter riparian/aquatic habitats and 

change the availability of prey species. Fuels reduction and a trend towards the desired 

conditions for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 05, FW-DC-VEG-11, and FW-DC-FIRE03) will restore/maintain conditions nearer to historic conditions and increase resiliency of 

forested habitats. This will restore natural processes nearer to what was present historically. 

There is a lower likelihood of large-scale disturbance altering riparian habitat. Harlequin habitat 

will be nearer to what was present historically and will be more resilient to disturbance 

processes.

Vegetation management, if done to move vegetation conditions nearer to historic conditions and 

the desired conditions for vegetation, will create more resilient stand conditions and lessen the 

likelihood of a large-scale, stand replacing events. Even if riparian areas had no timber 

management, the work done in the uplands will reduce the likelihood of insects, disease, or fire 

in the uplands impacting the adjacent riparian areas. Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have 

the most active restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912

acres/year), and A (10,867 acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

342 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Alternative B Modified (14,190 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year), D (10,790 acres/year), and A (11,537 acres/year).

Much of the direction in the revised Forest Plan under the “Watershed, Soil, Riparian, and 

Aquatic Resources” section will maintain or improve riparian areas, and consequently harlequin 

habitat. In particular, FW-DC-WTR-01, FW-DC-AQH-01, and FW-DC-AQS-01 will 

maintain/restore stream habitats so that they have natural processes consistent with their natural 

potential and water quality that supports native species, including invertebrates (harlequin prey). 

This direction, along with the other direction under the “Watershed, Soil, Riparian, and Aquatic 

Resources” section, will minimize water fluctuations that are outside the normal range and will 

also provide habitat for not only harlequin ducks but the invertebrate prey they rely upon. This 

direction will also maintain nesting habitat.

Grazing can alter riparian habitat by changing vegetation or increasing sedimentation. FW-DCGRZ-01 states a desired condition that grazing will occur at sustainable levels that protect 

vulnerable resources. This includes riparian areas and wildlife habitat. This will protect riparian 

areas and harlequin habitat.

Mineral development, special uses, and lands activities can reduce habitat quality and quantity. 

FW-STD-RIP-04 states that mine waste and mining facilities should be located outside of RCAs 

and managed to prevent impacts to RCAs and aquatic resources.

Disturbance: The incorporation of the Access Amendment for grizzly bears in all the 

alternatives will also improve or maintain harlequin habitat by reducing the amount of roads 

open to motor vehicle use. This will reduce the potential for disturbance to harlequins where 

roads are near suitable habitat. Where motorized access still exists near suitable habitat, then the 

potential for human presence is greater and the chance that harlequin ducks would at least be 

temporarily displaced to other suitable habitat on the Forest.

FW-GDL-WL-23 provides direction to minimize disturbance around harlequin nests. It will 

result in a lower probability of a harlequin being displaced to other suitable habitat on the Forest. 

FW-DC-WL-01 and FW-DC-WL-11 also provide direction to minimize disturbance. GA-DCWL-LK-04 and GA-DC-WL-SJ-03 provide undisturbed conditions for harlequins during nesting 

and brood rearing along the St. Joe and Moyie river corridors.

The collection of other forest products may cause disturbance to harlequins, if that activity 

occurs within a riparian zone where harlequins are present. This may at least temporarily cause 

harlequins to avoid the area of activity in the short-term.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 343

Recreation is the activity on NFS lands most likely to have impacted harlequin ducks in the past 

by causing disturbance to individual birds. Roads near waterways may have also impacted 

habitat and facilitated disturbance to individual birds. Timber harvest near riparian areas may 

have also altered the availability or habitat or caused disturbance to individual birds.

Timber management is likely to continue on non NFS ownerships. Their effects would depend 

on the amount of habitat alteration, effects on riparian areas/streams, and the amount of 

disturbance to individual harlequin ducks.

Grazing will continue on other ownerships, and if it reduces the availability of vegetation within 

riparian areas, or increases sediment in streams, then harlequin habitat quality could be 

decreased.

The effects of climate change on water flows could impact harlequin habitat. Water levels could 

make nesting and foraging habitat unsuitable at times when they historically would have been 

suitable. Changes in water temperatures could alter the availability of aquatic prey species. It is 

difficult to predict the exact effects of climate change for harlequin ducks. It could mean a loss 

of suitable habitat in some areas while newly suitable habitat becomes available elsewhere. This 

may result in a change in harlequin distribution or abundance on the Forest. Distributional shifts 

are one way species respond to climate change (page 90 in USDA Forest Service 2010).

Impacts on wintering grounds or during migration can have a large impact on harlequin 

populations and the number that return to the Forest to breed. Losses of adults during hunting 

season can limit populations. Nest predation, illegal shooting/trapping, heavy metal poisoning, 

and oil pollution (wintering grounds) can limit populations as well.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for harlequin duck. This determination is 

based in part on:

• Much of the direction under the “Watershed, Soil, Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section 

of the revised Forest Plan would aid in maintaining or improving habitat conditions for 

harlequin ducks. Additionally, FW-DC-WL-11 maintains aquatic and riparian habitat;

• Disturbance to harlequin ducks may occur due to management activities and recreationists. 

FW-DC-WL-01, FW-DC-WL-11, and FW-GDL-WL-23 provide direction to minimize 

disturbance; and

• GA-DC-WL-LK-04 and GA-DC-WL-SJ-03 provide undisturbed conditions for harlequins 

during nesting and brood rearing along the St. Joe and Moyie river corridors.

Northern Bog Lemming – Synaptomys borealis chapmani

Affected Environment

The northern bog lemming is part of a group of mammal species associated or dependent on 

wetland habitats. Northern bog lemming population biology, ecology, habitat description, and 

relationships identified by research are described in Reichel and Beckstrom (1993, 1994) and 

Reichel and Corn (1997) and are incorporated by reference. Additional information on the 

species is included in the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP and MFWP 2011), and 

NatureServe (2011) databases. Species observations are provided by the state databases and 

district and Forest records, based in part on formal surveys conducted on the Forests. The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

344 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

northern bog lemming is rarely trapped and is considered one of the least known mice in North 

America (Reichel and Corn 1997).

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetation changes).

Habitat and Life History Needs

Initially believed to be restricted to fens and bogs, northern bog lemmings have been found in at 

least nine community types, including Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, birch, willow, sedge 

(Carex), spike rush (Eleocharis), or combinations of the above, often occurring in wet meadows, 

fens, or bog-like environments (MNHP and MFWP 2011). Most populations in Idaho, however, 

have been found on peatlands (Boggs and Woods 2004 cited in IDFG 2005) and the best 

predictor for potential northern bog lemming sites is the presence of large, thick moss mats, 

particularly sphagnum moss (Reichel and Corn 1997). Known sites in Idaho range in size from 1 

to approximately 349 acres (Reichel and Corn 1997).

Northern bog lemmings feed on grasses, sedges, and other herbaceous vegetation, but also snails, 

slugs, and other invertebrates (Reichel and Corn 1997). Typically occupied habitat has high 

moisture levels. They feed on grasses and other herbaceous vegetation. They are active day and 

night throughout the year. They occupy surface runways and burrow systems up to 12 inches 

deep. They may be found in small colonies with population densities that may reach 36 

individuals per acre (Reichel and Corn 1997).

Little is known about northern bog lemming life history and demography (MNHP and MFWP 

2011). Information on reproduction is very limited (MNHP and MFWP 2011). No information 

on movement is available and at this time it is unknown if there is any interaction between 

individual populations of northern bog lemming (MNHP and MFWP 2011).

Key Stressors

The following Forest Service management activities may have direct or indirect effects on 

wetland wildlife and their habitats (indirect effects):

• Fire (both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) is a needed component to 

ensure presence of sufficient habitats in appropriate successional condition but can also 

cause direct mortality;

• Livestock grazing may alter the vegetation community, which may alter the invertebrate 

community, an important food source for many of these species;

• Long-term fire suppression may alter the vegetation community and increase fire severity;

• Pesticide use could decrease the availability of insects, the primary food source for several of 

these species;

• Road and right-of-way construction, especially if affects hydrologic function;

• Species like the northern bog lemming (rare, patchily distributed, and confined to rare 

habitats) are at particular risk of extinction (Shaffer 1981 cited in Reichel and Corn 1997); 

and
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 345

• Northern bog lemmings may also be threatened by human disturbance. Impacts to bogs and 

wet meadows from off highway vehicles and snowmobiles have the potential to degrade bog 

lemming habitat and negatively impact the species (Hickman et al. 1999, IDFG 2005).

Stressors outside Forest Service control (cumulative effects) include private land development, 

water diversions, surface water development, and the risk of extinction as a result of natural 

factors such as rarity of bog species and habitat.

These stressors can lead to habitat loss, displacement, or mortality.

Environmental Consequences 

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Loss or Degradation of Bog Habitat: Under the 1987 Forest Plan, sensitive species habitat will

continue to be protected to avoid a trend towards federal listing. Direction in the action 

alternatives to protect peatlands can be found in FW-DC-VEG-12 and FW-GDL-VEG-09. FWGDL-VEG-09 sets a buffer up to 660 feet around peatlands. Much of the direction in the 

Watershed, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats portions of the action alternatives will also 

maintain/ or improve peatlands as well. FW-DC-AR-07 states that the transportation system will 

have minimal impacts on sensitive species, watersheds, aquatic species, and other resources. 

Taken together, this direction will maintain or restore peatlands.

Fire/Fire Suppression: Fire suppression has potentially impacted northern bog lemming habitat 

by allowing encroachment of conifers and increasing the risk of a large-scale fire starting in the 

uplands and moving into the peatlands and bog areas. Higher elevation habitats may only need 

passive restoration or maintenance. Areas outside of historic conditions at lower elevations may 

need active restoration. Moving low and mid-elevation stands towards historic conditions and 

the desired conditions for vegetation will decrease the chance that a large-scale disturbance such 

as fire would move from the stands into bog lemming habitat.

Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) will be more likely to result in continued 

suppression of most fires and therefore less passive restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. 

The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire for habitat restoration/maintenance. The 

use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) is more likely in MA1, and Alternative C 

(335,300 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D 

(156,800 acres), and A (153,900 acres equivalent to MA1). Fire may also be used more in MA5 

compared to MA6, and Alternatives B Modified (681,200 acres) and C (630,000 acres) have 

more than D (624,900 acres).

In addition to FW-DC-FIRE-03, MA direction in the revised Forest Plan that supports expanded 

use of natural, unplanned ignitions and planned ignitions includes: MA1a-DC-VEG-01, MA1aDC-FIRE-01, MA1a-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1b-DC-VEG-01, MA1b-DC-FIRE-01, MA1bGDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1c-DC-VEG-01, MA1c-DC-FIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, 

MA1e-DC-VEG-01, MA1e-DC-FIRE-01, MA1e-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02,MA2a-DC-FIRE-01, 

MA2a-DC-VEG-01, MA2a-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA2b-DC-VEG-01, MA2b-DC-FIRE01, MA2b-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03,MA5-DC-VEG-01, MA5-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5-GDLFIRE-01. This will be useful to maintain/restore the uplands that surround bog lemming habitat.

Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912 acres/year), and A (10,867 acres/year) under 

constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (14,190 acres/year) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

346 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year), D (10,790

acres/year), and A (11,537 acres/year). Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning 

will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in 

Alternative A.

Timber harvest, when done to move towards historic conditions and the desired conditions for 

vegetation, will improve or maintain upland conditions that influence peatlands and bogs. 

Timber harvest activities are not likely to occur within or immediately adjacent to peatlands due 

to the direction listed under forestwide direction; and therefore, disturbance due to human 

presence is not likely. Direction in the action alternatives to protect peatlands can be found in 

FW-DC-VEG-12 and FW-GDL-VEG-09. FW-GDL-VEG-09 sets a buffer up to 660 feet around 

peatlands. Much of the direction in the Watershed, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats portions 

of the revised Forest Plan would also maintain or improve peatlands as well.

Invertebrate Prey (e.g., grazing, pesticides): Under the 1987 Forest Plan, sensitive species 

habitat would continue to be protected to avoid a trend towards Federal listing. Under the action 

alternatives, FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that grazing will occur at sustainable levels while protecting 

vulnerable resources. This will include peatlands and bogs that provide habitat for the northern 

bog lemming. Pesticides, if used adjacent to peatlands and bogs, may impact invertebrate 

abundance and therefore food availability for bog lemmings.

Access/Disturbance: Under all alternatives, the Access Amendment lowered road densities and 

will potentially reduce the chance of disturbance in some bog lemming habitat. FW-DC-AR-07 

contains a statement that the transportation system will be environmentally compatible and will

have minimal impacts on resources such as sensitive species. The implementation of this desired 

condition will aid in reducing the effects of access on northern bog lemmings.FW-DC-WL-01 

and FW-GDL-WL-25 could be used to set a distance buffer around important occupied northern 

bog lemming habitat. Direction in the revised Forest Plan to protect peatlands can be found in 

FW-DC-VEG-12 and FW-GDL-VEG-09. FW-GDL-VEG-09 sets a buffer up to 660 feet around 

peatlands. Much of the direction in the Watershed, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats portions 

of the revised Forest Plan will also maintain or improve peatlands as well. Off-road motor

vehicle use will not be allowed unless in designated areas (MVUM maps), and this minimizes 

the chance that northern bog lemming habitat will be degraded. Snowmobile use may impact bog 

lemming habitat through snow compaction and effects on sub-nivean habitat, but FW-GDL-WL25 and FW-GDL-VEG-09 could be used to minimize the impacts in bog lemming habitat. 

Human presence in bog lemming habitat may disturb lemmings and limit their use of habitat, at 

least while the disturbance would be ongoing. The collection of forest products is not likely to 

impact bog lemmings or their habitat. Most forest products that are collected are found in the 

uplands, not within peatlands and bogs. Some human presence/disturbance may occur along the 

edges of northern bog lemming habitat, but the effects are not expected to be great.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 347

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Given the natural rarity of bog habitat and bog lemmings, they are susceptible to natural loss of 

populations. However, also given the natural rarity of that habitat, most activities are not likely 

to overlap and impact that habitat.

The past activity on NFS lands that is most likely to have impacted northern bog lemming 

habitat is recreation. Cross-country (non-winter) motor vehicle use is not permitted, except in 

areas designated on the MVUM maps. These areas are not in or near northern bog lemming 

habitat. Timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression potentially altered the vegetation 

around bog lemming habitat and the surrounding uplands. Fire suppression may have increased 

the risk of high severity fires near bog lemming habitat.

Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownership types, if for no other reason than human 

population growth. This may result in an increase in human disturbance and the possibility of 

motorized use degrading peatlands/bogs on non-NFS lands.

Climate change could change the amount and quality of northern bog lemming habitat. Changes 

in precipitation and temperature may reduce peatland or bog habitats. The exact extent of the 

potential impacts are unknown, and it is unknown if new areas of habitat would be created at 

higher elevations as climate changes. Depending on the amount of new habitat created, and its 

proximity to existing habitat, displaced northern bog lemmings may or may not have adequate 

habitat to move to as a result of climate change. Because of induced shifts in habitat, species that 

are not highly mobile, such as bog lemmings may have difficulty responding to climate change 

(page 91 in USDA Forest Service 2010). Bog/peatland habitat is naturally fragmented, adding to 

the difficulty for bog lemmings to shift distribution.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the northern bog lemming. This 

determination is based in part on:

• Direction in the revised Forest Plan to protect peatlands can be found in FW-DC-VEG-12 

and FW-GDL-VEG-09. FW-GDL-VEG-09 sets a buffer up to 660 feet around peatlands. 

Much of the direction in the Watershed, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats portions of the 

revised Forest Plan will also maintain/improve peatlands as well;

• FW-DC-WL-01 and FW-GDL-WL-25 could also be used to support setting a distance buffer 

around important occupied northern bog lemming habitat;

• Off-road motorized use would be not allowed unless in designated areas (MVUM maps), and 

this minimizes the chance that northern bog lemming habitat would be degraded; and

• Over-snow vehicle use may impact bog lemming habitat through snow compaction and 

effects on sub-nivean habitat, although there is no known degradation currently occurring to 

northern bog lemming habitat from over-snow vehicle use. FW-GDL-WL-25 and FW-GDLVEG-09 could be used to minimize over-snow-motor vehicle use in bog lemming habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

348 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Pygmy nuthatch - Sitta pygmaea

Affected Environment 

Pygmy nuthatch population biology, ecology, habitat description, and relationships are described 

in the Birds of North America Online database (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). Additional 

information is provided in the Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (IDFG 

2005), Idaho Partners in flight (2000) and NatureServe databases (2011).

Information on source habitats and special habitat features are described in Wisdom et al. (2000).

The best available sources of ecological and occurrence information are from, the Montana 

Natural Heritage Program, the Montana and Idaho Partners in flight Bird Conservation Plan (PIF 

2000, ID PIF 2000) and NatureServe databases.

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetation changes). The ERG analysis (ERG 2012) looked at vegetation changes over the next 

50 years.

Habitat and Life History Needs

Wisdom et al. (2000) identify source habitats for this species as late seral montane forests. For 

the pygmy nuthatch, this includes multi and single storied lower montane forests. This species is 

also highly associated with large diameter snags for nesting.

Pygmy nuthatches show a strong and almost exclusive preference for long needled pine forests, 

such as ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, and similar species. They may also inhabit other dry forest 

habitat types such as Douglas-fir (Kingery and Ghalambor 2001). They tend to favor open, parklike forests. They nest in dead pines and live trees with dead sections, and prefer late 

successional, mature, undisturbed forests. Unlogged forests host significantly larger populations 

than logged forests and numbers correlate significantly with volume of ponderosa pine foliage. 

Pygmy nuthatch correlates directly with snag density and foliage volume of the Forest. In Idaho 

the pygmy nuthatch is limited in its distribution to the southern slopes of mountains at elevations 

of 2,000-3,500 feet.

Throughout the intermountain west activities such as timber harvest, fire suppression, and 

grazing have resulted in extensive changes in the distribution, structure, and species composition 

of ponderosa pine forest during the last 100-150 years (Agee 1993 cited in IDFG 2005). Loss of 

historical open, park-like stands of pine during the1900s may be responsible for the drastic 

declines experienced by this species in recent times (IDFG 2005).

Habitat Estimates

Pygmy nuthatch habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 (ERG 

2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 70 below displays two of 

the relevant scenarios. The 1987 Forest Plan was modeled, as was a “no treatment” scenario 

where no mechanical treatment was modeled. This was done for comparison purposes and to put 

management under the 1987 Forest Plan into context. Both consider a warmer/drier climate over 

the next five decades as the climate changes. Both of these scenarios also considered that the 

current level of fire suppression would continue into the future and both considered an increase 

in acres burned over time due to a warmer/drier climate and fuel loads.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 349

Table 70. Acres of Pygmy Nuthatch Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 46,372 46,372

1 53,897 51,156

2 58,191 61,305

5 82,301 81,419

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

Wisdom et al. (2000) identified that there have been widespread declines in source habitats for 

most species dependent on late successional forest habitats. The primary causes for the decline in 

late successional forests are intensive timber harvest and large scale fire exclusions. Additional 

causes include conversion of land to agriculture and to residential or urban development. 

Analysis of late successional forest and/or the large size class on the Forests (see vegetation 

write-up in this EIS) has identified that there has been a fairly significant reduction in the amount 

of late successional forests and stands in the large size class. However, late successional forests 

are still considered to be well distributed across the Forests. In addition to current late 

successional forest, the Forests, under the current land management plan, are managing 

additional lands for their late successional stand characteristics. The current trend under the 

existing Forest Plan is such that late successional forests are no longer targeted for timber harvest 

and there is an increase in the number of large diameter trees retained in areas of vegetation 

management.

Bollenbacher and Hahn (2008) identify that presently in the northern region (based on estimates 

derived from FIA data), approximately 50 percent of the forested lands have a size class of 10 

inches in diameter or greater and that many of these stands have an age class which exceeds 90 

years. Over the short and long term natural vegetation succession will result in an increase in the 

amount of lands in the large size class and subsequently in the amount of late successional forest 

components, such as snags, and down wood important for this species.

Snags

A snag analysis recently conducted for the Forests (Bollenbacher et al. 2009) provides an 

estimate of the number of snags currently existing throughout the forested portion of the Forests. 

The analysis compared the amount of snags in wilderness/roadless areas versus those outside 

wilderness/roadless areas. The analysis identified that areas outside of wilderness/roadless areas 

have similar snags per acre to those in wilderness/roadless areas. The snag densities within 

wilderness/roadless areas provide insight into natural snag abundance and distribution, and this 

can be compared to areas outside of wilderness/roadless (page 4 in Bollenbacher et al. 2009). 

The 90 percent confidence intervals for wilderness/roadless area snags overlap with the 

confidence intervals for areas outside of wilderness/roadless (table 2 in Bollenbacher et al. 

2009). In other words, the number of snags outside of wilderness/roadless areas, which 

represents natural snag abundance, is not very different than the number of snags outside of 

wilderness/roadless. Please see the snag discussion in the vegetation section of the FEIS and 

DEIS (pages 69-72 in the DEIS) for more information regarding the findings of Bollenbacher et 

al. 2009 and the amount of snags available on the Forest.

The estimated average number of snags per acre on all forested lands on the IPNF with diameter

at breast height between 10.0” and 19.9” is 10.4 snags with a 90 percent confidence interval of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

350 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

9.2 to 11.8 snags per acre. The average number of snags per acre with dbh 20” and larger is 1.4 

snags per acre with a 90 percent confidence interval of 1.2 to 1.8 snags per acre.

Habitat estimates for the Northern Region and the Northern Rocky Mountain Ecological 

Province (which includes the Forests) are displayed below (Bush and Lundberg 2008).

Table 71. Estimated Snag Habitat (acres)

Region One Northern Rocky Mountain Ecological Province

Habitat 184,952 105,290

Key Stressors

General stressors:

• Loss of mature and late successional dry pine forest and the reduced numbers of snags, 

particularly large snags;

• Decline in availability of large snags and trees for foraging and nesting;

• Fragmentation of late-successional habitat;

• Fire suppression that results in dense young stands and invasion of Douglas-Fir;

• Selective timber harvesting with subsequent replanting of closely spaced seedlings; and

• Intensive grazing that may remove the shrub and grass understory.

The following Forest Service management activities may impact pygmy nuthatch or its habitat 

(indirect effects):

• Timber harvest – habitat loss and loss/reduction in secure habitat;

• Fire (both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) – removal of standing snags 

and down wood or direct mortality;

• Road maintenance and construction – habitat loss and loss/reduction in secure habitat; and

• Recreational use – habitat loss or disturbance during use in sensitive habitats.

These stressors can cause habitat loss, displacement, or mortality.

Environmental Consequences 

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Fire/Vegetation Management: Fire suppression has reduced habitat quality for pygmy 

nuthatches. It has increased encroachment by shade-tolerant conifers, created a dense understory 

and eliminated foraging habitat, and retarded the development of large ponderosa pine that are 

useful for large snags and nesting cavities. The increase in fuels puts the existing large ponderosa 

pine at an increased risk of being lost in a stand-replacing event. Alternative A would be more 

likely to continue the active suppression of most fires. The action alternatives have more 

flexibility to use fire to restore/maintain habitat.

Fuels reduction, in particular when done to trend towards the desired conditions for vegetation 

(FW-DC-VEG-01 through 07, FW-DC-VEG-11, and FW-DC-FIRE-03), would improve or 

maintain pygmy nuthatch habitat. Expanded use of natural, unplanned ignitions through FWDC-VEG-03 would be useful for maintaining and improving pygmy nuthatch habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 351

FW-STD-VEG-01, FW-GDL-VEG-01 and 02, FW-GDL-VEG-04 and FW-GDL-VEG-05, FWDC-WL-10, FW-DC-WL-11, FW-DC-WL-12, FW-DC-WL-13 move habitat conditions towards 

historic conditions, make stands more resilient to disturbance, and maintain or improve snag 

habitat.

By moving towards the desired conditions for vegetation, the amount and distribution of pygmy 

nuthatch habitat would approximate what would have been present under natural disturbance 

processes. Drier forests, which are the most likely to be outside of historic conditions due to fire 

suppression, would be more resilient to large-scale disturbance. The pattern of habitat would be 

similar to what existed under natural disturbance processes. The risk of a large, stand replacing 

event impacting a large patch of pygmy nuthatch habitat at one time would be reduced under the 

action alternatives.

Pygmy nuthatch habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 (ERG 

2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 72 below displays some 

of the relevant scenarios. The existing 1987 Forest Plan was modeled, as was a “no treatment” 

scenario where no mechanical treatment was modeled. This was done for comparison purposes 

and to put management under the 1987 Forest Plan into context. Scenarios consider a 

warmer/drier climate over the next five decades as the climate changes. These scenarios also 

considered that the current level of fire suppression would continue into the future and both 

considered an increase in acres burned over time due to a warmer/drier climate and fuel loads. 

Under all alternatives pygmy nuthatch habitat will increase over the next five decades. The 

existing amount of habitat is already within HRV and moves towards the mid-range or HRV in 

50 years. This is driven by an increase in low/moderate severity wildfire, some losses to high 

severity wildfire, and in-growth within larger ponderosa pine size classes (page 88 in ERG 

2012). Pygmy nuthatches are not at a viability risk on the IPNF (page 89 in ERG 2012).

Table 72. Acres of Pygmy Nuthatch Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 46,372 46,372 46,372

1 45,395 53,897 51,156

2 48,816 58,191 61,305

5 59,921 82,301 81,419

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the current 

level of fire suppression

For pygmy nuthatch, as with wildlife on the Forest in general, it is wildfire, insects/disease, ingrowth, and stand succession that largely determines the amount and pattern of habitat on the 

Forest for this species rather than management activities (pages ES-1 and ES-2 in ERG 2012).

Under current management (Alternative A), the percentage of the Forest with high snag densities 

would increase over the next five decades. The percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in 

the 10"-20" dbh range would increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 75 percent 

in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 78 percent with constrained budgets. 

The percentage of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range would increase from 

approximately 11 percent in decade 1 to 35 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget 

and 11 percent to 36 percent with constrained budgets.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

352 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

For Alternative B Modified, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh 

range would increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 75 percent in decade 5 with 

an unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 81 percent with constrained budgets. The percentage 

of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range would increase from approximately 12 

percent in decade 1 to 36 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 12 percent to 37 

percent with constrained budgets. 

For Alternative C, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh range 

would increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 76 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 83 percent with constrained budgets. The percentage of 

the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range would increase from approximately 12 

percent in decade 1 to 37 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 12 percent to 39 

percent with constrained budgets. 

For Alternative D, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh range 

would remain steady at approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 73 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and increase from 73 percent to 80 percent with constrained budgets. The 

percentage of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range would increase from 

approximately 11 percent in decade 1 to 34 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget 

and 11 percent to 37 percent with constrained budgets.

Direction in the revised Forest Plan that maintains snag habitat includes: FW-DC-VEG-07, FWGDL-VEG-04 and 05, and FW-DC-WL-13.

Several variables determine the amount of pygmy nuthatch habitat across the Forest. Fire, fire 

suppression, climate change, and vegetation management combine and contribute to the 

availability of habitat. The revised Forest Plan would move vegetation conditions towards a 

desired condition that would be based on historic conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 07, FWDC-VEG-11, and FW-DC-FIRE-03). The distribution and amount of pygmy nuthatch habitat 

should be nearer historic levels if natural disturbance processes are allowed to function, 

particularly fire (FW-DC-FIRE-03).

The difference between the alternatives would be primarily how much vegetation treatment 

would be expected each year to trend conditions toward the desired conditions for vegetation. 

Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) would have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (9,465 acres/year), and D (7,912 acres/year) under constrained budgets. 

Alternative A would treat 10,867 acres/year. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B 

Modified (14,190 acres/year) would have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C 

(13,195 acres/year) and D (10,790 acres/year). Alternative A would treat 11,537 acres/year. 

Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning would be predicted under the action

alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year in Alternative A. Of the alternatives, B Modified (1,683 acres) 

would be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year with constrained budgets in the 

first decade, followed by C (1,677 acres), D (1,609 acres), and then A (1,474 acres). Of the 

alternatives, B Modified (5,884 acres) would be expected to have more regeneration treatments 

per year with unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C (5,842 acres), D (5,790 

acres), and A (5,537 acres).

Given the predicted amounts of harvest, active restoration would have little impact on habitat 

pattern at the Forest scale compared to the potential impacts of fire use. The use of natural 

unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) would have a much greater likelihood of maintaining or 

improving habitat pattern across the Forest. Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 353

would be more likely to result in continued suppression of most fires and therefore less passive 

restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. The action alternatives have more flexibility to use 

fire to restore/maintain habitat. Under the action alternatives, FW-DC-FIRE-03 would be the 

most useful component in the revised Plan for improving pygmy nuthatch habitat. FW-DCFIRE-03 reads, "The use of wildland fire (both planned and unplanned ignitions) increases in 

many areas across the Forest. Fire plays an increased role in helping to trend the vegetation 

towards the desired conditions while serving other important ecosystem functions. However, 

when necessary to protect life, property and key resources, many wildfires are still suppressed."

The large/very large size class is currently within desired conditions (historic conditions) for 

stands on the Forest. With unconstrained budgets, there would be an increase in acres in this size 

class in the next 50 years for B Modified (+54,243 acres), C (+51,566 acres) and D (+34,730 

acres). Alternative A would decline (-10,836 acres). With constrained budgets, there would be an 

increase in acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives C (+109,175 acres), B 

Modified (+102,149 acres), D (+105,372 acres) and A (+83,235 acres). The large/very large size 

class would remain within HRV.

What this means would be that pygmy nuthatches would find an abundance of stands in the 

large/very large size class and adequate snags under all alternatives in the next 50 years.

Grazing can reduce the shrub and grass component of dry forest stands. This reduces the ground 

fuels useful to carry the frequent fires that maintain dry forests. It also reduces the understory 

vegetation component that provides habitat for some of the invertebrate species that pygmy 

nuthatches feed on. FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that grazing would occur at sustainable levels while 

protecting vulnerable resources. Allotment management plans, when they are analyzed, would 

consider sensitive species habitat and FW-DC-GRZ-01 would be implemented when applicable.

Roads/Access/Disturbance: Alternative C (2,129,490 acres motorized) would have the least 

acreage allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (2,268,390 acres

motorized), D (2,279,590 acres motorized) and A (2,399,138 acres motorized).

Open roads facilitate access for firewood cutters, and the loss of snags near roads can reduce the 

availability of habitat. However, the abundance of snags near roads was found to be similar to 

that in wilderness/roadless areas. Recreation can disturb individuals and cause them to 

temporarily avoid an area, and human presence tends to be highest near roads. Additionally, 

potential habitat may be lost within the footprint of the road.

FW-GDL-WL-25 and FW-DC-WL-01 would reduce or eliminate the chance of disturbance to 

pygmy nuthatches. However, given the ephemeral nature of pygmy nuthatch nesting habitat 

(snags) and that they may not use the same nest each year, it would be possible that some pygmy 

nuthatches would still be disturbed by human presence and displaced to habitat elsewhere on the 

Forest. 

Timber sales/fuels reduction activities can cause disturbance to pygmy. Individual special use 

permits may have disturbance effects, but generally would have a small footprint and cause little 

or no loss of habitat.

The effects of any potential minerals development within pygmy nuthatch habitat would depend 

on the footprint of the mine, as well as whether it was an above-ground or below-ground mine. 

Mining activities and the haul/supply route may contribute to disturbance of pygmy nuthatches. 

Disturbance may result in pygmy nuthatches utilizing other area of the Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

354 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The collection of forest products may cause disturbance, but most of that disturbance would be 

concentrated near open roads.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression have changed the amount and pattern of 

pygmy nuthatch habitat on NFS lands. The drier forest types are often most impacted by fire 

suppression. Past timber harvest may have influenced the availability of large snags in pygmy 

nuthatch habitat, and firewood cutting along open roads may also have reduced large snags. 

Habitat for pygmy nuthatches on the Forest is within HRV, although near the lower end.

Timber management is likely to continue on non NFS ownerships. The effects would depend on 

how many snags are retained, whether dry forest habitat that is outside of historic conditions is 

restored, whether late-successional forests are maintained, and the amount of disturbance to 

individual pygmy nuthatches.

Climate change will have the potential to alter the quality, quantity, or distribution of habitat for 

this assemblage. A changing climate and the effects of past fire suppression may combine to 

lower the resiliency of stands to natural disturbance processes. There is a greater likelihood that a 

large scale disturbance will change pygmy nuthatch habitat. The lower elevation, drier forests are 

the most in need of active restoration. Moving conditions nearer to historic conditions and the 

desired conditions for vegetation would restore habitat into a more resilient condition and nearer 

to what would have been present historically under natural disturbance processes. Climate 

change may cause a change in timing of the life-cycle of some insects, consequently altering 

when prey is available for pygmy nuthatches (page 90 in USDA Forest Service 2010).

Grazing will continue on other ownerships, and if it reduces the availability of grasses and 

shrubs there may be a reduction in some invertebrate prey species. It may also reduce the ground 

fuels useful to facilitate frequent fires.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to result in 

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the northern bog lemming. This 

determination is based in part on:

• A trend towards the desired conditions for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 07, FWDC-VEG-11) would improve or maintain pygmy nuthatch habitat. 

• The revised Forest Plan provides flexibility to use unplanned ignitions through FW-DCVEG-03 and MA direction and would be useful for maintaining and improving pygmy 

nuthatch habitat;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 355

• The existing amount of habitat is already within HRV and moves towards the mid-range or 

HRV in 50 years. Pygmy nuthatches are not at a viability risk on the IPNF (page 89 in ERG 

2012);

• Pygmy nuthatches would find an abundance of stands in the large/very large size class and 

an abundance of snags over the next 50 years; and

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The following management indicator species (MIS) were proposed because they represent an 

issue or concern. Elk security habitat was a concern, especially given the importance of this 

species for hunting. Elk will be an indicator for elk security only. A landbird assemblage 

(insectivores) was proposed to aid in analyzing the effects of moving towards the desired 

conditions for vegetation. This assemblage will be used as an indicator for progress towards the 

desired conditions for vegetation.

These MIS are to be used to compare alternatives in this EIS and analyze effects. Although 

several individual species are listed under the landbird assemblage, effects will be analyzed for 

the assemblage in general and not the individual species. These MIS, elk and insectivores, were 

not proposed because of a viability concern. Additionally, viability of these MIS will not be 

analyzed in future projects, nor will they be monitored at the project level. See table 73 for the 

rationale for MIS selection (also see the KIPZ MIS Selection paper, USDA Forest Service 

2013b).

Table 73. Management Indicator Species for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests

Species Habitat Association Indicator Rationale for Selection

Rocky 

Mountain Elk

Forested stands 

(cover), and 

grasslands/shrub 

(forage)

Security Areas 

(Acres and 

Percent)

Elk are of high social importance and are 

sensitive to the availability of security 

habitat. Management activities that impact 

road use can alter security habitat. 

Monitoring of security habitat would be 

feasible through remote sensing (ex: travel 

route GIS layers)

Landbird 

Assemblage 

(insectivores)

Varies: open forest 

structures, mature 

forests, and snags

Varies: open 

forests/openings, 

burned forests, 

mature forests, 

snags

Moving towards the desired conditions for 

vegetation would restore or maintain habitat 

for some species of insectivores. The Forest 

would monitor movement towards the 

desired conditions for vegetation

The KIPZ MIS Selection paper (2013) in the project record describes in more detail why these 

species were selected as MIS, why the old MIS were not retained, what will be monitored, and 

discusses the scientific criticisms of the MIS concept.

Rocky Mountain Elk – Cervus canadensis nelson

Elk has been proposed as a MIS due to concerns over security habitat for this species. The 

alternatives will be analyzed relative to their impact on security habitat for elk. Additionally, the 

impacts of other non-security related direction in the revised Forest Plan were analyzed as well. 

Also, see the big game analysis section in the document for more effects to big game in general.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

356 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Affected Environment

Elk are a hunted species with secure populations. Idaho has a rich tradition of big game hunting. 

Elk have high economic and social values and is a large contributor to the quality of life in 

Idaho.

In general, south and central zones of the Forest were used for the analysis area, although in 

some cases activities occurring on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). 

In general, the period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. 

However, some effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last 

longer than the Plan (e.g., vegetation changes). For the security analysis, the elk hunting zone 

subunits were the agreed upon as the best biologically based unit of measure during coordination 

with IDFG during the revision process. These analysis units will be called Elk Management 

Units (EMUs).

Habitat and Life History Needs

Elk are habitat generalists and occupy open to dense forests interspersed with grassland or 

shrubland openings. Lower elevation winter range with good cover and forage or browse is 

important to elk. Habitat that reduces vulnerability to hunting, severe winter weather, and 

predators is important for elk.

Elk eat grasses, sedges, forbs, deciduous shrubs (especially willow and serviceberry), young 

trees (especially chokecherry and maple), and some conifers (varies between ranges). Where 

shrubs and grasses are available, grass is preferred. Browse may be used, particularly in winter 

and on winter ranges. Conifers and arboreal lichens may also be used. Grass is most important in 

spring. Forbs are important in summer (MNHP and MFWP 2011).

Elk tend to graze more where open habitats are available, and have higher thresholds of snow 

depths that produce movements or cause physical impairment to movement (Sweeney and 

Sweeney 1984). This allows elk to inhabit slightly higher terrain (with deeper snows) and delay 

movements to lower elevation (Sweeney and Sweeney 1984, Boyce 1991). In areas of deeper 

snow, elk use steeper slopes, which have less snow (Poole and Mowat 2005).

Road construction is the single most important Forest action with potential to affect elk security 

and unroaded hunting opportunity. The security area calculations associated with Hillis et al. 

(1991) are based on open motorized routes.

Security areas also become less functional as hunting pressure increases regardless of available 

access and forest cover. This results from increasing demand for unroaded recreation and also as 

a result of hunters trying to avoid areas of higher pressure.

A large portion of lands identified as big game winter range have also been delineated as 

wildland urban interface (WUI). Current management in the WUI emphasizes a reduction in fire 

risk and an increase in human safety. In some cases, such as immediately adjacent to a home, 

management to reduce fire risk and improve conditions for human safety are not necessarily 

compatible with big game habitat maintenance/restoration. However, it is recognized that the 

priority in those areas closest to structures is human safety and a reduction in fire risk, while 

outside of those areas management for both is considered more compatible. Areas immediately 

adjacent to homes are generally not conducive to providing winter range for ungulates anyway, 

due to the disturbance from human presence.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 357

Key Stressors

Forest Service activities that may have direct or indirect impacts on species within this group 

include:

• Timber harvest which alters the quantity, quality, and placement of cover. Timber harvest, 

especially with prescribed fire, can increase forage quality and quantity;

• Prescribed fire by itself can also increase forage quality and quantity;

• Fire suppression can reduce the amount of forage, and alter the quantity, quality, and 

placement of cover;

• Access management, especially motorized access, can be utilized to protect, or when used in 

conjunction with hunting, to reduce populations;

• Activities that reduce that amount of security during the big game hunting season; and

• Noxious weeds can also reduce the amount of forage available for elk.

Stressors outside Forest Service control include (cumulative effects):

• The potential spread of chronic wasting disease and other diseases;

• Hunting;

• Vehicle caused mortality;

• Private development, especially in winter range, which can lead to loss of habitat, loss of 

connectivity, increase in vulnerability (from predators year-round, and during the hunting 

season);

• The spread of invasive plant species (weeds) reduces forage values and habitat capacity 

• Severe winters can contribute to high herd mortality;

• Vegetation/fire management on non-NFS lands effect cover/forage; and

• Increased access (roads) on non-NFS lands.

These stressors can result in habitat loss, displacement, or mortality. The stressors that are 

outside of Forest Service control can result in population changes. Therefore, the number of elk 

residing on the Forest is not completely under the control of the Forest.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Vegetation/Fire Management Effects on Cover/Forage: Alternative A will be predicted to 

treat approximately 10,867 acres/year (constrained budget) or 11,537 acres/year (unconstrained 

budget) including 6,000 acres/year prescribed fire. The existing 1987 Forest Plan has limited 

flexibility to use unplanned ignitions to maintain/improve habitat.

Fire suppression has impacted the vegetation component of security habitat for elk. Many areas 

are outside of historic conditions and in need of active restoration and fuels reduction. If 

vegetation management will be done to move conditions towards historic conditions and the 

desired conditions for vegetation and fire (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 06, FW-DC-VEG-11, and 

FW-DC-FIRE-03), then the vegetation component of elk security habitat will be nearer to what 

will have been present based on natural disturbance processes. Stands will be more resilient to 

large-scale disturbance and less likely to be lost to fire/insects/disease. The reintroduction of fire 

into ecosystems can aid in restoring habitat conditions. As stated in FW-DC-FIRE-03, fire plays 

an increased role in helping to trend vegetation towards desired conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

358 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912 acres/year), and A (10,867 acres/year) under 

constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (14,190 acres/year) 

will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year), D (10,790 

acres/year), and A (11,537 acres/year). Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning 

will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in 

Alternative A. Of the alternatives, B Modified (1,683 acres) will be expected to have more 

regeneration treatments per year with constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C 

(1,677 acres), D (1,609 acres), and then A (1,474 acres). Of the alternatives, B Modified (5,884 

acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year with unconstrained 

budgets in the first decade, followed by C (5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres), and A (5,537 acres). 

Alternative B Modified (5,884 acres) will have more regeneration treatments per year with 

unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C (5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres), and then 

A (5,537 acres).

The ERG report (ERG 2012) did not specifically analyze big game habitat, instead it analyzed a 

dozen other species that represent a variety of habitats on the IPNF, including some that would 

occupy habitat that would overlap with low-elevation winter range for big game. Although big 

game were not specifically analyzed, this conclusion from ERG (2012) is important: “...natural 

disturbances (in the form of wildfire and certain insects and diseases) are projected to have 

effects on habitat that render the effects of management less than remarkable at the planning 

scale...Thus, treatments that may have considerable effects at the unit or project scale are 

lessened in the larger context of the total amounts of wildfire, disease, insects, and succession at 

the individual national forest or the KIPZ scale” (page E-4 in ERG 2012). This means is that the 

IPNF trends towards the desired conditions for vegetation and fire, but that it is natural 

disturbance processes that determine overall amounts and pattern of wildlife habitats across the 

IPNF, and active management actions such as fuels reduction and timber harvest have little 

impact at the Forest scale. In general, management had a positive effect on the amount and 

distribution of habitat for wildlife. Those desired conditions for vegetation and fire are based on 

historic conditions, natural disturbance processes, and changing climates. The desired conditions 

are similar to what wildlife, including big game, would have evolved with on the IPNF, so the 

amount and pattern of big game habitat would be similar to what they evolved with on the IPNF. 

This includes the amount of winter range, cover, and forage.

Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) will be more likely to result in continued 

suppression of most fires and therefore less passive restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. 

The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire for habitat restoration/maintenance. The 

use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) will be more likely in MA1, and 

Alternative C (335,300 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), 

and D (156,800 acres), and A (153,900 acres equivalent to MA1). Fire may also be used more in 

MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives B Modified (681,200 acres) and C (630,000 acres) 

have more than D (624,900 acres).

FW-GDL-WL-13 will be applied to reduce the impacts of management on elk security habitat. 

Timber harvest can benefit security habitat if it is done to trend towards historic conditions and 

the desired conditions for vegetation. In doing so, the resiliency of the timbered stand component 

of security habitat is improved or maintained and security habitat is less likely to be lost to a 

large-scale disturbance (fire, insects, and disease).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 359

Concentrations of livestock can influence elk habitat use. Elk will avoid areas of high livestock 

use (PNRS 2006), so livestock presence can affect elk use of security areas. Livestock graze on a 

small proportion of the Forest, so there are many areas free from cattle. Depending on the 

intensity of grazing, the use of fire can be affected due to the loss of fine ground fuels to carry a 

fire. Human presence associated with livestock management can also cause disturbance to elk 

and cause them to avoid those areas. FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that grazing will occur at 

sustainable levels while protecting vulnerable resources, so this could aid in reducing impacts 

from livestock where they are found to be a concern.

Noxious weeds are limited or reduced through FW-DC-VEG-10 and FW-OBJ-VEG-02. This 

improves forage conditions not only in security areas, but across the Forest.

Access: Both motorized and non-motorized access can result in disturbance to big game, 

including elk (Ciuti et al. 2012, Canfield et al. 1999, Schultz and Bailey 1978, Freddy et al. 

1986, Ward and Cupal 1979). As road densities increase, elk habitat effectiveness decreases 

(Lyon 1984). In some cases ungulates may react more to a person on foot than a motorized 

vehicle (Eckstein et al. 1979, Richens and Lavigne 1978, Lavigne 1976). White et al. (2005) 

found that some animals in Yellowstone can habituate to over-snow motorized use and display 

little or no reaction unless they are approached on foot. This report by White et al. (2005) 

suggested that active responses by wildlife can be diminished by restricting over-snow motorized 

travel to predictable routes and times, reducing the number of vehicles in a group and other 

means.

The response of other big game, such as white-tailed deer, to snowmobiling has been studied as 

well (Dorrance et al. 1975). Depending on where the activity occurs, such as in an area where 

hunting is allowed versus where it is not, white-tailed deer may habituate to snowmobile use. In 

areas where hunting is allowed, the deer reacted more to snowmobiles and may not as easily 

habituate to human (snowmobile) presence (Dorrance et al. 1975).

Some research on the effects of recreation on big game has been conducted at the Starkey 

Experimental Forest in Oregon. Wisdom et al. (2005) found that off-road activities such as ATV 

use, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding appear to have a “substantial effect on elk 

behavior” (page 6 in Wisdom et al. 2005). It should be noted that their “off-road” transects 

included the use of primitive road beds (page 2 in Wisdom et al. 2005). The study did not include 

an estimate of the energetic costs of the behavioral effects to elk, so it is unclear what the overall 

effects were to the individual animal or herd health. However, the study does show that the 

activities studied can impact elk use of habitat due to disturbance/displacement away from the 

human activities. The reactions of mule deer during the study were not as clear. Deer did not

appear to move as much in response to the activities, but they may have been responding by 

making small behavioral changes such as using dense cover. Naylor et al. (2009) reported similar 

results for elk from this study on the Starkey Experimental Forest.

Ciuti et al. (2012) is representative of the impacts of recreation on big game on NFS lands. In 

Ciuti et al. (2012) they found that the “highest levels of vigilance were recorded on public lands 

where hunting and motorized recreation activities were cumulative compared to the national park 

during summer, which had the lowest levels of vigilance.” Elk, and other big game, are hunted 

on the IPNF, so the findings in Ciuti et al. (2012) are relevant. Ciuti et al. (2012) found that elk 

decreased their feeding time when closer to roads and became more vigilant as traffic volume 

increased.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

360 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The IPNF acknowledges that all types of recreation, whether motorized or non-motorized, can 

have disturbance impacts on wildlife, including big game. However, most non-motorized users 

arrive on the IPNF and navigate to their chosen non-motorized recreation spot by driving a 

motorized vehicle on the IPNF’s road system. Additionally, the number of non-motorized users 

diminishes with increasing distance from a road. Thus road access influences the distribution of 

non-motorized use on the IPNF.

The revised Forest Plan includes direction to minimize disturbance to big game from 

management activities, with the definition of management activity in the revised Forest Plan 

being “[a]ny activity that is carried out or authorized by the Forest that would result in impacts 

on natural resources or change human use of the Forest.” Access management, both motorized 

and non-motorized, would classify as a management activity because it would have an impact on 

natural resources (e.g., big game) and change human use on the Forest (the distribution of 

motorized or non-motorized recreation). Therefore, the revised Forest Plan does include and 

acknowledge that non-motorized uses may have an impact on wildlife, including big game. 

Examples of applicable direction in the revised Forest Plan include FW-GDL-WL-11, FW-GDLWL-12 and FW-GDL-WL-14 which limit disturbance to big game on winter range and during 

birthing/parturition.

Although FW-GDL-WL-13 and FW-OBJ-WL-02 specifically mention elk, elk security areas 

also provide security habitat for other wildlife species, including other big game. Therefore, 

other big game will benefit from the direction provided in FW-GDL-WL-13 and FW-OBJ-WL02.

Alternative A will retain the existing amount of recommended wilderness and non-motorized 

areas. Large areas with limitations on motorized use can aid in providing security, areas with 

lower disturbance, and connectivity of elk populations. Alternative C (2,129,490 acres

motorized, 1,598,067 acres over-snow motorized) would have the least acreage allowing 

motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (2,268,390 acres motorized, 1,756,980 acres

over-snow motorized), D (2,279,590 acres motorized, 1,759,738 acres over-snow motorized) and 

A (2,399,138 acres motorized, 1,970,537 acres over-snow motorized). Alternative C (335,300 

acres) would have the most land in MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D 

(156,800 acres), and Alternatives A (153,900 acres).

The grizzly bear Access Amendment is incorporated into the revised Forest Plan and all 

alternatives. The effects will therefore be the same for all alternatives. Implementation will 

improve security habitat for not only grizzly bears, but for elk as well. FW-DC-AR-06, although 

directed at providing people solitude and non-motorized experiences in remote settings, doing so 

will maintain/create areas that may function as security habitat for elk. FW-DC-WL-02 states 

that a forestwide system of large remote areas will be maintained or created, and these could 

function as security habitat for elk as well.

Special use permits/lands can affect the amount and quality of elk security habitat. Anything that 

changes the motorized route location or densities can change security habitat. Special use 

permits that do not change motorized routes can still affect security by increasing human 

presence within security areas and thereby changing the quality of those habitats.

Mine activities can reduce the amount of elk security habitat. The footprint of the mine/mill can 

remove security habitat, as can the haul/supply route. Not only can the footprint of these 

facilities remove habitat, but the increased access and disturbance can affect habitat near these 

facilities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 361

The collection of forest products primarily occurs near open roads. Any collection that occurs 

away from open motorized routes may cause disturbance to elk. However, the effects are 

expected to be minor because most collecting occurs near open roads.

Both FW-GDL-WL-13 and FW-OBJ-WL-02 were updated between draft and final based on 

public and internal comments. They were adjusted to be as consistent as possible with Hillis et 

al. (1991) as well as be realistic, attainable, and biologically based as possible. FW-OBJ-WL-02 

was adjusted to set the objective to increase by one the number of EMUs that has at least 30 

percent security. This objective is realistic given the difficulty and long time frames it takes to 

plan projects, move through litigation, and finally implement the projects on the ground.

Elk has been proposed as a MIS for the revised Forest Plan due to concerns over elk security 

habitat. Security habitat would be defined in the glossary as timbered stands on NFS lands at 

least 250 acres in size greater than 0.5 miles from open motorized routes during the hunting 

season and would be calculated for the area (e.g., planning subunit) as determined at the project 

level. The concept of security habitat for elk (FW-GDL-WL-13 and FW-OBJ-WL-02) applies to 

the hunting season and is based on Hillis et al. (1991). The definition in the glossary that applies 

to FW-GDL-WL-13 and FW-OBJ-WL-02 has been adjusted from the definition in Hillis et al. 

(1991) by applying it to open motorized routes rather than simply open roads. The reasoning is 

that motorized trails can have the same impact on security as roads during hunting season when 

motorized trails may allow easier/quicker access into habitat compared to foot-travel. Motorized 

routes that are not open to the public for motorized use during the hunting season (including 

temporary roads) are considered security habitat because they do not fit the recommendations in 

Hillis et al. (1991) (i.e., they do not provide motorized access during the hunting season). 

However, the impacts of non-motorized use of closed routes on elk security habitat would be 

considered at the project level. This is consistent with Hillis et al. (1991) and their discussion of 

closed roads (page 39 in Hillis et al. 1991) and the potential for impacts of non-motorized use of 

closed roads on security habitat.

The glossary definition of elk security habitat for FW-GDL-WL-13 uses the term “timbered 

stand” (non-forested and seed sap stands were filtered out of the calculations for this analysis 

and are not considered a “timbered stand” for elk security) because many regenerated stands on 

the Forest contain enough horizontal cover to provide cover for elk, and at larger scales the 

available data is not fine enough to tease out patches of hiding cover. This may result in small 

patches of non-hiding cover being lumped into the security areas with analyses done at larger 

scales, but generally trees grow fast on the IPNF and many stands have enough horizontal cover 

to provide hiding cover for elk. Analyses at smaller scales (e.g., project level) may be able to use 

more refined data, if available.

The IPNF will use the EMU as the analysis unit for elk security as this was the agreed upon 

measurement scale through coordination with the state of Idaho (IDFG). IDFG identified 

individual EMUs relative to priority areas for elk management and the need for improvement of 

elk security conditions (i.e., low, medium, and high emphasis) during the revision process. Only 

portions of the central and southern portions of the IPNF were considered for priority rating by 

IDF&G at this time due to there already very low security at this time and a desire to see no net 

loss of elk security over the life of the Plan. This was due in part to an acknowledgement that the 

northern part of the IPNF already has considerable security provided for grizzly bears in the two 

recovery areas (SZ and CYZ) that will benefit elk and other wildlife species. The emphasis 

levels for the elk management units may be updated during the life of the revised Forest Plan 

based upon continuing coordination with IDFG.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

362 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Based on FW-GDL-WL-13 and the definition of elk security habitat in the glossary, security 

habitat should be maintained or improved on NFS lands during the hunting season. Where 

possible, where management for elk would be a high emphasis as determined through 

coordination with the state, security habitat should be improved.

Although Hillis et al. (1991) recommended that the security analysis should not be adjusted for 

land ownership (page 39 in Hillis et al. 1991), FW-GDL-WL-13, FW-OBJ-WL-02, and the 

definition of elk security in the glossary applies only to NFS lands. This is because the Forest 

assumes that non-NFS lands do not contain security habitat, or if it currently does that any 

existing security habitat may not be retained by those other landowners. Therefore, the Forest 

would focus elk security habitat calculations on NFS. Any security habitat that exists on other 

land ownerships would be considered a bonus.

Table 74 displays the existing condition of elk security habitat on the Forest. Security was 

calculated as timber stands in blocks of habitat greater than or equal to 250 acres in size and 

greater than or equal to 0.5 mi from an open motorized route during the hunting season. Open 

motorized routes used for the calculations include all those on the Forest, as well as those 

adjacent to the Forest that will impact security habitat on the Forest. Security will be calculated 

only for those acres on the Forest and does not include acres not under NFS management. This 

table has been updated from that used for the draft EIS. For the draft EIS the calculations were 

based on blocks greater than or equal to 250 acres in size and greater than or equal to 0.5 mi 

from an open motorized route. For the analysis for the final EIS, these figures were further 

filtered by timbered stands (non-timbered and seedling/sapling areas were filtered out). This 

reduced the figures in the table for this final analysis compared to the draft EIS. Additionally, in 

order to keep FW-GDL-WL-13, FW-OBJ-WL-02, and the definition of elk security habitat in 

the glossary closer to the recommendations in Hillis et al. (1991), the calculations were kept to 

the hunting season only rather than a general “non-winter season” as used for the draft.

Table 74. Status of the 33 Elk Management Units (EMU) Located within and near the Idaho 

Panhandle NF Boundary in Regards to Elk Security and Prioritization for Improvement by the 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Elk 

Management 

Unit

IPNF

Zone

Total

Size 

(Acres)

NFS Lands

(Acres (%))

Elk Security NFS 

Lands Only

IDF&G

Priority

Acres Percent Ranking

3-1 CDA1 151,454 42,699 (28.2%) 8,808 20.6% Low

3-2 CDA 145,342 69,743 (48.0%) 13,606 19.5% Low

3-3 CDA 85,506 70,701 (82.7%) 8,784 12.4% Low

4-2 CDA 63,826 32,418 (50.8%) 2,971 9.2% Low

4-3 CDA 60,385 28,760 (47.6%) 3,434 11.9% Low

4-4 CDA 71,388 37,908 (53.1%) 6,061 16.0% Medium

4-5 CDA 81,245 72,140 (88.8%) 18,464 25.6% Medium

4-6 CDA 56,041 55,800 (99.6%) 14,432 25.9% Medium

4-7 CDA 76,749 76,715 (100%) 35,817 46.7% Medium

4-9 CDA 39,168 39,052 (99.7%) 9,699 24.8% High

4-10 CDA 53,809 52,978 (98.5%) 4,843 9.1% High

4-11 CDA 47,597 47,431 (99.7%) 14,793 31.2% Medium

4-12 CDA 22,337 21,933 (98.2%) 6,543 29.8% Medium
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 363

Elk 

Management 

Unit

IPNF

Zone

Total

Size 

(Acres)

NFS Lands

(Acres (%))

Elk Security NFS 

Lands Only

IDF&G

Priority

Acres Percent Ranking

4-13 CDA 33,981 32,874 (96.7%) 6,428 19.6% High

4-14 CDA 46,711 42,583 (91.2%) 5,801 13.6% Medium

4A-1 Kaniksu 30,303 29,058 (95.9%) 5,778 19.9% Medium

4A-2 Kaniksu 36,155 34,272 (94.8%) 11,416 33.3% Medium

4A-3 Kaniksu 35,899 22,637 (63.1%) 2,421 10.7% Medium

6-1 St. Joe 71,857 10,218 (14.2%) 0 0.0% Low

6-2 St. Joe 62,262 44,834 (72.0%) 7,943 17.7% High

6-3 St. Joe 79,897 75,795 (94.9%) 16,404 21.6% High

6-5 St. Joe 133,604 83,550 (62.5%) 10,737 12.9% High

6-8 St. Joe 84,581 32,320 (38.2%) 3,054 9.4% Medium

6-9 St. Joe 70,469 29,023 (41.2%) 1,444 5.0% Medium

7-1 St. Joe 61,387 60,475 (98.5%) 13,847 22.9% High

7-2 St. Joe 47,311 47,207 (99.8%) 11,200 23.7% Medium

7-3 St. Joe 55,232 55,167 (99.9%) 14,374 26.1% High

7-4 St. Joe 89,704 89,678 (100%) 46,672 52.0% Low

7-5 St. Joe 41,765 27,870 (66.7%) 11,679 41.9% Medium

7-6 St. Joe 63,705 35,189 (55.2%) 2,025 5.8% Low

9-1 St. Joe 40,498 22,775 (56.2%) 3,399 14.9% Low

9-2 St. Joe 50,515 40,246 (79.7%) 24,520 60.9% Low

9-3 St. Joe 38,935 38,884 (99.9%) 16,044 41.3% Low

1 Coeur d’Alene

Christensen et al. (1993) addressed three types of considerations for big game habitat, 

particularly elk: habitat effectiveness, elk vulnerability, and winter range. Habitat effectiveness 

covers roads, special features, cover, and scale of analysis, spatial relationships, and domestic 

livestock. Roads, or the potential for motorized use, are addressed under the revised Forest Plan 

with FW-GDL-WL-13 along with the other direction discussed elsewhere that will maintain or 

improve the amount of habitat available with limitations on motorized access. Special features 

include things such as riparian habitat and movement corridors. Wet areas and riparian areas are 

addressed with the direction in the “Watershed, Soils, Riparian, Aquatic Habitat, and Aquatic 

Species” sections of the revised Forest Plan. This direction protects riparian areas. Connectivity 

is addressed through FW-DC-WL-18, FW-GDL-WL-15, FW-GDL-WL-16, , FW-GDL-17, 

MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA1e-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL01, GA-DC-WL-CDA-03, GA-DC-WL-LK-01, GA-DC-WL-LK-02, GA-DC-WL-PO-01, GADC-WL-PR-01, GA-DC-WL-PR-03, GA-DC-WL-SJ-02. Cover is managed according to FWDC-WL-17 and the desired conditions for vegetation and fire. This analysis for the revised 

Forest Plan looked at the planning subunits and forestwide for the security analysis, and even 

beyond the borders of the IPNF for the cumulative effects analysis. Affects to cover/forage were 

analyzed at the Forest scale, with cumulative effects again looking beyond the IPNF borders. 

Spatial relationships are address through FW-DC-WL-09, FW-OBJ-WL-02, and FW-GDL-WL13 which contain references to the distribution of habitat. Domestic livestock do not occur over 

much of the IPNF, but their impacts will be minimized through FW-DC-GRZ-01.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

364 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Elk vulnerability covers factors such as roads, security areas, and cover management 

(Christensen et al. 1993). Roads and security areas are managed not only with FW-GDL-WL-13 

and FW-OBJ-WL-02, but security for elk is also provided by FW-DC-WL-02, FW-DC-WL-04, 

FW-DC-WL-05, FW-STD-WL-02, MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, 

MA1e-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, and GA-DC-WL-CDA-02. Cover, as mentioned 

previously, is managed according to FW-DC-WL-17 and the desired conditions for vegetation 

and fire.

Winter range factors include forage, cover, roads/disturbance, and livestock management 

(Christensen et al. 1993). Forage and cover are managed according to FW-DC-WL-17 and the 

desired conditions for vegetation and fire. Roads and disturbances are managed on big game 

winter range according to FW-GDL-WL-11, FW-GDL-WL-12, GA-DC-WL-CDA-02, GA-DCWL-LK-03, and GA-DC-WL-SJ-01. Livestock do not occur over much of the IPNF, but their 

impacts would be minimized through FW-DC-GRZ-01.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past management on NFS lands, particularly access management, likely impacted the amount 

and location of elk security habitat on the Forest. Access management has trended towards 

reducing the amount of motorized routes on the Forest over time. Timber management, fuels 

reduction, and fire suppression have impacted the amounts and pattern of forage/cover for elk 

and other ungulates on the Forest. Fire suppression in particular likely had the greatest influence. 

It likely led to the encroachment of conifers into natural openings and limited the creation of new 

openings that would provide foraging habitat.

All the action alternatives will contribute toward maintaining or improving elk security habitat 

through implementation of FW-GDL-WL-13. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game's Elk 

Management Plan (IDFG 1999) and 2009 Elk Progress Report (IDFG 2009) do a good job of 

summarizing all the factors influencing elk populations in the Elk Management Zones 

overlapping the Forest. These factors include predators, fire suppression, timber harvest, 

subdivision of private lands, noxious weeds, severe winters, and security on all land ownerships. 

Elk populations were increasing prior to the hard winter of 1996-1997 according to the IDFG's 

Elk Management Plan (IDFG 1999). The winter of 2007-2008 also likely reduced elk numbers, 

but prior to that, elk populations had been increasing in the Panhandle region (IDFG 2009).

Timber harvest and fuels reduction occurring on private, state, or Canadian lands may impact the 

distribution, amount, and quality of big game and may impact connectivity between NFS lands. 

Activities on other land ownerships may degrade or improve ungulate habitat, particularly winter 

range on private lands. If timber harvest and fuels reduction are done to move conditions nearer 

to those present under natural disturbance processes, then ungulate habitat will be 

maintained/improved. However, if conditions are not maintained or restored to those found 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 365

under natural disturbance processes, winter range can be degraded. Subdivision of winter range 

on private lands can lead to loss of winter range for native ungulates. Fuels reduction near these 

homes has the potential to degrade winter range, as discussed above. The desired conditions for 

vegetation in the revised Forest Plan will maintain or improve not only security habitat on the 

Forest, but also cover/forage for native ungulates. Vegetation management that trend towards 

historic conditions and the desired conditions for vegetation on the Forest will move conditions 

nearer to what will have been present under natural disturbance processes. Therefore the amount 

and pattern of ungulate habitat, including winter range, on the Forest will be similar to 

conditions that ungulates evolved with under natural disturbance processes.

Any construction of roads on other land ownerships, as well as subdivision and development, 

may decrease security habitat not only on those lands, but also on the immediately adjacent NFS 

lands.

Private land development and increased road densities or increased use of existing roads can 

impact connectivity. Vehicle-elk collisions can cause direct mortality to elk as well.

Climate change will likely have little impact on the motorized route aspect of elk security 

habitat. However, it may have an impact on vegetation and therefore the timber stand component 

of security habitat. Past fire suppression has increased stand densities and decreased the

resiliency of some stands to large-scale disturbance (fire, insects, and disease). Climate change 

may increase the likelihood of large-scale disturbance. However, moving stand conditions 

towards historic conditions and the desired conditions for vegetation will decrease stand 

densities and increase their resiliency to large-scale disturbance. Habitat conditions will be 

nearer to what would be present under natural disturbance processes. The timbered stand 

component of security habitat for elk will be nearer to what was present historically, and will be 

more resilient to large-scale disturbance and the impacts of climate change. Climate change may 

impact the timing of elk use of particular areas (i.e., change the timing of movement between 

seasonal ranges, page 92 in USDA Forest Service 2010).

Hunting, managed by the state, can impact elk populations. Depending on the management 

goals, hunting regulations can lead to decreasing, increasing, or stable populations. Diseases, 

such as chronic wasting disease, can also impact elk populations and cause a decline. Severe 

weather can impact herds and cause a decline.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact security habitat and the vegetation components of 

cover/forage for elk. This determination is based in part on:

• Based on FW-GDL-WL-13, security habitat will be maintained or increased over the life of 

the Forest Plan;

• During the winter period, FW-GDL-WL-11 and 12 are designed to minimize or avoid 

disturbance to big game on winter ranges, and FW-GDL-WL-14 reduces disturbance on 

calving areas;

• In addition to the desired conditions for vegetation and fire, habitat connectivity will be 

improved through FW-DC-WL-18, and FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17;

• Additional direction within the revised Forest Plan that contributes to areas with low levels 

of disturbance for elk includes: GA-DC-WL-CDA-02; and GA-DC-WL-SJ-01;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

366 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Connectivity will be also improved by: GA-DC-WL-CDA-03, GA-DC-WL-LK-01 and 02, 

GA-DC-WL-PO-01, GA-DC-WL-PR-01 and 03, and GA-DC-WL-SJ-02;

• Wilderness areas (MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA1e-DCWL-01), IRAs, and other non-motorized areas (FW-STD-WL-02, FW-GDL-WL-13, MA3-

DC-WL-01, and MA5-DC-WL-01) contribute to secure habitat and connectivity for elk; and

• Habitat for native ungulates will be managed in coordination with state agencies, with 

cover/forage managed based on the desired conditions for vegetation in the revised Plan 

(FW-DC-WL-17).

Landbird Assemblage (Insectivore)

The insectivore assemblage would be a MIS for vegetation change associated with timber 

harvest and fuels reduction. This MIS would be used to analyze progress towards the desired 

conditions for vegetation. This assemblage consists of olive-sided flycatcher, dusky flycatcher, 

Hammond's flycatcher, chipping sparrow, and hairy woodpecker; all of which were detected on 

the Forest during the Landbird Monitoring Program conducted by the Avian Science Center 

(http://globe.gcs-holdings.net/avian/GoogleMap.aspx?project=LBMP). A review of the literature 

shows that landbirds can have varied responses (densities) to thinning and burning treatments 

such as those that would be expected in order to move towards the desired conditions for 

vegetation (Gaines et al. 2007, Gaines et al. 2010, Saab et al. 2007). Hammond's flycatcher was 

included because it uses mature coniferous forests, and the hairy woodpecker was included 

because it uses snags for foraging and nesting.

Not only are the effects from the desired conditions for vegetation/fire analyzed, but the effects 

from other direction in the revised Forest Plan on this landbird assemblage were analyzed as 

well.

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetation changes). The ERG analysis (ERG 2012) looked at vegetation changes over the next 

50 years.

Affected Environment

Chipping sparrow, hairy woodpecker, Hammond's flycatcher, olive-sided flycatcher, and dusky

flycatcher population biology, ecology, habitat description, and relationships are described in the 

Birds of North America Online database (http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna). Additional 

information is provided at the NatureServe database 

(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm).

Habitat and Life History Needs

The following information came from the NatureServe database 

(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm) and the Birds of North America Online 

database (http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna):

The chipping sparrow prefers open, coniferous woodlands, edges near openings, and earlysuccessional forests with shrubs. They feed in low vegetation or on the ground for insects and the 

seeds of grasses and annuals.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 367

The hairy woodpecker uses coniferous forests, including mature forests, along with edges and 

burned areas. They utilize cavities in snags for nesting. They primarily feed on insects found on 

the surface or subsurface of trees.

The Hammond's flycatcher uses mature coniferous forests that contain canopy openings. They 

primarily capture aerial insects by flycatching.

The olive-sided flycatcher uses open coniferous forests, edges near openings, or earlysuccessional forests if they contain residual conifers or snags to provide singing and foraging 

perches. They primarily capture aerial insects by flycatching.

The dusky flycatcher uses open coniferous forests, open areas with scattered trees, and brushy 

areas. They primarily capture aerial insects by flycatching.

Table 75 displays two of the relevant scenarios modeled for chipping sparrow and dusky 

flycatcher habitat (ERG 2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. The 

existing 1987 Forest Plan was modeled, as was a “no treatment” scenario where no mechanical 

treatment was modeled. This was done for comparison purposes and to put management under 

the 1987 Forest Plan into context. Both consider a warmer/drier climate over the next five 

decades as the climate changes. Both of these scenarios also considered that the current level of 

fire suppression would continue into the future and both considered an increase in acres burned 

over time due to a warmer/drier climate and fuel loads. The existing amount of habitat is within 

HRV and increases over the next five decades.

Table 75. Acres of Chipping Sparrow and Dusky Flycatcher Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 156,004 156,004

1 154,904 154,794

2 154,803 156,298

5 157,392 157,158

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

Table 76 displays two of the relevant scenarios modeled for olive-sided flycatcher habitat (ERG 

2012). The existing amount of habitat is within HRV and remains within HRV over the next five 

decades.

Table 76. Acres of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 1,777,479 1,777,479

1 1,537,610 1,531,926

2 1,387,247 1,385,975

5 1,318,656 1,277,106

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

368 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 77 displays two of the relevant scenarios modeled for Hammond’s flycatcher habitat (ERG 

2012). The existing amount of habitat is below HRV but increases towards HRV over the next 

five decades.

Table 77. Acres of Hammond’s Flycatcher Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 740,899 740,899

1 660,708 670,441

2 815,462 822,268

5 915,138 901,291

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

Table 78 displays two of the relevant scenarios modeled for hairy woodpecker habitat (ERG 

2012). The existing amount of habitat is at the high end of HRV and increases over the next five 

decades.

Table 78. Acres of Hairy Woodpecker Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 2,098,871 2,098,871

1 2,028,850 2,041,458

2 2,089,899 2,075,979

5 2,227,729 2,239,569

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

Key Stressors

These stressors can cause habitat loss, displacement, or mortality.

General stressors (could occur on other land ownerships):

• Decline in availability of large snags and trees for perching and nesting;

• Fire suppression that results in dense young stands, encroachment of conifers into openings, 

and loss of open-forest structure;

• Selective timber harvesting with subsequent replanting of closely spaced seedlings;

• Intensive grazing that may remove the shrub and grass understory;

• Alteration or loss of wintering habitat; and

• Wind turbines – mortality on migratory birds.

The following Forest Service management activities may impact insectivores or their habitat 

(indirect effects):

• Timber harvest – loss of snags and large trees;

• Fire (both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) – removal of standing snags or 

direct mortality, although fire also maintains open habitat and creates snags;

• Fire suppression – loss of openings and open-forest structure;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 369

• Road maintenance and construction – habitat loss; facilitates firewood harvest, and loss of 

snags; and

• Recreational use – habitat loss or disturbance.

The population levels of the species in this landbird assemblage are determined in part by the 

stressors occurring on other land ownerships. The activities that the Forest undertakes do not 

solely determine the population levels of these species on the Forest.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Fire/Vegetation Management: Fire suppression has degraded habitat for members of this 

assemblage. Alternative A will be more likely than the action alternatives to result in continued 

suppression of most fires. Under the action alternatives there is more flexibility to use fire for 

habitat restoration/maintenance. Dry forest stands that once had more frequent fires and 

generally had a more open understory now have more ladder fuels than would have been present 

under natural disturbance. This increases the chance that a large-scale disturbance (e.g., fire, 

insects) would impact habitat. The Forest is generally lacking ponderosa pine and larch, as 

shown in FW-DC-VEG-11. In order to move towards historic conditions, as shown in FW-DCVEG-11, active restoration may need to occur to thin stands before fire can be reintroduced into 

some ecosystems. Doing so will make those stands more resilient to large-scale disturbance. It 

will also create and maintain the open habitats that members of this assemblage use.

All three action alternatives trend vegetation conditions towards desired conditions (FW-DCVEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-08, FW-DC-VEG-10, FW-DC-VEG-11, FW-GDL-VEG-03 

through 06, and FW-DC-FIRE-03), which are based on historic conditions and natural 

disturbance processes. Vegetation conditions, under all action alternatives, will be maintained or 

improved for insectivores and their prey in the long-term by creating a more resilient landscape. 

The difference between the alternatives will be primarily how much vegetation treatment would 

be predicted each year to trend conditions toward the desired conditions for vegetation. 

Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912 acres/year), and A (10,867 acres/year) under 

constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (14,190 acres/year) 

will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year), D (10,790 

acres/year), and A (11,537 acres/year). Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning 

will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in 

Alternative A. Of the alternatives, B Modified (1,683 acres) will be expected to have more 

regeneration treatments per year with constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C 

(1,677 acres), D (1,609 acres), and then A (1,474 acres). Of the alternatives, B Modified (5,884 

acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year with unconstrained 

budgets in the first decade, followed by C (5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres), and A (5,537 acres).

Given the limited progress towards the desired conditions that can be made given the predicted 

budgets, the use of fire is more effective at moving towards the desired conditions. Alternative A 

(current Forest Plan as implemented) will be more likely to result in continued suppression of 

most fires and therefore less passive restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. The action 

alternatives have more flexibility to use fire for habitat restoration/maintenance. The use of 

natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) will be more likely in MA1, and Alternative C 

(335,300 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D 

(156,800 acres), and A (153,900 acres equivalent to MA1). Fire may also be used more in MA5 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

370 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

compared to MA6, and Alternatives B Modified (681,200 acres) and C (630,000 acres) have 

more than D (624,900 acres).

MA direction in the revised Forest Plan that supports expanded use of natural, unplanned 

ignitions and planned ignitions includes: MA1a-DC-VEG-01, MA1a-DC-FIRE-01, MA1a-GDLFIRE-01 and 02, MA1b-DC-VEG-01, MA1b-DC-FIRE-01, MA1b-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, 

MA1c-DC-VEG-01, MA1c-DC-FIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1e-DC-VEG-01, 

MA1e-DC-FIRE-01, MA1e-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02,MA2a-DC-FIRE-01, MA2a-DC-VEG-01, 

MA2a-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA2b-DC-VEG-01, MA2b-DC-FIRE-01, MA2b-GDL-FIRE01 through 03,MA5-DC-VEG-01, MA5-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5-GDL-FIRE-01. This will be 

useful to maintain/restore insectivore habitat in the long-term.

GA direction that assists in trending towards the desired conditions for vegetation and fire 

includes: GA-DC-VEG-CDA-01, GA-DC-VEG-LK-01 and 02, GA-DC-VEG-PO-01 through 

03, GA-DC-FIRE-PO-01, GA-DC-VEG-PR-01 through 04, GA-DC-FIRE-PR-01, GA-DCVEG-SJ-01 through 04, and GA-DC-FIRE-SJ-01.

The increased use of fire, both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions, will maintain 

or improve the pattern of insectivore habitat across the Forest. Managing for the desired 

conditions for vegetation (historic conditions) will likely result in a pattern of insectivore habitat 

similar to what was found historically under natural disturbance processes.

"Perhaps the single greatest challenge for forest managers nationwide is the restoration of fire 

regimes as a vital component of healthy forest ecosystems. Many forest types, as well as birds 

and other wildlife of high conservation concern, require natural fire cycles, and a century of 

unnatural fire suppression has created conditions that are not only harmful to bird populations, 

but also pose grave economic and safety threats to humans" (NABCI 2011).

Under current management (Alternative A), the percentage of the Forest with high snag densities 

will increase over the next five decades. The percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 

10"-20" dbh range will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 75 percent in 

decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 78 percent with constrained budgets. 

The percentage of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from 

approximately 11 percent in decade 1 to 35 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget 

and 11 percent to 36 percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative B Modified, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh 

range will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 75 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 81 percent with constrained budgets. The percentage of 

the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from approximately 12 

percent in decade 1 to 36 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 12 percent to 37 

percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative C, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh range 

will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 76 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 83 percent with constrained budgets. The percentage of 

the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from approximately 12 

percent in decade 1 to 37 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 12 percent to 39 

percent with constrained budgets.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 371

For Alternative D, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh range 

wll remain steady from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 73 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and increase from 73 percent to 80 percent with constrained budgets. The 

percentage of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from 

approximately 11 percent in decade 1 to 34 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget 

and 11 percent to 37 percent with constrained budgets.

The large/very large size class is currently below desired conditions (historic conditions) for 

stands on the Forest. With unconstrained budgets, there will be an increase in acres in this size 

class in the next 50 years for Alternatives B Modified (+54,243 acres), C (+51,566 acres), D 

(+34,730 acres), and A (+10,836 acres). With constrained budgets, there will be an increase in 

acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives C (+109,175 acres), B Modified 

(+102,149 acres), D (+105,372 acres) and A (+83,235 acres). The large/very large size class 

would remain within HRV.

What this means is that insectivores will find an increase of stands in the large/very large size 

class and adequate snags under all alternatives in the next 50 years.

Table 79 displays some of the relevant scenarios jointly modeled for chipping sparrow and dusky 

flycatcher habitat (ERG 2012). The existing amount of habitat is slightly below HRV and 

decreases slightly over the next five decades under all the action alternatives. The action 

alternatives are similar in outcomes. However, the “HRV range may be an overestimate of 

historic habitat since some acres may have lacked sufficient openness to support chipping 

sparrows and dusky flycatchers” (page 90 in ERG 2012). The change in habitat amount over 

time is due to an increase in habitat due to low/moderate severity fires coupled with a loss of 

habitat due to root disease. Since habitat remains near the lower end of HRV, there is no 

indication that these two species are at a viability risk (page 90 in ERG 2012).

Table 79. Acres of Chipping Sparrow and Dusky Flycatcher Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 156,004 156,004 156,004

1 149,363 154,904 154,794

2 143,342 154,803 156,298

5 145,743 157,392 157,158

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the current 

level of fire suppression

Table 80 displays some of the relevant scenarios modeled for olive-sided flycatcher habitat (ERG 

2012). The existing amount of habitat is within HRV and remains within HRV over the next five 

decades. The alternatives have similar outcomes. The changes in habitat are driven by wildfires, 

insects, and root disease. There is no indication of a viability risk to olive-sided flycatcher (page

94 in ERG 2012).

Table 80. Acres of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 1,777,479 1,777,479 1,777,479

1 1,555,850 1,537,610 1,531,926
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

372 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

2 1,423,660 1,387,247 1,385,975

5 1,304,871 1,318,656 1,277,106

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the current 

level of fire suppression

Table 81 displays some of the relevant scenarios modeled for Hammond’s flycatcher habitat 

(ERG 2012). The existing amount of habitat is below HRV but increases towards HRV over the 

next five decades. The alternatives have similar outcomes. The changes in habitat are driven by 

forest growth offset by wildfire. There is no indication that there is a viability risk to Hammond’s 

flycatcher (page 93 in ERG 2012).

Table 81. Acres of Hammond’s Flycatcher Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 740,899 740,899 740,899

1 674,816 660,708 670,441

2 830,710 815,462 822,268

5 938,060 915,138 901,291

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the current 

level of fire suppression

Table 82 displays some of the relevant scenarios modeled for Hammond’s flycatcher habitat 

(ERG 2012). The existing amount of habitat is at the high end of HRV and increases over the 

next five decades. The alternatives result in similar outcomes. The increase in habitat is driven 

by extensive rood disease, insect outbreaks, and fire. There is no indication that hairy 

woodpeckers are at a viability risk (page 92 in ERG 2012).

Table 82. Acres of Hairy Woodpecker Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 2,098,871 2,098,871 2,098,871

1 2,030,486 2,028,850 2,041,458

2 2,073,145 2,089,899 2,075,979

5 2,257,868 2,227,729 2,239,569

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the current 

level of fire suppression

For the landbird assemblage, as with wildlife on the Forest in general, it is wildfire, 

insects/disease, in-growth, and stand succession that largely determines the amount and pattern 

of habitat on the Forest for these species rather than management activities (pages ES-1 and ES2 in ERG 2012).

These insectivores are not dependent on old growth. However, for those species that use mature 

forests, old growth can contribute to available habitat (FW-STD-VEG-01 and 02, FW-GDLVEG-01 and 02).

Additional directions in the revised Forest Plan that will benefit members of this group by 

maintaining or improving habitat include: FW-DC-WL-10 through 15, FW-GDL-WL-08, and 

FW-DC-GRZ-01.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 373

The direction in the Forest Plan maintains/improves the habitat components this group uses, 

including snags, mature forest, openings/edge habitat, and open forest. By trending towards the 

desired conditions for vegetation and fire, the Forest will provide a similar diversity of habitats 

and pattern across the Forest as would have been found historically under natural disturbance 

processes. That means the species in this group will find an amount and arrangement of habitats 

similar to what they evolved with on the Forest. Additionally, stands will be more resilient to 

large-scale disturbance (fire, insects, and disease).

Grazing can reduce the shrub and grass component of open forest stands. This reduces the 

ground fuels useful to carry the frequent fires that maintain dry forests. It also reduces the 

understory vegetation component that provides habitat for some of the invertebrate species that 

this group feeds on. FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that grazing will occur at sustainable levels while 

protecting vulnerable resources.

Access/Disturbance: Alternative A will retain the existing amount of recommended wilderness 

and non-motorized areas. Large areas with limitations on motorized use can aid in providing 

security and connectivity. Alternative C (2,129,490 acres motor vehicle) will have the least 

acreage allowing motor vehicle use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (2,268,390 acres

motor vehicle use), D (2,279,590 acres motor vehicle use) and A (2,399,138 acres motor vehicle 

use). Alternative C (335,300 acres) would have the most land in MA1, followed by B Modified 

(188,700 acres), and D (156,800 acres), and Alternatives A (153,900 acres).

MA5 can also contribute to security. Alternatives B Modified (681,200 acres) and C (630,000 

acres) have more than D (624,900 acres).

Human access can cause individuals of this assemblage to be displaced from the vicinity of the 

disturbance. This effect is more common along open roadways as that is where most of the 

human presence will be concentrated. Additionally, access via open roads facilitates firewood 

cutting, and results in a loss of snags near roadways. The loss of snags will make the areas 

around open roads even less desirable for some members of this assemblage. All alternatives will 

improve access conditions for this assemblage through application of the Access Amendment for 

grizzly bears. Some roads will be closed and therefore decrease the acreage potentially affected 

by woodcutting and high human disturbance.

The primary impact from special use permits will likely be disturbance. However, some habitat 

loss or alteration may also occur. Mineral development could lead to the loss of habitat and 

increased human presence and therefore disturbance to members of this assemblage in the 

vicinity of the activities. Individuals may be displaced to habitat elsewhere on the Forest. The 

footprint of a mine and mill may decrease available habitat by removing live trees and snags. 

The collection of forest products will result in a loss of habitat and human presence/disturbance 

that could displace individuals of this assemblage. Firewood cutting in particular will result in a 

loss of snag habitat along open roadways. The collection of other forest products besides 

firewood gathering also tends to be associated with open roads due to the ease of access. The 

snag loss in particular will reduce the suitability of habitat near open roadways for some species 

in this assemblage.

Vegetation/fire management activities can also cause short-term disturbance, although there will 

be long-term habitat improvements/maintenance.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

374 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression are the most likely past activities that 

influenced the amount and distribution of bird habitat on NFS lands. Fire suppression in 

particular is likely to have changed stand structure and led to encroachment of conifers into 

natural openings and increased tree densities in formerly open canopied stands. Open roads 

likely impacted the distribution of snags due to firewood cutting. Road influences have 

decreased over time as access management has resulted in less routes open to motor vehicle use.

Timber management is likely to continue on non NFS ownerships. The effects would depend on 

how many snags are retained, whether habitat that is outside of historic conditions is restored, 

whether late-successional forests are maintained, and the amount of disturbance to individual 

members of this assemblage.

Climate change will have the potential to alter the quality, quantity, or distribution of habitat for 

this assemblage. A changing climate and the effects of past fire suppression may combine to 

lower the resiliency of stands to natural disturbance processes. There is a greater likelihood that a 

large scale disturbance will change habitat for this assemblage. Although some members of this 

assemblage may do well after a large fire or disturbance, others will not. Moving conditions 

nearer to historic conditions and the desired conditions for vegetation will restore/maintain 

habitat into a more resilient condition and nearer to what would have been present historically 

under natural disturbance processes. Climate change may cause a change in timing of the lifecycle of some insects, consequently altering when prey is available for this assemblage (page 90 

in USDA Forest Service 2010).

Grazing will continue on other ownerships, and if it reduces the availability of grasses and 

shrubs there may be a reduction in some invertebrate prey species. It may also reduce the ground 

fuels useful to facilitate frequent fires in some portions of some ecosystems.

Effects in wintering areas or during migration can reduce populations of the members of this 

assemblage. Wind turbines, for example, can kill individuals during migration.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact this assemblage and their habitat. This determination 

is based in part on:

• All three action alternatives trend vegetation conditions towards desired conditions (FWDC-VEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-08, FW-DC-VEG-10, FW-DC-VEG-11, FW-GDLVEG-03 through 06), which are based on historic conditions and natural disturbance 

processes. Vegetation conditions, under all action alternatives, will be maintained or 

improved for insectivores and their prey in the long-term, at the very least by creating a more 

resilient landscape;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 375

• Alternative C (11,031acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912 acres/year), and A (14,115 acres/year) 

under constrained budgets. Alternative A will treat 10,867 acres/year. With an unconstrained 

budget, Alternative B Modified (14,190 acres/year) will have the most active restoration 

followed by Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year) and D (10,790 acres/year). Alternative A will

treat 11,537 acres/year. Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning would be 

predicted under the action alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year in Alternative A;

• MA direction in the revised Forest Plan that supports expanded use of natural, unplanned 

ignitions and planned ignitions includes: MA1a-DC-VEG-01, MA1a-DC-FIRE-01, MA1aGDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1b-DC-VEG-01, MA1b-DC-FIRE-01, MA1b-GDL-FIRE-01 and 

02, MA1c-DC-VEG-01, MA1c-DC-FIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1e-DCVEG-01, MA1e-DC-FIRE-01, MA1e-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02,MA2a-DC-FIRE-01, MA2aDC-VEG-01, MA2a-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA2b-DC-VEG-01, MA2b-DC-FIRE-01, 

MA2b-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03,MA5-DC-VEG-01, MA5-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5-GDLFIRE-01. This will be useful to maintain/restore insectivore habitat in the long-term;

• The increased use of fire, both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions, will 

maintain or improve the pattern of insectivore habitat across the Forest. Managing for the 

desired conditions for vegetation (historic conditions) will likely result in a pattern of 

insectivore habitat similar to what was found historically under natural disturbance 

processes;

• There is no indication that a change in habitat relative to HRV over the next five decades 

under the revised Forest Plan is a viability risk to any of these species (ERG 2012); and

• Vegetation/fire management activities can also cause short-term disturbance, although there 

would be long-term habitat improvements/maintenance.

Other Species or Habitat Components

Migratory Birds

Affected Environment

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g.,

vegetation changes).

On January 10, 2001, President Clinton signed an Executive Order (13186) titled 

“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” The executive order states 

that environmental analysis of federal actions, required by NEPA or other established 

environmental review processes, evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory 

birds, with emphasis on species of concern.

A MOU between the Forest Service and USFWS was signed in 2008 (USDA Forest Service and 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) (Forest Service Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264). The 

MOU outlines the responsibilities for both parties regarding migratory birds, including the Forest 

Service’s responsibilities regarding consideration of migratory birds in NEPA projects. The 

MOU was used to help guide the development of this effects analysis.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

376 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

In January of 2000 the Forest Service released a Landbird Strategic Plan (USDA Forest Service 

2000). The primary purpose of the strategic plan was to provide very general guidance for the 

agency’s landbird conservation program. Among the suggested actions was the incorporation of 

landbird management into Forest Plans.

A recent report issued by several organizations and federal agencies summarized the general 

condition of birds across the United States (North American Bird Conservation Initiative 2009, 

2011). It painted a picture of declines in multiple species across a variety of habitats. Climate 

change was one of the contributing factors to these declines, and is likely to continue impacting 

birds into the future. As the climate warms, breeding seasons and migrations are being altered. 

These activities may become out of sync with prey abundance, and climate change may also 

impact where and when those food items are available. This reinforces the need to have resilient 

habitat that is better able to handle climate change.

The following series of tables (tables 83 through 86) are included to provide a framework to 

focus the discussion and analysis by focusing on migratory bird priority species and habitats.

Partners in Flight (PIF) produced a North American Landbird Conservation Plan in 2004 (Rich et 

al. 2004). Their plan was broken down by “biomes” and the Forest is located within the 

Intermountain West Avifaunal Biome, which includes several Bird Conservation Regions and 

encompasses several western states. Their plan is very broad in scale. Table 83 displays the 

species they identified for continental importance within the Intermountain West Avifaunal 

Biome.

Table 83. Species of Continental Importance Identified for the Intermountain West Avifaunal 

Biome in the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004)

Species Primary Habitat Is the Forest within the Range 

of the Species?1

Immediate Action2

Gunnison Sage-Grouse Western shrublands N

Greater Sage-Grouse Western shrublands N

Bendire’s Thrasher Western shrublands N

California Condor Various N

Spotted Owl Coniferous Forest N

Management3

Brewer’s Sparrow Western shrublands Y

Pinyon Jay Woodland N

Lewis’s Woodpecker Riparian Y

Cassin’s Finch Coniferous forest Y

Willow Flycatcher Riparian Y

White-throated Swift Various Y

Rufous Hummingbird Western shrublands Y

Black Swift Various Y

Olive-sided Flycatcher Coniferous forest Y

Swainson’s Hawk Grassland Y

Grace’s Warbler Mixed forest N

Long-term Planning and Responsibility4
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 377

Species Primary Habitat Is the Forest within the Range 

of the Species?1

Black Rosy-Finch Tundra Y

Brown-capped Rosy-Finch Tundra N

Sage Thrasher Western shrublands N

Gray Flycatcher Woodland N

Calliope Hummingbird Western shrublands Y

Red-naped Sapsucker Mixed forest Y

Williamson’s Sapsucker Coniferous forest Y

Green-tailed Towhee Western shrublands N

Clark’s Nutcracker Coniferous forest Y

Dusky Flycatcher Western shrublands Y

Sage Sparrow Western shrublands N

Mountain Bluebird Western shrublands Y

Gray Vireo Woodland N

Virginia’s Warbler Woodland N

Flammulated Owl Coniferous forest Y

White-headed Woodpecker Coniferous forest Y

McCown’s Longspur Grassland N

1 NatureServe Explorer http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm on 9/20/10 or KIPZ MIS Process and AMS 

Technical Report in the project record; includes accidental, migratory, or transient occurrences 2 PIF categorized species by the level of immediacy of conservation attention. Those in the “immediate action” category 

are identified to reverse/stabilize significant long-term population declines, or to protect species with the smallest 

populations with unknown population trends (page 25 in Rich et al. 2004). None of these species occur on the Forest

3 PIF categorized species by the level of immediacy of conservation attention. Those in the “management” category are 

identified because management/conservation actions are needed to halt long-term population declines or sustain 

vulnerable populations (page 26 in Rich et al. 2004). The Forest is within the range of nine of these species 4 PIF categorized species by the level of immediacy of conservation attention. Those in the “long-term planning and 

responsibility” category are identified because planning is needed to maintain populations. The Forest is within the range 

of seven of these species

Partners in Flight’s North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004) does not 

contain a set of requirements that the Forest must follow; the document was used to organize the 

discussion in this analysis by focusing on those species or habitats that have been identified at a 

broad scale as being important.

Two documents (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a and PIF 2000) provide a narrower 

focused look at key birds and habitats as those documents pertain on a smaller area (a single Bird 

Conservation Region or State). Again, these documents and the following tables were used as a 

framework to facilitate the discussion/analysis of migratory landbirds and their habitats by 

focusing on key species and habitats.

In 2008 the USFWS released a report titled “Birds of Conservation Concern” in which they 

listed species of concern by Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

2008a). That report helps focus conservation efforts on the species that need it. The Forest lies 

within BCR 10 (Northern Rockies). Table 84 lists the species of concern for BCR 10, not all of 

which are found on the Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

378 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 84. Birds of Conservation Concern for the Bird Conservation Region that overlaps the Forest 

(Bird Conservation Region 10 = Northern Rockies)

Common Name Scientific Name Is the Forest w/in the Range of 

Species?*

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Y

Black Rosy-Finch Leucosticte atrata N

Black Swift Cypseloides niger Y

Brewer’s Sparrow Spizella breweri Y

Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope Y

Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus cassinii Y

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis Y

Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Y

Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Y

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Y

Long-Billed Curlew Numenius americanus Y

McCown’s Longspur Calcarius mccownii N

Olive-Sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Y

Peregrine Falcon (b) Falco peregrinus Y

Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli N

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus N

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Y

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Y

White-Headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Y

Williamson’s Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Y

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Y

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus N

b = breeding

*NatureServe: Explorer http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm on 9/20/10 or KIPZ MIS Process and AMS 

Technical Report in the project record; includes accidental, migratory, or transient occurrences

Four of these species are additionally analyzed elsewhere in this document: bald eagle, peregrine 

falcon, flammulated owl, and olive-sided flycatcher.

The IPNF is within the Partners in Flight Montana Conservation Plan (PIF 2000). These 

conservation strategies are recommendations to use in management but they are not binding 

requirements. However, they provide a way to categorize and analyze important migratory bird 

habitat and species. The use of these plans supports the goal of maintaining long-term 

sustainability of migratory bird species and their habitats as specified by the Executive Order and 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The priority habitats and species are listed in table 85.

Table 85. Partners in Flight Priority Habitats/Species for Idaho (PIF 2000)

Partners in Flight Priority Habitats and Species

Habitat Species Is the Forest w/in the Range of 

Species?1

Riparian Barrow's goldeneye Y
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 379

Partners in Flight Priority Habitats and Species

Habitat Species Is the Forest w/in the Range of 

Species?1

Hooded merganser Y

Blue grouse Y

Mountain quail N

Black-chinned hummingbird Y

Calliope hummingbird Y

Rufous hummingbird Y

Willow flycatcher Y

Dusky flycatcher Y

Black-billed magpie Y

American dipper Y

Yellow warbler Y

MacGillivray's warbler Y

Low-elevation Mixed Conifer Sharp-shinned hawk Y

Northern goshawk Y

Lewis's woodpecker Y

Williamson's sapsucker Y

Black-backed woodpecker Y

Brown creeper Y

Varied thrush Y

Townsend's warbler Y

Western tanager Y

Marshes, Lakes, Ponds Western grebe Y

American white pelican Y

White-faced ibis Y

Trumpeter swan Y

Cinnamon teal Y

Redhead Y

Sandhill crane Y

Killdeer Y

Black-necked stilt Y

American avocet Y

Franklin's gull Y

Sagebrush/Salt Desert Scrub Swainson's hawk Y

Sage grouse N

Short-eared owl Y

Loggerhead shrike Y

Rock wren Y

Sage thrasher N

Brewer's sparrow Y

Lark sparrow Y
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

380 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Partners in Flight Priority Habitats and Species

Habitat Species Is the Forest w/in the Range of 

Species?1

Sage sparrow N

High-elevation Mixed Conifer Olive-sided flycatcher Y

Hammond's flycatcher Y

Grassland Sharp-tailed grouse N

Long-billed curlew Y

Grasshopper sparrow Y

Aspen Ruffed grouse Y

Ponderosa Pine Flammulated owl Y

White-headed woodpecker Y

Juniper/Pinyon/Mountain 

Mahogany

Ferruginous hawk N

Gray flycatcher N

Plumbeous vireo N

Pinyon jay N

Virginia's warbler N

Black-throated gray warbler N

Cliff/Rock Outcrops/Talus Golden eagle Y

Prairie falcon Y

Black swift Y

Cedar and Hemlock Vaux’s swift Y

Alpine Black rosy-finch Y

Lodgepole Pine/Mountain Brush No High Priority Species 

Identified

1 NatureServe: Explorer http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm on 9/20/10 or KIPZ MIS Process and AMS 

Technical Report in the project record; includes accidental, migratory, or transient occurrences

The habitat requirements of the species listed above, as well as range information, can be found 

online at NatureServe Explorer's database: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/index.htm. 

Population estimates can be found on the Partners in Flight online 

database: http://rmbo.org/pif_db/laped/.

Several of these birds are additionally analyzed elsewhere in the document: dusky flycatcher, 

black-backed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, Hammond's flycatcher, flammulated owl, and 

black swift.

Most of the habitats found on the Forest host one or more species of migratory birds. Generally 

speaking, the birds arrive in the spring to set up territories for breeding purposes. Young are 

raised and fledged by mid-summer. Most species leave the Forest by mid- to late summer.

Table 86 displays the dominant vegetation types for the IPNF. There is some overlap in 

categories, and therefore some double-counting. For example, some acres counted as "riparian" 

would also be counted under the other forested types. Additionally, specific tree species may be 

found in more than one category, although for the purpose of display they were placed in only 

one category. Tree species may also be found in several other forest types. For example, aspen is 

displayed as a separate category, although aspen can be found in smaller quantities scattered 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 381

throughout the other forested types. The available vegetation data on the Forest was grouped into 

categories that matched the above listed priority landbird habitats as closely as possible.

Table 86. Dominant Vegetation Type for the IPNF based on FIA Subplots, Vegetation Response 

Units, VMP Organized to Approximate the PIF Priority Habitats

Dominant Vegetation Type Estimated % of IPNF 1 Estimated Acres

Low Elevation Mixed Conifer (Douglas-fir, 

western larch, white pine, yew)

25 616,479

High Elevation Mixed Conifer (whitebark pine, 

grand fir, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, 

mountain hemlock)

43 1,078,842

Lodgepole Pine 9 228,797

Ponderosa Pine 1 30,188

Cedar/Western Hemlock 13 319,362

Aspen/birch <1 7,945

Cliff/rock/talus <1 9,898

Alpine 5 125,746

Waterbodies (lakes, ponds, reservoirs, marsh, 

swamp, river)

<1 5,356

Grassland 1 23,857

Mtn. brush (shrub) 3 73,837

Riparian (INFISH) 16 392,115

1 Percentages and acreages do not tally to 100% due to rounding and overlap between some of the categories leading to 

double-counting

Key Stressors

These stressors can cause habitat loss, displacement, or mortality.

General Stressors:

• Decline in availability of large snags and trees for perching and nesting;

• Fire suppression that results in dense young stands, encroachment of conifers into openings, 

and loss of open-forest structure;

• Selective timber harvesting with subsequent replanting of closely spaced seedlings;

• Intensive grazing that may remove the shrub and grass understory;

• Alteration or loss of wintering habitat; and

• Wind turbines – mortality on migratory birds.

The following Forest Service management activities may impact migratory birds or their habitat 

(indirect effects):

• Timber harvest – loss of snags and large trees;

• Fire (both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) – removal of standing snags or 

direct mortality, although fire also maintains open habitat and creates snags;

• Fire suppression – loss of openings and open-forest structure;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

382 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Road maintenance and construction – habitat loss, facilitates firewood harvest, and loss of 

snags; and

• Recreational use – habitat loss or disturbance.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Fire/Vegetation Management: Fire suppression has degraded habitat for migratory birds. 

Active fire suppression would be more likely to continue under Alternative A. The action 

alternatives have more flexibility to use fire to restore/maintain habitat. Dry forest stands that 

once had more frequent fires and generally had a more open understory now have more ladder 

fuels than would have been present under natural disturbance. This increases the chance that a 

large-scale disturbance (e.g., fire, insects) would impact habitat. The Forest is generally lacking 

ponderosa pine and larch, as shown in FW-DC-VEG-11. In order to move towards historic 

conditions, as shown in FW-DC-VEG-11, active restoration may need to occur to thin stands 

before fire can be reintroduced into some ecosystems. Doing so will make those stands more 

resilient to large-scale disturbance. It will also create and maintain the open habitats that some 

species use.

All three action alternatives trend vegetation conditions towards desired conditions (FW-DCVEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-08, FW-DC-VEG-10, FW-DC-VEG-11, FW-GDL-VEG-03 

through 06, and FW-DC-FIRE-03), which are based on historic conditions and natural 

disturbance processes. Vegetation conditions, under all action alternatives, will be maintained or 

improved for migratory birds and their habitat in the long-term by creating a more resilient 

landscape. Although some species would potentially have fewer habitats, the amount and pattern 

would be similar to what was found under natural disturbance regimes. Fire is a natural part of 

these habitats, and these birds evolved in its presence. The difference between the alternatives 

will be primarily how much vegetation treatment will be predicted each year to trend conditions 

toward the desired conditions for vegetation. Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have the 

most active restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912

acres/year), and A (10,867 acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, 

Alternative B Modified (14,190 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year), D (10,790 acres/year), and A (11,537 acres/year). 

Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action 

alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the alternatives, B 

Modified (1,683 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year with 

constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C (1,677 acres), D (1,609 acres), and then A 

(1,474 acres). Of the alternatives, B Modified (5,884 acres) will be expected to have more 

regeneration treatments per year with unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C 

(5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres), and A (5,537 acres).

Limited progress towards the desired conditions can be made, under constrained budgets; 

therefore, the use of fire will be more effective at moving towards the desired conditions. 

Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) is more likely to result in continued 

suppression of most fires and therefore less passive restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. 

The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire for habitat restoration/maintenance. The 

use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) is more likely in MA1, and Alternative C 

(335,300 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D 

(156,800 acres), and A (153,900 acres equivalent to MA1). Fire may also be used more in MA5 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 383

compared to MA6, and Alternatives B Modified (681,200 acres) and C (630,000 acres) have 

more than D (624,900 acres).

MA direction in the revised Forest Plan that supports expanded use of natural, unplanned 

ignitions and planned ignitions includes: MA1a-DC-VEG-01, MA1a-DC-FIRE-01, MA1a-GDLFIRE-01 and 02, MA1b-DC-VEG-01, MA1b-DC-FIRE-01, MA1b-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, 

MA1c-DC-VEG-01, MA1c-DC-FIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1e-DC-VEG-01, 

MA1e-DC-FIRE-01, MA1e-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02,MA2a-DC-FIRE-01, MA2a-DC-VEG-01, 

MA2a-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA2b-DC-VEG-01, MA2b-DC-FIRE-01, MA2b-GDL-FIRE01 through 03,MA5-DC-VEG-01, MA5-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5-GDL-FIRE-01. This will be 

useful to maintain/restore migratory bird habitat in the long-term.

GA direction that assists in trending towards the desired conditions for vegetation and fire 

includes: GA-DC-VEG-CDA-01, GA-DC-VEG-LK-01 and 02, GA-DC-VEG-PO-01 through 

03, GA-DC-FIRE-PO-01, GA-DC-VEG-PR-01 through 04, GA-DC-FIRE-PR-01, GA-DCVEG-SJ-01 through 04, and GA-DC-FIRE-SJ-01.

The increased use of fire, both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions, would 

maintain or improve the pattern of migratory bird habitat across the Forest. Managing for the 

desired conditions for vegetation (historic conditions) will likely result in a pattern of migratory 

bird habitat similar to what was found historically under natural disturbance processes.

"Perhaps the single greatest challenge for forest managers nationwide is the restoration of fire 

regimes as a vital component of healthy forest ecosystems. Many forest types, as well as birds 

and other wildlife of high conservation concern, require natural fire cycles, and a century of 

unnatural fire suppression has created conditions that are not only harmful to bird populations, 

but also pose grave economic and safety threats to humans" (NABCI 2011).

Fire can also cause mortality to birds, although most are mobile enough to escape. Timing spring 

burning to avoid periods when immobile young may be in the nest can reduce this impact. Fire is 

a natural part of these habitats, and these birds evolved in its presence. FW-DC-WL-15 will 

maintain a diversity of patch sizes of fire-killed trees to provide wildlife habitat, and FW-GDLWL-08 will maintain unlogged conditions in some portions of burned areas for 5 years post-fire 

for those species that need this type of habitat. Allowing fire to play a more natural role in the 

ecosystem will maintain/restore habitat conditions for several species of birds.

For those species that use mature forests, old growth can contribute to available habitat (FWSTD-VEG-01 and 02, FW-GDL-VEG-01 and 02).

Additional directions in the action alternatives that will benefit members of this group by 

maintaining or improving habitat include: FW-DC-WL-10 through 15, FW-GDL-WL-08, and 

FW-DC-GRZ-01.

All of the above direction maintains or improves the habitat components this group uses, 

including snags, mature forest, openings/edge habitat, and open forest. By trending towards the 

desired conditions for vegetation and fire, the Forest will provide a similar diversity of habitats 

and pattern across the Forest as would have been found historically under natural disturbance 

processes. That means the species in this group will find an amount and arrangement of habitats 

similar to what they evolved with on the Forest. Additionally, stands will be more resilient to 

large-scale disturbance (fire, insects, and disease).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

384 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Under current management (Alternative A), the percentage of the Forest with high snag densities 

will increase over the next five decades. The percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 

10"-20" dbh range will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 75 percent in 

decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 78 percent with constrained budgets. 

The percentage of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from 

approximately 11 percent in decade 1 to 35 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget 

and 11 percent to 36 percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative B Modified, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh 

range will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 75 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 81 percent with constrained budgets. The percentage of 

the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from approximately 12 

percent in decade 1 to 36 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 12 percent to 37 

percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative C, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh range 

will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 76 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 83 percent with constrained budgets. The percentage of 

the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from approximately 12 

percent in decade 1 to 37 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 12 percent to 39 

percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative D, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh range 

will remain steady from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 73 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and increase from 73 percent to 80 percent with constrained budgets. The 

percentage of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from 

approximately 11 percent in decade 1 to 34 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget 

and 11 percent to 37 percent with constrained budgets.

The large/very large size class is currently below desired conditions (historic conditions) for 

stands on the Forest. With unconstrained budgets, there will be an increase in acres in this size 

class in the next 50 years for Alternatives B Modified (+54,243 acres), C (+51,566 ac), D 

(+34,730 acres), and A (+10,836 acres). With constrained budgets, there will be an increase in 

acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives C (+109,175 acres), B Modified 

(+102,149 acres), D (+105,372 acres) and A (+83,235 acres). The large/very large size class 

would remain within HRV.

What this means is that migratory birds will find an increase of stands in the large/very large size 

class and adequate snags under all alternatives in the next 50 years.

Grazing can reduce the shrub and grass component of open forest stands. This reduces the 

ground fuels useful to carry the frequent fires that maintain dry forests. It also reduces the 

understory vegetation component that provides foraging and nesting habitat. FW-DC-GRZ-01 

states that grazing will occur at sustainable levels while protecting vulnerable resources.

The above direction in the action alternatives is consistent with the agency’s Landbird Strategic 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 2000). The action alternatives incorporated landbird management 

(see the direction discussed above – landbird management on the Forest also falls within the 

“coarse filter” approach to viability discussed in the introduction of this specialist’s report). PIF 

priority birds and habitats were examined during the analysis for the specialist’s report. Habitats 

for landbirds were incorporated into the desired conditions for the revised Forest Plan (again, see 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 385

the “coarse filter” approach to viability in the introduction – the desired conditions for vegetation 

and fire are this “coarse filter”). Landbird monitoring has been incorporated as a measurement 

tool for the revised Forest Plan (see the landbird assemblage MIS).

Access/Disturbance: Alternative A will retain the existing amount of recommended wilderness 

and non-motorized areas. Large areas with limitations on motorized use can aid in providing 

security and connectivity. Alternative C (2,129,490 acres motor vehicle) will have the least 

acreage allowing motor vehicle use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (2,268,390 acres

motor vehicle), ), D (2,279,590 acres motor vehicle) and A (2,399,138 acres motor vehicle). 

Alternative C (335,300 acres) would have the most land in MA1, followed by B Modified 

(188,700 acres), and D (156,800 acres), and Alternatives A (153,900 acres).

MA5 can also contribute to security. Alternatives B Modified (681,200 acres) and C (630,000 

acres) have more than D (624,900 acres).

Human access can cause individuals of this group to be displaced from the vicinity of the 

disturbance. This effect will be more common along open roadways as that is where most of the 

human presence will be concentrated. Additionally, access via open roads facilitates firewood 

cutting, and results in a loss of snags near roadways. The loss of snags will make the areas 

around open roads even less desirable for some members of this group. All alternatives will 

improve access conditions for this assemblage through application of the Access Amendment for 

grizzly bears. Some roads will be closed and therefore decrease the acreage potentially affected 

by woodcutting and high human disturbance.

The primary impact from special use permits will likely be disturbance. However, some habitat 

loss or alteration may also occur. Mineral development could lead to the loss of habitat and 

increased human presence and therefore disturbance to members of this group in the vicinity of 

the activities. Individuals may be displaced to habitat elsewhere on the Forest. The footprint of a 

mine and mill may decrease available habitat by removing live trees and snags. The collection of 

forest products will result in a loss of habitat and human presence/disturbance that could displace 

individuals of this group. Firewood cutting in particular will result in a loss of snag habitat along 

open roadways. The collection of other forest products besides firewood gathering also tends to 

be associated with open roads due to the ease of access. The snag loss in particular will reduce 

the suitability of habitat near open roadways for some species in this group. Collection of 

berries, plants, cones, mushrooms, and other forest products reduces the amount of these items 

available for foraging by migratory birds. Human presence associated with the collection of 

forest products could cause disturbance to individual birds and at least temporarily cause them to 

avoid the area.

Vegetation/fire management activities can also cause short-term disturbance, although there 

would be long-term habitat improvements/maintenance.

Direction in the revised Forest Plan that will decrease disturbance for various migratory birds 

includes: FW-DC-WL-01, FW-DC-WL-08, FW-DC-WL-11, FW-GDL-WL-05, FW-GDL-WL23, and FW-GDL-WL-24.

Additional direction specific to harlequin ducks includes: GA-DC-WL-LK-04 and GA-DC-WLSJ-03.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

386 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Roads can also impact habitats by creating edge, increasing sediment into riparian areas, and 

through direct loss of habitat within the footprint of the road. FW-DC-AR-07 states that the 

transportation system will be environmentally compatible.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression are the most likely past activities that 

influenced the amount and distribution of bird habitat on NFS lands. Fire suppression in 

particular is likely to have changed stand structure and led to encroachment of conifers into 

natural openings and increased tree densities in formerly open canopied stands. Open roads 

likely impacted the distribution of snags due to firewood cutting. Road influences have 

decreased over time as access management has resulted in less routes open to motor vehicle use.

Climate change will have the potential to alter the quantity, quality, and distribution of migratory 

bird habitats across the Forest. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns will likely 

influence vegetation and natural disturbance processes. Combined with past fire suppression and 

timber management, which has led to less resiliency, there could be an increased risk of largescale disturbance impacting migratory bird habitat. Active and passive restoration, including 

utilizing timber harvest and fuels reduction, that trends habitats towards historic conditions and 

the desired conditions for vegetation will make habitats more resilient to change. This will not 

only restore/maintain habitats nearer to what was present under natural disturbance processes 

which migratory birds evolved with, but will make them more resilient and sustainable. Climate 

change may cause a change in timing of the life-cycle of some insects, consequently altering 

when prey will be available for migratory birds (page 90 in USDA Forest Service 2010).

All the action alternatives would contribute toward maintaining or improving migratory bird 

habitat. Timber harvest occurring on private, state, or Canadian lands may impact the 

distribution, amount, and quality of migratory bird habitat and may impact connectivity between 

NFS lands. The effects would depend on how many snags are retained, whether habitat that is 

outside of historic conditions is restored, whether late-successional forests are maintained, and 

the amount of disturbance to individual birds. The desired conditions for vegetation in the 

revised Forest Plan would maintain or improve connectivity of habitats on the Forest.

Effects in wintering areas or during migration can reduce populations of the members of this 

group. Wind turbines, for example, can kill individuals during migration.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitats for migratory birds. This 

determination is based in part on:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 387

• All three action alternatives trend vegetation conditions towards desired conditions (FWDC-VEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-08, FW-DC-VEG-10, FW-DC-VEG-11, FW-GDLVEG-03 through 06, and FW-DC-FIRE-03), which are based on historic conditions and 

natural disturbance processes. Vegetation conditions, under all action alternatives, will be 

maintained or improved for migratory birds and their habitat in the long-term, at the very 

least by creating a more resilient landscape;

• Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912 acres/year), under constrained budgets. 

Alternative A would treat 10,867 acres/year. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B 

Modified (14,190 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

C (13,195 acres/year) and D (10,790 acres/year). Alternative A will treat 11,537 acres/year.

Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning would be predicted under the action 

alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year in Alternative A;

• Birds needing openings or early-successional stands will see a decline in those conditions in 

the next 50 years. The IPNF is currently within the desired conditions for the 

seedling/sapling size class. However, given current fire suppression levels and predicted 

vegetation treatments, there will not be enough stand-replacing fire or regeneration harvest 

to create enough new seedling/sapling size class over the next 50 years. Natural succession 

will outpace the creation of new seedling/sapling stands. Under unconstrained budgets, 

Alternative C (-126,731 acres) will have the biggest loss of seedling/sapling size class, 

followed by Alternatives B Modified (-126,166 acres), D (-123,118 acres), and A (-115,559 

acres). Under constrained budgets, Alternative C will have the greatest loss (-128,564 acres), 

followed by Alternatives B Modified (-122,954 acres), D (-121,102 acres), and A (-114,415 

acres). The seedling/sapling size class will move below the desired conditions over the next 

50 years for some of the alternatives. If fire is allowed to play a more natural role on the 

landscape, then the seedling/sapling size class will likely be nearer or within the desired 

conditions. The revised Forest Plan provides the flexibility to use fire to keep the 

seedling/sapling size class within HRV;

• Of the alternatives, B Modified (1,683 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration 

treatments per year under constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C (1,677 

acres), D (1,609 acres), and then A (1,474 acres). Of the alternatives, B Modified (5,884 

acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained 

budgets in the first decade, followed by C (5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres), and A (5,537 

acres);

• MA direction in the revised Forest Plan that supports expanded use of natural, unplanned 

ignitions and planned ignitions includes: MA1a-DC-VEG-01, MA1a-DC-FIRE-01, MA1aGDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1b-DC-VEG-01, MA1b-DC-FIRE-01, MA1b-GDL-FIRE-01 and 

02, MA1c-DC-VEG-01, MA1c-DC-FIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1e-DCVEG-01, MA1e-DC-FIRE-01, MA1e-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02,MA2a-DC-FIRE-01, MA2aDC-VEG-01, MA2a-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA2b-DC-VEG-01, MA2b-DC-FIRE-01, 

MA2b-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03,MA5-DC-VEG-01, MA5-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5-GDLFIRE-01. This will be useful to maintain/restore migratory bird habitat in the long-term;

• For those species that use mature forests, old growth can contribute to available habitat (FWSTD-VEG-01 and 02, FW-GDL-VEG-01 and 02); and

• Vegetation/fire management activities can cause short-term effects (e.g., disturbance), 

although there will be long-term habitat improvements/maintenance.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

388 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Big Game

Affected Environment

This group includes mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus), moose (Alces americanus), elk (Cervus canadensis nelson), and mountain goat 

(Oreamnos americanus). These species are generally identified as big game or trophy species 

where they are hunted. Elk are analyzed in the MIS section and bighorn sheep are analyzed in 

the “Sensitive Species” section. Montana has a rich tradition of big game hunting, and has 

earned a well-deserved reputation for having some of the best big game hunting in North 

America. Big game has high economic and social values and is a large contributor to the quality 

of life in Montana.

In general, the Forest was used for the analysis area, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., cumulative effects). In general, the period considered 

for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were 

evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., 

vegetation changes). For some species, habitat is located in discreet pockets (e.g., mountain goat) 

and was never widespread across the Forest. In those instances, the assessment focused primarily 

on those areas of known use.

Habitat and Life History Needs

General habitat and life history information comes from 

www.natureserve.org/explorer.index.htm (NatureServe Explorer).

The following is a summary of the habitat used by each species.

Both species of deer browse on a variety of woody plants and graze on grasses and forbs. They 

move to areas with less snow in the winter (generally low elevations).

Moose generally browse on woody vegetation or aquatic vegetation. They winter in areas with 

forested vegetation and summer where there is vegetation for shade or water to aid in cooling.

Mountain goats graze on grasses, forbs, mosses/lichens, and browses on woody vegetation. They 

are commonly associated with alpine or subalpine areas at or above treeline where cliffs/rocky 

areas are available for escape and security habitat. Mountain goats may move to areas of lesser 

snow depths in winter to conserve energy.

Winter range is one of the most important components of big game habitat. Table 87 shows the 

amount of winter range, on the Forest. The data only gives a rough approximation of the amount 

of winter range on the Forest due to the scale of the data.

Table 87. Estimated Winter Range Acres on NFS lands

Species Winter Range (acres) on the IPNF

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 415,123

1 Potential winter range for the KIPZ revision zone based on 1987 Forest Plan MAs, vegetation response units, habitat 

groups, and ownership, 2004, 1:24000

Table 88 displays the acres within over-snow motorized use closure areas (area closures).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 389

Table 88. Acres Closed to Over-Snow Motor Vehicle Use (may include Winter Range and Nonwinter Range

Area Closure Acres on NFS Lands

12/1-3/31 427

Yearlong 438,896

Total 439,323

Table 89 displays the acres of winter range within the area closures. These closure areas are 

retained in the action alternatives. There is not a large overlap among winter range and the 

closure areas, which is logical because most snowmobiling occurs at higher elevations that have 

adequate snow whereas winter range is at lower elevation with less snow.

Table 89. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use

Species Winter Range on NFS Lands within Area 

Closures (% of Winter Range)

KIPZ General Winter Range1 30,465 (7%)

1 Potential winter range for the KIPZ revision zone based on 1987 Forest Plan MAs, vegetation response units, habitat 

groups, and ownership, 2004, 1:24000

Tables 90 and 91 display the snowmobile use routes and areas that occur outside of the area 

closures

Table 90. Snow Use Routes Outside of Area Closures*

Miles on NFS Lands

Snow Use Routes 1,368

* Includes legal groomed snowmobile routes, groomed ski trails, ungroomed routes commonly used by snowmobiles, 

and outfitter/guide access. This includes routes within winter range and outside of winter range

Table 91. Snow Use Areas Outside of Area Closures*

Acres on NFS Lands

Snow Use Areas 114,897

* This includes legal known snowmobile play areas and ski areas and does not include illegal snowmobile use. Snow use 

areas include winter range and non-winter range areas

Tables 92 and 93 display the overlap between winter range, snow use routes, and snow use areas. 

The overlap of snow use routes and winter range is not large. The acres of snow use areas that 

overlap winter range is small (5%). If the miles of snow use routes were converted to acres, 

actual footprint of the routes, the impact would again be small for winter range. If the miles of 

snowmobile/ski trail routes were buffered to determine the “zone of influence,” the impact 

would still be low (<20 percent of winter range impacted by these routes at a forestwide scale). 

This assumes a very conservative estimate of effects if all the miles were buffered and the 

overlapping buffers were not eliminated. These conservative estimates can be arrived at by 

calculating the acres within the zone of influence and getting a percentage of that “zone of 

influence” of the total winter range. For example, using a 200 meter buffer on each side for ski 

trails (the distance recommended in Freddy et al. 1986 to prevent locomotor responses to people 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

390 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

afoot), which are more impactful than snowmobile trails, and multiplying by the total miles of 

routes (regardless of whether they are ski trails or snowmobile routes), the total impact is still no 

more than 11 percent. Even a very conservative estimate of impacts such as this, which very 

likely over estimates the extent of impacts, the results are low. If a 350 meter buffer on each side 

were used instead (the distance where deer showed any response at all, even if they did not move 

away from the activity, in Freddy et al. 1986), the impact would still be low (19%). This is a 

coarse-scale, forestwide look at the impacts of snow routes on big game winter range and 

indicates a low impact forestwide.

Table 92. Miles of Snow Use Routes in Winter Range

Species Miles of Snow Use Routes on NFS Lands w/in 

Winter Range

KIPZ General Winter Range1 289

1 Potential winter range for the KIPZ revision zone based on 1987 Forest Plan MAs, vegetation response units, habitat 

groups, and ownership, 2004, 1:24000

Table 93. Acres of Snow Use Areas in Winter Range

Species Acres of Snow Use Areas on NFS Lands w/in 

Winter Range (% of winter range)

KIPZ General Winter Range1 21,133 (5%)

1 Potential winter range for the KIPZ revision zone based on 1987 Forest Plan MAs, vegetation response units, habitat 

groups, and ownership, 2004, 1:24000

Key Stressors

Forest Service activities that may have direct or indirect impacts on species within this group 

include:

• Timber harvest which alters the quantity, quality, and placement of cover. Timber harvest, 

especially with prescribed fire, can increase forage quality and quantity;

• Prescribed fire by itself can also increase forage quality and quantity;

• Fire suppression can reduce the amount of forage, and alter the quantity, quality, and 

placement of cover;

• Access management, especially motor vehicle access, can be utilized to protect, or, when 

used in conjunction with hunting, to reduce populations;

• Activities that reduce the amount of security during the big game hunting season; and

• Noxious weeds can also reduce the amount of forage available for big game.

Stressors outside Forest Service control include (cumulative effects):

• The potential spread of chronic wasting disease and other diseases;

• Hunting;

• Vehicle caused mortality;

• Private development, especially in winter range, which can lead to loss of habitat, loss of 

connectivity, increase in vulnerability (from predators year-round, and during the hunting 

season);
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 391

• The spread of invasive plant species (weeds) can reduce forage values and habitat capacity;

• Severe winters can contribute to high herd mortality;

• Vegetation/fire management on non-NFS lands effect cover/forage; and

• Increased access (roads) on non-NFS lands.

These stressors can result in habitat loss, displacement, or mortality. The stressors that are 

outside of Forest Service control can result in population changes. Therefore, the population 

level of big game residing on the Forest is not completely under the control of the Forest.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Vegetation/Fire Management Effects on Cover/Forage: Alternative A is predicted to treat 

approximately 10,867 acres/year (constrained budget), or 11,537 acres/year (unconstrained 

budget), including 6,000 acres/year prescribed fire. Active fire suppression would be more likely 

to continue under Alternative A. The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire to 

restore/maintain habitat.

Fire suppression has impacted the vegetation component of habitat for big game. Many areas are 

outside of historic conditions and in need of active restoration and fuels reduction. If vegetation 

management is done to move conditions towards historic conditions and the desired conditions 

for vegetation and fire (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 06, FW-DC-VEG-10 and 11, and FW-DCFIRE-03), then the vegetation component of big game habitat will be nearer to what would have 

been present based on natural disturbance processes. Stands will be more resilient to large-scale 

disturbance and less likely to be lost to fire/insects/disease. The reintroduction of fire into 

ecosystems can aid in restoring habitat conditions by making stand more resilient (i.e., the use of 

fire under the right conditions can thin stands while leaving the larger, more resilient trees, thus 

making the stand more resilient overall to large-scale disturbance). This will reduce the amount 

of stands with a dense understory. Fire suppression has artificially created cover for big game. 

Moving towards the desired conditions will trend the amount of cover/forage nearer to 

conditions that big game evolved with on the Forest, so there will still be adequate cover 

provided for big game. As stated in FW-DC-FIRE-03, fire plays an increased role in helping to 

trend vegetation towards desired conditions.

Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912 acres/year), and A (10,867 acres/year) under 

constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (14,190 acres/year) 

will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year), D (10,790

acres/year), and A (11,537 acres/year). Approximately5,000 acres/year of prescribed burning is 

predicted under the action alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative 

A. Of the alternatives, B Modified (1,683 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration 

treatments per year with constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by C (1,677 acres), D 

(1,609 acres), and then A (1,474 acres). Of the alternatives, B Modified (5,884 acres) will be 

expected to have more regeneration treatments per year with unconstrained budgets in the first 

decade, followed by C (5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres), and A (5,537 acres). Alternative B 

Modified (5,884 acres) will have more regeneration treatments per year with unconstrained 

budgets in the first decade, followed by C (5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres), and then A (5,537 

acres).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

392 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The ERG report (ERG 2012) did not specifically analyze big game habitat, instead it analyzed a 

dozen other species that represent a variety of habitats on the IPNF, including some that would 

occupy habitat that would overlap with low-elevation winter range for big game. Although big 

game were not specifically analyzed, this conclusion from ERG (2012) is important: “...natural 

disturbances (in the form of wildfire and certain insects and diseases) are projected to have 

effects on habitat that render the effects of management less than remarkable at the planning 

scale...Thus, treatments that may have considerable effects at the unit or project scale are 

lessened in the larger context of the total amounts of wildfire, disease, insects, and succession at 

the individual national forest or the KIPZ scale” (page E-4 in ERG 2012). This means that the 

IPNF trends towards the desired conditions for vegetation and fire, but that it is natural 

disturbance processes that determine that overall amounts and pattern of wildlife habitats across 

the IPNF, and active management actions such as fuels reduction and timber harvest have little 

impact at the Forest scale. In general, management had a positive effect on the amount and 

distribution of habitat for wildlife. Those desired conditions for vegetation and fire are based on 

historic conditions, natural disturbance processes, and changing climates. The desired conditions 

are similar to what wildlife, including big game, would have evolved with on the IPNF, so the 

amount and pattern of big game habitat would be similar to what they evolved with. This 

includes the amount of winter range, cover, and forage on the IPNF.

Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) is more likely to result in continued 

suppression of most fires and therefore less passive restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. 

The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire for habitat restoration/maintenance. The 

use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) is more likely in MA1, and Alternative C 

(335,300 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D 

(156,800 acres), and A (153,900 acres equivalent to MA1). Fire may also be used more in MA5 

compared to MA6, and Alternatives B Modified (681,200 acres) and C (630,000 acres) have 

more than D (624,900 acres).

FW-GDL-WL-13 will be applied to reduce the impacts on elk security habitat. Timber harvest 

can benefit security habitat if it is done to trend towards historic conditions and the desired 

conditions for vegetation. In doing so, the resiliency of the timbered stand component of security 

habitat will be improved or maintained and security habitat will be less likely to be lost to a 

large-scale disturbance (e.g., fire, insects, and disease). Although FW-GDL-13 specifically 

mentions elk, these security areas will benefit other species as well, including other big game.

Concentrations of livestock can influence big game habitat use. Elk will avoid areas of high 

livestock use (PNRS 2006), so livestock presence can affect elk use of security areas. Livestock 

graze on a small proportion of the Forest, so there are many areas free from cattle. Depending on 

the intensity of grazing, the use of fire can be affected due to the loss of fine ground fuels to 

carry a fire. Human presence associated with livestock management can also cause disturbance 

to big game and cause them to avoid those areas. FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that grazing will occur 

at sustainable levels while protecting resources, so this could aid in reducing impacts from 

livestock where they are found to be a concern.

Noxious weeds are limited or reduced through FW-DC-VEG-10, and FW-OBJ-VEG-02. This 

improves forage conditions across the Forest.

Access: Both motorized and non-motorized access can result in disturbance to big game (Ciuti et 

al. 2012, Canfield et al. 1999, Schultz and Bailey 1978, Freddy et al. 1986, Ward and Cupal 

1979). As road densities increase, elk habitat effectiveness decreases (Lyon 1984). In some cases 

ungulates may react more to a person on foot than a motorized vehicle (Eckstein et al. 1979, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 393

Richens and Lavigne 1978, Lavigne 1976). White et al. (2005) found that some animals in 

Yellowstone can habituate to over-snow motorized use and display little or no reaction unless 

they are approached on foot. This report by White et al. (2005) suggested that active responses 

by wildlife can be diminished by restricting over-snow motorized travel to predictable routes and 

times, reducing the number of vehicles in a group, and other means.

The response of other big game, such as white-tailed deer, to snowmobiling has been studied as 

well (Dorrance et al. 1975). Depending on where the activity occurs, such as in an area where 

hunting is allowed versus where it is not, white-tailed deer may habituate to snowmobile use. In 

areas where hunting is allowed, the deer reacted more to snowmobiles and may not as easily 

habituate to human (snowmobile) presence (Dorrance et al. 1975).

Some research on the effects of recreation on big game has been conducted at the Starkey 

Experimental Forest in Oregon. Wisdom et al. (2005) found that off-road activities such as ATV 

use, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding appear to have a “substantial effect on elk 

behavior” (page 6 in Wisdom et al. 2005). It should be noted that their “off-road” transects 

included the use of primitive road beds (page 2 in Wisdom et al. 2005). The study did not include 

an estimate of the energetic costs of the behavioral effects to elk, so it is unclear what the overall 

effects were to the individual animal or herd health. However, the study does show that the 

activities studied can impact elk use of habitat due to disturbance/displacement away from the 

human activities. The reactions of mule deer during the study were not as clear. Deer did not 

appear to move as much in response to the activities, but they may have been responding by 

making small behavioral changes such as using dense cover. Naylor et al. (2009) reported similar 

results for elk from this study on the Starkey Experimental Forest.

Ciuti et al. (2012) is representative of the impacts of recreation on big game on NFS lands. In 

Ciuti et al. (2012) they found that the “highest levels of vigilance were recorded on public lands 

where hunting and motorized recreation activities were cumulative compared to the national park 

during summer, which had the lowest levels of vigilance.” Big game is hunted on the IPNF, so 

the findings in Ciuti et al. (2012) are relevant. Ciuti et al. (2012) found that elk decreased their 

feeding time when closer to roads and became more vigilant as traffic volume increased.

The IPNF acknowledges that all types of recreation, whether motorized or non-motorized, can 

have disturbance impacts on wildlife, including big game. However, most non-motorized users 

arrive on the IPNF and navigate to their chosen non-motorized recreation spot by driving a 

motorized vehicle on the IPNF’s road system. Additionally, the number of non-motorized users 

diminishes with increasing distance from a road. Thus, road access influences the distribution of 

non-motorized use on the IPNF.

The action alternatives includes direction to minimize disturbance to big game from management 

activities, with the definition of management activity in the revised Forest Plan being “[a]ny 

activity that is carried out or authorized by the Forest that would result in impacts on natural 

resources or change human use of the Forest.” Access management, both motorized and nonmotorized, would classify as a management activity because it would have an impact on natural 

resources (e.g., big game) and change human use on the Forest (the distribution of motorized or 

non-motorized recreation). Therefore, the revised Forest Plan does include and acknowledge that 

non-motorized uses may have an impact on wildlife, including big game. Examples of applicable 

direction in the revised Forest Plan include FW-GDL-WL-11, FW-GDL-WL-12, and FW-GDLWL-14 which limit disturbance to big game on winter range and during birthing/parturition.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

394 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Although FW-GDL-WL-13 and FW-OBJ-WL-02 specifically mention elk, elk security areas 

also provide security habitat for other wildlife species, including other big game. Therefore, 

other big game will benefit from the direction provided in FW-GDL-WL-13 and FW-OBJ-WL02.

Alternative A will retain the existing amount of recommended wilderness and non-motorized 

areas. Large areas with limitations on motorized use can aid in providing security, areas with low 

levels of disturbance, and connectivity of big game populations. Alternative C (2,129,490 acres

motorized, 1,598,067 acres over-snow motorized) will have the least acreage allowing motorized 

use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (2,268,390 acres motorized, 1,756,980 acres oversnow motorized), D (2,279,590 acres motorized, 1,759,738 acres over-snow motorized) and A 

(2,399,138 acres motorized, 1,970,537 acres over-snow motorized). Alternative C (335,300 

acres) will have the most land in MA1, followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D (156,800 

acres), and Alternatives A (153,900 acres).

The grizzly bear Access Amendment is incorporated into all alternatives. The effects will 

therefore be the same for all alternatives. Implementation will improve security habitat for not 

only grizzly bears, but for big game as well. FW-DC-AR-06, although directed at providing 

people solitude and non-motorized experiences in remote settings, will maintain/create areas that 

may function as security habitat for big game. FW-DC-WL-02 states that a forestwide system of 

large remote areas will be maintained/ or created, and these areas could function as security 

habitat for big game as well. Although people may still recreate in non-motorized areas, the 

likelihood of disturbance to big game will be lower and therefore security will be greater.

Special use permits/lands can affect the amount and quality of big game security habitat. 

Anything that changes motorized route locations or densities can change security habitat. Special 

use permits that do not change motorized routes can still affect security by increasing human 

presence within security areas and thereby changing the quality of those habitats.

Mineral activities can reduce the amount of big game security habitat. The footprint of the 

mine/mill can remove security habitat, as can the haul/supply route. Not only can the footprint of 

these facilities remove habitat, but the increased disturbance can affect nearby habitat.

The collection of forest products primarily occurs near open roads. Any collection that occurs 

away from open motorized routes may cause disturbance to big game in security habitat. 

However, the effects are expected to be minor because most collecting occurs near open roads.

FW-GDL-WL-13 will minimize disturbance, along with FW-GDL-WL-11, 12, and 14.

Most snowmobiling occurs at higher elevations, which places it above most of the big game 

winter range on the Forest. The direction in the revised Forest Plan, including area closures for 

over-snow motorized use, will reduce the impacts on winter range over that of the existing 1987 

Forest Plan, which already minimized the effects to big game winter range. The acres available 

to over-snow motorized use diminishes in Alternative B Modified and Alternative C, over that of 

Alternative A. Livestock do not occur over much of the IPNF, but their impacts would be 

minimized through FW-DC-GRZ-01.

Table 94. Acres of Areas Closed to Over-Snow Vehicle Use by Alternative

Alternative Forest Service Acres

A 438,550
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 395

Alternative Forest Service Acres

B Modified 524,351

C 659,919

D 520,161

As shown in the table 94, the acres of area closures where over-snow motorized use not be 

allowed varies by alternative. The changes are mainly due to the acres in recommended 

wilderness. As expected, Alternative C has the most acres of area closures as it has the most 

acres of recommended wilderness.

The amount of snow use routes and snow use areas outside of area closures are shown in tables 

95 and 96. The miles of snow use routes and snow use areas do not vary much by alternative.

Table 95. Miles of Snow Use Routes Outside of Area Closures

Alternative Forest Service Miles

A 1,368

B Modified 1,367

C 1,361

D 1,367

Table 96. Acres of Snow Use Areas Outside of Area Closures

Alternative Forest Service Acres

A 114,897

B Modified 114,697

C 104,319

D 114,828

Table 97 displays the acres of winter range within area closures by alternative.

Table 97. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use (closure 

areas) for the Action Alternatives

Alternatives Winter Range1 on NFS Lands within Area Closures (% of 

winter range)

B Modified 32,210 (8%)

C 45,965 (11%)

D 31,825 (8%)

1 Potential winter range for the KIPZ revision zone based on 1987 Forest Plan MAs, vegetation response units, habitat 

groups, and ownership, 2004, 1:24000

Tables 98 and 99 display the overlap of snow use routes and snow use areas with winter range by 

alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

396 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 98. Overlap (miles) of Snow Use Routes and Winter Range for the Action Alternatives

Alternatives Miles of Snow Use Routes on NFS Lands w/in Winter 

Range1

B Modified 289

C 288

D 289

1 Potential winter range for the KIPZ revision zone based on 1987 Forest Plan MAs, vegetation response units, habitat 

groups, and ownership, 2004, 1:24000

Table 99. Overlap (acres) of Snow Use Areas and Winter Range for the Alternative B Modified

Alternatives Acres of Snow Use Areas on NFS Lands w/in Winter 

Range1 (% of winter range)

B Modified 21,133 (5%)

C 21,129 (5%)

D 21,133 (5%)

1 Potential winter range for the KIPZ revision zone based on 1987 Forest Plan MAs, vegetation response units, habitat 

groups, and ownership, 2004, 1:24000

There is very little difference among the alternatives regarding impacts to winter range from 

snow use areas and routes. All the action alternatives are very similar to the existing condition. 

As discussed above in the existing condition section, the impacts from the existing snow use 

routes and areas on winter range is very small. Therefore, because the action alternatives have 

very similar effects as the existing condition, there will be very little impact to winter range 

under any of the alternatives. Given the direction in the action alternatives to minimize impacts 

on winter range coupled with the already very small impact on winter range, it is clear that the 

revised Forest Plan is more than adequate to protect winter range. This coarse-scale forestwide 

look at the impacts revealed that the effects are small at this level of analysis. The direction in

the revised Forest Plan to minimize effects to winter range where an overlap with over-snow use 

does occur provides added assurance that effects can be kept minimal at all scales within the 

Forest.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past management on NFS lands, particularly access management, likely impacted the amount 

and location of security habitat on the Forest. Access management has trended towards reducing 

the amount of motorized routes on the Forest over time. Timber management, fuels reduction, 

and fire suppression have impacted the amounts and pattern of forage/cover for native ungulates 

on the Forest. Fire suppression in particular likely had the greatest influence. It likely led to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 397

encroachment of conifers into natural openings and limited the creation of new openings that 

would provide foraging habitat.

Timber harvest and fuels reduction occurring on private, state, or Canadian lands may impact the 

distribution, amount, and quality of big game habitat and may impact connectivity between NFS 

lands. Activities on other land ownerships may degrade or improve ungulate habitat, particularly 

winter range on private lands. If timber harvest and fuels reduction are done to move conditions 

nearer to those present under natural disturbance processes, then ungulate habitat will be 

maintained/improved. However, if conditions are not maintained or restored to those found 

under natural disturbance processes, winter range can be degraded. Subdivision of winter range 

on private lands can lead to loss of winter range for native ungulates. Fuels reduction near these 

homes has the potential to degrade winter range, as discussed above. The desired conditions for 

vegetation in the revised Forest Plan will maintain or improve not only security habitat on the 

Forest, but also cover/forage for native ungulates. Vegetation management that trend towards 

historic conditions and the desired conditions for vegetation on the Forest will move conditions 

nearer to what would have been present under natural disturbance processes. Therefore the 

amount and pattern of ungulate habitat, including winter range, on the Forest will be similar to 

conditions that ungulates evolved with under natural disturbance processes.

Climate change may have an impact on vegetation and therefore the timber stand component of 

security habitat as well as forage/cover. Past fire suppression has increased stand densities and 

decreased the resiliency of some stands to large-scale disturbance (fire, insects, and disease). 

Climate change may increase the likelihood of large-scale disturbance. However, moving stand 

conditions towards historic conditions and the desired conditions for vegetation will decrease 

stand densities and increase their resiliency to large-scale disturbance. Habitat conditions will be 

nearer to what will be present under natural disturbance processes, which includes the pattern 

and amount of forage/cover for big game. The vegetation component of habitat for big game will 

be nearer to what was present historically, and will be more resilient to large-scale disturbance 

and the impacts of climate change. Climate change may alter big game use of winter range, as 

well as change the timing of movements between seasonal ranges (page 92 in USDA Forest 

Service 2010).

Any construction of roads on other land ownerships, as well as subdivision and development, 

may decrease security habitat not only on those lands, but also on the immediately adjacent NFS 

lands.

Private land development and increased road densities or increased use of existing roads can 

impact connectivity. Vehicle-ungulate collisions can cause direct mortality to big game as well.

Hunting, managed by the state, can impact big game populations. Depending on the management 

goals, hunting regulations can lead to decreasing, increasing, or stable populations. Diseases, 

such as chronic wasting disease, can also impact big game populations and cause a decline. 

Severe weather can impact herds and cause a decline.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may impact big game and their habitat. This determination is 

based in part on:

• Based on FW-GDL-WL-13, security habitat for elk will be maintained or increased. These 

areas not only provide security for elk, but also for other wildlife species such as big game;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

398 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Wilderness areas (MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA1e-DCWL-01), IRAs, and other non-motorized areas (FW-STD-WL-02, FW-GDL-WL-13, MA3-

DC-WL-01, and MA5-DC-WL-01) contribute to secure habitat and connectivity for big 

game;

• Additional direction within the revised Forest Plan that contributes to habitat for big game 

includes: GA-DC-WL-CDA-02; and GA-DC-WL-SJ-01. These either specifically mention 

maintaining security habitat for big game within specific GAs, or would decrease 

disturbance or maintain the vegetation components of big game habitat;

• During the winter period, FW-GDL-WL-11 and 12 are designed to minimize or avoid 

disturbance to big game on winter ranges, and FW-GDL-WL-14 reduces disturbance on 

calving areas. The impact on winter range will be lessened under Alternatives B Modified 

and C compared to the existing conditions. The existing 1987 Forest Plan already had 

direction that protected winter range, and the revised Forest Plan would diminish the areas 

available to over-snow motor vehicle use even more; and

• Habitat for native ungulates will be managed in coordination with state agencies, with 

cover/forage managed based on the desired conditions for vegetation in the revised Forest 

Plan (FW-DC-WL-17). The desired conditions are based on natural disturbance processes, 

and big game will have the amounts and pattern of habitat similar to the conditions they 

evolved with on the Forest as conditions trend towards the desired conditions.

Connectivity

Affected Environment

Connectivity was evaluated as several scales. First, the effects of action alternatives on 

connectivity within blocks of NFS lands were evaluated. Secondly, the effects of the action 

alternatives on connectivity between blocks of NFS lands were evaluated. Thirdly, the 

cumulative effects analysis evaluated the intermixture of effects of the action alternatives and 

activities on adjacent lands on connectivity. In general, the period considered for this analysis is 

the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some effects were evaluated over a longer 

timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Connectivity is the arrangements of habitats that allow organisms and ecological processes to 

move across the landscape. Connectivity benefits wildlife populations by allowing genetic 

interchange, allowing individuals to find new territories, allowing populations to expand into 

currently unoccupied habitat, counteracting habitat fragmentation/isolation, allowing species to 

respond to climate change, and reducing mortality (e.g., reduced roadkill) (Crooks and Sanjayan 

2006, Hilty et al. 2006, Morrison et al. 2002).

The IPNF is contiguous with the Kootenai National Forest to the east, Canada to the north, the 

Colville NF to the west, and the Clearwater NF to the south. Wildlife and natural ecosystem 

processes occur irrespective of political boundaries. On the IPNF, connectivity of vegetation has 

been influenced to varying degrees by road construction, ski area development, timber harvest, 

fire, utility corridors, and land ownership. Construction of primary roads (maintenance level 3 

through 5) has reduced connectivity of patches to some degree. In addition, roads may also serve 

as dispersal routes for some wildlife and plant species. Major transportation corridors through 

the Forest are State Highways 3, 57, and 200; U.S. Highways 2, 10, 95 and 95-A; and Interstate 

90. The Union-Pacific, Burlington Northern, Milwaukee, Potlatch and Spokane International 

Railroads cross the Forest as well.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 399

There is one small ski area on the IPNF (Lookout Pass) with no likely addition of other ski areas. 

This ski area has had minimal impacts on connectivity or patch size due to its small size.

Utility corridors can impact connectivity and increase the amount of edge created. There are a 

number of existing communication lines, transmission lines, and oil and gas pipelines crossing 

the Forest (Plan, pages IV-40 to IV-41).

Land ownership and the associated management of it can also have an effect on connectivity. 

Land managed to differing intents can create more edge or affect patch size. Private 

development, especially in winter range, can lead to a loss of connectivity.

The 1987 Forest Plan projected that 176 miles of new roads would be constructed each year and 

97 miles would be reconstructed. Table 100 summarizes the number of miles of road 

construction and reconstruction that actually occurred from 1988 through 2009.

Table 100 shows that the projected amount of annual new road construction (176 miles) was 

much greater than the amount that actually occurred for every year from 1988 to 2009. For road 

reconstruction the amount projected (97 miles) was exceeded for 13 of the 22 years. Road 

reconstruction generally occurs on older roads and is necessary to bring them up to standards so 

they are drivable.

Table 100. Miles of Road Construction and Reconstruction, by Fiscal Year, for the IPNF (1988-

2009)

FY Miles of 

Construction

Miles of 

Reconstruction

FY Miles of 

Construction

Miles of 

Reconstruction

1988 103 233 1999 5 74

1989 134 130 2000 2 373

1990 83 140 2001 3 <1

1991 46 107 2002 1 24

1992 65 109 2003 4 64

1993 57 233 2004 7 172

1994 2 43 2005 0 838

1995 12 54 2006 6 232

1996 1 41 2007 5 53

1997 16 202 2008 0 76

1998 12 276 2009 2 111

The importance of connectivity has been addressed in various recovery plans (grizzly bear 

(1993), woodland caribou (1985, updated in 1994)), the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines 

[1986], various biological opinions, and the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

(2007).

Several analyses (Servheen et al. 2003, American Wildlands 2008, Ruediger and Lloyd 2003, 

Mattson and Merrill 2004) have been conducted by various entities, including federal and 

private, to address connectivity. The Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group 

produced a report in 2010 examining connectivity in Washington, as well as part of Idaho and 

Montana (WWHCWG 2010). This includes connectivity between the IPNF, KNF, and the 

Colville NF in Washington. The Forest reviewed the various analyses that have been completed 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

400 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

and conducted an analysis of forest conditions in relation to providing for wildlife movement 

within and across the Forest. Management areas such as wilderness and others (recommended 

wilderness, wilderness study area, inventoried roadless areas) that allow for limited motorized 

route densities and have low levels of development are considered to provide higher quality 

habitats for such use.

Backcountry or semi-primitive motorized/non-motorized (MAs 10 and 20 in the existing Forest 

Plan) areas are generally without roads. These areas vary in size (MA10 consists of blocks of 

2,500 acres or more and MA20 consists of blocks up to 1,700 acres (Plan, page III-84)) and 

management activities are generally less intensive, less frequent, and less visible than 

management activities in other MAs. Few improvements, with the exceptions of trails, are 

provided. Higher levels of wildlife security are provided and water quality and aquatic health are 

normally good to excellent within these areas.

Table 101. Existing Acres (1987 Plan as implemented) of Management Areas 10,11, and 20

Management Area Description Existing Acres

10 Semi-primitive Recreation 125,100

11 Existing and Proposed 

Wilderness 153,900

20 Semi-primitive unroaded with 

limited timber harvest 65,500

There are 45 Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) on the IPNF, which accounts for 32 percent of the 

land base. In addition, the IPNF administers four IRAs w/in the Idaho state boundary (35,100 

acres) (Roadless Area Conservation FEIS appendix C Volume 3, 2008).

The AMS documented how traditional timber harvest strategies had substantially changed the 

Forest from historical conditions. The range of patch sizes was significantly smaller following 

harvest activities and post-harvest conditions were often similar. While prescribed fire has the 

potential to approximate certain natural ecological conditions and processes, it is often applied 

on a much smaller scale and with less variability in severity than fires.

There has been a significant reduction in the overall number of fires compared to historical 

conditions, although in recent decades the acres contained in large fires has increased and 

become more variable. Low and mixed-severity wild fires have essentially been eliminated as a 

significant disturbance process. Most high-severity fires have also been successfully suppressed. 

It has been recognized, however, that the overall suppression of unplanned ignitions has 

increased fire risk in certain forest types, producing unusually severe effects, particularly in drier 

forests. The suppression of fires has contributed to the overall effect of changes in landscape 

pattern (more homogeneity across the landscape), and changes in species composition (i.e., 

increases in species that are shade tolerant, fire and drought intolerant, and trees that are more 

susceptible to insects and disease).

Interrelated with the suppression of fires, was the associated change in insect and disease 

activities that have occurred. Insects and diseases are now the dominant disturbance process on 

the IPNF. Particularly susceptible are those trees that have benefited from fire exclusion – shade 

tolerant/drought and fire intolerant species. Certain insects/diseases that historically thinned the 

forest at regular intervals now occur as stand replacing disturbances (e.g., root diseases and 

Douglas-fir bark beetles). Furthermore, white pine blister rust has substantially reduced the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 401

amount and changed the age-class structure of five needle pines (i.e., western white pine and 

whitebark pine) throughout the Forests.

Connectivity can take several forms, from linear corridors, to stepping stones of suitable habitat, 

to managing the landscape as a whole so that movement is facilitated without the need for a 

"corridor." Connectivity is species specific, and what is considered homogenous habitat for a 

wide-ranging carnivore can be heterogeneous for a small mammal (pages 164-166 in Morrison 

2002).

High-volume roads can create a barrier that degrades habitat connectivity. These roads can cause 

mortality, prevent movement, change habitat near the roadway, and alter animal behavior (pages 

505-506 in Clevenager and Wierzchowski 2006). Forman et al. (2003) states that roads can be 

barriers to movement for a species and can “...result in higher mortality, lower reproduction and, 

ultimately, smaller populations and lower population viability” (page 129 in Forman et al. 2003).

Low traffic volume roads in remote areas, such as many roads on NFS lands generally have 

lesser effects than high-volume roads. Forman et al. (2003) states, “The effects of vehicles in 

remote areas are somewhat limited because of the low road density and sparse traffic. Wildlife 

may be habituated to the possible disturbance caused by passing vehicles. The roads are 

permeable for crossing by most animals and thus have little effect on movement patterns except 

in locations where human development and road density are relatively great. Wildlife collisions 

with vehicles are usually not a problem, in part due to low vehicle speeds. Noteworthy 

exceptions are where animals such as reptiles are attracted to the road surface, particularly at 

night” (page 355 in Forman et al. 2003).

As described in Hilty et al. 2006, "Connectivity is determined 1) by the distances between 

patches relative to an organism's ability to travel, 2) by the quality of the patches themselves, 3) 

by the hospitality of the matrix that must be traversed, and 4) by the presence of corridors or 

paths of less resistance for these movements" (page 146 in Hilty et al. 2006).

Key Stressors

Impacts to connectivity include those that affect the distribution, pattern, quality, and quantity of 

habitat, as well as the human presence/disturbance influence on an animal's ability to move 

through and use that habitat.

Stressors that are under Forest Service control include:

• Vegetation/Fire management (timber harvest, fuels reduction, fire suppression, noxious 

weeds, grazing, etc.); and

• Access/Disturbance.

Stressors that are outside of Forest Service control includes:

• Vegetation/Fire management on non-Forest Service ownerships;

• Access/Disturbance on non-Forest Service ownerships;

• Private land development; and

• Climate Change.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

402 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Vegetation/Fire Management: Active fire suppression would be more likely to continue under 

Alternative A. The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire to restore/maintain habitat.

Attaining the desired conditions for vegetation will have a large impact on connectivity. As 

discussed above, native species will have similar amounts of connectivity habitats as found 

historically under natural processes if the desired conditions for vegetation are achieved. This is 

based on the assumption that native species evolved with the natural processes; and therefore, if 

habitats are restored/maintained near historical conditions and natural processes are allowed to 

function with less restriction, then wildlife has the amounts and arrangement of habitats more 

closely approximating what they had historically.

The more fire is allowed to play a more natural role; the closer the amount and distribution of 

habitats will be to what would have been present historically. Fuels reduction can also aid in 

restoring habitat (connectivity) for native species when it is compatible with the desired 

conditions for vegetation. In close proximity to homes, if fuels reduction is not done to meet the 

desired conditions for vegetation, then connectivity can be degraded for some species. Allowing 

fire to play a more natural role in these ecosystems through implementation of FW-DC-FIRE-03 

will be useful for maintaining and restoring the vegetation component of connectivity that native 

species evolved with in these ecosystems.

Timber management can have a large impact on the amount and arrangement of connectivity 

available for species. Where timber management will be used as a tool to achieve the desired 

conditions for vegetation, then connectivity can be moved towards the arrangement and amounts 

that would have been present historically under natural disturbance processes.

All three action alternatives trend vegetation towards desired conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01 

through FW-DC-VEG-08, FW-DC-VEG-10 and 11, FW-STD-VEG-01 and 02, FW-GDL-VEG01 through 06, and FW-DC-FIRE-03), which are based on historic conditions and natural 

disturbance processes. The difference between the alternatives is primarily how much vegetation

treatment will be predicted each year to trend conditions toward the desired conditions for 

vegetation. Alternative C (11,031 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (9,465 acres/year), D (7,912 acres/year), and A (10,867 acres/year) 

under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (14,190

acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (13,195 acres/year), 

D (10,790 acres/year), and A (11,537 acres/year). Approximately 5,000 acres/year of prescribed 

burning will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 6,000 acres/year of prescribed 

burning in Alternative A. Of the alternatives, B Modified (1,683 acres) will be expected to have 

more regeneration treatments per year with constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by 

C (1,677 acres), D (1,609 acres), and then A (1,474 acres). Of the alternatives, B Modified (5,884 

acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year with unconstrained 

budgets in the first decade, followed by C (5,842 acres), D (5,790 acres), and A (5,537 acres).

Given the predicted amounts of harvest, active restoration will have little impact on habitat 

pattern at the Forest scale compared to the potential impacts of fire use. The use of natural, 

unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) will have a much greater likelihood of maintaining or 

improving habitat pattern across the Forest. Alternative A (current Forest Plan as implemented) is 

more likely to result in continued suppression of most fires and therefore less passive 

restoration/maintenance of habitat pattern. The action alternatives have more flexibility to use 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 403

fire for habitat restoration/maintenance. The use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive 

restoration) is more likely in MA1, and Alternative C (335,300 acres) will have the most MA1, 

followed by B Modified (188,700 acres), and D (156,800 acres), and A (153,900 acres equivalent 

to MA1). Fire may also be used more in MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives B Modified 

(681,200 acres) and C (630,000 acres) have more than D (624,900 acres).

MA direction in the revised Forest Plan that supports expanded use of natural, unplanned 

ignitions and planned ignitions includes: MA1a-DC-VEG-01, MA1a-DC-FIRE-01, MA1a-GDLFIRE-01 and 02, MA1b-DC-VEG-01, MA1b-DC-FIRE-01, MA1b-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, 

MA1c-DC-VEG-01, MA1c-DC-FIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1e-DC-VEG-01, 

MA1e-DC-FIRE-01, MA1e-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02,MA2a-DC-FIRE-01, MA2a-DC-VEG-01, 

MA2a-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA2b-DC-VEG-01, MA2b-DC-FIRE-01, MA2b-GDL-FIRE01 through 03,MA5-DC-VEG-01, MA5-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5-GDL-FIRE-01. This will be 

useful to maintain/restore connectivity in the long-term.

Further direction in the action alternatives that will contribute to providing habitat for a variety 

of species and contributing to connectivity, including species that may use snags, downed wood, 

burned habitat, old growth, and riparian/aquatic habitats, includes: FW-DC-TBR-01, FW-DCTBR-03, FW-GDL-TBR-01, FW-DC-GRZ-01, and most of the direction in the “Watershed, Soil, 

Riparian, and Aquatic Resources” section.

Under current management (Alternative A), the percentage of the Forest with high snag densities 

will increase over the next five decades. The percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 

10"-20" dbh range will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 75 percent in 

decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 78 percent with constrained budgets. 

The percentage of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from 

approximately 11 percent in decade 1 to 35 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget 

and 11 percent to 36 percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative B Modified, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh 

range will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 75 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 81 percent with constrained budgets. The percentage of 

the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from approximately 12 

percent in decade 1 to 36 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 12 percent to 37 

percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative C, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh range 

will increase from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 76 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and 73 percent to 83 percent with constrained budgets. The percentage of 

the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from approximately 12 

percent in decade 1 to 37 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget and 12 percent to 39 

percent with constrained budgets.

For Alternative D, the percentage of the Forest with 10+ snags/acres in the 10"-20" dbh range 

will remain steady from approximately 73 percent in decade 1 to 73 percent in decade 5 with an 

unconstrained budget and increase from 73 percent to 80 percent with constrained budgets. The 

percentage of the Forest with 4+ snags/acres in the >20" dbh range will increase from 

approximately 11 percent in decade 1 to 34 percent in decade 5 with an unconstrained budget 

and 11 percent to 37 percent with constrained budgets.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

404 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The large/very large size class is currently below desired conditions (historic conditions) by

approximately 221,900 acres on the Forest. With unconstrained budgets, there will be an increase 

in acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives B Modified (+54,243 acres), C 

(+51,566 acres), D (+34,730 acres), and A (+10,836 acres). With constrained budgets, there will 

be an increase in acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives C (+109,175 acres), 

B Modified (+102,149 acres), D (+105,372 acres) and A (+83,235 acres). The large/very large 

size class would remain within HRV.

The GA direction is suited for the dynamic habitats found on the IPNF and is compatible with 

the desired conditions for vegetation and fire found in action alternatives. As the example using 

marten and flammulated owl habitat in the ERG report (ERG 2012) shows, the action 

alternatives will provide connectivity within and through the IPNF and is better than having 

static, inflexible, mapped polygons that are incompatible with the IPNF’s dynamic natural 

disturbance processes. Additionally, because there are currently no crossing structures existing or 

planned across highways that cut through the IPNF, nor are there any multi-agency/landowner 

agreements to manage connectivity within or adjacent to the IPNF’s boundary, the flexible nature 

of the GA and forestwide direction allows the IPNF to manage connectivity in the future if multiagency/landowner efforts result in the development of such structures or agreements to manage 

connectivity.

The flexible connectivity direction found in the GA and forestwide sections of action alternatives

is more compatible with the dynamic habitats and natural disturbance processes on the IPNF

than static, inflexible, permanent mapped polygons. What exists today for connectivity may 

change in the future due to natural disturbance processes. Connectivity, like habitat components, 

is species specific. There may be some commonalities among a group of species, but there are 

also some incompatibilities. Connectivity for wet forest species is different than connectivity for 

dry forest species. A map for mature, wet-forest habitat connectivity will only be a snap-shot in 

time. If a fire altered habitat over a large-scale, then that map may be obsolete. Therefore, the 

action alternatives did not use static, inflexible, permanent, and snap-shot in time mapped 

polygons to manage connectivity. It used the flexible connectivity direction in the GA and 

forestwide sections to provide connectivity for species on the IPNF. The IPNF’s concept for 

connectivity is similar to the IPNF’s concept for the desired conditions for vegetation and fire. 

The habitats, and connectivity, on the IPNF are dynamic and reflective of natural disturbance 

processes. Managing for the desired conditions for vegetation and fire in the action alternatives, 

combined with the connectivity direction in the GA and forestwide sections of the revised Forest 

Plan, will provide the habitats and connectivity similar to the conditions species on the IPNF

evolved with under natural disturbance processes.

Grazing can impact connectivity through alteration of vegetation communities, although this 

impact will be small on the IPNF because of the limited grazing opportunities. Grazing can 

reduce the amount of forage available for native wildlife, the presence of livestock can cause 

wildlife to avoid the area, and the presence of grazing permittees or their employees can cause 

disturbance to wildlife.

Access/disturbance: Access will be one of the biggest impacts on connectivity, in particular for 

those species that are sensitive to human disturbance. The Access Amendment for grizzly bears, 

which applies to all alternatives, reduced road densities and will over time improve conditions 

for a variety of species.

Alternative A will retain the existing amount of recommended wilderness and non-motorized 

areas. Large areas with limitations on motorized use can aid in connectivity of wildlife 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 405

populations. Alternative C (2,129,490 acres motor vehicle use, 1,598,067 acres over-snow 

motorized) would have the least acreage allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B 

Modified (2,268,390 acres motor vehicle use, 1,756,980 acres over-snow motorized), D 

(2,279,590 acres motor vehicle use, 1,759,738 acres over-snow motorized) and A (2,399,138 

acres motor vehicle use, 1,970,537 acres over-snow motorized). Alternative C (335,300 acres)

would have the most land in MA1, followed by Alternatives A (153,900 acres), B Modified 

(188,700 acres), and D (156,800 acres).

Additional direction in the action alternatives that aid in some way in providing security habitat 

or areas with lower disturbance that can contribute to connectivity include: FW-DC-AR-06 and 

07, FW-DC-WL-02 through 05, and FW-STD-WL-02.

The desired condition (FW-DC-WL-18) will be for the IPNF to work cooperatively with other 

agencies when there is a proposal to build or improve highways bisecting the IPNF. When 

crossing structures are part of those highway projects, then human activities on the IPNF will not 

prevent wildlife from using those crossing structures. Structures will facilitate wildlife 

movement across the highways and reduce the risk of vehicle caused mortality.

The management of IPNF lands near future crossing structures is the same for all action 

alternatives (FW-DC-WL-18, FW-GDL-WL 15 through 17). The IPNF does not have control 

over exactly where and when crossing structures are built for highways because those highways 

are under another agency's jurisdiction. The IPNF must work cooperatively with those other 

agencies, land owners, and organizations in the development of crossing structures when 

highway construction or reconstruction would be proposed on roads that bisect IPNF lands. This 

direction aids in maintaining or improving connectivity between blocks of NFS lands, whereas 

the direction that influences the vegetation aspect of connectivity, provides lower disturbance, or 

increased security on NFS lands additionally improves or maintains connectivity within the 

Forest.

GA direction that will be specifically directed at maintaining/improving connectivity includes: 

GA-DC-WL-CDA-03, GA-DC-WL-LK-01 and 02, GA-DC-WL-PO-01, GA-DC-WL-PR-01 

and 03, and GA-DC-WL-SJ-02. Every GA will have direction related to connectivity. Combined, 

this direction provides connectivity within the Forest as well as connectivity to forests west, 

south, and east, and Canada to the north.

Wilderness areas (MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA1e-DC-WL01), IRAs, and other non-motorized areas (FW-STD-WL-02, MA3-DC-WL-01, and MA5-DCWL-01) contribute to secure habitat and connectivity for some species. These areas are generally 

in more rugged terrain that was historically difficult to log and therefore no roads were built 

there. These areas also have less human disturbance because of the limits on motorized use 

(MA1a-STD-AR-02 and 04, MA1b-STD-AR-01, MA1b-STD-AR-03 and04, MA1c-STD-AR-02 

and 03, MA1e-STD-AR-02 and 03).

Special uses can reduce the amount of habitat available and disrupt connectivity (e.g., ski area), 

or the human disturbance associated with special uses can cause wildlife to avoid an area and 

thereby disrupt connectivity. The impact may increase as human populations increase and 

demand on IPNF lands increase, and special uses may become a larger contributor to 

fragmentation in the future. The desired condition that management activities not prevent 

wildlife from utilizing future wildlife crossing structures will allow connectivity to be 

maintained or improved in the future with regard to special uses near key barriers to movement 

such as highways and railroads.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

406 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Mineral exploration and mining activities can have impacts on connectivity. Not only may there 

be a loss of habitat at the mine site itself, but the human activity and noise may deter wildlife 

from using the immediate vicinity. Additionally, the haul/supply route may necessitate the 

construction of a new road. Traffic volumes along the haul/supply route may be great enough to 

create a new barrier to wildlife movement. This impact may be reduced under the action 

alternatives due to the desired condition for wildlife that includes high use Forest roads as those 

to be considered for wildlife crossing structures when those roads are constructed or 

reconstructed.

There may be some small habitat changes due to the collection of forest products. Human 

presence may also impact connectivity when the permit holders are present to collect the forest 

products. Generally, the impact of human presence for forest product collection would be 

expected to be less that the disturbance caused by the recreating public.

Grazing can reduce the amount of forage available for native wildlife, the presence of livestock 

can cause wildlife to avoid the area, and the presence of grazing permittees or their employees 

can cause disturbance to wildlife. However, there are few remaining active allotments on the 

Forest and therefore the effect is not expected to be large. FW-DC-GRZ-01 will also minimize 

impacts.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. What are found below are the cumulative effects that were 

too unique to the species to group into the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” 

section.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression likely influenced the pattern of 

connectivity of habitats on NFS lands. Fire suppression in particular likely changed the patch 

size and arrangement of different habitats on the landscape. It has led to the encroachment of 

conifers into natural openings and an increase in tree densities within formerly open canopied 

stands. Access management has trended towards reducing the amount of motorized routes on the 

Forest over time and this has likely altered connectivity for species sensitive to human 

disturbance. Developments on NFS lands, such as mines, recreation facilities (e.g., 

campgrounds), and special uses also potentially influenced how certain species that are sensitive 

to human disturbance move through specific areas.

Timber harvest/fuels reduction efforts are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where 

they are near residences. If these are done in such a way that they restore habitat that has been 

degraded by fire suppression, then connectivity can be improved. If not, then connectivity can be 

lost for some species.

Climate change will affect the vegetation component of connectivity. As the climate changes and 

the amounts and distribution of different habitats on the IPNF changes, then connectivity will be 

changed. The exact amounts and distribution of future habitats is hard to predict, but it can be 

assumed that some species may see improved connectivity while others may become more 

isolated. Climate is just one of many variables that determine what kinds of habitat are present 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 407

on any particular site, and future habitats may be different than what was available historically or 

currently (Lo et al. 2010). Distributional shifts are one way species respond to climate change, 

and connectivity is important in determining how well species respond to climate change (pages 

90-93 in USDA Forest Service 2010). Many adaptation opportunities (pages 92-93 in USDA 

Forest Service 2010) have been woven into the action alternatives. Not all of the potential 

ideas/opportunities are appropriate or compatible with the conditions on the Forest. Some of 

those that are compatible and have been woven into the action alternatives include 

preventing/controlling invasives, using fire to maintain ecosystems, maintaining 

healthy/connected/genetically diverse populations, promoting connected landscapes, and 

managing for resilience by reducing stressors and maintaining disturbance processes. A common 

theme that ties all of these together is maintaining connectivity, generally by maintaining or 

improving habitat and natural disturbance processes.

The action alternatives will all contribute in some way towards improved connectivity. Most of 

the negative cumulative impacts to connectivity stem from human population growth. Private 

lands, including private timber lands, are being subdivided to provide new home sites. New 

roads are needed to access these areas, and existing roads will likely see an increase in use. The 

more homes on the landscape, the less area available to lessen the restrictions on natural 

processes (e.g., fire). This development of private lands has been ongoing and can be expected to 

continue into the future.

Private lands may also have timber harvest, and depending on the design this harvest can have 

positive or negative impacts on connectivity. Historic timber harvest was not designed with 

maintaining or improving connectivity in mind.

Activities in Canada can also impact connectivity across the border with the US and the IPNF. A 

similar set of effects from timber harvest, private land development, motor vehicle use, and all 

the other factors discussed above can also occur in Canada. Additionally, there are efforts 

underway to manage connectivity in Canada adjacent to the IPNF. Two draft maps showing these 

efforts in Canada were submitted to the IPNF by the pubic during the comment period (comment 

letter #299 from Headwaters Montana in the project record includes these two maps). These 

maps were examined and it was determined that the direction in the IPNF’s revised Forest Plan 

would be compatible with those efforts in Canada. The GA direction in the action alternatives in 

particular will allow wildlife to move within and through the IPNF to/from the border with 

Canada and the potential connectivity areas there. These efforts in Canada could maintain or 

improve habitat connectivity across the border with the US and the IPNF.

Effects Determination

Connectivity will be improved, maintained, or made more resilient by varying degrees under all 

the alternatives. This determination is based in part on:

• The desired condition (FW-DC-WL-18) is for the IPNF to work cooperatively with other 

agencies when there is a proposal to build or improve highways bisecting the IPNF. When 

crossing structures are part of those highway projects, then human activities on the IPNF will 

not prevent wildlife from using those crossing structures. Structures will facilitate wildlife 

movement across the highways and reduce the risk of vehicle caused mortality;

• The management of IPNF lands near future crossing structures will be the same for all action 

alternatives (FW-DC-WL-18, FW-GDL-WL-15 through 17);

• GA direction that is specifically directed at maintaining/improving connectivity includes: 

GA-DC-WL-CDA-03, GA-DC-WL-LK-01 and 02, GA-DC-WL-PO-01, GA-DC-WL-PR-01 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

408 Terrestrial Wildlife Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

and 03, and GA-DC-WL-SJ-02. Every GA will have direction related to connectivity. 

Combined, this direction provides connectivity within the Forest as well as connectivity to 

forests west, south, and east, and Canada to the north;

• Wilderness areas (MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01), primitive 

areas (MA1e-DC-WL-01), IRAs, and other non-motorized areas (FW-STD-WL-02, MA3-

DC-WL-01, and MA5-DC-WL-01) contribute to secure habitat and connectivity for some 

species;

• Attaining the desired conditions for vegetation will have a large impact on connectivity. As 

discussed above, native species will have similar amounts of connectivity habitats as found 

historically under natural processes if the desired conditions for vegetation are achieved. 

This is based on the assumption that native species evolved with the natural processes. 

Therefore, if habitats are restored or maintained near historical conditions and natural 

processes are allowed to function with less restriction, then wildlife will have the amounts 

and arrangement of habitats more closely approximating what they had historically; and

• Allowing fire to play a more natural role in these ecosystems through implementation of 

FW-DC-FIRE-03 and the MA direction would be useful for maintaining and restoring the 

vegetation component of connectivity that native species evolved with in these ecosystems.

Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species

This section summarizes activities and effects that are common to most species in this analysis. 

In the synthesizing of the wildlife specialist’s report for this FEIS repetitive information from the 

individual cumulative effects species’ sections were grouped together in order to make this FEIS 

wildlife analysis more concise. Please see the individual “Cumulative Effects” sections in each 

species’ section in the wildlife analysis of this FEIS for information specific to each species. 

Also, please see the wildlife specialist’s report where the individual species’ cumulative effects 

analyses have been kept separate.

In general, cumulative effects are assessed for the Forest and adjacent lands. In general, the 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, some 

effects were evaluated over a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the 

Plan (e.g., vegetation changes).

Past timber harvest, fuels reduction, and fire suppression are the most likely past activities that 

influenced the amount and distribution of habitat on NFS lands. Fire suppression in particular is 

likely to have changed stand structure and led to encroachment of conifers into natural openings 

and increased tree densities in formerly open canopied stands. Open roads likely impacted the 

distribution of snags due to firewood cutting. Road influences have decreased over time as 

access management has resulted in less routes open to motor vehicle use.

Fuels reduction efforts are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

residences. If these are done in such a way that they restore habitat that has been degraded by 

fire suppression, then habitat can be improved. If not, then habitat can be lost and connectivity 

impacted. Continued fire suppression can further degrade habitat on all land ownerships.

Climate change will have the potential to alter the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitats 

across the Forest. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns will likely influence 

vegetation and natural disturbance processes. Combined with past fire suppression and timber 

management, which has led to less resiliency, there could be an increased risk of large-scale 

disturbance impacting habitat. Active and passive restoration, including utilizing timber harvest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 409

and fuels reduction, that trends habitats towards historic conditions and the desired conditions for 

vegetation will make habitats more resilient to change. This will not only restore or maintain 

habitats nearer to what was present under natural disturbance processes which native wildlife 

evolved with, but will make them more resilient and sustainable.

All the action alternatives will contribute toward maintaining or improving habitat. Timber 

harvest occurring on private, state, or Canadian lands may impact the distribution, amount, and 

quality of habitat and may impact connectivity between NFS lands. The effects would depend on 

whether habitat that is outside of historic conditions is restored, habitat is maintained, and the 

amount of disturbance to individual animals. The desired conditions for vegetation in the revised 

Forest Plan will maintain or improve connectivity of habitats on the Forest.

Past mining, ski area development, utility corridor construction, and other land uses on all 

ownerships has decreased habitat to varying extents. Grazing has occurred and would continue to 

take place on lands belonging to various entities, potentially diminishing the amount of habitat or 

displacing individuals. Cleanup of the heavy metals contamination from mining in the Coeur 

d'Alene basin is ongoing and likely to continue into the future. This cleanup work would 

improve wildlife habitat over time, although the complete extent of improvement and how those 

effects overlap with effects from the revised Forest Plan is uncertain.

Ski area expansion, utility corridor construction, grazing, and mining are all possible future 

effects that could impact habitat or cause disturbance.

The Idaho State Wildlife Conservation Strategy would improve habitat for a variety of species, 

and when utilized on non-NFS ownerships should complement habitat 

improvement/maintenance on NFS lands. Several species analyzed in this wildlife section are 

specifically mentioned in the strategy.

Recreation is likely to increase on all land ownership types, if for no other reason than human 

population growth. This would increase human disturbance and cause the portions of NFS lands 

that have lower human disturbance to become more important for wildlife.

Border Patrol activities on the Forest have the potential to cause disturbance through use of roads 

or trails that are normally closed to motorized use. The exact extent or amount of the impact over 

the life of the Plan is difficult to predict because many factors could influence the amount and 

location of Border Patrol activity. Generally speaking, the likelihood of Border Patrol presence 

increases with decreasing distance from the border.

As on NFS lands, disturbance associated with human presence and most management activities 

will likely continue. Subdivision of private property has the potential to reduce habitat and 

increase disturbance, causing displacement.

Effects in wintering areas or during migration can reduce populations of certain species.

Wind turbines can cause mortality to bats and birds.

Noxious weeds can degrade habitat, including the loss of forage on important winter ranges.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

410 Air Quality Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Air Quality

Introduction

This report discloses the affected environment and environmental consequences to air quality 

that would result from implementing different programmatic level management strategies for the 

IPNF. More specifically, the focus of this discussion is on smoke and how the various 

alternatives could affect smoke production through the use of prescribed fire, the use of natural, 

unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives, or emissions from wildfires. Although there are 

other potential sources of air pollution from management activities that occur on the IPNF (e.g.,

road dust, mining operations, emissions from logging equipment and recreational vehicles), 

smoke is the most substantial issue. Smoke can create public health issues as well as reduce the 

ability to view the scenery on the Forest. However, as discussed in the “Fire” and “Vegetation”

sections of this final EIS, there is strong need to use fire to maintain and restore the fire-adapted 

ecosystems on the IPNF and as a tool to reduce hazardous fuels in the WUI.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1955 (as amended in 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990):

The act is a legal mandate designed to protect public health and welfare from air pollution. 

Although this policy creates the foundation for air quality regulation, states and counties are 

often responsible for implementation of the air quality standards. The task of identifying 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is assigned by the Clean Air Act to the 

EPA. The EPA evaluates and updates these standards every 5 years. For the state of Idaho, 

the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (ID DEQ) both enforces these standards and 

is allowed to identify stricter regulations (National Wildfire Coordination Group, 2001).

The EPA defines 6 of 33 known air pollutants as criteria pollutants for which NAAQS are set. 

The most common violation of a NAAQS from smoke is that of the PM2.5 standard. Wildfires 

are considered a naturally occurring event from which smoke impacts may not be prevented. For 

natural events, state DEQ’s are required to have Natural Emergency Action Plans that identifies 

procedures such as notifying the public of health impacts of smoke and how to decrease and/or 

minimize exposure. According to the ID DEQ, this includes wanted fires (fires naturally ignited 

and being managed to meet resource objectives) and unwanted fires (fires naturally or man 

ignited that actions are taken on to fully suppress). Prescribed fires are considered 

anthropogenic, and therefore, subject to regulation. 

Table 102 displays the NAAQS for the six criteria pollutants identified by EPA:

Table 102. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Pollutant Level Averaging Time Level Averaging 

Time

Carbon Monoxide 9 ppm (10 mg/m3

) 8-hour None

35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 1-hour

Lead 0.15 μg/m3 Rolling 3-Month Average Same as Primary

1.5 μg/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary

Nitrogen Dioxide 53 ppb Annual (Arithmetic Average) Same as Primary
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Air Quality 411

Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Pollutant Level Averaging Time Level Averaging 

Time

100 ppb 1-hour None

Particulate 

Matter (PM10)

150 μg/m3 24-hour Same as Primary

Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5)

15.0 μg/m3 Annual (Arithmetic Average) Same as Primary

35 μg/m3 24-hour Same as Primary

Ozone 0.075 ppm (2008 std) 8-hour Same as Primary

0.08 ppm (1997 std) 8-hour Same as Primary

0.12 ppm 1-hour Same as Primary

Sulfur Dioxide 0.03 ppm Annual (Arithmetic Average) 0.5 ppm 3-hour

0.14 ppm 24-hour

75 ppb 1-hour None

From http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html

Areas where NAAQS are frequently met, or exceeded, are considered areas of non-attainment by 

the EPA. To prevent NAAQS violations, Idaho has designated these areas and other areas of 

concern as Impact Zones. In accordance with the Interim Policy, Idaho also has a smoke 

management plan which provides some flexibility should a NAAQS violations occur due to 

smoke. The combination of actions a state takes to regulate smoke, track and monitor pollutants, 

and enforce violations are known as a state implementation plan.

The Clean Air Act Amendment of 1977 designates mandatory visibility protection of Class I 

Airsheds which include wilderness areas established before 1977 that are greater than 5,000 

acres. The Wilderness Act of 1964 mandates that the Forest Service preserves and protects the 

natural condition of designated wilderness areas (regardless of Class I designation), including the 

intrinsic wilderness value of air quality.

Currently the Forest Service participates in an organization known as the Montana-Idaho Airshed 

Group (2010) for prescribed burns within the state of Idaho. Group members submit prescribed 

burns to the smoke management unit for daily, site-specific approval. The smoke management 

unit is responsible for making sound and timely decisions to maximize the amount of smoke 

being put in the air (acres burned) and minimizes adverse air quality impacts based on individual 

airsheds throughout Idaho and Montana. Adherence to the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group 

Operating Guide (2010) is the current accepted smoke management plan for the state of Idaho.

The portion of the IPNF within the state of Washington requires that prescribed burns be 

approved through the Washington Department of Natural Resources. They are responsible for 

coordinating with the Washington Department of Ecology to carry out the state implementation 

plan for Washington State.

In addition, air quality is addressed for every prescribed burn in the individual prescribed fire 

plan. The Forest Service Handbook requires a documented burn plan that contains all of the 

elements outlined in the 2008 Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation 

Procedures Guide. This guide prompts the burn plan author to address all laws and regulations 

concerning smoke management as well as the potential for localized nuisance smoke impacts.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

412 Air Quality Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

In 1998 the EPA released the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires

(Interim Policy). The document was published with the intent of integrating two public policy 

goals, “(1) to allow fire to function, as nearly as possible, in its natural role in maintaining 

healthy wildland ecosystems, and (2) to protect public health and welfare by mitigating the 

impacts of air pollutant emissions on air quality and visibility.” This document recognizes the 

goal of the National Fire Plan (1995, revised in 2001) to implement fuel reduction projects in the 

WUI and return fire to landscapes, and the impacts this will have on air quality.

Wildfire smoke can produce three of six criteria pollutants the EPA has set maximum standards 

for to protect human and environmental health. These include carbon monoxide, particulate 

matter, and volatile organic compounds that can produce ground-level ozone 

(http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/). Seventy percent of smoke emissions are made up of 

small particulate matter (PM2.5 or particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers) which has 

been proven to cause adverse health effects in humans (http://www.epa.gov/pm/health.html). 

Because of this, wildfire smoke from natural, unplanned ignitions and prescribed fire poses a 

potential health threat to the public. Another smoke emission that poses health risks to humans is 

carbon monoxide, which can cause short-term health related problems for firefighters. Carbon 

monoxide rapidly mixes with surrounding air at short distances from a burn area, therefore, 

poses little to no risk to the general public (Sandberg and Dost 1990). Ground-level ozone, 

although not a direct product of smoke emissions is a concern due to its effect on lung function 

and plant growth.

The small size of PM2.5 makes these particles highly efficient at scattering light, causing 

visibility issues, and contributing to what the EPA has called “Regional Haze.” The Regional 

Haze Rule, promulgated by the EPA in 1999, addresses improving visibility in Class I airsheds 

such as wilderness areas and National Parks. Regardless of whether smoke violates air quality 

standards, localized impacts of burning can cause visibility issues on public roadways. Nuisance 

smoke is defined by the EPA (US EPA 1990) as the amount of smoke in the ambient air that 

interferes with a right or privilege common to members of the public, including the use or 

enjoyment of public or private resources.

Key Indicator

• Ambient air quality and visibility.

Methodology and Analysis Process

A qualitative assessment of smoke emissions and consequences to ambient air quality and 

visibility was used as the indicator for effects to air quality. The actual quantitative smoke that 

would be produced by each alternative and the impacts on air quality are too variable to 

accurately predict. Potential emissions from wildfires are difficult to predict as they would vary 

depending upon site-specific vegetation and fuels conditions, ignitions, weather, and available 

suppression resources. Emissions from the use of prescribe fire and the use of natural, unplanned 

ignitions to meet resource objectives is also difficult to predict quantitatively. Therefore, the 

comparison of alternatives is based on a qualitative assessment of the relative amounts and 

timing of smoke that may be emitted by the alternatives.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Because the area contained within the IPNF boundary is relatively rural, non-forest pollution 

sources such as industry and heavy automobile traffic have not greatly impacted air quality. 

Industrial sources of pollution within the Forest may include timber and mining operations. Dust 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Air Quality 413

from forest roads may also contribute to fine particulates in the air. Contributions from forest 

operations are generally minimal and have not been shown to contribute to NAAQS violations. 

Voluntary smoke management from forest industry, state and federal partners has helped prevent 

NAAQS violations and reduced nuisance smoke.

Areas of concern within the Forest include the impact zones of Sandpoint, Coeur d’Alene 

(labeled Fernan) and Pinehurst (see figure 32). Impact zones are created for populated areas 

where air quality concerns to public health arise as NAAQS are sometimes exceeded or close to 

exceeding. Sandpoint and Pinehurst are both areas of non-attainment for the criteria pollutant 

PM10. Areas of population generally exist in valley bottoms where mixing and dispersion of air 

is reduced. Sources of pollution within these impact zones, including wildfire smoke, are closely 

monitored and regulated.

Figure 32. Idaho Airsheds and Impact Zones taken from the MT/ID Airshed Group 2010 

Operations Guide

The ID DEQ has a network of air quality monitors throughout the state. Real-time data is tracked 

to identify times of poor air quality and notify the public of potential concerns. The MT/ID 

Airshed Group accesses this information in making burn approval decisions.

Because of the health impacts caused by wildfire smoke, the Northern Rockies Coordinating 

Group created the Montana-Idaho Interagency Smoke Management Strategy for the Mitigation 

of Public Health and Welfare Impacts Caused by Smoke from Unplanned Ignitions (2010). 

Although this document is not intended to be legally enforceable, the Integration Strategy is 

meant to communicate roles and responsibilities (for land managers as well as others), inform 

the public, identify coordination activities, provide lessons learned and examples of good smoke 

management, and provide for future revision.

Visibility monitoring is done through the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments Network, which exists through cooperation efforts from the EPA, state regulatory 

agencies, and federal land managers. This monitoring network establishes current air quality 

conditions for Class I areas and tracks progress towards the national visibility goal outlined in 

the Clean Air Act. The interagency monitoring of protected visual environments provides a 

standardized system to identify long-term trend and determine the types of pollutants and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

414 Air Quality Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

sources responsible for visibility impairments 

(http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Overview/Overview.htm).

Region 1 of the Forest Service currently has what is called the “USFS R1 Air Quality Monitoring 

Plan” (USDA Forest Service 1997 April). Monitoring protocols for air quality related values for 

Class I areas and wilderness air quality values are defined and documented. Part of the 

monitoring plan includes participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments Network.

Environmental Consequences

Management Direction

All of the alternatives contain essentially the same Forest Plan direction regarding the desire and 

need to meet federal, state and local air quality standards and direction. The 1987 Forest Plan 

contains forestwide objectives (objective item O, pg. II-9) and standards (Air Quality standards 

1-4, pg. II-34) and the action alternatives contain forestwide desired conditions (FW-DC-AQ-01) 

and guidelines (FW-GDL-AQ-01) that are similar in nature. Therefore, the direction that is 

specific to air quality in the various alternatives would have similar consequences. That is, the 

direction is designed to meet applicable laws and regulations.

The management direction that could have consequences to smoke production includes direction 

that would affect how much prescribed fire would occur, how much natural, unplanned ignition

is managed to meet resource objectives, and how much wildfire may occur. The alternatives do 

contain plan components related to fire that could influence these elements and they are 

summarized below.

General Effects

Because prescribed fire smoke is closely regulated by the smoke management unit, any 

additional prescribed fire acres would have to be accomplished on burn days where smoke 

dispersion is good and the Impact Zones are not affected.

The Cabinet Mountain Wilderness on the KNF is a Class I Airshed based on the 1977 

Amendment of the Clean Air Act. Due to its location, this wilderness has the potential to be 

impacted from smoke produced on the IPNF. Although the Salmo-Priest Wilderness does not 

meet the regulation of a Class I Airshed, wilderness air quality values should be considered.

Smoke from wildfires is predicted to remain the same across all the alternatives, including the 

no-action alternative. The difference in smoke inputs during wildfire season would be due to the 

contribution of the smoke from natural, unplanned ignitions managed to meet resource 

objectives. Because a natural, unplanned ignition that is being managed to meet resource 

objectives is still considered a natural event, smoke from these events currently does not require 

approval from the MT/ID Airshed Group or ID DEQ. The effects of the added smoke input to the 

airshed during the summer may or may not be adverse. Because managing natural, unplanned 

ignitions to meet resource objectives is most suitable for backcountry areas away from human 

populations, air quality effects should be minimal to public health.

The different alternatives have varying levels of emphasis on managing natural, unplanned 

ignitions to meet resource objectives. Because of this, the effect on air quality may differ 

between the alternatives. Alternative C places the greatest influence on natural disturbance 

processes, including wildfire. Based on this goal, this alternative could potentially create the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Air Quality 415

greatest amount of smoke. Alternative D places management emphasis on active management,

including timber harvest. Although backcountry areas would still encourage managing natural,

unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives, the acreage of the backcountry MA is slightly 

reduced which could reduce the amount of acres burned. In terms of air quality affects, 

Alternative B Modified lies somewhere between C and D. Not as much emphasis is placed on 

natural disturbances as Alternative C; however, the opportunity for managing natural, unplanned 

ignitions to meet resource objectives under this alternative in terms of backcountry acres is

greater than Alternative D.

Smoke produced from managing natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives will 

vary spatially and temporally. The decision to manage a natural, unplanned ignition to meet 

resource objectives affects many resources, including air quality. Despite the lack of specific airquality regulations on natural, unplanned ignitions that are being managed to meet resource 

objectives, consideration is given to the effect the fire will have on air quality during the decision 

process. Working with the ID DEQ and avoiding decisions that will cause health and welfare 

concerns to the public will minimize the effects of managing natural, unplanned ignitions to meet 

resource objectives on air quality.

Cumulative Effects

Air quality is a complex issue. Inputs of pollutants into an airshed can be from automobile 

exhaust, industry, dust from driving on dry roads or wind events, wood stoves, agricultural 

burning, and wildland fires. The range of sources of these pollutants, climatology, and 

topography all influence air quality conditions at any given location. The air quality on the IPNF

is affected by actions occurring hundreds of miles away, such as agricultural burning and/or 

tilling (Hammer 2003). If a neighboring national forest chooses to manage a natural, unplanned 

ignition to meet resource objectives, this decision may have air quality impacts on the IPNF and 

vice versa.

In the case of managing a natural, unplanned ignition to meet resource objectives, the Forest 

Service may choose to allow the fire to burn and perform a natural role, regardless of whether 

initial attack fire resources have the ability to suppress the ignition. Certain circumstances will 

limit the IPNF from managing natural, unplanned ignition to meet resource objectives, including 

air quality. While there is not specific regulation addressing wildfires, the ID DEQ still maintains 

the authority to enforce NAAQS, including stopping land managers from allowing a fire to burn 

during times of poor air quality.

The city of Coeur d’Alene currently receives special attention during the summer months due to 

increased ground-level ozone. High levels of ozone causes reduced lung function and can be 

particularly troublesome for individuals with respiratory illness. Repeated or prolonged exposure 

may cause permanent damage to human lungs as well as harm agricultural crops and forests by 

interfering with plants’ photosynthesis process. Ozone is not directly produced from cars, 

industrial pollution, or wildfire smoke; however, all emit photochemical pollutants which are 

ozone precursors. These photochemical pollutants react to heat from sunlight and produce ozone. 

Ground-level ozone is a concern and is closely monitored in the city of Coeur d’Alene. 

Consideration should be given when smoke, even from far-away sources, is input into the Coeur 

d’Alene Impact Zone (Idaho DEQ 2010).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

416 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Human Uses and Designations of the Forest

This section includes the following resources:

• Access and Recreation

• Lands/Special Uses

• Inventoried Roadless Areas

• Designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Recommended 

Wilderness

• Wild and Scenic Rivers

• Research Natural Areas

• Special Areas

• Experimental Forests

• Cultural Resources

• American Indian Rights and Interests
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 417

Access and Recreation

Introduction

The focus of outdoor recreation management is to provide a wide range of environmentally 

sustainable opportunities in natural settings in order to meet the needs and desires of visitors. 

People have always enjoyed relatively free access to recreation opportunities on federal public 

lands, although recreation was not a high priority when national forests were first created. 

Recreation use was present at that time, but it was an unstated secondary benefit, enjoyed by a 

relative few. However, since the end of World War II, demand for outdoor recreation on public 

land has grown. This section covers Transportation Systems, including Road Trail Management 

Objectives, Travel Management, and Road and Trail Maintenance; and Recreation, including 

Recreation Settings, Developed Recreation, Dispersed Recreation, Recreation Special Use 

Authorizations, and, Scenery/Landscape Management.

Access, using roads and trails, is associated with virtually every activity that takes place on the 

IPNF. Roads and trails accommodate many purposes such as; outdoor recreation, fire 

suppression, wildlife management, transport of natural resources such as logs and minerals, 

firewood gathering, private in-holding access, electronic site and utility corridor maintenance, 

and managing and monitoring forest resources.

Modes of vehicle travel on the Forest include: large commercial trucks, cars, pickups, four-wheel 

drive vehicles, over-snow vehicles, off-road vehicles (e.g., motorcycles, ATVs), mountain bikes, 

and wheelchairs. Other non-vehicular travel modes include cross-country/back-country skiing, 

snowshoeing, dog sledding, horseback riding, and hiking.

These various forms of travel may occur on designated paved, aggregate, or native surface roads, 

and trails managed for motorized and/or non-motorized use.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11, as amended): This act 

authorizes the establishment of national forests.

• Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (P.L.86-517, 74 Stat.215): This act 

provides direction to the NFS lands to provide access and recreation opportunities. The act 

states, “The policy of Congress is that national forests are established and administered for 

outdoor recreation...”

• Term Permit Act of March 4, 1915 (P.L. 63-293, Ch. 144, 38 Stat. 1101, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 497): This act provides direction to the NFS lands to authorize occupancy for a wide 

variety of uses through permits not exceeding 30 years.

• National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964 (P.L. 88-657, 78 Stat. 1089, as 

amended): This act declared that an adequate system of roads and trails be constructed and 

maintained to meet the increasing demand for recreation and other uses. This act authorizes 

road and trail systems for the national forests. It authorizes granting of easements across 

NFS lands, construction and financing of maximum economy roads (FSM 7705), and 

imposition of requirements on road users for maintaining and reconstructing roads, including 

cooperative deposits for that work.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

418 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• The Wilderness Act of September 9, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131(note), 1131-1136): This act 

establishes the National Wilderness Preservation System to be administered for the “...use 

and enjoyment of the American people...”

• Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897 as amended; 

16 U.S.C. 460l-4(note); 460l-4 thru 6a, 460l-7 thru 460l-10, 460l-10a-d, 460l-11): "The 

purposes of this act are to assist in preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to all 

citizens of the United States of America...such quality and quantity of outdoor recreation 

resources...providing funds for:" 1. States for acquisition, planning, and development of 

recreation facilities and; 2. Federal acquisition and development of certain lands and other 

areas.

• Highway Safety Act of September 9, 1966 (P.L. 89-564, 80 Stat. 731, as amended): This 

act authorizes state and local governments and participating federal agencies to identify and 

survey accident locations; to design, construct, and maintain roads in accordance with safety 

standards; to apply sound traffic control principles and standards; and to promote pedestrian 

safety.

• Architectural Barriers Act of August 12, 1968 (P.L. 90-480, 82 Stat. 718 51 U.S.C. 4151-

4154, 4154a, 4155-4157): This act establishes additional requirements to ensure that 

buildings, facilities, rail passenger cars, and vehicles are accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. It covers architecture and design, transportation, and communication elements of 

recreational site planning and development.

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968 (P.L. 90-542, 82 Stat. 906, as amended):

This act establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System with three classes of river 

systems: wild, scenic, and recreation. The purpose of the act was to protect the river “...for 

the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

• National Trails System Act of October 2, 1968 (P.L. 90-543, 82 Stat.919, as amended):

This act establishes the National Trails System and authorizes planning, right-of-way 

acquisition, and construction of trails established by Congress or the Secretary of 

Agriculture.

• Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968, as amended (23 U.S.C. 109(a) and (h), 144, 151, 319, 

and 351): Establishes the National Bridge Inspection Standards (23 CFR Part 650, Subpart 

C) and the requirement that each state have a current inventory of bridges on all public 

roads, including NFS roads open to public travel (FSM 1535.11).

• Rehabilitation Act of September 26, 1973 (P.L. 93-112, Title V, 87 Stat. 390, as 

amended; 29 U.S.C. 791, 793-794, 794a, 794b): This act requires that programs and 

activities conducted by federal agencies and by entities that receive funding from, or operate 

under a permit from, federal agencies provide an equal opportunity for individuals with 

disabilities to participate in an integrated setting, as independently as possible. The only 

exception to the requirement is when the program would be fundamentally altered if changes 

were made solely for the purpose of accessibility.

• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (P.L. 93-

378, 88 Stat. 476, as amended): This act declares (per Sec. 10) that “...the installation of a 

proper system of transportation to service the NFS ....shall be carried forward in time to 

meet anticipated needs on an economical and environmentally sound basis...”

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 

2742, as amended): This act declares (per Sec. 102) that “...the public lands be managed in 

a manner that...will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 419

• Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-599, as amended). Supersedes 

the Forest Highway Act of 1958: Authorizes appropriations for forest highways and public 

lands highways. Establishes criteria for forest highways; defines forest roads, forest 

development roads, and forest development trails (referred to as “NFS roads” and “NFS 

trails” in Forest Service regulations and directives); and limits the size of projects performed 

by Forest Service employees on forest roads. Establishes the Federal Lands Highway 

Program.

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of August 11, 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996): This act 

states the policy of the United States to preserve and protect the rights of Native Americans 

to reasonable access and use NFS lands for exercising their traditional cultural religious 

beliefs and practices. This act does not grant authority to issue authorizations.

• Rails to Trails (National Trails System Improvements Act of October 4, 1988 (P.L. 100-

470, 102 Stat. 2281; 16 U.S.C. 1241(note); 12 U.S.C. 1248(note))): This act was enacted to 

facilitate the development of trail systems by federal, state, or local governments on railroad 

rights-of-way that may be suitable for trail use when such rights-of-way are abandoned.

• Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of November 18, 1988 (P.L. 100-691, 102 Stat. 

4546; 16 U.S.C. 4301 note, 4301 to 4309): This act was enacted to secure, protect, and 

preserve significant caves on federal lands for the perpetual use, enjoyment, and benefit of 

all people.

• Ski Fees, Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of November 12, 1996 

(Pub. L. 104-333, div. I, Title VII, Sec. 701, 110 Stat. 4182; 16 U.S.C. 497c): Section 701 

of this act:

• Establishes a system to calculate fees for ski area permits issued under the National 

Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b);

• Provides for holders of ski area permits issued under other authorities to elect this permit 

fee system (FSH 2709.11, sec. 38.03a);

• Includes provisions concerning compliance with NEPA when issuing permits for 

existing ski areas (FSM 2721.61f and FSH 2709.11, sec. 41.61b); and

• Withdraws leasable and locatable minerals, subject to valid existing rights (FSH 

2709.11, sec. 41.61c).

• Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of October 30, 2000 (P. 

L. 106-393, 114 Stat. 1607; 16 U.S.C.500 note): This act provides provisions to make 

additional investments in, and create additional employment opportunities through, projects 

that improve the maintenance of existing infrastructure, implement stewardship objectives 

that enhance forest ecosystems, and restore and improve land health and water quality.

• Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of December 8, 2004 (P.L. 108-447, as 

amended): This act gives the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior the authority to 

establish, modify, charge, and collect recreation fees at federal recreational lands where a 

certain level of amenities have been developed.

• Omnibus Public Land Management Act of March 30, 2009 (P.L. 111-11, Title V, Section 

5205): This act designated the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail including the section 

that crosses the IPNF.

• Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st-Century Act of July 6, 2012 (P.L. 112-141):

Replaces the Federal Lands Highway Program with the Federal Lands Transportation 

Program and Federal Lands Access Program. This act authorizes funding for federal lands 

transportation facilities and federal lands access transportation facilities under a unified 

program with policy similar to federal-aid highways and other public transportation 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

420 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

facilities. It requires Federal Land Management Agencies to identify a comprehensive 

inventory of public federal lands transportation facilities that, at a minimum, includes the 

transportation facilities that provide access to high-use federal recreation sites or federal 

economic generators.

• Executive Order 11644 (as amended): Establishes policy and procedure “...that will 

ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be controlled and directed so as 

to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of those lands, and 

to minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands.”

• Executive Order 12862: Setting Customer Service Standards requires information about 

quantity and quality of recreation visits for national forest plans.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 212 — Travel Management

• 36 CFR 219 — Planning

• 36 CFR 251 — Land Uses

• 36 CFR 261 — Prohibitions

• 36 CFR 290 — Cave Resources Management

• 36 CFR 291 — Occupancy and Use of Developed Sites and Areas of Concentrated Public 

Use

• 36 CFR 293 — Wilderness-Primitive Areas

• 36 CFR 294 — Special Areas

• 36 CFR 297 — Wild and Scenic Rivers

Other Policy and Guidance

• National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National 

Forest System Lands Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide, April 2012: The 

first volume of guidance for the USDA Forest Service National Best Management Practices 

(BMP) Program. The National BMP Program was developed to improve agency 

performance and accountability in managing water quality consistent with the Federal Clean 

Water Act (CWA) and State water quality programs. Current Forest Service policy directs 

compliance with required CWA permits and State regulations and requires the use of BMPs 

to control nonpoint source pollution to meet applicable water quality standards and other 

CWA requirements. It includes road management activity BMPs for construction, operation, 

and maintenance for roads and motorized trails.

Key Indicators

• Percent of the Forest and location of areas where roads and trails may be designated for 

motor vehicle use;

• Percent of the Forest and location of areas where over-snow vehicle use is allowed;

• Percent of the Forest and location of areas where mechanized use is allowed;

• Percent of the Forest and location managed in the various recreation opportunity 

spectrum (ROS) classes; and

• Percent of the Forest managed in the various scenery management systems and scenic 

integrity objective categories.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 421

Methodology and Analysis Process

For comparative purposes, each alternative was analyzed for the total number of acres by MA 

allocation, where motor vehicle use may be designated, over-snow vehicle use would be

allowed, or mechanized use would be allowed.

Each MA identifies whether motor vehicle use, over-snow vehicle use, or mechanized use is

allowed. GIS is used to calculate the number of acres for each MA across the Forest. Acres 

currently closed to over-snow vehicle use are also included. The summary acres where motor 

vehicle use, over-snow vehicle use, and mechanized use is allowed for each alternative were 

calculated.

Note: Where motor-vehicle use is discussed relative to road, trail, and area designation or crosscountry prohibitions, it includes all types of motor vehicles which are self-propelled and capable 

of or designed for, travel on or immediately over land or other natural terrain excluding oversnow vehicle use, vehicles operated on rails, and wheelchair or mobility devices as defined at 36 

CFR 212.1. This generally indicates wheeled motor vehicles but includes those vehicles that 

have the driving wheels moving inside endless tracks (or are capable of such conversion) when 

operating outside snow-covered ground conditions.

Over-snow vehicles are defined as motor vehicles designed for use over-snow that run on a 

track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over-snow (36 CFR 212.1). These two 

recreation opportunities are considered as separate activities in this analysis and are referred to as 

either “motor vehicle use” or “over-snow vehicle use.”

Each alternative was analyzed for the total number of acres and percentage of the Forest 

managed in various ROS classes and categories of scenic integrity objectives. Each MA includes 

direction for the ROS class and scenic integrity objectives that is most appropriate for 

management of that area of the Forest.

Changes between Draft and Final

Change in Terminology

The DEIS and draft Forest Plan used the term “wheeled motor vehicle use” when referring to 

designated road, trail, and area motorized recreation opportunities in the absence of snowcovered ground conditions. The term “over-snow vehicle” is used when referring to winter 

(snow-covered ground conditions) motorized recreation opportunities. (See the glossary for the 

full definitions per 36 CFR 212.) The descriptive “wheeled” was included to contrast with oversnow vehicle use as the two recreation opportunities are considered and analyzed separately as 

distinct activities in the environmental analysis.

However, “wheeled motor vehicle use” is not consistent with the language at 36 CFR 212 or 

current IPNF motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs) and the associated legal order. The regulations 

at 36 CFR 212.50 state that “after these roads, trails, and areas are designated, motor vehicle use, 

including the class of vehicle and time of year, not in accordance with these designations is 

prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13” and is followed with an exemption for over-snow vehicles at 36 

CFR 212.5. The legal order on the IPNF MVUMs state: “It is prohibited to possess or operate a 

motor vehicle on NFS lands on the IPNF other than in accordance with these designations (36 

CFR 261.13)...” This map does not display nonmotorized uses, over-snow uses, or other 

facilities and attractions on the IPNF...”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

422 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Existing legal orders under 36 CFR 261.50 and 36 CFR 261.54 establish where over-snow 

vehicle use is legally allowed or prohibited until the IPNF undertakes over-snow vehicle travel 

management planning per 36 CFR 212 Subpart C.

Therefore, for clarification and consistency with existing regulation and law, the FEIS and 

revised Forest Plan drop the “wheeled” descriptive and simply use the term “motor vehicle use” 

(excluding over-snow vehicle use) when referring to road, trail, and area designations. This does 

not change any existing or analyzed recreation opportunity and only clarifies terminology.

Update to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Analysis

The DEIS and draft Forest Plan displayed acres of ROS two different ways: ROS as inventoried 

and ROS desired condition by MA. The draft Forest Plan desired condition for MA6 ROS was 

Roaded Natural. In the revised Forest Plan, the desired condition for MA6 has been updated to a 

range from Semi-Primitive Non-motorized to Roaded Natural.

A combination of the Inventoried ROS and the MA ROS was used for analyzing acres by ROS 

for each alternative in the FEIS. The revised Forest Plan indicates the ROS or range of ROS for 

each MA. Where a range of ROS is given for a MA, the acres of inventoried ROS were used to 

determine acres by ROS.

Update to Acres of Closure Areas

The acres restricted to over-snow vehicle use by Administrative zone were updated to reflect the 

most recent information on closure areas.

Update to Acres Allowing Road Construction

These acres were corrected in the FEIS to reflect MA direction.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Transportation System

Across the IPNF there are approximately 8,684 miles of roads and 2,694 miles of trails under 

Forest Service jurisdiction. Additional miles of roads and trails cross the Forest, but are managed 

and administered by other jurisdictions such as the BLM, state, county, or private.

National Forest System roads and trails are an infrastructure capital investment that support 

forest management activities and recreation access and are considered physical assets. Since the 

end of WWII, an extensive system of roads has been constructed that has continual management 

and maintenance needs. Early trails served as routes for migration, foraging, hunting, trapping, 

and early forest management. Many of those original trails provide recreation access today. The 

direction for effective and efficient management of NFS roads is founded in laws, regulations, 

and agency directives.

One part of the direction requires management objectives be established for NFS routes. These 

management objectives take into consideration: MA direction; needs for coordination of uses; 

access management; and route design, operation, and maintenance criteria.

Road Management Objectives

In order to develop road management objectives, a variety of descriptive conditions are used. 

The more prominent ones are:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 423

• Functional Class — The way a road services land and resource management needs, and the 

character of service it provides.

• Arterial — A road that provides service to large land areas and usually connects with 

other arterial roads or public highways.

• Collector — A road that serves smaller areas than an arterial road and usually connects 

arterial roads to local roads or terminal facilities.

• Local — A road that connects a terminal facility with collector roads, arterial roads, or 

public highways and usually serves a single purpose involving intermittent use.

This branching system of arterial, collector, and local roads is the network that provides access to 

NFS lands. Most arterial and collector roads are surfaced, generally with aggregate, although

some have a paved surface. Most local roads are native surfaced. Table 103 displays the miles by 

functional class.

Table 103. Summary of IPNF Roads by Functional Class

Functional Class Miles

Arterial 467

Collector 2,277

Local 5,883

Not Assigned 57

Total 8,684

Source: Infra - Travel Routes 2/2013

• Traffic Service Level — The significant traffic characteristics and operating conditions for a 

road.

• Level A — Free flowing, mixed traffic; stable, smooth surface. Provides safe service to 

all traffic.

• Level B — Congested during heavy traffic, slower speeds and periodic dust; 

accommodates any legal size load or vehicle.

• Level C — Interrupted traffic flow, limited passing facilities, may not accommodate 

some vehicles. Low design speeds. Unstable surface under certain traffic or weather.

• Level D — Traffic flow is slow and may be blocked by management activities. Two-way 

traffic is difficult; backing may be required. Rough and irregular surface. Travel with 

low clearance vehicles is difficult. Single purpose facility.

Table 104 displays the miles by traffic service level.

Table 104. Summary of IPNF Roads by Traffic Service Level

Traffic Service Level Miles

Level A 182

Level B 242

Level C 1,826

Level D 6,297

Not Assigned 137

Total 8,684

Source: Infra - Travel Routes 2/2013
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

424 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Operational Maintenance Level — The maintenance level currently assigned to the road 

considering today's needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. 

In other words, it defines the level to which the road is currently being maintained.

• Level 5 — Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience.

• Level 4 — Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 

convenience at moderate travel speeds.

• Level 3 — Assigned to roads open for and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a 

standard passenger car.

• Level 2 — Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles.

• Level 1 — Assigned to roads that have been placed in storage (greater than 1 year) 

between intermittent uses. Basic custodial maintenance is performed. Road is closed to 

vehicular traffic.

Table 105 displays the miles of roads by operational maintenance level. Figure 33 displays the 

operational maintenance level by district.

Table 105. Summary of IPNF Roads by Operational Maintenance Level

Operational Maintenance Level Miles

Level 5 78

Level 4 221

Level 3 1,776

Level 2 2,909

Level 1 3,666

Not Assigned 34

Total 8,684

Source: Infra - Travel Routes 2/2013

Figure 33. Operational Maintenance Level by District
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 425

As a result of financial limitations and requirements to meet other resource objectives, the trend 

has been to progress toward fewer miles of NFS roads on the IPNF. Over the last 20 years, the 

IPNF has decommissioned approximately 1,550 miles of road.

The IPNF has also been treating roads and putting them into what is termed “intermittent stored 

service.” These roads have been identified as needed (generally within the next 10 to 20 years) as 

part of the minimum road system and are treated to reduce the risk of undesirable resource 

impacts in the absence of routine maintenance while in stored (closed) status. Currently, the 

IPNF has about 3,666 miles of NFS roads in an intermittent stored service status.

Site-specific, project-level travel analyses conducted across the IPNF are used to prioritize 

maintenance needs and identify opportunities for decommissioning roads or treating roads for 

intermittent stored service as the IPNF works to identify the minimum number of routes needed 

for an efficient transportation system as directed in 36 CFR 212 subpart A.

Trail Management Objectives

Trail management objectives (TMOs) are the documentation of the intended purpose and 

management of an NFS trail based on management direction, including the access objectives. 

Two concepts defined in the Federal Trail Data Standards developed by FS, NPS, BLM and 

FWS include:

Trail Class: The prescribed scale of development for a trail, representing its intended design and 

management standards:

• Trail Class 1 – Minimally Developed

• Trail Class 2 – Moderately Developed

• Trail Class 3 – Developed

• Trail Class 4 – Highly Developed

• Trail Class 5 – Fully Developed

Managed Use: Managed uses are the modes of travel that are actively managed and appropriate 

on a trail, based on its design and management.

Managed use indicates the intent to accommodate a specific use. Accommodating the managed 

use frequently results in user-specific trail maintenance and/or signing needs and costs. There 

can be more than one managed use per trail or trail segment and the managed use is usually a 

subset of the allowed uses on the trail (which may include motor vehicle use designations in 

some locations).

Table 106 displays the miles of trails on the IPNF managed for various uses.

Table 106. Miles of Trails Managed Use on the IPNF*

Managed Use Miles

Hiker/Pedestrian 1,482

Pack and Saddle 1,151

Bicycle 64

ATV 804

Motorcycle 730
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

426 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Managed Use Miles

Cross-Country Ski 52

Snowshoe 9

Snowmobile 1,415

* Total miles of managed use will not sum equal to miles of existing trail as there may be overlapping managed uses per 

trail or trail segment

Source: Infra Travel Routes 2/2013 (Miles have been rounded)

Travel Management

Travel management is one of the most controversial issues currently facing federal land 

managers. The Forest Service approaches access and travel management with the recognition 

that it affects every program we have and every person we serve. The overarching aim is to seek 

a balance of access opportunities on NFS lands while considering physical conditions, resource 

needs, user conflicts, and user safety.

Travel Management History

Early efforts to manage motorized travel on the IPNF began with specially-designated areas. For 

example, in 1969 the Mallard-Larkins area in the St. Joe NF was classified as a “Pioneer Area” 

under the Secretary of Agriculture’s U-3 Regulation, which stipulated no roads or motorized 

transportation. Other special areas having motorized travel restrictions prior to comprehensive 

forest travel planning included the Upper Priest Lake Scenic Area; two botanical areas: Settlers 

Grove of Ancient Cedars and the Hobo Creek Cedar Grove; and four research natural areas: 

Teepee Creek, Canyon Creek, Montford Creek, and Upper Fishhook Creek. These restrictions 

were implemented in order to maintain the special characteristics and high aesthetic values of the 

areas. Officials also added restrictions over time, typically to eliminate incompatible recreation 

uses.

The IPNF first initiated comprehensive forest-level travel planning as a result of Executive Order 

(EO) 11644 signed in 1972 (and amended by EO 11989 in 1977), which established a federal 

off-road vehicle (ORV) policy to “... ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will 

be controlled and directed so as to protect the resource of those lands, to promote the safety of all 

users of those lands and to minimize conflicts among the various users of those lands.”

In response to this EO, the IPNF published its first Travel Plan in September 1976 after 

completing an environmental assessment. The 1976 Travel Plan required ongoing motor vehicle 

use monitoring, and as a result, was updated periodically. In 1978, 1979, and 1980, the IPNF 

published supplements to the original environmental assessment that provided for minor 

additional closures, revised some dates, and added protection to snowmobile trails and game. 

The process included public involvement, and the Forest received comments from individuals 

and special-interest groups both supporting and opposing restrictions on motorized travel during 

this time.

In 1981, the IPNF published a new Travel Plan, again to resolve user conflicts and protect 

natural resources. Based on the former plan, the 1981 Plan included additional restrictions to 

improve trout spawning habitat, elk security, and grizzly bear protection, and to reduce 

horse/vehicle and other conflicts.

In 1987 when the IPNF published its Forest Plan, Forest Service road management policy 

provided “that all roads on national forest lands shall remain open for public use unless there are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 427

sound reasons in the interest of the public and/or resource protection for their closure.” The 

policy allowed for closure of forest roads for the following reasons: 1) protection of road surface 

and/or soil and water resources, 2) protection of fish and wildlife species and/or habitat, 3) 

provision for a full range of recreational experiences, and 4) protection of private and/or 

government equipment, products and facilities. The policy also allowed for closures during 

periods of extreme fire danger, and for public safety.

With respect to recreation travel, the 1987 Forest Plan emphasized increasing opportunities for 

outdoor recreation. Specific objectives included increasing the number of developed recreation 

facilities, emphasizing dispersed recreation opportunities, and increasing and improving the 

recreation trail system, consistent with management area objectives. The plan allowed for 

motorized use in proposed wilderness areas, with the exception of the Mallard-Larkins, St. Joe 

Wild River, and Upper Priest River areas.

Travel maps for the ranger districts and/or the individual forests that comprise the IPNF were 

published from 1979 through 2007. The maps were updated as needed, but not necessarily on a 

yearly basis. The maps displayed route and area restrictions by season and mode of travel. In 

addition, recreation sites, routes, and areas that were open year-round to all types of uses were 

displayed.

In 2005, the Forest Service published the final rule for, Travel Management-Designated Routes 

and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use, in order to clarify policy related to motor vehicle use, 

including the use of off-road vehicles. Contrary to past policy that allowed motor vehicle use 

except where restricted, the 2005 Rule requires designation of all roads, trails, and areas that are 

open to motor vehicle use, and prohibits motor vehicle use off the designated system.

In response to the 2005 Travel Rule, the IPNF once again undertook travel planning with the 

goal of designating a sustainable motorized route system for public access and recreation travel.

In 2010, the Central Zone published the IPNF’s first motor vehicle use map (MVUM) as 

required by the 2005 Travel Management Rule, designating the roads and trails open for motor 

vehicle use (excluding over-snow vehicles). Once the MVUM was published, the use of motor 

vehicles (excluding over-snow vehicles) off designated NFS roads, trails, and areas was 

prohibited. The North Zone of the IPNF essentially did not allow motorized cross-country travel 

prior to the 2005 Travel Rule due to wildlife restrictions, vegetation and topography. 

Consequently, motorized access did not change with the 2005 Rule. The North Zone published 

their first MVUM in 2011. “The South Zone is completing a public travel planning process 

similar to that of the Coeur d'Alene unit.”

Although the IPNF continues to offer forest visitor maps for recreation planning, the MVUMs 

are now the legal order reflecting where motor vehicle use (excluding over-snow) is allowed.

Motor Vehicle Use

Motor vehicle access on the Forest is managed across a range of recreation settings. For 

example, wilderness areas provide a primitive, non-motorized experience. Developed 

campgrounds and recreation sites, with high levels of development, are at the other end of the 

spectrum. The location of the opportunity, and the types of uses allowed, are factors that 

influence the kind of experiences to expect and generally align with the MA allocation. Travel 

management on the IPNF considers the associated MA allocation when designating a road, trail, 

or an area for motor vehicle use.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

428 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Travel management for designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use as required by 

the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) (excluding over-snow vehicle use) has been 

completed for the Coeur d'Alene River Ranger District and the Kaniksu Zone on the IPNF. 

Analysis for the St. Joe Travel Management Plan is in progress. Roads, trails, and areas where 

motor vehicle use (excluding over-snow vehicle use) is allowed are identified on the IPNF motor 

vehicle use map(s) (MVUM). The MVUMs show those roads, trails, and areas designated for 

motor vehicle use by class of vehicle and time of year, under 36 CFR 212.51, for the purpose of 

enforcing the prohibition at 36 CFR 261.13. Any motor vehicle use on other than those roads, 

trails, and areas shown on the MVUMs is prohibited and subject to fine and/or imprisonment. 

The IPNF MVUMs do not designate any areas open to motor vehicle use.

The MVUMs are subject to annual review and reissuance, but changes in travel management 

designation for motor vehicle use (excluding over-snow vehicles) are outside the scope of this 

programmatic forest plan revision. Site-specific changes to types, quantities, and distribution of 

motor vehicle use designations continue to be determined at the district level through NEPA 

analysis processes.

Over-snow Vehicle Use

At this time, over-snow vehicle use is managed differently from general motor vehicle use as 

displayed on the IPNF MVUMs. Under the 1987 Forest Plan, over-snow vehicle use is allowed 

anywhere it is not expressly prohibited with a legal order (36 CFR 261.50). There is no oversnow vehicle use map used to designate where and when over-snow vehicle use is allowed. 

Legal orders currently in effect prohibit over-snow vehicle use on approximately 450,000 acres 

of NFS lands (see table 107). The areas where over-snow vehicle use is currently prohibited are:

wilderness, portions of recommended wilderness, and other area closures for semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation, big game habitat, or protection of specific threatened or endangered 

species habitat.

Table 107. Summary of Current Acres Restricted to Over-Snow Vehicle Use on the IPNF

Closure North Zone Central Zone South Zone Total

Yearlong 267,4091 5,705 165,010 438,124

Dec 1 thru March 31 0 0 427 427

April 1 thru June 30 10,051 0 0 10,051

March 15 thru June 30 644 0 0 644

Total 278,1041 5,705 165,437 449,2462

1 This includes the current closure order that was imposed by the court order of November 2006 to protect Mountain 

Caribou.

2 The total acreage open to winter motorized use is approximately 2,000,000 acres.

Mechanized Use

At this time, mechanized use is managed the same as over-snow vehicle use. There is no 

mechanized use map to designate where and when mechanized use is allowed. Under the 1987 

Forest Plan, mechanized use is allowed anywhere it is not expressly prohibited with a legal order 

(36 CFR 261.50). Areas where mechanized use is prohibited are designated wilderness (e.g., 

Salmo-Priest Wilderness) and some of the special areas where pedestrian use is high (i.e., some 

of the cedar groves classified as botanical special areas).

Road Access ─ Motor Vehicle Use Designations

The current access status for motorized access on NFS roads is summarized in table 108. The 

table displays the total miles of roads, the miles designated for motor vehicle use yearlong, and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 429

the miles designated seasonally. The IPNF currently has about 4,133 miles of NFS roads 

designated for either yearlong or seasonal motor vehicle use. These roads are available for use by 

highway legal vehicles that meet state legal requirements.

Table 108. Summary of IPNF Roads by Travel Management Status

Total Miles of Road Miles of Roads 

Designated for 

Yearlong Motor 

Vehicle Use

Miles of Roads 

Designated for 

Seasonal Motor 

Vehicle Use

Miles of Roads where 

Non-motorized Use is 

Allowed

8,684 3,690 443 8,684

Source – Infra: Travel Routes 2/2013

All roads (whether designated for motor vehicle use or not) on the IPNF allow non-motorized

use. The actual ability to use roads by non-motorized means may be limited due to vegetation. 

Many roads on the IPNF have been in maintenance level 1 for many years and have re-vegetated 

to the point where even walking along the road prism is challenging.

Trail Access ─ Motor Vehicle Use Designations

The IPNF currently has approximately 1,573 miles of NFS trails designated for either yearlong 

or seasonal motor vehicle use. Table 109 displays the miles of NFS trail designated by class of 

vehicle. All 1,573 miles of designated trail allow hiker/pedestrian and other non-motorized use 

yearlong (see table 106 for additional managed uses).

Table 109. Summary of IPNF Trails Designated for Motor Vehicle Use*

Miles of Standard/Terra 

Trails Designated for 

Motorcycles

Miles of Standard/Terra 

Trails Designated for 

ATVs or Other OHVs less 

than 50” Wide

Miles of Standard/Terra 

Trails Designated for 

Vehicles greater than 50” 

Wide

Yearlong 1,285 668 29

Seasonal 288 170 10

Source – Infra: Travel Routes 2/2013

*Total miles of designated use by class of vehicle will not sum equal to miles of trails as there may be overlapping 

designated uses per trail or trail segment

Area Access ─ Motor Vehicle Use Designations (excluding over-snow vehicles)

The IPNF does not allow cross-country motor vehicle use in any area.

Over-snow Vehicle Use

In winter (generally December 1 – April 30) with adequate snow cover, the Forest is generally 

open to over-snow vehicle use. The areas not available are the Salmo-Priest Wilderness, portions 

of recommended wilderness, and other area closures for semi-primitive, non-motorized 

recreation, big game habitat, or protection of specific threatened or endangered species habitat. 

Of the 2,498,000 acres of the IPNF, approximately 2,000,000 acres have no prohibition on oversnow vehicle use. Not all of the areas available to over-snow vehicles are actually used. 

Vegetation and topography often influence where this type of use occurs.

Road Maintenance

The objective of road maintenance is to provide for safe and efficient travel; access for 

administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands; and protection of the environment, 

adjacent resources, and public investment (FSM 7730.2).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

430 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

FSH 7709.59 62.1 describes the scope of road maintenance to include any expenditure in the 

repair or upkeep of a road necessary to perpetuate the road and provide for its safe use. Work 

items may include surface rock replacement, seal coats and asphalt overlays, bridge replacement, 

slide removal, and other items that contribute to the preservation of the existing road. Road 

maintenance is not intended to substantially improve conditions above those originally 

constructed; however, there may be a need for adding to or modifying the original conditions 

without increasing the service provided. Typical examples of this include installing additional 

minor culverts and traffic control devices, implementing traffic management strategies, placing 

small quantities of spot surfacing, and re-vegetating cut and fill slopes.

Often road maintenance is completed to maintain drainage features and surface stabilization that 

have been installed to follow BMPs to minimize sediment production and other pollutants for the 

purpose of managing water quality consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and state 

water quality programs. Forest Service policy requires the use of BMPs to control nonpoint 

source pollutions to meet applicable water quality standards and other CWA requirements at 

FSM 2532.

Road maintenance is accomplished by the Forest Service and in cooperation with other agencies 

and private landowners or contractors. In some cases, maintenance responsibilities are 

exchanged with other jurisdictions through maintenance agreements when such actions create 

efficiencies for both parties. Roads under road maintenance agreements with other agencies, 

local governments, or private organizations are maintained according to the terms of the 

agreement; however, this level of maintenance may not meet established agency-set standards. 

For cost-share roads, maintenance is commensurate with commercial uses of the road. Because 

jurisdiction of forest roads sometimes shifts to county or state agencies, road maintenance 

responsibilities are not static.

The Forests’ ability to maintain the road system is dependent on a number of factors, including:

• Total miles of open roads;

• Allocated funding for road maintenance;

• Miles maintained through commercial activities such as timber sale contracts;

• Allocated funding for road projects to support other resources;

• Assigned operational maintenance levels;

• Resource protection needs; and

• Use levels and season of use.

Road maintenance budgets fluctuate from year to year. However, traffic volumes on the Forest 

open road system have risen. Commercial user contributions to road maintenance have declined. 

This affects both recurrent maintenance, such as seasonal blading, and deferred maintenance, 

such as long-term surface replacement. Depending on the amount and type of traffic, the 

expected life of an aggregate surface can be 10 to 25 years when adequate maintenance is 

performed. Currently there are about 2,000 miles of aggregate surfaced road on the IPNF. 

Assuming an average life of 20 years, the Forest could be re-surfacing approximately 100 miles 

per year.

Funding has been well below that needed to annually maintain the entire road system at 

operational maintenance level standards. Annual accomplishment reports indicate that on 

average, the IPNF has been able to maintain, on an annual basis, approximately 20 percent of the 

open roads on the Forest (see table 110). As a result, roads are maintained on a priority basis. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 431

User safety, resource protection, and mission needs are used to prioritize maintenance work.

Ongoing travel analyses continue to identify opportunities to treat roads for intermittent stored 

service or decommission unneeded roads to reduce the overall road maintenance burden.

Table 110. Average Annual Road Maintenance Accomplished

Miles of Open Roads in 2012

(Op. ML 2,3,4, &5)

Average Miles Receiving 

Annual Maintenance Over Xyear Period

Average % of Open Roads 

Receiving Annual Maintenance 

Over X-Year Period

5,009 1,296 20%

Source – Road Accomplishment Reports from 2008-2012

Roads identified during travel analysis as needed for the long term, but not needed in the short

term, are often placed in a level 1 maintenance category. This level usually involves physical 

closure of the road for a period of 1 year or longer and sometimes includes treatment for 

intermittent stored service (but not decommissioning).These roads are not open for motor vehicle 

use until needed again.

Trail Maintenance

Although maintenance needs for trails are generally less than for the road system, allocated trail 

maintenance funding generally falls short of what is needed to keep all trails on the IPNF in 

optimal conditions for all managed uses. Partners and volunteers play a vital role in assisting 

with the forest trail maintenance but prioritization is necessary. Yearly trail maintenance is 

prioritized as follows:

• Priority 1: Maintenance activities that would correct an unsafe condition relative to 

management objective;

• Priority 2: Maintenance activities that minimize unacceptable resource and trail 

damage;

• Priority 3: Trail Use; and

• Priority 4: Maintenance activities that fully restore the trail to the planned design 

standard.

Table 111 displays the average annual trail maintenance accomplished on the IPNF.

Table 111. Average Annual Trail Maintenance Accomplished

Miles of Standard/Terra Trails Average Miles Receiving 

Maintenance in 2011 & 2012

Average % of Trails Receiving 

Maintenance Over in 2011 & 

2012

2,690 1,145 43%

Source – Source – Infra: Trail Module 7/2013

Recreation

The IPNF finalized its Recreation Facility Analysis Report in 2007 and developed a Recreation 

Niche Statement with public involvement. The niche serves as the vision for the Forest’s 

recreation program and ensures unique attributes are maintained for future generations. The 

following is the IPNF recreation niche developed in 2007:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

432 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Endless Waters, Edges, and Islands

Emphasis: From the shores of big lakes to the banks of winding rivers, the IPNF 

create a tapestry of land and water in the handle of North Idaho. The Forest has 

been and continues to be the lifeline for local communities. Silver, gold, and 

large timber drew settlers to the area. Remnant roads that once led to work now 

lead to play, and treasures sought are now recreational-water-based activities, 

winter uses and the traditional hiking, hunting, fishing, and gathering.

Forestwide Settings, Special Places, and Values: More than half the state’s 

surface water is on the Forest. These vast lakes and miles of rivers support a 

world class fishery. Rich in wildlife, the Forest is home to large game such as 

elk and deer, as well as species such as grizzly bears, wolves, and caribou that 

add to the sense of “wildness.” From lush evergreen mountains to the shores of 

big waters, the IPNF have a rich history that continues to link families and 

forest. Historic cabins and lookouts dot the landscape, while significant places 

such as Hiawatha Trail, Marble Creek Historic District, and the Pulaski Tunnel 

Trail add depth to the heritage. Fire has, and continues to play an important role 

in the landscape’s evolution. Forest roads and trails trace the past of American 

Indians, mining, logging, and Forest Service History. Today these roads provide 

easy recreational access.

Forestwide Activities/Opportunities/Experiences: The Forest is easily accessed 

and has a growing and changing visitor base. Most of the visitation is local with 

strong ties to the Forest. Interpretation and education products weave a thread of 

the rich history into the visitor’s experience. Traditional uses include hiking, 

hunting, fishing, gathering, biking, water-based camping, and boating. 

Recreation rental cabins and lookouts across the Forest provide overnight 

opportunities and a taste of history. Winter activities are snow dependent and 

focus on snowmobiling.

Outdoor recreation is the fastest growing use within the national forests and grasslands; a use 

expected to increase in the future. The latest National Visitor Use Monitoring was completed in 

2009 on the IPNF (USDA Forest Service 2010 June). This monitoring program provides reliable 

information about recreation visitors to NFS-managed lands at the national, regional, and forest 

level. National Visitor Use Monitoring is a recreation sampling system that provides statistical 

recreation use.

Visitation is estimated through a combination of traffic counts and surveys of exiting visitors, 

and provides a snapshot of estimated use. Visitation estimates for 2009 on the IPNF is 1,277,700 

national forest visits. Over 85 percent of these visits were from people who lived within 100 

miles of the Forest. Visitors participated in the activities shown in table 112 during their visit

(which also indicates visitor-identified primary activities).

Most of the visits to the Forest are day visits. The average visit to the IPNF lasts about 19 hours; 

however, over half of the visits to this Forest last less than 4.5 hours. Less than 5 percent of the 

visits involve recreating at more than one location on the Forest. Because of the local nature of 

the visiting population, frequent visitors are quite common. More than 22 percent of all visits are 

made by people who visit more than 50 times per year. Conversely, less than 30 percent of the 

visits are made by people who visit, at most, 5 times per year.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 433

Relaxing is an activity for more than half the visits to this Forest, although only about 10 percent 

indicated it was their primary activity. Other popular activities include viewing natural features 

(42.7 percent), hiking/walking (40.7 percent), viewing wildlife (32.7 percent), and driving for 

pleasure (30.5 percent). Hunting is the most commonly identified primary activity (17.6 percent), 

followed by viewing natural features (10.4 percent).

Since the 1980s, both motorized and non-motorized recreation use of the roads, trails, and 

general forest areas have increased. Foot, horse, and mountain bike travel have increased, and to 

a lesser degree, cross-country and backcountry skiing and river use have increased as well.

Table 112. Visitor Participation by Recreation Activity on IPNF (FY 2009)

Activity % of Visitors Who 

Participated in this 

Activity1

% Who said it was 

their Primary Activity2 Average Hours per 

Visit Spent in Primary 

Activity3

Backpacking 1.0 0.3 45.0

Bicycling 6.0 3.8 3.4

Cross-country Skiing 0.6 0.5 2.6

Developed Camping 9.8 4.7 55.0

Downhill Skiing 4.5 4.1 5.0

Driving for Pleasure 30.5 4.1 2.5

Fishing 11.3 7.0 6.4

Gathering Forest Products 15.8 6.3 3.9

Hiking/Walking 40.7 9.8 2.9

Horseback Riding 1.4 1.2 1.9

Hunting 20.4 17.6 9.5

Motorized Trail Activity 8.5 3.9 3.7

Motorized Water Activities 2.3 0.5 5.8

Nature Center Activities 3.4 0.3 3.2

Nature Study 5.8 0.2 4.3

No Activity Reported 0.0 0.0

Non-motorized Water 2.2 0.7 4.0

OHV Use 4.6 0.1 6.1

Other Motorized Activity 0.4 0.0 6.0

Other Non-motorized 6.0 1.1 9.5

Picnicking 8.8 1.0 4.0

Primitive Camping 7.7 1.2 44.7

Relaxing 52.4 9.7 13.6

Resort Use 0.6 0.1 42.7

Snowmobiling 5.5 4.6 5.2

Some Other Activity 11.7 6.8 2.2

Viewing Natural Features 42.4 10.4 6.6

Viewing Wildlife 32.7 0.5 3.3

Visiting Historic Sites 4.8 0.6 1.2

1 Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100%.

2 Respondents were asked to select one activity as their main reason for visiting; some selected more than one, so this 

column may total more than 100%.

3 Computed only for those who indicated the activity was the main activity.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

434 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

With increased use, recreationists are vying for quality recreation space, which may sometimes 

overlap in the same area at the same time. This can manifest itself in conflicts between 

recreationists that use non-motorized and those that use motorized modes of travel. Recreation 

conflicts occur when a user participating in one recreation activity negatively impacts the 

recreation experience of another user. In some cases, there are conflicts between non-motorized 

recreationist’s experiences (e.g., horseback riders, hikers, and mountain bikers).

Although conflicts occur, overall satisfaction with IPNF recreation management remains high as 

shown in table 113 from the 2009 National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey.

Table 113. Percent Satisfaction Index1 Scores from Recreation Users (FY 2009)

Items Rated Satisfied Survey Respondents (%)

Developed Sites2 Undeveloped Areas (GFAs)

Developed Facilities (includes restroom 

cleanliness and facility condition)

85.1 81.2

Access (includes parking availability, parking lot 

condition, road condition and trail condition)

88.8 80.4

Services (includes availability of information, 

signage, employee helpfulness)

84.0 64.4

Perception of Safety 96.9 87.3

1 This is a composite rating. It is the proportion of satisfaction ratings scored by visitors as satisfied or very satisfied. It is 

computed as the percentage of all ratings for the elements within the grouping that are at or above the target level, and 

indicates the percent of all visits where the person was satisfied with agency performance.

2 This category includes both Day Use and Overnight Use Developed Sites.

Recreation Setting

The Forest Service uses ROS to describe different recreation experiences using setting, activities, 

and experience. There are six ROS classes which apply to the IPNF: primitive, semi-primitive 

non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban.

In 1987, the IPNF did not quantify how many acres on the Forest were classified in the various 

ROS classes. Instead, the various MAs were identified as being appropriate for one or more of 

the ROS classes.

Current inventoried ROS maps are primarily based on existing closure areas, the IPNF MVUMs 

for summer ROS classifications, and the winter-groomed snowmobile route system for winter 

ROS classifications. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Inventory Mapping ProtocolDecember 2003 was used for this analysis. It defines summer ROS as May 1 through December 

1, and winter ROS as December 2 through April 30. These two seasons were used as they reflect 

the primary recreation seasons of motorized and non-motorized opportunities. Hunting season is 

included in the summer season, although additional areas are closed to motor vehicle use during 

hunting season. The inventoried ROS summer and winter classifications are displayed in table 

114.

Table 114. Forestwide Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Area, 2010

ROS Class Percent of Area

Summer Winter

Primitive 5 5
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 435

ROS Class Percent of Area

Summer Winter

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 53 14

Semi-Primitive Motorized 18 67

Roaded Natural 22 12

Rural 2 2

Urban <1 <1

The ROS provides a framework for analyzing changes to recreation settings as a result of 

potential management activities under each alternative. The ROS can be used to estimate 

changes to recreation settings and experiences resulting from potential development activities. 

The potential effects of possible management actions on recreation settings and experiences are 

represented in the estimated ROS inventory shifts under each alternative.

Developed Recreation Sites

Generally, developed recreation sites have kept pace with changing demands and expectations. 

Developed recreation facilities include a variety of distinctly defined areas where facilities have 

been developed for concentrated public use, either by the Forest Service or private parties. 

Privately developed or managed facilities are approved by the Forest Service and are permitted 

under a special use authorization or partnership agreement. Redesign and reconstruction of 

developed sites have been ongoing with primary changes focused on updating campgrounds for 

RV use, improving accessibility, and improving services such as potable water and sanitation. In 

some cases, expansions have occurred to increase capacity. Reservation systems, host programs, 

and fee programs have helped keep pace with the changing demands and expectations.

Developed recreation facilities have been constructed to offer recreation experiences, protect 

resources, or otherwise manage concentrations of visitor activities. These facilities range from a 

complete campground with water systems, toilets, and fully developed sites; to a simple bulletin 

board or parking barrier at a parking lot. The IPNF manages a wide array of developed recreation 

sites, as do most other national forests across the country.

The IPNF currently manages 81 major developed recreation sites (Development Level 3 to 5), 

including the types and numbers of sites displayed in table 115. These numbers have changed 

little from what was in place when the Forest Plan was completed in 1987. The current capacity 

of all developed sites (Development Level 0 to 5, excluding downhill ski areas) is just over 

9,7961 persons at one time2

. While persons at one time are a snapshot in time of the number of 

people who can occupy developed recreation sites, occupancy rates have generally increased 

over time as more recreationists are using the same number of developed recreation sites.

Campground occupancy, or demand, is based on campground host records at sites with complete 

records during the managed season. Not all sites have complete records. Occupancy is highest in 

campgrounds and day use sites adjacent to the three large North Idaho lakes (Coeur d'Alene, 

Pend Oreille, and Priest Lakes). In addition, because of their proximity to the urban centers of 

 1 Total persons at one time from 166 developed sites on the IPNF (including all Development Scales: 0─5) 2 A measure of facility or site designed recreation carrying capacity, particularly for developed sites. 

National conventions include 5 persons per family picnic/camp unit, 3.5 persons per parking lot stall at a 

trailhead or visitor center, 1.5 persons per motorcycle parking stall and 40 persons per tour bus parking 

stall.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

436 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Coeur d'Alene and Spokane, the campgrounds along the North Fork Coeur d'Alene River and 

Little North Fork Coeur d'Alene River are busy and experience high occupancy rates.

Table 115. Developed Recreation Sites: Number and Capacity (Development Level 3 to 5)

Sites — Public Developed Number of Sites Capacity – PAOT1

Boating Sites 10 569

Cabin and Lookout Rentals 13 82

Emerald Creek Garnet Area 1 90

Family Campgrounds 39 4,238

Fishing Areas 3 57

Group Sites or Picnic Areas 12 1,053

Swimming Areas 3 105

Total Public Developed 81 6,194

1 – Persons At One Time (PAOT)

Dispersed Recreation

There is difficulty in meeting the array of expectations for dispersed recreation. Resources and 

management capability has not kept pace with the change and increase in demand. Dispersed 

recreation occurs on areas of the Forest outside of developed sites or general forest areas where 

recreation facilities, if present, are primarily designed for resource protection. Dispersed sites 

have little to no investment, with rustic or rudimentary improvements (barriers or signs) 

provided for resource protection. Visitors often seek these less developed settings to get away 

from crowds, and they are an important component of the Forest’s recreation niche. More 

people, doing more things, over larger and more diverse areas challenge the Forest’s ability to 

effectively manage all the various uses.

Dispersed sites are spread across the IPNF. They include: camping day use areas, access points 

for fishing and boating, trailheads, and larger areas used for hunting camps in the fall. A more 

formal inventory of dispersed sites is currently underway but will take several years to complete.

Dispersed recreation typically takes place concurrent with motorized travel. As roads, trails, and 

areas are restricted or closed to motorized travel, motorized use shifts from these areas and 

results in increases on those roads, trails, and areas that remain open to motor vehicles where a 

similar experience can be found. A sense of loss of freedom has occurred from the reduction of 

traditionally open roads available for motor vehicle access. For example, the goal to ensure 

threatened and endangered species security has required the Forest to adapt to evolving 

requirements, resulting in increases in access restrictions. These increased restrictions generate a 

strong reaction from forest users who are dissatisfied with the reduction in designated (open)

roads available for their use.

Non-motorized user concerns revolve around conflicts with motorized users. These concerns 

include: noise, the smell of exhaust, dust, safety issues, wildlife displacement and harassment, 

and resource damage.

The 2006─2010 Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan 

(SCORTP) (Idaho Parks and Recreation 2006) summarize some current statistics and trends. For 

example, geocaching has experienced the largest percent increase of people participating in this 

activity (154 percent). In 2002, when the first survey was taken, most people had not even heard 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 437

of the activity. Although there has probably been a significant increase in geocaching, the 

number of people participating is still fairly small, with only 4.8 percent of the population 

considered regular participants or enthusiasts. Even so, geocaching is already approaching the 

regular participant or enthusiast level of horseback riding (6.9 percent of Idahoans).

The Idaho State SCORTP estimated berry picking and mushroom gathering participation each 

increased by more than 50 percent. Perhaps this is a reflection of the local foods movement. 

Participation frequency of consumptive gathering, which also includes the collection of 

firewood, is quite high with 15.4 percent of Idahoans classified as regular participants and 5.5 

percent as enthusiasts.

This same report stated participation in outdoor photography has increased significantly in recent 

years (44 percent). Of Idahoans surveyed in 2005, 70 percent participated in the activity of 

outdoor photography. Additionally, more than half of Idahoans are considered regular 

participants or enthusiasts. This increase is likely due to the emergence of digital photography, 

which makes picture taking easier and less expensive than in recent years.

According to the Idaho State SCORTP, the participation increase in ATV riding is estimated at 

26 percent. Registration of ATVs and motorbikes in Idaho increased 75 percent from 2001 to 

2006. However, the increase in registrations from 2002 to 2004 was 29 percent, closely matching 

the reported increase in participation. All partner agencies, including the IPNF and Idaho State 

Parks and Recreation Department, have placed additional resources into education programs and 

campaigns encouraging ATV riders to use their machines responsibly.

The Idaho State SCORTP discovered some interesting concerns among Idaho residents. 

Protecting water quality is clearly of the highest importance to Idahoans when it comes to 

outdoor recreation. While most of the SCORTP partner agencies have nothing to do with 

regulating water quality, all of them have numerous opportunities to protect and even improve it. 

Water quality should be a key concern when designing and constructing new outdoor recreation 

facilities of every type, from trails to visitor center parking lots.

In addition, the issue of access to outdoor recreation is nearly as important as water quality in the 

minds of Idahoans. Protecting access to existing public lands is the second most important issue, 

but access also shows up elsewhere on the list. Providing additional access to public lands rose 

to number six in 2005 from number eleven 3 years earlier. Acquiring land for recreational use 

and providing more access for the disabled also remain important to Idahoans. Providing more 

community trails is an access issue of increasing concern. At the same time, a growing 

awareness of the problems posed by obesity will likely result in a call for pathways connecting 

neighborhoods to nearby recreation sites.

Recreation Special Use Authorizations

The national forests also offer recreation opportunities in partnership with commercial and noncommercial entities by granting special use authorizations or entering into partnership

agreements. These partnerships help provide recreational opportunities on national forests that 

the Forest Service does not directly provide. Table 116 displays the current recreation special 

uses permitted on the IPNF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

438 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 116. IPNF Recreation Special Use Authorizations

Special Use Category # of Authorizations

Boat Dock & Wharf 4

Campground and Picnic Ground 1

Golf Course 1

Marina 1

Outfitter and Guide 23

Park, Playground 1

Recreation Events (vary from year to year) 12

Recreation Lodging, Gov’t Buildings 1

Recreation Residence 138

Resort 4

Shelter 2

Target Range 1

Winter Recreation Resort 1

Total 190

Source: INFRA: Special Uses Data System (SUDS) 1/2010

Scenery/Landscape Management

As area populations increase, so does visitation to area national forests. Driving for pleasure and 

viewing scenery have become some of the most popular national forest activities as shown from 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey data. Visitors expect a certain level of “naturalness” in 

the recreation and tourism settings they pursue. Even individuals who have never visited the 

IPNF expect a certain level of “natural intactness” in these landscapes. This natural beauty 

contributes to their sense of well-being and quality of life. The scenic integrity of national forest 

landscapes (which measures landscapes' inherent scenic attractiveness and the public's visual 

expectations for naturalness) is the system by which projected alterations in national forest 

landscapes are evaluated.

National forest visitors are attracted to a variety of areas for the natural character they possess. 

Visitors and residents value the forested backdrops that frame the surrounding communities. The 

transportation network and associated use areas provide visitors with scenic routes and vantage 

points to experience the region's vast expanse of rugged backcountry.

The IPNF has a variety of landscape character types created by glaciers, rivers, continental 

uplifting, and mass wasting. The Forest contains many areas of outstanding scenic beauty unique 

to the Northern Rocky Mountain Region. The American public generally recognizes that NFS 

lands with exceptional scenic resources are valuable public assets that should be protected and 

managed for the enjoyment of future generations. To some degree, most landscapes on the IPNF 

contain some level of alteration from past human activities, including fire, mining, logging, and 

ranching, even though many of these changes are not readily visible to most forest visitors. The 

most visible effects to scenery from past human activities have generally been caused by the 

removal of vegetation in patterns that contrast with the natural forms, lines, colors, and textures 

of the natural landscape. Forest vegetation management is generally done via timber sales or 

prescribed burning. Other activities that require alteration of landforms often result in more 

permanent changes to the landscape. Examples of these types of activities include: roads, trails, 

buried utilities, mines, reservoirs, communication sites, and gravel pits. Structures such as power 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 439

lines, communication sites, buildings, fences, and other structures located on NFS lands also 

have potential to be noticeable and create negative visual changes.

National forest travel routes have been evaluated for the estimated level of public concern for 

alterations to the landscape. Travel routes classified as concern Level 1 (including those routes 

that are designated state scenic highways or national forest scenic byways) indicate that the 

public is most concerned about alterations; concern Level 3 indicates the least concern. In 

evaluating landscape visibility, landscape managers have recognized that "distance" is one of the 

primary perceptual factors for determining whether alterations are visually noticed. Foreground 

distance zones reveal even the subtlest alterations; background distance zones are able to absorb 

greater alterations, provided color contrasts are minimized.

Landscape management is used to meet people's scenery expectations for the management of 

national forest landscapes. To ensure that scenic integrity is maintained, six levels of scenic 

integrity objectives have been established, derived from the landscape's attractiveness and the 

public's expectations or concerns. Each scenic integrity objective depicts a level of scenic 

integrity used to direct landscape management: very high (unaltered), high (appears unaltered), 

moderate (slightly altered), low (moderately altered), and very low (heavily altered).

Generally, landscapes that are most attractive (as classified by scenic attractiveness class) and are 

viewed from popular travel routes (as classified by concern level) are assigned higher scenic 

integrity objectives. The methodology for establishing scenic integrity objectives is provided in 

Agriculture Handbook 701.

The 1987 Forest Plan utilized the Visual Management System described in the publication titled 

National Forest Landscape Management (USDA 1977). The Visual Quality Objectives shown in 

table 117 were established for the 1987 Plan.

Table 117. 1987 Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives

Visual Quality Objective Acres % of Forest

Preservation 150,200 6%

Retention 277,600 11%

Partial Retention 880,400 36%

Modification and Maximum 

Modification

1,170,300 47%

Total 2,478,500 100%

In some landscapes, human influence is evident through changes in vegetation patterns, landform 

alterations, or the introduction of structural elements. For the most part, national forest 

landscapes in the planning area remain natural-appearing in character, with many of the valued 

landscape attributes still intact. Most of the human-influenced alterations affecting landscape 

scenic integrity are evident where vegetation management activities have occurred.

Environmental Consequences

Transportation System

The 1987 Forest Plan and ROD anticipated an increase in the first decade in the total number of 

miles of NFS roads from 6,200 miles to about 8,000 miles, with an eventual total of 9,800 miles 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

440 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

by the end of the second decade. It also anticipated that approximately 50 percent to 60 percent 

of the road system would be closed to vehicle use to protect fish and wildlife habitat.

The 1987 Forest Plan prohibits new road construction in MAs 11, portions of 12, 14, and 20, or 

on about 241,082 acres.

For all action alternatives new road construction (permanent or temporary) would not be allowed

in MA1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 3 (Botanical, Geological, and Pioneer Special Areas), and 4a. New road 

construction may be allowed under certain conditions in MA2a and 2b (Wild Rivers), 3 

(Recreational and Scenic Special Areas), and MA5. New road construction would be allowed

after site-specific project planning in MA2a and 2b (Recreational Rivers) 4b, 6, and 7. 

Forestwide direction in the various resource sections would apply to road construction. Road 

construction in areas within inventoried roadless areas in Idaho will need to meet the 

requirements of the Idaho Roadless Rule. For areas within inventoried roadless areas in 

Washington or Montana, new road construction will need to meet the requirements in the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Only a minimal amount of new road construction is anticipated under the alternatives because of 

limited development and budgets. Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D it is anticipated that 

the road system would decrease over the life of the Plan because these alternatives include an 

objective to decommission or place into storage 10 to 15 miles of road annually over a 5 year 

period (FW-OBJ-AR-03). In the Coeur d'Alene geographic area, roads decommissioned would 

be reviewed for both motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities (GA-DC-AR-CDA-06).

Because MA allocation would change by alternative the areas where road construction may 

occur would vary. Table 118 summarizes, on a forestwide basis, how the alternatives would vary. 

Alternative A has the greatest percentage of the Forest allowing road construction while 

Alternative C has the least.

Table 118. Summary of Road Construction Opportunities (by acres and percent of Forest)

Road Construction Allowed Road Construction Allowed 

w/Conditions

Road Construction Not 

Allowed

Alt. A 2,117,774 ac. (84%) 138,844 ac. (6%) 241,082 ac. (10%)

Alt. B

Modified

1,577,298 ac. (63%) 710,734 ac. (28%) 209,668 ac. (8%)

Alt. C 1,502,010 ac. (60%) 616,621 ac. (25%) 379,069 ac. (15%)

Alt. D 1,657,210 ac. (66%) 639,921 ac. (26%) 200,569 ac. (8%)

As described in the “Affected Environment” section, there are currently about 8,700 miles of 

NFS roads on the IPNF. This is a result of road construction done over the last 100 years and 

road decommissioning done over the last 15 to 20 years. Given the backlog of decommissioning 

yet to be completed and the likelihood that additional roads may be identified as not being 

needed, it can be expected that the total number of miles of NFS roads will continue to be 

reduced as the Forest moves toward the minimum road network needed for safe and efficient 

travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands.

Travel Management

Road and Trail Access (excluding over-snow vehicles): There are no proposed changes to 

current road or trail designations under any alternative of the revised Forest Plan. The number of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 441

miles of roads and trails available for motor vehicle use would be the same for the four 

alternatives. Although MA direction for MA1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 2a and b (wild rivers), 3 (Botanical, 

Geological, Scenic, and Pioneer Special Areas), and MA4a would generally not permit motor 

vehicle use, existing designations as displayed on the current MVUMs remain unchanged under 

all alternatives.

When considering the number of acres where motor vehicle recreation opportunities exist, it is 

important to note that this refers only to those acres in MAs where roads or trails may be 

constructed and/or designated for such use. As shown in table 119, Alternative C will result in 

the least number of acres where routes could be designated for motor vehicle use. In comparison, 

Alternative D will allow about 150,100 more acres where routes could be designated for this use. 

This is because there will be fewer acres recommended for wilderness in Alternative D than in 

Alternative C. Alternatives B Modified and D will have relatively the same number of acres 

where roads and trails could be designated for motor vehicle use (approximately 11,000 acre 

difference between the two).

Motor Vehicle Use (excluding over-snow vehicles) Areas: Currently, the IPNF does not allow 

cross-country motor vehicle use in any area. Motor vehicle use is only allowed on those roads 

and trails as designated on the Forest MVUMs. As there are no proposed changes in any 

alternative, the number of acres available for cross-country motor vehicle use remains 

unchanged (0 acres).

When considering the number of acres where motor vehicle recreation opportunities exist, it is 

important to note that this refers only to those acres in MAs where roads or trails may be 

constructed and/or designated for such use. Current restrictions as shown in the MVUM remain 

in effect. Management areas where motor vehicle use may be allowed are MA2a or MA2b 

(Designated or Eligible Recreational Rivers), MA3 (Recreational Special Areas), MA 4b, MA5, 

MA6, and MA7. As shown in table 119, Alternative C will result in the least amount of acres 

where motor vehicle use on roads and trails may be allowed. In comparison, Alternatives B 

Modified and D have about 139,000 additional acres where motor vehicle use on roads and trails 

may be allowed. This is because there are fewer acres of recommended wilderness in 

Alternatives B Modified and D than in Alternative C. Under all alternatives, no changes will be 

made to current motor vehicle access without site-specific project analysis and NEPA.

Over-Snow Vehicle Use: Under the 1987 Plan, over-snow vehicle use is allowed in 

recommended wilderness and RNAs. Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D this use will not 

be allowed. Areas allocated to recommended wilderness (MA1b), or established/recommended 

RNAs (MA4a) will have a legal order prohibiting over-snow vehicle use (as per 36 CFR 212.81, 

and 36 CFR 261.14) issued in conjunction with the ROD for the final revised Forest Plan. Areas 

on the Forest that are currently closed to over-snow vehicle use will also remain closed under all 

alternatives (see table 107 above).

Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, there will be a direct effect to the number of acres 

available for over-snow vehicle use based on the amount of recommended wilderness (MA1b) 

and RNAs (MA4) proposed in each. Approximately 85,800 additional acres will be closed under 

Alternative B Modified, 221,639 acres under Alternative C, and 81,611 acres under Alternative 

D.

As shown in table 119 Alternative C will result in the least number of acres available for oversnow vehicle use. Alternatives B Modified and D would result in approximately the same 

number of acres available for this use. These comparisons are based on MA standards and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

442 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

guidelines and current closed areas that would remain in affect regardless of alternative selected. 

Actual areas open or closed to over-snow vehicle use may vary due to closures necessary for 

protection of various wildlife species. These restrictions are often independent of MA 

designations.

Mechanized Use: Under the 1987 Plan mechanized use is allowed everywhere on the IPNF 

except for designated wilderness (Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area) and some of the special areas 

where pedestrian use is high (i.e., some of the cedar groves classified as botanical special areas). 

Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, mechanized use will be prohibited in recommended 

wilderness (MA1b) resulting in a direct effect on the number of acres where mechanized use is 

allowed. Any area that currently has no prohibition to mechanized use, and is proposed as 

recommended wilderness, will have a legal order prohibiting mechanized use (as per 36 CFR 

261) issued in conjunction with the ROD for the final revised Plan. As shown in table 119, 

Alternative C will provide the least number of acres available for mechanized use due to the 

acreage of recommended wilderness (MA1b). Alternatives B Modified and D would provide 

approximately the same opportunities for mechanized use.

Table 119. Summary of Access Availability of Alternatives based on MA Prescriptions and 

Currently Closed Areas that will Remain Closed in all Four Alternatives

Motor Vehicle Use May be 

Allowed on Routes or Trails

Allow Over-snow Vehicle 

Use1 Allow Mechanized Use

Alt. A2 2,399,138 ac. (96%) 2,058,281 ac. (82%) 2,485,751 ac (99.5%)2

Alt. B

Modified

2,268,390 ac. (91%) 1,972,480 ac. (79%) 2,320,853 ac. (93%)

Alt. C 2,129,490 ac. (85%) 1,836,910 ac. (74%) 2,161,075 ac. (87%)

Alt. D 2,279,590 ac. (91%) 1,976,670 ac. (79%) 2,344,882ac. (94%)

1 Acres shown are for areas that will be closed for most of the winter season (does not include the April 1 through June 

30 closure)

2 Acres shown allowing various uses for Alternative A are not indicative of current condition but what is allowed under the 

1987 Forest Plan standards and guides under MA direction with the exception of over-snow vehicle use

Hand-held Motorized Equipment: Under the 1987 Plan and current Forest Orders, use of 

hand-held motorized equipment (e.g., chainsaws) is allowed everywhere on the IPNF except for 

designated wilderness. Under the action alternatives, use of motorized equipment is prohibited in 

MA1a (designated wilderness), MA1b (recommended wilderness), and MA1e (primitive area). 

Table 120 shows the acres by alternative where hand-held motorized equipment is not allowed. 

Alternative C has the most acres of recommended wilderness and would thus have the most 

acres with this prohibition. Alternative D has the least acres of recommended wilderness and 

would thus have the least acres with this prohibition. A legal order prohibiting motorized 

equipment, except for hand-held motorized equipment used for administrative purposes within 

recommended wilderness areas, will be issued in conjunction with the ROD for the revised 

Forest Plan.

Table 120. Acres by Alternative Where Hand-held Motorized Equipment would be Prohibited

Alt A Alt B Modified Alt C Alt D

Acres where Hand-held Motorized Use is 

Allowed1 12,000 328,400 149,900 181,800

1 The use of hand-held equipment for administrative purposes is excluded
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 443

Road and Trail Maintenance

Road and trail maintenance (both recurrent and deferred) will continue to occur. Physical 

conditions will continue to be addressed through maintenance activities and be based on public 

health and safety, resource protection, and mission priorities. Annual operating budgets and 

supplemental funding will likely fluctuate with the result that maintenance accomplishments will 

vary from year to year.

The condition (e.g., drivability) of roads may vary between alternatives. This is mainly a result 

of the variability of road maintenance work that might be accomplished under the four 

alternatives. Since Alternative C has the least amount of acres allocated to general forest (MA6), 

fewer road maintenance activities may be accomplished because commercial use and associated 

maintenance is expected to be less. Under Alternative D, which has the most acres allocated to 

general forest, more commercial use might be expected and may result in the greatest amount of 

road maintenance.

Routine road maintenance work (brushing, grading, ditch, and culvert cleaning, etc.) is 

periodically performed on approximately 4,984 miles of maintenance level 2, 3, 4, and 5 roads 

and in most cases they are kept in a drivable condition for their designed use. Approximately 

3,666 miles in maintenance level 1(which includes roads treated for intermittent stored service);

however, do not receive routine maintenance work. The drivability of these maintenance level 1 

roads can be expected to continue to diminish as roads re-vegetate.

Trail maintenance will not vary with alternative because funding is only dependent on 

allocations and partnerships, and not the level of commercial use allowed under varied MA 

allocations.

Recreation

Recreation Setting

The ROS acres for Alternative A in table 121 and 122 are current inventoried, or mapped, ROS 

condition. Mapped ROS acres are primarily determined by travel routes and terrain (specifically 

slope) The ROS model used the Forest’s travel route inventory and digital elevation model to 

delineate ROS zones. Alternative B Modified, C, and D were calculated using changes in 

inventoried acres for MA ROS desired condition ranges. There is a direct effect to acres by ROS 

category by changes in MA by alternative. MAs which changed the inventoried ROS are 

primarily MA1b and MAs 5a, 5b, and 5c. The existing ROS as mapped (Alternative A) displays 

current opportunities as a result of policy, regulation, law, and site-specific analysis across the 

Forest.

Table 121. Percentage Summer Recreation Opportunity Spectrum by Alternative

Summer ROS Class Percentage of IPNF Forest Acreage by Alternative

A B Modified C D

Primitive 1% 1% 1% 2%

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 6% 56% 58% 56%

Semi-Primitive Motorized 16% 21% 20% 20%

Roaded Natural 73% 20% 19% 20%

Rural 4% 2% 2% 2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

444 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 122. Percentage Winter Recreation Opportunity Spectrum by Alternative

Winter ROS Class Percentage of IPNF Forest Acreage by Alternative

A B Modified C D

Primitive 1% 1% 1% 2%

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 6% 18% 23% 17%

Semi-Primitive Motorized 16% 67% 62% 67%

Roaded Natural 73% 12% 12% 12%

Rural 4% 2% 2% 2%

Total 100. % 100% 100% 100%

Site mitigations, user behaviors, user densities, site capability, design, and many other factors

affect recreation experiences and may affect the natural setting (depending on facilities). Visitor 

use is expected to continue to increase, regardless of alternative selected, creating the need for 

possible management actions to maintain a mix of ROS settings as described in the 

“Management Area Desired Condition” section of the revised Forest Plan. Management actions 

might include restrictions or limitations on use, such as seasonal or yearlong closures, or actions 

to encourage use such as the development of additional parking at trailheads or the installation of 

directional or interpretive signing.

The ROS inventory is helpful in establishing baseline conditions for recreation settings. In this 

analysis it was used as a macro not micro management tool. ROS can be used to show the 

general effect of alternatives to recreation settings and opportunities over broad landscapes. 

While the desired condition is to provide for a range of recreation opportunities, we recognize 

that we will not be able to meet the demands of all recreation groups equally on the IPNF.

As part of forest plan revision, the wilderness character of roadless areas is evaluated and some 

are recommended for new wilderness or additions to existing wilderness designations. MA5, 

which comprises most of the roadless areas on the Forest, is classified as semi-primitive 

motorized or non-motorized. Some existing routes (primarily trails) within MA5 are designated 

for motor vehicle use as displayed on current MVUMs.

Developed Recreation

Alternative A – No-action Alternative

Of the 81 developed recreation sites (table 115), all are managed under MA17 under the 1987 

Plan. MA17 encompasses approximately 1,700 acres. The 1987 Plan stated that existing 

developed recreation facilities would be expanded if demand increases beyond the capacity of 

the existing facilities. The 1987 Plan provides sideboards for timber harvest, recreation 

management, road construction and maintenance, and visual management within these areas. In 

general, any activity in the developed recreation areas is done to enhance a natural appearing 

environment and provide opportunities for social interchange between users.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, 16 developed recreation sites would be managed 

under MA7 (Primary Recreation Areas). MA7 encompasses about 14,200 acres and includes 

lands associated with 4th of July, Canfield Mountain, English Point, and Lookout on the Coeur 

d’Alene River District; Priest Lake on the Priest Lake District; and Sam Owen on the Sandpoint 

District.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 445

The desired condition in MA7 is to maintain and improve these recreation sites (MA7-DC-AR01). Some of the developed recreation facilities are outdated and will be upgraded as funding 

becomes available. For example, parking spurs in many of the IPNF campgrounds are too short 

for modern recreational vehicles and trailers. Another example of outdated facilities includes 

doorways on some older toilets that are too narrow for wheelchairs. Unfortunately, any need for 

additional facilities is overshadowed by a shortfall in maintenance and rehabilitation funds for 

existing facilities and the high cost of construction. As funds have become available, the trend 

has been to devote resources to upgrading the larger developed recreation sites that receive high 

levels of use. This trend is expected to continue.

MA7 also provides management direction regarding timber harvest, recreation management, 

road construction and maintenance, and scenery management within these areas. Any 

management activities in the developed recreation areas are done to provide or improve a 

specific recreation experience.

Developed recreation sites outside of MA7 will continue to be managed for recreation use and 

improved where necessary and budgets allow. The desired condition across the Forest (FW-DCAR-01) is to provide quality, well-maintained recreation facilities at key locations to 

accommodate concentrations of use, enhance the visitor’s experience, and protect the natural 

resources of the area. Recreation rental cabins and lookouts provide safe, comfortable, overnight 

facilities that allow visitors to experience and learn about the rich history of the area.

Dispersed Recreation

Effects to dispersed recreation are indirectly covered in the “Travel Management” section, 

described by the difference in acres available for designated motor vehicle use. The number of 

miles of roads and trails available for motor vehicle use (excluding consideration of over-snow 

vehicle use) would be the same for the four alternatives since there are no proposed changes to 

the currently designated route system. The number of acres available for cross-country motor 

vehicle use is the same for the four alternatives since there are no proposed changes to the areas 

currently designated for that use.

Whether or not a MA allocation allows motor vehicle use (acres where roads or trails may exist 

and be designated for such use) affects where potential dispersed use could occur. Alternative A 

provides the most area (96 percent), followed by B Modified (91 percent), D (91 percent), and C 

with the least area (85 percent).

Recreation Special Use Authorizations

In all alternatives, existing special uses would continue. Opportunities for additional recreation 

special uses may be affected by the alternative selected. Some recreation special uses, such as 

outfitter/guide operations, could be affected by the amount of area managed for semi-primitive 

non-motorized and primitive settings. Additional recommended wilderness acres may increase 

the need for traditional outfitted activities due to limitations on access. Because Alternative C 

has the most semi-primitive non-motorized and primitive ROS acres, it may have the greatest 

potential for additional types of traditional outfitter/guide operations.

No other uses are proposed in the revised Forest Plan for the areas occupied under permit for the 

138 recreation residences. Current permits in all alternatives will be continued until such time as 

conditions change. Each permit and tract will then be evaluated and no permits for additional 

uses will be approved with the revised Forest Plan.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

446 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Currently, the Forest administers one concessionaire permit authorizing a private business to 

operate and maintain Forest Service campgrounds and one concessionaire permit authorizing a 

private business to operate and maintain the Hiawatha Bike Trail. Several permits authorize the 

operation and maintenance of resorts and one ski area on the Forest. The special uses program is 

large and the administration of these permitted uses will continue in all four alternatives.

No new special use authorizations are proposed in the revised Forest Plan, so there are no 

changes to the Recreation Special Use program in any of the four alternatives.

Scenery/Landscape Management

The quality of the visitor experience may be affected by the condition of the forest environment 

encountered, depending on the number and types of manmade activities and the degree of 

deviation from the landscape’s inherent natural condition that has taken place. Each alternative 

will affect landscape character to varying degrees over time based on the amount of change from 

the natural condition that is allowed.

Alternatives C and B Modified, will enhance or protect the inherent naturalness of scenic 

landscapes on the highest number of acres. These alternatives will be most likely to provide the 

greatest public benefit and develop the most appreciation from a scenic resources standpoint.

Scenery is an integral component of all national forest settings and must be considered in the 

analysis for all activities on NFS land. Each site-specific project will be analyzed in detail to 

determine compliance with Forest Plan direction and determine if mitigation measures are 

required.

Scenic integrity objectives have a range from very high to low. The scenic integrity objectives 

for each alternative (see table 123) are based on the theme of the alternative and the mix of MAs 

in each alternative. Scenic class and existing scenic integrity level inventories were merged to 

create the composite scenery base map. Each MA has a range of proposed scenic integrity 

objectives as a guideline. These ranges are set to be compatible with the desired condition for the 

MA. The proposed scenic integrity objective categories vary by alternative based upon the 

allocation of the MAs.

Table 123. Percentage of IPNF by Scenic Integrity Objective Category

Scenic Integrity Objective Percentage of IPNF Forest Acreage by Alternative

A1 B Modified C D

Very High 7%2 7.6% 14.9% 7.6%

Very High/High 12%3 2.4% 1.5% 2.0%

High/Moderate 39%4 29.2% 26.9% 26.9%

High to Low 42%5 60.5% 56.4% 63.2%

Low 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

TOTAL 100% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 Alternative A (No-action – 1987 Forest Plan) does not have Scenic Integrity Objectives established using the Scenery 

Management System. When the 1987 Plan was completed, Scenery was described using the Visual Management 

System (USDA Forest Service 1977) with areas of the forest classified using Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) 2 In the 1987 Forest Plan, this was the percent assigned to the “Preservation” VQO

3 In the 1987 Forest Plan, this was the percent assigned to the “Retention” VQO

4 In the 1987 Forest Plan, this was the percent assigned to a “Partial Retention” VQO 5 In the 1987 Forest Plan, this was the percent assigned to a “Modification & Maximum Modification” VQO
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 447

Consequences to Access and Recreation from Forest Plan Components Associated 

with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Vegetation Management

Commercial timber harvest activities will generally result in road reconstruction and continued 

application of BMPs on existing NFS roads. New road construction is likely to be limited and 

temporary road construction used as a more common method for short-term access needs.

Administrative use of gated roads that normally prohibit motor vehicle use yearlong is likely 

when management activities such as pre-commercial thinning, invasive weed treatments, or 

other non-commercial silvicultural treatments are planned.

Because general forest (MA6) allocations are lowest in Alternative C, it would generally be 

expected to result in the least amount of vegetation management activities and result in a lower 

amount of road use compared (respectively) to Alternatives B Modified, A, and D. Consequently, 

reduced traffic (i.e., number of vehicles on roads), both commercial and administrative, can be 

expected. Associated with reduced commercial use is the reduction of road reconstruction and 

BMP work. Road maintenance activities done in conjunction with commercial use would also 

occur less often since this work is only required commensurate with use.

Timber harvest has the potential to affect recreation experiences and opportunities in several 

ways. Short-term effects may include increased noise and dust levels; the sight of landscapes 

altered by differing types of harvesting; the presence of slash piles, burned areas, and roads 

constructed for timber sales; conflicts with logging trucks on roads used by other drivers or by 

bicyclists; and the removal of snow for winter log hauling from roads frequented by 

snowmobilers, cross-country skiers, and snowshoers. Users may be temporarily displaced to 

other locations because of log truck traffic, helicopter operations, and the noise from chainsaws. 

Visitors may be permanently displaced the longer a project or series of projects continue in the 

same vicinity.

Alternative D has the highest number of acres in MA6 where most of the timber harvest and 

other vegetation management activities will take place, followed by Alternatives A, B Modified, 

and C. Timber harvest and road building can create changes to the landscape, resulting in 

changes to ROS classifications. Alternative D has the greatest potential to convert semi-primitive 

settings to roaded natural settings. Alternatives A, B Modified, and C follow in descending order. 

Partial cutting could lessen the impacts to recreationists. Road development for timber 

management purposes in undeveloped areas has the potential to attract more visitors to the 

interior of the Forest where access had previously been limited. As use increases, visitors would 

experience less solitude and remoteness. Primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings 

could change to semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural settings. This change would occur 

only if the MVUM was changed in conjunction with vegetation management activities. 

Recreational benefits from timber harvest can include new roads and trails and the opportunity to 

gather firewood. In many cases, roads built for logging operations are then used by 

recreationists, although these roads typically are closed and/or decommissioned after completion 

of the vegetation management activity. Depending on resource objectives, some logging roads 

can be left open to create additional dispersed recreation opportunities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

448 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Effects from Wildlife Management

Since wildlife management does not vary between the four alternatives, the possible 

consequences to access do not vary. All four alternatives include direction contained in the 

Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (USDA Forest Service 2007 March (ROD)) and 

the Motorized Access Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Zones (USDA Forest Service 2011 November (FSEIS and ROD)). These previous decisions will 

be carried forward in all four alternatives and affect locations where motor vehicle use will be 

allowed and limit additional opportunities for over-snow vehicle use.

Forestwide wildlife management direction (i.e., FW-GDL-WL-01, 02, 03) can directly affect 

motorized recreation opportunities. Restrictions that limit types of access and seasonal closures 

during sensitive periods; such as mating, calving, and when animals emerge from dens can 

temporarily displace recreationists to other areas. The IPNF MVUMs restrict motor vehicle use 

to designated routes yearlong or seasonally, often in response to wildlife needs. Route 

designations, as displayed on the MVUMs, do not change by alternative.

Recreational benefits from wildlife management could include increased hunter and wildlife 

viewer satisfaction, as well as maintaining angler satisfaction. The effect on recreation from 

wildlife management is the same for all alternatives.

Effects from Aquatic Management

Watershed improvement activities are likely to continue. The consequences to motor vehicle 

access can be expected to be light. One common activity is the treatment of roads to reduce the 

potential for sediment production and transport to surface waters, or to provide for aquatic 

organism passage. Actions taken might include culvert removal/replacement, out-sloping of road 

prisms, or the removal of unstable fills. These types of treatments, with the exception of culvert

replacement, are generally done on roads that are not designated for motor vehicle use. Any 

roads receiving these types of treatments are often no longer drivable. On occasion these 

treatments may be completed on roads that are currently designated for motor vehicle 

(maintenance level 2, 3, 4, and 5) use, but this is expected to occur infrequently. In limited cases, 

roads receiving these types of treatments may be converted to trails which may allow other 

vehicle classes such as OHVs, UTVs, and/or motorcycles.

Recreational benefits from aquatic management could include increased satisfaction by water 

recreation users as well as those utilizing lakes and streams for fishing. The effect on recreation 

from aquatic management is the same for all alternatives.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management

Fuels management activities (e.g., prescribed burning) are likely to continue. Administrative use 

of gated roads that normally prohibit motor vehicle use yearlong is likely when these 

management activities occur.

Fire suppression actions are also likely to continue and could result in the use of gated roads as 

described above. In some cases, roads that are impassible to motor vehicle use (due to revegetation or other restrictive condition) may be opened in order to facilitate suppression actions. 

These roads would probably be used for the duration of the suppression efforts and post-fire 

work and then returned to their previous status.

Fuels management effects on recreation are similar to the effects described under vegetation 

management. An increase in fire extent, creating a more visible and long-lasting change to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Access & Recreation 449

setting, could cause a shift in recreation use. The degree of these effects is difficult to determine 

and is based on the size and intensity of a wildfire event. Prescribed fire has some level of 

predictability for time, location, and intensity, which may decrease the short-term impacts on 

visitors. These effects are common to all alternatives.

Effects from Mineral and Energy Exploration, Development, and Reclamation

The Forest Service does not initiate exploration or development of mineral or energy resources. 

Proposals for exploration and development are driven by external parties and market forces and 

regulated by existing mining law. Access and road development (long-term or temporary) is 

often associated with mineral exploration and development, but a site-specific analysis is 

required prior to any approval for exploration or development activities.

If any mine reclamation activities occur, it may require the use of existing roads. These may 

include roads that are not currently designated for motor vehicle use. They would probably be 

used for the duration of the reclamation work and then returned to their previous status.

Recreation could be affected by mineral exploration and extraction in all alternatives. Nonmotorized settings could potentially change to motorized settings. Short-term effects may 

include noise and visual impacts from open-pit or underground mining operations. In the longterm, effects may include: development from a more naturally appearing landscape; new 

permanent underground or open pit mines and physical structures; and new roads and road 

corridors constructed for mining or drilling operations that may change the recreation setting 

(ROS).

The potential for oil and gas development on the IPNF is low. Well sites and other facilities 

would affect national forest visitors depending on the location of development and the setting 

affected.

Cumulative Effects

Access

Access across the Forest is likely to be influenced by a variety of factors. Given the mixed land 

ownership (state lands, corporate timberlands) in and around the IPNF and the continuing 

management actions taken on these lands, there may be options for new access opportunities 

through cooperative and cost-share agreements.

A gradual rise in population is a general trend in the region and this often leads to increased use 

of forest roads and trails. The degree of change in traffic by the public will likely vary due to 

economic conditions (e.g., energy costs) and other demographics.

Commercial traffic (timber hauling) can be expected to fluctuate to some degree, relative to 

vegetation management activities. Market conditions and other external factors can often 

influence activity levels. These traffic conditions are usually limited to relatively small 

geographic areas and short periods of time. Hauling occurs more often during the summer 

months, but is not uncommon during the winter months as well.

Change in ownership of private lands can result in continued requests for road access across NFS 

lands. Depending on the circumstances, these may be requests for Forest or private road special 

use authorizations. Depending on the terms and conditions written into any new authorizations, 

opportunities for access to NFS lands may be created.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

450 Access & Recreation Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

State and local government agencies with road management authority can be expected to 

continue to maintain their existing road network across the Forest. Some changes such as 

widening, resurfacing, and bridge replacements are probable but are dependent on budgets and 

funding allocations. The likelihood of jurisdiction of NFS roads being passed to other public 

road agencies is low.

Recreation

The IPNF has experienced many changes in recreation since the Forest was established, and 

even over the life of the 1987 Plan. Initially, recreation was light and concentrated in only a few 

popular areas. There were few campgrounds or other sites developed until the Civilian 

Conservation Corps era, when many developed sites and trails were constructed. Another major 

boom in recreation occurred after World War II through the early to mid-1960s, as post-war 

populations started heading to the national forests, demanding more and better recreation 

facilities.

Since the 1970s, interest in and appreciation of, the environment has increased national forest 

recreation visitation and has shifted activities and expectations. As temperatures increase during 

the summer and a majority of the Forest is free from snow cover, many people venture out onto 

the national forests for relief from the heat and to pursue traditional outdoor recreational 

opportunities.

Technical advancements in over-snow vehicles now allow winter visitors to travel many places 

where they were unable to travel as recently as 5 years ago. The invention of the ATV has added 

a new motorized use in the summer and allows many people to travel on routes into areas that 

they may never have been able to travel into previously. Lastly, the invention of the mountain 

bike has added a summer non-motorized use that was not considered when the 1987 Forest Plan 

was written.

All of these issues, along with several others, have led to more crowded recreation experiences

during peak use times, increasing levels and range of demands on natural resources and resource 

managers, and more conflicts among the users themselves.

Continuing changes in equipment technology used for recreational purposes on the Forest will 

have impacts as new uses, or existing uses change the ease of access or areas where people 

recreate. These changes in uses may alter the recreational experience in some areas. Those who 

pursue recreation opportunities, such as hiking or back-country skiing in remote settings, will be 

more affected than other users.

All alternatives emphasize a mix of recreation opportunities providing today’s recreationists with 

reasonable assurances of future motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities. 

Alternative D may provide slightly more recreation opportunities toward the developed end of 

the ROS classes by accelerating development of the Forest with a variety of management 

actions. Some values such as remoteness, solitude, and wildlife-related recreation opportunities 

may be reduced in Alternative D. Alternative C proposes the least amount of forest management,

thereby emphasizing the primitive and semi-primitive classes of recreational opportunities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Lands/Special Uses 451

Lands/Special Uses

Introduction

This section addresses landownership administration and adjustments and special uses of NFS 

lands on the IPNF.

Management of landownership includes survey and marking of landlines and other boundaries, 

purchase and exchange of lands with private parties and non-federal government entities, 

handling of title claims and other assertions of title, and acquisition of rights-of-way.

Adjustments of land ownership can occur through congressionally mandated conveyances, 

exchanges, and acquisitions, or through Forest Service administrative activities.

The objectives of the Forest Service landownership adjustment program (FSM 5402) are to:

• Achieve the optimum landownership pattern to provide for the protection and 

management of resource uses to meet the needs of the nation now and in the future;

• Avoid land use conflicts with non-federal landowners by settling land claims equitably 

and promptly; and

• Provide resource administrators readily accessible and understandable title information 

affecting the status and use of lands and resources they administer.

Land occupancy and use by private parties and other government entities is managed through the 

issuance of special use authorizations. Authorized special uses on the IPNF include industrial or 

commercial uses, private uses, and a variety of recreational uses.

All occupancy, use, or improvements on NFS lands that are not directly related to timber harvest, 

grazing, mining activities, and recreation are referred to as ‘non-recreation special uses.’ 

Typically, non-recreation special uses includes: roads, utilities, easements, storage facilities, and 

agricultural improvements. Recreation special uses include: resorts, ski areas, outfitter & guides, 

and a variety of uses that provide access to NFS lands by commercial ventures.

Use and occupancy of NFS lands may be authorized when such use is determined to be in the 

public interest.

Legal and Administrative Framework

The following statutory authorities govern landownership adjustments and the issuance and 

administration of special use authorizations on NFS lands:

Law and Executive Orders

• Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 477-482, 551): This act authorizes 

the Secretary of Agriculture to issue rules and regulations for the occupancy and use of the 

national forests. This is the basic authority for authorizing use of NFS lands for other than 

rights-of-way.

• Transfer Act of February 1905 (33 Stat. 628): This act transferred the Forest Reserves to 

the USDA.

• Preservation of American Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. § 431 et seq.): This 

act authorizes permits for archeological and paleontological exploration involving 

excavation, removal, and storage of objects of antiquity or permits necessary for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

452 Lands/Special Uses Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

investigative work requiring site disturbance or sampling which results in the collection of 

such objects.

• The Hellgate Treaty of 1855: The Flathead, Kootenai, and Upper Pend d'Oreilles Indian 

Tribes reserved rights under the Hellgate Treaty of 1855 (July 16, 1855). These rights 

include the "right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens 

of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing; together with the privilege of 

hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and 

unclaimed land." The federal government has trust responsibilities to tribes under a 

government-to-government relationship to ensure that the tribes reserved rights are 

protected. Consultation with the tribes in early phases of project planning helps the Forest 

Service meet their trust responsibilities.

• Occupancy Permits Act of March 4, 1915 (16 U.S.C. § 497 et seq.) as amended: This act 

authorizes use and occupancy on national forest land for recreational purposes including 

resorts and recreation residences.

• The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended on November 16, 1973 (30 U.S.C. 

185(1)): This act authorizes the issuance of permits and easements for oil and gas pipelines. 

It requires annual payments in advance which represent fair market rental value and provides 

for reimbursement to the government for administrative and other costs incurred in 

monitoring, construction (including costs for preparing required environmental analysis and 

documentation), operation, maintenance, and termination of oil and gas pipelines.

• General Exchange Act of March 20, 1922 (16 U.S.C. 485, 486): This act authorized the 

Forest Service to consolidate its holdings in national forests where a large percentage of 

private lands were intermingled with forest lands. It made possible the exchange of 

inholdings within national forests for private lands of equal value and within the same state.

• Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937 as amended (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012):

Title III of this act directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to develop programs of 

land conservation and use to protect, improve, develop, and administer the land acquired and 

to construct structures thereon needed to adapt the land to beneficial use. Under the act, the 

USDA may issue leases, licenses, permits, term permits, or easements for most uses, except 

rights-of-way.

• Section 7 of the Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 490, 504, 504a, 555, 557, 

571c, 572, 579a, 580c-5801, 581i-1): This act authorizes special-use permits not to exceed 

30 years duration for the use of structures or improvements under the administrative control 

of the Forest Service and for the use of land in connection therewith, without acreage 

limitation.

• Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9701): This act 

provides authority for agency heads to charge fees for services or benefits provided by the 

agency that are fair and based on fair market value and cost to the Government. Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-25 further defines this authority and 

requires agencies to establish user fees based on sound business management principles.

• Permits for Public Buildings and Other Public Works Act of September 3, 1954 (68 

Stat. 1146; 43 U.S.C. 931c, 931d): This act authorizes permits, term permits, leases, or 

easements at the fair market value, not to exceed thirty-years duration, to states, counties, 

cities, municipalities, or other public agencies without acreage limitation for the construction 

and operation of public buildings or other public works, exclusive of rights-of-way.

• Highway Act of August 27, 1958 (23 U.S.C. 317), supplemented by the Act of October 

15, 1966 (49 U.S.C. 1651): This act authorizes the Federal Highway Administration to grant 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Lands/Special Uses 453

easements to States for highways that are part of the federal-aid system or that are 

constructed under the provision of chapter 2 of the Highway Act. The Forest Service 

consents to the grant of these easements in a form agreed upon by the two agencies and upon 

the state highway agency's execution of stipulations. This is the only authority for granting 

rights-of-way for projects on the federal-aid system or projects constructed under the 

provisions of chapter 2 of the Highway Act (FSM 2731).

• Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136): This act establishes 

requirements for special use authorizations in designated wilderness areas for temporary 

structures, commercial public services and access to valid mining claims and non-federal 

lands. Under this act, Presidential approval is necessary for the establishment of new water 

facilities, power projects, and transmission lines. Except for the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 1980, this act is the exclusive authority for rightsof-way occurring within designated wilderness areas.

• Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of September 3, 1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

4601-6a(c)): Section 4(c) of this act authorizes permits for recreation, such as group 

activities, organized events, motorized recreational vehicle use, and other specialized 

recreation activities of limited duration.

• National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 532-38): This act 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to grant temporary or permanent easements to 

landowners who join the Forest Service in providing a permanent road system that serves 

lands administered by the Forest Service and lands or resources of the landowner. It also 

authorizes the grant of easements to public road agencies for public roads that are not a part 

of the federal-aid system (FSM 2732).

• Sisk Act of December 4, 1967, as amended (16 U.S.C. 484a): This act authorizes the 

exchange of lands with states and local governments.

• The Act of November 16, 1973 (30 U.S.C. 185): This act, amending Section 28 of the 1920 

Mineral Leasing Act, authorizes the Forest Service to issue authorizations for oil and gas 

pipelines and related facilities located wholly on NFS land. When the lands are under the 

jurisdiction of two or more federal agencies, authority for issuance is reserved to the USDI, 

BLM, subject to approval by the agencies involved.

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771):

Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) authorizes the Secretary 

of Agriculture to issue permits, leases, or easements to occupy, use, or traverse NFS lands. 

FLPMA directs the United States to receive fair market value unless otherwise provided for 

by statute and provides for reimbursement of administrative costs in addition to the 

collection of land use fees (43 U.S.C. 1764(g)).

• a. Except in designated Wilderness Areas, Alaska, and specifically excepted situations, 

FLPMA is the only authority for all forms of use involving:

○ (1) Transportation, distribution, or storage of water;

○ (2) Transportation, distribution, or storage of liquids or gases other than water 

and other than oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid, or gas fuels, or their refined 

products;

○ (3) Transportation of solid materials and associated facilities for storing such 

materials;

○ (4) Generation, transmission, and distribution of electrical energy;

○ (5) Transmission or reception of electronic signals and other means of 

communication;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

454 Lands/Special Uses Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

○ (6) Transportation facilities outside of wilderness, except those rights issued in 

connection with commercial recreation facilities, authorized by the Federal 

Highway Act (FSM 2731), or the National Forest Road and Trail Act (FRTA) of 

October 13, 1964 (FSM 2732). The FLPMA is also used for granting rights-ofway to those otherwise qualified for FRTA easements, but who elect to pay a 

road-use fee at the time of commercial hauling instead of paying their share of 

road costs at the time the easement is issued. For further direction of FLPMA 

road rights-of-ways see FSM 2733; and

○ (7) Other transportation systems or facilities that are in the public interest, 

including those that would arise from future technological advances.

• b. Section 504g of Title V (Public Law 98-300) exempts facilities financed through the 

Rural Electrification Administration from federal land use fees. This section also 

provides for recovery of administrative costs from those uses.

• c. Section 501(b)(3) of Title V (Act of October 27, 1986; 100 Stat. 3047; commonly 

referred to as "Colorado Ditch Bill") expanded the authority of the Secretary of 

Agriculture to:

○ (1) Issue free conditional easements for certain water conveyance systems 

crossing NFS lands;

○ (2) Authorize lump-sum payments for uses on NFS lands; and

○ (3) Administer uses on NFS lands authorized under previous acts that were 

granted or issued by the Secretary of the Interior.

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of August 11, 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996): This act 

states the policy of the United States to preserve and protect the rights of Native Americans 

to reasonable access and use NFS lands for exercising their traditional cultural religious 

beliefs and practices. This act does not grant authority to issue authorizations.

• Archeological Resources Protection Act of October 31, 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa): This act 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits for archeological research, 

investigations, studies, and excavations.

• Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C 3210):

• a. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) provides numerous 

authorities related to access that are specific to national forests in Alaska (except for sec. 

1323(a), which applies to all NFS lands; see the following paragraph b). The Regional 

Forester, Region 10, shall prepare Manual supplements providing necessary direction for 

Alaska.

• b. The provisions of section 1323(a) (16 U.S.C. 3210) apply to all NFS lands. This 

section provides that, subject to terms and conditions established by the Secretary of 

Agriculture, the owners of non-federal land within the NFS shall be provided adequate 

access to their land. Regulations implementing section 1323(a) are set forth at Title 36, 

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 251, and Subpart D - Access to Non-Federal Lands. 

See FSM 2701.3, paragraph 3, for the summary of the provisions of 36 CFR 251, 

Subpart D.

• Small Tracts Act of January 12, 1983 (16U.S.C. 521c-521i): This act authorizes the sale, 

exchange, or interchange of certain parcels of minimal size.

• Federal Timber Contract Payment Modification Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C. 618): Section 3 

of this act authorizes a waiver of all or part of a land use fee for an organizational camp 

operated by the Boy Scouts of America or other nonprofit organizations when they provide 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Lands/Special Uses 455

services the authorized officer determines are a valuable benefit to the public or programs of 

the Secretary of Agriculture.

• Ditch Bill Act of October 27, 1986 (P.L. 99-545): This act amended FLPMA to authorize 

permanent easements for agricultural water systems.

• Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 497c): Section 

701 of this act:

• a. Establishes a system to calculate fees for ski area permits issued under the National 

Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986, (16 U.S.C. 497b);

• b. Provides for holders of ski area permits issued under other authorities to elect this 

permit fee system (FSH 2709.11, sec. 38.03a);

• c. Includes provisions concerning compliance with NEPA when issuing permits for 

existing ski areas (FSM 2721.61f and FSH 2709.11, sec. 41.61b); and

• d. Withdraws leasable and locatable minerals, subject to valid existing rights (FSH 

2709.11, sec. 41.61c).

• Act of May 26, 2000 (16 U.S.C. 406l-6d): This act supplements the authority of the 

Secretary of Agriculture to regulate commercial filming and still photography on NFS lands. 

It also authorizes the Secretary to retain and spend land use fees collected for commercial 

filming and still photography without further appropriation, and provides for recovery of 

administrative and personnel costs in addition to the collection of the land use fee.

• Executive Order 13007 of 1996, Indian Sacred Sites: This order acknowledges the role of 

federal agencies to protect and preserve the religious practices and places of federallyrecognized tribes and enrolled tribal members. It also requires agencies to consult with 

federally-recognized tribe to address tribal concerns for sacred sites on public land and to 

ensure access to religious places and avoidance of adverse effects to sacred sites in 

accordance with existing legislation.

• Executive Order 13175 of 2000, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments: Provides direction for consultation with Tribal governments for formulating 

or implementing policies that have tribal implications. Also provides direction regarding 

consultation and coordination with Indian Tribes relative to fee waivers. Calls upon agencies 

to use a flexible policy with tribes in cases where proposed waivers are consistent with 

applicable federal policy objectives. It directs agencies to grant waivers in areas where the 

agency has the discretion to do so, when a Tribal government makes a request. When a 

request is denied, the agency must respond to the tribe in writing with the rationale for 

denial.

• Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 6201-6213) as set out in title VI of the 

appropriations act for the USDI and Related Agencies for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 

106-291): This act establishes procedures for appraising recreation residence lots and 

determining fees for recreation residence lots located on NFS lands.

• National Forest Organizational Camp Fee Improvement Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. § 6231 

et seq.): This act establishes a land use fee system for organizational camps located on NFS 

lands and authorizes the Secretary to retain and spend these fees without further 

appropriation. The act also exempts certain ministerial actions from the provisions of the 

NEPA.

• Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004: This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to 

enter into an agreement or contract with Indian tribes to carry out projects on lands bordering 

or adjacent to Indian forest land to protect Indian forest land.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

456 Lands/Special Uses Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

The following regulations provide direction for special uses management on NFS lands:

• 36 CFR 251 — Land Uses

• Subpart A: Miscellaneous Land Uses

• Subpart B: Special Uses

• Subpart C: Appeal of Decisions Relating to Occupancy and Use of NFS Lands

• Subpart D: Access to Non-federal Lands

• Subpart E: Revenue-producing Visitor Services in Alaska

• 36 CFR 254 — Landownership Adjustments

• Subpart A: Land Exchanges

• Subpart B: National Forest Townsites

• Subpart C: Conveyance of Small Tracts

Key Indicators

• Acres of NFS land administered; and

• Number of special use authorizations.

Methodology and Analysis Process

The number of acres of NFS lands currently administered by the IPNF and number of special use 

authorizations currently in effect would be compared to changes that would result from 

implementation of any of the alternatives considered.

The total acres of NFS lands are derived using a GIS measuring process. The total is comprised 

of lands under Forest Service jurisdiction both within and outside of the proclaimed NFS 

boundary. The total acres of non-NFS lands are provided by the Washington Office Lands group 

and are only those lands within the proclaimed NFS boundary. The data source for the number of 

special use authorizations is the national special uses data system.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Lands

There are approximately 2,497,700 acres of NFS lands that are the administrative responsibility 

of the IPNF. This is the result of the original congressionally designated lands and the 

conveyances (acquisitions, disposals, and exchanges) that have occurred to date.

The IPNF landownership pattern varies with location (see figure 34).

The pattern can be characterized as:

• Large blocks of uninterrupted, contiguous NFS lands;

• Checkerboard situations with alternate sections of private and NFS lands;

• Isolated tracts of private lands surrounded by NFS lands;

• Isolated tracts of NFS lands surrounded by private lands; and

• Large blocks owned by corporate landowners.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Lands/Special Uses 457

Within the proclaimed boundary of the IPNF there are approximately 440,000 acres of non-NFS 

lands. These non-NFS lands are comprised of state and local government, other agency, 

corporate and private ownership; and large water bodies.

The IPNF have administrative responsibility for surveying and marking of approximately 2,990 

miles of landline.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

458 Lands/Special Uses Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Figure 34. Idaho Panhandle National Forest Landownership Pattern
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Lands/Special Uses 459

Special Uses

Special use authorizations permit occupancy and use on NFS lands by federal, state, and local 

agencies, Indian Tribes, private industry, and individuals. Non-recreation special uses vary from 

low-intensity, often short-term actions such as filming or locations for scientific instruments, to 

larger developed facilities such as roads, communication sites, dams, and utility/energy 

transmission infrastructure.

Currently, there are about 590 non-recreation special use authorizations in effect. Table 124

summarizes the number of current authorizations by category.

Close to 53 percent of all authorizations are related to roads (DOT easements, FRTA easements, 

FLPMA easements and permits). The next closest category is for recreation residences which 

account for about 18 percent of current authorizations. Almost 10 percent of permits on the IPNF 

are for water transmission or diversion. The remaining 19 percent of authorizations are spread 

through all the other categories.

Table 124. Summary of Non-recreation Special Use Authorizations

Special Use Category # of Permits

Airport, Heliport 1

Broadcast Translator/Low Power TV & FM 3

Building 1

Cable Television 1

Cellular 1

Corral, Pen, and Livestock Area 1

Cultivation 1

Disturbing Use, 1979 Act 1

DOT Easement 25

Experimental and Demonstration 2

Facility Manager 1

Federal Land Policy & Mgmt Act Easement 33

Federal Land Policy & Mgmt Act Permit 116

Fence 1

Fiber Optic Cable 7

Forest Road and Trail Act Easement 232

Historic Building and Improvement 1

Hydroelectric Project, FERC Licensed 2

Irrigation Water Ditch 1

Irrigation Water Trans Pipeline <12” D 3

Liquid Waste Disposal Area 1

Livestock Area 7

Microwave-Common Carrier 5

Microwave-Industrial 4

Mineral Material Sale 4

Natural Gas Pipeline - FERC 2

Navigation Aid (beacon, buoy, & others) 1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

460 Lands/Special Uses Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Special Use Category # of Permits

Navigation Aid, Lighthouse 2

Nondisturbing Use 2

Other Community Improvement, not REA 1

Passive Reflector 5

Powerline 12

Powerline, REA Financed 5

Private Mobile Radio Service 2

Processing Plant 1

Research Study 2

Residence 1

Residence, Government Owned Building 3

Resource Monitoring Site 1

Service Building 4

Sewage Transmission Line 5

Sign 2

Solid Waste Disposal Area 2

Stockpile Site 1

Stream Gauging Station 3

Telephone and Telegraph Line 3

Television Broadcast 1

Water Conveyance Easement, PL 99-545 4

Water Diversion, WEIR 1

Water Storage Tank 2

Water Trans Pipeline < 12" D 60

Water Trans Pipeline >=12” D 2

Weather Station 1

Well, Spring, or Windmill 3

Grand Total 589

Source: INFRA: Special Uses Data System (SUDS) 10/2010

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

This alternative reflects the 1987 Forest Plan, as amended to date, and accounts for current laws 

and regulations that have been promulgated since the original Forest Plan and the amendments 

were adopted. The 1987 Forest Plan recognized the desirability of adjusting landownership in 

order to improve manageability of NFS lands. This alternative does not propose to acquire or 

dispose of any lands but did identify (in appendix 9 of the 1987 Forest Plan) land ownership 

planning criteria that helps prioritize lands to be acquired and lands that were available for 

disposal. This alternative does not propose any changes to existing special use authorizations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Lands/Special Uses 461

Alternative B Modified, C, and D

None of the alternatives proposes to make any site-specific changes to the existing 

landownership on the IPNF. No conveyances (acquisitions, disposals, or exchanges) are 

proposed. These actions would only be considered at the project level. Until an external entity 

presents a proposal there would be no changes to the existing landownership pattern.

Since no changes in landownership are proposed, the number of acres of NFS lands remains the 

same for all four alternatives.

None of the alternatives proposes to make any site-specific changes to existing special use 

authorizations or rights-of-way on the IPNF.

Since no changes in special use authorizations or in rights-of-way are proposed, there is no 

difference between Alternatives A, B Modified, C, or D.

Consequences to Lands and Special Uses from Forest Plan Components Associated 

with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Prescriptions

Some MA allocations, such as NFS lands which have not been statutorily designated for a 

specific use (e.g., MA1b – Recommended Wilderness, MA2 – Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers) 

or lands that have been administratively designated for a specific use (e.g., MA3 – Special Areas, 

MA4 – Research Natural Areas) are less likely to be considered for disposal or exchange. Based 

on MA allocation, Alternative C would have the greatest number of acres that would be less 

likely to be considered for disposal or exchange, followed by Alternative B Modified, D, and A.

Similar to lands, some special uses authorizations are less likely to be considered in MA1b, 

MA2, MA3, or MA4. Based on MA allocations, Alternative C would have the greatest number 

of acres that would be less likely to be considered for special use authorizations, followed by 

Alternative B Modified, D, and A.

Effects from Vegetation Management

Vegetation treatments tend to impact the appraised value of NFS lands. Depending on the type of 

treatment the value may decrease or increase. Since Alternative D has the most likelihood of 

vegetation treatments, it is most likely to result in fluctuations in land values, followed by 

Alternative A, B Modified, and C.

Effects from Wildlife Management

National Forest System lands that provide secure habitat or contribute as linkage areas are less 

likely to be considered for disposal or exchange. The impact is the same for the four alternatives 

since the lands where these conditions exist does not vary between the alternatives.

Effects from Recreation Management

National Forest System lands with developed recreation sites (e.g., campgrounds) are less likely 

to be considered for disposal or exchange.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects evaluate the potential impacts to NFS lands and special uses from the 

proposed action when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

462 Lands/Special Uses Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

lands within the IPNF boundary form the geographic scope for cumulative effects since this is 

the scope for the proposed action (Alternative B Modified). The temporal bound would be the 

life of the Forest Plan which is estimated to be a 15 year time span.

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed 

action, existing conditions are used as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because 

existing conditions reflect the collective impact of all prior actions that have affected 

landownership and special uses and might contribute to cumulative effects.

One multimodal utility corridor was established on the IPNF through a programmatic Forest 

Plan Amendment in November of 2008 with the completion of the Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Lands in the 11 

Western States (DOE/EIS-0386) that established corridor 229-254 (EIS Volume III Map D2). 

This corridor is adjacent to I-90 and traverses through NFS lands on the IPNF in several 

locations. Corridor width is specified as 3,500 feet in this EIS. Portions of this corridor are 

unoccupied at this time.

Landownership and special uses can be expected to be influenced by a variety of factors.

As described in the “Affected Environment” section, the IPNF have administrative 

responsibilities for 2,497,700 acres of NFS lands. Currently, the IPNF are working on several 

small land adjustment cases but no large land exchanges or adjustments. In recent years, external 

entities have made land acquisitions and have transferred ownership to the national forests; and it 

is likely that these types of actions will continue. Any change (increase or decrease in total NFS 

lands) is dependent on what actions might be initiated. Outright purchase and transfer would 

most likely result in an increase of total NFS lands. Land exchanges, on the other hand, may 

result in a decrease in the acres of NFS lands.

The Forest can expect requests for special use authorizations to continue. As more private land is 

subdivided there is usually an associated increase in requests for road special use permits and 

utility easements. Requests for modification of existing authorized communication sites and 

designation of new communication sites can reasonably be expected as technological advances 

(e.g., cell phones) are made. On the IPNF these sites typically occupy small acreages (1 to 2 

acres).

Landline survey and marking will continue and occasional encroachments are likely to be 

discovered.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 463

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Introduction

Inventoried roadless areas are undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 acres that meet the 

minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act. Roadless area 

inventories were initially identified during the Roadless Area Resource Evaluations of 1972 

(RARE I) and 1979 (RARE II). The 1987 IPNF Plan EIS, appendix C, included 48 IRAs 

identified by name, number, and acres.

These 48 roadless areas are distributed across the Forest comprising approximately 850,000 

acres of undeveloped area. These areas provide a range of primitive and semi-primitive 

recreation opportunities. Roadless area recreation levels vary from low to moderate depending 

upon their location. Use levels tend to be lower than the developed portions of the Forest where 

roads allow easier access to developed and dispersed recreational opportunities. The roadless 

areas provide a myriad of other resource benefits including undeveloped fisheries and wildlife 

habitat, biological diversity, and sources for high-quality water.

Public opinions regarding the use of these areas vary greatly; and future management of roadless 

areas is a controversial and polarized issue. Management direction for IRAs has been proposed 

in the revised Forest Plan and for each alternative. IRAs within the state of Idaho (which is the 

majority of IRAs on the Forest, covering approximately 797,100 acres) are managed under the 

Idaho Roadless Rule of 2008 (36 CFR 294 Subpart C). While a management allocation may 

allow development activities such as vegetation management in a roadless area, it does not 

require it. Such activities may be proposed, but must be further evaluated in site-specific NEPA 

prior to approval and implementation.

Each roadless area is evaluated through the forest planning process to determine if it provides 

wilderness characteristics and whether or not it should be recommended for wilderness. Areas 

not recommended for wilderness may still be considered for wilderness by Congress. Impacts on 

the inherent wilderness character, its undeveloped nature, its naturalness, the opportunity to 

provide primitive and unconfined recreation, and its natural ecosystem forces could detract from 

future consideration of the area as wilderness. This analysis evaluates the effects of the proposed 

Plan and alternatives on roadless characteristics. This evaluation considered the criteria and 

process for evaluating potential wilderness found in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 70, Wilderness 

Evaluation.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• The Wilderness Act of September 9, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131(note), 1131-1136): This act 

gives the statutory definition of wilderness (Section 2(c)) which helps define the evaluation 

process for potential wilderness in this planning process.

• Memorandum 1042-1564: Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack reserved decision authority for 

projects in inventoried roadless areas involving road construction/ reconstruction or the 

cutting, sale or removal of timber, as re-authorized.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 219.27: Special Designations - (b) Wilderness Area Reviews states: “Unless federal 

statute directs otherwise, all undeveloped areas that are of sufficient size as to make 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

464 Inventoried Roadless Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired condition must be evaluated for 

recommended wilderness designation during the Plan revision process. These areas may be 

evaluated at other times as determined by the responsible official.”

• Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C): Provides state-specific direction for the 

conservation of inventoried roadless areas in the national forest within the state of Idaho.

Key Indicator

• Number of acres recommended for wilderness, by alternative.

Methodology and Analysis Process

Inventory of Roadless Areas for Forest Plan Revision

When revising forest plans, national forests are required to evaluate roadless areas, consider their 

wilderness characteristics, and to make recommendations to Congress regarding areas suitable 

for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Forest Service can only 

recommend wilderness allocations to Congress via Forest Plans. Only Congress can designate 

wilderness through the legislative process. The first step in the evaluation of potential wilderness 

is to identify and inventory all roadless areas within NFS lands that satisfy the definition of 

wilderness found in section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act.

Criteria for determining whether an area of NFS land qualifies as an IRA are provided in Forest 

Service Handbook 1909.12 (71.1), which states: “Areas qualify for placement on the potential 

wilderness inventory if they meet the statutory definition of wilderness. Include areas that meet 

either criteria 1 and 3, or criteria 2 and 3 below.”

1. Areas contain 5,000 acres or more.

2. Areas contain less than 5,000 acres, but can meet one or more of the following 

criteria:

a) Areas can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions;

b) Areas are self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively 

managed as a separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System; or

c) Areas are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administrationendorsed wilderness, or potential wilderness in other federal ownership, 

regardless of their size.

3. Areas do not contain forest roads (36 CFR 212.1) or other permanently authorized 

roads, except as permitted in areas east of the 100th meridian (sec. 71.12).

Inventoried roadless areas may contain improvements such as motorized trails, unauthorized and 

user-created roads, fences, outfitter camps, and evidence of historic logging activities. The 

identification of potential wilderness inventory does not constitute a land designation, nor does it 

imply any particular level of management direction or protection. It is completed with the 

express purpose of identifying all lands that meet the criteria for being evaluated for wilderness 

suitability and possible recommendation for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 465

Evaluation for Wilderness Potential

The next step in potential wilderness evaluation is to determine the mix of land and resources 

uses that best meet public needs. An area recommended as suitable for wilderness must meet the 

test of capability, availability, and need. In addition to the inherent wilderness quality it 

possesses, an area must provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent upon and 

enhanced by a wilderness environment, and the ability of the area to be managed as wilderness.

The IPNF suitability evaluation (capability, availability, and need) of the potential wilderness 

inventory (IRAs) was made public in 2006 as part of the forest planning process. These 

evaluations indicate the inherent wilderness quality of each roadless area.

The IRAs were evaluated for suitability for potential wilderness with the test of capability, 

availability, and need as follows:

• Capability — The capability of a potential wilderness area is the degree to which that area 

contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness recommendation 

without regard to its availability or need as wilderness. This includes environmental as well 

as manageability considerations.

• Availability — The determination of availability is conditioned by the value of and need for 

the wilderness resource compared to the value of and need for other resources. Other 

resource demands and uses were evaluated. Constraints and encumbrances were also 

reviewed to determine the degree of Forest Service control over the surface and subsurface 

area.

• Need — This is an analysis of the degree to which the potential wilderness area would 

contribute to the overall National Wilderness Preservation System. This evaluation was 

conducted at the regional level.

The Wilderness Needs Assessment was completed in 2003 for the USDA Forest Service 

Northern Region. Need is described as the degree to which an area contributes to the local and 

national distribution of wilderness (FSH 1909.12, 72.3a). The Northern Region assessment 

included social and ecological factors.

The designation of additional wilderness acreage in the region could provide a greater level of 

habitat security for additional plants that are rare at the global or state level according to the state 

Natural Heritage Programs. The IPNF are included primarily in the Bitterroot Mountains and 

Okanogan Highlands Ecological Sections. Significant increases in under-represented cover types 

would be gained by the inclusion of various roadless areas into wilderness designations within 

these sections (USDA Forest Service 2003c). Under-represented types on the IPNF are western 

redcedar, western hemlock, forested riparian, aspen, ponderosa pine, riparian shrublands, and 

grasslands.

Changes between Draft and Final

Changes were made to the boundaries of two recommended wilderness areas under Alternative B 

Modified. In response to public comment, approximately 23,100 acres were added to the Mallard 

Larkins and 1,000 acres subtracted from the Salmo-Priest recommended wilderness areas.

Changes were made to the boundaries of two recommended wilderness areas under Alternative B 

Modified. In response to public comment, approximately 23,100 acres were added to the Mallard 

Larkins and 1,000 acres subtracted from the Salmo-Priest recommended wilderness areas. The 

addition to Mallard Larkins was to restore the designation from the 1987 Forest Plan of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

466 Inventoried Roadless Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

recommended wilderness for this area. Alternative B of the DEIS had this portion of Mallard 

Larkins allocated to MA3, Pioneer Special Area. The management direction for this MA was 

similar to recommended wilderness, but without the distinction of being recommended as 

wilderness. Because this area has been recommended since the 1987 Plan, it was decided to 

continue the allocation of recommended wilderness under Alternative B Modified. The change to 

the Salmo-Priest recommended wilderness area was to remove the Upper Priest River botanical 

special area and a portion of the Upper Priest River eligible wild river from recommended 

wilderness, reducing the number of overlapped MAs in that area and allowing mechanized use to 

continue on a popular mountain biking trail under Alternative B Modified.

Definitions, minor edits, and clarifications have been made throughout the section.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Inventory of Roadless Areas

The1987 Plan identified 48 IRAs with a total of 853,800 acres. Few updates were provided for 

the 2000 Roadless Area Conservation EIS from information that was in the 1987 Forest Plan.

The 2000 Roadless Rule referenced a total of 825,3001 acres. When the revision process was 

started in 2001, the IPNF updated its inventory of roadless areas and acres on the Forest. There 

had been changes in some of the roadless areas from management activities that had occurred 

where 1987 Forest Plan MA allocations had allowed development. Roadless acreages changed 

due to these refinements in the boundaries and use of new technology (GIS) to determine 

acreages of these areas. The update retained the same 48 IRAs from the 1987 Forest Plan but the 

acreage was revised to 849,305 acres. These acres were again reviewed in 2005 and updated to 

total 847,974 acres. Most of the change in acreage was due to an accounting adjustment, where 

the area covered by Priest Lake (the water) was no longer included in NFS ownership acres. 

Acres were adjusted again in 2007, with an adjustment to the Skitwish Ridge IRA. Acres were 

also updated for changes in land status, with additions to NFS acres in the Grandmother 

Mountain IRA from a land exchange with BLM. IRAs total 850,999 acres.

Evaluation for Wilderness Potential

Each of the 482 roadless areas was evaluated to determine its potential for wilderness 

designation. All IRAs were assessed for capability and availability. A need analysis was then 

completed. Appendix C contains details of the IRA evaluations. Opportunities and experiences 

one would expect to find and manageability of an area was incorporated to determine which 

IRA’s were suitable for potential inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

Descriptions of the specific roadless areas (within Idaho) are contained in volume 3, appendix C 

of the Roadless Area Conservation Final EIS for NFS Lands in Idaho (USDA Forest Service 

2008a).

In addition to inherent wilderness quality, an area must provide opportunities and experiences 

that are dependent or enhanced by a wilderness environment, and the manageability of the area 

as a wilderness should be considered (FSH 1909.12, 72). Other considerations in determining 

suitability include: size and shape of the IRA, location in relation to other IRAs or designated 

 1 This total excluded portions of the St. Joe W&S River where it flowed through the Mallard Larkins and 

Meadow Creek Roadless Areas. The acreage would be 838,300 with the St. Joe W&S River included. 2 The Gilt Edge-Silver Creek roadless area (#792) lies mostly on the Lolo NF and was not rated because 

only 200 acres of this 11,000 acre Roadless area lies within the boundaries of the IPNF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 467

wilderness, adjacent property, adjacent forest’s evaluation, public comments, social and 

economic considerations, or administrative recommendations.

Four areas which rated as suitable for wilderness designation were determined to not be suitable 

and not recommended for designation in any alternative. Reasons for this varied from identified 

public concerns, adjacent private lands, unmanageable boundaries, existing recreation uses 

(summer motorized use on trails, or over-snow vehicle use), white bark pine restoration needs, or 

watershed/fish restoration needs. Conversely, three areas were recommended in one or more 

alternatives that were not rated as suitable for wilderness designation. The reasons for adding 

these areas as recommended wilderness is because of an adjacent forest’s evaluation or how 

several of these areas form logical blocks of land when grouped together to form larger 

contiguous areas for recommended wilderness.

For example, the Northwest Peaks roadless area was rated high in two categories and moderate 

in another. It was determined not to be suitable based on concerns from the public raised during 

the collaborative process. The majority of Northwest Peaks roadless area is allocated to MA3 

(special areas) in all three action alternatives to maintain its unique character and allow for 

existing uses to continue. See appendix C for detailed ratings, and suitability for potential 

wilderness recommendation.

Portions of all twelve roadless areas grouped in six areas on the IPNF were identified as capable 

and available for recommendation as potential wilderness (see table 125). These areas total 

331,005 acres or approximately 13 percent of the IPNF.

Table 125. Potential Wilderness Inventory Rated Suitable as Recommended Wilderness

Roadless Area Potential Wilderness

Name # Total Area 

Acres

Acres1 Name

East Cathedral 131 22,347 22,422 Cathedral Peak — Total Acres = 71,334

Magee 132 34,812 34,811

Spion Kop 136 22,391 8,915

Tepee Creek 133 5,187 5,186

Grassy Top 982 13,629 13,582 Grassy Top — Total Acres = 13,582

Mallard Larkins 300 129,439 82,610 Mallard Larkins — Total Acres = 134,726

Meadow Cr-Upper N Fork 302 6,024 5,816

Mosquito-Fly 150 19,404 19,404

Sheep Mtn-State Line 799 27,743 26,896

Salmo-Priest 981 20,021 29,078 Salmo-Priest – Total Acres = 29,078

Scotchman Peaks 662 32,068 25,885 Scotchman Peaks – Total Acres = 25,885

Selkirk 125 97,964 56,400 Selkirk – Total Acres = 56,400

Total 331,005 331,005

1 Potential wilderness acres do not match total area acres for individual roadless areas because boundaries of 

recommended wilderness areas sometimes include acres outside of the roadless boundary and sometimes exclude 

some of the roadless area.

This evaluation of potential wilderness is not a land designation, nor does it imply any particular

level of management direction or protection in association with the evaluation of these potential 

wilderness areas. It is completed with the express purpose of identifying all lands that meet the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

468 Inventoried Roadless Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

criteria for being evaluated for wilderness suitability and possible recommendation to Congress 

for wilderness study or designation (FSH 1909.12.71).

Recommended Wilderness

As a result of decisions made in the 1987 Forest Plan, 146,682 acres were recommended for 

wilderness designation (see table 126). These areas have not been designated by Congress as 

wilderness and portions of all of these areas are being recommended in this revised Forest Plan. 

This is the existing condition (Alternative A) for recommended wilderness. These areas 

recommended for wilderness were identified because of special or unique features and public 

support.

Under the 1987 Forest Plan, the use of motorized and mechanized equipment in recommended 

wilderness is allowed to varying degrees.

Levels of motorized travel were much lower in the mid-1980s when the existing Forest Plan was 

completed. The increased popularity and expansion of these uses, the potential of these activities 

to affect wilderness character, and potential for designation were not fully anticipated. No 

recommended wilderness is currently closed to bicycles or other non-motorized mechanized 

transport such as game carts, back country in-line skates or skate boards, or hang gliders.

Table 126. 1987 IPNF Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness

Name 1987 Plan Acres

Mallard Larkins 78,527

Salmo-Priest 17,585

Scotchman Peaks 23,912

Selkirk Crest 26,658

Total 146,682

Idaho Roadless Rule

In 2008 the Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C) was finalized and designated 797,1001

acres of IPNF IRAs in five themes outlined in the Roadless EIS. These five management themes 

include: Wild Land Recreation; Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance; Primitive; 

Backcountry/ Restoration; and General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland. Inventoried roadless 

areas managed by the IPNF but outside Idaho (in Montana or Washington States), and not 

covered by the Idaho Roadless Rule, total 53,340 acres.

Most of the inventoried roadless areas (41 of 48) on the IPNF are managed under themes 

established by the 2008 Idaho Roadless Rule. Three more inventoried roadless areas2 are 

partially in Idaho and the acreage inside Idaho is managed under an Idaho Roadless theme, as 

well. The 44 areas wholly or partially in the state of Idaho and on the IPNF are listed in table 

127, with the Idaho Roadless Rule theme applicable to the particular inventoried roadless area.

 1 This figure includes only those inventoried roadless acres on the IPNF that are within Idaho State. 2 The three areas partially in Idaho are Buckhorn Ridge, Little Grass Mtn., and Scotchman Peaks.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 469

Table 127. Idaho Roadless Rule Designated Management Themes for IPNF Inventoried Roadless 

Areas

Inventoried 

Roadless 

Area

# Total 

(Acres)1 WLR2 (Acres) Prim2 (Acres) BCR2 (Acres) GFRG2 (Acres) SAHTS2 (Acres) FP

Beetop 130 12,400 12,400

Big Creek 143 76,300 76,300

Blacktail Mtn 122 5,000 4,200

Blacktail Mtn 161 4,800 4,800

Buckhorn 

Ridge

661 6,700 6,700

Continental 

Mtn

153 7,500 7,500

E. Cathedral 

Pk

131 22,300 20,000

Gilt EdgeSilver Creek792 200 200

Graham 

Coal

139 10,300 10,200

Grandmother 

Mountain

148 24,400 6,800 17,100 100

Hammond 

Cr

145 17,400 17,400

Hellroaring 128 2,000 2000

Katka Peak 157 10,300 9,000 1,300

Kootenai 

Peak

126 5,000 5,000

Little Grass 

Mtn

121 3,900 3,900

Lost Creek 137 11,600 11,500

Magee 132 34,800 34,800

Mallard 

Larkins

300 129,400 72,100 45,800

Maple Peak 141 8,700 8,700

Meadow CrUpper N 

Fork

302 6,000 4,500

Midget Peak 151 7,200 6,400

Mosquito-Fly 150 19,400 17,900

Mt. WillardLake Estelle173 35,000 33,600

North Fork 147 31,400 30,500

Packsaddle 155 19,300 19,300

Pinchot 

Butte

149 8,500 8,500

Roland Point 146 6,500 6,500

Saddle 

Mountain

154 7,800 7,800
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

470 Inventoried Roadless Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Inventoried 

Roadless 

Area

# Total 

(Acres)1 WLR2 (Acres) Prim2 (Acres) BCR2 (Acres) GFRG2 (Acres) SAHTS2 (Acres) FPSA2 (

Salmo-Priest 981 20,000 14,300

Schafer 

Peak

160 5,900 5,500 400

Scotchman 

Peaks

662 19,800 10,900 7,600

Selkirk 125 98,000 42,000 41,300 8,600

Sheep 

MountainState Line

799 27,700 26,900

Skitwish 

Ridge

135 4,000 4,000

Spion Kop 136 22,400 19,600

Stevens 

Peak

142 4,700 4,700

Storm Creek 144 8,200 8,200

Tepee Creek 133 5,200 5,200

Trestle Peak 129 7,300 7,300

Trouble 

Creek

138 6,000 5,000

Trout Creek 664 8,500 8,400

Upper Priest 123 12,700 6,500

White 

Mountain

127 7,600 7,500 100

Wonderful 

Peak

152 4,900 4,900

Total 797,000 146,100 0 588,100 17,500 0

1 Acres from Idaho Roadless Rule FEIS (rounded to nearest 100 acres)

2 Idaho Roadless Rule Themes:

WLR - Wild Land Recreation

Prim - Primitive (none on the IPNF)

BCR - Backcountry/Restoration

GFRG - General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland

SAHTS - Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance (none on the IPNF)

FPSA - Forest Plan Special Areas

Table 128 displays the three inventoried roadless areas partially in Idaho but entirely on the 

IPNF and managed by the IPNF. In addition, this table includes the other four inventoried 

roadless areas managed by the IPNF outside the state of Idaho.

Table 128. Summary of Other Inventoried Roadless Areas on the IPNF

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

# Total 

Acres

IPNF ID 

Acres

2008 

Roadless 

Theme

IPNF Other 

State Acres

Other State

Buckhorn Ridge 661 9,558 6,700 BCR 2,858 Montana

Grassy Top 982 13,629 0 13,614 Washington

Hungry Mountain 156 8,640 0 8,613 Washington
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 471

Inventoried 

Roadless Area

# Total 

Acres

IPNF ID 

Acres

2008 

Roadless 

Theme

IPNF Other 

State Acres

Other State

Little Grass 

Mountain

121 7,967 3,900 BCR 4,066 Washington

Northwest Peaks 663 5,481 0 5,477 Montana

Scotchman Peaks 662 32,068 19,800 WLR & BCR 12,270 Montana

South Fork Mountain 124 5,294 0 5,291 Washington

Total 82,637 30,400 52,189

Environmental Consequences

The purpose of the analysis on the roadless resource is to disclose potential effects to roadless 

and wilderness attributes and determine if, or to what extent, it might affect future consideration 

for wilderness recommendations. This analysis focuses on the potential effects of land 

management designations and allowable uses on wilderness characteristics as defined in the 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 (72.1). Wilderness characteristics, as defined in FSH 

1909.12 (72.1) and evaluated here, include the following:

• Natural — The extent to which long-term ecological processes are intact and operating.

• Undeveloped — The degree to which the impacts documented in natural integrity are 

apparent to most visitors.

• Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation — Solitude is a 

personal, subjective value defined as the isolation from sights, sounds, and presence of 

others, and from developments and evidence of humans. Primitive recreation is 

characterized by meeting nature on its own terms, without comfort and convenience of 

facilities.

• Special features and values — Unique ecological, geographical, scenic, and historical 

features of an area.

• Manageability — The ability to manage an area for wilderness consideration and 

maintain wilderness attributes.

General Effects

The following discussion includes general effects on roadless areas. Management area 

allocations will not directly affect the character of roadless areas until a planned management 

activity is scheduled. Management activities that substantially alter the undeveloped character of 

an inventoried roadless area would generally require preparation of an EIS (FSH 1909.15 21.2).

The MA allocation MA1b (recommended wilderness) is designed to provide areas where 

wilderness characteristics are protected. This management area is designed to meet Forest 

Service Manual and Handbook requirements and contains direction to manage the recreation 

settings to the standards established for recommended wilderness areas.

The effects for all alternatives are based on assigned MAs and their potential for development. 

Alternatives are compared based on acres assigned to the various MAs. Table 129 lists the aces 

by recommended wilderness area for each alternative.

Each alternative displays a mix of land and resource uses that best meet public needs for 

recommendation of potential wilderness areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System 

based on the alternative theme. The 1982 planning provisions require alternatives to be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

472 Inventoried Roadless Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

distributed between the minimum resource potential and maximum resource potential to reflect,

to the extent practicable, the full range of major commodity and environmental resource uses and 

values that could be produced from the Forest. Alternatives were developed to address the range 

of lands to recommend for wilderness. Alternative C was developed to provide more 

recommended wilderness than the preferred alternative. It was developed by identifying areas 

that could provide large expanses of recommended wilderness; therefore, it recommends the four 

roadless areas in the Cathedral Peak area as recommended wilderness: the Grassy Top Roadless 

Area (in Washington) on the Priest Lake Ranger District; and three additional areas adjacent to 

the Mallard Larkins (Mosquito Fly, Sheep Mountain-State Line, and Meadow Creek-Upper 

North Fork). These areas are in addition to the recommended areas in Alternative B Modified.

Table 129. Acres of Recommended Wilderness by Alternative

Area Acres by Alternative

A1 B Modified C D

Cathedral Peak 71,300

Grassy Top 13,600

Mallard Larkins 77,200 80,200 134,800 57,100

Salmo Priest 17,300 18,600 29,100 19,500

Scotchman Peaks 23,900 25,900 25,900 24,800

Selkirk 28,600 36,700 56,400 36,700

Total Acres 147,000 161,400 331,100 138,100

1 Updated acres from 1987 Plan using current land status and GIS.

Effects of Forestwide Direction

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

This alternative reflects the 1987 Forest Plan, as amended to date, and accounts for current laws 

and regulations that have been promulgated since the original Forest Plan and the amendments 

were adopted. The 1987 ROD identified four recommended wilderness areas: Mallard Larkins, 

Salmo-Priest, Scotchman Peaks, and the Selkirk area for a total of 146,682 acres.

Alternative B Modified, C, and D

All action alternatives recommend some wilderness, to varying degrees. Alternative B Modified

is based on the proposed LMP from May 2006 and the response to comments on the proposed 

Plan, prior to the 2008 Planning Rule being enjoined and vacated. Alternative B Modified

recommends the same four potential wilderness areas as Alternative A but with some variations 

in boundaries. Total acres of recommended wilderness are 161,400 and when MA1e (primitive 

lands) is added the total acreage is 181,200.

Alternative C recommends six potential wilderness areas for a total of 331,100 acres. This 

alternative was developed based on public comments which desired more lands to be considered 

for recommended wilderness. It was developed by identifying areas that could provide large 

expanses of recommended wilderness and to provide the range of alternatives as required by the 

1982 provisions. Therefore, it recommends the four roadless areas in the Cathedral Peak area as 

recommended wilderness: the Grassy Top Roadless Area (in Washington) on the Priest Lake 

Ranger District; and three additional areas adjacent to the Mallard Larkins (Mosquito Fly, Sheep 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 473

Mountain-State Line, and Meadow Creek-Upper North Fork). These areas are in addition to the 

recommended areas in Alternative B Modified.

Alternative D will feature a higher intensity management regime with emphasis on timber 

production and motorized access. This alternative recommends the same four areas as 

Alternatives A and B Modified for potential wilderness but with variations in boundaries and 

slightly different acreages.

Consequences to Roadless Areas from Forest Plan Components Associated with other 

Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Allocations

Research shows Americans who engage in outdoor activities are seeking opportunities for day 

hikes. Typically, visitors prefer day hiking to a destination such as a waterfall, lake, scenic vista, 

or unique feature. Forests near population centers in Idaho and Montana should continue to 

consider this need for non-motorized hiking trails as they complete their wilderness assessments 

(Regional Wilderness needs assessment (USDA Forest Service 2003c)).

Table 130 shows proposed allocations of inventoried roadless areas by Forest Plan MAs in the 

various alternatives. All the acres shown were included in the inventoried roadless area review 

completed for this revision.

Table 130. Allocation of Inventoried Roadless Acres to MAs by Alternative

MA Alt A1 Alt B Modified Alt C Alt D

MA1b Wilderness Recommended 144,000 147,485 297,218 127,047

MA1c Wilderness Study Area 0 6,788 6,788 6,788

MA1e Primitive Lands 0 11,049 0 11,048

MA2a Designated W&S Rivers 12,628 12,692 12,693

MA2b Eligible W&S Rivers 12,776 6,875 11,026

MA3 Special Areas 6,800 9,693 9,605 31,795

MA4 Research Natural Areas 8,400 7,582 7,582 7,582

MA5 Backcountry 190,600 624,803 492,081 622,734

MA6 General Forest Area 18,115 18,074 20,203

MA7 Primary Recreation Areas 1,700 82 82 82

Total 851,000 850,997 850,999 1 Acres shown in Alternative A are best estimates based on 1987 IPNF Forest Plan MA designations and a cross walk 

developed to compare these 1987 MAs with the action alternative MAs. The remaining acres were assigned to various 

MAs in the 1987 Plan that does not cross-walk cleanly to the action alternatives MAs.

Management area allocations can be grouped into broad categories: areas that allow a full range 

of development opportunities (MA6, MA7): areas that have potential for low levels of 

development and maintain their undeveloped roadless character (MA2a [Wild], MA2b [Wild], 

MA3, MA4a, and MA5); and areas that are recommended as wilderness (MA1b) and primitive 

lands (MA1e). Management area allocations will not directly affect the character of IRAs until 

management activities are planned and implemented. As displayed in table 130, Alternative C 

has the most acres of IRAs allocated to recommended wilderness (MA1b). Alternatives B

Modified and D have the second most acres and Alternative A the least acres in recommended 

wilderness. Alternatives B Modified and D have the most acres of IRAs allocated to backcountry 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

474 Inventoried Roadless Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

(MA5). Alternative C has the second most acres and Alternative A the least in backcountry 

(MA5).

Appendix C contains information on the allocation of each roadless area by alternative. The 

effects for all alternatives are based on assigned management area direction and their potential 

for development. The forestwide and MA direction is the same for all action alternatives.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management

Forest health, as it affects natural integrity, is an issue of concern with roadless areas and 

recommended wilderness. Effective fire suppression, insect and disease infestations, and 

vegetation and fuel types on the IPNF have led to substantial areas with moderate-high to high 

risk of uncharacteristic wildfire.1 Natural, unplanned ignitions may be managed to meet resource 

objectives to trend vegetation towards desired conditions. Likewise, prescribed fire may be used 

to trend vegetation towards the desired conditions while serving other important ecosystem 

functions.

Roadless areas allocated to MA5 would use prescribed fire and natural, unplanned ignitions to 

meet resource objectives as the primary mechanism for managing vegetation (MA5-GDL-Fire01). The use of fire would be more likely in Alternative C, which emphasizes the use of natural 

disturbances and has the highest acres of recommended wilderness.

Prescribed fire and the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives would 

continue the long-term ecological processes in these areas. There could be a temporary loss of 

vegetation, reduction in water quality due to sedimentation, air pollution, and a perceived 

reduction in scenic quality; however, these effects are part of the natural ecological processes. 

These activities generally would not affect the undeveloped character, except during the actual 

burning period when crews are burning or monitoring the burns. Users could expect temporary 

access restrictions during periods of fire use activities. Impacts to opportunities for solitude 

could be expected where visitors encounter crews working on firing operations.

Prescribed fire and the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives should not 

affect primitive recreation, although recreational use of burned-over areas may drop for a period 

of years until vegetative recovery achieves a more advanced stage. Lethal fire in heavy timber 

stands would also increase long-term trail maintenance needs from continued downfall of snags 

across trails.

Effects from Timber Harvest

Roadless areas that are allocated to MA1b (recommended wilderness), MA1c (wilderness study 

areas), MA1e (primitive) and MA3 (special areas) are not available for timber harvest. Limited 

timber harvest could occur in MA2a (designated scenic or recreation rivers), MA2b (eligible 

scenic or recreational river), and MA4 (research natural areas); only if done to maintain or 

restore the values or meet the objectives of the area.

The Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C) (2008) direction must be followed for 

vegetative treatments within roadless areas where Idaho Roadless rules apply (within the state of 

Idaho), in particular those lands in MA5 that are in Idaho. For lands in MA5 outside of Idaho, 

timber harvest is limited and may only occur to improve habitat for listed or proposed threatened 

and endangered species; to maintain or restore ecosystem composition and structure; to reduce 

 1 Idaho Statewide Forest Resource Strategy – Draft for Comments – Goals, Strategies, and Implementation 

– May 4, 2010
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 475

the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires; or to address insect and disease or other forest health 

concerns. Timber harvest may also be allowed for administrative uses as defined in 36 CFR 

223.2. Timber harvest is not scheduled and does not contribute toward the ASQ (MA5-STDTBR-01).

For those lands in MA6, timber harvest could occur for the purposes of timber growth and yield. 

Other forestwide management direction would apply to these areas and could constrain the 

extent, timing, and duration of timber harvest in MA6.

Treatment of vegetation by mechanical means can affect natural appearance with creation of 

linear patterns and presence of stumps.

The existing roadless character may be modified where timber harvest occurs. In MA5, timber 

harvest is expected to be limited and generally would be done for purposes that would result in 

retaining the natural integrity of the ecosystem. Timber harvest that is done to reduce hazardous 

fuels may be more intensive and change the undeveloped character, to some degree, until the 

vegetation re-grows. This is most likely to happen on the edges of a roadless area nearer 

communities. Primitive recreation opportunities would be unchanged, unless temporary roads are 

constructed, which is permitted under specific circumstances in the Idaho Roadless Areas in 

MA5. Road construction is not permitted in MA5 outside of Idaho.

Under the Idaho Roadless Rule, temporary road construction is permitted in Community 

Protection Zones, or where there is a significant risk of wildland fire to at-risk communities or 

municipal water supply systems. About 54,200 acres are estimated to be within a community 

Protection Zone (Idaho Roadless FEIS, appendix E-25). If roads are constructed it may take 

longer for an area to return to its natural state than if timber harvest alone were to take place. 

Timber harvest and temporary roads could change the scenic integrity until the vegetation regrows. Solitude would be affected during operations.

Timber harvest in MA6 could be more extensive. However, the 18,000-20,000 acres of IRAs in 

MA6 are on the edges of the roadless areas, and generally adjacent to roads. Activities in these 

areas would not be in the heart of the roadless areas and would not affect a roadless areas ability 

to provide primitive recreation or solitude. The only exception is the 2,000 acre Hellroaring 

roadless area. This roadless area is small in size and currently provides limited primitive 

recreation opportunities or opportunities for solitude. The undeveloped character of roadless 

areas could be affected where timber harvest occurs, at least until the vegetation re-grows. If 

roads are constructed to access any of these areas, they could also affect the primitive nature and 

undeveloped character. As noted before, road construction would be limited to this MA and 

would generally occur on the outer edges of a roadless area.

Effects from Terrestrial Wildlife Management

Wildlife management actions may result in a broad array of physical alterations including road 

obliteration, vegetation treatments, prescribed burning, and habitat improvement structures. 

Some of these actions could be visually evident and detract somewhat from roadless values and 

wilderness characteristics if proposed within these MAs. However, actions which maintain, 

restore, protect, or enhance wildlife habitat also improve natural integrity and ecosystem 

function and benefit roadless and wilderness values in the long-term.

Watershed and fisheries improvement actions can include construction of structures for stream 

bank stabilization, slope stabilization, and fish habitat improvements. Some structural 

improvements may be visually evident, and may detract from apparent naturalness. However, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

476 Inventoried Roadless Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

any such structures are generally small and localized and would have a negligible effect upon 

undeveloped character and wilderness characteristics.

Effects from Minerals Management

The Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area and portion of the St. Joe River that is designated as a Wild 

River under the Wild and Scenic River Act have been withdrawn from mineral entry and are not 

available for new leases or claims. Minerals management has no effect on these congressionally 

designated areas.

Roadless areas may be affected by mineral development. The exploration and development of 

locatable minerals is allowed within roadless areas and recommended wilderness and does not 

vary by alternative. Mineral exploration and development activities can vary from small, easily 

reclaimed operations to larger developments. Large mines may lead to extensive site alterations 

and long-term impacts to the undeveloped character of roadless areas and possibly negatively 

affect wilderness characteristics. However, evidence of past mining, and even ongoing mining 

operations do not necessarily preclude wilderness consideration, although they may make it less 

likely.

MA1b, 1c, and 1e (within Idaho Roadless Areas) preclude mineral leasing. Therefore, there 

would be no effect on roadless character in these areas. Mineral leasing in MA5 lands is 

permitted; however, road construction or reconstruction to access these areas is not. Oil and gas 

leasing and geothermal opportunities are limited on the IPNF. Without the ability to construct 

roads in these areas it is anticipated there would be no development. (Also see Idaho Roadless 

FEIS Minerals and Energy Section).

On the 18,000 to 20,000 acres of MA6, mineral leasing and road construction is permitted.

However, as stated above, there are few oil and gas or geothermal opportunities; therefore, few if 

any anticipated effects.

Effects from Access and Recreation Management

Areas that are recommended for wilderness will be managed to protect the wilderness character 

of that area. However, recommendation of an area for wilderness designation may lead to 

increased recreation use. An increase in use may lead to improvement of trailhead facilities or 

other visitor management techniques.

Opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive recreation will be found in inventoried roadless 

areas and recommended wilderness areas. Inventoried roadless areas assigned to other MAs will 

be managed for recreation opportunities appropriate to the assigned MA. The existing settings 

are generally semi-primitive non-motorized or semi-primitive motorized in character. Table 119

in the “Access and Recreation” section of this document indicates the percentage of acres where 

various uses (motor vehicle use, over-snow vehicle use, and mechanized use) are allowed across 

the Forest by alternative. Percentages were determined by calculating the area of MA allocations

and current closed areas that would remain in affect regardless of alternative selected. The 

percentages indicate where these uses are allowed, but the MVUMs indicate the designations for

motor vehicle use (36 CFR 212 Subpart B) regardless of alternative selected.

Since the 1970s, interest in and appreciation of the environment has increased national forest 

recreation visitation and has shifted activities and expectations. As temperatures increase during 

the summer, and a majority of the Forest is free from snow cover, many people venture out onto 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 477

the national forests for relief from the heat and to pursue traditional outdoor recreational 

opportunities.

Technical advancements in snowmobiles now allow visitors to travel many places where they 

were unable to travel as recently as 5 years ago. The development of the ATV has added a new 

motorized use in the summer and allows many people to travel on routes into areas that they may 

never have been able to travel into previously. Lastly, the advent of the mountain bike has added 

a summer non-motorized use that was not considered when the 1987 Forest Plan was written.

All of these issues, along with several others, have led to more crowded recreation experiences 

during peak use times, increasing levels and range of demands on natural resources and resource 

managers, and more conflicts among the users themselves.

Continuing changes in equipment technology used for recreational purposes on the Forest will 

have impacts on the manner of how and where people recreate. These changes in uses may alter 

the recreational experience in some areas. Those who pursue recreation opportunities such as 

hiking or back-country skiing in remote settings are likely to be more affected than other users as 

they prefer areas that are off limits to motorized uses.

Trails and new trail construction are usually compatible with maintaining wilderness 

characteristics and undeveloped character.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis for roadless areas and recommended wilderness considers land 

within the IPNF boundary throughout the life of the revised Forest Plan. It also includes a review 

of designated wilderness on public lands in Idaho. The KNF is on the same timeline as the IPNF 

to revise their Forest Plan and the forests in Region 6 to the west in Washington (Colville, 

Okanogan-Wenatchee) are working on revised Forest Plans as well. The KNF and Colville 

National Forest are adjacent to the IPNF. The KNF is analyzing a range of recommended 

wilderness from 37,300 acres to 242,800 acres in the various alternatives being considered. The 

1988 Colville National Forest Plan did not recommend additional wilderness. The Salmo-Priest 

Wilderness totals 29,386 acres on the Colville National Forest. The Scotchman Peaks 

recommended wilderness area is located on both the KNF and IPNF. Total acreage ranges from 

24,800 acres to 63,200 of recommended wilderness acres in the alternatives that both Forests are 

evaluating.

Wilderness has been officially designated on federal lands other than NFS lands. In the state of 

Idaho a total of 4,522,562 acres have been designated as wilderness. In Montana the total is 

3,443,385 acres and in Washington State the total acres of designated wilderness is 4,423,4051

. 

These figures include wilderness managed by all agencies.

Population growth in Idaho and Washington, and development adjacent to NFS lands, result in 

increasing demands ranging from commodity production to demands for all types of recreation 

opportunities. Roadless areas have traditionally provided for semi-primitive recreational 

opportunities. Pioneered roads and trails on public lands reflect the increased demand for 

motorized and mechanized opportunities, but they result in a decrease in opportunities for 

primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized recreation and may adversely impact soil, water, and 

wildlife resources. Private land development adjacent to public lands in the region has influenced 

the movement pattern of many wide-ranging wildlife species. This development negatively 

 1 This includes the 11,949 acres of the Salmo-Priest managed by the IPNF (located in Washington State).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

478 Inventoried Roadless Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

affects the availability and quality of wildlife habitat and increases the importance of similar 

undeveloped habitats within roadless areas. It is anticipated that development will further 

fragment unroaded private lands, decreasing the opportunities for primitive recreation 

experiences and the quality of wildlife habitat. Alternative C would provide the most 

opportunities to manage roadless areas as recommended wilderness and for primitive recreation 

opportunities, followed by Alternatives B Modified, A, and D. Alternative D would provide the 

fewest additional opportunities.

Idaho Roadless Rule

The Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart C) classified lands in Idaho Roadless Areas into 

five different classifications: Wild Land Recreation, Primitive, Special Areas of Historic or 

Tribal Significance, Backcountry/Restoration, General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland. They 

will be managed according to the Idaho Roadless Rule. It also classified some areas, such as wild 

and scenic river corridors and RNAs as Forest Plan special areas. These areas would be managed 

according to the LMP. On the IPNF only Wild Land Recreation, Backcountry/Restoration and 

General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland exists in the Idaho Rule. No lands were classified as 

Primitive or Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance.

Table 131 shows which MAs are comparable to the management classifications in the Idaho 

Roadless Rule regarding timber cutting, sale and removal, road construction, reconstruction, and 

discretionary minerals. It is important to note that the Idaho Roadless Rule only addressed these 

uses whereas the management direction in the LMP addresses other uses, such as motorized and 

non-motorized use.

Table 131. Comparison between Idaho Roadless Area Management Classifications and IPNF 

Management Areas

Idaho Roadless Rule Theme Comparable Management Areas

Wild Land Recreation MA1b Recommended Wilderness

MA1c Wilderness Study Areas

MA1e Primitive lands

MA3 Mallard Larkins Pioneer Area

Backcountry/Restoration MA5 Backcountry

General Forest, Rangeland, and Grassland MA6 General Forest

Forest Plan Special Area MA2a Wild and Scenic Rivers

MA2b Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

MA3 Botanical, Geological, Recreational, or Scenic 

Areas

MA4a Research Natural Areas

MA7 Primary Recreation Areas

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, is superseded by the Idaho Roadless Rule, so this rule 

applies to the no-action alternative. The MA direction (and polygons) in Alternatives B Modified

and D are comparable to the Idaho Roadless Rule with some minor exceptions regarding areas 

that were acquired in land exchanges after the rule was promulgated and some mapping 

discrepancies (see tables 132 and 133).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 479

Table 132. Comparison between Alternative B Modified and Idaho Roadless Area Management Classifications

IRA Name Number Forest Plan MA Acres Idaho Roadless Theme Acres

MA5 MA6 Other WLR BCR GFRG FPSA

Beetop 130 12,400 12,400

Big Creek 143 76,5001 76,3001

Blacktail Mountain 122 4,100 800 4,100 800

Blacktail Mountain 161 4,800 4,800

Buckhorn Ridge 661 6,600 (IPNF) 100 (KNF-ID)

2,900 (IPNF–MT)

6,600 (IPNF) 100 

(KNF-ID)

Continental 

Mountain

153 7,500 7,500

East Cathedral 

Peak

131 20,000 2,300 20,000 2,300

East Fork Elk 678 100 100

Gilt Edge-Silver 

Creek

792 200 200

Graham Coal 139 10,200 100 10,200 100

Grandmother Mtn 148 18,2002 100 7,200 6,800 17,1002 100 400

Grassy Top 982 13,500 100 Outside Idaho (in Washington)

Hammond Creek 145 17,400 17,400

Hellroaring 128 2,000 2,000

Hungry Mountain 156 8,600 Outside Idaho (in Washington)

Katka Peak 157 9,000 1,300 9,000 1,300

Kootenai Peak 126 5,000 5,000

Little Grass 

Mountain

121 3,900 (IPNF) 4,100 (IPNFWA)34 (IPNF-WA) 3,900 (Idaho portion)

Lost Creek 137 11,500 100 11,500 100

Magee 132 34,800 34,800

Mallard-Larkins3 300 45,700 83,700 72,100 45,800 12 11,500
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

480 Inventoried Roadless Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

IRA Name Number Forest Plan MA Acres Idaho Roadless Theme Acres

MA5 MA6 Other WLR BCR GFRG FPSA

Maple Peak 141 8,700 8,700

Meadow CreekUpper North Fork302 4,500 1,500 4,500 1,500

Midget Peak 151 6,5004 800 6,4004 800

Mosquito Fly 150 17,900 1,500 17,900 1,500

Mt. Willard-Lake 

Estelle

173 33,600 (IPNF) 23,100 

(KNF-ID)

1,400 (IPNF)

200 (KNF-ID)

33,600 (IPNF) 23,100 

(KNF-ID)

1,400 (IPNF) 200 

(KNF-ID)

North Fork 147 30,500 8004 30,500 9004

Northwest Peaks 663 700 200 4,600 Outside Idaho (in Montana)

Packsaddle 155 19,300 19,300

Pinchot Butte 149 8,6005 8,5005

Roland Point 146 6,6006 6,5006

Saddle Mountain 154 7,800 7,800

Salmo-Priest 981 20,000 14,300 5,700

Schafer Peak 160 5,500 400 5,500 400

Scotchman Peaks 662 7,700 (IPNF) 500 (KNF-ID) 400 (IPNF-MT) 12,200(IPNF)

11,900

(IPNF-MT)

10,900 7,600 (IPNF) 600 

(KNF-ID)

1,300

Selkirk 125 41,2004 8,600 48,100 42,000 41,3004 8,600 6,100

Sheep Mtn.–State 

Line

799 27,0007 800 26,9007 800

Skitwish Ridge 135 4,000 4,000

South Fork 

Mountain

124 5,300 Outside Idaho (in Washington)

Spion Kop 136 19,600 2,7004 19,600 2,8004

Stevens Peak 142 4,700 4,700

Storm Creek 144 8,200 8,200

Tepee Creek 133 5,200 5,200
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 481

IRA Name Number Forest Plan MA Acres Idaho Roadless Theme Acres

MA5 MA6 Other WLR BCR GFRG FPSA

Trestle Peak 129 7,300 7,300

Trouble Creek 138 5,000 1,000 5,000 1,000

Trout Creek 664 8,400 100 8,400 100

Upper Priest 123 6,3008 6,3008 6,5008 6,2008

West Fork Elk 692 3,700 (KNF-ID) 3,700 (KNF-ID)

White Mountain 127 7,500 100 7,500 100

Wonderful Peak 152 5,0009 4,9009

1 Acreage difference between Alternative B Modified and Idaho Roadless is due to land exchanges included in the proposed Forest Plan that was not included in the Idaho Roadless 

Rule.

2 Total acreage differences between Alternative B Modified and Idaho Roadless is due to recent land exchanges totaling 1,151 acres included in the proposed Forest Plan. 3 Acreage difference between Alternative B Modified and Idaho Roadless Rule is due to GIS differences along the boundary with the Clearwater National Forest and buffering of road 

corridors on some “Cherry Stemmed” roads.

4 Acreage difference between Alternative B Modified and Idaho Roadless Rule is due to rounding to nearest 100 acres. 5 Acreage difference is due to a land exchange where the Forest acquired 80 acres in 2008 and this acreage is included in the Alternative B Modified but not included in the Idaho 

Roadless Rule.

6 Acreage difference is due to a land exchange where the Forest acquired 72 acres in 2008 and this acreage is included in the Alternative B Modified but not included in the Idaho 

Roadless Rule.

7 Acreage difference between Alternative B Modified and Idaho Roadless Rule is due to acres along the state boundary were not included in the Idaho Roadless Rule but were 

included in the Alternative B Modified and rounding differences to nearest 100 acres. 8 Acreage difference between the Idaho Roadless Rule BCR theme and the Alternative B Modified MA5 designation is the overlap of MAs included as Forest Plan Special Areas in the 

Alternative B Modified and included as BCR in the Idaho Roadless Rule. In addition there is a 36 acre polygon that should be displayed as water (part of Upper Priest Lake) and a 3 

acre sliver along a private land boundary that was included in the Idaho Roadless Rule and not included in the Alternative B Modified; rounding to the nearest 100 acres accounts for 

the remainder of the difference in acreage.

9 Acreage difference between the Idaho Roadless Rule and Alternative B Modified is due to the different roadless boundaries used for each planning effort. Most of the acreage 

difference is due to differences in mapping the roadless areas and the boundaries that separate this roadless area (Wonderful Peak) and the two adjacent roadless areas (Stevens 

Peak & Roland Point). The remaining difference is due to rounding to the nearest 100 acres.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 483

Table 133. Comparison between Alternative D and Idaho Roadless Area Management 

Classifications1

IRA Name Number Forest Plan MA Acres Idaho Roadless Theme Acres

MA5 MA6 Other WLR BCR GFRG FPSA

Buckhorn Ridge 661 6,600 (IPNF)

100 (KNF-ID) 

700 (IPNF-MT)

2,200 

(IPNF-MT)

6,600 

(IPNF) 100 

(KNF-ID)

Northwest 

Peaks

663 900 4,600 Outside Idaho (In Montana)

Sheep Mountain 

–State Line

799 26,900 28 800 26,900 800

1 Comparisons between Alternative D and the Idaho Roadless Rule are the same as portrayed in table 132 with the 

exception of these three roadless areas.

The following describes the difference between the Idaho Roadless Rule and Alternative C. The 

1982 planning procedures include direction for alternatives to be distributed between the 

minimum resource potential and maximum resource potential to reflect, to the extent practicable, 

the full range of major commodity and environmental resource uses and values that could be 

produced from the Forest. Therefore, alternatives were developed to address the range of lands to 

recommend for wilderness. Alternative C was developed by identifying areas that could provide 

large expanses of recommended wilderness; therefore, it recommends the four roadless areas in 

Cathedral Peak as recommended wilderness; and the Grassy Top Roadless Area (in Washington) 

on the Priest Lake Ranger District; and three additional areas adjacent to the Mallard Larkins 

(Mosquito Fly, Sheep Mountain-State Line, and Meadow Creek-Upper North Fork). These areas 

are in addition to the areas recommended in Alternatives B Modified and D.

The Idaho Roadless Rule and state of Idaho’s petition, from which the rule was based, were land 

classification and management systems that are distinct from wilderness and did not examine 

wilderness potential.

Alternative C was developed to address lands to recommend for wilderness. Alternative C would 

deviate from the Idaho Roadless Rule in the following roadless areas:

• East Cathedral (22,300 acres): The Idaho Roadless Rule designated 20,000 acres as 

backcountry/restoration and 2,300 acres as Forest Plan special areas. Alternative C would 

designate the entire area as MA1b recommended wilderness, which would be a more 

restrictive prescription than the Idaho Roadless Rule.

• Magee (34,800 acres): The Idaho Roadless Rule designated the entire 34,800 acres as 

backcountry/restoration. Alternative C would designate the entire area as MA1b 

recommended wilderness, which would be a more restrictive prescription than the Idaho 

Roadless Rule.

• Mallard Larkins (129,400 acres): The Idaho Roadless Rule designated 72,100 acres as 

wild land recreation; 45,800 acres as backcountry/recreation, and 11,500 acres as Forest Plan 

special areas. Alternative C would designate 75,500 acres as MA1b, 43,300 acres as MA5, 

and 10,600 acres as MA2a, 2b, or 4a. About 2,500 acres would be given a more restrictive 

prescription than the Idaho Roadless Rule.

• Meadow Creek-Upper North Fork (6,000 acre): The Idaho Roadless Rule designated

4,500 acres as backcountry/recreation, and 1,500 acres as Forest Plan special areas. 

Alternative C would designate 4,400 as MA1b recommended wilderness, which would be a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

484 Inventoried Roadless Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

more restrictive prescription than the Idaho Roadless Rule. About 1,500 acres would be in 

MA2a and 100 acres in MA5 which would be comparable to the Idaho Roadless Rule.

• Mosquito Fly (19,400 acres): The Idaho Roadless Rule designated 17,900 acres as 

backcountry/restoration and 1,500 acres as Forest Plan special areas. Alternative C would 

designate the 17,900 acres as MA1b recommended wilderness, which would be a more 

restrictive prescription than the Idaho Roadless Rule. The remaining 1,500 acres would be in 

MA2a which is consistent with the Rule.

• Sheep Mountain State Line (27,700 acres): The Idaho Roadless Rule designated 26,900 

acres as backcountry/restoration and 800 acres as Forest Plan special areas. Alternative C 

would designate the 26,600 acres as MA1b recommended wilderness, which would be a 

more restrictive prescription than the Idaho Roadless Rule. About 800 acres would be in 

MA2a and 300 acres in MA5 which would be comparable to the Idaho Roadless Rule.

• Spion Kop (22,400 acres): The Idaho Roadless Rule designated 19,600 acres as 

backcountry/restoration and 2,800 acres as Forest Plan special areas. Alternative C would 

designate the 8,900 acres as MA1b recommended wilderness, which would be a more 

restrictive prescription than the Idaho Roadless Rule. About 1,500 acres would be in MA2b, 

300 acres in MA4a and 11,700 acres in MA5 which would be comparable to the Idaho 

Roadless Rule.

• Teepee Creek (5,200 acres): The Idaho Roadless Rule designated 5,200 acres as 

backcountry/restoration. Alternative C would designate the entire 5,200 acres as MA1b 

recommended wilderness, which would be a more restrictive prescription than the Idaho 

Roadless Rule.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Wilderness 485

Designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Recommended 

Wilderness

Introduction

The Wilderness Act of 1964 emphasizes the protection of pristine areas and recognizes multiple 

values and public benefits found in these areas. Wilderness provides outstanding opportunities 

for solitude and for primitive and unconfined recreational experiences. Wilderness is also 

important for maintenance of species diversity, protection of threatened and endangered species, 

protection of watershed, scientific research, and various social values. Wilderness is part of the 

national forest multiple use management mission.

The IPNF shares management of the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area with the Colville National 

Forest. The United States Congress designated this area in 1984, consisting of approximately 

41,335 total acres, 11,9491 of which are on the IPNF. Acres calculated by current GIS analysis 

and displayed throughout this EIS totals 9,900 acres. All of this wilderness is located in 

Washington, but is shared between the Colville National Forest and the IPNF. The Salmo-Priest 

Wilderness is not classified under the Idaho Roadless Rule.

The IPNF manages one administratively designated wilderness study area (WSA) –

Grandmother Mountain WSA. It totals 6,900 acres and is located on the St. Joe Ranger District. 

It was acquired from the BLM as part of two separate land exchanges. The initial 5,200 acres 

was acquired as part of the Arkansas-Idaho Land Exchange Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-584). 

The second parcel totaled 1,700 acres and was acquired as part of the Idaho Land Enhancement 

Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-372). At the time these laws were enacted and the lands 

exchanged, the BLM was managing both parcels as part of the Grandmother Mountain WSA 

established under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782). Both 

the Arkansas-Idaho Land Exchange Act (1992) and the Idaho Land Enhancement Act (2006) 

require that this area be administered to maintain the existing wilderness character and potential 

for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Existing uses that were in place 

prior to acquisition by the Forest Service continue to occur in the WSA. The Idaho Roadless 

Rule has classified this WSA as Wild Land Recreation. The Idaho Roadless Rule has additional 

requirements described in 36 CFR 294 Subpart C.

This section only addresses areas that have already been designated as wilderness or WSAs and 

recommended for wilderness. Potential additions to the National Wilderness Preservation system 

are presented here but the analysis of which areas were recommended for wilderness is explained 

within the “Roadless Area” section in this chapter.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136): This act provides the 

statutory definition of wilderness and management requirements for these congressionally 

designated areas. This act established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be 

administered in such a manner as to leave these areas unimpaired for future use and 

enjoyment as wilderness.

 1 USDA Forest Service FS-383, January 2011
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

486 Wilderness Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771):

Section 1782 of this act addresses BLM Wilderness Study Areas. The Grandmother 

Mountain WSA was acquired from the BLM with this designation.

• Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C 3210): This act 

directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide adequate access to non-federal land within the 

boundaries of the NFS including congressionally designated areas.

• Arkansas-Idaho Land Exchange Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-584): This act legislated that 5,200 

acres of the Grandmother Mountain WSA be transferred from management by the BLM to 

the Forest Service.

• Idaho Land Enhancement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-372): This act legislated that 1,700 acres 

of the Grandmother Mountain WSA be transferred from management by the BLM to the 

Forest Service.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 293: Wilderness–Primitive Areas

Key Indicator

• Acres of recommended wilderness.

Changes between Draft and Final

Acres of recommended wilderness were increased under Alternative B Modified in response to 

public comment. See the “Inventoried Roadless Area” section for a detailed description of this 

change. A table summarizing “Acres of Recommended Wilderness by Alternative” was deleted 

from this section, and the reader is referred to an identical table in the “Inventoried Roadless 

Areas” section of this document.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area

Tucked among the Selkirk Mountains in the extreme northeastern corner of Washington, the U 

shaped Salmo-Priest Wilderness extends its borders along those of Idaho and British Columbia. 

Its most prominent features are two very long ridges, generally running southwest to northeast, 

connected near their northern ends by a ridge crowned by 6,828-foot Salmo Mountain. The 

eastern ridge stands lower, more wooded, more rounded off, and more accessible than the steepsided, rocky-crested western ridge. Streams have cut deep drainages into both ridges. The water 

from the eastern side of the eastern ridge ends up in Idaho's Priest River. The remaining 

wilderness drains generally westerly via Sullivan Creek and the Salmo River into the Pend 

Oreille River.

Below the ridge tops of this well-watered wilderness (at 50 plus inches of precipitation annually) 

you'll find the largest growth of virgin forest left in eastern Washington: western redcedar,

western hemlock, Douglas fir, grand fir, and larch. The Forest is home to mule deer and whitetailed deer, elk, black bears, cougars, bobcats, badgers, pine martens, lynx, bighorn sheep, and 

moose. Though rarely sighted, threatened and endangered species, (including woodland caribou, 

grizzly bears, and gray wolves) also roam throughout this area. Winter snows may blanket the 

ground until early July at higher elevations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Wilderness 487

The Shedroof Divide Trail, the longest path in the area at 21.8 miles, follows the extent of the 

eastern ridge through open timber and subalpine meadows. It traverses several miles of nonwilderness ridgeline into Idaho.

The Salmo-Priest Wilderness is designated as a Class II Wilderness air-shed under the Clean Air 

Act amendments of 1977.

Grandmother Mountain Wilderness Study Area

The Grandmother Mountain WSA is located in Shoshone County, 45 miles northeast of Moscow, 

Idaho. Acres administered by the BLM totals 12,140 and are essentially the eastern portion of the 

area. The Forest Service administers the western 6,900 acres.

The WSA lies within the Grandmother Mountain Roadless Area. The area is part of the St. Joe 

Ranger District of the IPNF. Several well maintained roads surround the area allowing access at 

several points. The most popular entry points begin from Fishbook-Gold Center Road 301, 

Marble Creek Road 321, and the Little North Fork Road 760.

The amoeba-shaped roadless area includes a U-shaped ridge as its center consisting of 

Grandfather Mountain, Grandmother Mountain, Marks Butte, Crater Peak, Widow Mountain, 

and Lookout Mountain. Several cirques, cirque lakes, and moraines along the ridge line remain 

as evidence of past glacial activity, especially in the area of Lookout Mountain. The headwaters 

of Marble Creek, a major tributary of the St. Joe River, flow northward from the ridgeline. 

Flowing to the east are the headwaters of the Little North Fork of the Clearwater Rivers. The 

southwest corner is drained by Placer Creek into the St. Maries River system. Elevations range 

from 6,800 feet at Widow Mountain to 3,400 feet at Marble Creek. Vegetation patterns reflect the 

high elevation, glacial activity, and past fire history of the area. Nearly half of the roadless area 

consists of immature pole or sawtimber stands of mixed composition resulting from wildfires in 

1910 and 1923. The remaining forested areas consist of mature or over mature stands; largely 

composed of mountain hemlock, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir. Much of the high 

elevation areas support relatively sparse subalpine vegetation and contain numerous rock or talus 

slopes. Habitat-types graduate from cedar/clintonia to either a mountain hemlock or subalpine fir 

series as elevation rises.

The Grandmother Mountain roadless area, including the WSA, provides a variety of recreational 

pursuits. The current major uses of this area include big game hunting, backpacking, hiking, 

horseback riding, and fishing. The Freezeout area and the lakes contained in the eastern portion 

of the roadless area are popular recreational destinations. Snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, 

and off-road vehicle motorized use continue to increase in popularity, especially on roads 

contiguous to the roadless area.

Language in both Land Exchange Acts (the Act of 1992, [P.L. 102-584] and the Act of 2006, 

[P.L. 109-372] required that the area be managed to maintain their presently existing wilderness 

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

Environmental Consequences

Resource Protection Methods

Designated wilderness is governed largely by the terms of the Wilderness Act and limit human 

uses and activities. These limitations are designed to retain the wilderness in a natural and wild 

state. Project proposals within the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area are evaluated for compliance 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

488 Wilderness Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

with wilderness values. Commercial use of wilderness is limited and controlled by special use 

permits and their associated operating plans.

General Effects

Because direction for wilderness management is detailed in law, regulation, and agency policy 

and in specific management plans, management in the various Forest Plan alternatives does not 

differ. In all alternatives, the existing Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area and Grandmother Mountain 

WSA acres remain the same. Significant effects to wilderness areas are not expected under any 

alternative nor are effects expected to differ by alternative. In all action alternatives the SalmoPriest Wilderness Area is managed under direction that does not vary by alternative. In all action 

alternatives the Grandmother Mountain WSA would be managed to protect wilderness character, 

as it existed when the Forest Service acquired the lands in 1992 and 2006.

All action alternatives and the no-action alternative (Alternative A) propose to manage the area 

directly adjacent to the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area as recommended wilderness (MA1b). 

Alternative C contains the most recommended wilderness adjacent to the Salmo-Priest 

Wilderness Area with about the same amount of recommended wilderness in all three other 

alternatives.

The following discussion of general effects on wilderness addresses recommendations for 

additional wilderness primarily in roadless areas. See the “Roadless Area” section in this chapter 

for a discussion of the affected environment. New areas recommended for wilderness 

designation have the potential effect of protecting wilderness resources. In general, alternatives 

that have areas recommended for wilderness exclude motorized and mechanized uses.

Recommended wilderness can affect existing Wilderness and WSA areas. All alternatives 

recommend additional areas for wilderness designation. Designation of new wilderness may 

change patterns of recreation use and reduce pressure within existing wilderness areas. 

Motorized and mechanized travel on trails and winter motorized use would be prohibited in areas 

recommended for wilderness designation. Motorcycle, snowmobile, bicycle, and ATV use would 

be displaced in recommended wilderness areas. Recommended wilderness provides larger areas 

with wilderness character.

The MA allocation for recommended wilderness (MA1b) does not create a wilderness. Congress 

must pass legislation designating wilderness. MA1b, recommended wilderness, protects the 

values that make the area suitable for wilderness designation. Management strategies for 

recommended wilderness may affect recreation opportunities and experiences within these areas.

Effects of Forestwide Direction

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

The no-action alternative (A) and Alternatives B Modified and D include four areas identified as 

recommended wilderness (MA1b). The four areas include the Salmo-Priest, Selkirk, Scotchman 

Peaks, and the Mallard Larkins areas. All three alternatives recommend these four areas but 

differ in recommended acreage. Alternative C includes these four areas plus the Cathedral Peak

area, the Grassy Top area, and a much larger area adjacent to the Mallard Larkins including the 

western portion of the Mallard Larkins. The western portion of the Mallard Larkins is included 

in Alternative A as well. Table 129 in the “Inventoried Roadless Areas” section of this document 

displays the acres of recommended wilderness by alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Wilderness 489

Alternative B Modified — Proposed Action

Alternative B Modified is based on the Proposed Land Management Plan from May 2006 and 

the response to comments on the proposed Plan, prior to the 2008 Planning Rule being enjoined 

and vacated, as well as on comments on the 2011 DEIS for this Forest Plan.

Alternative C

Alternative C recommends the largest acreage as proposed wilderness, emphasizing the use of 

natural disturbance processes, use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives, 

and prescribed fires in addition to low-frequency management activities in order to meet 

watershed and vegetation restoration objectives. The 1982 planning procedures require 

alternatives to be distributed between the minimum resource potential and maximum resource 

potential to reflect, to the extent practicable, the full range of major commodity and 

environmental resource uses and values that could be produced from the Forest. Therefore, 

alternatives were developed to address the range of lands to recommend for wilderness.

Alternative D

Alternative D features high-intensity management with emphasis on timber production and 

motorized access. Alternative D has the least amount of recommended wilderness, leaving 

options for vegetation management and motorized or mechanized access across more areas.

Consequences to Wilderness from Forest Plan Components Associated with other 

Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Allocations

When considering the number of acres where motor vehicle use would be allowed, it must be 

remembered that this refers only to those acres in MAs where roads or trails may exist and be

designated for such use. All four alternatives recommend wilderness and this MA designation 

would preclude the designation of trails for motor vehicle use. Table 129 displays the 

recommended wilderness acres by alternative where motorized vehicle use would not be 

allowed. In addition to recommended wilderness, the primitive lands MA (MA1e) in Alternative 

B Modified would prohibit designation of motor vehicle use, with the exception of over-snow 

vehicle use. The addition of MA1e in Alternative B Modified would increase the acreage where 

motor vehicle use (excluding over-snow vehicle use) is prohibited to 181,200 acres. Motor

vehicle use is prohibited in the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area in all four alternatives. Single track 

motor vehicle use is allowed within the Grandmother Mountain WSA in all four alternatives as 

outlined in the two legislative land exchanges. Allowed uses within the wilderness area and the 

WSA do not vary by alternative.

There is an effect to the number of acres available for over-snow vehicle use based on the 

amount of recommended wilderness (MA1b) in the various alternatives. Table 129 indicates the 

acreage of recommended wilderness in each alternative. Alternative C would prohibit over-snow 

vehicle use on the most acreage while Alternative D would limit this use on the least number of 

acres. Alternative B Modified includes MA1e which would allow over-snow vehicle use. There 

would be no prohibition to this use in MA1e. Any area that currently has no prohibition to oversnow vehicle use, and is allocated to MA1b (recommended wilderness), will have a legal order 

prohibiting this use (as per 36 CFR 212.81, and 36 CFR 261.14) issued in conjunction with the 

ROD for the revised Forest Plan. Over-snow vehicle use is prohibited in the Salmo-Priest 

Wilderness Area in all four alternatives. Over-snow vehicle use is allowed within the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

490 Wilderness Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Grandmother Mountain WSA in all four alternatives as outlined in the two legislative land 

exchanges. Allowed uses within the wilderness area and the WSA do not vary by alternative.

There is an effect to the number of acres available for mechanized use (e.g., mountain bikes) 

based on the amount of recommended wilderness (MA1b) in the various alternatives. Alternative 

C would prohibit mechanized use on the most acreage while Alternative D would limit this use 

on the least number of acres. Alternative B Modified includes MA1e which would allow

mechanized use. Any area that currently has no prohibition to mechanized use, and is allocated 

to MA1b (recommended wilderness), will have a legal order prohibiting mechanized use (as per 

36 CFR 261.55[b]) issued in conjunction with the ROD for the revised Forest Plan. Mechanized 

use is prohibited in the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area in all four alternatives. Mechanized use is 

allowed within the Grandmother Mountain WSA in all four alternatives as outlined in the two 

legislative land exchanges. Allowed uses within the wilderness area and the WSA do not vary by 

alternative.

Alternative C proposes the most recommended wilderness while Alternative D recommends the 

least. Alternative A proposes more recommended wilderness than Alternative B Modified when 

analyzing just the recommended wilderness (MA1b), but if the primitive lands (MA1e) are 

added the total acreage equals 160,700 in Alternative B Modified.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management

Naturally-ignited fires significantly affect the composition, structure, and functioning of many 

different types of ecosystems. Fire occurs relatively quickly, but the effects may last over long 

time spans and influence spatial patterns of vegetation and the distribution of wildlife over an 

entire region. Because naturally-ignited fire is a key process, fire suppression causes wholesale 

ecological changes. The importance of fire and impacts of fire suppression have long been 

understood; and naturally-ignited fire is recognized as a crucial factor in maintaining naturalness 

within wilderness (Cole and Landres 1995).

Restoring natural processes that occur over large areas, and hundreds of years, will be a 

formidable management challenge. Restoring natural fire regimes will be difficult because of the 

risk to property and visitors, both within wilderness and on adjacent lands. Fire, in its natural 

role, can have a positive effect on the character of wilderness. Wildland fire would continue as a 

reintroduced process in the Salmo-Priest Wilderness under all alternatives, and would have 

similar effects.

There is an effect to the number of acres with the most benefits to undeveloped character as use 

of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives would be more likely in Alternative 

C; which emphasizes the use of natural disturbances and has the highest acres of recommended 

wilderness. Impacts to opportunities for solitude could be expected where visitors encounter 

crews managing these fires.

Effects from Vegetation Management

Vegetation management in wilderness, WSAs, and recommended wilderness is restricted to use 

of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives in all alternatives. Wildland fire 

would continue as a possible management technique under all alternatives. Fire control measures 

would be used if and where fuels and weather increase risk of unwanted fire in or coming out of 

wilderness, WSA’s, or recommended wilderness. All alternatives provide for use of natural,

unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives in these areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Wilderness 491

Effects from Terrestrial Wildlife Management

No wildlife management activities are proposed in any of the four alternatives; therefore, would 

not result in any change in lands recommended for wilderness or allocated to the Grandmother 

Mountain WSA or within the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area.

Effects from Access and Recreation Management

Wilderness itself is equally treated under all four alternatives. The Salmo-Priest Wilderness and 

Grandmother Mountain WSA may be affected by management of adjacent lands, particularly 

with non-motorized allocations including recommended wilderness in all alternatives. These 

alternatives would add to the size of protected areas and discourage illegal motorized use that 

may be entering designated wilderness. Alternative C recommends more wilderness than the 

other three alternatives so it maintains more acres of wilderness character. Alternative D 

recommends the least wilderness so it maintains the least amount of acres of wilderness 

character. The other two alternatives fall between C and D in this regard.

Recreation and travel management restrictions within the Grandmother Mountain WSA do not 

change by alternative. These are established by the two legislative land exchanges that 

transferred this area to Forest Service management.

Areas recommended for wilderness will be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. 

However, recommendation for wilderness designation may lead to increased recreation use 

within an area. An increase in use may lead to management strategies implemented to protect 

wilderness values. This Plan does not propose any management activities at this time; therefore, 

none of the four alternatives would result in any change in the lands recommended for 

wilderness or allocated to the Grandmother Mountain WSA or Salmo Priest Wilderness Area.

Effects from Minerals Management

There are no mineral management activities proposed in any of the four alternatives; therefore, 

this would not result in any change in the lands recommended for wilderness or allocated to the 

Grandmother Mountain WSA. The Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area is legally withdrawn from 

mineral entry by statute.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that were 

considered with regard to the wilderness resource. Cumulative effects have been considered for 

the life of the Plan. The area of consideration is the IPNF.

Reasonable and foreseeable actions on NFS lands include: future vegetation management, 

mining/reclamation, population growth, County Comprehensive Plans, expansion of ski areas, 

and Fire Plan – priority WUI areas.

Population growth and development increases the need for public open space. Growth in the 

Coeur d’Alene and Spokane areas as well as surrounding areas in Idaho, Montana, and 

Washington, are likely to increase recreation use of the Forest, including increased wilderness 

use. The effects of urbanization and population growth on wilderness use and resource 

conditions are likely to be gradual and extend well beyond the planning period.

The four Forest Plan alternatives do not change the amount of existing wilderness designated on 

the Forest, in Idaho (or Washington), or in the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

492 Wilderness Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Idaho Roadless Rule

Direction contained in the proposed Plan (all action alternatives) for wilderness (MA1a) and 

Wilderness Study Areas (MA1c) are consistent with the Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 

Subpart C).

Alternative C examines the wilderness potential of lands beyond those identified in the Idaho 

Roadless Rule Wild Land Recreation management classification theme. Alternative C is more 

restrictive than the Idaho Roadless Rule in some areas (see discussion in “Roadless” section).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 493

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Introduction

Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 to preserve select river’s free-flowing 

condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. The most important provision of 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is protecting rivers from the harmful effects of water resources 

projects. To protect free-flowing character the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (which 

licenses non-federal hydropower projects) is not allowed to license construction of dams, water 

conduits, reservoirs, powerhouses, transmission lines, or other project works on or directly 

affecting wild and scenic rivers. Other federal agencies may not assist by loan, grant, and license 

or otherwise any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the 

values for which a river was designated.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act also directs that each river in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System (National System) be administered in a manner to protect and enhance a river’s 

outstanding natural and cultural values. It allows existing uses of a river to continue and future 

uses to be considered, so long as existing or proposed use does not conflict with protecting river 

values. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act also directs building partnerships among landowners, 

river users, tribal nations, and all levels of government.

Rivers may be identified for suitability studies by an act of Congress under Section 5(a), or 

through federal agency-initiated study under Section 5(d) (1). By the end of 2002, Congress had 

authorized 138 rivers for study. Section 5(d) (1) directs federal agencies to consider the potential 

of wild and scenic rivers in their planning processes; and its application has resulted in numerous 

individual river designations and state and area-specific legislation.

Both Sections 5(a) and 5(d) (1) require determinations to be made regarding a river’s eligibility, 

classification, and suitability. Eligibility and classification represent an inventory of existing 

conditions. Eligibility is an evaluation of whether a river is free-flowing and possesses one or 

more outstandingly remarkable value. If found eligible, a river is analyzed as to its current level 

of development and a preliminary classification determination is made as to whether it should be 

placed into one of three classes; wild, scenic, or recreational.

The final procedural step, a suitability study, provides the basis for determining whether to 

recommend a river as part of the National System. A suitability study is designed to answer the 

following questions:

• Should the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable 

values be protected; or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant doing 

otherwise?

• Will the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable 

values be protected through designation? Is it the best method for protecting the river 

corridor? In answering these questions, the benefits and impacts of Wild and Scenic 

rivers designation must be evaluated and alternative protection methods considered.

• Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any non-federal entities that 

may be partially responsible for implementing protective management?

Rivers authorized for suitability studies by Congress are protected under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act; specifically, Sections 7(b) — prevents the harmful effects of water resources projects; 

8(b) — withdraws public lands from disposition under public land laws; 9(b) — withdraws 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

494 Wild & Scenic Rivers Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

locatable minerals from appropriation under mining laws; and 12(a) — directs actions of other 

federal agencies to protect river values. These protections last through the suitability study 

process, including a three-year period following transmittal of the final suitability study report by 

the President to Congress. The integrity of the identified classification must also be maintained 

during the protection period.

The identification of a river as eligible through the forest planning process does not trigger any 

protections under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. To manage the river for its potential inclusion 

into the National System, other authorities are cited to protect its free-flowing character, water 

quality, outstandingly remarkable values, and preliminary or recommended classification.

No suitability studies are being conducted with this Forest Plan revision.

In this evaluation, only eligibility of rivers on the IPNF is completed. Suitability is deferred, 

pending:

• Public interest or support in wild and scenic river study;

• Congress expresses interest in a specific river for wild and scenic river designation; or

• A proposed project would alter the free-flowing character of a stream, such as by 

impoundment, or adversely affect outstandingly remarkable values, or the river's 

inventoried classification.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11, as amended; 16 U.S.C. § 473 et 

seq.): This act provides the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to regulate the occupancy 

and use of NFS lands.

• Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat.215): This act 

provides direction to the NFS lands to provide access and recreation opportunities. The act 

states, “The policy of Congress is that national forests are established and administered for 

outdoor recreation...”

• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968 (P.L. 90-542, Stat. 906, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. § 1271(note), 1271-1287): This act established a policy for preserving selected rivers 

or sections thereof in a free-flowing condition. The intent was to protect water quality of 

such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation measures that would balance the 

development of water, power, and other resources for the benefit and enjoyment of present 

and future generations.

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 

2742, as amended): This act declares (per Sec. 102) that “...the public lands be managed in 

a manner that...will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.”

• National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of October 22, 1976 (P.L. 94-588, 90 Stat. 

2949; 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq.): The act requires the Forest Service to establish a 

comprehensive system of land and resource planning, including the development and 

maintenance of a comprehensive and detailed inventory of lands and resources. The act also 

specifies the use of a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated 

consideration of the physical sciences into planning for the management and use of NFS 

lands and resources.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 495

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 297 — Wild and Scenic Rivers

Key Indicator

• Miles of eligible or suitable wild and scenic rivers.

Analysis Area

The analysis area for wild, scenic, and recreational rivers is the named rivers and streams on the 

IPNF.

Methodology and Analysis Process

Inventory

The wild and scenic river study process requires determination to be made regarding a river’s 

eligibility, classification, and suitability. Eligibility and classification represent an inventory of 

existing conditions. Eligibility is an evaluation of whether a river is free-flowing (without major 

dams, diversions, or channel modifications) and possesses one or more outstandingly remarkable 

values. These values should be a unique or exceptional representation for the area studied and 

must be related to the river or its immediate environment.

As per the Wild and Scenic River Act at 5(d) (1) and Forest Service Manual policy (FSM 

1924.03) a systematic inventory of named streams and rivers was completed for the IPNF. The 

inventory of the named rivers and streams on the IPNF was accomplished by using the current 

GIS databases for rivers and streams on the Forest.

The Forest then determined which of the named rivers and streams were free-flowing. This 

determination was made by answering the question; “Is the river segment flowing in a natural 

condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip rapping, or other modification of 

the waterway”? If the river segment was not free-flowing, then the river was not eligible.

The next step was to identify potential eligibility by determining which of the named rivers and 

streams that are free-flowing might have a potential ‘outstandingly remarkable value’.

Eligibility

To be eligible for designation, a river must be free-flowing and possess one or more 

outstandingly remarkable value. Thus, the eligibility analysis consisted of an examination of the 

river's hydrology, including any man made alterations, and an assessment of its natural, cultural, 

and recreational resources.

In order to be assessed as outstandingly remarkable, a river-related value must be a unique, rare, 

or exemplary feature that is significant at a comparative regional or national scale. Dictionary 

definitions of the words "unique" and "rare" indicate that such a value would be one that is a 

conspicuous example from among a number of similar values that are themselves uncommon or 

extraordinary. Only one such value is needed for eligibility.

The area, region, or scale of comparison is not fixed, and is defined as that which serves as a 

basis for meaningful comparative analysis; it may vary depending on the value being considered. 

Typically, a "region" is defined on the scale of an administrative unit, a portion of a state, or an 

appropriately scaled physiographic or hydrologic unit. The comparative scale used for this 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

496 Wild & Scenic Rivers Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

assessment is the individual forest. That is, the rivers and streams on the IPNF were compared 

one to another.

While the spectrum of resources that may be considered is broad, all values should be directly 

river-related. That is, they should:

• Be located in the river or on its immediate shore-lands (generally within 1/4 mile on either 

side of the river);

• Contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem; and/or

• Owe their location or existence to the presence of the river.

Using the Forest as the comparative scale, the IPNF then reviewed the identified potential 

‘outstandingly remarkable values’ and determined whether they meet the criteria of being rare, 

unique, or exemplary. After reviewing the initial assessments a determination was made as to 

whether the potential outstandingly remarkable value(s) is a unique, rare, or exemplary feature 

that is significant at the selected comparative scale and meets the other criteria for being directly 

river-related (as described above) to be considered eligible for wild and scenic river study.

Narratives were developed for each river found to be potentially eligible, clarifying the 

outstandingly remarkable values that were unique, rare, and exemplary.

Classification

The potential classification of a river found to be eligible is based on the condition of the river 

and the adjacent lands as they currently exist. Section 2(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(1968) specifies and defines these terms as follows:

• Wild Rivers: Rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments and generally inaccessible 

except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. 

These represent vestiges of primitive America.

• Scenic Rivers: Rivers or sections of rivers free of impoundments, with shorelines or 

watersheds still largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

• Recreational Rivers: Rivers or sections of rivers readily accessible by roads or railroad, 

which may have some development along their shoreline and which may have undergone 

some impoundments or diversions in the past.

For more information on how the inventory was conducted, the values considered, and 

classification, see appendix E of the FEIS.

Changes between Draft and Final

Updates have been made to the outstandingly remarkable values in tables 135 and 136 and acres 

and miles adjusted to match the latest GIS data. Narratives were developed for each eligible river 

system based on the inventoried outstandingly remarkable values. Only those values that were 

identified as rare, unique, and exemplary in the narrative have been brought forward as the 

“outstandingly remarkable values” listed in these tables. These narratives are included in 

appendix E.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 497

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Designated Rivers

Congress designated the St. Joe wild and scenic river on November 10th, 1978 (P.L. 95-625 

Section 708) as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the authority granted by the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended. The St. Joe River is designated as a classified 

wild river from Spruce Tree campground upriver to St. Joe Lake near the Montana State line. It 

is designated as a classified recreational river from Spruce Tree campground downstream to 

Avery. The St. Joe River totals 8,229 acres for the wild portion and 13,061 for the recreational 

portion of the river (based on GIS acreage). Proclaimed (land status) acres equal 8,198 

designated wild river and 12,665 designated recreational river1 Table 134 displays information 

on the designated St. Joe Wild and Scenic River.

Table 134. Summary of Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers on the IPNF

River Status Length on all 

Lands (miles)

Length on NFS 

Lands (miles)

Classification Acres(on NFS 

Lands)

St. Joe Designated 29.0 29.0 Wild 8,229

St. Joe Designated 41.6 41.6 Recreational 13,061

Total* 70.6* 70.6 21,290*

* Lengths and acres are a result of using current GIS methodologies.

Suitable Rivers

Suitable Rivers — Section 5(a) of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act (1968) listed three rivers on the 

IPNF that were to be studied for their suitability for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. They were the St. Joe River (the entire main stem), the Moyie River (the segment 

from the Canadian border to its confluence with the Kootenai River), and the Priest River (the 

entire main stem).

The suitability studies were completed for these three rivers. The results of these suitability 

studies found:

• St. Joe River: The upper 71.1 miles was determined as suitable for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic River System. In November 1978, Congress included the upper St. Joe 

River as part of the National Wild and Scenic River System. This action designated the St. 

Joe River from the North Fork of the St. Joe River to Spruce Tree Campground as a 

Recreational River (41.6 miles), and from Spruce Tree Campground to St. Joe Lake as a 

Wild River (29.5 miles). A Development and Management Plan was completed and included 

as appendix Z in the 1987 Forest Plan for the IPNF.

• Moyie River: This 26.1 mile section of river was determined as unsuitable for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. A report was transmitted to Congress on 

September 13, 1982.

• Priest River: 20.1 miles of the Upper Priest River (from the Canadian border to Upper 

Priest Lake) was determined to be suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System and classified as a Wild River. The remaining sections of the Priest River 

from Priest Lake to the confluence with the Pend Oreille River were determined as 

unsuitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. A report was 

 1 USDA Forest Service FS-383, January 2011
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

498 Wild & Scenic Rivers Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

submitted to Congress on October 2, 1979. No action was taken on the report. The process to 

bring the Upper Priest River before Congress was initiated by the Washington Office again 

in 1993 but was discontinued. This river is now included as an eligible wild and scenic river 

under the revised Forest Plan. See the discussion below on eligible rivers.

Eligible Rivers

The final EIS for the 1987 IPNF Forest Plan and Amendment #3 signed in 1992 identified six 

rivers or streams as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. They 

are:

1) Little North Fork of the Clearwater River

2) Little North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River

3) North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River

4) Coeur d'Alene River

5) Pack River

6) Long Canyon Creek

In the 1987 Forest Plan for the IPNF, the St. Joe River and the Upper Priest River were allocated 

to MA12 (Wild and Scenic River Systems) and were described and displayed on management 

area maps. Eligible rivers were not allocated to MA12, but were discussed in the accompanying 

EIS.

As per the Wild and Scenic River Act at 5(d) (1) and Forest Service Manual policy (FSM 

1924.03), a systematic inventory has been completed on the IPNF. The inventory of named rivers 

and streams on the IPNF resulted in the identification of 1,337 candidates to consider for 

eligibility: Bonners Ferry District (145), Priest Lake District (123), Sandpoint District (142), 

Coeur d’Alene District (561), and St. Joe District (366). An assessment of these 1,337 candidates 

was conducted to identify any potential outstandingly remarkable values and their free-flowing 

characteristics. As a result of this assessment, it was determined that there were two additional 

rivers and streams eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These 

additions are summarized in table 136.

The 1987 IPNF Forest Plan did not contain any monitoring items in relation to eligible, suitable, 

or designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. The direction provided in the ROD was to “...preserve 

future options for Recreational/Scenic/Wild Congressional classification.”

To this end, projects were designed and implemented so the identified outstandingly remarkable 

values would not be compromised, until such time as a suitability study could be conducted. As a 

result, the free-flowing characteristic of all eligible rivers has been maintained. In addition, 

management actions taken to comply with state water quality goals and INFISH direction have 

resulted in the protection of those rivers and streams where fisheries were the identified 

outstandingly remarkable value.

Table 135 summarizes the eligible rivers that were included in the 1987 IPNF Forest Plan and 

1992 amendment. Figure 35 displays their location (use the map code listed in table 135 as a 

reference to figure 35).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 499

Table 135. Summary of Eligible Rivers on the IPNF (1987 Forest Plan & Amendment)

River/

Segment(S)

Map Code Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value(s)

Length 

on all 

Lands 

(miles)

Length 

on NFS 

Lands 

(miles)

Preliminary 

Classification

Acres 

(on NFS 

lands)

Upper Priest River

Segment 1 UP1 Recreation, 

Scenery, 

Wildlife, 

Fisheries

19.8 19.8 Wild 5,096

Little North Fork Clearwater River

Segment 1 LNFC1 Recreation, 

Fisheries, 

Wildlife

11.3 7.9 Recreational 2,443

Segment 2 LNFC2 26.1 18.3 Wild 5,852

Segment 3 LNFC3 3.4 0.4 Recreational 39

Coeur d′Alene River

Segment 1 CDA1 Recreation 

Historic

7.6 0.0 Recreational 0

Segment 2 CDA2 30.2 0.3 Recreational 395

Little North Fork Coeur d′Alene River

Segment 1 LNFCDA1 Fisheries 38.2 37.8 Recreational 11,338

North Fork Coeur d′Alene River

Segment 1 NFCDA1 Scenery, 

Recreation, 

Fisheries

9.2 9.2 Recreational 2,904

Segment 2 NFCDA2 15.6 15.6 Wild 4,454

Segment 3 NFCDA3 52.2 35.0 Recreational 11,268

Pack River

Segment 1 P1 Recreation 15.3 13.7 Recreational 4,262

Long Canyon Creek

Segment 1 LC1 Wildlife 15.2 14.1 Wild 4,488

Total* 244.10* 172.1* 52,539*

* Lengths and acres are a result of using current GIS methodologies.

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

Under Alternative A there would be no new river miles identified as eligible on the IPNF. The 

1987 ROD and amended Plan identified approximately 172 miles of rivers on NFS lands (and 

the associated corridors containing about 52,539 acres) on the IPNF as eligible for study as 

additions to the National Wild and Scenic River system (see table 135).

Alternative B Modified, C, and D

In addition to the existing eligible rivers (see table 135) identified in the 1987 ROD and 

Amendment #3, Alternatives B Modified, C, and D identifies approximately 21 additional miles 

of river (and the associated corridors containing about 5,185 acres) as eligible for study as 

additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System (see table 136
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

500 Wild & Scenic Rivers Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 136 summarizes the additional eligible rivers by alternative. Figure 35 displays their 

location (use the map code listed in table 136 as a reference to figure 35).

Table 136. IPNF Rivers Identified as Eligible during Plan Revision Analysis

River/Segment(S) Map 

Code

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value(s)

Length 

on all 

Lands 

(miles)

Length 

on NFS 

Lands 

(miles)

Preliminary 

Classification

Acres 

(on NFS 

lands)

Hughes Fork

Segment 1 H1 Scenery, 

Recreation, 

Wildlife, History, 

Botany

4.8 4.8 Wild 1,562

Segment 2 H2 9.9 9.9 Recreational 2,410

Kootenai

Segment 1 K6 Scenery 

Fisheries

6.6 6.5 Recreational 1,213

Total* 21.2 21.2 5,185

Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D designated rivers would be allocated to MA2a and 

eligible rivers would be allocated to MA2b. Designated rivers (MA2a) total approximately 70

miles and include approximately 21,290 acres within the St. Joe designated corridor. These 

numbers are based on current GIS analysis. Land Status acres equal 8,198 designated wild and 

12,665 designated recreational for a total of 20,863 acres within the designated St. Joe Wild and 

Scenic River Corridor1

.

MA2b, eligible wild and scenic rivers would provide management direction for approximately 

193 miles of stream on NFS lands (and the associated corridors containing about 57,724 acres) 

and would be managed to protect the outstandingly remarkable values for which these rivers are 

eligible to the National Wild and Scenic River Systems. This direction would apply to those 

streams identified as eligible in the existing Plan, as well as the 21 additional river miles 

identified as eligible.

Figure 35 displays the eligible wild, scenic, and recreational rivers on the Forest. See appendix E 

for narratives and detailed maps of each eligible wild, scenic, and recreational river.

 1 USDA Forest Service FS-383, January 2011
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 501

Figure 35. Map of IPNF Established and Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

502 Wild & Scenic Rivers Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Consequences to Wild and Scenic Rivers from Forest Plan Components Associated 

with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Prescriptions

The management area prescription for wild and scenic rivers protects the outstandingly 

remarkable values for which the river was designated. More areas are protected as eligible for 

wild and scenic rivers under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D than under Alternative A.

Effects from Vegetation Management

Although all river corridors are removed from calculation of the ASQ, trees could be cut in the 

eligible river corridors classified as scenic or recreational if it is to maintain or restore the values 

for which the scenic or recreational river was identified. Within river segments classified as wild,

vegetation restoration projects may occur if the need is linked to human-induced changes and are

necessary for the recovery of threatened, endangered, sensitive species or native ecological 

communities (MA2b-GDL-VEG-01). Within recreation river segments, timber harvest is 

allowed to maintain or restore the values for which the scenic or recreational river was identified 

(MA2b-STD-TBR-01). Trees would be cut only if they do not alter the recreation characteristics 

of the land and physical resources and do not affect the eligibility, classification, or potential 

suitability of the area. For wild and recreational classifications, vegetation alteration outside the 

areas would be performed in a manner that does not reduce the scenic quality of the river 

corridor (MA2b-GDL-AR-05 [Eligible Wild River Segments], MA2b-GDL-AR-05[Eligible 

Recreational River Segments]).

Effects from Recreation Management

Impacts from recreational use and management within eligible river segments are anticipated to 

be low. Although river corridors may be used for camping, canoeing, hiking, and other activities, 

the impacts can be expected to be minimal since they are generally low intensity. In order to 

provide an essentially primitive character, eligible segments classified as wild would not likely 

have any recreation development occur. In segments classified as scenic or recreational, 

recreation development would be allowed but only when it would preserve the identified river 

values. Trail maintenance work can be expected to have little if any impact in the river corridors.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management

Both natural, unplanned ignitions and prescribed fires are allowed to be used as a tool to 

maintain ecological conditions within river corridors. These burns could affect scenery in the 

short-term, but should contribute to meeting long-term scenic objectives and desired future 

conditions of the MA.

Effects from Minerals Management

Anticipated effects from minerals management would be low in all alternatives. Potential for 

leasable minerals is low across most of the Forest and currently there are no permits or operating 

plans for exploration within the corridors. Although potential for locatable minerals does exist, 

there are no current permits or operating plans for mineral exploration within the corridors. 

Mineral materials are present and could potentially be used for construction purposes but 

generally proposals for development of mineral materials do not occur and this would be at the 

discretion of the Forest Service. Eligible segments classified as wild would not be available for 

mineral material development.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 503

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects evaluate the potential impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers from the alternatives 

when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The lands within the 

IPNF boundary, and the named rivers and streams contained therein, form the geographic scope 

for cumulative effects. The temporal bound would be the life of the Forest Plan which is 

estimated to be a 15 year time span.

In order to integrate the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives, existing conditions are used as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. 

This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior actions that have 

affected Wild and Scenic Rivers and might contribute to cumulative effects. On rivers such as 

the Coeur d’Alene River, which predominantly flows through lands other than NFS lands, there 

has been continual development on private property. Water-related activities such as fishing, 

rafting, and kayaking are increasing as the population in nearby urban areas increases and access 

points are developed.

On rivers that predominantly flow through NFS lands, there has been a steady increase in waterrelated activities such as fishing, rafting, canoeing, and kayaking, mostly at dispersed sites. An 

exception to this would be those river sections that do not contain road access.

Management activities generally take place outside of eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers unless an 

action is needed to help protect or preserve the identified unique feature or characteristic. For 

example, if invasive weeds were discovered in an eligible river corridor there may be a need to 

take some action (hand pull, herbicide application) to eradicate or prevent further spread.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

504 Research Natural Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Research Natural Areas

Introduction

Research natural areas (RNAs) are permanently established to maintain areas of natural 

ecosystems and areas of special ecological significance. These protective designations attempt to 

maintain natural ecosystem components and processes and are cooperatively identified and 

managed with the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. These areas form a 

long-term network of ecological reserves established as baseline areas for non-manipulative 

research, education, and the maintenance of biodiversity. Most of these areas on the IPNF would 

protect examples of late-seral or climax conditions. They are administratively designated by the 

regional forester with station director concurrence.

RNAs Serve Three Important Functions:

• Reference areas — RNAs serve as benchmarks for monitoring and evaluating the 

sustainability and impacts of land management practices on lands with similar 

ecosystems. To determine the impact of management on an area it is useful to have, as a 

control, a similar area maintained in natural condition for comparison. RNAs contribute 

to ecosystem management by providing these controls.

• Biological diversity — RNAs provide protection for biological diversity. A 

representative RNA system provides some degree of assurance that a wide array of plant 

and animal species will be afforded a high degree of protection in the future. This 

protection may be most important for soil microorganisms, fungi, insects, and other 

forms of biological diversity on which ecosystems often depend the most, but about 

which we know the least. RNAs also can be selected to help protect specific populations 

of threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive species.

• Research — RNAs provide sites for research into how ecosystems function, particularly 

in areas in which ecological and evolutionary processes are functioning in a relatively 

natural state. They serve as sites for monitoring long-term change in ecosystems such as 

global climate change and shifting patterns in the landscape that result from such 

disturbances as fire, floods, and insect epidemics. Research projects in an identified 

RNA can greatly increase our understanding of particular ecosystems and improve the 

quality of ecosystem management. RNAs also serve an important educational function 

by providing excellent examples of ecosystems in a relatively natural condition, with 

functioning ecological processes.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 477-482, 551): This act authorizes 

the Secretary of Agriculture to issue rules and regulations for the occupancy and use of the 

national forests.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Research Natural Areas 505

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

The following regulations provide direction for RNA establishment and management on NFS 

lands:

• 36 CFR 219 — Planning

• 219.25 Special Designations: States that forest planning shall provide for the 

establishment of RNAs. To be identified as examples of important forest, shrubland, 

grassland, alpine, aquatic, and geologic types that have special or unique characteristics 

of scientific interest and importance and that are needed to complete the national RNA 

network.

Methodology and Analysis Process

The IPNF resource specialists and research scientists, along with the Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, have identified NFS lands on the IPNF that possess ecological characteristics that make 

them desirable for RNA establishment. In addition to the 20 established RNAs already on the 

IPNF, the revised Forest Plan would designate three additional RNAs and expand an established 

RNA.

Changes between Draft and Final

An additional RNA, Fortynine Meadows, would be designated under Alternative B Modified. 

The Fortynine Meadows RNA encompasses approximately 178 acres and is an undisturbed, high 

quality, high-elevation peatland (fen) ecosystem. In addition, the boundaries of an existing RNA 

and a proposed RNA were adjusted and increased in size. The Red Horse Mountain RNA 

increased 383 acres and the Theriault Lake RNA increased 145 acres. The boundary adjustments 

were to improve management, make them locatable on the ground, and protect additional areas. 

These changes in boundaries were made to Alternative B Modified.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

There are currently 20 established RNAs on the IPNF (table 137 below). Seven RNAs were 

established prior to the 1987 IPNF Forest Plan and ROD. The 1987 ROD recommended 13 

RNAs for possible establishment. These 20 RNAs totaled approximately 9,200 acres when the 

ROD was issued in 1987. All 13 RNAs have been officially established since the ROD was 

signed. Most of these RNAs have had boundaries modified and refined when they were officially 

established and now total approximately 11,482 acres.

Table 137. Established Research Natural Areas on the IPNF

RNA Name District Established (Acres)

Binarch Creek Priest Lake 653

Bottle Creek Priest Lake 258

Canyon Creek Priest Lake 895

Five Lakes Butte St. Joe 325

Hunt Girl Creek Bonners Ferry 1,426

Kaniksu Marsh Priest Lake 172

Montford Creek Coeur d’Alene River 299

Pond Peak Coeur d’Alene River 269

Potholes Priest Lake 305
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

506 Research Natural Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

RNA Name District Established (Acres)

Round Top Mountain Priest Lake 96

Scotchman #2 Sandpoint 1,312

Smith Creek Bonners Ferry 1,248

Snowy Top Priest Lake 846

Spion Kop Coeur d’Alene River 481

Tepee Creek Priest Lake 614

Theriault Lake St. Joe 111

Three Ponds Bonners Ferry 243

Upper Fishhook St. Joe 318

Upper Shoshone Creek Coeur d’Alene River 1,306

Wellner Cliffs Priest Lake 305

Total Acres 11,482

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

This alternative reflects the 1987 Forest Plan, as amended. Under Alternative A, 20 areas, 

encompassing 11,482 acres would continue to be managed as RNAs. These areas represent 

examples of late-successional plant communities, or pristine examples of plant communities that 

are relatively rare; or unusual complexes of plant communities in very good condition. RNAs are 

managed under MA14 of the 1987 Forest Plan. This MA provides specific direction for 

providing areas for non-manipulative research, observation, and study. This MA also generally 

precludes management activities such as timber harvest (except as identified in research plans) 

and road construction.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D retain all existing RNAs. In addition, Alternative B Modified

would add three new RNAs and expand an existing RNA, resulting in an increase of about 3,424

acres managed as RNAs. Alternatives C and D would add two new RNAs, resulting in an 

increase of about 2,713 acres managed as RNAs. See table 138 for a summary of proposed 

RNAs and acreages by alternative. These areas, along with the existing RNAs, are allocated to 

MA4a.

Table 138. Proposed Research Natural Areas on the IPNF

RNA Name District Alt B Modified 

Proposed Acres

Alt C and D Proposed Acres

Fortynine Meadows St. Joe 178 N/A

Red Horse Mountain Coeur d'Alene 1,657 1,274

Theriault Lake St. Joe 1951 45

Upper Priest River Priest 1,394 1,394

Total Additional Acres 3,424 2,713

1 Addition to an existing RNA (Theriault Lake RNA)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Research Natural Areas 507

Proposed Research Natural Area Descriptions

Following is a brief description of each of the proposed RNAs. See appendix F for detailed maps 

of each area.

Fortynine Meadows: This RNA encompasses approximately 178 acres near the headwaters of 

the Little North Fork of the Clearwater River, south of Avery, Idaho. The aquatic ecosystem is 

bounded on three sides by regularly traveled forest roads, with forest cover in the areas between 

the fen meadows and the roads. Fortynine Meadows is an undisturbed, high quality, highelevation peatland (fen) ecosystem with a low-gradient stream running through it; of the total 

area, approximately 51 acres is peatland habitat. A substantial portion of the surrounding forest is 

on very wet mountain hemlock habitat types, and includes plant species dependent on saturated 

soils. An additional quarter of the peatland habitat extends west onto BLM lands.

Peatlands are uncommon habitats in northern Idaho, and Fortynine Meadows is the only peatland 

RNA on the IPNF south of the Kaniksu National Forest and south of the area influenced by 

continental glaciation. This RNA represents the bog birch (Betula glandulosa) shrubland type 

and also support a large population of intermediate-leaved sundew (Drosera intermedia), a 

sensitive plant species in the Northern Region. A number of other plant species found on this site 

are specialists largely restricted to saturated soils such as peatlands.

Red Horse Mountain: This RNA encompasses approximately 1,657 acres in the upper reaches 

of Blue Lake Creek, reaching to the top of Red Horse Mountain at the head of the drainage. It 

lies approximately five miles east of Lake Coeur d’Alene, & approximately three miles north of 

the lower reaches of the Coeur d’Alene River. Its outstanding features are the upper slopes of 

several southerly and westerly facing ridges with extensive areas of dry plant communities in 

unusually pristine condition. One south facing ridge above Cottonwood Creek contains an 

extensive area of open-grown, old growth ponderosa pine with bunchgrass, and low shrub 

understory. In-growth of Douglas-fir or dense young pine is relatively minimal. Multiple fire 

scars are present on some of the older trees. Other dry upper ridges contain significant areas of 

Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, numerous dry site forbs, and low shrubs, with minimal 

evidence of forest domination. Bank monkeyflower is present.

Dry forests and plant communities like this were once extensive at low elevations in northern 

Idaho, but are now relatively rare, and examples in good condition are very rare on national 

forest lands in the Idaho Panhandle.

Theriault Lake expansion: The expansion to this existing RNA is approximately 195 acres, to 

include the south and southwest face of Marble Mountain. The area was increased to include the 

water source for Theriault Lake as well as unique geologic and ecologic features, such as large 

quartzite rocks, a talus slope, and a dwarf quaking aspen forest. The additional acreage, added to 

the original approximately 111 acres, totals approximately 306 acres.

Upper Priest River: This RNA encompasses approximately 1,394 surveyed acres1 of floodplain 

and river terraces, along and between the lower two miles of Upper Priest River and the Hughes 

Fork down to the mouth of Upper Priest Lake. This RNA was originally proposed in the mid1970s by the Northern Region Natural Areas committee, and included as a candidate RNA in the 

1987 IPNF Forest Plan. Establishment of this RNA was delayed because it required the 

 1 Although GIS-calculated acres show an approximate size of 1,396 acres (as listed in the revised EIS table 

84) for the Upper Priest River RNA, a 2008 professional survey resulted in on-the-ground boundaries of 

1,394 acres.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

508 Research Natural Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

completion of a land exchange. That land exchange was completed in 1998 for the specific 

purpose of acquiring lands necessary for the establishment of this RNA. This RNA encompasses 

the relatively level land between Upper Priest River and the Hughes Fork upstream from their 

confluence. Included are riparian floodplain lands along the two rivers, isolated oxbows in 

various stages of filling, and a series of old river terraces that become drier with increasing 

elevation. Ancient western redcedar forests, extremely wet habitat types of western 

redcedar/maidenhair fern, and a diversity of rare plant species (including rare lichens) 

distinguish this area. Rare plants in the area include Anderson’s sword-fern, lance-leafed 

moonwort, Mingan moonwort, maidenhair berry, jelly lichen, and northern beechfern. This RNA 

features some of the most outstanding ancient cedar groves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. 

Included are extensive areas of old growth cedar/hemlock forest, in conjunction with unusually 

diverse rare plant communities; some unique plant populations for northern Idaho, 21 different 

vegetation stand types; pristine shrub carr and riparian hardwood communities; several miles of 

pristine river channel; and a rich wildlife presence. The RNA includes the riparian floodplain 

lands along the two rivers, isolated oxbows in various stages of filling, and a series of old river 

terraces that become drier with increasing elevation. Five rare plants species are known to be 

present within this area: northern beechfern, Braun’s sword-fern, arrowleaf coltsfoot, black 

snake-root, and Krushea twisted-stalk. The northern beechfern population is the largest known 

for Idaho. Unusually large populations of skunk cabbage and maidenhair fern, and moonworts 

are also present.

Consequences to Research Natural Areas from Forest Plan Components Associated 

with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Prescriptions

Management prescriptions in any of the four alternatives would not result in any change in the 

lands managed as RNAs. Areas allocated to RNAs are substantially free from human activities, 

although research and educational activities occur. Under special circumstances, deliberate 

manipulation may be used to maintain or re-establish ecological processes within an RNA (i.e., if 

approved in the RNA management plan or Establishment Record); otherwise most activities are 

precluded in RNAs.

Effects from Access Management

Currently there are no roads in the existing designated RNAs. The action alternatives would 

restrict new road construction on an additional 3,424 acres (Alternative B Modified) or 2,713 

acres (Alternatives C and D) under MA4a-STD-AR-02. In addition, MA4a includes MA4aGDL-AR-02 which allows mechanized use (e.g., mountain bikes and other wheeled vehicles) 

only on NFS routes. These standards and guidelines would protect the natural processes within 

the RNAs.

Effects from Vegetation Management

MA14 (Alternative A) and MA4a (Alternatives B Modified, C, and D) allow timber harvest only 

if it is identified in the RNA Establishment Record or approved RNA management plan. These 

MAs are not part of the suited timber base. Under special circumstances, deliberate manipulation 

may be used to maintain or re-establish ecological processes within an RNA as allowed within 

the RNA Establishment Record or approved RNA management plan. Any activity would be 

designed to meet RNA management objectives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Research Natural Areas 509

Effects from Wildlife Management

All alternatives preclude activities that are not allowed by the RNA management plan; therefore, 

wildlife management in these areas would not occur and would not affect RNAs.

Effects from Aquatic Management

All alternatives preclude activities that are not allowed by the RNA management plan; therefore, 

aquatic management in these areas would not occur and would not affect RNAs.

Effects from Recreation Management

All alternatives preclude activities that are not allowed by the RNA management plan; therefore,

recreation management in these areas would be limited to non-motorized recreation and 

mechanized use is limited to established trails. These limited recreation activities would not 

result in any change in the lands recommended as RNAs.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management

Planned ignitions or the use of unplanned ignitions may be allowed, as described within the RNA 

Establishment Record or approved RNA management plan. Fire would only be allowed if it 

would maintain or re-establish ecological processes within the RNAs.

Effects from Lands and Special Uses Management

All alternatives preclude activities that are not allowed by the RNA management plan; therefore, 

lands and special use management would not occur and would not affect RNAs.

Cumulative Effects

Management activities generally take place outside of established or recommended RNAs unless 

an action is needed to help protect or preserve the identified ecological characteristics. For 

example, if invasive weeds were discovered in an RNA there may be a need to take some action 

(hand pull, herbicide application) to eradicate or prevent further spread. However, this activity, 

or any management activity, would have to be identified in the RNA Establishment Record or 

approved RNA management plan or analyzed at the site-specific level.

Vegetation treatments are likely to continue. It is not expected that vegetation management 

activities resulting from any of the four alternatives would likely result in any change to 

established or recommended RNAs since vegetation treatments take place outside of RNAs. Any 

vegetative treatment within RNAs would be analyzed at the site-specific level and be identified 

in the RNA Establishment Record or approved RNA management plan.

Wildlife management activities can be expected to continue but are not likely to result in any 

change to established or recommended RNAs since wildlife management activities occur outside 

of RNAs.

Watershed improvement activities are likely to continue. It is unlikely that any aquatic 

management activities resulting from any of the four alternatives would likely result in any 

change to established or recommended RNAs since watershed improvement activities generally 

take place outside of RNAs.

Recreation management activities such as trail maintenance can be expected to continue but are 

not likely to have any effect on any established or recommended RNAs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

510 Research Natural Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Fuels management activities (e.g., prescribed burning) are likely to continue. It is unlikely that 

fire and fuels management activities resulting from any of the four alternatives would likely 

result in any change to established or recommended RNAs since fuels management activities 

generally take place outside of RNAs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Special Areas 511

Special Areas

Introduction

The areas discussed in this section are comprised of the Special Area classifications listed below. 

Special Areas are protected and managed for public use and enjoyment. These areas are 

identified due to their unique or special characteristics. Special Areas are ‘suitable areas of 

national forest land, other than wilderness or wild areas, which should be managed principally 

for recreation use...”(36 CFR 294.1). These areas are not congressionally designated, but are 

administratively designated by the Chief of the Forest Service, regional forester, or forest 

supervisor (FSM 2372).

The following are Special Area classifications, depending on their special characteristics or 

unique value(s):

1. Scenic Area – a unit of land with outstanding natural beauty that requires special 

management to preserve this beauty.

2. Geological Area – a unit of land with outstanding formations or unique geological 

features of the earth's development such as caves, fossils, dikes, cliffs, or faults.

3. Botanical Area – a unit of land that contains plant specimens, plant groups, or plant 

communities that are significant because of their form, color, occurrence, habitat, 

location, life history, arrangement, ecology, rarity, or other features.

4. Zoological Area – a unit of land that contains animal specimens, animal groups, or animal 

communities that are significant because of their occurrence, habitat, location, life 

history, ecology, rarity, or other features.

5. Paleontological Areas – a unit of land that contains fossils of plants and animals, 

shellfish, early vertebrates, coal swamp forests, early reptiles, dinosaurs, and other 

prehistoric plants or animals.

6. Historical Area – a unit of land possessing a significant site or a concentration of sites, 

buildings, structures, or objects united historically or prehistorically by plan or physical 

development. Memorial areas are included in this definition.

7. Recreational Area – a unit of land that has been administratively designated for particular 

recreation opportunities or activities such as hiking, rock hounding, recreational mining, 

photography, or other special activity.

8. Pioneer Area – a unit of land that is recognized for its unroaded, scenic, recreational, 

wildlife, and watershed values intended to provide a primitive recreation experience and 

maintain an undeveloped setting.

The IPNF did not identify any Special Areas with zoological, paleontological, or historical 

values.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 477-482, 551): This act authorizes 

the Secretary of Agriculture to issue rules and regulations for the occupancy and use of the 

national forests.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

512 Special Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

The following regulations provide direction for Special Area designation and management on 

NFS lands:

• 36 CFR 219 — Planning

• Subpart A: National Forest land and Resource Management Planning

• 36 CFR 294 — Special Areas

• Subpart A: Miscellaneous Provisions

• Subpart B: State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management

• Subpart C: Idaho Roadless Area Management

Key Indicator

• Acres of NFS lands recommended for designation as Special Areas.

Methodology and Analysis Process

Resource specialists across the Forest, through field data collection and inventory work, 

identified NFS lands that possess ‘Special Area’ characteristics and submitted them to be 

recommended for designation.

For the purposes of this analysis the total acres of all recommended areas is calculated for each 

alternative and compared. This includes new areas as well as the expansion of some of the 

existing Special Areas. See appendix F for more information on the process used to identify 

these areas.

Analysis Area

The analysis area is the NFS lands administered by the IPNF.

Changes between Draft and Final

The boundaries of one recommended (Bath Creek Gorge) and one existing (Roosevelt Cedar 

Grover/Granite Falls) special area were expanded under Alternative B Modified. These 

expansions were made to include important adjacent areas and to improve manageability. See 

appendix F for a description of these proposed expansions. In addition, the proposed expansion 

of the Mallard Larkins Pioneer Area in the DEIS was dropped under Alternative B Modified. 

This alternative allocates the Mallard Larkins area to recommended wilderness (MA1b), as well 

as retaining the existing special area. Thus, no expansion of this special area is proposed under 

Alternative B Modified.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

There are currently nine designated Special Areas on the IPNF (see table 139 below).

Descriptions and maps of these Special Areas are included in appendix F.

Table 139. Designated Special Areas on the IPNF

Name District Existing (Acres) Classification

Copper Falls Bonners Ferry 40 Geological

Hanna Flats Botanical Area Priest Lake 16 Botanical

Hobo Cedar Grove Botanical St. Joe 232 Botanical
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Special Areas 513

Name District Existing (Acres) Classification

Area

Mallard Larkins Pioneer Area St. Joe 13,948 Pioneer

Northwest Peaks Scenic Area Bonners Ferry 1,972 Scenic

Roosevelt Grove of Ancient 

Cedars Scenic Area and 

Granite Falls Geologic Area

Priest Lake 139 Scenic/Geological

Sandhouse Cedar Grove St. Joe 120 Botanical

Settlers Grove of Ancient 

Cedars Botanical Area

Coeur d'Alene River 182 Botanical

Upper Priest Lake Scenic Area Priest Lake 4,696 Scenic

Total Acres 21,345

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

As opposed to the action alternatives, this alternative does not designate any new or expand any 

existing Special Areas. The nine existing Special Areas listed above in table 139 would continue 

to be managed to enhance and/or protect the unique resources and values for which they were 

previously designated. These areas total approximately 21,345 acres and are allocated to MA13 

of the 1987 Forest Plan.

Alternative B Modified, C, and D

In addition to retaining the existing designated Special Areas, Alternatives B Modified, C, and D 

designate an additional four new Special Areas and expand the size of some of the Special Areas

that were previously established.

Alternative B Modified: This alternative would designate four new Special Areas for an 

additional 7,917 acres, and would expand the size of three existing Special Areas by 3,285 acres. 

Alternative B Modified would result in a total of 11,202 acres added as special areas. Table 140

lists the recommended Special Areas, and the additions to existing Special Areas for this 

alternative. These additional acres would be allocated to MA3 along with the existing Special 

Areas, resulting in a total acreage of 32,547 acres within MA3.

Table 140. Recommended Special Areas on the IPNF for Alternative B Modified

Name District Recommended 

(Acres)

Classification

Bath Creek Gorge Priest Lake 407 Geological

Emerald Creek St. Joe 2,350 Recreational

Hobo Cedar Grove Botanical Area St. Joe 4531 Botanical

Huff Lake Priest Lake 70 Botanical

Northwest Peaks Scenic Area Bonners Ferry 2,6391 Scenic

Roosevelt Cedar Groves/Granite Falls 

Scenic Area

Priest Lake 1931 Scenic

Upper Priest River Botanical Area Priest Lake 5,090 Botanical

Total Acres 11,202

1 Additional acres recommended for adding to existing Special Areas
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

514 Special Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Alternatives C and D: These alternatives would designate four new Special Areas for an 

additional 7,764 acres, and would expand the size of four existing Special Areas by 12,248 acres. 

Therefore, these alternatives would each result in a total of 20,012 acres being added to Special 

Areas. Table 141 lists the recommended Special Areas and the additions to existing Special 

Areas for these alternatives. These additional acres would be allocated to MA3 along with the 

existing Special Areas, resulting in a total acreage of 41,357 within MA3.

Table 141. Recommended Special Areas on the IPNF for Alternatives C and D

Name District Recommended 

(Acres)

Classification

Bath Creek Gorge Priest Lake 254 Geological

Emerald Creek St. Joe 2,350 Recreational

Hobo Cedar Grove Botanical Area St. Joe 4531 Botanical

Huff Lake Priest Lake 70 Botanical

Mallard Larkins Pioneer Area St. Joe 9,0041 Pioneer

Northwest Peaks Scenic Area Bonners Ferry 2,6391 Scenic

Roosevelt Grove of Ancient Cedars 

Scenic Area and Granite Falls 

Geologic Area

Priest Lake 1521 Scenic/Geological

Upper Priest River Botanical Area Priest Lake 5,090 Botanical

Total Acres 20,012

1 Additional acres recommended for adding to existing Special Areas

Consequences to Special Areas from Forest Plan Components Associated with other 

Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Prescriptions

The management area prescription for special areas protects the unique or special values for 

which the area was identified while providing recreational use. Under Alternative B Modified, 

additional acreage recommended for special area designation is 11,202 acres. For both 

Alternatives C and D, additional acreage recommended for special area designation is 20,012. 

Alternative A would not increase existing Special Areas or add new ones.

Effects from Vegetation Management

Special areas are not suitable for timber production. Timber harvest is not allowed in these areas, 

with the exception of Emerald Creek. Timber harvest in Emerald Creek would be to maintain or 

restore its values as a special area. Natural ecological processes (e.g., plant succession) and 

disturbances (e.g., insects and disease) are the primary forces affecting the composition, 

structure, and pattern of vegetation within special areas.

Effects from Recreation Management

Impacts from recreational use and management within Special Areas are anticipated to be low. 

Hiking and other activities occur, but the impacts can be expected to be minimal since they are 

generally low intensity. Developed recreation sites are unlikely, although trailhead and sanitation 

facilities can be expected in many of these areas. Trail maintenance work can be expected to 

have little, if any, impact on Special Areas characteristics.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Special Areas 515

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management

Impacts from fire and fuels management are expected to be low. Prescribed fire, although 

allowed, is rarely used unless the values for which the area was designated can be maintained or 

enhanced. Unplanned ignitions would generally be suppressed in botanical, geological, and 

recreational Special Areas as the potential risk to the resource from wildfire would be 

undesirable.

Effects from Minerals Management

Anticipated effects from minerals management would be low in all alternatives. Potential for 

leasable minerals is low across most of the Forest and currently there are no permits or operating 

plans for exploration within any Special Area. Although potential for locatable minerals does 

exist, there are no current permits or operating plans for mineral exploration within these areas. 

No impacts would occur from the disposal of mineral materials since it is not an allowed use 

within Special Areas, with the exception of the Emerald Creek Recreational Special Area.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects evaluate the potential impacts to Special Areas from the proposed action and 

alternatives when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The lands 

within the IPNF boundary form the geographic scope for cumulative effects since this is the 

scope for the proposed action (Alternative B Modified). The temporal bound would be the life of 

the Forest Plan which is estimated to be a 15 year time span.

In order to integrate the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives, this analysis uses existing conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past 

actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior actions that 

have affected Special Areas and might contribute to cumulative effects.

Management activities generally take place outside of designated Special Areas unless an action 

is needed to help protect or preserve the identified unique feature or characteristic. For example, 

if invasive weeds were discovered in a botanical area there may be a need to take some action 

(hand pull, herbicide application) to eradicate or prevent further spread.

Vegetation treatments are likely to continue. It is not expected that vegetation management 

activities resulting from any of the four alternatives would result in any change to designated 

Special Areas since vegetation treatments generally take place outside of designated Special 

Areas.

Wildlife management activities can be expected to continue but are not likely to result in any 

change to designated Special Areas since wildlife management activities generally occur outside 

of designated Special Areas.

Watershed improvement activities are likely to continue. It is unlikely that any aquatic 

management activities resulting from any of the four alternatives would result in any change to 

designated Special Areas since watershed improvement activities generally take place outside of 

designated Special Areas.

Recreation management activities, such as trail maintenance, can be expected to continue but are 

not likely to have any effect on any designated Special Areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

516 Special Areas Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Fuels management activities (e.g., prescribed burning) are likely to continue. It is unlikely that 

fire and fuels management activities would result in any change to designated Special Areas

since fuels management activities generally take place outside of designated Special Areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Experimental Forests 517

Experimental Forests

Introduction

The IPNF contain two Experimental Forests: the Priest River and Deception Creek. These 

Experimental Forests are part of a national network of experimental forests, ranges, grasslands, 

and watersheds that have been authorized by Congress and designated by the Chiefs of the 

Forest Service since as early as 1908. Currently there are 80 of these experimental areas across 

the nation that serve to provide sites for long-term research conducted by the Research and 

Development branch of the Forest Service and its partners (more information is available on the 

national network of experimental forests at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/efr/).

Staff at the Rocky Mountain Research Station and its research lab in Moscow, Idaho currently 

manages and directs the research activities that occur on the two experimental forests. Road 

construction/maintenance, fire suppression, and timber sale contract administration type 

activities are generally overseen by employees of the IPNF. Memorandums of understanding 

exist between the Rocky Mountain Research Station and the IPNF identifying specific 

responsibilities.

The primary purpose of this report is to describe how the various management alternatives 

presented in this EIS for the revised Forest Plan for the IPNF may influence the management of 

the existing experimental forests and the research values within them. The AMS that was 

prepared as part of the Forest Plan revision process did not identify any need for changing Forest 

Plan direction for the management of the experimental forests.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551) and the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resource Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1643): Authorizes the Secretary of 

Agriculture to designate experimental forests and ranges. Under regulations at 7 CFR 

2.60(a), the Secretary of Agriculture has delegated this authority to the Chief. Forest Service 

regulations at 36 CFR 251.23 set forth broad direction for establishing and administering 

these areas. Those regulations state: “The Chief of the Forest Service shall establish and 

permanently record a series of areas on national forest land to be known as experimental 

forests or experimental ranges, sufficient in number and size to provide adequately for the 

research necessary to serve as a basis for the management of forest and range land in each 

forest region.”

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

These experimental forests were established for a wide variety of manipulative and nonmanipulative research. Research projects and management practices that have occurred within 

these areas have created a wide range of forest conditions from relatively unmanaged conditions 

to highly managed conditions.

Priest River Experimental Forest was established in 1911 and was one of the first experimental 

forests to be designated in the nation. Priest River Experimental Forest is approximately 6,200 

acres in size and was created for the purposes of researching tree species common to the inland 

northwest, including western white pine. It is located approximately 10 to 12 air miles northeast 

of the community of Priest River, Idaho and lies in the southern Selkirk Mountains. Priest River 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

518 Experimental Forests Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Experimental Forest has a substantial number of facilities at the headquarters, including an 

office/lab, residential buildings, a bunkhouse/mess hall, and shop. More information about this 

experimental forest can be found at the following internet 

sites: http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/experimental-forests/priest-river-experimental-forest

and http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/ef/pref/.

Deception Creek Experimental Forest was established in 1933 in an area that was dominated at 

that time by large, mature western white pine. When Deception Creek Experimental Forest was 

designated, it occurred in the heart of the western white pine forest type and research was 

focused on the ecology and silviculture of western white pine and their associated species. This 

experimental forest is approximately 3,500 acres in size and is located in the Coeur d’Alene 

Mountains in the North Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River drainage, approximately10 air miles 

east and north of the town of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. More information about this experimental 

forest can be found at the following internet sites: http://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/experimentalforests/deception-creek-experimental-forest/ and http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/ef/dcef.php.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

This alternative would retain all of the Forest Plan direction contained in the 1987 Forest Plan 

(as emended to date). In the 1987 Forest Plan the two experimental forests are included into 

(MA14), along with the RNAs. Direction for the MA is located in pages III-61 through III-64 of 

the 1987 Forest Plan and focuses on describing what kind of activities are allowable or are 

suitable within the experimental forests. The underlying purpose for most of the MA direction is 

to protect the research values within the experimental forests from being harmed.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

These action alternatives each contain the same direction for the experimental forests. Forest 

Plan MA direction under these alternatives is included into MA4b, which is a specific MA 

designation for the two experimental forests. The management direction for these alternatives 

that is applicable to the experimental forests is very similar to the direction contained in 

Alternative A. Most of the direction describes what types of activities are allowable or are 

suitable and the direction focuses on measures to protect the research values in the experimental 

forests.

Effects of Forestwide Direction

The alternatives do not contain specific forestwide management direction for the experimental 

forests; therefore, there are not effects from forestwide direction.

Effects of Management Area Prescriptions

As discussed previously, the management prescriptions for the alternatives do not vary in 

substantive ways. All MA prescriptions would provide measures to protect the research values 

that are present in the experimental forests.

Effects of Geographic Area Direction

The GAs that contain the two experimental forests do not contain any specific direction for the 

management of these areas, thus there are no effects.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Experimental Forests 519

Effects of Land Designations

The boundary designations for the experimental forests do not vary by alternative. The 

boundaries were established when the experimental forests were created and are documented in 

the respective establishment reports. In addition, the land designations for the areas that surround 

these experimental forests are also not changing. The adjacent lands have the same general 

emphasis for management for all alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

As disclosed above, the alternatives would not change or otherwise affect management of the 

experimental forests and the research values within them. All alternatives have approximately 

the same measures to protect the research values in these experimental forests; therefore, there 

are no indirect or cumulative effects.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

520 Cultural Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Cultural Resources

Introduction

Approximately 50 percent of the Forest has been inventoried for cultural resources, and over 

2,500 sites have been identified.

Native American occupation of the IPNF began at least 8000 years ago. The areas most 

intensively used in the prehistoric period are largely concentrated along the major rivers and 

around the large lakes. Major village sites were established in these areas and smaller special 

task sites (hunting, fishing, gathering, quarrying, and religious sites) were scattered over a wide 

variety of environments. Prehistoric sites of known significance include the Harvey Mountain 

Quarry, currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the Indian Rock 

Pictographs. Overviews of the Kootenai, Kalispell, and Coeur d'Alene area prehistory in the 

IPNF were completed in 1981.

In the early 1800s, the historic period began when the Northwest Fur Company started trading in 

the area. In 1809 David Thompson established a trading post on Lake Pend Oreille. Following 

Thompson were trappers, missionaries, miners, homesteaders, and loggers who gradually 

increased the size of the population of north Idaho. The IPNF contains over 2,100 historic sites 

left by these groups. Those presently on the National Register of Historic Places include the 

Avery Ranger Station, the Magee Ranger Station, the Snyder Guard Station Historic District, the 

Red Ives Ranger Station, the Mallard Peak Lookout, Priest River Experimental Forest, the 

Mullen Road, Bullion Tunnel, and the Vinther/Nelson Cabin. A series of sites associated with the 

Big Burn of 1910 are also listed on the National Register, including the Pulaski, Edward, Tunnel,

and Placer Creek Escape Route, Cedar Snags, Grand Forks, and Halm Creek, Bean Creek Fire.

Many other sites have been identified which presumably qualify for the National Register of 

Historic Places.

Native Americans of the Coeur d’Alene and Kootenai Tribes have resided in the area and utilized 

the available resources longer than any other local residents. The Coeur d’Alene Tribe is located 

near the St. Maries Ranger District in the southwestern portion of the Forest. The reservation is 

approximately 70,000 acres, and in 1970, 360 people lived there. The Tribe uses the Forest for 

berry picking, hunting, fishing, and religious ceremonies.

There are seven bands of the Kootenai Tribe located in northern Idaho, northwestern Montana,

and Canada. There majority of the members of the Tribe reside in Boundary County, Idaho. The 

Kootenai Reservation consists of a number of allotments reserved from the public domain in the 

late 1800s, a 12.5 acre parcel deeded to the Tribe after the 1974 War and a number of other 

scattered parcels. The Kootenai Tribe also uses the IPNF for berry picking, hunting, fishing, and 

for cultural and religious ceremonies.

The Native Americans of Kootenai County tend to view the Forest for its historical, cultural, and 

scenic value. In recent years, there has been a more concentrated effort to employ the tribe in 

forestry related jobs (i.e., thinning and slashing contracts with the Forest Service).

Legal and Administrative Framework

Cultural properties include buildings, sites, areas, and objects having scientific, historic, or social 

values. They comprise an irreplaceable resource relating past human life.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Cultural Resources 521

Law and Executive Orders

• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (amended and expanded in 1976, 

1980 and again in 1992): All other cultural resource management laws and regulations 

support, clarify, or expand on the NHPA. Federal Regulations 36 CFR 800, 36 CFR 63, and 

Forest Service Manual 2360 (FSM 2360) contain the basis of specific Forest Service heritage 

resource management practices. All of these laws, regulations, and direction, guide the 

Forest Service in identifying, evaluating, and protecting cultural resources on NFS lands. 

The Forest Service is required to take into account the effect agency actions have on heritage 

resources that are either determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) or cultural resources that are not yet evaluated for eligibility. 

Eligible cultural resources are termed "historic properties.” Specific locations of cultural 

properties are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to 5 

U.SC. 552(b) (5). In the 1992 amendment it more explicitly incorporated tribal involvement 

into the Section 106 consultation process and clarified that traditional use sites without 

physical remains may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

• The Programmatic Agreement between Region 1 of the Forest Service, the Idaho State 

Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. This 

document was written in consultation with American Indian Tribes, Idaho State 

Historic Preservation Office, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: It allows 

streamlining of Section 106 of the NHPA in critical ways, giving much more autonomy to 

individual forests in working with Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, with less of a 

role for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The terms of that agreement are fully 

integrated in the IPNF Heritage program and Survey Inventory Strategy.

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979: Requires tribal notification and 

consultation where requested in regard to proposed removal of artifacts by permit from 

public lands.

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990: Recognizes Native 

Americans rights regarding Native American human remains and certain cultural objects 

found on public lands; requiring consultation prior to authorize removal of such items.

• Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993: Establishes a higher standard for justifying 

government actions that may impact religious liberties.

• Executive Order 12898, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations): Focuses the attention of federal 

agencies on the human health and environmental conditions in minority communities and 

low-income communities.

• Executive Order 13007, 1996 (Indian Sacred Sites): Directs federal agencies to the extent 

practicable, accommodate access to and ceremonial use of, sacred sites by Indian religious 

practitioners while avoiding adversely affecting the sites and maintaining the confidentiality 

of the sites.

Key Indicators

• Number of sites potentially disturbed by alternative; and

• Number of acres managed to potentially disturb a single site.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

522 Cultural Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Methodology and Analysis Process

To analyze the existing condition and effects the National Heritage Data Base, INFRA, and the 

Forest GIS Heritage layers were used to identify acres inventoried to standard and sites that have 

been documented.

The Heritage GIS layers were used to determine the general number of acres of inventory to 

locate a single site. The first step was to buffer individual survey transects (CulturalSurveyLine 

layer) by 15 meters, the general site distance a person can see archaeological and historical sites. 

This identified adequately inventoried areas on the IPNF. The CulturalSitePoint layer was then 

buffered in by 100 meters, the general size of most sites, to establish the population of recorded 

cultural resources. The selection tool was then used to identify the number of sites that overlay 

adequate inventory transects. The number of acres identified in GIS associated with adequately 

surveyed transects was divided by the number of sites found that overlay the transect layers. This 

gave the number of acres, in general, that would need to be inventoried to find a single site. Of 

course, individual areas of the Forest may have larger or smaller chances of finding sites based 

on geomorphological units and past use, but for purposes of a general forestwide plan this 

analysis should suffice.

In order to determine the potential for effect to cultural resources by changes in management 

alternatives the number of sites per MA and the acres of treatment needed to effect a single site 

were calculated in much the same manner as described above. In this case the CulturalSitePoint 

layer was overlain on the management GIS layer for each alternative. The number of sites within 

each management unit per alternative was calculated and then that number was divided into the 

number of acres per management unit to calculate the number of acres that could be intensively 

managed before a site might be affected on average. The only exception was for Alternative A, 

management unit 18, administrative sites, and where GIS showed no cultural resources. In this 

case the INFRA layer for facilities was queried to determine the number of administrative sites 

on the Forest with the assumption that they all held cultural resources, consisting of the facilities 

themselves. Only those compounds with historic buildings were counted as cultural resources.

Finally, since Alternative A was so different when compared to Alternatives B Modified and D, it 

was necessary to simplify and model effects. The potential to effect sites in each alternative was 

tied to the general type of effect: 1) direct project effects; 2) public use and vandalism; and 3) 

environmental factors (see the “Environmental Consequences General Effects” section for 

definitions and additional information). A qualitative measure of the effect on cultural resources 

in general was then determined for each, using “Low”, “Moderate”, and “High” as qualifiers. 

Each MA in every alternative was given a qualifier for the three general types of effects in a set 

of two tables, one for Alternative A and one for Alternatives B Modified and D. To compare the 

four alternatives, those with Low potential were given one point, those for Moderate potential 

were given two points, and those with High potential were given three points. The totals for all 

the MAs for each alternative were averaged so that 0 to 1.5 was considered Low, 1.75 was 

considered Moderate -, 2.0 was considered Moderate, 2.25 was considered Moderate+, 2.5 to 

2.75 was considered High - and 3 was considered High. In this way the four alternatives could be 

compared without bias.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

The IPNF has a varied and complex cultural environment that contains prehistoric evidence of at 

least three American Indian Tribal groups and many different historic site types. According to the 

Report on Federal Archaeological Program Activities for FY 2010 as developed from the Forest 

Service INFRA database for tracking cultural resources reporting, over 870,000 acres of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Cultural Resources 523

Forest has been inventoried for cultural resources since the mid-1970s. During those inventories 

over 2,500 cultural properties have been located and recorded.

Nearly 2,000 cultural resource investigations have been conducted on the Forest for various 

types of ground disturbing projects. Prior to 1986, over 700 cultural resource investigations were 

conducted for a total of more than 587,000 acres. From 1986 through 2010 an additional 1,251 

cultural resource investigations occurred that covered over 323,000 acres. Unfortunately, the 

earlier period of cultural resource work in Idaho has generally been determined to no longer 

meet modern inventory standards. If so, this suggests that upwards of a half million acres need to 

be re-inventoried. However, the IPNF started using modern inventory forms and reporting 

methods as early as 1980 with project number 320. Using this threshold, 328 projects of over 

310,000 acres do not meet modern standard, leaving 1,648 projects and over 590,000 acres 

meeting modern standards. This suggests that of the total 2,500,700 acres within the IPNF about 

24 percent have been adequately inventoried for cultural resources.

Of the nearly 2,000 investigations cited above, about 920 project areas contain cultural 

resources. This suggests there is almost a 50 percent chance that a particular project will 

potentially affect a cultural resource. When the 46,729 acres of adequately documented 

inventory transects are overlain on known site locations, 525 previously identified sites are 

noted. This suggests that one site should be found for every 90 acres inventoried. If we divide 

2,500,700 acres by 90 acres per site, the total number of potential sites on the IPNF should be 

approximately 28,000, of which only about 9 percent have been documented to date. This 

estimate is most certainly too high since sites are not evenly distributed over the Forest due to 

varying environmental conditions.

Of the 2,500 cultural properties on the IPNF, only about half have been evaluated to the National 

Register of Historic Places (National Register). Of those sites over 650 are eligible, 27 have been 

listed on the National Register, and over 700 are ineligible. The remaining 1,100 sites have not 

been evaluated and must be treated as eligible until such time as evaluations are completed.

There are 31 administrative sites on the IPNF that are counted as cultural resources that have 

buildings or features at least 50 years of age. These compounds are listed in table 142.

Table 142. Historic Administrative Sites Considered for Effects Analysis

Administrative Site Year Constructed

Avery Work Center 1909

Big Creek 1926

Bismark Work Center 1909

Burton Cabin 1933

Bonners Ferry Ranger Station 1938

Twin Creek Cabin 1928

Clarkia Work Center 1942

Coeur d′Alene Nursery 1914

Conrad Peak Lookout 1956

Dunn Peak Lo & Comm Site 1958

Fernan Ranger Station 1905

Gisborne Lookout 1958
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

524 Cultural Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Administrative Site Year Constructed

Huckleberry Mtn Lookout 1936

Hughes Meadow Guard Station 1935

Hughes Ridge Lookout 1954

Hugus Creek Powder Mag 1953

Indian Mountain Lookout 1954

Middle Sister Lo & Comm Site 1952

Priest Lake Ranger Station 1954

Saddle Mtn Lookout 1935

Sandpoint RS Service Area 1957

Chickadee Cabin 1915

Mallard Peak Lookout 1929

Simmons Pk Comm Site 1954

Snowy Top Lookout 1930

Spades Lookout 1954

Spyglass Lookout 1954

St. Joe Baldy Elec Site 1953

St. Maries RS Bullpen 1959

Trail Youth Camp 1925

West Fork Smith Cr Lookout 1934

Roundtop Generator Building 1950

Sites are monitored by forest archaeologists, law enforcement, and other field going personnel to 

determine if vandalism is occurring on the Forest. One formal investigation was undertaken in 

2006-7 and several others are ongoing at this time. The Forest has partnered with the Corp of 

Engineers and the Albeni Falls working group to monitor and protect archaeological sites along 

Lake Pend Oreille and the Clark Fork River. Discussions with the Bonner County Sheriff’s 

regarding site vandalism are ongoing. The Forest has also worked with the tribes to protect 

cultural resource sites.

The IPNF has only recently started to allocate sites to management categories and there have 

been so few entered into INFRA that it is not possible at this time to characterize them to any 

significant extent. However, there are over 2,500 recorded cultural resource sites on the Forest: 

over 90 percent of the recorded sites are historic and approximately 10 percent are pre-historic

sites associated with American Indian use. Specific consultation regarding this allocation has not 

taken place with the affected federally recognized Indian Tribes to date and since many 

traditional people object to scientific study of their sites most may end up in the preservation 

category. Of the historic period sites generally associated with Euro-American use, about 670 are 

eligible and another 739 have been unevaluated and will need to be allocated to an appropriate 

management strategy. The remaining 789 sites are ineligible and can be released from 

management.

Approximately 20 to 40 sites are monitored a year for condition. At this time, 119 cultural 

properties have been identified as priority heritage assets; which means they are highly 

significant, listed on the National Register, are part of a management plan, or the IPNF has 

promised to monitor them for specific reasons. Of the 119 priority heritage assets in FY 2011, 37 

meet standards through monitoring and completing a written condition assessment within the last 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Cultural Resources 525

5 years. In addition, no deferred maintenance costs are outstanding on these 37 sites. It is 

unknown how much deferred maintenance is outstanding on the 2,500 sites on the Forest, but 

recent monitoring efforts suggest that the IPNF’s cultural property condition is on a downward 

trend that would take many multi-millions of dollars of inventory, recordation, and restoration to 

arrest.

Under the existing Forest Plan, it is possible to characterize general conditions by MA. Those 

MAs with high potential for direct actions like MA01, 04, 14 (experimental forests), 17, 18 and 

19 have a large number of sites that have been recorded and evaluated; but also a larger number 

of sites that have been damaged by direct project actions not carried out according to the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects (Secretary’s Standards). 

Conversely, those with low potential for direct project actions and low use have a higher 

potential for adverse effects owing to lack of management and deterioration due to natural 

processes. In these areas, historic sites especially, are melting into the forest floor (MA02, 03, 

05, 07, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (RNAs), and 20. Those with moderate to high use by the public 

(MA01, 04, 05, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (experimental Forests), 17, 18, and 20) are suffering from 

direct public use and vandalism, especially along roads, trails, ridges, and streams where hunters, 

campers, hikers, fishermen, and ATV riders camp. Paradoxically, given budgets and staffing, 

those areas that are more intensively managed have less potential for adverse effect than those 

areas where there is little or no management activities since cultural resources in these areas are 

protected through mitigation measures. The rest of the MAs have little hope of successful 

cultural resource management reducing natural weathering and environmental damage since 

budgets and staffs are extremely small and the numbers of resources that need management are 

quite large.

For the last several years public outreach projects have been completed that consist of work with 

volunteers, museums, interpretive associations, research facilities, and universities to interpret 

restore and research the history of IPNF managed lands. In 2008 to 2010, 2,360 volunteer hours 

helped IPNF archaeologists inventory the shores of Priest Lake, restore Mallard Peak Lookout, 

curate artifacts, scan project reports, and work on National Register nominations. During the 

same time period over 25 public presentations were provided in local venues across the entire 

Forest regarding David Thompson, Lewis and Clark, the Civilian Conservation Corp, early 

logging archaeological sites, and The Big Burn and Pulaski Trail. In 2008, the IPNF Heritage 

web site was launched to provide annual reports, descriptions of projects, oral histories, reports 

about the history of the Forest, virtual tours and information for potential volunteers. 

Partnerships with the Midwest Jesuit Archives, Pulaski Project, Wallace District Mining 

Museum, Bonner County Historical Museum, Kootenai County Historical Museum, and Priest 

Lake Historical Museum resulted in public lectures, displays, brochures, interpretive signs, 

Pulaski Tunnel portal reconstruction, and help with curational issues.

Research on the Forest has been ongoing since the very early years of cultural resource 

management. Thirty-nine research studies, historic contexts, overviews, oral history documents 

and management plans have been completed to date. Twelve research oriented inventories have 

been completed across the Forest to better understand the history and prehistory of the area. In 

the last several years, four student interns from Slippery Rock University, Eastern Washington 

University, and Boise State University have been given the opportunity to study and complete 

research on public lands on logging practices, recreation residence management and national 

register nominations, the CCC, and geoarchaeology of Luby Bay. Several other historic contexts 

and studies are underway at the present time and should be completed in the next 1 to 2 years. 

All site forms and one third to one half of all reports have been converted to pdf format and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

526 Cultural Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

mapped in GIS, while all sites and reports are in the National Forest Service Database, INFRA, 

so they are available and accessible to researchers.

Artifacts, photos, maps, site forms, reports, and unpublished manuscripts are held on the Forest 

and at several institutions. The majority of IPNF archaeological collections are housed in the 

federally designated and Smithsonian approved Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology at the 

University of Idaho. Site forms and reports are housed in locked cabinets on the Forest, at the 

Idaho SHPO’s office and Bowers Laboratory. Additional artifacts, maps, photos, manuscripts,

and other materials are housed at the forest supervisor’s office and in district files. Additional 

work to bring these materials into compliance with federal regulations is estimated at up to two 

person years’ worth of work. The Museum of North Idaho was given a $10,000 grant several 

years ago to scan and store much of the Forest’s historic photo, map, and manuscript collection; 

however, additional materials have been located since then that need work. Similar partnerships 

have been undertaken with the Bonners County, Wallace District Mining, and Priest Lake 

Museums, although to lesser extents.

However, Section 110 projects have a very low impact on the health of the IPNF cultural 

resources compared to Section 106 reviewed management activities within highly managed 

MAs. The future trend suggests there will be even a wider disparity between sites managed 

under Section 110 and 106 given declining budgets and work force.

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

Effects to cultural resources are caused by direct project actions, public use and vandalism, and 

natural causes. “Direct project actions” include all of those activities, both beneficial and 

harmful, that are conducted by the Forest Service or authorized by Forest Service permits, 

including timber and silvicultural management, prescribed fire, wildlife and fisheries 

management, road and trail construction, facilities construction and maintenance, recreation use 

and management, and special uses authorization to third parties. “Public use and vandalism” of 

historic facilities and archaeological sites can cause the deterioration or destruction of cultural 

resources. Natural causes include damage by erosion, fire, wind, weathering and other natural 

processes. The type of cultural resource and the management allocation must be taken into 

account to determine the significance of the effect.

The criteria for assessing adverse effects under the NHPA are found at 36 CFR 800.5(a) and is 

defined as:

“(1) Criteria of adverse effect: An adverse effect is found when an undertaking 

may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property 

that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that 

would diminish the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all 

qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have 

been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property's eligibility 

for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable 

effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther 

removed in distance or be cumulative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Cultural Resources 527

(2) Examples of adverse effects: Adverse effects on historic properties include, 

but are not limited to: (i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the

property; (ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, 

repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision 

of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines; 

(iii) Removal of the property from its historic location; (iv) Change of the 

character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property's 

setting that contribute to its historic significance; (v) Introduction of visual, 

atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's 

significant historic features; (vi) Neglect of a property which causes its 

deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized 

qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or 

Native Hawaiian organization; and (vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out 

of federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable 

restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's 

historic significance.”

Consequences to Cultural Resources from Forest Plan Components Associated with 

other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects of Forestwide Direction

Effects from Vegetation Management

Vegetation management activities have the potential for some of the most severe effects to 

cultural resources. Large scale thinning, harvesting, skidding, piling, decking, and construction 

of service roads have the potential to destroy the integrity of cultural objects, sites, historic 

districts, and historic landscapes. Therefore, those MAs with high levels of vegetation 

management may cause severe impacts to cultural resources if not planned and completed 

according to the Secretary’s Standards. Successful implementation of vegetation management 

projects using the Secretary’s Standards can have little or no effect to archaeological and 

historical sites.

There is a significant amount of difference between Alternative A versus Alternatives B

Modified, C, and D. (table 143 and figure 36). Alternatives B Modified, C, and D were analyzed 

based on treatable acres, not acres within the management unit. Since Alternative A was only 

analyzed for how many million board feet were harvestable and not how many acres were 

suitable, the comparison is not the same between the no-action alternative and action

alternatives. Alternative A has more sites that may be affected by management actions and as 

much as 300 more acres treated to impact a single site. The numbers are not directly comparable. 

Of the action alternatives, Alternative D has the greatest potential to affect cultural resources, 

although the differences with Alternative B Modified are relatively slight. Alternative C has 

fewer identified sites, but also fewer treatable acres to affect a single site. In the final analysis, 

depending on where treatable acres are located in each alternative the difference may be 

irrelevant.

Table 143. Number of Sites within MAs allowing Vegetation Treatment

Alternative # of Sites # of Treatable Acres # of Acres to Affect Single Site

A 1449 1,507,900 1,041
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

528 Cultural Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Alternative # of Sites # of Treatable Acres # of Acres to Affect Single Site

B Modified 1375 951,300 692

C 1341 906,500 676

D 1416 982,300 694

Figure 36. Number of Sites and Number of Acres of Treatment to Impact a Single Site

Effects from Wildlife Management

Wildlife management activities not involving vegetative management have relatively little 

potential to adversely affect cultural objects, sites, historic districts, and historic landscapes. In 

some cases, appropriate wildlife management techniques involve vegetative manipulation and or 

fuels reduction which would have similar consequences to those described in the appropriate 

sections. Other than road closure, wildlife management actions are small in size and can be 

moved to avoid cultural resources as per the Secretary’s Standards. Closure of historic 

roads/trails may cause adverse effects through the manner of closure or loss of management that 

keeps the historic road/trail open and viable. These actions will be concentrated in those MAs 

which allow road and trail construction. It is not possible to quantify the effects across 

alternatives for this issue since the data are not available for extant historic roads and trails. 

However, Alternative D has the greatest amount of land open to active; and therefore, may have 

more potential for effects to cultural resources.

Effects from Aquatic Management

Aquatic management activities are also relatively small scale, affecting river and stream channels 

and their adjacent terraces or culvert and bridge configurations to allow for fish passage. Other 

than historic logging dams and placer workings there are few cultural resources within stream 

and river channels. Restoration activities may destroy or damage these features. Archaeological 

and historical sites are commonly found along the terraces of stream channels and may be 

affected when channel restoration projects restore original or more natural channels. Sites may 

also be affected by access of equipment across cultural resources and collection of native 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Cultural Resources 529

restoration materials from surrounding areas or rock quarries that have not been inventoried 

adequately.

Effects from Recreation Management and Road Access

Recreation management activities have the potential to affect objects, sites, historic districts, and 

historic landscapes. Construction of developed recreation sites may damage or destroy cultural 

resources and continued management of existing recreation sites that overlay cultural resources 

can continue to affect those extant portions of cultural resources that were not damaged in the 

original construction activities or subsequent use. In some cases, the developed recreation site is 

a historic property (e.g., Shoshone Park Pavilions, recreation cabins and lookouts, and Sam 

Owen bath house and historic toilets) and must be managed to reduce or eliminate potential 

adverse effects under the Secretary’s Standards. Additional potential to affect cultural resources 

comes from public use of and occasional construction of minor recreation facilities by the Forest 

Service in dispersed recreation sites that overlay cultural resources. Construction, reconstruction, 

and maintenance of recreation roads and trails may also affect cultural resources. Motorized 

routes tend to cause more damage than horse, bike, and foot trails, but all have potential to 

partially or totally destroy sites that they are constructed through. Transportation features also 

provide access to cultural sites, potentially leading to public vandalism and incidental damage 

from parking and camping off roads. There is no difference between alternatives with respect to 

developed recreation.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management activities have the potential to adversely affect cultural objects, sites, 

historic districts, and landscapes. Prescribed fire and wildfire may destroy historic cultural sites 

with burnable features, such as cabins, mine structures, lookouts, trail blazes, and administrative 

sites. With appropriate planning using the Secretary’s Standards the potential for impacts to 

cultural resources from prescribed fire is relatively low, while wildfire is relatively high due to 

its unplanned nature. Prescribed fire implementation actions and wildfire suppression activities 

may also adversely affect cultural resources through construction of fire line, backfires, clearing 

of vegetation, and location of staging areas. Under Alternative A, prescribed and use of natural,

unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives opportunities are limited and fires on most of the 

Forest would be actively suppressed. Use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource 

objectives and prescribed fire would be used under all action alternatives with Alternative C 

having the most use of fire to achieve vegetation desired condition. While Alternative A does not 

allow for as much protection of cultural resources by prescribed fire and the use of natural,

unplanned ignitions, in many cases active suppression is preferable than large scale prescribed 

fire and use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives to protect historic 

districts and landscapes from the effects of fire. Under all alternatives known objects and sites 

may be protected by various suppression techniques.

Effects from Lands and Special Uses Management

Lands and special uses actions have the potential to adversely affect cultural objects, sites, 

historic districts, and historic landscapes. Sale or trade of lands out of federal ownership, even 

with management covenants may lead to the damage or destruction of cultural resources by the 

third party the land is conveyed to. Special uses actions may allow continued or new use of an 

adverse effect to cultural properties by the permit holder if not managed to the Secretary’s 

Standards. Many special use actions are relatively small compared to other actions and involve 

less than an acre for access, water, or utility corridors; but they can also affect very large areas, 

such as in the case of major pipe and power line projects. However, there is no difference among 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

530 Cultural Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

any of the alternatives for management of lands and special uses, so this is not an issue that 

needs to be analyzed quantitatively.

Effects by Management Area

Two types of analysis were conducted to evaluate the potential to effect cultural resources by 

MA and alternative. The first was a qualitative description based on a general understanding of 

the types of actions expected and the potential for these actions to affect cultural resources. The 

quantitative analysis was split into two parts; the first was a count of sites per MA per alternative 

and the second was acres of MA treated to affect a single cultural resource. Since Alternative A 

(table 144) does not directly correlate across all MAs it is analyzed separately from Alternatives 

B Modified and D, which only vary in size, not management direction.

Table 144. Alternative A: Qualitative Potential for Adverse Effect to Cultural Resources by MA

MA MA Description Direct Project 

Actions

Public Use & 

Vandalism

Average Effect

MA01 Timber Production High Moderate Moderate+

MA02 Grizzly Bear Habitat Low Moderate ModerateMA03 Grizzly Bear Habitat with Big Game 

Winter Range

Low Moderate ModerateMA04 Big-Game Winter Range with Timber 

Production

Moderate Moderate Moderate

MA05 Big-Game Winter Range not Suitable 

for Timber

Low Moderate ModerateMA06 Elk Summer Range with Timber 

Production

Moderate Moderate Moderate

MA07 Caribou Management Low Moderate ModerateMA09 Lands not Tentatively Suitable for 

Timber Production

Low Moderate ModerateMA10 Semi-primitive recreation Moderate Moderate Moderate

MA11 Existing and Proposed Wilderness Low Moderate ModerateMA12 Wild & Scenic Rivers Low Moderate ModerateMA13 Special Areas Low Moderate ModerateMA14 RNAs Low Low Low

Experimental Forests High Moderate Moderate+

MA17 Developed Recreation Sites High Low Moderate

MA18 Administrative Sites High Low Moderate

MA19 Semi-Primitive Recreation and 

Timber Production

High Moderate Moderate+

MA20 Unroaded Semi-Primitive Recreation Moderate Moderate Moderate

For Alternatives B Modified, C, and D the MAs have the same direction and only the size and

location of the areas change. Therefore, it is possible to characterize the potential for adverse 

effect in each MA without respect to alternative (table 145). Since there are fewer MAs and they 

tend to be grouped with like activity sets it is easier to determine potential effect than for 

Alternative A. For these alternatives MA4b, 6, and 7 are the most intensively managed and have 

the highest potential for adversely affecting cultural sites. However, as with Alternative A, MA3, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Cultural Resources 531

4b, 5, 6, and 7 with moderate to high use by the public may suffer from direct public use and 

vandalism, especially along trails, ridges and streams, rivers, lakes where hunters, campers, 

hikers, fishermen, and ATV riders dispersed camp and where long established developed 

recreation sites may not have been inventoried. Along trails, streams, rivers, and lakes in more 

remote areas where public activities are concentrated, dispersed camping may have significant 

effects to cultural resources when not managed appropriately.

Table 145. Alternatives B Modified-D: Qualitative Potential for Adverse Effect to Cultural 

Resources by MA

MA MA Description Direct Project 

Actions

Public Use & 

Vandalism

Average Effect

MA1a Wilderness, Designated Low Moderate ModerateMA1b Wilderness, Recommended Low Moderate ModerateMA1c Wilderness Study Area Low Moderate ModerateMA1e Primitive Lands Low Moderate ModerateMA2a Designated W&S Rivers Low Moderate ModerateMA2b Eligible W&S Rivers Low Moderate ModerateMA3 Special Areas Moderate Moderate Moderate

MA4a RNA Low Moderate ModerateMA4b Experimental Forests High Moderate Moderate+

MA5 Back Country Moderate Moderate Moderate

MA6 General Forest High Moderate Moderate+

MA7 Primary Recreation Areas High High High

To better understand the actual quantitative measure of Alternative A the number of sites and 

acres of management necessary to impact a single site were calculated (table 146 and figures 37

and 38). The large number of sites within MAs, like 01, 02, 04, and 09 would suggest that site 

impacts would be relatively more likely than the remaining MAs, which have less than 100 sites 

each. The higher level of management activities in MA01 and 04 may affect cultural resources 

more than MA02 and 09 that have little or no potential for management. See figure 38 for the 

number of acres that can be used by the public prior to affecting a single site. It is suggested that 

MA1 can be managed fairly heavily without damaging a site, while MA05, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 

20 have quite low ratios of acres managed per site potentially affected, that might mean given 

intense and uncontrolled public use a larger number of sites would be affected in these MAs. 

Those sites in MA3, 9, and 14 (RNA) have little chance of active management since few, if any,

projects or funds occur in these MAs.

Table 146. Alternative A: Sites, Acreage, Acres of Treatment to Effect One Site and MA Summary

MA # Sites # Acres Acres/Site Management Area Description Average 

Effect

MA01 889 950,400 1,069 Timber Production Moderate+

MA02 135 165,100 1,223 Grizzly Bear Habitat Moderate

MA03 43 17,500 407 GB Habitat & Winter Range Moderate+

MA04 440 272,300 619 Winter Range with Timber Prod Moderate
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

532 Cultural Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

MA # Sites # Acres Acres/Site Management Area Description Average 

Effect

MA05 20 12,300 615 Winter Range without Timber Prod Moderate+

MA06 61 240,900 3,949 Elk Summer with Timber Prod Moderate

MA07 35 122,300 3,494 Caribou Management Moderate+

MA09 282 266,200 944 Not Suitable for Timber Prod Moderate+

MA10 47 125,100 2,662 Semi-Primitive Recreation HighMA11 25 153,900 6,156 Existing & Proposed Wilderness Moderate+

MA12 54 29,100 539 Wild & Scenic Rivers Moderate

13 9 6,800 756 Special Areas Moderate+

14 23 18,100 787 RNAs and Experimental Forests Moderate

17 16 1,700 106 Developed Recreation Sites Moderate18 31 500 16 Admin Sites Moderate19 12 50,000 4,167 Semi-Primitive Rec & Timber Prod Moderate+

20 10 65,500 6,550 Unroaded Semi-Primitive Recreation HighFigure 37. Alternative A: Number of Sites per Management Area
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Cultural Resources 533

Figure 38. Alternative A: Number of Acres Treated to Affect a Single Site

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D share the same management direction. They differ mostly by 

the size and location of the MA (table 147 and figure 39). When you consider site numbers by 

MA and Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, Alternative C MA1b seems to have significantly 

more sites than the other two alternatives by over 2.6 times (0.94:1:2.9). However, given this is 

recommended wilderness, active management potential is low except along trails. Public use 

along trails and camp sites at streams, rivers, and lakes would be relatively high, suggesting 

increased potential for adverse effects. The ratio of difference between MA5 Alternatives B

Modified, C, and D is 1.1:1:0.91, suggesting that Alternative B Modified would have slightly 

more potential for impact of cultural resources than C or D. For MA6, there is hardly any 

significant difference, for each alternative’s number of sites and potential for effect. There is no 

significant difference between the other alternatives.

Table 147. Site Numbers by MA and Alternative

MA Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D Designation Description Average Effect

MA1a 1 1 1 Wilderness, Designated ModerateMA1b 31 83 29 Wilderness, Recommended ModerateMA1c 5 5 5 Wilderness Study Area ModerateMA1e 5 0 0 Primitive Lands ModerateMA2a 50 50 50 Designated W&S Rivers ModerateMA2b 87 83 87 Eligible W&S Rivers ModerateMA3 21 16 21 Special Areas Moderate

MA4a 11 11 11 RNA ModerateMA4b 14 14 14 Experimental Forests Moderate+

MA5 260 244 222 Back Country Moderate

MA6 1,375 1,341 1,416 General Forest Moderate+

MA7 43 43 43 Primary Recreation Areas High
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

534 Cultural Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Figure 39. Comparison of Site Numbers by MA and Alternative

When considering the number of acres managed to affect a single site there are some slightly 

more significant differences (table 148 and figure 40). MA1b has significantly more sites that 

may be affected per number of acres used by the public along trails and in dispersed camps in 

Alternative C than the others. Since there is a difference of 50 sites between Alternative C and 

the other alternatives this alternative has a moderate significance for effect. For MA1e, the 

difference is even more evident. However, since there are only five sites involved, the difference 

is insignificant when considering the entire population of sites. For MA2b the difference is also 

negligible. For MA3 the difference between alternatives is insignificant, given only effects to 21 

sites are considered. For MA5 the difference between alternatives is barely significant, given 

there is a difference of only 40 sites between Alternatives B Modified and D. For MA6 the 

difference between sites is barely significant with nearly 80 sites difference between Alternatives 

C and D. For this MA, mitigation measures would need to be employed to protect sites from 

direct management actions, like timbers sales and restoration projects and indirect and direct 

effects of public use along roads, trails, streams, rivers, lakes, and ridge tops. There is no 

statistical difference in the other alternatives.

Table 148. Number of Acres Managed to Affect a Single Site by Alternative

MA Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D Designation Description Average Effect

MA1a 9,900 9,900 9,900 Wilderness, Designated ModerateMA1b 4,197 1,567 4,486 Wilderness, Recommended ModerateMA1c 1,380 1,380 1,380 Wilderness Study Area ModerateMA1e 4,280 21,400 21,400 Primitive Lands ModerateMA2a 428 428 428 Designated W&S Rivers ModerateMA2b 553 580 553 Eligible W&S Rivers ModerateMA3 1,686 2,213 1,686 Special Areas Moderate
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Cultural Resources 535

MA Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D Designation Description Average Effect

MA4a 1,282 1,282 1,282 RNA ModerateMA4b 586 586 586 Experimental Forests Moderate+

MA5 2,620 2,792 3,068 Back Country Moderate

MA6 1,097 1,124 1,065 General Forest Moderate+

MA7 305 305 305 Primary Recreation Areas High

Figure 40. Comparison of Number of Acres Managed to Potentially Affect one Site for each MA and 

Alternative

Finally, when we try to compare alternative effects across all four alternatives it is necessary to 

simplify the analysis and look at effect classes (table 149 and figure 41). There were no 

alternatives which scored in the Low-class for number of sites potentially affected while only 

Alternative A had any sites in the Moderate-class. In the Alternative A Moderate class there is a 

significantly higher potential for adverse effects in this alternative, especially since there are 656 

sites difference between Alternative A and each of the other alternatives. In the Moderate+ class 

there is a difference of 284 sites between Alternatives A and D and about 250 sites each between 

Alternatives A and B Modified/C. Finally, for the High-class there was a difference of less than 

twenty sites between Alternatives A and B Modified, but around 200 site differences between 

Alternatives A and C/D. Clearly Alternatives C and D have the potential to affect more sites than 

Alternatives A and B Modified. While the differences between Alternatives A and B Modified

are small, it appears that Alternative B Modified may have a slightly higher potential to affect 

sites.

Table 149. Comparison of Potential Adverse Effect Classes by Number of Sites for Each Alternative

Alternative Low Moderate- Moderate Moderate+ HighAlt A 0 47 713 1,315 57
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

536 Cultural Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Alternative Low Moderate- Moderate Moderate+ HighAlt B Modified 0 190 281 1,389 43

Alt C 0 238 260 1,355 43

Alt D 0 183 243 1,430 43

Figure 41. Comparison of Potential Adverse Effect Classes by Number of Sites for each Alternative

When the number of acres treated/left unmanaged by MA is considered, the trend clearly favors 

the no-action alternative (table 150 and figure 42). Again, there are no alternatives that have a 

low potential to effect sites. Alternative A, again, is the only alternative with a potential to effect 

in the Moderate-class. In the Moderate-class the difference is 644 acres to find a single site 

between Alternatives A and B Modified and nearly a thousand acres between A and C/D. In the 

Moderate+ class the difference is less than 100 acres managed/left unmanaged between

Alternative A and the others. In the High-class the difference of nearly 800 acres per site between 

Alternatives A and B Modified and about 400 acres per site treated/left unmanaged between 

Alternatives A and D is significant. Alternative A, has a significantly sparser number of sites per 

acre treated in MAs with intensive management. These figures may also indicate significantly 

fewer sites that may suffer in classes that have indirect impacts, such as dispersed recreation use.

Alternative B Modified is not significantly different in number of acres treated to affect a single 

site given the higher numbers in the Moderate-class tends to balance out the lower numbers in 

the High-class. Therefore it is difficult to say there is a significant difference between the 

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D.

Table 150. Comparison of Potential Adverse Effect Classes by Acres Treated to Impact a Single Site 

for Each Alternative

Alternative Low Moderate- Moderate Moderate+ High

Alt A 0 46 1,018 1,201 3,344

Alt B Modified 0 0 374 1,124 2,551

Alt C 0 0 14 1,118 2,756
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Cultural Resources 537

Alternative Low Moderate- Moderate Moderate+ High

Alt D 0 0 13 1,101 2,949

Figure 42. Comparison of Potential Adverse Effect Classes by Acres Treated to Impact a Single Site 

for each Alternative

Of the potential effects to cultural resources Alternative A appears to have a significantly smaller 

impact than the remainder, with Alternative B Modified having the second smallest overall 

potential for impacts, although the differences are minimal. This conclusion requires appropriate 

design criteria be implemented for those MAs with intensive management objectives so that the 

cultural resource objectives for sites are met through inventory, recordation, and enhancement 

over time through project actions, rather than loss of site characteristics through time by benign 

neglect.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects evaluate the potential impacts to cultural resources from the proposed action 

when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The lands within the 

IPNF boundary form the geographic scope for cumulative effects since this is the scope for the 

proposed action (Alternative B Modified). The temporal bound would be the life of the Forest 

Plan which is estimated to be a 15 year time span.

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed 

action existing conditions are used as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because 

existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior actions that have affected access and 

might contribute to cumulative effects.

As noted in the “Existing Condition” section the condition of cultural properties on the IPNF is 

on a general downward trend. This trend is due to sites missed during cultural resource 

inventories, improperly implemented projects, public use and vandalism, and environmental 

factors, such as natural weathering, fire, flooding, and erosion. Given a known population of 

over 2,500 sites and the potential of finding as many as 25,000 more sites the trend will continue 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

538 Cultural Resources Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

downward. Sites that were recorded in the late seventies and during the 1980s can no longer be 

found, especially American Indian, mining, logging, and trail sites and associated historic 

districts and landscapes. Sites are being lost continuously and at some point in the future, 

possibly within the lifespan of this document, some sites, site types, historic districts, and 

historic landscapes will disappear completely.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 539

American Indian Rights and Interests

Introduction

Federal agencies have trust responsibilities to American Indian Tribes under treaty (Treaty 

Tribes) and in compliance with various laws and executive orders. Within the boundaries of the 

IPNF there are two tribes with Treaty reserved, off-reservation rights: the Kootenai Tribe of 

Idaho and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. In addition, the Coeur d′Alene Tribe of 

Idaho has reserved rights through executive order on a limited section of the Coeur d′Alene 

River Ranger District. Federal guidance for tribal consultation directs the Forest Service to 

increase and improve the involvement of tribes in the decision-making process in the areas 

where decisions affect tribes and their treaty rights and interests. There is a trust responsibility in 

regard to managing the resources on which the Treaties are based. The Nez Perce Tribe has a 

wide ranging aboriginal territory that coincides with the general location of the Coeur d′Alene 

Tribal lands within the IPNF, but off reservation rights associated with ceded lands under the 

Stevens Treaty of 1855 are located to the south of the Forest boundary. Both the Spokane and the 

Colville Tribal territories lay within Washington, to the west of the Forest boundary, but both 

visited the environs of the IPNF during the historic and prehistoric periods. The Forest is also 

required to consult with all federally-recognized tribes that had/have traditional uses within the 

forest boundary. This consultation extends to the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe of 

Indians, the Coeur d′Alene Tribe of Idaho, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the 

Spokane Tribe of Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Nez 

Perce Tribe.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• The Hellgate Treaty of 1855: The Flathead, Kootenai, and Upper Pend d'Oreilles Indian 

Tribes reserved rights under the Hellgate Treaty of 1855 (July 16, 1855). These rights 

include the "right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens 

of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing; together with the privilege of 

hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and 

unclaimed land.”

According to “Tribal Interests in the Management of National Forest Lands A Partial 

Summary of Unique Tribal Rights and Interests in the Management of National Forests and 

Related Forest Service Authorities and Responsibilities” a January 2, 2009 draft by Tribal 

Relations Specialist R1/R4 by Dale Kanen (Kanen 2009) the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

(Bonners Ferry Kootenai) is also considered to be an unnamed party to the 1855 Hellgate 

Treaty (see State v. Coffee, 97 Idaho 905, 556 P.2d 1185 and Indian Claims Commission’s 

(ICC) finding in Kootenai Tribe or Band of Indians of the state of Idaho v. United States). 

The ICC found that the Senate ratification of the Hellgate Treaty also effectively 

extinguished the Idaho Kootenai’s aboriginal right to occupy the Kootenai River drainage 

and they, along with signatory tribes, were left with a right to hunt on open and unclaimed 

land, among other rights enumerated under the Hellgate Treaty.

• Treaties with the Nez Perce of 1855 and 1863: In a draft of the document “Tribal Interests 

in the Management of National Forests” (1/2/2009) Dale Kanen, R1/R4 Tribal Relations 

Specialist described Coeur d’Alene Tribal off-reservation rights in the following manner:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

540 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• “Treaty with the Nez Perce of 1855, Article 3: “The exclusive right of taking fish in all 

the streams where running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to 

said Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places {11.6} in 

common with citizens of the Territory; and of erecting temporary buildings for curing, 

together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their 

horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.

• Treaty with the Nez Perce of 1863, Article 8: “The United States also agree to reserve 

all springs or fountains not adjacent to, or directly connected with, the streams or rivers 

within the lands hereby relinquished, and to keep back from settlement or entry so much 

of the surrounding land as may be necessary to prevent the said springs or fountains 

being enclosed; and further, to preserve a perpetual right of way to and from the same, as 

watering places, for the use in common of both whites and Indians.”

• Executive Orders of 1873 and 1889 with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe: In 1873 the Coeur 

d’Alene Tribe was granted a reservation by the executive order of President Grant that was 

amended in 1879 to clarify compensation for their ceded lands. In 1887 John V. Wright, 

Jared W. Daniels, and Henry W. Andrews, Commissioners of the United States, met with the 

Coeur d’Alene Indians at which time Chief Andrew Seltice signed an agreement outlining 

compensation for loss of their lands ceded in 1873. In the same agreement the “Upper and 

middle bands of Spokane Indians residing in and around Spokane Falls...[and]...the 

Calespels, now residing in the Calespel Valley, Washington Territory, and any other bands of 

non-reservation Indians now belonging to the Colville Indian Agency, may be removed to 

the Coeur d’Alene Reservation by the United States” (Executive Order of 1889). In 

compensation for ceding lands in Idaho, Washington, and Montana territories the tribes were 

promised that the reservation land would belong to the Tribe, they would be given cash 

payments, provided preference in certain occupations performed on the reservation, and 

those certain essential occupations would be paid for by the United States Government. No 

reserve rights under the executive order outside of the established reservation were provided. 

In 1889, Commissioners Benjamin Simpson, John H. Shupe, and Napoleon B. Humphrey 

negotiated an amendment to the 1887 agreement for ceding additional lands within the 

reservation in lieu of cash payments to the members of the Tribe then living on the 

reservation.

However, in a draft of the document “Tribal Interests in the Management of National 

Forests” (1/2/2009) Dale Kanen, R1/R4 Tribal Relations Specialist described Coeur d’Alene 

Tribal off-reservation rights in the following manner:

“The Coeur d’Alene appears to have retained hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and 

grazing rights on a portion of the IPNF that is within the original 1873 reservation. The 

exterior boundaries of the current reservation are smaller than the original 1873 

reservation boundary (Idaho v. U.S., 2001). Rights to hunt, fish, trap, graze, etc., on 

lands within the original 1873 reservation were never explicitly extinguished in any 

subsequent agreements that I could find {252}. Therefore they exist {38}. Article 2 of an 

1889 Agreement does say:

For the consideration hereinafter stated the said Coeur d’Alene Indians hereby 

cede, grant, relinquish, and quitclaim to the United States all right, title, and 

claim which they now have, or ever had, to all lands in said Territories and 

elsewhere, except the portion of land within the boundaries of their present 

reservation in the Territory of Idaho, known as the Coeur d’Alene Reservation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 541

But courts have been reluctant to read similar language as unambiguously extinguishing 

rights to harvest natural resources {36}. See also Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 

v. Herbest (D.Minn. 1971). To avert litigation, a July 25, 1988, Agreement between the 

state of Idaho and the Tribe notes that the extent of tribal hunting and fishing rights is 

unsettled and stipulates some restrictions to Tribal harvests. (For similar reasons, 

portions of the Ashley NF in Region 4 that were once part of the Ute reservation may be 

encumbered with reserved rights).”

• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (P.L. 89-665, as amended, P.L. 91-

423, P.L. 94-422, P.L.94-458 and P.L. 96-515) Regulations 36 CFR Part 800 and 36 CFR 

36 CFR Part 7: This act pertains only to tangible properties (buildings, structures, sites, or 

objects) which are important in history and prehistory. It requires agencies to consider the 

effects of undertakings on properties eligible to or listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places by following the regulatory process specified in 36 CFR 800.

The portions of that act that relate specifically to coordination with Indian Tribes were added 

in the 1992 amendments. These additions reflect the increased importance placed on Tribal 

relations. A section of the act directs state and federal governments to assist in the 

establishment of preservation programs on Indian lands. These sections include:

• Section 2: It shall be the policy of the federal government, in cooperation with other 

nations and in partnership with the state, local governments, Indian Tribes, and private 

organizations and individuals to:

○ (2) Provide leadership in the preservation of the prehistoric and historic 

resources of the United States and of the international community of nations and 

in the administration of the national preservation program.

○ (6) Assist state and local governments, Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian 

organizations and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United 

States to expand and accelerate their historic preservation programs and 

activities.

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L .91-190) and Regulations 40 

CFR 1500-1508: Federal agencies began to invite Indian Tribes to participate in forest 

management projects and activities that may affect them.

• National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (P.L. 4-588): Directs consultation and 

coordination of NFS planning with Indian Tribes.

• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) (P.L.95-341 as amended, P.L. 

103-344): AIRFA states that "...it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and 

preserve for American Indians their inherent right for freedom to believe, express, and 

exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native 

Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to site, use and possession of sacred objects,

and the freedom to worship through ceremonies and traditional rites".

Agencies must make a good faith effort to understand how Indian religious practices may 

come into conflict with other forest uses and consider any adverse impacts on these practices 

in their decision-making practices. The consideration of intangible, religious, ceremonial, or 

traditional cultural values and concerns which cannot be tied to specific cultural 

sites/properties could be considered under AIRFA.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

542 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) (P.L. 96-95) and Regulations 

43 CFR Part 7: Establishes a permit process for the management of cultural sites on federal 

lands which provides for consultation with affected tribal governments.

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (P.L. 101-

601, 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) and Regulations 43 CFR Part 10: Addresses the rights of lineal 

descendants and members of Indian Tribes, Alaska Native, and native Hawaiian 

organizations to certain human remains and precisely defined cultural items. It covers items 

currently in federal repositories as well as future discoveries. The law requires federal 

agencies and museums to provide an inventory and summary of human remains and 

associated funerary objects. The law also provides for criminal penalties in the illegal 

trafficking in Native American human remains and cultural items.

• Interior Secretarial Order 3175 of 1993: Establishes responsibility of all agencies to carry 

out trust responsibilities of the federal government and assess the impacts of their actions on 

Indian trust resources. It requires consultation with tribes when impacts are identified.

• Executive Order 12866 of 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review: Enhances planning 

and coordination with respect to both new and existing regulations. Makes process more 

accessible and open to the public. Agencies shall seek views of tribal officials before 

imposing regulatory requirements that might affect them.

• Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-141): Established a higher standard 

for justifying government actions that may impact religious liberties.

• Executive Order 12898 of 1994, Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations: Directs federal agencies to focus on the human health and 

environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities, especially in instances 

where decisions may adversely impact these populations.

• Forest Service Tribal Relations Enhancement Act of 2006:

• Reburial of Human Remains and Cultural Items: The Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act provide for repatriation of human remains and cultural 

items to lineal descendants and Indian Tribes but does not address further disposition of 

these items. New authority would explicitly authorize the reburial of human remains and 

associated cultural items on NFS lands, when they were originally recovered from NFS 

or adjacent lands.

• Confidentiality of Information: An increased level of confidentiality would be 

authorized to protect information relating to reburials, sites, or resources of traditional or 

cultural importance, including human remains and information relating to traditional and 

cultural resources and practices provided in the course of research activities.

• Forest Products for Traditional and Cultural Purposes: American Indian and Alaska 

Native Tribes have special cultural and traditional needs for forest products located on 

NFS lands, such as logs and planks for cultural structures. The legislative proposal 

would create an exception to a NFMA requirement to sell certain forest products by 

authorizing the Secretary to provide these products free of charge, when used for 

traditional and cultural purposes.

• Access to National Forest System Lands: The legislative proposal would reinforce the 

Forest Service’s commitment to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act for access 

to NFS lands.

• Executive Order 13007 of 1996, Indian Sacred Sites: This order acknowledges the role of 

federal agencies to protect and preserve the religious practices and places of federallyrecognized tribes and enrolled tribal members. It also requires agencies to consult with 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 543

federally-recognized tribe to address tribal concerns for sacred sites on public land and to 

ensure access to religious places and avoidance of adverse effects to sacred sites in 

accordance with existing legislation.

• Executive Order 13175 of 2000, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments: Provides direction for consultation with Tribal Governments for formulating 

or implementing policies that have tribal implications. Also provides direction regarding 

consultation and coordination with Indian Tribes relative to fee waivers. Calls upon agencies 

to use a flexible policy with tribes in cases where proposed waivers are consistent with 

applicable federal policy objectives. It directs agencies to grant waivers in areas where the 

agency has the discretion to do so, when a tribal government makes a request. When a 

request is denied, the agency must respond to the tribe in writing with the rationale for 

denial1

.

• Executive 13084 of 1998, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes 

Governments: Calls upon agencies to utilize flexible policy approaches at the Indian tribal 

level in cases when a proposed waiver is consistent with applicable federal policy objectives. 

The E.O. calls upon agencies to grant waivers in areas where the agency has discretion to do 

so. This is to be done when a tribal government makes a request; and for those instances 

where the agency may decline such a request, a reason must be supplied to the tribe.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 261 Prohibitions in Areas Designated by Order: Closure of NFS Lands to Protect 

Privacy of Tribal Activities (2011) — “provides regulations regarding special closures to 

provide for closure of NFS lands to protect the privacy of tribal activities for traditional and 

cultural purposes...to ensure access to NFS land, to the maximum extent practicable, by 

Indian and Indian Tribes for traditional and cultural purposes”.

• 36 CFR 223.239 and .240 Sale and Disposal of National Forest System Timber, Special 

Forest Products, and Forest Botanical Products: Section 223.239 provides regulations for 

free-use without a permit for members of tribes with treaty or other reserved rights related to 

special forest products. Also free-use without a permit upon the request of the governing 

body of a Tribe. Section 223.240 provides regulations regarding harvest of special forest 

products by tribes with treaty or other reserved rights.

Key Indicators

• Tribal Rights and Interests;

 1 Section 2 of this Executive Order states “In formulating or implementing policies that have tribal 

implications, agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental principles:

•The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments as set forth in the 

Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. Since the 

formation of the Union, the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations 

under its protection. The Federal Government has enacted numerous statutes and promulgated 

numerous regulations that establish and define a trust relationship with the United States.

•Our Nation, under the law of the United States, in accordance with treaties, statutes, Executive 

Orders, and judicial decisions, has recognized the right of Indian Tribes to self-government. As 

domestic dependent nations, Indian Tribes exercise inherent sovereign powers over their members 

and territory. The United States continues to work with Indian Tribes on a government-togovernment basis to address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government, tribal trust resources, 

and Indian treaty and other rights.

•The United States recognizes the right of Indian Tribes to self-government and supports tribal 

sovereignty and self-determination.”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

544 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Access;

• Places; and

• Resource Usability.

Methodology and Analysis Process

There are four key indicators used to assess the extent that each alternative responds to federal 

trust responsibilities and tribal rights and interests. “Tribal rights and interests” were measured 

by relatively ranking of each alternative’s objectives and standards for effectiveness of response. 

“Access” was measured using the theme of each alternative and road/trail management 

objectives and standards. “Places” were measured by relatively ranking alternative objectives 

and standards for access and management of significant locations for the tribe. “Resource 

usability” was measured by a relative ranking of each alternative based on biophysical trends and 

tribal interest species habitat trends. Together these give an overview of the major concerns and 

relative means of ranking alternatives.

For the discussion on individual MAs and alternatives for each Tribe ESRI ARC Map GIS 

software was used to determine the acreages for each MA by alternative using the aboriginal and 

ceded lands boundaries shown in figure 43. The aboriginal territory and ceded land boundaries 

were compiled from Treaty/Executive Order language and compared to those provided to the 

Forest by the Coeur d’Alene Tribe for their aboriginal territory. For each alternative the MAs that 

intersected Tribal aboriginal territory or ceded lands were selected out and exported to a new 

layer. Acreages for each MA were totaled from the appropriate layer table and entered into a 

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to complete individual tables and charts in this document.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

There are seven federally-recognized American Indian nations affiliated with lands managed by 

the IPNF: the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the Coeur d′Alene Tribe, 

the Spokane Tribe, Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Of those, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, Spokane Tribe, 

Kalispel Tribe of Indians, and the Coeur d′Alene Tribe have taken part in formal and informal 

discussions regarding forest and individual project planning. Forest Service administered lands 

today occupies lands that were in traditional aboriginal territory (figure 43). The aboriginal 

territory of the Nez Perce, Coeur d′Alene, and Spokane Tribes tend to overlap on the St. Joe and 

Coeur d′Alene Ranger Districts. The Kalispel Tribe of Indians aboriginal territory takes in 

portions of the Priest Lake and Sandpoint Ranger Districts, overlapping with the Coeur d′Alene 

and Spokane Tribal territory along the Pend Oreille and lower Clark Fork Rivers and use of the 

major lakes. The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho’s aboriginal territory takes in the Bonners Ferry, Priest 

Lake, and Sandpoint Ranger Districts and use of the IPNF major lakes and the lower Clark Fork 

River valley. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation may have utilized the Priest 

Lake area for hunting and gathering. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have 

expressed interest in the lower Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille.

Ethnographic records provide extensive documentation for the past aboriginal use of the Forest. 

There remains a poignant connection for American Indian Tribes between traditional and 

contemporary uses on their original aboriginal lands. Tribes continue to rely on ecosystems even 

as their cultures change, employing both traditional and contemporary ways of relating to their 

homelands and lands where they traditionally ranged to sustain their way of life. Lands within 

the IPNF help to sustain a way of life, cultural integrity, social cohesion, and economic wellbeing for tribes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 545

The IPNF takes an active role on the tribes’ behalf, especially in areas of treaty interest, rights, 

traditional/cultural resources, and ecosystem integrity, by maintaining opportunities for 

traditional American Indian land and resource use. The presence of healthy habitats is 

fundamental to the achievement of both usable and harvestable levels of resources significant to 

American Indians, as well as to ecosystem integrity.

Four of the tribes have off reservation rights under Treaty or Executive Order: the Nez Perce 

(Treaties of 1855 and 1863), the Coeur d′Alene (Executive Order), Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (Hellgate Treaty of 1855; July 16, 1855). 

According to Kanen (2009) the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (Bonners Ferry Kootenai) is also 

considered to be an unnamed party to the 1855 Hellgate Treaty (see State v. Coffee, 97 Idaho 

905, 556 P.2d 1185 and Indian Claims Commission’s (ICC) finding in Kootenai Tribe or Band of 

Indians of the state of Idaho v. United States). The ICC found that the Senate ratification of the 

Hellgate Treaty also effectively extinguished the Idaho Kootenai aboriginal right to occupy the 

Kootenai River drainage and they, along with signatory tribes, were left with a right to hunt on 

open and unclaimed land. These rights include the "right of taking fish at all usual and 

accustomed places in common with citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings 

for curing; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their 

horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.” The Nez Perce Tribe has the right under the 

Treaties of 1855 and 1863 of “taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with 

citizens of the Territory; and of erecting temporary buildings for curing, together with the 

privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open 

and unclaimed land.” The treaty also requires that all springs or fountains outside of relinquished 

lands be kept open for access to both natives and whites. The Coeur d’Alene appear to have 

retained hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and grazing rights on a portion of the IPNF that is 

within the original 1873 reservation (figure 44).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

546 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Figure 43. Aboriginal Territories of the IPNF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 547

Figure 44. Coeur d'Alene ceded lands on IPNF. The area of the 1873 reservation boundary that 

overlaps with the Coeur d’Alene Ranger District managed lands is considered to have reserved off 

reservation rights attached that were not extinguished under the Executive Order that reduced the 

size of the reservation
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

548 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The federal government has trust responsibilities to tribes under a government-to-government 

relationship to ensure that the Tribes reserved rights are protected. Consultation with the tribes in 

early phases of project planning helps the Forest Service meet their trust responsibilities. The 

IPNF has been meeting these treaty responsibilities by designating a forestwide Tribal Relations 

Coordinator and having line officers who are assigned a tribe for purposes of government-togovernment consultation. The Tribal Relations Coordinator is informed of planned projects on 

the Forest and coordinates with the line officer regarding forestwide initiatives and National 

Indian policy, regulations, and laws. At this time the St. Joe District Ranger coordinates with the 

Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, the Priest Lake District Ranger with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, 

and the Bonners Ferry District Ranger with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. Coordination and 

consultation with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai is handled by the KNF. The Nez Perce 

Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and Spokane Tribe or Indians has

declined to consult with the IPNF; however, they are sent Forest Planning and project planning 

notices. The line officer and their staff consults appropriate tribal departments and Tribal 

Councils, as well as with members of the Tribe to identify issues. Issues are discussed with the 

line officers, who take tribal responses into consideration in making management decisions.

Consultation on Forest Plan revision began with the seven tribes in 2002. The IPNF covered 

consultation with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe, the Coeur d′Alene Tribe, the 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Spokane Tribe of 

Indians as the bulk of aboriginal land for these four tribes are on that Forest. The KNF’s 

consultation focused on consultation with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Through 

that process the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes identified 23 Special Interest Areas on 

the KNF, while the remaining Tribes declined to identify the similar areas that exist on the IPNF. 

These areas are associated with the traditional beliefs of the Tribe in relation to its origins, 

cultural history, or the nature of the world; where tribes have historically gone, and are known to 

go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of 

practice; where an American Indian community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, 

or other cultural practices important in maintaining their identity.

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

The three tribes that have participated in Forest Plan revision will be discussed in detail: The 

Coeur d′Alene Tribe of Idaho, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and the Kalispel Tribe of Indians. 

While the Nez Perce Tribe has off reservation treaty rights within the IPNF, they have not 

responded to repeated attempts to take part in consultation with the Forest regarding planning 

issues, nor have the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation or the Spokane Tribe of 

Indians opted to participate in forest plan revision. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes 

have off reservation rights on the IPNF, but have generally let the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

handle consultation on the IPNF, while they have concentrated on consultation regarding the 

KNF Forest Planning effort. Even though the other tribes are not considered in detail, this 

analysis of effects should be relatively similar for all of the tribes, except that each has its own 

unique relationship to MAs within their ceded lands or aboriginal territories for each alternative.

Tribal Rights and Interests

Each of the three tribes has slightly different rights according to treaty, Executive Order and 

various laws, regulations, and court orders. According to Kanen (2009) the Kootenai Tribe of 

Idaho (Bonners Ferry Kootenai) is considered to be an unnamed party to the 1855 Hellgate 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 549

Treaty (see State v. Coffee, 97 Idaho 905, 556 P.2d 1185 and Indian Claims Commission’s 

finding in Kootenai Tribe or Band of Indians of the state of Idaho v. United States). The Indian 

Claims Commission found that the Senate ratification of the Hellgate Treaty effectively 

extinguished the Idaho Kootenai’s aboriginal right to occupy the Kootenai River drainage. 

Therefore, they along with signatory tribes, were left with a right to hunt on open and unclaimed 

land. These rights include the "right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common 

with citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing; together with the 

privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open 

and unclaimed land.” The Coeur d′Alene have retained hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, and 

grazing rights on a portion of the IPNF that is within the original 1873 reservation (figure 44). 

The Kalispel Tribe of Indians has no reserved rights under treaty; however, as with the Coeur 

d′Alene Tribe they do claim access and use of resources as a federally recognized tribe across 

portions of the Forest. Both the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Coeur d′Alene Tribe mentioned 

concern over Native American human remains under NAGPRA. While none are known to be in 

the collections of the IPNF, Native American human remains may be found in certain areas of 

the Forest due to the large number of Indians who died during the early epidemics and were 

buried where they lay. While the Forest Service needs to be cognizant of consultation and 

management responsibilities across the IPNF in areas where the tribes retain treaty or ceded 

rights, special attention to Tribe’s rights and interests within these areas have been recognized in 

the treaty or executive order.

Access

Access to traditional resources and sacred sites is a concern of all the tribes. While traditionally 

they may have reached these places by foot or horseback, today, motorized vehicles are essential 

for reaching these locations, especially for elders who can no longer walk long distances. 

Therefore, maintaining access to these areas is essential and consideration of motorized access 

for tribal members should be accommodated where ever possible. Those alternatives with the 

least motorized access would cause the greatest effect to tribal access even though lack of access 

may preserve and protect tribal resources from use and vandalism by non-tribal members.

One of the issues that have been identified by the tribes as a concern is size of areas that restrict 

motorized access (MA1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, and 2a). Alternative A has the least restrictions followed by 

Alternatives D, B Modified, and C respectively.

Places

Three types of places have importance to the tribes: 1) Locations of traditional resources; 2) 

sacred places; and 3) American Indian related cultural resources. With the exception of 

archaeological sites documented by the Forest Service, the locations of these places are generally 

held tightly by the tribes. When they are revealed they are usually provided with the caveat that 

the location be protected from public disclosure under the provisions of the NHPA, 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and provisions of the Farm Bill. However, in general, 

it can be said that locations near water, major travel corridors, and high elevation ridges and 

mountains have special significance to the tribes.

Management area objectives and standards that allow for disturbance of sacred and 

archaeological sites or uses in conflict with aboriginal resource and sacred practices may cause 

significant issues. Management areas allowing for high levels of ground disturbance may affect 

human remains that are found throughout the area due to historic epidemics. Those who died 

during the epidemics were buried where they died, but especially near village and fishing sites.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

550 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Resource Usability

Biophysical and tribal-interest species habitat trends can have significant effects to tribal 

resource use. Considering the effects of each alternative on these resources can help determine 

which alternatives have the least effects. Species of special interest mentioned during Forest Plan 

and project consultation include berries and firewood gathering. Many of the big game, upland 

and migratory bird, and aquatic species of concern to the tribes are the same ones in which the 

Forest Plan provides direction for protection. Specific management activities are analyzed during 

NEPA analysis of the effects and effects are generally mitigated through BMPs in other highly 

managed MAs.

Effects by Significant Issue

While a summary of effects by significant issue is provided below; for a more thorough 

discussion of the topic the reader is referred to the specific section in this FEIS.

Effects from Vegetation Management

Looking at the overall direction for MAs by alternatives can provide a relative guide to effects to 

tribal resources, sacred sites, and cultural properties. Vegetation management may cause both 

beneficial and harmful effects to traditional uses, sacred sites, and cultural properties of interest 

to the tribes. Depending on the habitat type and management action, specific species of interest 

to the tribes will fall into one of three categories: 1) on an upward trend; 2) no change in trend; 

and 3) on a downward trend. For use of traditional resources the differences between alternatives 

are so complex that they can only be discussed in relative terms; while use and management of 

sacred sites and cultural properties may be discussed in more specific terms if their location and 

description are known to the Forest Service.

In summary, it appears that Alternative B Modified may provide the best compromise between 

active and natural restoration activities for traditional resources, although, Alternative C has 

more concentration on natural vegetation succession patterns (see sections on wildlife, aquatics,

and botany for additional analysis). Depending on the types of traditional resources, and whether 

mechanical treatment or natural succession is the better route, these two alternatives provide the 

best practices for upward trends for native resources of concern.

The locations of so few sacred sites are known that it is difficult to argue for differences in effect 

between alternatives. The tribes will have to evaluate impacts from the alternatives on their own 

since they do not share this information with the IPNF.

For cultural properties (see “Cultural Resources” section for more detail) there is not a 

significant amount of difference between alternatives, because depending on where treatable 

acres are located in each alternative the difference may be irrelevant.

Effects from Wildlife Management

For many thousands of years the tribes used wildlife for sustenance, clothing and tools, and for 

religious articles; a tradition that in one way or the other survives today. Both the Kootenai Tribe 

of Idaho and Coeur d’Alene Tribe have reserved rights to hunt parts of the IPNF, while the 

Kalispel Tribe of Indians are able to take game from their aboriginal territory for traditional 

practices and sustenance under law and regulation. While the Forest Service does not manage 

wildlife, it does manage the access and biological habitats that effect wildlife numbers and 

longer term viability. As such, overall management objectives of the habitat are of concern to the 

tribes. Depending on the habitat type and management action, specific species of interest to the 

tribes will fall into one of three categories: 1) on an upward trend; 2) no change in trend; and 3) 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 551

on a downward trend. For use of traditional resources the differences between alternatives are so 

complex that they should be discussed in relative terms, while the effects of each alternative on 

wildlife habitats may be discussed in more specific terms. Additional information and analysis 

may be found in the respective sections of this EIS and specialist reports.

In summary, Alternative B Modified allows for the greatest ability to restore ecosystems that are 

out of desired conditions with respect to wildlife. The no-action alternative does not provide 

adequate direction and breaks up habitats more than other alternatives. While Alternative C 

provides more undisturbed land for protection of wildlife, it does not allow active restoration to 

the extent that Alternative B Modified does, leaving natural processes on their own to bring 

habitats back to desired condition. While Alternative D provides more potential for active 

restoration, it has the most disturbances and least emphasis on security habitat essential for some 

species.

Effects from Aquatic Management

High quality water is essential for aquatic resources used by the tribes for many thousands of 

years and is central to the circle of life. Both the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Coeur d’Alene 

Tribe have reserved rights to take aquatic resources on the IPNF, while the Kalispel Tribe of 

Indians are able to take aquatic resources from their aboriginal territory for traditional practices 

and sustenance under law and regulation. While the Forest Service does not manage “fisheries,” 

they do manage the access and biological habitats and disturbances that effect water quality and 

longer term viability of aquatic species, and so overall management of the water quality and 

aquatic habitat management is of concern to the tribes. Depending on the aquatic resource, 

watershed health, and management action, specific species of interest to the tribes will fall into 

one of three categories: 1) on an upward trend; 2) no change in trend; and 3) on a downward 

trend. For use of traditional resources the differences between alternatives are so complex that 

they should be discussed in relative terms, while use and management of water quality and 

aquatic habitat may be discussed in more specific terms. Additional information and analysis 

may be found in the respective sections of this EIS and specialist reports.

In summary, Alternative C has the highest potential for passive restoration of ecosystems that are 

out of desired conditions with respect to aquatic resources, while Alternative B Modified allows 

slightly less passive restoration outside of MA6. While the no-action alternative would allow a 

continued upward trend in water quality and passive restoration over previous years it does not 

have as great a potential for passive restoration. Alternative D provides the most disturbances 

and least potential for passive restoration.

Effects from Recreation Management and Road Access

Recreation and road access are significant issues to the tribes. Recreation sites, both developed 

and dispersed, overlay archaeological and resource use sites. High density recreation, especially, 

tends to indirectly reduce Tribal use given conflicts between traditional uses and modern 

recreation activities. Since there is no difference in any of the alternatives for developed 

recreation sites this is not an issue that can be effectively analyzed within the confines of the 

Forest Plan document. Dispersed use, especially camping and off road vehicle play areas, where 

they overlay traditional gathering or resource use areas may have significant impacts on the 

ability of traditional practitioners to access and gather resources. However, access is a significant 

issue to the tribes and to some extent is guaranteed under treaty, law, regulation, and policy. 

While younger tribal members may be able to reach resource areas on foot or by horseback,

elderly practitioners require motorized access to effectively reach some areas for resource and 

religious uses.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

552 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Existing developed recreation sites are retained in all action alternatives, although there is some 

difference between alternatives with respect to dispersed recreation and access. Although 

alternatives make no decisions to remove or to create developed recreation sites, some MA 

prescriptions identify needs for improvements. Recreation site decisions will be made through 

site-specific NEPA analysis as necessary to implement the Forest Plan direction.

Since tribal members use some Forest Service recreation facilities and need access to certain 

areas it is difficult to analyze alternative trade-offs. Alternative A allows for continued road 

decommissioning and a large area of wilderness values with little access, but better wildlife and 

aquatic habitat quality. Alternative B Modified has similar levels of wilderness values, but 

emphasizes non-motorized use that may affect tribal elders’ ability to access traditional and 

sacred areas. Alternative C has the most wilderness values as well as an emphasis on reduction 

of motorized use, but should provide for better resource habitat. Alternative D allows for the 

most motorized access, but also includes development of some dispersed recreation sites and the 

most disturbance to habitats. If the concern is access then Alternative D may be preferred over 

the other action alternatives; however, if seeking a balance between accesses, increasing 

dispersed recreation conflicts, and an upward trending resource base, Alternative B Modified is 

preferred.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management may lead to loss of some species of interest, while benefitting others, 

as well as affecting access and the remains of sacred and archaeological sites of importance to 

the tribes. The effects of fire on major species are well known; however, there has been little 

study of more obscure resources. Therefore, the only way to analyze effects is to look at major 

habitats. It is also important, when planning for the potential use of natural, unplanned ignitions 

to meet resource objectives that the timing in relation to tribal resource use and sacred traditions 

is taken into account.

Again, depending on the resource or sacred use, it is difficult to analyze for effects numerically 

and so a relatively ranking based on qualitative factors is the only practical analysis to determine 

effects from fire and fuels management. With the move toward managing natural, unplanned

ignitions to meet resource objectives, MAs will be analyzed for specific effects. However, if 

considered in the larger context of the Forest Plan a return to a more natural fire regime could be 

considered preferable to the tribes; depending on the resources, Tribal use, and timing. 

Alternative A does not provide the flexibility to manage large landscapes with natural, unplanned 

ignitions to meet resource objectives, while Alternatives B Modified and C focus on the use of 

natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives in the backcountry (MA5) and WUI. 

These alternatives seem preferable over the more intense management with fire and timber 

harvest described in Alternative D regarding Tribal concerns. As described earlier, the timing and 

location of the fire for resource benefits use should take into account necessary access for Tribal 

resource and sacred sites uses through appropriate consultation. Additional discussion on this 

topic can be found under the “Fire” sections of this document and in the specialist report.

Effects from Lands and Special Uses Management

All tribes object to loss of aboriginal lands through exchange or sale unless they provide access, 

opportunities, or resources equivalent or greater than those lost. At this time the IPNF has taken 

in more land than it has sold or exchanged out of, generally with significant benefits for Tribal 

access, resources, and the potential for bringing sacred sites back into the federal land base. 

Existing special uses do not vary by action alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 553

Summary by Tribe

MA Summary by Alternative for Coeur d’Alene Tribe

The aboriginal territory and ceded lands for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe are located mostly on the 

St. Joe and Coeur d’Alene Ranger Districts with a small section on the southern Sandpoint 

Ranger District. As seen in table 151 and figures 45 and 46 the majority of aboriginal lands 

consist of MA1, 4, 6, and 9 for the no-action alternative, while in the action alternatives 

aboriginal lands are mostly MA5 and 6.

The existing condition, or no-action alternative, consists of mostly mixed use lands and lands 

managed for big game species and primitive aspects. Under the no-action alternative about 73 

percent of the Forest would be open for mixed use (MA1, 4, 6, and 19), while 29 percent would 

be managed for large game species (MA2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). About 25 percent of the aboriginal 

territory would be managed for its primitive aspects without significant road access (MA2, 3, 7, 

9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 20).

In the action alternatives, less aboriginal lands would be open to mixed use than the existing 

condition, with Backcountry and primitive type MAs making up the majority of the remaining 

MAs. In the action alternatives about 60 percent of the aboriginal territory would be managed for 

mixed use (MA6), with Alternative C having slightly less acreage than Alternative B Modified

and D. Backcountry (MA5) allows for fire and some timber management to reduce fuels in the 

WUI. It is the second largest MA at 30 percent or less with Alternatives B Modified, D, and C 

having the highest to lowest percentage of acreage, but not by a significant difference. Areas that 

will preserve natural ecosystems (MA1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 2a, and 2b), but will have little or no road 

access, make up from six to15 percent; with Alternatives B Modified and D being equal and 

Alternative C having the greatest acreage. Therefore, Alternative C has over twice the amount of 

primitive-type MAs, than the other two action alternatives. In Alternatives B Modified and D the 

Mallard Larkins are retained as a primitive area, while in Alternative C it is recommended as 

proposed wilderness.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

554 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 151. Management Area (MA) Acreage by Alternative for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe

Alternative A Alternative B Modified Alternative C Alternative D

MA Acres Percent Total MA Acres Percent Total Acres Percent Total Acres Percent Total

MA1 873,889 45% MA1a 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

MA2 43,685 2% MA1b 50,089 3% 19,5714 12% 50,089 3%

MA3 0 0% MA1c 6,915 0% 6,915 0% 6,914 0%

MA4 234,785 12% MA1e 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

MA5 15,397 1% MA2a 21,354 1% 21,354 1% 21,355 1%

MA6 263,365 14% MA2b 38,285 2% 34,093 2% 38,298 2%

MA7 0 0% MA3 25,464 2% 3,338 0% 25,464 2%

MA9 232,980 12% MA4a 4,427 0% 4,427 0% 4,432 0%

MA10 66,476 3% MA4b 3,134 0% 3,184 0% 3,182 0%

MA11 76,279 4% MA5 467,258 30% 394,953 25% 434,552 28%

MA12 23,107 1% MA6 942,643 60% 895,638 57% 975,320 62%

MA13 501 0% MA7 7,674 0% 7,674 0% 7,676 0%

MA14 6,153 0%

MA17 954 0%

MA18 606 0%

MA19 30,856 2%

MA20 65,830 3%

Total 1,934,863 100% 1,567,243 100% 1,567,290 100% 1,567,282 100%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 555

Figure 45. Relative amounts of each MA for the No-action alternative within the Coeur d'Alene 

Aboriginal Territory

Figure 46. Relative Amounts of each MA for Action Alternatives within the Coeur d'Alene 

Aboriginal Territory

MA Summary by Alternative for Kalispel Tribe of Indians

The aboriginal territory and ceded lands for the Kalispel Tribe of Indians is located mostly on the 

eastern section of the Kaniksu National Forest in the Bonners Ferry, Priest Lake, and Sandpoint 

Ranger Districts. As seen in table 152 and figures 47 and 48 the majority of aboriginal lands 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

556 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

consist of MA1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 for the no-action alternative, while the action alternatives are 

mostly MA5 and 6.

The existing condition or no-action alternative consists of mostly mixed use lands, lands 

managed for their primitive aspect, and finally, lands managed for big game species. Under the 

no-action alternative about 58 percent of the Forest would be open for mixed management 

(MA1, 4, 6, and 19), while 13 percent would be managed for large game species (MA2, 3, 4, 5, 

and 6). About 40 percent of the aboriginal territory would be managed for its primitive aspects 

with little or no road access (MA2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 20).

In the action alternatives there is significant difference between the alternatives with respect to 

mixed use, backcountry (MA5), and primitive lands (MA1e). In the action alternatives from 66 

to 73 percent of the aboriginal territory would be managed for mixed use (MA6), while 

Alternative C has slightly less acreage than Alternative B Modified and D. Backcountry (MA5) 

allows for fire and some timber management to reduce fuels in the WUI and is the second largest 

MA with acreages totaling between 17 and 20 percent with Alternatives B Modified and C being 

equal in acreage and Alternative D having the highest acreage. Areas that will preserve natural 

ecosystems (MA1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 2a, and 2b), but will have little or no road access, make up about 

9 to 13 percent, with Alternatives B Modified and D being of equal size and Alternative C having 

the largest percentage.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 557

Table 152. Management Area (MA) Acreage by Alternative for the Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Alternative A Alternative B Modified Alternative C Alternative D

MA Acres Percent Total MA Acres Percent Total Acres Percent Total Acres Percent Total

MA1 740,131 44% MA1a 9,887 1% 9,887 1% 9,888 1%

MA2 178,106 11% MA1b 55,434 4% 133,027 10% 55,271 4%

MA3 15,738 1% MA1c 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

MA4 160,112 10% MA1e 21,345 1% 0 0% 11,207 1%

MA5 0 0% MA2a 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

MA6 22,167 1% MA2b 36,275 3% 22,493 2% 36,548 3%

MA7 137,905 8% MA3 9,978 1% 9,878 1% 9,978 1%

MA9 234,660 14% MA4a 8,359 1% 8,359 1% 8,356 1%

MA10 58,422 3% MA4b 5,029 0% 5,029 0% 5,027 0%

MA11 55,534 3% MA5 294,638 20% 282,906 20% 247,089 17%

MA12 6,099 0% MA6 1,002,051 69% 914,417 66% 1,045,731 73%

MA13 6,607 0% MA7 7,941 1% 7,941 1% 7,941 1%

MA14 12,375 1%

MA17 2,126 0%

MA18 671 0%

MA19 50,643 3%

MA20 0 0%

Total 1,681,296 100% 1,450,937 100% 1,393,937 100% 1,437,036 100%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

558 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Figure 47. Relative comparison of MAs for the no-action alternative within the Kalispel Tribe of 

Indians Aboriginal Territory

Figure 48. Relative Comparison of MA Acreages for Action Alternatives for the Kalispel Tribe of 

Indians Aboriginal Territory

MA Summary by Alternative for Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

The aboriginal territory and ceded lands for the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho is located mostly on the 

Priest Lake, Sandpoint and Bonners Ferry Ranger Districts, with a small section of the Coeur 

d’Alene Ranger District included on its west side along the Pend Oreille River. As seen in table 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS American Indians 559

153 and figures 49 and 50 the majority of aboriginal lands consist of MAs 1, 2, 4, 7 and 9 for the 

no-action alternative, while the action alternatives are mostly MAs 5 and 6.

The existing condition, or no-action alternative, has the largest percentage of aboriginal lands 

under mixed management, with primitive lands contributing a significant percentage of the 

acreage. Under the no-action alternative about 56 percent of the Forest would be open for mixed 

management (MAs 1, 4, 6, and 19), while 21 percent would be managed for large game species 

(MAs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). About 42 percent of the aboriginal territory would be managed for its 

primitive aspects without road access (MAs 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 20).

The action alternatives features almost 65 to 72 percent of aboriginal lands in the mixed 

management classification, with more than half of the remainder featured as backcountry and 

about 10 percent managed for its primitive aspects. In the action alternatives about 65 to 72 

percent of the aboriginal territory would be managed for mixed management (MA6) with 

Alternative C, B Modified and D having the least to most acreage. Backcountry, MA5, allows 

for fire and some timber management to reduce fuels in the WUI and is the second largest MA. 

Alternatives D, C and B Modified have the highest to lowest percentage of acreage, at 21 to 17 

percent. Areas that will preserve natural ecosystems (MAs 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 2a, and 2b), but will 

have little or no road access make up nine to 13 percent, with Alternatives B Modified and D 

being equal and Alternative C having the most acreage.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

560 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 153. Management Area (MA) Acreage by Alternative for the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Alternative A Alternative B Modified Alternative C Alternative D

MA Acres Percent Total MA Acres Percent Total Acres Percent Total Acres Percent Total

MA1 738,701 44% MA1a 9,887 1% 9,887 1% 9,888 1%

MA2 178,106 11% MA1b 80,007 5% 157,600 11% 78,718 5%

MA3 15,738 1% MA1c 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

MA4 135,445 8% MA1e 21,345 1% 0 0% 11,207 1%

MA5 0 0% MA2a 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

MA6 19,450 1% MA2b 24,895 2% 11,113 1% 25,144 2%

MA7 137,905 8% MA3 9,978 1% 9,878 1% 9,978 1%

MA9 223,599 13% MA4a 8,359 1% 8,359 1% 8,356 1%

MA10 62,442 4% MA4b 5,029 0% 5,029 0% 5,027 0%

MA11 79,250 5% MA5 301,437 21% 284,175 20% 252,333 17%

MA12 6,099 0% MA6 999,920 68% 912,286 65% 1,043,601 72%

MA13 6,607 0% MA7 5,748 0% 5,748 0% 5,747 0%

MA14 12,375 1%

MA17 1,756 0%

MA18 65 0%

MA19 46,645 3%

MA20 0 0%

Total 1,664,183 100% 1,466,605 100% 1,404,075 100% 1,449,999 100%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 561

Figure 49. Relative acreages for each MA in the no-action alternative for the Kootenai Tribe of 

Idaho

Figure 50. Relative Acreage by MA for Action Alternatives within the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

Ceded Lands

Cumulative Effects

The IPNF provides a wide and varied landscape that is relatively resilient regarding Tribal 

resource use, although sacred sites and archaeological sites of significance to the tribes are a 

nonrenewable resource, at least from a traditional or historical perspective. It is unlikely that any 

of the alternatives will cause an entire resource to be lost to the tribe, with the exception of those 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

562 American Indians Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

resources only collected at a specific place. Since this document is not meant to analyze small 

scale, project specific activities it is difficult to see how any of the alternatives will necessarily 

cause significant cumulative effects. There may be some room to look at specific MA 

designations and their boundaries with respect to those locations; however, since the tribes, for 

the most part, have not provided specific locations, it is not possible to analyze this situation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 563

Production of Natural Resources

This section includes the following resources:

• Timber

• Minerals

• Livestock Grazing

• Special Forest Products
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

564 Timber Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Timber

Introduction

The IPNF contain valuable timber resources. They are important for providing habitat for plants 

and animals and products that are in demand by the American public. These products include 

lumber, house logs, pulpwood, posts and poles, and firewood. Because of the value of the timber 

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

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

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

products.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended by 

the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: These acts set forth the 

requirements for Land and Resource Management Plans for the NFS.

• The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960: "It is the policy of the Congress that the 

national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, 

timber, watershed and wildlife, and fish purposes...The Secretary of Agriculture is 

authorized and directed to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the 

national forests for multiple-use and sustained yield of several products and services 

obtained there from...the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual 

or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without 

impairment of the productivity of the land."

• Organic Administration Act of 1897: Forests are established "to improve and protect the 

forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water 

flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of 

the United States."

Regulation and Policy

• 1982 Planning Rule Procedures: The procedures of the 1982 NFS Land and Resource 

Management Planning Rule require the identification of areas suitable for timber production

and the ASQ from those lands. In addition, the procedures require the analysis of the supply 

and demand situation for resource commodities.

Key Indicator

• Number of suitable acres available for timber production;

• Associated allowable sale quantity;

• Acres or predicted harvest; and

• Long-term sustained yield capacity.

Methodology and Analysis Process

Timber suitability was determined using various resource data and GIS to apply criteria and 

identify lands suitable for timber production. Criteria for suitability are defined in the 1982 

Planning Rule Procedures at 36 CFR 219.14. Data was developed using the latest data sources 

and requirements to match the criteria defined by resource specialists.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Timber 565

Timber demand is based on a capacity and capability analysis completed by the University of 

Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research (McIver et al. 2012).

Timber harvest was modeled using Spectrum, a software modeling system designed to assist 

decision makers in exploring and evaluating multiple resource management choices and 

objectives. Models constructed with Spectrum apply management actions to landscapes through 

a time horizon and display resulting outcomes. Management actions are selected to achieve 

desired goals while complying with all identified management objectives. One of the goals for 

all action alternatives was the objective to move vegetation towards desired condition. Other 

goals that were applied for some alternatives included maximizing timber output and 

maximizing present net value. The Spectrum model was used to determine ASQ and acres 

treated by decade for each alternative.

Analysis Area

The analysis area for timber suitability is comprised of the NFS lands administered by the IPNF. 

The analysis area for timber demand consists of five counties comprising the timber impact 

zone. The analysis area for timber production is the lands suitable for timber production.

Changes between Draft and Final

The analysis on timber capacity and capability was updated between draft and final EIS. See 

McIver et al (2012). These updates are reflected in the timber demand section of the affected 

environment.

The Spectrum model was edited between draft and final EIS. Acres with natural disturbance 

(wildfire) were re-analyzed and updated in the final Spectrum model. The constraints for 

watersheds were adjusted to more accurately reflect management on the ground. The goals to 

move towards vegetation desired condition were also adjusted to reflect progress forestwide, 

rather than progress on lands suitable for timber production and lands not suitable separately. See 

appendix B for more detailed information on the changes made to the model between draft and 

final EIS. These updates in the model resulted in revised numbers for ASQ, predicted volume 

sold, long-term sustained yield capacity, and acres harvested for all alternatives.

The acres suitable for timber production were updated under Alternative B Modified to reflect 

changes in management area allocations from Alternative B.

Affected Environment

Timber Suitability

Lands suitable for timber production are the land base for determining ASQ and vegetation 

management for timber production. The 1987 Forest Plan determined 1,584,100 acres to be 

suitable for timber production. Timber suitability was determined through the use of resource 

data and computer models and followed the handbook and planning regulations that were in 

place at the time.

There have been many changes to timber suitability as the Plan has been amended and 

implemented over the past two decades. These changes include reductions in lands suitable for 

timber production in grizzly bear core areas, riparian areas, old growth, and management 

direction under the Idaho Roadless Rule(36 CFR 294 Subpart C). There have also been changes 

in data and land status, resulting in updated figures for timber suitability. As part of the Forest 

Plan revision, timber suitability was re-calculated to reflect these changes in management and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

566 Timber Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

data. Table 154 displays timber suitability at the time the 1987 Plan was adopted and amended as 

it is currently being implemented.

Table 154. Timber Suitability for the 1987 Plan

Suitability Category 1987 Plan - as Written 1987 Plan - as Amended 

and Currently 

Implemented

Total NFS Lands 2,478,500 2,497,700

Non-forest Land (1) -161,700 -75,600

Withdrawn Lands (2) -51,000 -23,300

Irreversible Resource Damage is likely (3) 0 -271,400

Adequate Restocking not assured (3) -267,300 -50,400

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 1,998,500 2,076,900

Lands where MA prescriptions preclude timber 

production, where management requirements 

cannot be met, or not cost efficient in meeting 

timber production objectives.

-414,400 -1,148,000

Lands Suitable for Timber Production 1,584,100 928,900

(1)-

Handbook direction at the time the 1987 Plan was developed had lands that were not productive (producing <20 cubic 

feet/acre/year) classified as “non-forested.” The 1982 planning rule procedure does not consider low productive lands as 

non-forested. Because of this change in definition and updated data, the total forested NFS lands have increased from 

the 1987 Plan.

(2)-

Change in the amount of withdrawn lands is mostly due to a change in the order of subtraction and not a change in 

actual withdrawn areas.

(3)-

The difference between irreversible damage and adequate restocking is mostly due to how these areas were defined 

and the data used.

Timber Demand

Timber demand was analyzed as part of the 1987 Forest Plan. A potential timber demand of 190 

- 253 MMBF per year was estimated for the IPNF (IPNF Forest Plan EIS, page II-82). This 

estimate was based on demand projections from an Idaho timber supply, analysis, and forest 

data.

Timber demand was updated in 2012 using a capacity and capability analysis for the Forest. This 

analysis was conducted by the University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research, resulting in a report prepared for the IPNF (McIver et al. 2012). The term “capacity” 

refers to the volume of timber (excluding pulpwood) that existing mills could utilize annually. 

The term “capability” refers to the volume of trees of a certain size class that existing mills can 

efficiently process annually. The following information on timber demand is excerpted from this 

report.

Virtually all of the IPNF non-reserved timberland is found in five Idaho counties: Benewah, 

Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, and Shoshone. Three percent of the recent (2006) timber harvested 

in this area currently comes from the IPNF. Most (99 percent) of the timber harvested from these 

counties was from green (live) trees. The species composition of the harvested volume in this 

five-county area was as follows: Douglas-fir about 32 percent, true firs 29 percent, western 

redcedar 11 percent, and western larch 8 percent. Western hemlock and lodgepole pine each 

accounted for 6 percent of the harvest, while western white pine, ponderosa pine, red alder, and 

Engelmann spruce combined for the remaining 8 percent. Sawmills and veneer/plywood 

manufacturers received about 93 percent of the volume harvested from these counties. House 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Timber 567

logs, posts and small poles, and other mills received less than three percent of the timber harvest 

volume. Pulp and paper mills utilized four percent of the 2006 harvest from the five-county 

region.

The IPNF identified a five-county area as the “Idaho Panhandle National Forests Impact Zone.” 

An impact zone is a geographic area delineated to depict a functioning economy as well as the 

area influenced by management of the IPNF. This impact zone was used to determine the 

analysis area for the economic environment (see “Economic and Social Environment” for more 

information). The counties comprising the Idaho Panhandle National Forests impact zone are 

Benewah, Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, and Shoshone counties in Idaho. Within this five-county 

area there are 31 timber-processing facilities currently operating as of 2011: 14 sawmills, 7 log 

home manufacturers, 3 log furniture manufacturers, 3 cedar products manufacturers, 2 post and 

small pole plants, and 2 veneer and plywood facilities.

Capacity to process timber in the IPNF impact zone is estimated at 180 million cubic feet 

(MMCF), with 54 percent of capacity being used in 2011. Mills in the IPNF impact zone are 

currently using about 97 MMCF of timber annually (table 155). Slightly less than 87 percent (84 

MMCF) of the volume processed in the impact zone is composed of trees with diameter at breast 

height (DBH) greater than or equal to 10 inches. Just over 11 percent (11 MMCF) of the volume 

processed comes from trees 7.0 - 9.9 inches DBH, and nearly 2 percent (1.8 MMCF) of 

processed volume comes from trees less than 7 inches DBH.

Table 155. Annual Volume of Timber Processed by Tree Size Class (Excluding Pulpwood) for the 

Idaho Panhandle National Forests Impact Zone, 2011

Thousand Cubic Feet of Timber Thousand Board Feet Scribner of Timber

Tree DBH (inches) Volume Used Tree DBH (inches) Volume Used

<7 1,862 <7 1,862 MCF

7-9.9 11,150 7-9.9 42,817

10+ 84,319 10+ 396,302

Total 97,332 Total 440,981

About 64 percent (116 MMCF) of existing capacity in the IPNF impact zone is not capable of 

efficiently utilizing trees less than 10 inches DBH (table 156). Nearly 64 MMCF of timberprocessing capacity is capable of utilizing trees less than 10 inches DBH, and the majority of this 

is in the 7 to 9.9 inches DBH class.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

568 Timber Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 156. Annual Total Capacity and Capability* to Process Trees by Size Class (Excluding 

Pulpwood) for the Idaho Panhandle National Forests Impact Zone, 2011

Thousand Cubic Feet of Timber Thousand Board Feet Scribner of Timber

Tree DBH (inches) Capability Tree DBH (inches) Capability

<7 18,447 <7 18,447 MCF

7-9.9 45,441 7-9.9 174,492

10+ 116,068 10+ 545,519

Total Capacity 179,956 Total Capacity 738,459

* Note: Capability in <7 and 7-9.9 inch classes is the maximum volume capable of being used efficiently; capability in 10+ 

inches. Class is portion of total capacity NOT capable of efficiently using trees with DBH <10 inches.

A substantial amount of the capacity capable of utilizing smaller diameter trees is being used to 

process larger trees or is simply going unused. About 10 percent of capacity in the less than 7 

inches DBH category is currently utilized to process trees less than 7 inches DBH, and slightly 

more than 24 percent of capacity in the 7 to 9.9 inches DBH category is being used to process 

trees 7 to 9.9 inches DBH. More than 11 MMCF of capacity capable of using trees 7 - 9.9 inches 

DBH are used annually to process trees greater than or equal to 10 inches DBH. Recent (2007-

2011) poor market conditions for lumber have reduced mill demand for smaller diameter logs 

used to make studs. When markets are poor it becomes more difficult to profitably produce 

lumber from small and low quality logs. The price of stud grade lumber (which is predominantly 

made from small logs) fell by a much higher percentage during the recent recession than many 

other dimensions and board and shop lumber grades. This reduced the profitability of sawing 

lower grades of lumber from smaller and lower quality logs. As lumber markets recover, 

increased capacity utilization can be expected across all the size classes.

Timber Supply

Before the IPNF was established, timber was harvested on the Forest to meet the needs of the 

people living in the area. Like many other national forests, timber harvest on the Forest greatly 

increased in the 1960s to meet the demands of a rapidly growing economy. Figure 51 displays 

the total volume of timber cut and sold on the IPNF from 1961 to 2009. The amount cut is based 

on the amount sold by the Forest Service. The amount and timing of harvest from the volume 

under contract with the Forest Service is in response to market conditions and demand for timber 

products.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Timber 569

* Volume prior to 1974 is the total volume from the Coeur d'Alene, Kaniksu, and St. Joe National Forests

Figure 51. Volume Cut and Sold on the IPNF (in MMBF)

The 1987 IPNF Forest Plan set the ASQ at 2,800 MMBF for the first decade, or 280 MMBF 

annually. The ASQ was predicted to increase to 350 MMBF/year for the second decade.

Timber supply under the 1987 Forest Plan was described in the AMS Technical Report and in 

Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation reports. These documents show that timber supply levels 

have been below those projected in the 1987 Forest Plan. Reasons for the difference between 

projected and actual harvest levels include Forest Plan amendments (e.g., INFISH), new or 

updated threatened and endangered recovery direction, water quality concerns, and policies 

regarding entry into IRAs, public controversy, and a reduction in budget. The amount of timber 

sold on the IPNF averaged 52.5 MMBF/year in 2008 and 2009.

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

Timber Suitability

Lands tentatively suitable for timber production are constant for all alternatives. These are lands 

that are physically capable and have not been administratively withdrawn (such as wilderness) 

for timber harvest. Analysis identified 2,076,900 acres as tentatively suitable. See table 154 in 

the “Affected Environment” section above for a listing of acres that are not tentatively suitable 

for all alternatives (column “1987 Plan as Amended and Currently Implemented”).

From the lands tentatively suitable for timber, 699,200 acres were found to have other resource 

concerns that would preclude timber production as an objective. This includes riparian areas, 

grizzly bear core areas, and old growth. Depending on the MA, some of these acres may allow 

timber harvest for resource concerns other than timber production. Any timber harvest off these 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

570 Timber Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

lands is not scheduled and would not occur on a rotation basis. These acres are not suitable for 

timber production.

Timber suitability is also affected by MA allocations. Lands in MA6 are suitable for timber 

production. All other MAs preclude timber production as an objective. Timber harvest may be 

allowed in other MAs (4b, 5, 7, and parts of 2a, 2b, and 3), but only to meet other resource 

objectives. These acres are not suitable for timber production. Table 157 displays timber 

suitability for each alternative.

Table 157. Timber Suitability by Alternative

Timber Suitability Alternative A Alternative B

Modified

Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Tentatively Suitable 2,076,900 2,076,900 2,076,900 2,076,900

Acres where management objectives 

limit timber harvest where mgmt 

requirements cannot be met

699,200 699,200 699,200 699,200

Acres where management precludes 

timber production as an objective

448,800 426,700 471,100 393,300

Acres Suitable for Timber Production 928,900 950,900 906,500 982,300

Percent of NFS Land Suitable for 

Timber Production

37% 38% 36% 39%

Alternative A is the current Plan as amended and implemented. Timber suitability has been 

updated to reflect Forest Plan amendments and current conditions (see earlier discussion on 

timber suitability for the 1987 Forest Plan). This update includes management direction from the 

Idaho Roadless Rule.

As the Plan is implemented on the ground, timber suitability may change based on site-specific 

analysis. Broad-scale information is used in determining lands suitable for timber production in 

the Plan. As a result, changes may occur at the project-scale level using site-specific data. 

Changes to timber suitability will be monitored during implementation of the Plan.

Timber harvest is allowed on lands not suitable for timber production (see FW-GDL-TBR-01), 

for such purposes as salvage, fuels management, insect and disease mitigation, protection or 

enhancement of biodiversity or wildlife habitat, or to perform research or administrative studies, 

or recreation and scenic-resource management. Timber harvest on these lands would have to be 

consistent with other management direction. Acres where timber harvest is allowed on land not 

suitable for timber production are as follows: Alternative A = 1,095,600 acres (44 percent of the 

Forest); Alternative B Modified = 1,072,400 acres (43 percent of the Forest); Alternative C = 

1,035,400 acres (41 percent of the Forest); and Alternative D = 1,043,400 acres (42 percent of 

the Forest). Timber harvest on these lands is not scheduled or managed on a rotation basis, and 

do not contribute towards the allowable sale quantity or the predicted volume sold described 

below.

Allowable Sale Quantity and Predicted Volume Sold

The ASQ for each alternative was formulated by considering the lands suitable for timber 

production, vegetation desired condition, other multiple-use objectives, and the management 

requirements set forth in NFMA. The ASQ is a ceiling and is not constrained by budget. To 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Timber 571

develop a predicted volume sold a budget constraint reflecting current budgets was included for 

each alternative.

Timber harvest levels for the alternatives were calculated using Spectrum (see appendix B). The 

model was run with a mix of objective functions, based on the theme of the alternative. 

Alternative A was run with an objective to maximize timber production while Alternatives B

Modified and C had objectives to move towards vegetation desired condition as quickly as 

possible, while meeting other resource objectives. Alternative D had an objective function to 

maximize timber and then to move towards vegetation desired condition. All solutions were 

finally run with an objective to maximize present net value to ensure economic efficiency in 

vegetation treatments. Table 158 displays the volume offer and ASQ for each alternative. The 

ASQ is a decadal number, but is shown as a yearly annual figure in this table. Outputs are shown 

by both million cubic feet (MMCF) and million board feet (MMBF) per year.

Table 158. Allowable Sale Quantity and Volume Sold by Alternative — Decade 1

Measure Alt A1 Alt B Modified Alt C Alt D

Annual Allowable Sale Quantity 

MMBF/yr

MMCF/yr

124.9

22.3

120.3

22.1

115.9

21.2

131.3

23.4

Predicted Volume Sold 

MMBF/yr

MMCF/yr

46.8

8.6

44.6

8.3

43.3

8.3

46.3

8.5

1 Numbers for Alternative A reflect the 1987 Plan as amended and implemented, including management direction under 

the Idaho Roadless Rule. These numbers are based on the latest data and the Spectrum model developed for plan 

revision.

Source: Spectrum model analysis

The effects on timber production are directly related to the amount of acres classified as suitable 

for timber production and acres within MA6. The amount of timber production is also directly 

related to the objective the model was run under based on the theme of the alternative. 

Alternative D has the highest and Alternative C the lowest ASQ and volume sold.

Table 159 displays the acres harvested in decade one to achieve the volumes shown in table 158. 

Acres harvested are a mix of silvicultural prescriptions, including even- or two-aged 

regeneration, uneven-aged management, and intermediate harvests. Alternative B Modified has 

the most acres harvested in achieving the ASQ and Alternative A the least. At the ASQ level, 

Alternatives B Modified and C have more intermediate harvest acres to move vegetation towards 

desired condition.

Table 159. Acres Harvested to meet ASQ and Volume Sold – Decade 1

Alt A Alt B Modified Alt C Alt D

Acres to meet ASQ 55,370 58,840 58,420 57,900

Acres to meet Predicted Volume Sold 48,670 44,700 60,360 29,120

Source: Spectrum model analysis

To ensure sustainability, a long-term sustained yield capacity (LTSYC) was calculated for the 

Forest based on management activities to achieve desired conditions. LTSYC is defined as “the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

572 Timber Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

highest uniform wood yield from lands being managed for timber production that may be 

sustained under specified management intensity consistent with multiple-use objectives” (1982 

planning procedures, 36 CFR 219.3). The LTSYC is not constrained by budget. Table 160

displays the LTSYC for the Forests.

Table 160. Long-term Sustained-yield Capacity (LTSYC) by Alternative (MMCF/year)

Measure Alt A Alt B Modified Alt C Alt D

Long-term Sustained-yield Capacity 22.3 22.1 21.2 23.4

Source: Spectrum model analysis

Figures 52 through 55 displays the ASQ and volume offer in relation to the LTSYC for each 

alternative, because LTSYC is the highest wood yield sustainable, it is greater than or equal to 

ASQ. Because volume offer is limited by current budgets, it is well below the LTSYC for each 

alternative.

Figure 52. Alternative A - Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term SustainedYield Capacity
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Timber 573

Figure 53. Alternative B Modified - Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term 

Sustained-Yield Capacity

Figure 54. Alternative C - Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term SustainedYield Capacity
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

574 Timber Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Figure 55. Alternative D - Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term SustainedYield Capacity

Alternative D has the highest LTSYC, followed by Alternatives A and B Modified. The ASQ is at 

the LTSYC in all alternatives.

Additional analysis was conducted to meet the requirements of the 1982 planning procedures, 

including analysis on costs, benefits, and the efficiency of management prescriptions. See 

appendix B for a description of the analysis and documentation of the results.

Consequences to Timber from Forest Plan Components Associated with other 

Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Fire and Fuels

Fire and fuels management generally has a positive effect on timber management. The objectives 

for fuel reduction are consistent with commercial timber harvest. Timber harvest is often the tool 

for reducing fire risk through a reduction in fuel loading. Timber harvest also moves vegetation 

towards desired conditions that are more resilient and less fire-prone. Alternative D has the most 

management activities for fire and the most positive impact on timber harvest.

Effects from Aquatic Habitat, Riparian, Watershed, and Wildlife

Measures to protect aquatic habitat, riparian areas, watersheds, and wildlife limit the amount of 

timber that may be harvested. Riparian areas and certain wildlife areas (such as grizzly bear core 

areas) are not suitable for timber production. This reduces the amount of land available for 

scheduled timber harvest. Protection measures for watersheds, aquatic habitat, and wildlife limit 

the amount of openings and the type of harvest. All of these factors reduce the amount of timber 

harvest. The reduction in timber harvest is the same for all alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Timber 575

Effects from Inventoried Roadless Areas

The amount of IRAs that are allocated to MAs suitable for timber production varies by 

alternative. Table 161 displays acres suitable for timber production that are within IRAs. The 

table also shows the acres of IRAs that are scheduled for harvest sometime over the planning 

horizon (250 years) and the amount of timber harvest from these areas in the first decade. At the 

ASQ level, timber harvest in IRAs in the first decade is less than 1 MMBF/year in the first 

decade for all action alternatives and minimal acres are scheduled for harvest over the planning 

horizon. For the predicted volume sold level, no alternative schedules any acres for timber 

harvest.

Table 161. Acres Suitable for Timber Production, Percent Scheduled for Harvest, and First Decade 

Harvest within Inventoried Roadless Areas

Alternative Acres Suitable for 

Timber Production in 

IRA

Percent Scheduled for 

Harvest (over 250 years)

Timber Harvest from IRA 

Decade 1 (MMBF/yr)

ASQ Level

A 14,500 45% 0.0

B Modified 5,600 3% 0.1

C 5,500 4% 0.0

D 5,700 4% 0.8

Predicted Volume Sold

A 14,500 0% 0.0

B Modified 5,600 0% 0.0

C 5,500 0% 0.0

D 5,700 0% 0.0

Timber harvest within IRAs is limited, requires additional analysis, and receives a great deal of 

public and agency scrutiny. Because of limited access and the additional analysis and 

public/agency involvement, unit costs for timber harvest are much higher within an IRA. No 

alternative schedules all IRA acres for timber harvest; no acres are scheduled under constrained 

budgets (the predicted timber volume level). Alternative A has the most acres of IRA suitable for 

timber production, with 45 percent of those lands scheduled for harvest under the ASQ level. 

However, management opportunities are expected to continue to be limited within IRAs and 

harvest within these areas may be infeasible.

Effects from Budget

The budget has a large effect on the amount of timber that can be harvested from the IPNF. As 

described previously, the ASQ is unconstrained by budget while the predicted volume sold is 

constrained by current budget levels. The budget that would be necessary to achieve ASQ would 

need to be nearly triple current levels in all alternatives.

Effects from Natural Disturbance

Insects, disease, and wildfire can affect the production of timber by killing and damaging trees. 

The Spectrum model included a predicted amount of wildfire on the Forest based on current fire 

suppression success and fire starts. See appendix B for more information on the Spectrum model.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

576 Timber Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Under all alternatives, there exists potential for salvage/sanitation cuts to harvest dead and 

damaged timber and to attempt to slow or impede infestations from spreading. The degree to 

which these harvests are undertaken will largely depend upon the risks associated with wildfire 

potential, infestation spread into healthy stands, public safety, the presence of high value 

resources, and the resource emphasis of the infected or adjoining area.

Under Alternatives B Modified and C, where there are more acres in recommended wilderness 

and backcountry management, there is a greater potential for infestations from insects and 

disease. There is also the potential for more wildfire. This could result in a short-term increase in 

timber harvest through salvage sales on lands where timber harvest is allowed.

Catastrophic events, such as large wildfires and epidemic insect outbreaks, were not included in 

the modeling because of uncertainty in the extent or timing of such an occurrence. If a 

catastrophic event does occur in the future, analysis would need to be conducted to determine if 

the event would warrant a Forest Plan amendment for changed conditions.

Cumulative Effects

There are many factors that influence and affect timber harvest. The demand for timber products, 

supply, laws, and regulations all affect the amount of timber that may be harvested from the 

IPNF. Budgets and court decisions also impact timber supply potential. The following is a brief 

description of some items that are changing or may change in the future, adding to the effects on 

timber harvest from the alternatives.

Demand and Future Timber Products

The demand for timber products is a driver in the amount of wood fiber supplied from the IPNF. 

The Idaho Statewide Forest Resource Strategy (Kimball and Stephenson 2010) identified the 

goal to create opportunities to build and sustain forest markets and enhance biomass market 

infrastructure. Diversifying markets and enhancing infrastructure leads to new products and new 

processing techniques, and affects the demand for wood fiber. If markets improve and demand 

for wood products increases, there will be the desire for more wood fiber from the IPNF. If 

demand decreases and mills close, there may be less desire for wood fiber from the IPNF. A 

decrease in demand may reduce the amount of timber sold from the IPNF under all alternatives.

Alternative Sources for Wood Fiber

The supply of wood fiber from private and state lands and adjacent national forests impacts 

IPNF demand. If wood fiber supplies decrease from private and state lands and adjacent national 

forest, there will be an increasing demand for wood fiber from the IPNF. If supplies increase 

from private and state lands and adjacent national forests, there may be a decrease in demand for 

wood fiber from the IPNF. A decrease in demand may reduce the amount of timber sold from the 

IPNF under all alternatives.

Development of Forestlands

The Idaho Statewide Forest Resource Strategy (Kimball and Stephenson 2010) identified 

development pressure as an issue for forestland. This development results in a loss of productive 

forests and pressure to eliminate management on adjacent lands. Development pressure can also 

lead to decreased timber harvest because of the loss of forests and the impact development has 

on watersheds and wildlife. The increased fragmentation limits the amount of harvest that may 

occur on adjacent national forest lands, while the decreased supply from private lands increases 

the demand for timber harvest from the IPNF. The limit on timber harvest from fragmentation of 

adjacent lands would limit the amount of timber sold from the IPNF under all alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Minerals 577

Minerals

Introduction

The 192-million-acre NFS is an important part of the nation’s resource base. As directed by the 

Organic Administration Act of 1897 and the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the 

national forests are managed by the USDA Forest Service for continuous production of their 

renewable resources – timber, clean water, wildlife habitat, forage for livestock, and outdoor 

recreation.

Although not renewable, minerals are resources of the national forests and are important to the 

nation’s welfare. The national forests contain much of the country’s remaining stores of mineral 

resources. Prime examples include: the national forests of the Rocky Mountains, the Basin and 

Range Province, the Cascade-Sierra Nevada Ranges, and the Alaska Coast range.

Geologically, NFS lands contain some of the most favorable host rocks for mineral deposits. 

Approximately 6.5 million acres are known to be underlain by coal. Approximately 45 million 

acres, or one-quarter of NFS lands, have potential for oil and gas; while about 300,000 acres 

within the Pacific Coast and Great Basin States have potential for geothermal resource 

development.

Within the past few years, the energy use and demand in this country has reminded us that the 

nation’s mineral resources are limited. As with oil supplies, there will likely be tightening of 

world supplies of minerals. Such a trend is leading to considerable expansion of domestic 

mineral prospecting, exploration, and development. Much of this increased activity is on NFS 

lands where they are open to mineral exploration and development.

Forest Service Role in Minerals Management

In the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Congress declared that it is the continuing policy 

of the federal government, in the national interest, to foster and encourage private enterprise in 

(among other goals) the development of domestic mineral resources and the reclamation of 

mined land. This federal policy applies to NFS lands.

The Forest Service recognizes the importance of NFS mineral resources to the well-being of the 

nation, and encourages bona-fide mineral exploration and development. But, it also recognizes 

its responsibility to protect the surface resources of the lands under its care. Thus, the Forest 

Service is faced with a double task: to make minerals from national forest lands available to the 

national economy, and at the same time, minimize the adverse impacts of mining activities on 

other resources.

Land management planning, as mandated by the NFMA of 1976, is a principal tool for assuring 

that mineral resources are given proper consideration. Before plans are developed, specialists 

evaluate resource activities including existing and potential mineral development. Planners and 

decision makers then formulate plans to minimize potential resource conflicts and maximize the 

various uses and values of NFS lands. Since mineral resources are often sub-surface, relatively 

rare, and are governed by certain preferential laws, the land management planning procedures 

provide for the availability of minerals and development of mineral operations where possible.

Minerals management of NFS lands requires interagency coordination and co-operation. 

Although the Forest Service is responsible for the management of surface resources of NFS 

lands, the BLM in the USDI is primarily responsible for management of government-owned 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

578 Minerals Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

minerals. Since it is not possible to separate mineral operations from surface management, the 

agencies have developed cooperative procedures to accommodate their respective 

responsibilities.

Legal and Administrative Framework

The following statutory authorities provide direction under which exploration and development 

of mineral and energy resources on NFS lands may be conducted:

Law and Executive Orders

Surface Management Authority

• Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11, as amended; 16 U.S.C. § 473 et 

seq.): This act provides the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to regulate the occupancy 

and use of NFS lands. It provides for the continuing right to conduct mining activities under 

the general mining laws if the rules and regulations covering NFS lands are complied with. 

This act recognizes the rights of miners and prospectors to access NFS lands for all proper 

and lawful purposes, including prospecting, locating, and developing mineral resources.

• Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (P.L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 

528 et seq.): This act requires that NFS lands be administered in a manner that considers the 

values of the various resources when making management decisions and specifically 

provides that nothing in the act be construed to affect the use or administration of the mineral 

resources on NFS lands.

• Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (P.L. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. § 1121, et 

seq.): This act provides that, subject to valid rights existing prior to January 1, 1984, 

wilderness areas are withdrawn from all forms of appropriation and disposition under the 

mining and mineral leasing laws. Subsequent acts designating additional NFS lands as 

wilderness may contain specific provisions concerning mineral activities. Patents issued 

under the mining laws for mining claims staked after passage of this act within wilderness 

areas shall reserve the surface rights to the United States. The act provides for reasonable 

access to valid mining claims and other valid occupancies inside wilderness areas. The act 

also requires the survey of wilderness areas by the U.S. Geological Survey on a planned, 

recurring basis consistent with the concept of wilderness preservation to determine the 

mineral values that may be present.

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, January 1, 1970 (P.L.91-190, 83 

Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq.): This act requires federal agencies to use a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach to ensure the integrated use of natural and social sciences in 

planning and decision making. It also requires an analysis of probable environmental effects 

of proposed federal actions. Generally, decisions on mineral and energy development are 

subject to this law.

• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (P.L. 93-

378, 88 Stat. 476; 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq.): This act directs the assessment of all resources 

on NFS lands to determine the desired level of future production from Forest Service 

programs. Once approved, the policy statement and recommended program serve as a guide 

to future Forest Service planning and a basis for future budget proposals.

• National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of October 22, 1976 (P.L. 94-588, 90 Stat. 

2949; 16 U.S.C. § 1600 et seq.): The act requires the Forest Service to establish a 

comprehensive system of land and resource planning, including the development and 

maintenance of a comprehensive and detailed inventory of lands and resources. The act also 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Minerals 579

specifies the use of a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated 

consideration of the physical sciences into planning for the management and use of NFS 

lands and resources.

Mineral Management Authorities

• U.S. Mining Laws Act of May 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 91, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 22 et seq):

This act (often referred to as the General Mining Act of 1872) sets forth the principles of 

discovery, right of possession, assessment work, and patent for hard-rock minerals on lands 

reserved from the public domain. The law applies to lode, placer, mill-site claims, and tunnel 

sites. Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits, and the lands in which 

they are found, are free and open to exploration, occupation, and purchase under regulations 

prescribed by law.

• Organic Administration Act of 1897 (30 Stat. 11, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 473 et seq):

Reserved lands for national forests purposes and opened them to the operations under U.S. 

mining laws, provided individuals/operators comply with the rules and regulations of the 

Secretary of Agriculture. This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate 

occupancy and use of the national forests. The act permits access to national forests for all 

lawful purposes, including prospecting, locating, and developing mineral resources.

• Weeks Law Act of March 1, 1911 (P.L. 61-435, 72 Stat. 1571, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 

480 et seq): This act authorized the federal government to purchase lands for stream-flow 

protection, and maintain the acquired lands as national forests.

• Mineral Resources on Weeks Law Lands Act of March 4, 1917 (P.L. 64-390, 39 Stat. 

1149, 16 U.S.C. § 520): This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits and 

leases for prospecting, developing, and utilizing hard-rock minerals on lands acquired under 

the authority of the act. This authority was later transferred to the Secretary of the Interior.

• Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920 (P.L. 66-146, 41 Stat. 437 as amended, 30 

U.S.C. § 181 et seq.): This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue leases for the 

disposal of certain minerals (coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, oil shale, gilsonite, and 

gas). The act applies to NFS lands reserved from the public domain, including lands received 

in exchange for timber or other public domain lands, and lands with minerals reserved under 

special authority.

• Clarke-McNary Act of June 7, 1924 (P.L. 68-270, 43 Stat. 653 as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 

505 et seq.): All lands to which title is accepted under section 7 of this act become national 

forest lands, subject to all laws applicable to the lands acquired under the Weeks Act of 

March 1, 1911.

• Mineral Materials Act of July 31, 1947 (P.L. 80-291, 61 Stat. 681, as amended, 30 U.S.C. 

§ 601 et seq.): This act provides for the disposal of mineral materials on the public lands 

through bidding, negotiated contracts, and free use.

• Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of August 7, 1947 (P.L. 80-382, 61 Stat. 913, as 

amended, 30 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.): This act extends the provisions of the mineral leasing 

laws to federally owned mineral deposits on acquired NFS lands and requires the consent of 

the Secretary of Agriculture prior to leasing.

• Multiple Use Mining Act of July 23, 1955 (P.L. 84-167, 69 Stat. 368, as amended, 30 

U.S.C § 601 et seq.): This act requires the disposal of common varieties of sand, stone, 

gravel, pumice, pumicite, and cinders under the provisions of the Materials Act of July 31, 

1947, and gives to the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to dispose of these materials. It 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

580 Minerals Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

also provides that rights under any mining claim located under the mining laws are subject to 

the right of the United States to manage and dispose of surface resources.

• Geothermal Steam Act of December 24, 1970 (P.L. 91-581, 84 Stat. 1566, 30 U.S.C. § 

1001-1025): This act provides the Secretary of the Interior the authority to lease NFS lands 

for geothermal steam development, subject to the consent and conditions the Secretary of 

Agriculture may prescribe.

• Mining and Minerals Policy Act of December 31, 1970 (P.L. 91-631, 84 Stat.1876, 30 

U.S.C. § 21a): This act states that the continuing policy of the federal government is to 

foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable 

domestic mining and minerals industries and the orderly and economic development of 

domestic mineral resources.

• Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of August 4, 1976 (90 Stat. 1083; 30 U.S.C. § 

201 et seq.): This act amended the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of February 25, 1920 (para. 

3) by specifying that coal leases on NFS lands may be issued only after the consent of the 

Secretary of Agriculture and adherence to conditions the Secretary may prescribe. The act 

also provides that no lease shall be issued unless the lands involved in the lease have been 

included in a comprehensive forest land and resource management plan and the sale is 

compatible with the Plan. The act authorizes the issuance of a license to conduct exploration 

for coal.

• Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (P.L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 

2713, 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., 7 U.S.C. § 1212a, 16 U.S.C. § 478a, 1338a): This act 

defines procedures for the withdrawal of lands from mineral entry. It reserves to the United 

States the rights to prospect for, mine, and remove the minerals in lands conveyed to others 

and requires the recordation of claims with the BLM.

• Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of August 3, 1977 (P.L. 95-87, 91 Stat. 

445, 30 U.S.C. § 1201-1328): This act provides for cooperation between the Secretary of the 

Interior and states in the regulation of surface coal mining. It also restricts or prohibits 

surface coal mining operations on NFS lands, subject to valid existing rights and 

compatibility determinations.

• Energy Security Act of June 30, 1980 (P.L. 96-294, 94 Stat. 611, 42 U.S.C. § 8855): This 

act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to process applications for leases and permits to 

explore, drill, and develop resources on NFS lands, notwithstanding the current status of the 

forest land and resource management plan.

• National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of October 2, 

1980 (94 Stat. 2305; 30 U.S.C. §1601-1605): This act restates congressional intent to 

promote policies that provide for an adequate and stable supply of materials while 

considering long-term needs, a healthy environment, and natural resource conservation. The 

act also requires the Secretary of the Interior to improve the availability and analysis of 

mineral data in federal land use decision making.

• Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 

4093, 16 U.S.C. § 497c): This act automatically withdraws from all forms of appropriation 

under the mining laws and from disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and 

geothermal leasing all lands located within the boundaries of ski area permits.

• Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. § 181 et seq.):

This act expands the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in the management of oil and 

gas resources on NFS lands. The BLM cannot issue leases for oil and gas on NFS lands over 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Minerals 581

the objection of the Forest Service. The Forest Service must approve all surface disturbing 

activities on NFS lands before operations commence.

• Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4546; 16 U.S.C. § 4301-4309):

Provides for protection and preservation of caves on federal lands.

• Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PL 109-58): Directs federal agencies to undertake efforts to 

ensure energy efficiency; and the production of secure, affordable, and reliable domestic 

energy.

• Executive Order 13211 issued May 18, 2001: This executive order titled “Actions 

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 

requires federal agencies to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy Effects to the Office 

of Management and Budget describing the effects of certain regulatory actions on energy 

supply, distribution, or use.

• Executive Order 13212 issued May 18, 2001: This executive order titled “Actions to 

Expedite Energy-Related Projects” requires federal agencies to take actions, to the extent 

consistent with applicable law, to expedite projects that will increase the production, 

transmission, or conservation of energy.

• The Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 (60 Stat. 1097; 5 U.S.C. Appendix): This 

transferred the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to permits and leases 

for hard-rock minerals on acquired Weeks Law land to the Secretary of the Interior. 

However, Secretary of Agriculture Consent to the issuance of permits or leases is required.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 219 — Planning: These regulations implement the NFMA of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 

et seq.), require consideration of the relationship of nonrenewable resources, such as 

minerals, to renewable resources, and set forth the minimum requirements for integrating the 

nonrenewable mineral resource into a forest plan.

• 36 CFR 228 — Minerals: These regulations set forth rules and procedures governing use of 

the surface of NFS lands in conjunction with operations authorized by the general mining 

laws, oil and gas leasing, and mineral material disposal laws.

• Subpart A: Locatable Minerals

• Subpart B: Leasable Minerals (reserved)

• Subpart C: Disposal of Mineral Materials

• Subpart D: Miscellaneous Minerals Provisions

• Subpart E: Oil and Gas Resources

• 36 CFR 251 — Land Uses

• 43 CFR 2300 — Land Withdrawals

Interagency Agreements

The Forest Service has entered into interagency agreements with agencies within the USDI to 

cooperate and coordinate in the management of federally owned minerals within NFS lands. The 

principal agreements include:

• A November 8, 1946, agreement with the BLM detailing procedures for mineral leases 

and permits administered under section 402 of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 

of 1946.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

582 Minerals Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• A May 18, 1957, MOU with the BLM describing work procedures for land applications, 

mining claims, and patents.

• A March 4, 1977, cooperative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey concerning oil 

and gas operations.

• A May 20, 1980, MOU with the BLM describing the coordination of activities under the 

federal coal management program.

• A November 26, 1980, cooperative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey for 

operations under solid mineral leases and permits.

• A December 3, 1981, MOU with the U.S. Geological Survey and the BLM for the 

geothermal steam leasing program.

• A July 31, 1990, MOU with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

describing the management of surface coal mining operations on NFS lands.

• A November 11, 1991, interagency agreement with the BLM describing the procedures 

by which the Forest Service could authorize the BLM to offer NFS lands for oil and gas 

leasing.

• A November 19, 1991, interagency agreement with the BLM describing the procedures 

for coordinated administration of oil and gas operations on federal leases within the 

NFS.

Key Indicators

• Locatable minerals — acres available for mineral development;

• Leasable minerals — acres available for leasing proposals; and

• Mineral materials — acres available for disposal of mineral materials.

Methodology and Analysis Process

The acres that are available for locatable mineral resource development are determined by 

subtracting the number of acres that are withdrawn from the total number of acres for the IPNF.

The number of acres that are withdrawn from mineral entry is a matter of record. By law, the 

BLM keeps official records in the General Land Office. Current records are kept in the LR2000 

database. These records are the source for the documentation of withdrawn lands on the IPNF.

The number of acres that are available for leasing proposals is determined by subtracting the 

number of acres that are legally unavailable from the total number of acres on the IPNF.

Lands which are legally unavailable for leasing are:

• Lands withdrawn from mineral leasing by an act of Congress or by an order of the 

Secretary of the Interior;

• Lands recommended for wilderness allocation by the Secretary of Agriculture;

• Lands designated by statute as wilderness study areas, unless oil and gas leasing is 

specifically allowed by the statute designating the study area; and

• Lands within areas allocated for wilderness or further planning in Executive 

Communication 1504.

The number of acres that are available for disposal of mineral materials is determined by 

subtracting from the total number of acres on the IPNF, the number of acres where the Forest 

Service has exercised its discretion to refrain from authorizing the disposal of mineral materials.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Minerals 583

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

A variety of mineral deposit types and mineral resources, including gold, silver, and copper, 

occur within the boundaries of the IPNF. The silver valley (Coeur d’Alene River basin) is named 

because of its rich silver deposits. The Forest Service recognizes that minerals are fundamental 

to the nation’s well-being, and as policy, encourages the exploration and development of the 

mineral resources it is authorized to manage. The Secretary of Agriculture has provided 

regulations (36 CFR 228) to ensure surface resource protection, while encouraging the orderly 

development of mineral resources on NFS lands. Please refer to figure 56 which shows mineral 

potential on the IPNF. Oil and gas potential across the IPNF is low.

With respect to national forest management, mineral resources are divided into three groups: 

locatable minerals, leasable minerals, and mineral materials. The authority of the Forest Service 

to influence and regulate the exploration, development, and production phases of mining 

operations varies with each group. As a result, the Forest Service manages mineral resource 

programs that are specific to each group.

Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals are those valuable deposits subject to exploration and development under the 

General Mining Law of 1872 (as amended). These resources are commonly referred to as hardrock minerals; and include gold, silver, and copper.

Lands open to operations under the General Mining Law include all areas of the national forests 

except those formally withdrawn from mineral entry either by Congress or the Secretary of the 

Interior or otherwise exempted.

On the IPNF, there are about 47,720 acres currently withdrawn leaving approximately 2,449,880 

acres available for locatable mineral development.

The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, grants every United States citizen the right to 

prospect and explore lands reserved from the public domain and open to mineral entry. The right 

of access is guaranteed and is not a Forest Service discretionary action.

Upon discovering a valuable mineral deposit, citizens have the right to locate a mining claim and 

remove the mineral resources. The citizen holding a mining claim is the claimant. The claimant 

is responsible for initiating mining activities and investing the capital required to conduct 

mineral exploration, site development, mine operation, and reclamation of the site.

The Forest Service works with mining claimants to provide reasonable access to their claims, 

minimize adverse environmental impacts on surface resources, and ensure reasonable 

reclamation of disturbed lands affected by mining operations. Protection of surface resources is 

accomplished by reviewing the mining plan of operations submitted by the claimant; disclosing 

impacts of the proposed mining operations in a site-specific environmental document; approving 

only those activities that are reasonably necessary for the proposed operation; monitoring 

operations to ensure environmental standards are met; and ensuring prompt and reasonable 

reclamation of disturbed areas.

By law, certain lands such as lands withdrawn by an act of Congress (i.e., through the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 or the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act of 1968) and lands withdrawn by an 

order of the Secretary of the Interior are withdrawn from mining claim location. These 

withdrawn areas are; however, subject to mining claims with valid existing rights established 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

584 Minerals Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

before the date the areas were withdrawn from mineral entry. As a consequence, some mining 

claims located within existing or proposed withdrawn areas could be developed in the future.

Current Mining Operations

Across the IPNF there are approximately 25 approved Plans of Operations for various small lode 

and placer mining sites as well as exploration activities investigating larger deposits. A NOI is 

submitted by a claimant prior to any approval for these types of mining activities. The IPNF 

annually receives around 75 of these NOIs per year.

Figure 56. Displays the Locatable Minerals potential for the IPNF

Leasable Minerals (Oil and Gas)

Certain types of minerals, primarily energy resources, are not subject to mining claim location, 

but are available for exploration and development under provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920 (as amended). Access to these types of minerals is provided through leases, permits, or 

licenses that include fee and/or royalty payment conditions. Federally owned leasable minerals 

include oil, gas, coal, geothermal resources, potassium, sodium, phosphates, oil shale, and sulfur.

The authority to manage these minerals is presently administered by the USDI and BLM. The 

USDI is statutorily required to obtain consent from the Forest Service before it issues leases for 

leasable minerals on NFS lands.

The IPNF are not proposing to do any leasing analysis in this EIS. As per 36 CFR 228.102 (c), 

any further leasing analysis will be done under a separate environmental document.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Minerals 585

No leasable minerals are presently being produced on the IPNF and the anticipated demand is 

expected to remain low. Oil and gas occurrence potential is low across the IPNF and geothermal 

resources are not known to occur.

Idaho Roadless Area Management direction in 36 CFR 294 Subpart C prohibits the Forest 

Service from recommending, authorizing, or consenting to road construction/reconstruction for 

new mineral or energy leases in Idaho Roadless Areas managed under the backcountry 

restoration theme. Idaho Roadless Area Management direction permits surface use or occupancy 

without road construction or reconstruction for all mineral leasing in the backcountry/restoration 

theme unless prohibited in the LMP.

By regulation (36 CFR 228.102) certain lands are legally unavailable for leasing: lands 

withdrawn from mineral leasing by an act of Congress or by the Secretary of the Interior; lands 

recommended for wilderness allocation by the Secretary of Agriculture; and lands designated by 

statute as wilderness study areas (unless oil and gas leasing is specifically allowed by the statute 

designating the study area). On the IPNF there are about 32,806 acres that are legally unavailable 

for mineral leasing, leaving approximately 2,464,794 acres available for mineral leasing 

proposals.

Mineral Materials

Often referred to as salable minerals, or “common variety” minerals, they are subject to the 

Mineral Materials Act of 1947 (as amended). These minerals are disposed of by sale, issuance of 

free-use permits, or under contracts for in-service needs. These minerals include petrified wood, 

common varieties of sand, rock, stone, cinders, gravel, pumice, clay, and other similar materials. 

Such common variety mineral materials include deposits that, although they have economic 

value, tend to be relatively widely available and do not have a distinct and special value. These 

minerals are most commonly used as building, landscaping, and construction materials.

The predominant salable material extracted on the IPNF is crushed rock used for road surfacing 

and fill. The demand for quality rock sources is often dependent upon the locations of active 

management operations and the needs for resource protection. Presently there is an adequate 

supply of rock sources of suitable quality (hardness and durability) across the Forest for inservice construction uses. The Forest currently has 371 inventoried gravel pits spread across the 

Forest. There is a public demand for salable materials predominantly used for construction and 

landscaping purposes. There are approximately 100 permits administered annually for personal 

use, public works, or commercial uses on the IPNF.

Garnet mining for both sands and larger gem quality garnets is also present on the IPNF. 

Commercial activity for sands and gems has been relatively inactive with very low production in 

the last 10 years, although the IPNF public garnet digging area is very popular with 6,000 to 

7,000 permits sold each year.

Mine Reclamation

Mine reclamation is divided into small and large projects. Small sites usually require little 

rehabilitation work other than closing the mine opening with some sort of barrier. Approximately 

292 sites need a variety of treatments to ensure they are inaccessible to the general public. On 

average, 15 mine openings are closed annually and a total of 225 closures have been 

accomplished since the beginning of the closure program in 1995. Larger sites need more work 

and often are reclaimed using the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act. This 1980 law requires the parties responsible for the contamination to conduct or 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

586 Minerals Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

pay for the cleanup. If the EPA's efforts to take an enforcement action for the cleanup are not 

successful, the federal government can clean up a site using the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Trust Fund. There are currently 2 active large 

cleanup efforts taking place on the IPNF. Over the past 10 years 9 large sites have been 

reclaimed. Several hundred remaining inventoried sites are candidates for further assessments 

and consideration for reclamation work.

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

None of the alternatives propose to make any site-specific changes to the existing availability of 

land for mineral resources on the IPNF. Additional withdrawals need to be processed for Special 

Areas and RNAs. None are proposed at this time and these proposals would not vary by Forest 

Plan alternative.

Consequences to Minerals from Forest Plan Components Associated with other 

Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Prescriptions

Locatable Minerals

Alternatives A, B Modified, C, and D do not propose any additional lands for withdrawal to 

mineral entry. There is no difference between Alternatives A, B Modified, C, or D regarding the 

lands available for locatable mineral development.

Leasable Minerals

Alternative A does not make any lands administratively unavailable for mineral leasing although 

it does identify approximately 25,400 acres where no surface occupancy stipulations would 

apply and approximately 294,800 acres where leasing was not compatible with long-term goals.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D do not propose to make any lands administratively 

unavailable for mineral leasing. Neither do they make any stipulations as to surface use or 

occupancy. Any stipulations would be identified at the site-specific level through the NEPA 

process.

In relation to access, Alternatives A, B Modified, C, and D is impacted the same by the Idaho 

Roadless Area Management regulations. Road construction or reconstruction associated with 

mineral leases may not occur in Inventoried Roadless Area that lies within Idaho and are 

designated as backcountry/restoration.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Minerals 587

Mineral Materials

The availability of mineral materials would vary by alternative in that any areas allocated as 

recommended wilderness (MA1b) would not allow for disposal of mineral materials. Alternative 

C would be most limiting followed by Alternative B Modified, D, and A (see table 162).

Table 162. Summary of Lands Available for Disposal of Mineral Materials

Disposal of Mineral Materials Available Disposal of Mineral Materials Not Allowed 

or Should Not Occur

Alt. A 2,176,500 ac. (87%) 321,200 ac. (13%)

Alt. B

Modified

1,538,281 ac. (62%) 959,419 ac. (38%)

Alt. C 1,422,481 ac. (57%) 1,075,219 ac (43%)

Alt. D 1,606,081 ac. (64%) 891,619 ac. (36%)

Effects from Vegetation Management

Vegetation management direction in any of the four alternatives would not result in any change 

in the lands available for locatable minerals, leasable minerals, or mineral materials 

development.

Effects from Wildlife Management

Wildlife management direction in any of the four alternatives would not result in any change in 

the lands available for locatable minerals, leasable minerals, or mineral materials development.

Habitat security requirements for grizzly bear can be expected to affect locatable mineral 

exploration and development. Where roads, and the access they provide, are necessary, 

limitations on road construction and operating seasons can be expected to have the effect of 

prolonging exploration or development work. Areas most affected would be BMUs in the 

Cabinet- Yaak and Selkirk Recovery Zones and mapped areas of grizzly bear occupancy outside 

of but adjacent to the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Recovery Zones.

Mineral and energy exploration and development is likely to be affected in lynx analysis units in 

occupied habitat. Guideline HU G12 in the NRLMD ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007 March) 

gives direction that winter access should be limited to designated routes or designated over-snow

routes.

Effects from Aquatic Management

Aquatic management direction in any of the four alternatives would not result in any change in 

the lands available for locatable minerals, leasable minerals, or mineral materials development.

Surface occupancy associated with leasable minerals would not be allowed in Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas unless there are no other options for location, and the riparian management 

objectives can be attained and adverse effects to inland native fish can be avoided (INFISH 

Standard MM-4). This limitation on surface occupancy does not vary between alternatives since 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas do not vary between alternatives. Because of the low 

occurrence potential, and the expected low demand for leases, there is likely to be little to no 

effect to leasable minerals.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

588 Minerals Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Effects from Recreation Management

Recreation management direction in any of the four alternatives would not result in any change 

in the lands available for locatable minerals, leasable minerals, or mineral materials 

development.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management

Fire and fuels management direction in any of the four alternatives would not result in any 

change in the lands available for locatable minerals, leasable minerals, or mineral materials 

development.

Effects from Lands and Special Uses Management

Lands and Special Uses direction in any of the four alternatives would not result in any changes 

in the lands available for locatable minerals, leasable minerals, or mineral materials 

development.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects evaluate the potential impacts to mineral resources from the proposed action 

when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The lands within the 

IPNF boundary form the geographic scope for cumulative effects since this is the scope for 

Alternative B Modified. The temporal bound would be the life of the Forest Plan which is 

estimated to be a fifteen-year time span.

In order to integrate the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives, existing conditions are used as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. 

This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior actions that have 

affected access and might contribute to cumulative effects.

Mineral resources across the Forest are likely to be influenced by a variety of factors, and as 

described in the “Affected Environment” section, there are a number of actions that may occur 

over the life of the Plan.

The possibility of a large mine proposal in the future is probable with several large companies 

presently conducting exploration activities. Requests for authorization of small lode and placer 

mining operations can be expected to continue but it is not possible to predict how many may be 

submitted in any given year or how many might be authorized. Since Congress has imposed a 

moratorium on patenting of mining claims there would be no changes in patented lands unless 

Congress were to lift the moratorium.

Given the low probable occurrence of leasable minerals on the IPNF, and the court decision in 

Conner vs. Burford, there is little likelihood of mineral lease applications being made on the 

IPNF.

Mineral material use can be expected to continue for in-service needs (e.g., road maintenance 

and watershed improvement activities) and as a salable commodity and would result in the 

further depletion of that non-renewable mineral resource from NFS lands.

Reclamation work can be expected to start on the Idora and the Upper St. Joe mining sites. 

Reclamation work is likely on select abandoned mine sites as well as on mineral material sites 

that have reached the end of their useful life.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Livestock Grazing 589

Livestock Grazing

Introduction

Suitable rangelands are lands capable of producing forage for livestock and wildlife. Rangelands 

may consist of meadows, riparian areas, alpine areas, or open-canopy forest. Wildlife depends 

upon rangelands for forage and cover throughout the year.

Livestock producers, as well as outfitters, guides, and visitors depend upon forage for their 

riding and pack stock. Range vegetation is managed to provide high quality wildlife habitat and 

forage for both livestock and wildlife.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• The Granger-Thye Act (1950): Provides for the issuance of term grazing permits for up to 

10 years. It also provides for the use of grazing receipts for range improvement work.

• The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (1960): Provides that national forests are 

established and administered for several purposes, including livestock grazing. This act also 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to develop the surface renewable resources of 

national forests for multiple uses and sustained yield of the services and products to be 

obtained from these lands, without impairment of the productivity of the land.

• The Wilderness Act (1964): Provides that livestock grazing, and the activities and facilities 

needed to support it, are allowed to continue in wilderness areas when such grazing was 

established before designation.

• The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act (1974): Directs the 

Secretary of Agriculture to develop a process for the revision of national forest land and 

resource management plans, including the identification of the suitability of lands for 

resource management.

• The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976): States that public lands will be 

managed in a manner that will provide food and habitat for fish, wildlife, and domestic 

animals.

• The Public Rangelands Improvement Act (1978): Recognizes the need to correct 

unsatisfactory conditions on public rangelands by increasing funding for maintenance and 

management of these lands.

• The Rescission Bill (1995): Directs the Forest Service to complete site-specific NEPA 

analyses and decisions on allotments on a scheduled basis.

Other

• Allotment Management Plans: Developed through site-specific environmental analysis, an 

allotment management plan uses Forest Plan direction and current issues to determine 

desired conditions, areas suitable for grazing, and a broad strategy on how to meet desired 

conditions. They describe site-specific grazing strategies, stocking, structural and nonstructural range improvement needs, and coordination with other resources. The output, or 

animal unit months (AUMs), is a result of the allotment management plan requirements, 

range improvements, and the ability of the permit holder to manage forage and livestock.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

590 Livestock Grazing Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Key Indicators

• Acres of suitable range; and

• Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of livestock grazing.

Methodology and Analysis Process

The analysis area for range is the NFS lands of the IPNF, particularly the range allotments.

The NFMA of 1976 requires the identification of the suitability of lands for resource 

management. An analysis to determine lands suitable to produce forage for grazing animals 

(suitable for rangelands) was completed as part of the Forest Plan revision. Although an area 

may be deemed suitable for use by livestock in the Forest Plan, a project-level analysis 

evaluating the site-specific impacts of the grazing activity, in conformance with NEPA, is 

required in order to authorize livestock grazing on specific allotment(s).

The assessment of suitable rangelands was accomplished using GIS. Use of GIS resulted in 

consistent identification of each step in determining suitability. This process is described in detail 

in appendix B.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Livestock grazing has long been a historic use of the Forest and was being used to meet the 

needs of the area’s inhabitants prior to the creation of the IPNF. For example, settlers utilized 

horses to work their farms and as a means of transportation, while cattle provided them with 

beef, milk, and butter.

Livestock grazing has long been a historic use of the Forest and was being used to meet the 

needs of the area’s inhabitants prior to the creation of the IPNF. For example, settlers utilized 

horses to work their farms and as a means of transportation, while cattle provided them with 

beef, milk, and butter. However, limited grazing lands and insufficient hay supplies needed for 

wintering large numbers of animals hindered the livestock production on NFS lands.

Settlers living near NFS boundaries could obtain a free use permit to graze up to ten domestic 

animals on government land during the specified season. In addition, ranchers could graze larger 

numbers of animals on NFS lands, providing they purchased a permit, confined their animals to 

the allotted area, and salted them according to established guidelines.

In 1979, there were 73 allotments on the IPNF. The majority of utilized forage was produced on 

7,500 acres of meadow and permanent grasslands. Allotment boundaries included about 100,000 

acres of timber land. A few allotments were comprised of only secondary timbered range 

(transitory). Most of the allotments included private, industry, and NFS lands. The 1987 IPNF 

Forest Plan projected permitted livestock use to be 6,700 AUMs.

Actual use for cattle grazing on the IPNF has been declining with an average of 3,086 AUMs for 

the fourteen-year period 1996 through 2009 (refer to figure 57, below). This decline in actual use 

can be attributed to the following: the re-growth of trees on transitory range; changing patterns 

of private land use; and scattered small IPNF allotments that prevent continued economic use 

due to prohibitive trucking and herding costs. Figure 57, below, displays actual use AUMs from 

the Forest since the 1987 IPNF Forest Plan went into effect.

There have been many changes to allotments over the past several decades. There are now 14 

allotments on the Forest. This combined with other factors (e.g., reduction in the number of full 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Livestock Grazing 591

time ranchers, property subdivision, and market prices) has reduced the number of AUMs to 

approximately 2,375 in 2009. Figure 57 displays the actual use AUMs from the Forest since the 

1987 IPNF Forest Plan went into effect. The average actual use for the past 10 years (1999 

through 2009) was at 5,092 AUMs or 40 percent of the 1987 Forest Plan projected use.

Figure 57. Grazing Use on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest

A rangeland suitability analysis was completed for the Forest Plan and EIS. The suitability 

determination provides basic information regarding the potential of the land to produce forage in 

a sustainable manner for livestock and wildlife without damage to the soil and water resources.

The suitability analysis began with a review of the capability of the land to produce forage. 

Capability was primarily based on soil types capable of producing forage. The analysis then 

determined the suitability for grazing based on lands capable of producing forage and 

management decisions. Areas not suitable for grazing were identified based on other resource 

concerns (e.g., riparian areas), density of forested lands precluding forage production, 

accessibility to forage (e.g., fenced areas), and allowable uses by MA. Private land within 

allotments was not analyzed for suitability and would be considered only at the allotment 

management plan level if there is a permit request. See appendix B for more information on the 

process used in determining rangeland suitability.

The rangeland suitability analysis identified 365,700 acres capable of grazing on the IPNF. 

Within existing allotments, there are 39,150 acres capable of grazing. There are approximately 

18,316 acres on the IPNF that are suitable for livestock grazing. This represents about 1 percent 

of the IPNF.

Acres of suitability for rangeland by allotment are displayed in table 163. All acres were 

generated by a GIS and may not exactly match actual allotment acres. Even though some 

allotments contain very small amounts of suitable acres, grazing may still be occurring based on 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

592 Livestock Grazing Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

site-specific conditions not covered in this strategic analysis of suitability. Therefore, changes to 

suitability may occur at the project-scale, using site-specific data.

Table 163. IPNF Allotments – Suitability Determination and Status, Existing Condition

Allotment Status Allotment 

Acres

Capable 

Acres

Percent 

Capable

Suitable 

Acres

Percent 

Suitable

Catspur active 5,196 924 18% 292 6%

Charlie Creek active 14,992 1,956 13% 787 5%

Cow Creek active 8,379 2,989 36% 2,024 24%

Emerald Creek active 26,353 8,855 34% 2,700 10%

Four Corners active 2,177 1,034 47% 394 18%

Granite Creek inactive 1,446 1,446 100% 1,434 99%

Grass Creek active 5,949 1,557 26% 916 15%

Hayden Creek active 15,391 1,932 13% 1,047 7%

Iron-Mokins active 49,339 3,473 7% 1,567 3%

Lamb Creek active 6,723 4,925 73% 2,482 37%

Lancaster active 115 26 23% 22 19%

Merry Creek 

Cooperative

active 44,489 4,458 10% 1,148 3%

Moores Creek active 3,163 1,994 63% 819 26%

Searchlight Alder Marie active 15,123 3,582 24% 2,685 18%

Total 198,834 39,150 20% 18,316 9%

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

Each alternative allows for slightly different levels of expected permitted livestock numbers. 

Grazing use is managed similarly in all alternatives. The forestwide standards and guidelines are 

designed to protect both upland and riparian resources in all alternatives. Effects are expected to 

be consistent between all alternatives. Based on recent trends identified through monitoring 

reports, AUMs would not be expected to change from existing condition under all alternatives.

Under Alternative A, grazing would generally1 be allowed under all MAs except: 14, 17, 18, and 

19. Grazing is an allowable use in MA2 and 3, 11, 12 but no new allotments are allowed.

Existing allotments would not change by action alternative. Under Alternatives B Modified, C, 

and D, desired conditions for grazing (FW-DC-GRZ-01 through 03) would be the same. 

Grazing2 as an allowable use for MA2, 3 (Special Areas for Geologic, and Emerald Creek), 5, 

and 6, would not vary by alternative. It is not considered an allowable use for the other MAs, nor 

are there any existing allotments within these MAs.

 1 See the 1987 Forest Plan for specifics related to grazing for each management area.

2 As discussed in the Glossary, the term Grazing refers to livestock grazing in permitted allotments only. It 

does not address uses such as the incidental grazing by pack-stock during recreational pursuits.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Livestock Grazing 593

Considering environmental consequences and alternative MA allocations, rangeland suitability 

was determined for each action alternative (table 164). All alternatives would have basically the 

same acreage of suitable rangeland.

Because suitable rangelands are similar for all alternatives, the amount of AUMs produced from 

lands is not expected to vary by alternative. Current use levels are expected to continue for the 

10 to 15 years at approximately 2,300 AUMs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Livestock Grazing Page 594 of 741 IPNF FEIS for Forest Plan

Table 164. Range capability and Suitability by Allotment and Alternative B Modified, C, and D

Allotment Status Acres Capable % 

Capable

Suitable

Alt B

Modified

% 

Suitable 

Alt B

Modified

Suitable 

Alt C

% 

Suitable 

Alt C

Suitable 

Alt D

% 

Suitable 

Alt D

Catspur active 5,196 924 18% 292 6% 292 6% 292 6%

Charlie Creek active 14,992 1,956 13% 786 5% 786 5% 786 5%

Cow Creek active 8,379 2,989 36% 2,024 24% 2,024 24% 2,024 24%

Emerald Creek active 26,353 8,855 34% 2,700 10% 2,700 10% 2,700 10%

Four Corners active 2,177 1,034 47% 394 18% 394 18% 394 18%

Granite Creek inactive 1,446 1,446 100% 1,434 99% 1,434 99% 1,434 99%

Grass Creek active 5,949 1,557 26% 916 15% 916 15% 916 15%

Hayden Creek active 15,391 1,932 13% 1,047 7% 1,047 7% 1,047 7%

Iron-Mokins active 49,339 3,473 7% 1,547 3% 1,547 3% 1,547 3%

Lamb Creek active 6,723 4,925 73% 2,480 37% 2,480 37% 2,480 37%

Lancaster active 115 26 23% 22 19% 22 19% 22 19%

Merry Creek Cooperative active 44,489 4,458 10% 1,148 3% 1,148 3% 1,148 3%

Moores Creek active 3,163 1,994 63% 819 26% 819 26% 819 26%

Searchlight Alder Marie active 15,123 3,582 24% 2,685 18% 2,685 18% 2,685 18%

Total 198,834 39,150 20% 18,292 9% 18,292 9% 18,293 9%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Livestock Grazing 595

Consequences to Livestock Grazing from Forest Plan Components Associated with 

other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Aquatic Resources Management

Under all alternatives, management and protection of riparian areas and wetlands are 

emphasized. The objectives and standards for the protection of the aquatic resources, particularly 

riparian areas, have had some of the greatest impact on the forest grazing program. Over the last 

10 to 15 years much has been accomplished through altering grazing practices to protect aquatic 

resources. This occurred on the IPNF through implementation of INFISH standards.

Effects from Access and Recreation

The impact to livestock grazing from recreation and travel management is mainly limited by the 

grazing permit holder’s ability for vehicle access to the allotment. Motorized vehicle access into 

areas allocated for non-motorized settings can be authorized by line officers. These decisions are 

discretionary and are made on a case-by-case review of the proposal and circumstances. The 

intent of the non-motorized areas is not to prevent allotment management. Some of the 

motorized vehicle access needs include transportation of fence and/or water development 

materials, noxious weed control, and salt distribution. During particular times of the year, or as 

some routes “grow in” from lack of use or maintenance; vehicle access may be more restrictive 

than what is currently available.

Of the action alternatives, Alternatives B Modified and D would allow for the greatest percent of 

wheeled motor vehicle use (91 percent) and mechanized use (93 percent) across the IPNF. 

Alternative C would allow the least amount of wheeled motor vehicle use (85 percent) and 

mechanized use (87 percent). Opportunities for these types of uses could increase recreational 

use, which may complicate livestock management and make it more expensive. For example, 

more gates may be left open and livestock are inadvertently or purposely moved.

There is no effect on livestock grazing from winter recreation and winter travel management 

activities since very little grazing takes place during this time period. This is common for all 

alternatives.

Range improvements could generally receive less disturbance and vandalism with vehicles 

restricted to designated roads and trails; however, permit holders would need more time to obtain 

prior authorization to travel off roads or trails in their allotment. Management effectiveness 

decreases with fewer motorized opportunities for them to observe stock, check fences and water 

developments, distribute salt, etc.

Since there are no new developed recreation areas proposed in any alternative the effects of 

developed recreation on livestock grazing would be the same for each alternative. All of the 

action alternatives provide for improved trail and road systems, which will reduce conflicts 

between forest visitors and livestock grazing. The differences of effects to livestock grazing 

between alternatives are minimal.

Effects from Timber Harvest

Timber harvest can provide increased forage that can be made available for livestock and 

wildlife grazing. As timber is harvested, it may open up areas to livestock that were not available 

before. While AUMs are not expected to increase, as this is transitory range and will gradually 

be replaced by forested cover types, the newly available areas can reduce grazing pressure on 

other ranges. Under a constrained budget, Alternative B Modified would have the most acres 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

596 Livestock Grazing Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

with regeneration harvest (about 1,670 acres), followed by Alternative D (1,660 acres), 

Alternative A (about 1,470 acres) and Alternative C (about 1,200 acres). Looking at an 

unconstrained budget scenario, Alternative C would have the least acres with regeneration 

harvest (about 4,940 acres), followed by Alternative B Modified (5,210 acres), Alternative D 

(6,100 acres), and Alternative A (approximately 6,900 acres).

Effects from Vegetation Management

Vegetation management opportunities would be things such as conifer encroachment, acres 

available for use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives, and acres of 

suitable timberlands. 

Management practices to trend toward desired future conditions for vegetation will rely on a 

variety of passive and active management techniques. Alternative C would place more emphasis 

on passive management than any of the other alternatives. Alternative C would treat the most 

acres for vegetation condition for a constrained budget than any of the other alternatives. In 

Alternative C it can be expected that more treatments under this alternative would rely on 

prescribed fire and the use of natural, unplanned ignitions than in the other alternatives. Both 

Alternatives C and D have about 25 percent of land allocations in MA5, which is less than for 

Alternative B Modified. Wildfire will continue to be an influence on the forest. Larger fires are 

usually in remote areas of dense timber and can sometimes occur at the edge of allotments. The 

IPNF wouldn’t expect much of an increase in forage for livestock, but would expect increased 

forage for big game. This could reduce competition between big game and livestock for forage.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects includes all counties identified for the IPNF, including 

lands administered by the BLM, and the state of Idaho adjacent to the IPNF, and the 

communities which depend on livestock production from public lands. Protection of threatened 

or endangered species habitat may have the largest influence on livestock grazing on federal 

lands. Some permit holders could be severely affected if conditions on their federal allotment 

require a substantial reduction. At this time, predicting any future reductions are outside the 

scope of this analysis, but would be addressed with an analysis if additional species are listed.

Grazing on private land depends on the market, drought conditions, and needs of the owner. 

There would likely be a net loss of forage, and in some cases, loss of big-game winter and spring 

range, as ranches are sold and subdivided. One scenario that could occur on ranches adjacent to 

this Forest is that they could be sub-divided and sold as home sites. These conditions could 

likely continue to occur in the short-term for the counties that the IPNF lay within. As a result, 

marginal winter habitat may be used more frequently by big game and may increase localized 

competition between livestock and wildlife on private lands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Special Forest Products 597

Special Forest Products

Introduction

Special forest and botanical products are mainly plant and fungi materials that are gathered from 

NFS lands for personal use, for commercial resale, or for sale as a craft product. They can 

generally be categorized under five general areas: residential comfort and use, food, herbs and 

medicinal, decorative, and specialty items. As demand for these special products increases and 

new markets are created, harvest pressure on them may increase.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 223.1: Trees, portions of trees, and other forest products on NFS lands may be sold 

for the purpose of achieving the policies set forth in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act as 

amended and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as 

amended.

• 36 CFR 223.239 and .240 Sale and Disposal of National Forest System Timber, Special 

Forest Products, and Forest Botanical Products: Section 223.239 provides regulations for 

free-use without a permit for members of tribes with treaty or other reserved rights related to 

special forest products. Also free-use without a permit upon the request of the governing 

body of a tribe. Section 223.240 provides regulations regarding harvest of special forest 

products by tribes with treaty or other reserved rights.

• 36 CFR 261.6: Lists activities regarding timber and other products that are prohibited.

Key Indicator

• Management area allocation.

Methodology and Analysis Process

The analysis included a review of rules and regulations for special forest and botanical products 

and effects based on MA allocation for each alternative. Management areas with more access 

allow for increased supply of special forest products and the potential for over-harvest.

Analysis Area

The analysis area is the NFS lands within the IPNF boundaries.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Special forest and botanical products include plant and fungal material that may be collected 

from NFS lands. Special forest and botanical products include, but are not limited to, mosses, 

fungi (including mushrooms), bryophytes, roots, bulbs, berries, seeds, wildflowers, forbs, 

sedges, grasses, nuts, ferns, tree sap, boughs, bark, cones, burls, transplants, pine straw, 

Christmas trees, firewood, posts and poles, mine props, and rails. These products are available 

through commercial harvest and sale and through free use. Historically, the Forest has granted 

commercial and free use of special forest and botanical products to individuals and tribes with 

treaty and other reserved rights.

Special forest and botanical products may be collected forestwide, unless an area has been closed 

for a specific reason. Existing uses are often tied to historical knowledge and patterns of use. The 

most popular special forest and botanical products on the Forest include huckleberries, firewood, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

598 Special Forest Products Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Christmas trees, and boughs. Mushroom picking is a popular activity following wildfires. In 

recent years, requests from the general public for commercial and free use collection of special 

forest and botanical products have increased.

Special forest and botanical products have importance to the tribes as traditional and cultural 

uses. As per current handbook direction (2409.18, section 87.13), the IPNF considers “treaty 

rights, customary and traditional uses (including subsistence and other historical uses of plant 

material by tribes), the federal trust responsibility to tribes, and competitive market demands in 

determining which products would be excluded from or allowed for sale to commercial 

harvesters. When there is a shortage of any particular special forest product for tribal use, 

commercial permits will be issued only to the extent that the tribal use can be accommodated.”

The IPNF consults and coordinates with tribal governments prior to issuing any permits, 

contracts, or other authorized instrument when there is a possible impact to tribal treaty and other 

rights and interests in the permitted or contracted area (handbook direction 2409.18, section 

87.18). The IPNF honors the unique legal relationship, including the trust relationship, between 

the federal government and Indian tribal governments.

The supply of desired products is dependent on ecological conditions and existing distributions 

of potential habitat. Forest management can increase the supply of certain products. The opening 

of stands, timber harvest, and prescribed burning can increase huckleberry production in those 

habitats supporting this species. Thinning and regeneration harvest can also increase production 

of Christmas trees. Firewood is often a by-product of a commercial timber harvest.

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

Special forest and botanical products may be collected for personal use forestwide except in 

some special areas (botanical special areas) and RNAs. Commercial use of special forest and 

botanical products is not allowed in designated wilderness; recommended wilderness; wilderness 

study area; wild, scenic and recreational rivers; special areas; or RNAs.

Table 165 displays the acres by MA where commercial use of special forest and botanical 

products is not allowed. Alternative C has the most acres and Alternative A the least acres where 

commercial use of these products is not allowed. Acres not allowed for personal use remain 

constant for all action alternatives. Alternative A has the least acres where personal use is not 

allowed.

Table 165. Acres of Management Areas where Commercial Use of Special Forest and Botanical 

Products is Not Allowed by Alternative

Management Area Alt A Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

MA1a Wilderness 153,900 9,900 9,900 9,900

MA1b Recommended Wilderness 130,100 318,500 128,800

MA1c Wilderness Study Areas 6,900 6,900 6,900

MA1e Primitive Lands 19,800 0 11,200

MA2a Wild and Scenic Rivers 29,100 21,300 21,400 21,400

MA2b Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers 49,900 42,200 48,400
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Special Forest Products 599

Management Area Alt A Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

MA3 Botanical, Geological, Pioneer, 

Recreational, or Scenic Areas 1 6,800 13,500 13,200 35,400

MA4a Research Natural Areas 2 18,100 14,800 14,100 14,100

MA4b Experimental Forests 8,200 8,200 8,200

Total 207,100 296,400 434,400 284,300

1 Personal use also not allowed in botanical special areas

2 Personal use also not allowed in this MA

The requests for and use of special forest and botanical products will continue to increase 

regardless of the alternative, although the allowable collection of them, access to them, and 

habitat conditions will vary. Alternative D provides the most areas with allowable use, the most 

access, and the most management activities to improve habitat conditions for special forest and 

botanical products.

Consequences to Special Forest Products from Forest Plan Components Associated 

with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Access

The opportunity for collecting special forest and botanical products is affected by the amount of 

motorized access to the Forest. Areas with no motorized access limit opportunities and reduce 

the ability to collect products. Alternative C has the most non-motorized access; thus, reduced 

opportunities for use. Alternative D has the most motorized access; thus, the best opportunities 

for use.

Effects from Fire

Fire increases the potential availability of some special botanical products, such as mushrooms 

and huckleberries. The amount of wildfire is not expected to change by alternative. Prescribed 

fire is expected to be highest under Alternative C; thus, the best potential habitat for some 

botanical products.

Effects from Timber

Timber harvest increases the potential availability of some special botanical products, such as 

huckleberries. Opening the stand increases the amount of sun, improving conditions for growing 

huckleberries and other shrubs. The amount of timber harvest is the highest under Alternative D, 

providing the best conditions for huckleberry growth. Alternative D would also provide the most 

commercial timber harvest, providing for more firewood cutting.

Cumulative Effects

The West has been the fastest growing region in the country, and this trend is expected to 

continue for the next 20 years (U.S. Census 2000 data and projections). With this increased 

growth rate comes an increased use of special forest and botanical resources. The sustainable use 

of these resources may become increasingly vulnerable, requiring permitting and limitation of 

use.

The increased population also results in increased housing density on lands adjacent to the IPNF. 

This increased housing density leads to fragmented landscapes and degradation of habitat for 

some special botanical species. The increased housing density also limits access for commercial 

or personal use of special forest and botanical products.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

600 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Social and Economic Environment

Introduction

National forests are public lands that influence and are influenced by local and national publics. 

Local publics are represented in the communities of place and interest adjacent to national forest 

lands. Many of these communities were formed from the development of timber, gold, silver, 

grazing lands, and other natural resources. Historically, individuals in these communities 

developed strong place attachments to public lands that provided recreational, aesthetic, 

employment, and other contributions to their social environment. Work, place, and lifestyles 

became an integral part of the culture and social characteristics of such communities. These 

communities developed particular interests in the interactions of public lands with their ways of 

life and their economic present and future. These interests are expressed in their interactions with 

public lands in addition to the actions and comments of local interest groups.

National publics also have interests and concerns about public lands in general as well as 

particular public lands such as those of the IPNF. These interests are expressed in public 

comments to management actions as well as in direct experiences recreating, visiting, or 

otherwise using public lands. Some of these publics also express their interest through national 

organizations with both broad-based concerns about the management of public lands and in 

specific resources such as old growth forests, grizzly bears, or other threatened and endangered 

species. Thus, they are part of the social environment of public lands through the values and 

beliefs that motivate actions about particular places and by their comments and actions related to 

these places.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960: Identifies principles for managing the resources 

of the NFS. The direction to manage these resources for the greatest good over time includes 

the use of economic and social analysis to determine management of the NFS.

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: Mandates consideration of the consequences 

to the quality of the human environment from proposed management actions. The agency 

must examine the potential impacts to physical and biological resources as well as potential 

socioeconomic impacts (40 CFR 1508.14).

• Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974: As amended by the 

NFMA of 1976, requires consideration of potential economic consequences of land 

management planning.

• Office of Management and Budget Circular A-116 (issued August 16, 1978): Requires 

executive branch agencies to conduct long range planning and impact analysis associated 

with major initiatives.

• Executive Order No. 12898 on Environmental Justice (issued February 11, 1994):

Mandates federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission. 

This includes identification and response to disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations.

• National Forest Revenue Act (amended 1908): Requires 25 percent of revenues generated 

by NFS lands to be paid to the States for use by the counties in which the lands are situated 

for the benefit of public schools and roads.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 601

• Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000: Was designed to 

stabilize annual payments to state and counties containing NFS lands and public domain 

lands managed by the BLM. Funds distributed under the provisions of this act are for the 

benefit of public schools, roads, and related purposes.

Regulation and Policy

• 1982 Planning Rule Procedures: The procedures of the 1982 NFS Land and Resource 

Management Planning Rule requires the comprehensive consideration of economic benefits 

and costs, specifically identifying the social impacts, economic considerations, cost-efficient 

alternatives, impacts on present net value, and impacts on local employment.

Key Indicators

Social Indicators

• Population demographics;

• Land ownership and use;

• Lifestyle, attitude, values and beliefs; and

• Communities and change.

Economic Indicators

• Change in number of jobs;

• Change in income;

• Federal payments to counties; and

• Present Net Value.

Methodology and Analysis Process

A social assessment was completed to “assess public perceptions, values, attitudes, behaviors, 

lifestyles, community characteristics, and other sociocultural factors that affect the interaction of 

nearby communities with the natural resources of the IPNF.” Analysis was conducted by 

sociologists. Primary data was collected using a discussion guide with an open-ended format. 

Participants were selected based on a diversity of perspectives and knowledge of the local 

communities. Findings were summarized in the document Social Assessment for the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests – Final Report by Parker, Wulfhorst, and Kamm 2002.

An assessment of social conditions and trends for the planning zone was also completed. This 

document compiled findings of the social assessment for the IPNF as well as social assessments 

that had been completed for the KNF with demographic data for the planning area. This 

document also presented data and information for a larger, regional area outside the forest 

boundaries. Findings were presented in the document Conditions and Trends: Social and 

Economic Systems for the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Plan Revision Zone by Russell et al. 

2006.

Various data sources were used to describe population, land ownership, employment, income, 

and county payments. These data sources include U.S. Census, the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Montana Natural Resource Information, and the Economic 

Profile System – Human Dimensions Toolkit.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

602 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

National forest contributions to employment and income and changes by alternative were 

estimated with input-output analysis using the IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning)

modeling system (Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG) 2003) and Forest Economic Analysis 

Spreadsheet Tool (Alward et al. 2010). The IMPLAN modeling system allows the user to build 

regional economic models of one or more counties for a particular year. The model for this 

analysis used the 2008 IMPLAN data. The Forest economic analysis spreadsheet tool (FEAST) 

is a spreadsheet modeling tool that serves as an interface between user inputs and imported data 

from an existing IMPLAN model.

Input-output analysis is a means of examining relationships within an economy, both between 

businesses and between businesses and final consumers. It captures all monetary market 

transactions for consumption in a given time period. Economic contribution analysis is defined 

as “the gross change in economic activity associated with an industry, event, or policy in an 

existing regional economy (Watson et al. 2007). By using Forest Service expenditure data, 

resource output data, and other economic information, IMPLAN can describe, among other 

things, the jobs and income that are supported by NFS management activities. The direct 

employment and labor income benefit employees and their families, and therefore, directly affect 

the local economy. Additional indirect and induced, multiplier effects (ripple effects) are 

generated by the direct activities. Together the direct and multiplier effects comprise the total 

economic contribution to the local economy. The data used to estimate the direct effects from 

timber harvest is information provided by University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and 

Economic Research. The economic effects tied to other Forest Service programs and the 

multiplier effects were estimated using IMPLAN. Resource specific data (recreation visits, range 

head months, timber volume harvested, etc.) were collected and input into the IMPLAN and 

FEAST models. For current management levels, a three-year average using 2007 — 2009 data 

was calculated for resources to eliminate the year to year variability inherent in the data.

Present net value was calculated using a spreadsheet (MS-Excel) and estimated costs and values 

for goods and services for each alternative. Present net value combines benefits and costs that 

occur at different times and discounts them into an amount that is equivalent to all economic 

activity in a single year. Costs and values for anticipated activities, goods, and services over the 

next 50 years for each alternative were derived by resource specialists.

Analysis Area

The IPNF contain portions of ten counties in three states: (see table 166 and figure 58). As 

shown in table 166, more than 90 percent of the IPNF are located within Bonner, Boundary, 

Kootenai, and Shoshone counties in Idaho. Shoshone County contains the highest acreage of 

national forest land, with 69 percent of the county administered by the IPNF.

The analysis area for the social and economic environment is comprised of counties within a 

zone of influence for IPNF management. Counties were selected based on the concept of a 

functional economy (Johnson 1995). Counties were also selected based on the potential impact 

IPNF management may have on local communities. Information used to assist in the delineation 

consisted of 1) component economic areas as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2) 

recent log-flow information from the IPNF provided by the University of Montana’s Bureau of 

Business and Economic Research, and 3) personal communications with regional office and 

forest-level staffs. The resulting social and economic analysis area is comprised of Benewah, 

Bonner, Boundary, Kootenai, and Shoshone counties in Idaho.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 603

Table 166. Counties within the Analysis Area: Acreage and Percent Administered by IPNF

County Total County 

Acres

Total FS 

Acres

% of County 

FS Acres

Acres Admin. 

by IPNF

% of County 

Admin. by IPNF

Benewah 

County, ID

496,600 35,300 7% 25,500 5%

Bonner 

County, ID

1,227,600 472,600 38% 432,800 35%

Boundary 

County, ID

817,300 490,800 60% 478,000 58%

Clearwater 

County, ID

1,575,400 802,400 51% 3,000 <1%

Kootenai 

County, ID

796,900 243,500 31% 243,500 31%

Latah County, 

ID

689,100 112,800 16% 12,700 2%

Shoshone 

County, ID

1,685,800 1,199,000 71% 1,155,600 69%

Lincoln 

County, MT

2,351,000 1,753,600 75% 22,800 1%

Sanders 

County, MT

1,785,100 921,300 52% 7,300 <1%

Pend Oreille 

County, WA

911,700 574,100 63% 118,400 13%

Source: Idaho: County Profiles of Idaho, 2001; Montana: Montana Natural Resource Information System; Washington: 

Russell et al. 2006.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

604 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Figure 58. Counties in the Analysis Area
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 605

Regional Economy

The social and economic environment is influenced by a larger, regional economy. The regional 

economy will not be described in this EIS. Only the counties directly impacted by management 

of the IPNF are included in the analysis areas. This larger regional economy for the IPNF is 

described in the document Conditions and Trends: Social and Economic Systems for the 

Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Plan Revision Zone by Russell et al. 2006.

Changes between Draft and Final

Analysis was updated between draft and final to reflect the predicted timber volume sold found 

in the FEIS. See the “Timber” section for a description of the changes in predicted timber 

volume sold in the FEIS. This resulted in an update to the jobs and income figures, present net 

value, and present value of benefits.

The “Wildland Economic Dependency” section was revised to reflect recent updates to this 

analysis. See this section for a description of these updates.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Population Demographics

The population of all five counties except Shoshone increased from 1980 to 2010 (see table 167

and figure 59). The growth rates in Kootenai and Bonner Counties exceed those of the state, 

while Benewah and Boundary Counties are growing at a slower rate. The population in 

Shoshone County was decreasing. Kootenai County experienced the most growth and Shoshone 

County the least growth from 2000 to 2010.

Table 167. Change in Population by County and State

Region 1980 1990 2000 2010 Percent Change 

(1980-2010)

Idaho State 947,983 1,006,749 1,293,953 1,567,582 65.4%

Benewah County 8,292 7,937 9,171 9,285 12.0%

Bonner, County 24,163 26,622 36,835 40,877 69.2%

Boundary County 7,289 8,332 9,871 10,972 50.5%

Kootenai County 59,770 69,795 108,685 138,494 131.7%

Shoshone County 19,226 13,931 13,771 12,765 -33.6%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

606 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

Figure 59. Population by County by Decade

The growth in population experienced by Kootenai County is reflective of the increasing 

development and economic diversification of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and its close proximity to 

the major trade center and urban area of Spokane, Washington. Bonner County is also seeing a 

significant increase in population, also due to close proximity to Coeur d’Alene and Spokane.

All counties saw an increase in median age from 2000 to 2010. In 2010, the median age for 

Benewah was 44.8, Bonner 45.8, Boundary 42.8, Kootenai 38.9, and Shoshone 46.2. This is 

consistent with the overall aging of the population in the United States, which had a median age 

of 37.2. All counties have a higher median age than the national average.

The ethnic compositions of all counties is fairly homogenous and predominantly white (see table 

168), with Bonner County having the highest percentage (96.0 percent) and Benewah County the 

lowest percentage (86.6 percent). Within all counties, American Indian is the next largest ethnic 

group (for a single race), with Benewah County having the highest percentage (8.7 percent) and 

Bonner County the lowest percentage (0.1 percent).

Table 168. Population by Race, 2010

Benewah 

County

Bonner 

County

Boundary 

County

Kootenai 

County

Shoshone 

County

Total Population 9,285 40,877 10,972 138,494 12,765

White alone 8,039 39,261 10,398 130,844 12,174

Black or African American 

alone

28 58 29 416 26

American Indian alone 809 315 189 1,781 183

Asian alone 27 182 62 961 47

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population

Decade

Benewah

Bonner

Boundary

Kootenai

Shoshone
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 607

Benewah 

County

Bonner 

County

Boundary 

County

Kootenai 

County

Shoshone 

County

Native Hawaiian & Other 

Pacific Is. alone

6 42 6 129 12

Some other race 44 163 58 1,041 68

Two or more races 332 854 230 3,322 255

Percent of Total

White alone 86.6% 96.0% 94.8% 94.5% 95.4%

Black or African American 

alone

0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

American Indian alone 8.7% 0.8% 1.7% 1.3% 1.4%

Asian alone 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4%

Native Hawaiian & Other 

Pacific Is. alone

0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Some other race 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 0.5%

Two or more races 3.6% 2.1% 2.1% 2.4% 2.0%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

Land Ownership and Use

Many counties in the western United States contain a large amount of federal land and are 

influenced by management actions on these public lands. Within the analysis area, Shoshone and 

Boundary counties have the largest percentage of land under federal ownership at 74 and 61 

percent respectively. Bonner County has the next largest at 44 percent. Kootenai County is 32 

percent federally owned. Benewah County has the least amount of federally owned land, at 10 

percent. For all counties, most of the federal ownership is NFS lands. Benewah County has the 

largest percentage under tribal ownership, at 44 percent. Figure 60 displays the percent by land 

ownership for each county (tribal ownership is included in the private land figures).

Source: Idaho County Profiles

Figure 60. Percent Land Ownership by County
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

608 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Traditionally, the five counties in the analysis area have relied on the use of natural resources in 

activities such as farming, ranching, mining, and timber production. Recreation has also been an 

important use of forest resources among the residents of nearby communities as well as others 

from more distant urban areas such as Spokane, Missoula, and elsewhere. The institution of the 

Forest Service has also been a part of the social environment of communities in this region since 

development of the NFS.

The five counties in the analysis area are noted for their natural resources. The counties are 

heavily forested, ranging from 78 percent (Benewah County) to 95 percent (Shoshone County) 

forestland. Timber harvest has been an important land use for all five counties.

The water resources of the area have had a significant influence, carving the river valleys that 

provide the major areas for settlement. The many rivers, lakes, reservoirs and streams also 

provide fishing and recreation opportunities to local residents and draw visitors to the area.

In addition, the area has a wide array of wildlife: including moose, elk, white-tail deer, black 

bears, grizzly bears, caribou, wolves, lynx, coyotes, bird life, and a variety of fish species (please 

see the “Wildlife” and “Aquatics” sections for additional information). Therefore, hunting and 

fishing have had a large influence on settlement of the area and remains a major activity for local 

residents and visitors to the area.

Many of the visitors to the Forest are from other States and Canada. Through their expenditures, 

this influx of visitors provides an important source of local jobs and income.

Mining has had an important influence on the history and settlement of the area. The Coeur 

d’Alene Mining District, incorporating the Silver Valley communities of Kellogg and Wallace, 

produced gold, silver, lead and zinc that was shipped to Anaconda and Spokane for processing. 

From the later part of 1800s through the Second World War and into the 1980s, mining continued 

to be part of the economic and social structure of several northern Idaho and western Montana 

communities.

Since the early 1980s mining has declined in places such as the Silver Valley and in parts of 

western Montana. There are over 600 abandoned mines on the IPNF alone and there are also 

active mines or operating plans on all IPNF ranger districts. Communities such as Kellogg, 

Idaho, and other communities in the historic Silver Valley of Shoshone County, Idaho have 

experienced mine closures. Currently, there are continuing operations for silver and lead at 

several Silver Valley mines as well as industrial garnet mining in Benewah County near 

Fernwood.

Ranching and agriculture have traditionally been important uses of land. Benewah and Kootenai 

have the greatest amount of land in agriculture (15 percent), while Shoshone County has the least 

(less than 1 percent). Grazing of livestock has been a historic use of the Forests but at relatively 

low levels, given the amount of heavily forested lands.

For more information on historic and current trends in land uses in the five counties, see the 

document Conditions and Trends: Social and Economic Systems for the Kootenai and Idaho 

Panhandle Plan Revision Zone by (Russell et al. 2006).

Lifestyle, Attitude, Values, and Beliefs

A social assessment was completed for the IPNF (Parker et al. 2002), encompassing 

communities within Boundary, Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah, and Shoshone counties in Idaho. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 609

Social assessments were also completed for the KNF, encompassing neighboring Lincoln and 

Sanders counties in Montana (Russell & Adams-Russell 2003 and Russell & Downs 1995). 

These studies included information on lifestyles, values, and issues regarding forest 

management. The following summarizes the findings from these studies (excerpted from Russell 

et al. 2006):

• Communities have a strong rural identity and value rural lifestyles. The values about rural 

communities include:

• Face-to-face interpersonal relationships and knowing neighbors.

• Personal safety and living in what is perceived to be a low-crime region in which family 

and children are safe.

• Volunteerism that supports community enrichment and ways of life.

• Mutual support for neighbors and other community members in times of need.

• Opportunity for self-reliance and the exercise of personal freedom.

• Preference for limited government regulation and other influence on the lifestyles and 

property rights of individuals.

• The importance of the "local place" as a reference for assessing what is meaningful and 

valued.

• Lifestyles vary, but there are some common characteristics:

• Individuals choose to live in these communities because of the lifestyle and benefits 

offered.

• This choice often entails an economic compromise because of limited job opportunities 

and other means to make a living.

• This is compensated for by the aesthetic, scenic, and open space resources of rural areas 

close to public lands. This results in a strong sense of place attachment.

• Occupations have traditionally focused on resource extraction such as logging, log truck 

driving, mill work, equipment repair, mining, farming, and ranching. These occupations 

have structured the activity patterns and interactions with natural resources for many 

community members.

• Individual and community identities are based on the occupational lifestyles of resource 

extraction such as logging, mining, and mill work.

• Hunting, fishing, berry gathering, wildlife viewing, trail riding, and other outdoor 

activities are important activities valued by residents as accessible away from work 

activities.

• Hunting is an especially important characteristic of local lifestyles. It has some direct 

economic benefit in providing food resources, but it also expresses the fundamental 

values of self-reliance and engagement with and appreciation of the natural world

• Attending church and participation in school activities, especially athletic events, are 

common activities expressing support for community.

• National forest lands and resources are evaluated as important local resources that contribute 

to the quality of lifestyles in the region. The Forest Service and the public lands they manage 

are perceived as providing a range of benefits to local communities, including the following.

• The agency contributes leadership, organizational, facility, and other resources to 

communities. Agency personnel also participate as community members in clubs, 

organizations, volunteer efforts, and other elements of community life.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

610 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

• Recreational opportunities are an important perceived benefit of forest lands. Individuals 

and groups with diverse recreational interests value the available opportunities to pursue 

outdoor activities close to their residence and place of work.

• Open space is also a significant value for residents who see forest lands as integral to the 

qualities of community and place of this region. Open space contributes to the rural 

character of communities.

• Economic value exists in the resources that can be extracted from public lands (e.g., 

minerals, timber, and other plant material) and in the scenic, amenity, and recreational 

resources that attract tourists. Among some interest groups there is strong sentiment the 

national forest management is inhibiting community development by limiting timber 

harvests, which is believed to result in fewer jobs in local communities.

• Fiscal benefits accrue to counties from Payments in Lieu of Taxes, funds from the 

Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination Act of 2000, timber tax, and other federal 

payments related to public lands. These fiscal benefits often offset taxes that would 

otherwise be required to provide funding for schools, roads, and other state and local 

government programs.

• Existence benefits are associated with special places (e.g., wilderness and roadless areas) 

and resources (e.g., grizzly bear) as well as with the Forest as a whole. For example, 

providing habitat for diverse plants and wildlife and ecological conditions that contribute 

to water quality.

The integration of community, place, work, recreation, and lifestyle characterizes the social 

environment of this region. Occupationally-based identities for individuals and communities 

express the history and traditions of logging, mining, mill work, and agriculture. These identities 

also incorporate values about the use of, and the attachment to, natural resources that enrich rural 

lifestyles and the opportunity to express personal freedom.

Communities and Change

Change characterizes the communities within the analysis area. An important source of change is 

the decline of the wood products and mining industries and associated businesses. Other sources 

of change include new residents, especially retirees and seasonal home owners, whose values 

and lifestyles are not always the same as those of longer-term residents. Retirees and other 

newcomers are sometimes perceived as demanding services and having “preservationist” values 

that favor limiting resource extraction from public lands. This increasing diversity of views and 

lifestyles is perceived to be altering the rural character of communities and personal freedom 

valued by longer-term residents. This in-migration has the positive result of generating jobs and 

income associated with new residents.

The Social and Economic Conditions and Trends document (Russell et al. 2006) defined and 

described six “community ideal types,” based on categories that linked the communities to forest 

management (see pages 50 – 57). These categories included geographic proximity, economic, 

social, and cultural (values and lifestyles) criteria that link communities to forested lands and 

resources. Communities were then categorized by these six ideal types and current affects from 

forest management described.

Native American Communities — These communities will continue to have strong ties 

to forest management through political, economic, social, and cultural linkages.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 611

Urban Regional Centers — These communities are tied to forest management 

primarily through recreational use and the existence and amenity values of nearby national 

forest(s).

Commodity Communities — These communities are tied to forest management 

through commodity production or processing. Forest management under the alternatives is 

expected to continue to provide wood fiber, grazing, and minerals close to current levels.

Transition Communities — These communities are tied to forest management through 

the production of both commodities and recreation values.

Diversity Communities — These communities are tied to Forest management primarily 

through recreation, sense of place (aesthetics and place meanings and values), and access to 

forested lands.

Rural Forest Communities — These communities are tied to forest management 

through the production of commodities, recreation, place, and lifestyle. This type of community 

has similar linkages to forest management as commodity and transition communities.

The Social and Economic Conditions and Trends document also included a table with a 

suggested categorization of communities within the study area. Table 169 lists those 

communities from Russell et al. (2006) that are within the planning area.

Table 169. Planning Area Communities by Ideal Type

Place Community Ideal Type

Benewah County, ID

Plummer, Benewah Native American

St. Maries Commodity

Tensed Rural Forest

Bonner County, ID

Clark Fork Rural Forest

Dover Diversity

East Hope Rural Forest

Kootenai Diversity

Oldtown Transition

Ponderay Diversity

Priest River Transition

Sandpoint Diversity

Boundary County, ID

Bonners Ferry Transition

Moyie Springs Rural Forest

Kootenai County, ID

Athol Rural Forest

Coeur ‘d Alene Diversity

Dalton Gardens Diversity

Fernan Lake Village Diversity
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

612 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Place Community Ideal Type

Harrison Rural Forest

Hauser Diversity

Hayden Diversity

Hayden Lake Diversity

Post Falls Diversity

Rathdrum Transition

Spirit Lake Transition

Worley Rural Forest/Native American

Shoshone County, ID

Kellogg Transition/Commodity

Mullan Commodity

Osburn Commodity

Pinehurst Transition

Smelterville Transition

Wallace Commodity

Wardner Transition

Associated Communities Outside of the Study 

Area

Newport, WA Transition

Spokane, WA Urban Regional Center

Moscow, ID Urban Regional Center

Missoula, MT Urban Regional Center

Source: Russell et al. 2006

Employment and Income

Employment by industry describes the distribution of jobs by economic sector. The Bureau of 

Economic Analysis maintains and updates these data. The most current information (for the year 

2008) uses the North American Industry Classification System. This classification system has 

been used since 2001. Table 170 displays employment by industry for 2001 and 2008.

The percent of proprietor employment increased in all five counties from 2001 to 2008 and is 

significantly higher than found for the entire U.S., which was 21.3 percent in 2008. Bonner 

County had the highest percentage in proprietor employment (39.5 percent) and Shoshone 

County the lowest (24.2 percent) in 2008.

In all counties except Bonner, the Government sector was one of the top employers in 2001 and 

2008. For Bonner County, the Government sector was in the top three employers in both years. 

All counties except Benewah saw a decline in the percentage of employment in Government 

from 2001 to 2008. Benewah had a slight increase in Government employment from 2001 to 

2008. In 2008, Benewah, Boundary, and Shoshone counties were above the percent of 

Government employment for the entire U.S. (13.5 percent), while the remaining two counties 

were below the national figure.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 613

Retail trade is also a top employer in all five counties. Retail trade fell from 2001 to 2008 in 

Bonner and Kootenai while increasing in the remaining three counties. All counties except 

Bonner County saw a decline in manufacturing employment from 2001 to 2008.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

614 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 170. Employment by Industry, 2001 and 2008

Benewah Bonner Boundary Kootenai Shoshone

2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008

Employment by Place of Work

Total Employment 4,982 5,338 20,258 25,272 5,021 5,810 60,543 79,741 5,729 6,843

By Type (percent of total employment)

Wage and salary employment 75.5% 71.4% 64.7% 60.5% 70.7% 66.5% 77.0% 74.8% 78.3% 75.6%

Proprietors employment 24.5% 28.6% 35.3% 39.5% 29.3% 33.5% 23.0% 25.2% 21.7% 24.4%

By Industry (percent of total 

Farm employment 5.8% 5.7% 3.1% 2.8% 8.1% 9.4% 1.4% 1.0% 0.9% 0.5%

Non-farm employment 94.2% 94.3% 96.9% 97.2% 91.9% 90.6% 98.6% 99.0% 99.1% 99.5%

Private employment 70.9% 68.7% 85.1% 87.2% 70.4% 70.9% 84.0% 85.8% 78.9% 83.5%

Forestry, fishing, related 

activities, and other

(D) (D) 3.9% 2.7% 6.7% (D) 1.3% 1.0% 2.0% 1.7%

Mining (D) (D) 0.6% 0.9% 0.2% (D) 0.3% 0.5% 9.0% 10.8%

Utilities 0.2% 0.4% (D) 0.5% (D) 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% (D) (D)

Construction 4.1% 5.5% 10.4% 11.5% 6.9% 10.4% 9.1% 10.5% 5.7% 6.9%

Manufacturing 13.0% 12.6% 9.3% 9.9% 9.9% 6.0% 7.0% 6.1% 4.6% 4.3%

Wholesale trade 8.3% 1.0% (D) 1.4% 1.3% 0.9% 2.3% 2.4% (D) (D)

Retail trade 6.7% 10.1% 16.0% 13.7% 10.9% 11.5% 14.1% 12.9% 15.5% 17.3%

Transportation and 

warehousing

6.7% 6.6% 2.3% 2.0% 3.5% 3.4% 1.6% 1.6% 2.9% 4.1%

Information 0.9% 0.7% 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.7% 2.2% 1.7% 1.2% 1.0%

Finance and insurance 1.6% 1.4% 2.9% 3.0% 1.0% 2.1% 3.8% 4.4% 2.1% 1.8%

Real estate and rental and leasing 1.9% 2.9% 4.5% 7.6% (D) 3.6% 4.0% 6.0% (D) 5.4%

Professional and technical 

services

2.9% 2.0% 5.1% 5.6% 3.8% 3.9% 4.6% 5.4% 4.5% 4.3%

Management of companies and 

enterprises

(D) 0.0% 0.3% (D) 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% (D)

Administrative and waste services (D) 1.7% 2.3% (D) 1.7% 3.3% 7.4% 6.0% (D) (D)

Educational services (D) (D) 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7%

Health care and social assistance (D) (D) 6.2% 6.0% 11.2% 8.6% 8.4% 8.8% 7.9% 6.5%

Arts, entertainment, and recreation (D) 0.9% 3.9% 3.6% 0.9% 0.8% 2.9% 3.0% 1.6% 1.8%

Accommodation and food services (D) 3.0% 6.5% 6.3% 3.3% 2.5% 8.2% 8.8% 8.1% 6.9%

Other services, except public 7.2% 5.6% 6.6% 6.6% 4.6% 5.0% 5.1% 4.9% 5.5% 5.5%

Government and gov't. enterprises 23.2% 25.7% 11.7% 10.0% 21.4% 19.7% 14.6% 13.2% 20.2% 15.9%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

IPNF FEIS for Forest Plan Page 615 of 741 Social & Economic

Benewah Bonner Boundary Kootenai Shoshone

2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008

Federal, civilian 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 0.8% 2.5% 2.6% 1.1% 0.7% 1.9% 1.3%

Military 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 0.7%

State and local 21.0% 23.7% 9.7% 8.6% 18.1% 16.3% 12.7% 11.8% 17.4% 13.9%

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis website http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/ , table CA25
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

616 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

The Bureau of Labor Statistics maintains information about annual unemployment rates for 

counties, states, and regions. These data are a consistent and comparable source of information 

about county unemployment rates, although they do not include information about some data, 

such as discouraged workers. Average annual unemployment data for a 14 year period (figure 

61) indicates that all counties show higher than average annual unemployment rates when 

compared to state rates. Benewah, Shoshone, and Boundary counties have the highest 

unemployment rates while Kootenai and Bonner are lower.

Figure 61. Percent Unemployment by County

Unemployment has a strong seasonal pattern among the counties as indicated in figure 62. As the 

chart shows, around March unemployment begins to drop and continues to drop until about 

September. The highest months of unemployment are from November through April. These 

seasonal variations are probably related to jobs in construction, agriculture, and natural resource 

related employment.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Percent Unemployment

Year

Benewah

Bonner

Boundary

Kootenai

Shoshone

Idaho
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 617

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/lau

Figure 62. Percent Unemployment by Month by County

The per capita income by county and state is displayed in table 171. All five counties are below 

the state’s average per capita income. In 2008, Kootenai County had the highest and Boundary 

County the lowest per capita income. All five counties and the state were below the national per 

capita income level of $40,166 in 2008. Benewah County experienced the highest average 

annual growth in per capita income from 1998 to 2008, exceeding the state average and the 

national average (4.0 percent). Bonner and Boundary Counties have the lowest average annual 

growth in per capita income from 1998 to 2008.

Table 171. Per Capita Income by County and State

County/State 1998 Per Capita 

Income

2008 Per Capita 

Income

1998 – 2008 Average 

Annual Growth Rate

Benewah County $18,870 $30,697 5.0%

Bonner County $18,938 $31,127 3.8%

Boundary County $16,728 $24,382 3.8%

Kootenai County $22,014 $32,279 3.9%

Shoshone County $19,489 $30,806 4.7%

Idaho State $22,234 $32,944 4.0%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 

website http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts

Income by industry describes the distribution of earning among the categories of employment 

used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table 172 displays the percentage of income 

generated by major industries in 2001 and 2008.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Aug-10

Nov-10

Feb-11

May-11

Aug-11

Nov-11

Feb-12

May-12

Aug-12

Nov-12

Feb-13

May-13

Percent Unemployment

Benewah

Bonner

Boundary

Kootenai

Shoshone
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

618 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Table 172. Compensation by Industry, 2001 and 2008

Benewah Bonner Boundary Kootenai Shoshone

2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008

Earnings by Place of Work

Total Earnings (thousands of dollars) 123,326 162,187 370,991 605,381 101,403 148,794 1,436,3

38

2,376,9

10

133,184 211,842

By Industry (percent of total earnings)

Farm earnings 1.2% 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% 2.7% 6.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Nonfarm earnings 98.8% 99.2% 99.7% 99.7% 97.3% 93.7% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0%

Private earnings 66.5% 62.2% 77.8% 80.0% 63.8% 59.7% 77.4% 78.3% 70.6% 78.1%

Forestry, fishing, related activities, and 

other

(D) (D) 2.8% 1.4% 6.4% (D) 1.1% 0.7% 1.1% 1.4%

Mining (D) (D) 1.0% 1.3% 0.0% (D) 0.6% 1.0% 18.8% 25.2%

Utilities 0.3% 0.4% (D) 1.8% (D) 0.1% 1.2% 1.0% 4.2% (D)

Construction 2.6% 3.3% 7.2% 8.1% 3.9% 7.7% 9.3% 10.6% 5.2% 5.5%

Manufacturing 20.2% 22.1% 15.7% 15.9% 16.3% 8.6% 11.5% 9.9% 9.4% 5.0%

Wholesale trade 0.8% 1.2% (D) 1.9% 1.5% 1.7% 3.5% 3.6% (D) (D)

Retail trade 5.2% 6.0% 17.9% 18.5% 8.4% 9.9% 11.7% 11.1% 15.1% 17.1%

Transportation and warehousing 10.4% 10.0% 2.7% 1.9% 4.0% 4.0% 1.3% 1.2% 1.5% 2.7%

Information 0.7% 0.7% 1.6% 1.3% 0.5% 0.3% 3.0% 2.2% 1.3% 0.9%

Finance and insurance 1.0% 0.8% 3.7% 3.7% 0.8% 2.5% 4.5% 5.4% 1.4% 1.1%

Real estate and rental and leasing 0.1% 0.2% 0.8% 1.2% (D) 0.5% 1.2% 1.5% 0.0% 0.8%

Professional and technical services 3.7% 1.0% 3.8% 4.6% 4.3% 3.1% 4.1% 5.3% 4.7% 3.4%

Management of companies and 

enterprises

(D) 0.0% 0.5% (D) 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.3% 0.0% (D)

Administrative and waste services (D) 0.3% 0.7% (D) 0.6% 1.5% 5.3% 4.1% (D) (D)

Educational services (D) (D) 1.1% 0.8% 0.9% 1.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4%

Health care and social assistance (D) (D) 5.7% 6.0% 12.6% 9.1% 8.2% 9.7% 5.8% 5.3%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 619

Benewah Bonner Boundary Kootenai Shoshone

2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008

Arts, entertainment, and recreation (D) 0.1% 2.2% 2.5% 0.1% 0.2% 1.4% 1.8% 0.6% 0.7%

Accommodation and food services (D) 0.9% 3.4% 3.5% 1.3% 1.0% 4.8% 5.1% 3.0% 2.7%

Other services, except public admin. 3.8% 2.4% 3.4% 3.5% 1.7% 2.3% 2.6% 2.4% 2.5% 2.2%

Government and gov't. enterprises 32.3% 37.0% 22.0% 19.6% 33.5% 34.0% 22.5% 21.6% 29.4% 21.9%

Federal, civilian 3.3% 2.8% 3.9% 2.6% 7.8% 9.7% 2.9% 2.1% 4.5% 2.9%

Military 0.5% 1.0% 0.7% 1.1% 0.6% 1.2% 0.5% 1.0% 0.6% 1.0%

State and local 28.5% 33.2% 17.4% 15.9% 25.0% 21.3% 19.2% 18.5% 24.3% 18.0%

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis website http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/ , table CA06
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

620 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Several of these industries connect local economies to national forests. For example, Farm 

Earnings may include income from individuals with grazing permits and the forestry, fishing and 

related activities industry, as well as manufacturing, may include earnings from persons in the 

wood processing industry. Retail and wholesale trade, accommodations, and arts and 

entertainment include earnings from persons who provide services to tourists as well as to local 

residents. U.S. Forest Service earnings are captured in the Government and Government 

Enterprises industry.

Table 172 shows that Government generates the largest portion of income in all counties. The 

manufacturing industry, which includes wood processing mills and facilities, was the second or 

third highest contributor of private earnings in all counties except Shoshone in 2001. By 2008, 

manufacturing’s contribution had decreased in Boundary and Kootenai counties and was no 

longer in their top three industries for earnings. Mining is the second highest contributor to 

private earnings in Shoshone County in both 2001 and 2008. Collectively, sectors associated 

with tourism (retail and whole sale trade, accommodations and food services, arts and 

entertainment) are also among the important contributors to private earnings in Bonner, 

Kootenai, and Shoshone counties. The percentage of earnings in these industries typically 

increased in all five counties from 2001 to 2008.

Wildland Economic Dependency

The National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic Diversification Act of 1990 

(Public Law 101-624) defined a county as being wildland dependent if 15 percent or more of 

their total county labor income (primary and secondary income) came from industries associated 

with forest resources. Primary income is income derived directly from the industrial sectors 

constituting the primary wildland industries and secondary income is that derived from indirect 

and induced effects associated with primary income (the multiplier effect) (Gebert and Odell 

2007). Economic dependency on wildland natural resources can be assessed by estimating the 

proportion of primary and secondary labor income generated in natural resource industries 

relative to the labor income for all industries. A reliable source of county-level labor income data 

by industry is found in the IMPLAN input-output modeling system. Primary (direct) labor 

income is defined as the sum of employee compensation and proprietor income. Secondary labor 

income is calculated by using an IMPLAN Type II labor income multiplier that includes 

“indirect” and “induced” effects derived from primary labor income. Total labor income effects 

are the sum of primary plus secondary labor income.

Natural resource (or wildland) dependency was measured for the following industries: 1) 

grazing, 2) timber, 3) mining, 4) wildland federal government management (e.g., Forest Service 

and BLM employment, etc.), and 5) recreation expenditures tied to recreation activity occurring 

on all private and public wildland (Gebert and Odell 2007).

Table 173 shows wildland economic dependency by county based on the relationship of labor 

income generated by the natural resource industries to total labor income. The table indicates the 

total wildland dependency is highest in Benewah County (34.3 percent) and lowest in Kootenai 

and Bonner counties. Timber is the largest contributor to wildland income in Benewah, Bonner, 

and Boundary counties. Mining is the largest contributor in Shoshone and Kootenai counties.

Grazing, Recreation, and Wildland Government are small contributors in all counties.

The wildland dependency numbers have been updated using data from 2010. The DEIS 

displayed numbers from 2000. The updated numbers show a drop in wildland dependency for all 

counties, though the decrease was much more substantial for some counties than for others. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 621

Some of this is due to the change in the economy in some counties, such as sawmill closures. 

However, another reason for the change in dependency numbers is because of the multipliers 

used to compute the secondary impacts. In the earlier study, multi-county impact areas, called 

component economic areas (labor areas defined by the Bureau of Economic analysis), were 

purchased from MIG (Micro-IMPLAN Group located in Stillwater, MN). Therefore, each county 

in the multi-county impact areas had the same multipliers. When the dependency calculations 

were redone, county-level impact models were ran, allowing for county- and sector-specific

multipliers to be calculated. This was not possible in the earlier 2000 analysis due to computing 

limitations. Multipliers for a larger geographical area (for example, a state or multi-county area) 

are generally larger than those for a smaller area (for example, a county). Larger geographical 

areas generally have a greater capacity to re-spend primary (direct) income, the multiplier effect, 

than do smaller areas. A larger portion of the primary income received by smaller units is 

commonly spent in areas outside the county for goods and services, a process called “leakage.” 

However, despite these changes, three of the five counties in the analysis area (all but Bonner 

and Kootenai counties) derive more than 15 percent of their total county labor income from 

wildland-based sectors in the economy.

Table 173. Wildland Dependency – Total Labor Income by Category (2010 data)

County % Total 

NonWildland

% Grazing % Timber % Mining % Wildland 

Government

% 

Recreation

Benewah 65.7% 0.2% 29.5% 2.4% 2.1% 0.1%

Bonner 87.2% 0.2% 7.4% 3.2% 1.7% 0.4%

Boundary 78.4% 1.1% 16.3% 0.6% 2.6% 1.1%

Kootenai 91.8% 0.1% 3.3% 3.6% 1.0% 0.1%

Shoshone 66.2% 0.2% 2.1% 27.5% 1.6% 2.5%

Source: Results from Gebert and Odell 2010 data set (Gebert and Odell 2007, updated 2012)

Economic Contribution of the National Forests to the Economic Study Area

Management of national forests contributes to the local economies by the products (e.g., timber, 

minerals, etc.) that are produced on the national forests and processed in the local economy; by 

uses (e.g., recreation visits, etc.) that occur on the national forests; and by the service provided 

by employees of the national forests. This analysis is similar to the wildland dependency analysis 

with the exception that only Forest Service related products, uses, and services are considered.

An IMPLAN input-output model was constructed to estimate the economic contribution of the 

national forests to the analysis area economy. The IMPLAN model was constructed using 2008 

IMPLAN data (the most recent IMPLAN data available).

The results for the contribution analysis for the IPNF are displayed in table 174, which shows 

employment and labor income for the analysis area (columns labeled “Area Totals”) and the 

employment and labor income attributable to Forest Service related activities (columns labeled 

“FS-Related”). The results indicate there are approximately 1,380 full- and part-time jobs and 

$54 million in labor income in the study area attributable to the IPNF activities. This is 1.2 

percent of the employment and 1.3 percent of the labor income of the study area economy. The 

products, uses, and services of the IPNF have its largest effect in the government sector with 483 

(35 percent) of the 1,382 jobs and $26 million (48 percent) of the $54.5 million labor income. 

The five sectors with the most employment attributable to IPNF activities are government;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

622 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

accommodations and food services; retail trade; forestry and related activities; manufacturing 

and health care (tied for fifth place). For labor income, the top five sectors are government; 

manufacturing; accommodations and food services; forestry and related activities; and retail 

trade.

The dependency analysis presented earlier indicated that some of the counties in the study area 

were highly dependent on wildland activities, with the total impact area showing 12 percent 

dependency on wildland-based industries. The analysis of jobs and income attributable to IPNF 

activities indicates there is only a small portion (just over 1 percent) of the study area jobs and 

income generated by Forest Service activities. The contributions results suggest that the 

wildland-dependent activities are tied to non-Forest Service lands.

Table 174. Current Role of the IPNF-Related Contribution to the Area Economy

Employment (jobs) Labor Income (Thousands of 

2009 dollars)

Industry Area Totals FS-Related Area Totals FS-Related

Forestry, fishing, related activities, other 3,750 85 $153,112 $3,125

Mining 1,138 3 $92,714 $138

Utilities 425 3 $40,134 $356

Construction 11,672 58 $425,591 $2,322

Manufacturing 8,298 72 $412,742 $3,912

Wholesale Trade 2,163 27 $113,601 $1,402

Retail Trade 15,789 108 $481,331 $3,014

Transportation & Warehousing 2,620 24 $94,076 $856

Information 1,660 12 $68,387 $487

Finance & Insurance 3,210 20 $167,657 $1,051

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 6,144 47 $87,190 $654

Prof, Scientific, & Tech Services 4,525 35 $261,589 $1,970

Management of Companies 396 3 $34,752 $239

Admin, Waste Mgmt & Rem Serv 4,214 29 $106,757 $740

Educational Services 1,291 8 $21,885 $138

Health Care & Social Assistance 10,032 72 $365,618 $2,556

Arts, Entertainment, and Rec 3,348 35 $78,760 $723

Accommodation & Food Services 8,874 209 $149,457 $3,812

Other Services 6,578 49 $110,053 $860

Government 16,456 483 $798,782 $26,011

Total 112,582 1,382 $4,064,188 $54,365

Forest Service as Percent of Total --- 1.2% --- 1.3%

Payments to Counties

Counties containing NFS lands receive payments from the federal government to compensate for 

critical services they provide to both county residents and visitors to these federal lands. 

Congress enacted in 1908 and subsequently amended a law (the National Forest Revenue Act) 

that requires that 25 percent of the revenues derived from NFS lands be paid to States for use by 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 623

the counties in which the lands are situated for the benefit of public schools and roads. Since 

1908, the affected counties have received these payments. Under this act, payments to counties 

changed from year to year due to the fluctuation in volume and revenues generated by timber 

sales.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Public Law 106-393) was 

enacted in October 2000. The purpose of this act was to stabilize payments to counties. Under 

this law, for fiscal years 2001 through 2006, counties had the choice of receiving either (1) the 

25-percent payment as under the Act of 1908 or (2) an amount equal to their proportion of the 

average of the state’s three highest 25-percent payments from fiscal year 1986 through fiscal 

year 1999. All counties in the planning area chose option 2. The law was extended in 2007 for 1

year. The law was then reauthorized in 2008 with some changes and provides payments through 

2011.

Payments to the counties for 1986 to 2009 are shown in figure 63. The graph shows the 

payments to counties have fluctuated greatly over the last two decades. Payments somewhat 

stabilized from 2001 to 2007 under the Secure Rural School Act. In the analysis area, Shoshone 

County has received the highest payments since 1986, with payments substantially higher than 

the other counties, except in years 1999 and 2000.

Source: U.S. Forest Service at https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/r4/payments_to_states.nsf

Figure 63. Forest Service Payments by County – 1986 to 2009 (in constant, 2009 dollars)

Counties also receive Payments in Lieu of Taxes. Under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 

1976, Congress provided payments to units of local government, typically counties, containing 

federal lands. These payments are designed to supplement other federal land receipt sharing 

payments that local governments may receive. The act authorizes payments under one of two 

alternatives, with formulas that consider such factors as other forms of revenue sharing, acreage, 

and population. These payments are made directly to counties and may be used for any purpose. 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes payments can be and recently have been limited by Congress through 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

624 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

the appropriations process. Congress has not appropriated sufficient funds to fund the full 

payments to counties since 1994. Payments increased in 2008 under the Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act of 2008.

Table 175 shows total federal payments to counties for 2009. Kootenai and Shoshone counties 

received the highest and Benewah County the lowest Payments in Lieu of Taxes payment. 

Shoshone County has the highest total federal payments.

Table 175. Federal Land Payments to Analysis Area Counties, 2009

Benewah 

County

Bonner 

County

Boundary 

County

Kootenai 

County

Shoshone 

County

Total Federal Land Payments 

by Geography of Origin ($)

140,007 1,463,137 2,551,205 1,101,432 3,833,193

PILT 41,289 289,913 210,551 404,011 400,335

Forest Service Payments 98,713 1,174,639 2,340,554 693,704 3,432,533

BLM Payments 0 -1,415 100 3,717 325

Source: U.S. Department of Interior, 2009. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Washington D.C.; U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2009. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Interior. 2009. Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C.

The contribution of federal land payments to county budgets is illustrated in table 176. Shoshone 

County is the most affected by the payments to government, with more than 33 percent of the 

county revenues generated by federal land payments. Benewah County is the least affected, with 

less than 1 percent of their county revenue generated by federal land payments.

Table 176. Federal Land Payments as a Share of Total General Government Revenue, FY2007 (2009 

dollars)

Benewah 

County

Bonner 

County

Boundary 

County

Kootenai 

County

Shoshone 

County

Total General Revenue 24,795 35,989 19,726 77,724 8,884

Taxes 2,389 19,609 3,989 32,865 3,432

Intergovernmental Revenue 873 8,337 4,713 20,762 3,985

Total Charges 21,119 5,932 10,556 18,823 908

All Other (Miscellaneous) 413 2,112 468 5,273 559

Federal Land Payments (FY 

2006)

98 1,034 1,064 1,025 2,972

Percent of Total

Taxes 9.6% 54.5% 20.2% 42.3% 36.6%

Intergovernmental Revenue 3.5% 23.2% 23.9% 26.7% 44.9%

Total Charges 85.2% 16.5% 53.5% 24.2% 10.2%

All Other (Miscellaneous) 1.7% 5.9% 2.4% 6.8% 6.3%

Federal Land Payments (FY 

2006)

0.4% 2.9% 5.4% 1.3% 33.5%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 2009. Census of Governments Survey of State and Local Government 

Finances, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Interior, 2006. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Washington D.C.; 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2006. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Interior. 2006. Bureau of 

Land Management, Washington, D.C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 625

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

The IPNF provide a variety of uses, values, benefits, products, services, and visitor opportunities 

(termed “outputs and values”). Under all alternatives, these outputs and values will be provided 

in a sustainable manner, supplying outputs and values for current and future generations. These 

outputs and values contribute to the sustainability of the social and economic systems within the 

analysis area.

While the analysis area is affected by the management activities, uses, and outputs of the IPNF, 

there are also many external factors that affect local counties and communities. These external 

factors include national and regional population trends, national trade agreements, state and 

national laws and regulations, technological advances in manufacturing, technological advances 

in recreation equipment, cultural trends, and changes in societal values. These external factors 

often have a larger impact on the social and economic environment than does management of the 

IPNF. This section addresses the potential effects from IPNF management decisions from the 

alternatives.

Population

Population is not expected to vary by alternative. Current trends are expected to continue over 

the life of the Plan, with slower population growth in Benewah and Boundary counties, faster 

growth in Kootenai and Bonner counties, and declining population in Shoshone County.

Land Ownership and Use

Land ownership is not expected to change under any alternative. There may be some land 

exchanges in the future, but it is not expected to result in any net increase in lands administered 

by the IPNF. Any future land exchanges or sales would be assessed to determine specific 

impacts.

Some land uses will vary by alternative. Timber harvest levels vary based on MA allocation and 

management intensity as determined by the theme of the alternative. See chapter 2 for a 

description of the alternatives. Total recreation numbers are not expected to change by 

alternative, but the opportunities and quality of the experiences may vary. Acres and miles 

available for wheeled motor vehicle use do not change by alternative. Opportunities for oversnow vehicle use vary by alternative. Mining and grazing uses do not change by alternative.

Alternative C has the greatest amount of land in recommended wilderness, with an emphasis on 

backcountry, non-motorized recreation. This alternative has the least amount of active 

management, with the lowest timber harvest level. Alternative B Modified has the second 

highest amount of land in recommended wilderness and non-motorized recreation, with the 

second lowest timber harvest level. Alternative D has the greatest amount of land in general 

forest management, with an emphasis on timber harvest and motorized recreation. This 

alternative has the least amount of recommended wilderness and backcountry uses, with the 

second highest timber harvest level. Alternative A has the second lowest amount of land in 

recommended wilderness and the highest timber harvest level and motorized recreation 

opportunities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

626 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Lifestyles, Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs

The outputs and values provided by the IPNF contribute to the quality of lifestyles found in the 

planning area. Some of these outputs and values vary by alternative.

For those valuing timber harvest or having a lifestyle that is tied to the logging or manufacturing 

industries, the alternative with the most timber harvest would add to their quality of life more 

than those alternatives with lower timber harvest levels. Alternative D provides the highest, 

Alternatives A and B Modified the next highest levels, while Alternative C provides the lowest 

amount of timber harvest.

Although total recreation use numbers are not expected to change by alternative, opportunities 

for specific types of recreation and the quality of the experience will vary based on management 

allocation and the emphasis of the alternative. For those valuing non-motorized and wilderness 

recreation, the existence of special places, scenery and open spaces, the alternative with the most 

recommended wilderness and backcountry MAs would add to their quality of life more than the 

other alternatives. Alternative C provides the greatest opportunity for these types of values, 

followed by Alternative B Modified and A. Alternative D provides the least opportunity for these 

types of values.

For those valuing motorized recreation opportunities, the alternative with the most general forest 

and motorized backcountry MAs would add to their quality of life more than other alternatives. 

Alternative D provides the most opportunity for this type of recreation, followed by Alternative 

A and B Modified. Alternative C provides the least opportunity for this type of recreation.

Communities and Change

As described above, an important source of change in the communities within the analysis area 

has been a decline in the wood products industries. Alternative D would provide for the most 

timber harvest, which may help to slow some of this change. Alternative C would provide the 

least amount of timber harvest; and thus, may result in increased change.

The following is a description of the trends expected under the alternatives for the six 

community types (as described in the “Affected Environment”):

Native American Communities — Under all alternatives, forest managers are expected 

to continue to coordinate with and provide for Native American rights and interests.

Urban Regional Centers — Forest management under the alternatives is expected to 

continue to provide for a variety of recreational opportunities, at or above current levels, as well 

as other amenities such as scenery and solitude. The types of recreation opportunities vary under 

alternatives, with Alternative C providing for the greatest amount of non-motorized recreation 

and least amount of motorized recreation opportunities. Alternative D provides the most 

motorized recreation and the least amount of non-motorized recreation opportunities. Some 

decrease in the quality of recreational experiences may occur as populations increase, causing 

crowding of popular sites. These urban regional centers are expected to continue to expand, 

diversify, and grow into the future.

Commodity Communities — Forest management under the alternatives is expected to 

continue to provide wood fiber, grazing, and minerals close to current levels. Alternative D 

would provide the highest level of commodity production and Alternative C the lowest level. 

These communities are expected to continue to change as new residents move in, bringing 

different attitudes, values, and beliefs. This change in community values, beliefs, and identities 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 627

creates social tension related to resource management issues. These communities are expected to 

evolve into Transition Communities (described below) as their populations and businesses 

change.

Transition Communities — Forest management under the alternatives is expected to 

continue to provide commodities and recreation opportunities close to current levels. Alternative 

D would provide the highest level of access and commodity production and Alternative C the 

lowest levels. Access to the Forest will continue to be an issue and source of conflict, with a 

desire by some for more access, a desire by others for less, and resource concerns limiting 

management decisions. The ability to increase access opportunities will remain limited under all 

alternatives. These communities will continue to undergo a great deal of change, as populations 

and businesses diversify, and economic structures, patterns of use, and values about forest 

resources change.

Diversity Communities — Forest management under the alternatives is expected to 

continue to provide a variety of recreational opportunities at or above current levels. The types of 

recreation opportunities vary under alternatives, with Alternative C providing for the greatest 

amount of non-motorized recreation and least amount of motorized recreation opportunities. 

Alternative D provides the most motorized recreation and the least amount of non-motorized 

recreation opportunities. Access will continue to be a management challenge under the 

alternatives, with limited or no ability to provide increased opportunities due to other resource 

concerns. Changes in access may occur to specific areas, roads, or trails. Due to their economic 

and social diversity, these communities are more easily able to adapt to changing conditions with 

increased population and forest management than Transition or Commodity communities.

Rural Forest Communities — Outcomes under the alternatives would be similar to 

Commodity and Transition communities, with commodity and recreation use close to current 

levels for all alternatives and highest under Alternative D. New residents to these communities 

will continue to affect change through a diversification of attitudes, values, and beliefs.

Employment and Income

Local employment and income is affected by changes in outputs and uses on the Forest. As 

described in the “Methodologies” section above, the IMPLAN modeling system was used to 

estimate changes to jobs and income from expected output and use levels for each alternative. 

Economic effects were predicted with and without extension of county payments under the 

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

Although the differences between the alternatives in many cases are relatively small, the impacts 

may be considerable to individuals, families, or businesses. In very small communities, the loss 

of a single job may be very important, yet negligible across the analysis area.

Table 177 displays the employment and table 178 the income associated with IPNF management 

for the five-county analysis area by alternative. These tables compare the alternatives to current 

levels of employment and income.

Table 177. Employment by Program for Current Management and by Alternative (average annual, 

decade 1)

Resource Current 

Mgmt

Alt A Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Recreation: non-local only 266 301 301 301 301
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

628 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Resource Current 

Mgmt

Alt A Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Wildlife and Fish: non-local only 105 119 119 119 119

Grazing 1 1 1 1 1

Timber 167 471 454 454 465

Minerals 0 0 0 0 0

Payments to States/Counties 164 164 164 164 164

Forest Service Expenditures 678 678 678 678 678

Total Forest Management 1,382 1,735 1,718 1,718 1,729

Percent Change from Current 25.5% 24.3% 24.3% 25.14%

Table 178. Labor Income by Program for Current Management and by Alternative (average 

annual, decade 1; Thousands of Dollars)

Resource Current 

Mgmt

Alt A Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Recreation: non-local only $7,090 $8,011 $8,011 $8,011 $8,011

Wildlife and Fish: non-local only $2,942 $3,325 $3,325 $3,325 $3,325

Grazing $20 $20 $20 $20 $20

Timber $7,556 $21,672 $20,916 $20,916 $21,420

Minerals $4 $4 $4 $4 $4

Payments to States/Counties $5,984 $5,984 $5,984 $5,984 $5,984

Forest Service Expenditures $30,769 $30,769 $30,769 $30,769 $30,769

Total Forest Management $54,364 $69,785 $69,029 $69,029 $69,533

Percent Change from Current 28.4% 27.0% 27.0% 27.9%

The largest difference between the alternatives and the current amounts is based on changes to 

timber. The timber output for current management is an average of the amount that was 

harvested in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009. Timber harvest during this time period was very 

low because of poor market conditions following the decline in the housing market. For the 

alternatives, the timber output is the average annual first decade timber sold as modeled in 

Spectrum. The timber sold level for the alternatives is similar to the amount of timber sold over 

the last 5 years. See the “Timber” section in chapter 3 and appendix B for more information on 

the modeling and results for predicted timber volume sold.

Recreation, wildlife, and fish outputs are constant for all alternatives. Levels are expected to 

increase by 13 percent over current levels based on expected population growth over the next 10 

years in the western U.S. (2000 U.S. Census data, Population Projections table 6).

Grazing and minerals are constant for current management and all alternatives. Decisions made 

in the Forest Plan are not expected to change grazing or mineral output levels, so these levels 

remained constant. Forest Service expenditures also remain constant for all alternatives because 

the analysis on output levels was conducted with the assumption that current level of budgets 

would continue under the Forest Plan.

Payments to state/counties remains constant for current management and all alternatives based 

on expected continuation of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 629

Under this act, forest management does not affect federal payments to states and counties. An 

analysis was conducted to determine the effect if this act was not extended and payments 

reverted to the 25 percent Payments. If this was to occur, employment would be decreased by 

approximately 140 jobs and $5,000,000 in labor income in all alternatives.

Payments to Counties

IPNF management will not affect payments to counties if the Secure Rural Schools and

Community Self-Determination Act is reauthorized into the future. However, if this act expires 

and no other act replaces it, payments would revert to 25 percent Payments (as under the 

National Forest Revenue Act of 1908). If this were the case, payments to counties would be 

greatly diminished from current levels. Alternatives providing the highest level of receipts would 

provide the highest amount of payments to counties. Alternatives C and B Modified would 

provide the highest while Alternatives A and D would provide the lowest levels of payments to 

counties and states. The 25 percent Payments for the five-county area are estimated to range 

from a high of $1,729,000 under Alternative C to a low of $1,322,000 under Alternative D. The 

current level of payments associated with the IPNF for the five-county area is $8,070,000 under 

the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. A return to 25 percent 

Payments would result in a large reduction in payments to counties. Effects would be greatest in 

those counties where federal payments are a larger portion of the county budget, such as 

Shoshone County 

Payments from payment in lieu of taxes may increase under reduced Forest Service payments to 

counties, depending on appropriations from Congress. The amount of increase is unknown, but 

would generally be insufficient to offset the reduction in Forest Service payments under the 25 

percent Payments.

Economic Efficiency

The main criterion used in assessing economic efficiency is present net value, which is defined 

as the value of discounted benefits minus discounted costs. A present net value analysis includes 

all outputs, including timber, grazing, recreation, and minerals, to which monetary values are 

assigned. The monetary values include both market and nonmarket values. See appendix B for a 

description of these values and the economic analysis.

Table 179 shows estimated benefits, costs, and cumulative present net value by alternative. All 

monetary values are expressed in constant dollars with no allowance for inflation. A 4 percent 

discount rate was used over a fifty-year period (2014 – 2063). The reduction in present net value 

in any alternative as compared to the most economically efficient solution is the economic tradeoff, or opportunity cost, of implementing that alternative.

Table 179. Economic Efficiency by Alternative (in thousands of dollars)

Alt. A Alt. B Modified Alt. C Alt. D

Present Net Value $1,608,539 $1,606,925 $1,609,301 $1,601,403

Present Value of Benefits $2,221,652 $2,219,038 $2,222,414 $2,214,517

Present Value of Costs $613,114 $613,114 $613,114 $613,114

The forest service budget was held constant at current levels for all alternatives. The amount of 

benefits changed by alternative based on the amount and type of timber that was projected to be 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

630 Social & Economics Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

harvested over the next 50 years. The present net value is positive for all alternatives, indicating 

the alternatives are economically efficient. The alternative with the highest present net value is 

Alternative C and the alternative with the lowest present net value is Alternative D. However, as 

table 179 indicates, differences between alternatives for present net value are slight.

When evaluating trade-offs, the use of present net value and net public benefit is often 

misunderstood. In each alternative, present net value was maximized in an attempt to ensure that 

the alternative would be efficient in its use of tax dollars and land. The present net value coupled 

with indicators for Forest Plan goals (such as contributing to the social and economic well-being 

of local communities, moving vegetation toward desired conditions, and improving the 

capability of the Forest to provide high-quality recreation opportunities) can be used to estimate 

net public benefits, compare alternatives, and assist in choosing a preferred alternative.

Cumulative Effects

There are many factors that influence and affect the local social and economic environment. 

National, state, and county policies affect population growth, demographics, and land uses. 

Following is a brief description of some items that are changing or may change in the future,

adding to the effects on local communities from the alternatives.

Population Growth

The West has been the fastest growing region in the country, and this trend is expected to 

continue for the next 20 years (U.S. Census 2000 data and projections). With this increased 

growth rate comes an increased diversification of the population. More new residents are 

migrating in, while the adult children of families living in the region are moving out of the area 

to find employment. This change in population composition has added to the diversity of 

attitudes, lifestyles, and values of the population within the planning area. The social assessment 

for the IPNF identified some implications of this in-migration, including: 1) a declining tax base 

in relation to new residents; 2) increased overall recreational use of resources; 3) shifts in the 

proportion of multiple uses; and 4) probably related shifts in the expectations about forest 

management (Parker et al. 2002:29-32).

Development of Forestlands

There has been increased housing density adjacent to and within national forest boundaries, and 

this trend is expected to continue over the next several decades. Moderate and high increases in 

residential development are projected around national forests located in Montana and Idaho 

(Stein et al. 2007). While local urban, county, and regional planners and the public are making 

progress in defining desirable development and recognizing the inherent costs and effects 

associated with subdivision sprawl, growth will continue in some form and overall density will 

increase. This development would likely add pressure on adjacent Forest Service lands. Pressure 

would include increased demand for potentially conflicting recreation opportunities, services 

such as road maintenance, demand for undeveloped and semi-primitive settings, and increased 

fire management problems.

Subdividing Corporate Timberlands

The Idaho Statewide Forest Resource Strategy (Kimball and Stephenson 2010) identified 

development pressure as an issue for forestland. This development results in a loss of productive 

forests and pressure to eliminate management on adjacent lands. Conversion to a higher housing 

density results in a loss of canopy and the benefits it provides. This development pressure can 

affect lifestyles and values, especially to those that value undeveloped areas. Development 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Social & Economics 631

pressure can also lead to decreased timber harvest because of the loss of forests and the impact 

development has on watersheds and wildlife.

Future Wood Products Development

The wood products industry is important in managing forests and providing products to both 

national and global markets. The Idaho Statewide Forest Resource Strategy (Kimball and 

Stephenson 2010) identified the potential benefit to wood products markets from managing 

forestland. The Strategy notes “When markets and mills shut down, incentives to manage forests 

are significantly diminished, leading to an increase in forest insect and disease infestations, fire 

risk, and a decline in overall forest health.” The Strategy includes a goal to provide forest-based 

wood products markets that are economically vibrant and sustainable. One method to achieve 

this goal is to develop diverse markets and product lines.

The majority of timber harvested in Idaho comes from private lands, providing more than 60 

percent of the volume harvested in 2010. State lands provided just under one-third and federal 

lands provided about 10 percent of Idaho’s total timber harvest in 2010 (Morgan et al. 2011). The 

amount of timber harvest on state and private lands and adjacent national forests will affect the 

local economy. Additional harvest from these lands would help to stabilize local jobs and 

income. Any decrease in harvest would add to a decrease in associated jobs and income.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

632 Other Required Disclosures Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Other Required Disclosures

Environmental Justice

As required by Executive Order 12898, all federal actions must consider potentially 

disproportionate effects on minority or low-income communities. The Forest Plan is strategic 

and programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to future site-specific projects and 

activities. The Plan does not create, authorize, or execute any ground-disturbing activity, 

although it does provide for the consideration of certain types of activities. Site-specific activities 

will consider potential disproportionate effects on minority or low-income communities during 

project planning.

The social assessment for the IPNF (Parker et al. 2002) and the assessment of social conditions 

and trends (Russell et al. 2006) did not identify any disproportionate impacts from forest 

management. In addition, collaboration on the Plan did not identify any concerns regarding 

disproportionate impacts to low-income or minority populations. The Forest also coordinated 

and consulted with federally-recognized tribes that had/have traditional uses within the Forest 

boundary. See the “American Indian Rights and Interests” section of chapter 3. No 

disproportionate impacts were identified by the Tribes.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

Agencies must make a good faith effort to understand how Indian religious practices may come 

into conflict with other forest uses and consider any adverse impacts on these practices in their 

decision-making practices. Within the boundaries of the IPNF there are two tribes with Treaty 

reserved, off-reservation rights: the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes. In addition, the Coeur d′Alene Tribe of Idaho has reserved rights through 

executive order on a limited section of the Coeur d′Alene River Ranger District. Federal 

guidance for tribal consultation directs the Forest to increase and improve the involvement of 

tribes in the decision-making process in the areas where our decisions affect tribes and their 

treaty rights and interests. There is a trust responsibility with regard to managing the resources 

on which the treaties are based. The Forest is also required to consult with all federallyrecognized tribes that had/have traditional uses within the forest boundary. This consultation 

extends to the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the Coeur d′Alene Tribe of 

Idaho, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Spokane Tribe of Indians, the 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Nez Perce Tribe. No effects on 

American Indian social, economic, or subsistence rights are anticipated as a result of this Forest 

Plan revision effort. No matter which alternative is chosen for implementation, the Forest will be 

required to consult with tribes when management activities may impact treaty rights and/or 

cultural sites and cultural use, according to the Consultation Protocol. Desired conditions for 

American Indian Rights and Interests, for all action alternatives, would be for the IPNF to: 

recognize and maintain culturally significant species and the habitat necessary to support 

healthy, sustainable, and harvestable plant and animal populations to ensure that rights reserved 

by tribes in the Treaty are not significantly impacted or diminished; recognize, ensure, and 

accommodate tribal member access to the Forest for the exercise of Treaty Rights and Cultural 

uses consistent with law, policy, and regulation; and recognize and protect traditional cultural 

areas as associated with the traditional beliefs of a Tribe about its cultural history.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Other Requred Disclosures 633

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Forest Plan revision and Forest Plans do not produce unavoidable adverse effects because they 

do not directly implement any management activities that would result in such effects. However, 

the Forest Plans do establish management emphasis and direction for implementation of 

activities that may occur on NFS lands in the planning period. If those activities occur, the 

application of forestwide, management area, and geographic area standards and guidelines (as 

described in the revised Forest Plan) would limit the extent and duration of any resulting 

environmental effects. Some unavoidable effects could still occur; however, these potential 

effects are described by resource area throughout chapter 3 of this EIS, primarily under 

“Environmental Consequences.”

Relationship of Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

Short-term uses are those expected to occur for the planning period (10 to 15 years), including 

recreation use, timber harvest, and prescribed burning. Although the Forest Plan does not directly 

implement these uses, the potential for these uses are described in the Forest Plan goals and 

objectives, both at the forestwide and MA levels (see revised Forest Plan).

Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land to provide resource outputs for a 

period beyond the planning period. Minimum management requirements, established by 

regulation (31 CFR 219.27), provide for maintenance of long-term productivity of the land. 

Minimum management requirements are contained in forestwide and MA standards and 

guidelines and would be met under any alternative. They ensure that the long-term productivity 

of the land is not impaired by short-term uses.

Monitoring and evaluation, as described in the revised Forest Plan, applies to all alternatives. A 

primary purpose of monitoring is to ensure that long-term productivity of the land is maintained 

or improved. If monitoring and evaluation show that Forest Plan standards and guidelines are 

inadequate to protect long-term productivity of the land, then the Plan will be adjusted (through 

amendment or revision) to provide for more protection or fewer impacts.

Although all alternatives are designed to maintain long-term productivity, there are differences 

among the alternatives in the long-term availability or condition of resources. There may also be 

differences among alternatives in long-term expenditures necessary to maintain or achieve 

desired conditions. The differences are discussed throughout the various sections in chapter 3 of 

this EIS.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are defined in FSH 1909.15, 

Environmental Policy and Procedures.

Irreversible commitments of resources mean the consumption or destruction of nonrenewable 

resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or the degradation of resources such as soil 

productivity, which can be renewed only over long periods.

Irretrievable commitments of resources are opportunities forgone; they represent tradeoffs in the 

use and management of forest resources. Irretrievable commitments of resources include 

expenditure of funds, loss of production, or restrictions on resource use. When one alternative 

produces less of a natural resource (such as timber volume) or offers fewer opportunities for use 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

634 Other Required Disclosures Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

(such as non-motorized recreation) than another alternative, the difference represents an 

irretrievable commitment of resources.

The decisions made in Forest Plan revisions do not represent actual irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources. This is because forest planning identifies what kinds and levels of 

activities are appropriate in different parts of the forest; it does not make project decisions. The 

decision to irreversibly or irretrievably commit resources occurs at: (1) the time the Forest 

Service makes a project decision, such as approving new trail construction or a timber sale; (2) 

the time Congress acts on a recommendation to establish a new wilderness or to include a stream 

segment in the wild and scenic river system; or (3) the time the regional forester designates a 

research natural area.

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential

Energy is consumed in the administration of natural resources from the national forests. The 

main activities that consume energy are timber harvest, restoration activities (mechanical 

vegetation treatments and prescribed and use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource 

objectives), recreation use, road construction and reconstruction, range use, and administrative 

activities of the Forest Service and other regulatory agencies. Energy consumption is expected to 

vary only slightly by alternative. Those alternatives with higher potential for restoration activity, 

timber harvest and/or road construction, reconstruction and obliteration (Alternatives B

Modified, and D) are expected to have higher levels of energy use. Alternatives that have lower 

potential for these activities (C and A) are expected to have slightly lower levels of energy use.

Several opportunities exist under all alternatives to provide for energy conservation or 

conversion from less plentiful fuels to more plentiful fuels. For example, car-pooling and 

combining trips saves fuels and wear and tear on the Forest fleet. The use of electronic 

communication devices for sharing information rather than scheduling meetings at one location 

saves energy spent on travel. Improving energy efficiency of government buildings can conserve 

energy. More energy-efficient equipment for all activities like timber harvesting, road 

construction and reconstruction, or road maintenance can be required. More energy-efficient 

management methods can be explored and implemented as well.

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland

No prime farmland, rangeland, or forestland has been identified in the planning area. Forest Plan 

revision or the Forest Plan would not directly affect such lands; although implementation of the 

Plan could have indirect effects. Regardless of the alternative selected for implementation, NFS 

lands would be managed with sensitivity to the values of any adjacent private or public lands.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Potential effects to species listed under the ESA can be found in chapter 3 of this EIS, as well as 

in the Wildlife Resource specialist report, the Aquatics/Soils/Riparian/Wetlands specialist report, 

and the Rare Plants specialist report (project file). The Biological Assessment and Biological 

Evaluation will be finalized for the revised Forest Plan and final EIS. Management direction to 

protect the threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species, or to provide for their 

habitats, can be found in the revised Forest Plan (forestwide, management area, and geographical 

area desired conditions, standards, and guidelines).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS Other Requred Disclosures 635

Wetlands and Floodplains

The Forest Plan revision and Forest Plans do not directly implement any management activities 

that would result in loss of wetland or floodplains. Revised forestwide management direction 

identifies the need to restore currently degraded wetlands and floodplains, and provides a broad 

spectrum of standards and guidelines designed to protect soil, water, riparian, and aquatic 

resources. The goals and intent of Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 

(Protection of Wetlands) would be met through compliance with this direction. Documentation 

for this conclusion can be found in this EIS, chapter 3, “Watersheds, Soils, Riparian and Aquatic 

Habitat/Species,” and in the revised Forest Plan (desired condition, standards, and guidelines).

Conflicts with Other Agency or Government Goals or Objectives

Contact, review, and public involvement with other federal and state agencies indicate no major 

conflicts between the revised Forest Plan and the goals and objectives of other governmental 

entities.

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 637

Chapter 4. List of Preparers

The preparation of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and the revised Forest Plan 

has been a major undertaking. This list of preparers is limited to those people who were members 

of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) working on these final documents. Preparation of these 

documents could not have been completed without the support and assistance of numerous 

employees on the IPNF, past employees on the IPNF who have retired or moved to other 

positions, and our colleagues in the regional office. We also recognize the forest leadership team 

as providing guidance during this process.

Members of the Interdisciplinary Team:

Name Unit Position

Anderson, Jeremy KNF Wildlife Biologist

Cobb, Dave IPNF Vegetation and Fire Specialist

Dekome, Shanda IPNF Planning Staff

Frament, Ellen KNF Team Leader, Analyst and Economist

Scaife, Dan IPNF Hydrologist and Fisheries Biologist

Sutton, Darcie KNF Writer Editor

Wellner, Kent IPNF Recreation Specialist (now on the Willamette NF)

Support to the Interdisciplinary Team:

Name Unit Position

Allen, Lydia IPNF Wildlife Biologist

Colyer, Sue IPNF Recreation

Gibson, Shawn IPNF Archaeologist

Harris, Greg IPNF GIS Support

Kmonk, Nancy KNF GIS Support

Neils, Chandra IPNF Soils Scientist

Peel, Timory Contract Transportation

Ratcliffe, Carol IPNF Transportation

Williams, Emily IPNF Forest Planner (Coconino NF, detailed to IPNF)

Young, Will IPNF Hydrologist and Fisheries Biologist (detailed to IDT)

Zack, Art IPNF Ecologist

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 639

Chapter 5. Agencies & Individuals Receiving EIS

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

This EIS has been distributed to individuals who specifically requested a copy of the document. 

In addition, copies have been sent to the following federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, 

state and local governments, and organizations.

Agency Format

Hard Copy CD Web

Director, Planning and Review

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

X

Deputy Director USDA APHIS PPD/EAD X

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) X

Natural Resources Conservation Service National 

Environmental Coordinator

X

USDA, National Agricultural Library

Head, Acquisitions & Serials Branch

X X X

NOAA Fisheries Service NW Region

Habitat Conservationists Division

X

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Northwestern Division

X

Chief of Naval Operations

Energy and Environmental Division

X

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 10

EIS Review Coordinator

X

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

United States Department of the Interior

X X

Northwest Power Planning Council X

United States Coast Guard (USCG)

Commandant CG-47

Department of Homeland Security

X

Northwest Mountain Region

Regional Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration

X

Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration

X

United States Department of Energy

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

X

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 641

Chapter 6. Glossary

Term Definition

303(d) segments A stream or other waterbody that is listed by the state as being 

“water quality impaired” by a pollutant in their current 303(d) 

list or 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report, pursuant to the Clean 

Water Act.

Activity Area A land area affected by a management activity to which soil 

quality standards are applied. Activity areas include harvest 

units within timber sale areas, prescribed burn areas, 

recreation areas, and grazing areas or pastures within range 

allotments.

Allotment Management 

Plan (AMP)

A document applying to management of rangeland 

ecosystems and livestock operations on the public lands 

prescribing: (1) the manner in and extent to which livestock 

operations will be conducted in order to meet ecosystem 

health, multiple use, economic, and other objectives; (2) 

describing range improvements to be installed and 

maintained; and (3) containing such other provisions relating 

to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the 

Secretary of Agriculture to be consistent with the provisions 

of Federal Land Policy and Management Act. An AMP 

integrates resource objectives, standards, guidelines, and 

management requirements for soil and water for watershed 

protection, wildlife and fisheries, recreation, timber, and other 

resources on lands within a range allotment.

Allowable Sale Quantity

(ASQ)

The quantity of timber that may be sold from the area of 

suitable land covered by the Forest Plan for a time period 

specified by the Plan. This quantity is usually expressed on an 

annual basis as the “average annual allowable sale quantity.”

Alternative A combination of management prescriptions applied in 

specific amounts and locations to achieve a desired 

management emphasis as expressed in goals and objectives. 

One of several policies, plans, or projects proposed for 

decision making. An alternative need not substitute for 

another in all respects.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

642 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Ancient Cedar Groves Stands containing some cedar trees 60 inches or greater DBH 

and/or 500 years old. The density of 60 inches or greater DBH 

trees may be low and the distribution is often patchy, but these 

big (and/or old trees) can be found at least occasionally, 

scattered across the grove. Usually covers at least one-half 

acre in area, unless there is a concentration of 60 inches or 

greater DBH trees on a smaller area. In the same stand, there 

are often (but not always) additional unusually large 48 inches 

or greater DBH trees.

Animal Unit Month (AUM) The amount of forage required by a one thousand pound cow, 

or the equivalent, for one month.

Aquatic Ecosystem Waters of the United States that serve as habitat for 

interrelated and interacting communities and populations of 

plants and animals. The stream channel, lake or estuary bed, 

water, biotic communities and the habitat features that occur 

therein.

Bear Year The active bear year is from April 1 to November 15

Spring = April 1 to June 15;

Summer = June 16 to September 15;

Fall = September 16 to November 15 (Selkirk Recovery 

Zone) or November 30 (Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone);

Winter = November 16 (Selkirk) or December 1 (CabinetYaak) to March 30

Bears Outside of Recovery 

Zone

An area where one would reasonably expect to find grizzly 

bear use occurring during most years.

Bear Management Unit 

(BMU)

Areas established for use in grizzly bear analysis. Bear 

management units generally:

a) Approximate female home range size; and

b) Include representations of all available habitat components.

Beneficial Uses Any of the various uses which may be made of the water, 

including, but not limited to, domestic water supplies, 

fisheries and other aquatic life, industrial water supplies, 

agricultural water supplies, navigation, recreation in and on 

the water, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.

Best Management Practices

(BMPs)

Practice or set of practices that enable a planned activity to 

occur while still protecting the resource managed, normally 

implemented and applied during the activity rather than after 

the activity.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 643

Term Definition

Big Game Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport 

hunting resource. Generally includes elk, moose, white-tailed 

deer, mule deer, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, black bear,

and mountain lion.

Biodiversity The variety and abundance of species, their genetic 

composition, their communities and the ecosystems and 

landscapes of which they are a part. As used in this document, 

biodiversity refers to native biological diversity; therefore,

increase in species diversity resulting from the introduction of 

non-native species would not constitute an increase in 

biodiversity.

Biophysical Setting An aggregation of vegetation response units, grouped by 

broad, climatic modifiers including temperature and moisture 

gradients.

Candidate Species Plant and animal species being considered for listing as 

endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Carbon Sequestration The process by which atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken up 

by trees, grasses, and other plants through photosynthesis and 

stored as carbon in biomass (trunks, branches, foliage, and 

roots) and soils. The sink of carbon sequestration in forests 

and wood products helps to offset sources of carbon dioxide 

to the atmosphere, such as deforestation, forest fires, and 

fossil fuel emissions.

Cavity The hollow excavated in a tree that is used by birds or 

mammals for roosting and/or reproduction.

Coarse Woody Debris Coarse Woody Debris consists of dead woody material larger 

than 3 inches in diameter and derived from tree limbs, boles, 

and roots.

Community (Ecological) A group of organisms living together; any group of interacting 

organisms.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

644 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Community Wildfire 

Protection Plan

A plan for an at-risk community that:

Is developed within the context of the collaborative 

agreements and the guidance established by the Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council and agreed to by the applicable local 

government, local fire department, and state agency 

responsible for forest management, in consultation with 

interested parties and the federal land management agencies 

managing land in the vicinity of the at-risk community;

Identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel reduction 

treatments and recommends the types and methods of 

treatment on federal and non-federal land that will protect one 

or more at-risk communities and essential infrastructure; and

Recommends measures to reduce structural ignitability 

throughout the at-risk community.

Composition (stand) The proportion of each tree species in a stand expressed as a 

percentage of the total number, basal area, or volume of all 

tree species in the stand.

Connectivity The arrangements of habitats that allows organisms and 

ecological processes to move across the landscape; patches of 

similar habitats are either close together or linked. The 

opposite of fragmentation.

Conservation 

Subwatersheds

Subwatersheds (6th level HUC) are considered to have 

excellent habitat, excellent water quality, and strong 

populations of native fish species. These areas are intended to 

protect stronghold populations of native salmonids and 

complement restoration efforts. See also Priority Watersheds.

Corridors Avenues along which wide ranging animals can travel, plants 

can propagate, genetic interchange can occur, populations can 

move in response to environmental changes and natural 

disasters, and threatened species can be replenished from 

other areas.

Critical Habitat Specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the 

species on which are found those physical and biological 

features (1) essential to the conservation of the species, and 

(2) which may require special management considerations or 

protection.

Cultural Resources The physical remains of human activity (artifacts, ruins, burial 

mounds, petro glyphs, etc.) and conceptual content or context 

(as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric events, as a 

sacred area of native people, etc.) of an area of prehistoric or 

historic occupation.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 645

Term Definition

Decommission Demolition, dismantling, removal, obliteration and/or disposal 

of a deteriorated or otherwise unneeded asset or component, 

including necessary cleanup work. This action eliminates the 

deferred maintenance needs for the fixed asset.

Deferred Maintenance Maintenance that was not performed when it should have 

been or when it was scheduled, and therefore, was put off or 

delayed for a future period. When allowed to accumulate 

without limits or consideration of useful life, deferred 

maintenance leads to deterioration of performance, increased 

costs to repair, and decrease in asset value. Code compliance 

(e.g., life safety, ADA, OSHA, environmental, etc.), Forest 

Plan Direction, Best Management Practices, Biological 

Evaluations other regulatory or Executive Order compliance 

requirements, or applicable standards not met on schedule are 

considered deferred maintenance.

Designated Route A NFS road, a NFS trail, or an area on NFS lands that is 

designated for motor vehicle use pursuant to 36 CFR 212.51 

on motor vehicle use maps.

Disturbance A discrete event that changes existing plant community 

composition or structure; and interrupts, changes, or resets the 

ongoing succession sequence.

Or: Human presence, noise, or other activity that causes 

wildlife to move away from the area or alter behavior.

Dominance Group Dominance group is determined by the following:

Single species – species that makes up at least 60 percent of 

the canopy cover or weighted basal area.

Species mix – No single species determination can be made. 

Type of mix, either tolerant or intolerant, is determined by 

what species combination makes up 80 percent of the canopy 

cover or weighted basal area, with each species contributing 

more than 20 percent of the total. Mixed species were 

combined with vegetation response units to derive a single 

species label, based on predominant vegetation types within a 

vegetative response unit.

Down Wood Accumulation of woody material scattered on the forest floor 

that consists of two categories: coarse woody debris and fine 

woody debris.

Ecological Conditions Components of the biological and physical environment that 

can affect diversity of plant and animal communities and the 

productive capacity of ecological systems. These components 

could include the abundance and distribution of aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats, roads and other structural developments, 

human uses, and invasive, exotic species.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

646 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Ecosystem A spatially explicit unit of the earth that includes all the 

organisms, along with all components of the abiotic 

environment within its boundaries.

Ecosystem Diversity The variety and relative extent of ecosystem types, including 

their composition, structure, and processes within all or a part 

of an area of analysis.

Ecosystem Function Includes energy flows of materials across and within the 

landscape and how one ecosystem influences another. 

Function also relates to energy processes such as fire, 

hydrological processes (including floods), and matter and 

energy exchange throughout the food chain.

Ecological Integrity The capacity to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, 

and adaptive biological system having the full range of 

elements and processes expected in a region’s natural habitat.

Elk Management Units A subset of big game hunting subunits that occur in the Coeur 

d'Alene and St. Joe GAs, etc.

Endangered Species A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS)

A detailed written statement as required by Sec. 102(2) C of 

NEPA 

Fire-Adapted Ecosystem An arrangement of populations that have made long-term 

genetic changes in response to the presence of fire in the 

environment.

Fire Regime The fire pattern across the landscape, characterized by 

occurrence interval and relative intensity. Fire regimes result 

from a unique combination of climate and vegetation. Fire 

regimes exist on a continuum from short-interval, lowintensity (stand maintenance) fires to long-interval, highintensity (stand replacement) fires.

Fire Suppression The practice of controlling forest and rangeland fires in a safe, 

economical, and expedient fashion while meeting the natural 

resource objectives outlined in each forest’s or grassland’s 

land management plan.

Forest Inventory Analysis 

(FIA)

A data source for forestwide vegetation. FIA inventories 

provide a statistical-based sample of forest resources that can 

be used for planning and analyses at local, state. regional and 

national levels.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 647

Term Definition

Fire Management Plan A plan that identifies and integrates all wildland fire 

management and related activities within the context of 

approved land/resource management plans. It defines a 

program to manage wildland fires (wildfire and prescribed 

fire). The plan is supplemented by operational plans, 

including but not limited to preparedness plans, preplanned 

dispatch plans, prescribed fire burn plans and prevention 

plans. Fire management plans assure that wildland fire 

management goals and components are coordinated.

Forest Health The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns 

about such factors as its age, structure, composition, function, 

and vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects and disease,

and resilience to disturbance.

Forest Road or Trail A road or trail wholly or partially within or adjacent to and 

serving the NFS that the Forest Service determines is 

necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of 

the NFS and the use and development of its resources.

Fragmentation A condition in which a continuous area is reduced and divided 

into smaller sections. Habitat can be fragmented by natural 

events or development activities.

Fuel Treatment Any manipulation or removal of fuels to lessen potential 

damage and resistance to control (includes mechanical and 

prescribed fire treatments).

Goods and Services The various outputs, including on-site uses, produced by 

forest and rangeland resources.

Grazing The authorized use of standing vegetation on NFS lands for 

livestock production within permitted grazing allotments.

Grazing Allotment Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of 

livestock for a prescribed period of time.

Grizzly Bear Core Habitat An area of secure habitat within a bear management unit that 

contains no motorized travel routes or high use non-motorized

trails during the non-denning season and is more than 0.3 

miles (500 meters) from a drivable road. Core areas do not 

include any gated roads but may contain roads that are 

impassible due to vegetation or constructed barriers. Core 

areas strive to contain the full range of seasonal habitats that 

are available in the bear management unit.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

648 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Zone

The area in each grizzly bear ecosystem within which the 

population and habitat criteria for achievement of recovery 

will be measured.

Cabinet/Yaak grizzly bear recovery zone: This zone is 

approximately 2,600 square miles. The recovery zone is 

located in northwestern Montana and northern Idaho and 

includes portions of the Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle 

National Forests.

Selkirk grizzly bear recovery zone: This zone is 

approximately 2,200 square-miles and includes portions of the 

IPNF and Colville National Forests, as well as 1,034 square 

miles of habitat in British Columbia, Canada.

Habitat Guilds A set of species that share a common habitat (such as riparian 

areas), that use the same resources (such as food), or that use 

resources in the same manner (such as mode of foraging).

Habitat Type All land areas potentially capable of producing similar plant 

communities (associations) at climax.

Head Month One month’s use and occupancy of the range by one animal. 

For grazing fee purposes, it is a month’s use and occupancy of 

range by one weaned or adult cow with or without calf, bull, 

steer, heifer, horse, burro, or mule, or five sheep or goats.

Hibernacula Habitat niches where certain animals (e.g., bats) over-winter, 

such as caves, mines, tree hollows, or loose bark.

Hiding Cover Vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of a bull elk or adult 

deer from the view of a human at a distance equal to or less 

than 200 feet during all seasons of the year that elk or deer 

use the area. Generally any vegetation used for security or to 

escape from danger.

Historic Range of 

Variability (HRV)

The variation in spatial, structural, compositional, and 

temporal characteristics of ecosystem elements as affected by 

minor climatic fluctuations and disturbances within the 

current climatic period. This range is measured during a 

reference period prior to intensive resource use and 

management. The range of historic variability is used as a 

baseline for comparison with current conditions to assess the 

degree of past change.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 649

Term Definition

Hydrologic Unit (HU) A hydrologic unit is a drainage area delineated to nest in a 

multi-level, hierarchical drainage system. Its boundaries are 

defined by hydrographic and topographic criteria that 

delineate an area of land upstream from a specific point on a 

river, stream, or similar surface waters. A hydrologic unit can 

accept surface water directly from upstream drainage areas, 

and indirectly from associated surface areas such as remnant, 

non-contributing, and diversions to form a drainage area with 

single or multiple outlet points. Hydrologic units are only 

synonymous with classic watersheds when their boundaries 

include all the source area contributing surface water to a 

single defined outlet point.

Hydrologic Unit Code 

(HUC)

The numeric identifier of a specific hydrologic unit consisting 

of a 2-digit sequence for each specific level within the 

delineation hierarchy.

4th code refers to the 4th pair of an 8-digit code of a sub basin 

HUs that is generally 450,000 acres in size.

5th code refers to the 5th pair of a 10-digit code of a 

watershed HUs that generally ranges from 40,000 to 250,000 

acres in size.

6th code refers to the 6th pair of a 10-digit code of a 

subwatershed HUs that generally ranges from 10,000 to 

40,000 acres in size.

Incidental Take Take of listed fish or wildlife species that results from, but is 

not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity 

conducted by a federal agency or applicant.

Integrity The capacity to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, 

and adaptive biological system having the full range of 

elements and processes expected in a region’s natural habitat.

Intermediate Treatment Any treatment or tending designed to enhance growth, quality, 

vigor, and composition of the stand after establishment or 

regeneration and prior to final harvest.

Intermittent Stored Service An existing road where future use is expected but not known 

and is currently closed to vehicle traffic. The road is in a 

condition that there is little resource risk if maintenance is not 

performed.

Invasive Species Invasive species are an alien species whose introduction does 

or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm 

to human health. Alien species are any species, including its 

seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of 

propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem 

(with respect to a particular ecosystem).
Chapter 6. Glossary 

650 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Invasive Weeds See Noxious Weeds

Inventoried Roadless Areas For National Forest System lands in Idaho, inventoried 

roadless areas are those areas designated as Idaho Roadless 

Areas pursuant to 36 CFR §294.21 and 36 CFR §294.29. 

These areas are identified in a set of maps maintained at the 

national headquarters office of the Forest Service.

For National Forest System lands in Montana and 

Washington, inventoried roadless areas are those areas 

mapped under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

These areas are identified in appendix C of the FEIS for the 

revised Forest Plan. The official set of maps is maintained at 

the national headquarters office of the Forest Service.

Keystone Species A species whose impact on its community or ecosystem is 

large, and disproportionately large relative to its abundance.

Landbird Assemblage A group of species having similar ecological resource 

requirements and foraging strategies, and therefore, having 

similar roles in the community.

Landscape An area composed of interacting, and interconnected patterns 

of habitats (ecosystems) that are repeated because of the 

geology, land form, soil, climate, biota and human influences 

throughout the areas. Landscape structure is formed by 

patches, connections, and the matrix. Landscape function is 

based on disturbance events, successional development of 

landscape structure, and flows of energy and nutrients through 

the structure of the landscape. A landscape is composed of 

watersheds and smaller ecosystems. It is the building block of 

biotic provinces and regions.

Landscape Pattern Number, frequency, size and juxtaposition of landscape 

elements (stands and patches) that are important to the 

determination or interpretation of ecological processes.

Large Woody Debris Large pieces of relatively stable, woody material located 

within the bankfull channel and appearing to influence 

bankfull flows. They are categorized as singles, aggregates, or 

rootwads.

Single – A single piece that has a length equal to or greater 

than three meters or two-thirds of the wetted stream width and 

10 cm in diameter one-third of the way from the base.

Aggregate – Two or more clumped pieces, each of which 

qualifies as a single piece.

Rootwad – Rootmass or boles attached to a log less than 

three meters in length.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 651

Term Definition

Long-term Sustained Yield 

Capacity

The highest uniform wood yield from lands being managed 

for timber production that may be sustained under specified 

management intensity consistent with multiple-use objectives.

Lynx Analysis Units A lynx analysis unit is an area of at least the size used by an 

individual lynx, from about 25 to 50 square miles. A project 

analysis unit upon which direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects analyses are performed.

Mechanized Wheeled forms of transportation including non-motorized

carts, wheelbarrows, bicycles, and any other non-motorized, 

wheeled vehicle.

Minerals (Locatable) Those hard-rock minerals that are mined and processed for the 

recovery of metals. They also may include certain nonmetallic 

minerals and uncommon varieties of mineral materials, such 

as valuable and distinctive deposits of limestone or silica.

Minerals (Leasable) Coal, oil, gas, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil shale, sulfur, 

and geothermal resources.

Minerals- Materials 

(Salable)

A collective term to describe common varieties of sand, 

gravel, stone, pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay, and other 

similar materials. Common varieties do not include deposits 

of those materials that may be locatable.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

652 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Minimum Impact 

Suppression Tactics (MIST)

The concept of Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics is to use 

the minimum amount of forces necessary to effectively 

achieve fire management protection objectives. It implies a 

greater sensitivity to the impacts of suppression tactics and 

their long-term effects, when determining how to implement 

an appropriate suppression response. Fire managers and 

firefighters select tactics that have minimal impact to values 

at risk. These values are identified in approved Land or 

Resource Management Plans. Standards and guidelines are 

then tied to implementation practices which result from 

approved Fire Management Plans. Minimum Impact 

Suppression Tactics is not intended to represent a separate or 

distinct classification of firefighting tactics but rather a 

mindset of how to suppress a wildfire while minimizing the 

long-term effects of the suppression action on other resources. 

The principle of fighting fire aggressively but providing for 

safety first will not be compromised in the process and when 

selecting an appropriate suppression response, firefighter 

safety must remain the highest concern.

Examples of Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics might 

include; “Personnel should avoid using rehabilitated fire lines 

as travel corridors whenever possible because of potential soil 

compaction and possible detrimental impacts to rehab work,” 

or ”avoid use of non-native materials for sediment traps in 

streams.”

Mitigation Measures implemented to minimize, reduce, rectify, avoid, 

eliminate, and/or compensate the potential impacts to 

resources identified in the effects analysis.

Mixed Severity Fire A fire severity classification where between 25 and 75 percent 

average top-kill of vegetation occurs within a typical fire 

perimeter.

National Forest System 

Road

A Forest road other than a road that has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county or 

other local public road authority.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 653

Term Definition

National Register of 

Historic Places

The National Register of Historic Places is the Nation’s 

official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. 

Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, the National Register is part of a national program to 

coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, 

evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. 

Properties listed in the Register include districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in 

American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and 

culture. The National Register is administered by the National 

Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of Interior.

Native Species Animals or plants that have historically occupied a given 

aquatic or terrestrial area.

Natural, Unplanned Fire A wildland fire ignited by a natural event such as lightning.

Noxious Weeds

(invasive weeds)

Plants designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of 

Agriculture or by the responsible state official. Noxious 

weeds generally possess one or more of the following 

characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, 

toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious insects or disease, 

and being native or new to or not common to the United 

States or parts thereof.

Off-highway Vehicle Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country 

travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, 

marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain.

Old Growth Old growth stands are defined as those that meet the 

definitions in Green et al. 1992 (errata corrected 12/11). 

Those definitions include the discussion in that document 

titled “USE OF OLD GROWTH TYPE DESCRIPTIONS” 

(see pages 11 and 12). If that document is revised or replaced 

by the Northern Region, the updated version will be used.

Open Motorized Route 

Density

Calculation made with the moving windows technique that 

includes open roads, other roads not meeting all restricted or 

obliterated criteria, and open motorized trails. The percent of 

the analysis area in relevant route density classes are 

calculated.

Openings Meadows, clear-cuts, and other areas of vegetation that do not 

provide cover.

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Value

A river-related value that is a rare, unique, or exemplary 

feature that is significant at a comparative regional or national 

scale.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

654 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Over-Snow Vehicle A motor vehicle that is designed for use over snow and that 

runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over 

snow.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation A pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at 

least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years. 

The pacific decadal oscillation is detected as warm or cool 

surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20 degrees N. 

During a “warm”, or “positive”, phase, the west Pacific 

becomes cool and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a 

“cool” or negative” phase, the opposite pattern occurs.

Plan Area The National Forest System lands covered by a plan.

Planned Ignition 

(Prescribed Fire)

The intentional initiation of a wildland fire by hand-held, 

mechanical or aerial device where the distance and timing 

between ignition lines or points and the sequence of igniting 

them is determined by environmental conditions (weather, 

fuel, topography), fire technique, and other factors which 

influence fire behavior and fire effects (see prescribed fire).

Prescribed Fire A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet 

specific objectives identified in a written, approved, 

prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements (where 

applicable) have been met prior to ignition (see planned 

ignition).

Present Net Value The difference between the discounted values (benefits) of all 

outputs to which monetary values or established market prices 

are assigned and the total discounted costs of managing the 

planning area.

Priority Watersheds Subwatersheds (6th level hydrologic units) as described in 

INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995), which are intended to 

provide a pattern of protection across the landscape, where 

habitat for inland native fish would receive special attention 

and treatment and would have the highest priority for 

restoration, monitoring, and watershed analysis. Priority 

watersheds have been further refined by Conservation 

Subwatersheds and Restoration Subwatersheds for 

implementation of this Forest Plan.

Proposed Species Any species that is proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or National Marine Fisheries Service to be listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 655

Term Definition

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS)

A framework of land delineations that identifies a variety of 

recreation experience opportunities categorized into classes 

on a continuum. The Spectrum’s continuum has been divided 

into six major classes for Forest Service use: Urban (U), Rural 

(R), Roaded Natural (RN), Semi-primitive Motorized (SPM), 

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized (SPNM), and Primitive (P).

Recreation Sites Specific places in the Forest other than roads and trails that 

are used for recreational activities. These sites include a wide 

range of recreational activities and associated development. 

These sites include highly developed facilities like ski areas, 

resorts, and campgrounds. It also includes dispersed 

recreation sites that have few or no improvements but show 

the effects of repeated recreation use.

Recruitment Potential Old 

Growth

Forest stands that do not meet the definition of old growth in 

Green et al. 1992 (errata corrected 12/11) but are being 

managed with the goal of meeting that definition in the future.

Regeneration Treatment A cutting procedure by which a new age class is created; the 

major methods are clearcutting, seed tree, shelterwood, 

selection, and coppice.

Resilience The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb 

disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and 

ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and 

the capacity to adapt to stress and change.

Resistance The ability of an organism, population, community, or 

ecosystem to withstand perturbations without significant loss 

of structure or function. From a management perspective, 

resistance includes both 1) the concept of taking advantage of 

and boosting the inherent (biological) degree to which species 

are able to resist change, and 2) manipulation of the physical 

environment to counteract and resist physical and biological 

change.

Restoration Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an 

ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It 

is an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the 

recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity,

and sustainability.

Restoration Subwatersheds Subwatersheds (6th level hydrologic units) are identified as 

having relatively degraded habitat conditions, water quality 

limitations, depressed populations of native fish species, or a 

combination of the above, and a relatively higher potential for 

improvement through active or passive restoration efforts. See 

also Priority Watersheds.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

656 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Area 

(RHCAs)

Portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources 

receive primary emphasis and management activities are 

subject to specific guidelines. The followings riparian habitat 

conservation area widths are based on the best available 

science and apply to all aquatic habitats, except where sitespecific analysis supports modification:

Category 1 – Fish-bearing streams: Riparian habitat 

conservation areas consist of the stream and the area on either 

side of the stream extending from the edges of the active 

channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of 

the one hundred-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of the 

riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two 

site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet, 

including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is 

greatest.

Category 2 – Permanently flowing non-fish bearing 

streams: Riparian habitat conservation areas consist of the 

stream and the area on either side of the stream extending 

from the edges of the active channel to the top of the inner 

gorge, or to the outer edges of the one hundred-year 

floodplain, or to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or 

to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 

150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the 

stream channel), whichever is greatest.

Category 3 — Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands 

greater than one acre: Riparian habitat conservation areas 

consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the 

outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the 

seasonally saturated soil, to the extent of moderately and 

highly unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of 

one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the 

edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and 

reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, 

whichever is greatest.

Category 4 – Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, 

wetlands less than one acre: This category includes features 

with high variability in size and site-specific characteristics. 

At a minimum, the riparian habitat conservation areas must 

include the area from the edges of the stream channel or 

wetland, to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential 

tree, or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

Road A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified 

and managed as a trail.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 657

Term Definition

Road Construction FSM 7705 defines road construction or reconstruction 

together as the supervising, inspecting, actual building, and 

incurrence of all costs incidental to the construction or 

reconstruction of a road (36 CFR 212.1).

Road Decommissioning Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of 

unneeded roads to a more natural state.

Road Maintenance The objective of road maintenance is to provide for safe and 

efficient travel; access for administration, utilization and 

protection of NFS lands; and protection of the environment, 

adjacent resources, and public investment (FSM 7730.2).

The term road maintenance is defined at FSM 7705 as the 

“ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to maintain or restore 

the road in accordance with its road management objectives 

(FSM 7714).”

FSH 7709.59 62.1 describes the scope of road maintenance to 

“include any expenditure in the repair or upkeep of a road 

necessary to perpetuate the road and provide for its safe use. 

Work items may include surface rock replacement, seal coats 

and asphalt overlays, bridge replacement, slide removal, and 

other items that contribute to the preservation of the existing 

road. Road maintenance is not intended to substantially 

improve conditions above those originally constructed; 

however, there may be a need for adding to or modifying the 

original conditions without increasing the service provided. 

Typical examples of this include installing additional minor 

culverts and traffic control devices, implementing traffic 

management strategies, placing small quantities of spot 

surfacing, and revegetating cut and fill slopes.”

Road Reconstruction FSM 7705 defines road construction or reconstruction 

together as the supervising, inspecting, actual building, and 

incurrence of all costs incidental to the construction or 

reconstruction of a road (36 CFR 212.1).

In practical terms, road reconstruction is conducted when the 

required work items to maintain or restore a road to its RMOs 

exceed what is expected during routine road maintenance. 

Additionally, work performed to upgrade the road’s service 

level above that for which it was originally constructed, to 

accommodate commercial haul or meet the needs of 

additional traffic, to realign an existing road for water quality 

protection, or to repair a road after natural disaster would be 

considered reconstruction.

Roadless Area See Inventoried Roadless Area
Chapter 6. Glossary 

658 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Salvage Cutting (or Salvage 

Logging)

The removal of dead trees or trees being damaged or dying 

due to injurious agents other than competition, to recover 

value that would otherwise be lost.

Scenic Integrity Objective

(SIO)

The Scenic Integrity Objectives serve as the desired 

conditions for the scenic resources and represent the degree of 

intactness of positive landscape attributes. SIOs are 

categorized into 5 levels. The highest scenic integrity ratings 

are given to those landscapes where valued landscape 

attributes will appear complete with little or no visible 

deviations evident. Lower SIOs are given to those landscapes 

where modifications to the landscape will be more evident. 

Each of the SIOs is defined as follows:

Very High – Landscape is intact with changes resulting 

primarily through natural processes and disturbance regimes.

High – Management activities are unnoticed and the 

landscape character appears unaltered.

Moderate – Management activities are noticeable but are 

subordinate to the landscape character. The landscape appears 

slightly altered.

Low – Management activities are evident and sometimes 

dominate the landscape but are designed to blend with 

surroundings by repeating line, form, color, and texture of 

valued landscape character attributes. The landscape appears 

altered.

Very Low (not used in the revised Plan or this EIS) – Human 

activities of vegetative and landform alterations may 

dominate the original, natural landscape character but should 

appear as natural occurrences when viewed at back-ground 

distances.

Security Habitat An area with low levels of human disturbance. This general 

definition covers most uses of the term security habitat, 

except for elk, which has a specific definition.

Security Habitat (elk) Generally timbered stands on NFS lands at least 250 acres in 

size greater than 0.5 mile away from open motorized routes 

during the hunting season. Security is calculated for 

individual Elk Management Units (EMUs). Roads not open to 

the public for motorized uses during the hunting season are 

not included in this calculation. The effects of non-motorized 

use and/or administrative motorized use of closed or 

temporary roads during the hunting season are not included in 

this calculation and would instead be analyzed separately at 

the project level.

Seral Stage Any stage of development of an ecosystem from a disturbed, 

un-vegetated state to a climax plant community.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 659

Term Definition

Silvicultural Prescription A silvicultural prescription is a written document that 

describes in detail the management activities needed to 

implement a silvicultural treatment or treatment sequence. 

The prescription is based on an examination of the stand 

being proposed for management. The prescription documents 

the results of an analysis of present and anticipated future 

stand conditions and evaluates this in terms of management 

direction. It also describes the desired future vegetation 

conditions in measurable terms.

Silvicultural Systems A planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting, and reestablishing a stand.

Size Class Size class is based on basal area weighted diameter of the 

plot/stand. Weighted diameter is calculated then classification 

is made as follows according to weighted diameter:

Seedling/sapling: 0.0 – 4.9” DBH (if basal area weighted 

diameter is 0.0, must have 100 or more trees per acre)

Small: 5.0 – 9.9”

Medium: 10.0 – 14.9”

Large: 15.0 +

Snag A standing dead tree usually greater than five feet in height 

and six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH).

Soil Erosion The detachment and movement of soil or rock by water, wind, 

ice, or gravity.

Soil Productivity The inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of 

specified plants, plant communities, and soil biota. It is often 

expressed by some measure of biomass accumulation.

Soil Quality The capacity of a specific kind of soil to function, within 

natural or managed ecosystem boundaries, to sustain plant 

and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air 

quality, and support human health and habitation and 

ecosystem health. In short, the capacity of the soil to function. 

There are two aspects of the definition: inherent soil quality 

and dynamic soil quality:

Inherent soil quality: That aspect of soil quality relating to a 

soils natural composition and properties as influenced by the 

factors and processes of soil formation, in the absence of 

human impacts.

Dynamic soil quality: That aspect of soil quality relating to 

soil properties which change as a result of soil use and 

management or over the human time scale.

Special Use Authorization A permit, term permit, lease, or easement that allows 

occupancy, use, rights, or privileges of NFS land.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

660 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Stand A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class 

distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site 

of sufficiently uniform quality to be a distinguishable unit.

Stand Replacement Fire A fire severity classification where at least 75 percent average 

top-kill of vegetation occurs within a typical fire perimeter.

Stressors Any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce 

an adverse response. Stressors can arise from physical and 

biological alternations of natural disturbances, increased 

unmanaged demand for ecosystem services (such as 

recreation), alterations of the surrounding landscape, chemical 

alterations in regional air quality, or from legacy of past 

management actions.

Stronghold Population Directly associated with strong populations. For native fish, 

strong populations have numbers that are stable or increasing, 

and all major life history forms that historically occurred 

within the watershed are present.

Structure (stand) The horizontal and vertical distribution of components of a 

forest stand including: the height, diameter, crown layers, and 

stems of trees, shrubs, herbaceous understory, snags, and 

down woody debris.

Succession The sequential process of long-term plant community change 

and development that occurs following a disturbance.

Suitable Habitat Habitat that currently has both the fixed and variable stand 

attributes for a given species habitat requirements. Variable 

attributes change over time and may include seral stage, cover 

type, and overstory canopy cover.

Suitability The appropriateness of a particular area of land for applying 

certain resource management practices to a particular area of 

land, as determined by an analysis of the existing resource 

condition and the social, economic, and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land 

may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined 

management practices.

Suppression The work of extinguishing a fire or confining fire spread.

Sustainability Meeting needs of the present generation without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their 

needs. Sustainability is composed of desirable social, 

economic, and ecological, economic conditions or trends 

interacting at varying spatial and temporal scales embodying 

the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 661

Term Definition

Take Regarding species listed under the Endangered Species Act: 

To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.

Temporary Road or Trail A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or 

authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written 

authorization that is not a forest road or a forest trail and that 

is not included in a forest transportation atlas.

Threatened Species Any species that is likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range and which the appropriate Secretary has 

designated as a threatened species.

Timber Harvest The removal of trees for wood fiber utilization and other 

multiple-use purposes.

Timber Production The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and 

regeneration of regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, 

bolts, or other round sections for industrial or consumer use. 

In addition, managing land to provide commercial timber 

products on a regulated basis with planned, scheduled entries.

Total Motorized Route 

Density

Calculations made with the moving windows technique that 

includes open roads, restricted roads, roads not meeting all 

reclaimed criteria, and open motorized trails. The percent of 

the analysis area in relevant route density classes is 

calculated.

Traditional Cultural Areas Those areas of the forest used by American Indians for 

traditional activities and often referred to as “religious use 

areas” or “sacred areas.” They may include areas traditionally 

used for gathering of special forest products.

Trail A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches 

wide that is identified and managed as a trail.

Transitory Range Rangelands not normally suitable for livestock grazing which 

have been made suitable for a period of time by a 

management action. In the Forest Service, this mostly pertains 

to areas that have been logged and provide forage for one or 

two decades until the trees return at high densities.

Travel Corridors An area of vegetation that provides completely or partially 

suitable habitat for animals to travel from one location to 

another.

Ungulate A hoofed mammal such as a deer or elk.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

662 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Use of Wildland Fire Management of either wildfire or prescribed fire to meet 

resource objectives specified in Land/Resource Management 

Plans.

Utility Corridor A parcel of land, without fixed limits or boundaries that is 

being used as the location for one or more transportation or

utility rights-of-way.

Vegetation Management Activities designed primarily to promote the health of forest 

vegetation in order to achieve desired results. When 

vegetation is actively managed, it means that it is manipulated 

or changed on purpose by humans to produce desired results. 

Where active management of vegetation is required, 

techniques are based on the latest scientific research and 

mimic natural processes as closely as possible. Vegetation 

management is the practice of manipulating the species mix, 

age, fuel load, and/or distribution of wildland plant 

communities within a prescribed or designated management 

area in order to achieve desired results. It includes prescribed 

burning, the use of unplanned fire ignitions, grazing, chemical 

applications, biomass harvesting, and any other economically 

feasible methods of enhancing, retarding, modifying, 

transplanting, or removing the aboveground parts of plants.

Vegetation Response Unit Units of land with vegetative communities that have broadly 

similar disturbance responses and succession pathways, and 

that produce similar landscape-scale vegetation patterns. 

Vegetative response units are typically groups of habitat types 

aggregated by landform and topographic characteristics that 

regulate disturbance regimes and succession response. 

Historically lands within a given vegetative response unit

were subject to broadly similar disturbance regimes.

Water Quality Limited 

Segment

A stretch or area of surface water where technology-based 

controls are not sufficient to prevent violations of waterquality standards. In such cases, new permit limitations are 

based on ambient-water-quality considerations. See also, 

303(d) segments.

Watershed A geographic area of land, water, and biota within the 

confines of a drainage divide. The total area above a given 

point of a water body that contributes flow to that point.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 663

Term Definition

Watershed Condition

Rating

The state of the watershed based on physical and 

biogeochemical characteristics and processes (such as, 

hydrologic, geomorphic, landscape, topographic, vegetative 

cover, and aquatic habitat), water flow characteristics and 

processes (such as volume and timing), and water quality 

characteristics and processes (such as chemical, physical, and 

biological) as they affect water quality and water resources.

Low: Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and 

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. 

The drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical, 

and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian 

systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting 

beneficial uses.

Moderate: Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, 

hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural 

potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an 

unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biologic 

conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are 

at risk in being able to support beneficial uses.

High: Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and 

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. A 

majority of the drainage network may be unstable. Physical, 

chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, riparian, 

and aquatic systems do not support beneficial uses.

Wetlands Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water 

with a frequency sufficient to support, and under normal 

circumstances do or would support a prevalence of vegetation 

or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated 

soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas 

such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud 

flats, and natural ponds.

Wildfire An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire including unauthorized 

human-caused fires, escaped wildland fire use events, escaped 

prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires where the 

objective is to put the fire out.

Wildland Fire A general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in 

the wildland. Two distinct types of wildland fire have been 

defined and include planned ignitions (prescribed fire) and 

natural, unplanned fire (wildfire). See also planned ignitions 

and natural, unplanned fire.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

664 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Term Definition

Wildland Urban Interface 

(WUI)

The term “wildland urban interface” means either:

(A) An area within or adjacent to an at-risk community that is 

identified in recommendations to the Secretary in a 

community wildfire protection plan and/or under the “Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act”; or

(B) In the case of any area for which a community wildfire 

protection plan is not in effect:

(i) An area extending 1⁄2-mile from the boundary of an 

at-risk community;

(ii) An area within 11⁄2 miles of the boundary of an atrisk community, including any land that:

(I) Has a sustained steep slope that creates the 

potential for wildfire behavior endangering 

the at-risk community;

(II) Has a geographic feature that aids in 

creating an effective fire break, such as a road 

or ridge top; or

(III) Is in condition class 3, as documented by 

the Secretary in the project-specific 

environmental analysis; and

(iii) An area that is adjacent to an evacuation route for 

an at-risk community that the Secretary determines, in 

cooperation with the at-risk community, requires 

hazardous fuel reduction to provide safer evacuation 

from the at-risk community.

Winter Range The area available to and used by wildlife (big game) during 

the winter season (Dec 1 to April 30). Generally, lands below 

4,000 feet in elevation, on south and west aspects, that 

provides forage and cover.
Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 665

Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Abella, S. R., Covington, W. W., Fulé, P. Z., Lentile, L. B., Sánchez Meador, A. J., and Morgan, 

P. (2007). Past, present, and future old growth in frequent-fire conifer forests of the western 

United States. Ecology and Society 12:16.

Agee, J.K. (2004). The complex nature of mixed severity fire regimes. In L. Taylor, J. Zelnik, S. 

Cadwallader, & B. Hughes (Eds.), Mixed severity fire regimes: Ecology and Management, 

Symposium Proceedings November 17–19, 2004. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 12 

p.

Agee, J. K. and Skinner, C. N. (2005). Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management 211:83-96

Ager, A. A., Finney, M. A., & Vaillant, N. M. (2010). A comparison of landscape fuel treatment 

strategies to mitigate wildland fire risk in the urban interface and preserve old forest structure. 

Forest ecology and management, 259(8), 1556-1570.

Allen, L. R. (1998a). Distribution, habitat use, and food habits of translocated woodland caribou 

in the Selkirk Mountains of Idaho and British Columbia. A report for the Idaho Panhandle 

National Forest. 52 p.

Allen, L. R. (1998b). An updated habitat suitability index for woodland caribou. Idaho Panhandle 

National Forest, Coeur d’Alene. 

Allen, L. R. (1999). The effects of 115 years of vegetation change on woodland caribou habitat in 

the Selkirk Mountains of Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 39 pp.

Allen, L. R. (2001). Woodland caribou habitat on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests and the 

Idaho Department of Lands, Selkirk Mountains: status January 2001. Report for the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests. 24 pp.

Allen, L. R., Lyndaker, B. R., and Harris, G. D. (2011). A review of the Wakkinen and Kasworm 

(1997) report as best available science for the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Zones. Unpublished whitepaper. 32pp.

Allen, L. and Deiter, D. (1993). Woodland Caribou Habitat Suitability Index. Idaho Panhandle 

National Forest and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 16 p.

Allen, L. and Hayden, J. (2013). Personal communication regarding elk security and the impact 

of predation and motorized road access. Dated May 24, 2013.

Almack, J.A. (1985). An evaluation of grizzly bear habitat in the Selkirk mountains of north 

Idaho. (Master’s thesis). University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Almack, J. A. (1998). Mountain caribou recovery in the southern Selkirk Mountains of 

Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia. Progress Report for October 1998—March 2000. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Section 6 Contract No. E-1-45. Olympia, WA. 33 

pp.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

666 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Almack, J. A. (2000). Mountain caribou recovery in the southern Selkirk Mountains of 

Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia. Progress Report for October 1998—March 2000. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Section 6 Contract No. E-1-45. Olympia, WA. 33 

pp.

Alward, G., Hokans, R., Marshall, R., Niccolucci, M., Redmond, C., Smith, D., & Winter, S. 

(2010, July). Economic impact technical guide. 138 p. Retrieved from 

http://fsweb.ftcol.wo.fs.fed.us/PAG/Economics_Center/software/FEAST.shtml. (27 September 

2011).

American Wildlands. (2008). Priority linkage assessment: Executive summary of the CabinetPurcells, Crown of the Continent, and High Divide Conservation project areas. Bozeman, MT. 12 

p.

Andrusak, H. (1980). Kootenai River white sturgeon. Unpublished Report. Nelson, British 

Columbia, Canada: Ministry of Environment and Parks, Fish & Wildlife Branch.

Antifeau, T. (1998). Identification of issues involved in the process of developing and applying 

caribou habitat suitability models. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Kootenay 

Region, Nelson. B. C. 26 pp.

Apps, C. D. and McLellan, B. N. (2006). Factors influencing the dispersion and fragmentation of 

endangered mountain caribou populations. Biological Conservation 130:84-97.

Apps, C.D., McLellan, B. N., Kinley, T.A., Serrouya, R., Seip, D. R., and Wittmer, H. U. 

(2013 in press). Spatial factors related to mortality and population decline of endangered 

mountain caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management. Received 29 July 2012; Accepted 28 

May 2013

Apperson, K.A. (1992). Kootenai River white sturgeon investigations and experimental culture: 

Annual progress report FY1991. Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Bonneville Power 

Administration, Contract DE-A179-88BP93497.

Archer, E., Al-Chokhachy, R., Heitke, J., Ebertowski, P., Leary, R., Romano, T., & Roper, B. 

(2009). PACFISH INFISH biological opinion effectiveness monitoring program for streams and 

riparian areas: 2009 annual summary report.

Arno, S. (1980). Forest fire history in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry, 78(8): 460-465.

Arno, S. F., and Davis, D. H. (1980). Fire history of western redcedar/hemlock forests in northern 

Idaho. Pp. 21-26 in Proceedings of the fire history workshop. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report, RM-81.

Arno, S. F., H. Smith, and M. Krebs. (1997). Old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stand 

structures: Influences of pre-1900 fire exclusion. Res. Pap. INT-RP-495. Ogden UT:U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.20.p

Arno, S.F., Parsons, D.J., & Keane, R.E. (2000). Mixed-severity fire regimes in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains: Consequences of fire exclusion and options for the future. In D.N. Cole, S.F. 

McCool, W.T. Borrie, & J. O’Loughlin (Eds.), Wilderness science in a time of change conference 

– volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management 1999 May 23-27 Missoula, MT. 

RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 8 p.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 667

Asher, J., Dewey, S., Johnson, C., & Olivarez, J. (2000). Protecting relatively uninfested lands: 

Reducing weed spread following fire. Resource Notes No. 52. Denver, CO: National Science & 

Technology Center. Available from: http://www.blm.gov/nstc/resourcenotes/rn52.html. (27 

September 2011).

Atkins, D., Byler, J.W., Livingston, L., Rogers, P., & Dayle, B. (1999). Health of Idaho’s forests: 

A summary of conditions, issues and implications. Report No. 99-4. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest 

Service, Northern Region, Forest Health Protection. 50 p.

Aubry, K. B. (2005). Fisher conservation in the Pacific States: field data meet genetics. Science 

Findings Issue 70, February 2005. Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Aubry, K. B., and Raley, C. M. (2002). The Pileated Woodpecker as a Keystone Habitat Modifier 

in the Pacific Northwest. p. 257-274 in Laudenslayer, William F.; Shea, Patrick J.; Valentine, 

Bradley E.; Weatherspoon, C. Phillip; Lisle, Thomas E. Proceedings of the symposium on the 

ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. 1999 November 2-4; Reno, NV. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture; 949 p

Aune, K. A. and Kasworm, W. (1989). Final report: east front grizzly studies. Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, MT. 332 pp.

Aune, K and Stivers, T. (1983). Rocky Mountain front grizzly bear monitoring and investigation. 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, MT. 143 pp.

Ausband, D. E. and Baty, G. R. (2005). Effects of precommercial thinning on snowshoe hare 

habitat use during winter in low-elevation montane forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

35:206-210.

Avian Science Center. (2008). Northern Region Landbird Monitoring Program: 2008 

Flammulated Owl Surveys Final Report. Prepared by K. Smucker, A. Cilimburg, and M. Fylling. 

University of Montana.24p. 

Banci, V. (1994). Wolverine. Pp. 99-127. In: Ruggiero, L. F.; K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, J.L. 

Lyon, J. William, tech eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: 

American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 

Barrett, S. W. and Arno, S.F. (1991). Classifying fire regimes and defining their topographic 

controls in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. A paper presented at the 11th conference on Fire 

and Forest Meteorology, Missoula, MT.

Barrett, S.W., Arno, S.F., & Menakis, J.P. (1997, October). Fire episodes in the inland northwest 

(1540-1940) based on fire history data. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-370. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 17 p.

Bartholow, J.M. (2005). Recent water temperature trends in the Lower Klamath River, California. 

North American journal of Fisheries Management, 25, 152-162.

Bauhus, J., Puettmann, K., and Messier, C.. (2009). Silviculture for old-growth attributes. Forest 

Ecology and Management 258:525-537
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

668 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Beamesderfer R. C. P., Justice C., Paragamian V. L., Rust P. and Ireland, S. (2009) Kootenai 

sturgeon population status update. Report to Kootenai River Recovery Team and Bonneville 

Power Administration. S. P. Cramer and Associates, Gresham, OR

Behnke, R.J. (1992). Cutthroat trout of the Columbia and Missouri Basins, westslope cutthroat 

trout. In: Native trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6.

Behnke, R. J. (2002). Trout and salmon of North America. Free Press. (1st ed.). New York, NY: 

Chanticleer Press Ed.

Belsky, A. J., Matzke, A. A., & Uselman, S. S. (1999). Survey of livestock influences on stream 

and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation, 

54(1), 419.

Bentz, B.J., Regniere, J., Fettig, C.J., Hansen, E.M., Hayes, J.L., Hicke, J.A., ... & Seybold, S.J. 

(2010, September). Climate change and bark beetles of the Western United States and Canada: 

Direct and indirect effects. BioScience, 60(8), 602-613. Retrieved from: 

http://www.usu.edu/beetle/documents/Bentzetal_2010.pdf. (27 September 2011).

Bergerud, A.T. (1978, November 1). The status and management of caribou in British Columbia. 

Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Recreation and Conservation. 134 p.

Bergerud, A.T. and Ballard, W.B. (1988). Wolf predation on caribou: The Nelchina Herd case 

history, a different interpretation. Journal of Wildlife Management 52: 344-357.

Bingham, R.T., Hoff, R.J., McDonald, G.I. (1971). Disease resistance in forest trees. Annual 

Review of Phytopathology 9: 433-452.

Birds of North America. [BNA] (2011). Available at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna

Birdsey, R.A. (1992, August). Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest 

ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-59. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 51 p.

Bissell, G. (2005). Third annual common loon report 2002-2004. Draft. Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks. Helena, MT. 17 pp. plus attachments.

Blate, G.M., Joyce, L.A., Littell, J.S., McNulty, S.G., Millar, C.I., Moser, S.C., ... & Peterson, 

D.L. (2009). Adapting to climate change in United States national forests. Unasylva, 60(231/232), 

57-62.

Bloomfield, M.I. (1979). The ecology and status of mountain caribou and caribou range in central 

British Columbia. M.Sc. thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton. 318p.

Bollenbacher, B. & Hahn, B. (2008, September). USFS Northern Region old growth management 

considerations. USDA Forest Service. 21 p.

Bollenbacher, B., Bush, R., & Lundberg, R. (2009). Estimates of snag densities for northern 

Idaho forests in the northern region: Region one vegetation classification, mapping, inventory and 

analysis report. Numbered Report 09-06 v1.3.

Bollenbacher, B. (2010, June 7). Pattern of vegetation matters on the KIPZ. Unpublished report. 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 18 p.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 669

Bonn, J., Dixon, B. Kennedy, E. and Pengeroth, D. (2007). Black-backed woodpecker northern 

region overview. Key findings and project considerations. USDA Forest Service, Northern 

Region, Missoula, MT. 41 pp

Bowker, M., Starbuck, C.M., English, D.B.K, Bergstrom, J.C., Rosenberger, R.S., & McCollum, 

D.W. (2009). Estimating the net economic value of national forest recreation: An application of 

the national visitor use monitoring database. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia, Department 

of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 222 p.

Boyce, M. S. (1991). Migratory behavior and management of elk (Cervus elaphus). Applied 

Animal Behaviour Science, 29: 239-250.

Brewer, C.K., Berglund, D., Barber, J.A., Bush, R., & Tripp, J. (2004, April). Northern region 

vegetation mapping project summary report and spatial datasets. USDA Forest Service, Northern 

Region.

Briana C., Lindh, B. C., Muir, P. S. (2004). Understory vegetation in young Douglas-fir forests: 

does thinning help restore old-growth composition? Forest Ecology and Management 192:285–

296.

Brinkley, D., Sisk, T., Chambers, C., Springer, J., and Block, W. (2007). The role of old-growth 

forests in frequent fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12:18

British Columbia Ministry of Environment. (2008). The 2008-2009 hunting and trapping 

regulations synopsis. 120 pp.

Brown, C.J.D. (1971). Fishes of Montana. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Books.

Brown, J.K., & Smith, J.K. (Eds.). (2000, December). Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire 

on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-volume 2. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 257 p.

Buehler, D. A. (2000). Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), The Birds of North America 

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North 

America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506doi:10.2173/bna.506

Burger, J.A. & Kelting, D.L. (1999). Using soil quality indicators to assess forest stand

management. Forest Ecology and Management, 122, 155-166.

Burns, R.M., & Honkala, B.H. (Eds.). (1990). Silvics of North America: 1.) Conifers, 2.) 

Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 877 p.

Bush, R., Berglund, D., Leach, A., Lundberg, R., & Zack, A. (2007, May 16). Estimates of old 

growth for the northern region and national forests. Numbered Report 07-06 v1.2. Missoula, MT: 

USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Forest and Range Management.

Bush, R. & Lundberg, R. (2006, April 11). Estimates of old growth percentages and snag density 

on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. Numbered Report 06-07. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest 

Service, Region 1, Forest and Range Management. 4 p.

Bush, R., & Lundberg, R. (2008, September 2). Wildlife habitat estimate updates for the region 1 

conservation assessment. Numbered Report 08-04 v1.0. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, 
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

670 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Region 1, Forest and Range Management. 22 p. Retrieved from: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5130739.pdf. (27 September 2011).

Bush, R. and Reyes, B. (2013a). Estimates of Old Growth on the Idaho Panhandle National 

Forest. Region 1 Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis Report # 13-5 v1.0. 

Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Renewable Resource Management

Bush, R., B. Reyes. (2013b). Future Old Growth Estimates for the Idaho Panhandle National 

Forest. Region 1 Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis Report # 13-7 v1.1. 

Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Renewable Resource Management.

Buskirk, S. W., Ruggiero, L. F., and Krebs, C. J. (2000). Fragmentation and interspecific 

competition: implications for lynx conservation. Chapter 4 In Ruggiero, L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. 

Buskirk, et al., tech. eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of 

Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp.

Byler, J. W. and S. K. Hagle. (2000). Succession functions of pathogens and insects. Ecoregion 

sections M332a and M333d in northern Idaho and western Montana. Summary. USDA Forest 

Service, State and Private Forestry. R1-FHP 00-09. 37 pp.

Caissie, D. D. (2006). The thermal regime of rivers: a review. Freshwater Biology, 51(8), 1389-

1406.

Camp, Ann E. (2001). A sustainable alternative to administrative set-asides for providing latesuccessional forest habitat in fire-regulated landscapes. Proceedings of the Management of Fire 

Maintained Ecosystems Workshop. May 23-24, 2000 Whistler, BC. Hosted by the BC Ministry of 

Forests and the Forestry Continuing Studies Network. p. 21-23

Camp, Ann E.; Hessburg, P. F.; Everett, R. L. (1996). Dynamically incorporating latesuccessional forest in sustainable landscapes. In: Hardy, Colin C.; Arno, Stephen F., eds. 1996. 

The use of fire in forest restoration. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-341. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 86 p.

Camp, A., Oliver, C., Hessburg, P., and Everett, R.. (1997). Predicting late-successional fire 

refugia pre-dating European settlement in the Wenatchee Mountains. Forest Ecology and 

Management 95: 63-77

Camp, A. E.; Tyrrell, M.L., Kramme, L., Karanian, J., and Thompson, C. (2006). Scientific Basis 

for Forest Mangement in the U.S. Inland West, A literature Review. Global Institute of 

Sustainable Forestry (GISF), School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. P. 

124. Research Paper

Canepa, S., Annis, K. and Kasworm, W. (2008). Public Opinion and Knowledge Survey of 

Grizzly Bears in the Cabinet Yaak Ecosystem. Final Report. 88 pp.

Canfield, J.E., Lyon, L. J., Hillis, J. M., and Thompson, M. J. (1999). Ungulates. Pages 6.1-6.25 

in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife. A 

Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of the 

Wildlife Society. 307 p. http://www.montanatws.org

Carey, A.B., (2003). Restoration of landscape function: reserves or active management? Forestry 

76, 221–230.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 671

Carlson, J.C. (2004). Rare, local, little known and declining North American breeders – Harlequin 

duck. Birding, April 2004. pp. 166-176. American Birding Association. Colorado Springs, CO.

Carroll, C., Noss, R. F. and Paquet, P. C. (2001). Carnivores as focal species for conservation 

planning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications, 11(4): 961-980.

Casola, J.H., J.E. Kay, A.K. Snover, R.A. Norheim, L. C. (2005). Whitely Binder and the Climate 

Impacts Group. Climate Impacts on Washington’s Hydropower, Water Supply, Forests, Fish, and 

Agriculture. A report prepared for King County (Washington) by the Climate Impacts Group 

(Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and 

Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle).

Cassirer E. F., Groves, C.R. & Genter, D. L. (1994). Coeur d’Alene salamander conservation 

assessment. Helena, MT: USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 62 p.

Cassirer, E.F., Reichel, J.D., Wallen, R.L., & Atkinson, E. (1996). Harlequin duck (Histrionicus 

histrionicus) habitat conservation assessment and conservation strategy for the U.S. Rocky 

Mountains. Unpublished technical report, on file with Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 3316 

16th St., Lewiston, ID 83501. 53 p. + appendices.

Chadde, S.W., Kimball, S.F., Evenden, A.G.(1996). Research Natural Areas of the Northern 

Region: Status and Needs Assessment. Natural Areas Program, USDA Forest Service Northern 

Region/Intermountain Research Station. 179 p.

Chadde, S.W., Shelly, S.J., Bursik, R.J., Moseley, R.K., Evenden, A.G., Mantas, M., ... & Heidel, 

B.L. (1998). Peatlands on national forests of the northern Rocky Mountains: Ecology and 

conservation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-11. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 75 p.

Chapin III, F., Torn, M. S., & Tateno, M. (1996). Principles of ecosystem sustainability. American 

Naturalist, 148(6), 1016-1037.

Chatters, J.C. & Leavell, D. (1994). Smeads bench bog: A 1500-year history of fire and 

succession in the Hemlock Forest of the Lower Clark Fork Valley, Northwest Montana. Contract 

Number RFQ 14-93-05. Libby, MT: USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest.

Chew, J. (2012). Final Report, Updating SIMPPLLE for the KIPZ Planning Zone. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Christensen, A. G., Lyon, L. J., and Unsworth, J. W. (1993). Elk Management in the Northern 

Region: Considerations in Forest Plan Updates or Revisions. USDA, FS, Int.Mtn. Res. Sta. GTR 

INT-303. 10 pp.

Christy, R. E. and West, S. D. (1993). Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rept. 

PNW-GTR-308. Portland, Or. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 pp. 

(Huff et al. tech. Coords. Biology and Management of old-growth forests).

Cichowski, D., Kinley, T. and Churchill, B. (2004). Caribou, Rangifer tarandus. The Identified 

Wildlife Management Strategy (version 2004). Accounts and measures for managing identified 

wildlife. British Columbia (B.C.) Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Victoria, B.C. 29 

pp.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

672 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Ciuti, S., Northrup, J. M., Muhly, T. B., Simi, S., Musiani, M., Pitt, J. A. and Boyce, M. S. (2012). 

Effects of human behavior of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear 

(available online at 

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0050611)

Claar, J.J., Bertram, T., Naney, R., Warren, N., & Ruediger, W. (2003). Wildlife linkage areas: An 

integrated approach for Canada lynx. Unpublished report on file with UC Davis, John Muir 

Institute of the Environment, Road Ecology Center, Davis, CA 95616.

Clark, J. R. (2000). Federal Register: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the 

Canada Lynx and Related Rule; Final Rule. Federal Register, March 24, 2000, v 65(58): 16051-

16086

Clayton J.L., Kellogg, G., & Forrester, N. (1987). Soil disturbance-tree growth relations in central 

Idaho clearcuts. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-372. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.

Cleland, D.T., Avers, P.E., McNab, W.H., Jensen, M.E., Bailey, R.G., King, T., & Russell, W.E. 

(1997). National hierarchical framework of ecological units. In M.S. Boyce & A. Haney (Eds.). 

Ecosystem management applications for sustainable forest and wildlife resources (pp. 181-200). 

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Clevenger, A.P., & Wierzchowski, J. (2006). Maintaining and restoring connectivity in landscapes 

fragmented by roads. In K.R. Crooks & M. Sanjayan, Connectivity conservation (pp. 505-506). 

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 712 p.

Colburn, K., Bosse, S., Byorth, P., Frissell, C., Randall, B., & Christensen, S. (2011). Wild and 

scenic river eligibility report. (May 20, 2011) Campaign for Montana’s Headwaters. 84 p.

Cole,D., & Landres, P. (1995). Effects of Fire Management on Wilderness. Ecological 

Applications, Ecological Society of America. 3-25.

Coleman, M., & Fausch, K. (2007). Cold summer temperature limits recruitment of age-0 

cutthroat trout in high-elevation Colorado streams. American Fisheries Society. Transactions, 

136(5), 1231-1244.

Collins, B. M., Miller, J. D., Thode, A. E., Kelly, M., van Wagtendonk, J. W., & Stephens, S. L. 

(2008). Interactions among wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada natural fire area. 

Ecosystems, 12(1), 114-128.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC]. (2001). COSEWIC 

assessment and updated status report on the flammulated owl Otus flammeolus in Canada. 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi+24pp. 

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC]. (2002). COSEWIC 

assessment and update status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus in Canada.

Ottawa, Ontario. 98 pp.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada [COSEWIC]. (2003). COSEWIC 

assessment and update status report on the wolverine Gulo gulo in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 41 

pp.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 673

Contreras, G. P. and Evans, K. E. (editors). (1986). Proceedings: Grizzly bear habitat symposium. 

USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. General Technical Report INT-207. 252 

pp.

Cooper, S V., Neiman, K. E., and Roberts, D.W. (1991). Forest Habitat Types of Northern Idaho: 

A Second Approximation. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. General 

Technical Report INT-236

Copeland, J. (1996). Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. Masters thesis, University of 

Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 138pp.

Copeland, J.P., Peek, J.M., Groves, C.R., Melquist, W.E., McKelvey, K.S., McDaniel, G.W., 

Long, C.D. & Harris, C. E. (2007). Seasonal Habitat Associations of the Wolverine in Central 

Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(7), 2201-2212.

Copeland, J. P., McKelvey, K. S., Aubry, K. B., Landa, A, Persson, J., Inman, R. M., Krebs, J., 

Lofroth, E., Golden, H., Squires, J. R., Magoun, A., Schwartz, M. K., Wilmot, J., Copeland, C. L., 

Yates, R. E., Kojola, I. and May, R. (2010). The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo 

gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Canadian Journal of Zoology. 88: 

233-246.

Corn, P., Jennings, M. L., & Muths, E. (1997). Survey and assessment of amphibian populations 

in Rocky Mountain National Park. Northwestern Naturalist, 78(1), 34-55.

Costanza, R., & D'Arge, R. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural 

capital. (Cover story). Nature, 387(6630), 253-260.

Council on Environmental Quality. (1993). Incorporating biodiversity considerations into 

environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on 

Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC. 38pp.

Courtois, R., Ouellet, J. P., Breton, L., Gingras, A. and Dussault, C. (2007). Effects of forest 

disturbance on density, space use, and mortality of woodland caribou. Ecoscience 14(4):491-498.

Craigg, T.L. & Howes, S.W. (2007). Assessing quality in volcanic ash soils. In: D.S. PageDumroese, R.E. Miller, & J. Mital (Eds.) Volcanic-ash-derived forest soils of the Inland 

Northwest: Properties and implications for management and restoration. Proceedings. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-P-44. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Craighead, F. C., Jr., and Craighead, J. J. (1972). Grizzly bear pre-hibernation and denning 

activities as determined by radio-tracking. Wildlife Monographs No. 32. 35 pp.

Czaplewski, R.L. (2004). Application of forest inventory and analysis (FIA) data to estimate the 

amount of old growth forest and snag density in the Northern Region of the National Forest 

System. Unpublished report, on file with USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fort Collins, CO. 13 p.

Daily, G.C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, P.R., Goulder, L., Lubchenco, J., Matson, P.A., ... & 

Woodwell, G.M. (1997). Ecosystem services: Benefits supplied to human societies by natural 

ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 18 p.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

674 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

De Leo, G. A., & Levin, S. (1997). The Multifaceted Aspects of Ecosystem Integrity. 

Conservation Ecology (11955449), 1(1), 3.

Degroot, L. and Wakkinen, W. (2012). 2012 Woodland caribou census, South Selkirk Mountains. 

Internal Report. 6 pp.

Degroot, L., Wakkinen, W., Clarke R., and Hill, T. (2011). 2011 Woodland caribou census, South 

Selkirk Mountains. Internal Report. 8 pp.

Dixon, R. D. and Saab, V. A. (2000). Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), The Birds of 

North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the 

Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/

Dolan, P.M. (1994). The common loon (Gavia immer) in the northern region: biology and 

management recommendations. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service. Region 1. 76pp.

Donald D.B. & Alger, D.J. (1993). Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche 

overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 71(2), 238-

247.

Dorrance, M. J., Savage, P. J. and Huff, D. E. (1975). Effects of snowmobiles on white-tailed 

deer. Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 39(3): 563-569.

Drever, C., Peterson, G., Messier, C., Bergeron, Y., & Flannigan, M. (2006). Can forest 

management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research, 36(9), 2285-2299.

Dumont, A. (1993). The impact of hikers on the caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) of the 

Gaspesie Conservation Park. M.S. Thesis, Laval University. Quebec. 80 pp.

Dunham, J., Rieman, B., & Chandler, G. (2003). Influences of temperature and environmental 

variables on the distribution of bull trout within streams at the southern margin of its range. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23(3), 893-904.

Dunham, J., G. Vineyard, and B. Rieman. (1997). Habitat Fragmentation and Extinction Risk of 

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:1126-

1133.American Fisheries Society. 8pp.

Dunham, J. B., Rosenberger, A. E., Luce, C. H., & Rieman, B. E. (2007). Influences of wildfire 

and channel reorganization on spatial and temporal variation in stream temperature and the 

distribution of fish and amphibians. Ecosystems, 10(2), 335-346.

Dyer, S. J., O’Neill, J. P., Wasel, S. M. and Boutin, S. (2002). Quantifying barrier effects of roads 

and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Canadian 

Journal of Zoology 80:839-845.

Dykstra, P.R. and M.P. Curran. (2002). Skid road recontouring in Southeast British Columbia, 7-

year Tree growth results. Res. Br., B.C. Ministry of Forestry, Victoria, BC. Technical Report 001.

Eckstein, R. G., O’Brien, T. F., Rongstad, O. J. and Bollinger, J. G. (1979). Snowmobile effects 

on movements of white-tailed deer: a case-study. Environmental Conservation, v. 6(1): 45-52
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 675

Ecosystem Research Group.(ERG) (2012). Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the Kootenai and 

Idaho Panhandle Plan Revision Zone (KIPZ). Missoula, MT 114 p

Egan, D. (2007). Conserving and restoring old growth in frequent-fire forests: cycles of 

disruption and recovery. Ecology and Society 12:23

Elzinga, C.L., & Shearer, R.C. (1997, August). Vegetation structure in old-growth stands in the 

Coram Research Natural Area in northwestern Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-364. Ogden, 

UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p.

Erickson, B., Hamilton, J., Errecart, J., Slaughter, S., Wrobleski, D., Kennedy, B., and Tomson, S.

(2007). Lolo National Forest Old Growth Treatments Monitoring Project- Vegetation Effects. 

Unpublished USDA Forest Service Lolo National Forest Monitoring Report

Evans, H.F. (1960). A preliminary investigation of caribou in northwestern United States. 

(Master’s thesis). Bozeman, MT: Montana State University.

Everett, R., Hessburg, P., Lehmkuhl, J., Jensen, M., and Bourgeron, P. (1994). Old forests in 

dynamic landscapes: dry site forests in eastern Oregon and Washington. Journal of Forestry

92:22–25

Evers, D.C. (2004). Status assessment and conservation plan for the common loon (Gavia immer) 

in North America. Hadley, MA: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 84 p. + appendices.

Fausch, K.D., Rieman, B.E., Dunham, J.B., Young, M.K., & Peterson, D.P. (2009). Invasion 

versus Isolation: Trade-Offs in Managing Native Salmonids with Barriers to Upstream 

Movement. Conservation Biology, 23(4), 859-870.

Feinstein, Michael. (2010). An evolving process: protecting spotted owl habitat through landscape 

management. Science Findings 125. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 5 p.

Ferguson, Sue A. (1999). Climatology of the interior Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-445. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 31 p.

Fettig, C. J., Klepzig, K. D., Billings, R. F., Munson, A., Nebeker, T., Negrón, J. F., & Nowak, J. 

T. (2007). The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of 

bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest 

Ecology & Management, 238(1-3), 24-53.

Fettig, C. J., Borys, R. R., McKelvey, S. R., and Dabney C. P. (2008). Blacks Mountain 

Experimental Forest: bark beetle responses to differences in forest structure and the application of 

prescribed fire in interior ponderosa pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38:924-935

Fiedler, C. E., Friederici, P., Petruncio, M., Denton, C., and Hacker, W.D. (2007a). Managing for 

old growth in frequent-fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12:20

Fiedler, C. E., Friederici, P., and Petruncio, M. (2007b). Monitoring old growth in frequent-fire 

landscapes. Ecology and Society 12:22
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

676 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Fiedler, C. E. (2002). Natural process-based management of fire-adapted western forests. 

Published in Small Diameter Timber: Resource Management, Manufacturing, and Markets 

proceedings from conference held February 25-27, 2002 in Spokane, Washington.

Finklin, A.I. (1983). Climate of Priest River Experimental Forest, northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-159. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 53 p.

Finklin, A.I., & Fischer, W.C. (1987). Climate of the Deception Creek Experimental Forest, 

northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-226. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station. 73 p.

Finney, M.A. (2007). A conceptual method for optimizing fuel treatment locations. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire, 16, 702-711.

Finney, M.A., & Cohen, J.D. (2003). Expectation and evaluation of fuel management objectives. 

In P.N. Omi (Ed.), Proceedings of Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Restoration, April 14-17, 

Ft. Collins, CO (pp 353-366). USDA Forest Service.

Fins, L., Byler, J., Ferguson, D., Harvey, A., Mahalovich, M.F., McDonald, G., ... & Zack, A. 

(2001). Return of the giants-restoring white pine ecosystems by breeding and aggressive planting 

of blister rust-resistant white pines. Station Bulletin 72. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 20 p.

Flinn. P. (1956). Caribou of Idaho. Idaho Fish and Game. 103 p.

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. S. 

(2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of 

Ecology, Evolution & Systematics, 35(1), 557-581.

Forman, R. T. T, Sperling, D., Bissonette, J. A., Clevenger, A. P., Cutshall, C. D., Dale, V. H., 

Fahrig, L., France, R., Goldman, C. R., Heanue, K., Jones, J. A., Swanson, F. J., Turrentine, T. 

and Winter, T. C. (2003). Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press. Washington. 481pp.

Fox. J. F. (1978). Forest fires and the snowshoe hare-Canada lynx cycle. Oecologia 31:349-374.

Fraley, J. J., & Shepard, B., B. (1989). Life history, ecology and population status of migratory 

bull trout [Salvelinus confluentus] in the Flathead Lake and river system, Montana. Northwest 

Science, 63(4), 133-143.

Franklin, J. F. (1993). Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecological 

Application, 3(2), 202-205.

Franklin, J. F. (2009). Conserving Old-Growth Forests and Attributes: Reservation, Restoration, 

and Resilience. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. 2009. Old growth in a new world: a Pacific 

Northwest Icon Reexamined. Washington, DC: Island Press. 344 p

Freddy, D. J. (1974). Status and Management of the Selkirk Caribou Herd, 1973. A thesis 

presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science major in 

Zoology. University of Idaho. 146 pp.

Freddy, D. (1979). Distribution and movements of Selkirk caribou, 1972-1974. Canadian FieldNaturalist. 93:71-74.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 677

Freddy, D. J., Bronaugh, W. M. and Fowler, M. C. (1986). Responses of mule deer to disturbance 

by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 14(1): 63-68.

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. (1999). Field Guide to Survey and Manage Freshwater Mollusk 

Species. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management State Office, Portland, OR.

Frick, W. F., Pollock, J. F., Hicks, A. C., Langwig, K. E., Reynolds, D. S., Turner, G. G.,

Butchkoski, C. M. and Kunz, T. H. (2010). An emerging disease causes regional population 

collapse of a common North American bat species. Science, v. 329: 679-682.

Froehlich, H.A., & McNabb, D.H. (1983). Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific Northwest 

forests. Forest soils & treatment impacts: proceedings of the sixth North American Forest Soils 

Conference held at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in June 1983, 159-192.

Froehlich, H.A., Robbins, R.W., & Miles, D.R. (1985). Soil bulk density recovery on compacted 

skid trails in central Idaho. Journal - Soil Science Society of America, 49(4), 1015-1017.

Fulé, P. Z.; Crouse, J. E.; Roccaforte, J. P.; and Kalies, E. L. (2012) Do thinning and/or burning 

treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire 

behavior? Forest Ecology & Management, Vol. 269, p68-81, 14p.

Furniss, M.J., Roeloffs, T.D., & Yee. C.S. (1991). Road construction and maintenance. In: W.R. 

Meehan (Ed.), Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fisheries and their 

habitat. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. 28 p.

Gaines, W.L., Haggard, M., Lehmkuhl, J.F., Lyons, A.L., & Harrod, R.J. (2007). Short-term 

response of land birds to ponderosa pine restoration. Restoration Ecology, 15(4), 670-678.

Gaines, W., Lehmkuhl, J., Lyons, A., Haggard, M., & Begley, J. (2010). Short-term effects of 

thinning and burning restoration treatments on avian community composition, density, and nest 

survival in the Eastern Cascades Dry Forests, Washington. Forest Science, 56(1), 88-99.

Gärtner, S. S., Reynolds, K. M., Hessburg, P. F., Hummel, S. S., & Twery, M. M. (2008). 

Decision support for evaluating landscape departure and prioritizing forest management activities 

in a changing environment. Forest Ecology & Management, 256(10), 1666-1676.

Gasaway, W. C., Stephensen, R. O., Davis, J. L., Shepherd, P. and Burris, O. E. (1983). 

Interrelationships of wolves, prey, & man in Interior Alaska. Wildlife Monographs No. 84. 49pp.

Gebert, K.M. & Odell, S. (2007). A descriptive analysis of change in eligibility status for the 

USDA Forest Service economic recovery program. Research Paper RMRS-RP-62WWW. Fort 

Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 32 p.

Genter, D.L. and Jurist, K. A. (1995). Bats of Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program. 

Helena, MT. 

Goggans, R., Dixon, R. D., and Seminara, L. C. (1988). Habitat Use by Three-Toed and BlackBacked Woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. USDA Deschutes National Forest 

Technical Report. 87-3-02. 43pp. Pages 6-12. 8pp.

Graham, P. (1981). Status of white sturgeon in the Kootenai river. Kalispell, MT: Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Unpublished report.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

678 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Graves, T. and Reams, V. (2001). Record of the snowmobile effects on wildlife: monitoring 

protocols workshop. April 10-12, 2011. Denver, Colorado

Green, P., Joy, J., Sirucek, D., Hann, W., Zack, A., & Naumann, B. (1992 errata corrected 12/11). 

Old growth forest types of the Northern Region. Missoula, MT: United States Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 60 p.

Greenwald, D. N., Carlton, J. and Schneider, B. (2000). Petition to list the fisher (Martes 

pennanti) as an endangered species in its West Coast range. 92 pp.

Griffin, P. C. and Mills, L. S. (2007). Precommercial thinning reduces snowshoe hare abundance 

in the short term. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71:559-564.

Groves, C.R., Cassirer, E.F., Genter, D.L., & Reichel, J.D. (1996). Coeur d’Alene Salamander 

(Plethodon idahoensis). Natural Areas Journal, 16, 238-247.

Groves, C. R., Butterfield, B., Lippincott, A., Csuti, B. and Scott, J. M. (1997a). Atlas of Idaho's 

wildlife: integrating Gap Analysis and Natural Heritage information. Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game. 372 pp.

Groves, C., Frederick, T., Frederick, G., Atkinson, E., Atkinson, M., Shepherd, J., & Servheen, G. 

(1997b). Density, distribution and habitat of flammulated owls in Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist, 

57(2), 116-123.

Haak, A.L., Williams, J.E.,Isaak, D.,Todd, A., Muhlfeld, C., Kershner, J.L., Gresswell, R., 

Hostetler, S., & Nevill, H.M. (2010) The potential influence of changing climate on the 

persistence of salmonids of the inland west: U.S.G.S. Open File Report 2010-1236. 74 p.

Hagle, S.K., Johnson, T.L., Stipe, L.E., Schwandt, J.W., Byler, J.W., Kegley, S.J., ... & Lewis, 

L.G. (2000a, July). Succession functions of pathogens and insects: Ecoregion sections M332a and 

M333d in northern Idaho and western Montana: Volume 1 analysis methods. FHP Report No. 00-

10. USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Northern Region. 

153 p.

Hagle, S.K., Schwandt, J.W., Johnson, T.L., Kegley, S.J., Randall, C.S.B., Taylor, J.E., ... & 

Marsden, M.A. (2000b, July). Succession functions of pathogens and insects: Ecoregion sections 

M332a and M333d in northern Idaho and western Montana: Volume 2 results and conclusions. 

FHP Report No. 00-11. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest 

Health Protection, Northern Region. 285 p.

Haig, I.T., Davis, K.P., & Weidman, R.H. (1941). Natural regeneration in the western white pine 

type. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 767.

Hamann, B., Johnston, H., McClelland, P., Johnson, S., Kelly, L. and Gobielle, J. (1999). Birds. 

Pages 3.1-3.34 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky 

Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, 

Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society. 307 pp.

Hammer, B. (2003, April 4). Montana, Idaho, Dakotas national forests and grasslands air quality 

assessment. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service. 36 p. Retrieved from: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5183199.pdf. (27 September 2011).
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 679

Hann, W.J., Bunnell, D.L. (2001). Fire and Land Management Planning and Implementation 

Across Multiple Scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire: Scientific Journal of IAWF. 

10:389-403. International Association of Wildland Fire. CSIRO Publishing. 16pp.

Hansen, L.J., Biringer, J.L, & Hoffman, J.R. (Eds.). (2003, August). Buying time: A user’s 

manual for building resistance and resilience to climate change in natural systems. Berlin: WWF 

Climate Change Program and WWF Global Forest Program. 246 p.

Hanski I. (1999). Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and meta-populations in dynamic 

landscapes. Oikos, 87, 209–219.

Hardy, C.C., Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.M., Samson, N.R. (2001). Spatial Data for National Fire 

Planning and Fuel Management. International Journal of Wildland Fire: Scientific Journal of 

IAWF. 10:353-372. International Association of Wildland Fire. CSIRO Publishing. 21pp.

Harig, A., & Fausch, K. (2002). Minimum habitat requirements for establishing translocated 

cutthroat trout populations. Ecological Applications, 12(2), 535-551.

Haroldson, M. A., Ternent, M. A., Gunther, K. A. and Schwartz, C. C. (2002). Grizzly bear 

denning chronology and movements in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Ursus. 13:29-37

Harrington, M. (2007). Benefits of treating old-growth stands. In: Eco-Report. Missoula, MT: 

Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project: 8

Harris, R.B. (1999, July). Abundance and characteristics of snags in western Montana forests. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-31. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 19 p. Retrieved from: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr031.pdf. (27 September 

2011).

Harvey, A.E., Hessburg, P.F., Byler, J.W., McDonald, G.I., Weatherby, J.C., Wickman, B.E.

(1995). Health declines in western interior forests: symptoms and solutions. In: D.M. 

Baumgartner & R.L. Everett (Eds.). Proceedings ecosystem management in western interior 

forests, 1999 May 3-5, Spokane, WA (pp. 88-99). Pullman, WA: Department of Natural Resource 

Sciences, Washington State University.

Harvey, A. & Morgan, P. (2001). Disturbance ecology in the Northern Rockies: One perspective. 

In: S.J. Barras (Ed.). Proceedings: National silvicultural workshop; 1999 October 5-7; Kalispell, 

MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-19, (pp. 8-10). Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Hash, H. S. (1987). Wolverine. Pp. 574-585 in Novak et al. Wild Furbearer Management and 

Conservation in North America.

Hayden, J., Crenshaw, J., Hickey, C., Rachael, J., Smith, R., Lowe, B., Anderson, C., Class, C., 

Meints, D., Miyasaki, H., and Keegan, T. (2007). Mountain lion. Progress Report. Project W-170-

R-31. 140 p,

Haynes, R. W., Quigley, T. M., Clifford, J. L., & Gravenmier, R. A. (2001). Science and 

ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin. Forest Ecology & Management, 153(1-3), 

3.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

680 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Hayward, G. D., and Verner, J. tech. editors. (1994). Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in 

the United States: a technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. For Collins, 

CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 214 p. 3 maps

Hawe, A., and Delong, D. (1997). Partial cutting and controlled fire to restore old-growth forest 

conditions in the East Kootenay Trench report.

Hawkins, B. A., Field, R., Cornell, H. V., Currie, D. J., Guégan, J., Kaufman, D. M., & ... Turner, 

J. G. (2003). Energy, water, and broad-scale geographic patterns of species richness. Ecology, 

84(12), 3105-3117.

Healey, S. P.; Cohen, W. B.; Spies, T. A.; Moeur, M.; Pflungmacher, D.; Whitley, M. G; and 

Lefsky, M. (2008). The relative impact of harvest and fire upon landscape-level dynamics of older 

forests: Lessons from the Northwest Forest Plan. Ecoystems. 11: 1106-1119

Heard, D. C. and Vagt, K. L. (1998). Caribou in British Columbia: a 1996 status report. Rangifer 

Special Issue 10:117-123.

Hegg, S. J., Murphy, K. and Bjornlie, D. (2010). Squaw basin grizzly den monitoring. BridgerTeton National Forest, Wyoming.

Heinemeyer, K. S. (2012). Central Idaho wolverine and winter recreation study: February 2012 

update. Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana. 4pp.

Heinemeyer, K. S. and Jones, J. L. (1994). Fisher Biology and Management in the Western 

United States: A Literature Review and Adaptive Management Strategy. USDA Forest Service 

Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 50 pp.

Heinemeyer, K. S, and Squires, J. (2012). Idaho wolverine-winter recreation research project: 

investigating the interactions between wolverines and winter recreation, 2011-2012 progress 

report. December 12, 2012. 26 pp.

Henderson, E. (2013). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Region 1. Modeling 

Spectrum Treatments in the SIMPPLLE model. Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Planning Zone. 

July 25, 2013.

Hendricks, P., & Reichel, J.D. (1996). Preliminary amphibian and reptile survey of the Ashland 

District, Custer National Forest: 1995. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 79 p.

Hendricks, P., Jurist, K. A., Genter, D. L. and Reichel, J. D. (1996). Bats of the Kootenai National 

Forest, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 99 pp. 

Hendricks, P. and Maxell, B. A. (2005) Bat surveys on USFS Northern Region lands in Montana: 

2005. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Montana Natural Heritage Program. 

Helena, MT. 12 pp. plus appendices.

Hendricks, P. and Reichel, J. D. (1998). Harlequin duck research and monitoring in Montana: 

1997. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 28 pp.

Hessburg, P. F., Agee, J. K., & Franklin, J. F. (2005). Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland 

Northwest USA: contrasting the landscape ecology of the presettlement and modern eras. Forest 

Ecology and Management, 211(1-2), 117–139.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 681

Hessburg, P.F., Salter, R.B., & James, K.M. (2007). Re-examining fire severity relations in premanagement era mixed conifer forests: Inferences from landscape patterns of forest structure. 

Landscape Ecology (22), 5-24.

Hessburg, P. F., Salter, B. G., Ottmar, R. D., & Alvarado, E. E. (2000). Recent changes (1930s1990s) in spatial patterns of interior northwest forest, USA. Forest Ecology & Management, 

136(1-3), 53.

Hessburg, P.F., Smith, B.G., Kreiter, S.D., Miller, C.A., Salter, R.B., McNicoll, C.H., & Hann, 

W.J. (1999). Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the interior Columbia River 

basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins; Part I: Linking vegetation patterns and 

landscape vulnerability to potential insect and pathogen disturbances. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-458. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 357 p.

Hessl, A. E., Schellhaas, R. R., & McKenzie, D. D. (2004). Drought and pacific decadal 

oscillation linked to fire occurrence in the Inland Pacific Northwest. Ecological applications: a 

publication of the Ecological Society of America, 14(2), 425-442.

Hickman, G. R., Dixon, B. G. and Corn, J. (1999). Small Mammals. Pages 4.1-4.10 In: G. Joslin 

and H. Youmans. The Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review for Montana.

Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 10pp

High, B., Meyer, K. A., Schill, D. J., and Mamer, E. R. J. (2008). Distribution, Abundance, and 

Population Trends of Bull Trout in Idaho North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

28:1687–1701

Hillis, J.M., Thompson, M.J., Canfield, J.E., Lyon, L.J., Marcum, C.L., Dolan, P.M., & 

McCleerey, D.W. (1991). Defining elk security: the Hillis Paradigm. p. 38-43 in Proceedings of a 

symposium on elk vulnerability. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 7 p.

Hillis, M., Jacobs, A. and Wright, V. (2003). USDI Forest Service region one Canada lynx 

assessment. Prepared by the National Fire Plan Cohesive Strategy Team, January 7, 2003. USDI 

Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 24 pp.

Hilty, J. A., Lidicker Jr., W.Z., & Merenlender, A.M. (2006). p. 146 in Corridor ecology: The 

science and practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 323 p.

Hoff, R.J. (1982). Horizontal resistance. In proceedings of service-wide genetics workshop on 

breeding insect and disease resistant forest trees. USDA Forest Service, Washington DC. P 292-

299.

Hoff, R.J. & McDonald, G.I. (1994, March 24). Disease and insect resistance in conifers 

associated with the cedar/hemlock ecosystem. In: D.M. Baumgartner, J.E. Lotan, & J.R. Tonn 

(Eds.), Interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: Ecology and management (pp. 151-155). 

Spokane, WA: Washington State University Cooperative Extension.

Holling, C.S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology & 

Systematics, 41-23.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

682 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Hornocker, M.G. and Hash, H. S. (1981). Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology. 59:1286-1301. 

Holtrop, J. D. (2010). July 28, 2010 Letter to Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, 

IITF Director, Deputy Chiefs, and WO Directors regarding white-nose syndrome. USDA Forest 

Service

Holyan, J., Holder, K., Cronce, J., and Mack, C. (2011). Wolf conservation and management in 

Idaho; progress report 2010. Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Recover Project, P.O. Box 365, Lapwai, Idaho. 

90pp.

Homyack, J. A., Harrison, D. J., and Krohn, W. B. (2007). Effects of precommerical thinning on 

snowshoe hares in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71:4-13

Hutto, R. L. (1995). Composition of bird communities following stand replacement fires in 

Northern Rocky Mountain conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9:1041-1058.

Huston, M.A. (1994). Biological diversity: The coexistence of species and changing landscapes. 

London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Idaho Department of Agriculture. (2005). Idaho invasive plan. Unpublished report prepared for 

the Idaho Invasive Species Council by the Northwest Natural Resource Group-LLC. 103 

pp. http://agri.idaho.gov/Categories/Environment/InvasiveSpeciesCouncil/StrategicActPlan.php.

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (2009). Department of Environmental Quality 

Working Principles and Policies for the 2008 Integrated (303[d]/305[b]) Report. Boise, ID.

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. (2010). 2009 Air Quality Ozone Season Summary 

for the Coeur d’Alene Area. P 1-3 of 43 pages.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. (1995). Saving All the Pieces: Forest Carnivores in Idaho –

Habitat Conservation Assessments and Conservation Strategies. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, 

Nez Perce Tribe and Sawtooth National Forest. 126 pp

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. (1999). Elk management plan: Status and objectives of 

Idaho’s elk resource. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 100 p. Retrieved 

from: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/plans/elk.pdf.

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. (2009). Progress Report: Elk. Project W-170-R-32. Study I, 

Job 1. July 1, 2007- June 30, 2008.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. (2011). 2010 Panhandle Region Fishery Annual Report.

Report Number IDFG 11-117.

Idaho Parks and Recreation. (2006). Recreation next: Idaho’s 2006-2010 statewide 

comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. 396 p. Retrieved 

from: http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/SCORTP/SCORTP%202006-

2010%20Revised.pdf. (27 September 11).
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 683

Idaho Wolf Legislative Oversight Committee. (2002). Idaho wolf conservation and management 

plan. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/state/wolf_plan.pdf. IDFG Boise, Idaho.

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (2007). Climate Change Impacts on Columbia River 

Basin Fish and Wildlife. ISAB 2007-2 Climate Change Report. 146 p.

Inman, R. M., Packila, M. L., Inman, K. H., McCue, A. J., White, G. C., Persson, J., Aber, B. C., 

Orme, M. L., Alt, K. L., Cain, S. L., Fredrick, J. A., Oakleaf, B. J. and Sartorius, S. S. (2012). 

Spatial ecology of wolverines at the southern periphery of distribution. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management, v. 76(4): 778-792

Inman, R. M., Magoun, A. J., Persson, J. and Mattisson, J. (2012b). The wolverine’s niche: 

linking reproductive chronology, caching, competition, and climate. Journal of Mammalogy, v. 

93(3): 634-644.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee [IGBC]. (1986). Interagency grizzly bear guidelines. 

Wyoming Fish and Game; Bureau of Land Management; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; USDA 

Forest Service; National Park Service; Idaho Fish and Game; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; 

and Washington Game Department. 99 p.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee [IGBC]. (1987). Grizzly bear compendium. 540 pp

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee [IGBC]. (1994, updated 1998). IGBC Committee Task 

Force Report on Motorized Access/Grizzly Bear Management.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee. (2011). 2011 

Summary Report: Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee. 14 pp

Interagency Federal Wildland Fire Policy Review Working Group. (2001). Review and update of 

the 1995 federal wildland fire management policy: National fire plan.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). (2011). Available 

at: www.iucnredlist.org. (20 October 2011).

Isaak, D. J., Luce, C. H., Rieman, B. E., Nagel, D. E., Peterson, E. E., Horan, D. L., & ... 

Chandler, G. L. (2010). Effects of climate change and wildfire on stream temperatures and 

salmonid thermal habitat in a mountain river network. Ecological Applications, 20(5), 1350-1371.

Jensen, M.E., Goodman, I.I., Everett, R.R., & Bourgeron, P.P. (1996). Ecosystem management: A 

landscape ecology perspective. Water resources bulletin, 32(2), 203-216.

Johnson, D. R. (1976). Mountain caribou: threats to survival in the Kootenay Pass region, British 

Columbia. Northwest Science 50:97-101.

Johnson, D. R. (1985). Man-caused deaths of mountain caribou, Rangifer tarandus, in 

southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 99:542-544.

Johnson, D.R., Miller, D. R., and Peek, J. M. (1977). Guidelines for human activity within the 

range of mountain caribou, southern Selkirk Mountains. International Caribou Study Steering 

Committee. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. Misc. Pub. No. 

3. 7 pp.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

684 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Johnson, D.R., Miller, D. R. and Peek, J. M. (1981). Guidelines for human activity within the 

range of mountain caribou, southern Selkirk Mountains. International Mountain Caribou 

Technical Committee. University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. Misc. 

Pub. No. 3. January 1977 and revised June 1981. 7 pp.

Johnson, K.P. (1995). Redefinition of BEA economic areas: Survey of current business. U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 81 p.

Johnson, N. K., and Franklin, J.F. (2007). Forest restoration and hazardous fuel reduction efforts 

in the forests of Oregon and Washington. Testimony, Hearing of subcommittee on public lands 

and forests of the Senate committee on energy and natural resources

Johnson, W., and Gautreaux, R. (2008). Vegetation management prescriptions for grizzly bear 

habitat enhancement or restoration in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem. USDA Forest Service. 

Unpublished Report. Kootenai NF, Libby, MT. 33pp.

Joly, K., Nellemann, C. and Vistnes, I. (2006). A reevaluation of caribou distribution near an 

oilfield road on Alaska’s north slope. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 34:866-869

Joyce, L.A., Blate, G.M., Littell, J.S., McNulty, S.G., Millar, C.I., Moser, S.C. & Peterson, D.L. 

(2008). National forests. In: S.H. Julius, J.M. West, J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. 

Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Eds.). Preliminary review of 

adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources: A report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (pp. 3.1-3.127). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Kanen, D. (2009, January 2). Tribal interests in the management of national forests: A partial 

summary of unique tribal rights and interests in the management of national forests and related 

Forest Service authorities and responsibilities. USDA Forest Service, Region One and Region 

Four, Tribal Relations Specialist Report. 104 p.

Karr, J. (1991). Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. 

Ecological Applications, 1(1), 66-84.

Karr, J.R., & E.W. Chu. (1997). Biological monitoring and assessment: Using multimetric 

indexes effectively. EPA 235-R97-001. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Kasworm W., F. & Manley, T., L. (1990). Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black 

bears in northwest Montana. Bears: Their Biology and Management, Vol. 8, A Selection of Papers 

from the Eigth International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Victoria, British 

Columbia, Canada, February 1989. (1990), pp. 79-84.

Kasworm, W, and W. Johnson. (2008, July 1). Personal Communication/phone call record. 

Grizzly bear movements between recovery zones.

Kasworm, W.F., Carriles, H., Radandt, T.G., Proctor, M., & Servheen, C. (2009). Cabinet-Yaak 

grizzly bear recovery area 2008 research and monitoring progress report. Missoula, MT: US Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 76 p.

Kasworm, W. F., Carriles, H., Radandt, T. G., Proctor, M. and Servheen, C. (2010). Cabinet-Yaak 

grizzly bear recovery area 2009 research and monitoring progress report. US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Missoula, Montana. 78 pp
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 685

Kasworm, W. F., Carriles, H., Radandt, T. G., Proctor, M. and Servheen, C. (2011). Cabinet-Yaak 

grizzly bear recovery area 2010 research and monitoring progress report. US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Missoula, Montana. 86 pp.

Kaushal, S. S., Likens, G. E., Jaworski, N. A., Pace, M. L., Sides, A. M., Seekell, D., & ... 

Wingate, R. L. (2010). Rising stream and river temperatures in the United States. Frontiers in 

Ecology & the Environment, 8(9), 461-466.

Keane, R.E. & Arno, S.F. (2001). Restoration concepts and techniques. In: D.F. Tomback, S.F. 

Arno, R.E. Keane (Eds.), Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and restoration (pp. 367-400). 

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Keane, R. E., Gray, K., Parsons, R. A., & Holsinger, L. M. (2008). Climate change effects on 

historical range and variability of two large landscapes in western Montana, USA. Forest ecology 

and management, 254(3), 375-389.

Keane, R. E., & Parsons, R. A. (2010). Restoring whitebark pine forests of the Northern Rocky 

Mountains, USA. Ecological Restoration, 28(1), 56-70.

Keane, R.E., Ryan, K.C., Veblen, T.T., Allen, C.D., Logan, J., Hawkes, B. (2002). Cascading 

effects of fire exclusion in the Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRSGTR-91. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 24 p.

Keane, Robert E.; Tomback, D.F.; Aubry, C.A.; Bower, A.D.; Campbell, E.M.; Cripss, C.L.; 

Jenkins, M.B.; Mahalovich, M.F.; Manning, M.; McKinney, S.T.; Murray, M.P.; Perkins, D.L.; 

Reinhart, D.P.; Ryan, C.; Schoettle, A.W.; Smith, C.M. (2012). A range-wide restoration strategy 

for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-279. Fort Collins, CO: 

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 pp.

Keegan, C.E., Morgan, T.A., & Spoelma, T.P. (2005). Capacity and capability of mills in the 

Idaho Panhandle National Forest impact zone. Missoula, MT: Bureau of Business and Economic 

Research, the University of Montana.

Kershner, J. L., M. Coles-Ritchie, E. Cowley, R. C. Henderson, K. Kratz, C. Quimby, L. C. 

Ulmer, and M. R. Vinson. (2004). Guide to Effective Monitoring of Aquatic and Riparian 

Resources - PACFISH/INFISH and the Biological Opinions for Bull Trout, Salmon and 

Steelhead. RMRS-GTR-121. USDA FS. Rocky Mtn Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 68pp.

Kilgore, B.M. (1981). Fire in ecosystem distribution and structure: Western forests and 

scrublands. In: H.A. Mooney, T.M. Bonnicksen, N.L. Christensen, J.E. Lotan, R.A. Reiners 

(Eds.), Fire regimes and ecosystem properties; 1978 December 11-15; Honolulu, HI (pp. 58-89). 

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-26. Washington DC: USDA Forest Service.

Kim, M.S., Richardson, B.A., McDonald, G.I., and Klopfenstein, N.B. (2010). Genetic diversity 

and structure of western white pine (Pinus monticola) in North America: a baseline study for 

conservation, restoration, and addressing impacts of climate change. Tree Genetics and Genomes

7: 11-21

Kimball, S. & Stephenson, D. (2010, June). Idaho statewide forest resource strategy (SFRS): 

Goals, strategies, and implementation. Idaho Department of Lands. 113 p. Retrieved from: 
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

686 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

http://www.idl.idaho.gov/bureau/ForestAssist/isrs/final/061710-ID-SFRS-Final.pdf. (27 

September 2011).

Kingery, H.E. & Ghalambor, C.K. (2001). Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea). The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/567.

Kinley, T. A. and Apps, C. D. (2007). Caribou Habitat Modeling for the South Selkirk Ecosystem 

Including Habitat Assessment for the Priest Lake Endowment Lands. Prepared for Idaho 

Department of Lands, Boise, Idaho. Sylvan Consulting Ltd., Invermere, British Columbia. 52 pp

Kinloch, B. B., Jr., and Dupper, G. E. (2002). Genetic specificity in the white pine–blister rust 

pathosystem. Phytopathology 92:278-280

Kliejunas, J.T., Geils, B., Glaeser, J.M., Goheen, E.M., Hennon, P., Kim, M.S., ... & Frankel, S.J. 

(2009). Review of literature on climate change and forest diseases of western North America. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-225. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 54 p.

Koehler, G.M. and Aubry, K. B. (1994). Lynx. In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. 

Lyon, W.J. Zielinski (eds.). The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American 

Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, Colorado

Kolb, T. E., Agee, J. K., Fulé, P.Z., McDowell, N.G., Pearson, K., Sala, A., Waring, R.H. (2007). 

Perpetuating old ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management 249:141-157

Kolbe, J. A. (2005). The effect of snowmobile trails on coyote movements within lynx home 

ranges. M. S. thesis. University of Montana. Missoula, MT. 34 pp.

Kolbe, J. A., Squires, R. J., Pletscher, D. H. and Ruggiero, L. F. (2007). The effect of snowmobile 

trails on coyote movements within lynx home ranges. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71:1409-

1418.

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho [KTOI]. (2007). Kootenai River White Sturgeon Conservation 

Aquaculture Program, 1990-2007 (2nd Edition). Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Report edited by R. 

Beamesderfer and P. Anders, Cramer Fish Sciences

Krebs, J., Lofroth, E., Copeland, J., Banci, V., Cooley, D., Golden, H., Magoun, A., Mulders, R. 

and Shults, B. (2004). Synthesis of survival rates and causes of mortality in North American 

wolverines. Journal of Wildlife Management. v. 68(3): 493-502.

Kucera, T. E., and Zielinski, W. J. (1995). The case of forest carnivores: small packages, big 

worries. Endangered Species UPDATE, Vol. 12, No. 3.

Kuennen. (2005). Kootenai Forest Plan Monitoring Reports 1995-2004. Retrieved 

from: http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP

0os3gjAwhwtDDw9_AI8zPyhQoY6BdkOyoCAGixyPg!/?navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid

=stelprdb5200882&navid=130000000000000&pnavid=null&ss=110114&position=Welcome.Ht

ml&ttype=detail&pname=Kootenai%20National%20Forest-%20Land. (27 September 2011).
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 687

Landres, P. B., J. Verner, and J. W. Thomas. (1988). Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator 

species: a critique. Conservation Biology, v2(4): 316-328.

Landres, P. B., Swanson, F. J., & Morgan, P. P. (1999, November). Overview of the use of natural 

variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological applications: a publication of the

Ecological Society of America, 9(4), 1179-1188.

Lavigne, G. R. (1976). Winter Response of Deer to Snowmobiles and Selected Natural Factors. 

Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in 

Wildlife Management. University of Maine. 70 pp.

Leavell, D.M. (2000). Vegetation and process of the Kootenai National Forest. Dissertation 

Abstracts, catalog #9970-793, vol. 61-04B, p. 1744, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 508 p.

Lee, D.C., Sedell, J.R., Rieman, B.E., Thurow, R.F., & Williams, J.E. (1997, June). Broadscale 

assessment of aquatic species and habitats. In Quigley, T.M. & Arbeldibe, S.J. (Eds.), An 

assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath 

and Great Basins: Volume III (1057-1496). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Lee, L. C. and Jonkel, C. J. (1981). Grizzlies and wetlands. Western Wildlands 7(4):26-30

Leiberg, J.B. (1897, January 25). General report on a botanical survey of the Coeur d’Alene 

mountains in Idaho during the summer of 1895. Contributions from the U.S. National Herbarium, 

Vol. 1, No. 1. USDA Division of Botany. 89 p.

Lenard, S., Maxell, B. A., Hendricks, P. and Currier, C. (2009). Bat surveys on USFS Northern 

Region lands in Montana: 2007. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Montana 

Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 23 pp. plus appendices

Lichthardt, J. (1998, January). Inventory of giant western redcedar groves on the Clearwater 

National Forest. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center. 13 p. 

Retrieved from: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cdc/cdc_pdf/groves98.pdf. (21 July 2011).

Lindh, B. C., and Muir, P.S. (2004). Understory vegetation in young Douglas-fir forests: does 

thinning help restore old-growth composition? Forest Ecology and Management 192:285–296.

Littell, J. S., Oneil, E. E., McKenzie, D., Hicke, J. A., Lutz, J. A., Norheim, R. A., & Elsner, M. 

M. (2010). Forest ecosystems, disturbance, and climatic change in Washington State, USA. 

Climatic Change, 102(1/2), 129-158.

Lo, Y., Blanco, J. A., and Kimmins, J. P. (2010). A word of caution when planning forest 

management when using predictions of tree species range shifts. The Forestry Chronicle. Vol. 86 

(3): 312-316.

Loeffler, C. (Ed.). (1998). Boreal toad conservation plan and agreement for the management and 

recovery of the southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas), 

Boreal Toad Recovery Team. 66 pp. + appendices.

Lorain, C.C. (1991, February). Report on the conservation status of Silene Spaldingii in Idaho. 

Boise, ID: Idaho Natural Heritage Program, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 37 p.

Losensky, J. (1993). Historical vegetation in region 1 by climatic section. 39 p.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

688 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Lowther, P.E. & Collins, C.T. (2002). Black swift (Cypseloides niger), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/676. (27 September 2011).

Lupo, P. (2004). Stability and expectations of blister rust resistance traits in F2 western white 

pine. University of Idaho unpublished Master’s Thesis, Moscow, ID, 131 p.

Lyon, L. J. (1984). Field tests of elk/timber coordination guidelines. USDA Forest Service, 

Research Paper INT-325. 13 pp.

Mace, R. D. & Manley, T.L. (1993). South Fork Flathead River Grizzly Bear Project: Progress 

Report for 1992. Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife and Parks, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 34pp.

Mace, R. D., Waller, J. S., Manley, T. L., Lyon, L., & Zuuring, H. (1996). Relationships among 

grizzly bears, roads and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Journal of Applied Ecology, 

33(6), 1395-1404.

Mace, R. D. & Waller, J.S. (1997). Final Report: grizzly bear ecology in the Swan Mountains, 

Montana. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena, MT. 191pp.

Mace, R. D., and Waller, J. S. (1997). Spatial and temporal interaction of male and female grizzly 

bears in northwestern Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 61(1): 39-52

Mace, R. D., & Waller, J. S. (1998). Demography and Population Trend of Grizzly Bears in the 

Swan Mountains, Montana. Conservation Biology, 12(5), 1005-1016.

Mack, C., Rachael J., Holyan, J., Husseman, J., Lucid, M. and Thomas, B. (2010).Wolf 

conservation and management in Idaho; progress report 2009. Nez Perce Tribe Wolf Recovery 

Project, P.O. Box 365, Lapwai, Idaho; Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 600 South Walnut, 

Boise, Idaho. 67 pp.

Mahalovich, M. F. (2010). U.S.A. Inland Northwest western white pine breeding and restoration 

program: history, current and future directions. In: Cleary, M. R., ed. Proceedings of the 3rd

Western White Pine Management Conference; 2008 June 17- 18; Vernon, BC. Kamloops, BC: BC 

Ministry of Forests and Range, Southern Interior Forest Region: 50-74

Mannan, R. W., M. L. Morrison, and E. C. Meslow. (1984). The use of guilds in forest bird 

management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, v 12(4): 426-430.

Mattson, D. J., Knight, R. R and Blanchard, B. M. (1987). The Effects of developments and 

primary roads on grizzly bear habitat use in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Pp. 259-273 in

Bears: their biology and management. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Bear 

Research and Management. Williamsburg, VA 

Mattson, D. J., & Merrill, T. (2004). A model-based appraisal of habitat conditions for grizzly 

bears in the Cabinet-Yaak region of Montana and Idaho. Ursus, 15(1), 76-89.

Maxell, B.A., Blanc, D.R., Hendricks, P., Gates, M.T., Brown, A.J., & Lenard, S. (2009). 

Montana amphibian and reptile status assessment, literature review and conservation plan. 

Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program; Missoula, MT: University of Montana, 

Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and Wildlife Biology Program. 2400 p.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 689

McCallum, D. A. (1994). Review of Technical Knowledge: Flammulated Owls in Hayward, G. D.

and J. Verner, tech. Eds. Flammulated, Boreal and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A 

Technical Conservation Assessment. GTR-RM-253. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. pp. 14-31. 20pp.

McCallum, D. A. (1994). Flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus). The Birds of North America (A. 

Poole Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America 

Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/093 doi:10.2173/bna.93

McDonald, G. I., Zambino, P. J., and Klopfenstein, N. B. z(2005). Naturalization of hostdependent microbes after introduction into terrestrial ecosystems. Chapter 5, Pp. 41-57 In: 

Lundquist, J. E., and R. C. Hamelin (eds.). Forest Pathology: From Genes to Landscapes. APS 

Press, St. Paul, MN.

McGarigal, Kevin; Marks, Barbara J. (1995). FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for 

Quantifying Landscape Structure. PNW-GTR-351. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. Portland, OR. 122p.

McIntyre, J.D. & Rieman, B.E. (1995). Westslope cutthroat trout. In: M.K. Young (Ed.) 

Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-256. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station.

McIver, C.P., Sorenson, C.B., Keegan, C.E., Gale, C. Morgan, T.A. (2012). Capacity and 

capability of mills in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest impact zone. Missoula, MT: Bureau of 

Business and Economic Research, the University of Montana.

McKenzie, D., Peterson, D.L., & Littell, J.J. (2009). Chapter 15: Global warming and stress 

complexes in forests of western North America. In: A. Bytnerowicz, M.J. Arbaugh, A.R. Riebau, 

& C. Andersen (Eds.), Wildland fires and air pollution (pp. 319-337).

McLellan, B. N., & Shackleton, D. M. (1988). Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: 

Effects of roads on behavior, habitat use and demography. Journal of Applied Ecology, 25(2), 

451-460.

McPhail, J.D. & Paragamian, V.L. (2000). Burbot Biology and Life History. In, Burbot: Biology, 

ecology and management. Edited by Vaughn L. Paragamian and Dave W. Willis. Publication 

Number 1: Fisheries Management Section of the American Fisheries Society. In-text citation: 

(McPhail & Paragamian, 2000).

Mehl, C., Haufler, J. and Yeats, S. (2009). Applying an ecosystem diversity framework for 

conservation planning in northern Idaho. Report by Ecosystem Management Research Institute 

for the Idaho Department of Lands. 231pp

Menlove, J.; Shaw, J. D.; Thompson, M. T.; Witt, C.; Amacher, M. C.; Morgan, T. A.; Sorenson, 

C.; McIver, C.; Werstak, C. (2012). Montana’s forest resources, 2003–2009. Resour. Bull. RMRSRB-15. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 140 p.

Metlen, K. L. and Fiedler, C. E. (2006). Restoration effects on the understory of ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir forests of Western Montana U.S.A. Forest Ecology and Management 222:355-

369.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

690 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Metsaranta, J. M., Mallory, F. F. and Cross, D. W. (2003). Vegetation characteristics of forest 

stands used by caribou and those disturbed by fire or logging in Manitoba. Rangifer Special Issue. 

14: 255-266.

Millar, C. I., Stephenson, N. L., & Stephens, S. L. (2007). Climate change and forests of the 

future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8), 2145-2151.

Miller, K.E.G., Dixon, R., & Harris, C.E. (2005). Idaho bat conservation plan: Draft. Boise, ID: 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Conservation Data Center, and Idaho Bat Working 

Group. 143 p.

Mills, L., & Soule, M. E. (1993). The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. 

BioScience, 43(4), 219-224.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. [MIG]. (2003). IMPLAN Pro Version 2.0: Social accounting 

and impact analysis software; user’s guide, analysis guide, data guide. 418 p. Stillwater, MN: 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.

Monnig, E.C. & Byler, J.W. (1992). Forest health and ecological integrity in the Northern 

Rockies. Forest Pest Management Rep. 92-7 2nd ed. R1-92-130. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest 

Service, Northern Region. 18 p.

Montana Bald Eagle Working Group [MBEWG]. (1994). Montana bald eagle management plan. 

Billings, MT: USDI Bureau of Reclamation. 104 p.

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Bald Eagle —

Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved on July 26, 2011, 

from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_ABNKC10010.aspx.

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. (2011). Flammulated 

Owl — Otus flammeolus. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved for reference document on January 11, 

2012, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_ABNSB01020.aspx.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks [MFWP]. (2005). Montana’s comprehensive fish and wildlife 

conservation strategy. Helena, MT. 658 p.

Montana/Idaho Airshed Group. (2010, June). Operating guide. 60 p. Retrieved from: 

http://www.smokemu.org/docs/20100601OpsGuide.pdf. (27 September 2011).

Montana Natural Heritage Program [MNHP] and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks [MFWP] 

(2005). Western Toad — Bufo boreas. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved for reference document on 

January 9, 2012, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AAABB01030.aspx.

Montana Natural Heritage Program [MNHP] and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks [MFWP]

(2008). Coeur d'Alene Salamander — Plethodon idahoensis. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved for 

reference document on January 9, 2012, 

from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AAAAD12270.aspx.

Montana Natural Heritage Program [MNHP] and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

[MFWP].(2011). Animal Field Guide. http://fieldguide.mt.gov/default.aspx

Morgan, P. P., Gibson, C. E., & Heyerdahl, E. K. (2008). Multi-season Climate Synchronized 

Forest Fires Throughout the 20th Century, Northern Rockies, USA. Ecology, 89(3), 717-728.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 691

Morgan, T.A., Keegan, C.E., Hayes, S.W., Sorenson, C.B., Shook, S.R., Wagner, F.G., & 

O’Lauglin, J. (2011). Idaho’s forest products industry current conditions and 2011 forecast. 

Station Bulletin 97, January 2011. Moscow, ID: Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment 

Station. 4 p. Retrieved from: 

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/documents/Sta_Bull_97.pdf?pid=120133&doc=1. (27 

September 2011).

Morrison, M L., B. G. Marcot, & R. W. Mannan. (1998). Pp. 336-337 in Wildlife-Habitat 

Relationships: Concepts and Applications, Second Edition. The University of Wisconsin Press. 

Madison, WI.

Morrison, M. L. (2002). Wildlife restoration: Techniques for habitat analysis and animal 

monitoring. Washington, DC: Island Press. 209 p.

Morrison, J., Quick, M. C., & Foreman, M. G. (2002). Climate change in the Fraser River 

watershed: flow and temperature projections. Journal of Hydrology, 263(1-4), 230.

Mountain Caribou Technical Advisory Committee (MCTAC). (2002). A strategy for the recovery 

of mountain caribou in British Columbia. Version 1. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, 

and Air Protection. 73 pp.

Mowat, G. (2007). Large carnivore population review for the Kootenay Region. B. C. Ministry of 

Environment, Kootenay Region. Internal Report 32 pp.

Mowat, G. (2008). British Columbia Biologist. Electronic message to L. Allen concerning 

hunting of grizzly bears in British Columbia north of the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak recovery 

zones. Dated 11/02/2008.

Murray, D. L., Boutin, S. and O’Donoghue, M. (1994). Winter habitat selection by lynx and 

coyotes in relation to snowshoe hare abundance. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 72:1444-1451.

National Wildfire Coordination Group [NWCG]. (2001, December). Smoke management guide 

for prescribed and wildland fire: 2001 Edition. PMS 420-2. NFES 1279. Boise, ID: National 

Interagency Fire Center. Retrieved from: http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/SMG/SMG-72.pdf. (27 

September 2011).

NatureServe. (2011). NatureServe explorer: An online encyclopedia of life (version 7.1) [Web 

Application]. Arlington, VA: NatureServe. Available from: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

(26 July 2011).

NatureServe. (2011a). NatureServe.org. Distribution of Coeur d’Alene salamander Available 

from: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (20 October 2011).

NatureServe. (2011b). NatureServe.org. Distribution of western toad Available from: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (20 October 2011).

NatureServe. (2011c). NatureServe.org. Distribution of burbot Available from: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (20 October 2011).

Nelson, R.R. (1978).Genetics of horizontal resistance to plant diseases. Annual Review of 

Phytopathology 16: 359-378
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

692 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Neuenschwander, L.F., Byler, J.W., Harvey, A.E., McDonald, G.I., Ortiz, D.S., Osborne, H.L., 

Snyder, G.C., & Zack, A. (1999). White pine and the American west: A vanishing species, can we 

save it? Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-35. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station.

Neumann, P. W. and Merriam, H.G. (1972). Ecological effects of snowmobiles. Canadian FieldNaturalist 86(3):207-212

Niehoff, J., (2002). Soil NEPA Analysis Process and Source of Soil Disturbance Model 

Coefficients. USDA Forest Service NEPA Document.

Noon, B. R. (2009). Old-Growth Forest as Wildlife Habitat. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. 

2009. Old growth in a new world: a Pacific Northwest Icon Reexamined. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 344 p.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative [NABCI], US Committee. (2009). The state of the 

birds, United States of America, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior. 36 p.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative [NABCI], US Committee. (2011). The state of the 

birds 2011: Report on public lands and waters, United States of America. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior. 48 p.

Northern Rockies Coordinating Group. (2010, July 20). Montana–Idaho interagency smoke 

management integration strategy for the mitigation of public health and welfare impacts caused 

by smoke from unplanned ignitions. USDI Bureau of Land Management; USDI National Park 

Service; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs; USDA Forest Service, 

Region 1; USDA Forest Service, Region 4; State of Montana; and State of Idaho. 12 p.

Northwest Compact. (2013). Northwest Wildland Fire Protection Agreement (Northwest 

Compact). Cooperative Operating Plan. 2013

Noss, R.F. (2001). Beyond Kyoto: Forest Management in a Time of Rapid Climate Change. 

Conservation Biology, 15(3), 578-590.

Noss, R., Franklin, J.F. Baker, W. Schoennagel, T. and Moyle, P.B. (2006). Ecological science 

relevant to management policies for fire-prone forests of the western United States. Society for 

Conservation Biology Scientific Panel on Fire in Western U.S. Forests, Society for Conservation 

Biology, North American Section, Arlington, VA

Oliver, C. D.; Larson, B. C. (1996). Forest stand dynamics. Update edition. New York, NY: John 

Wiley & Sons, Inc. 520 p

Pacific Northwest Research Station [PNRS]. (2006). Elk, Deer, and Cattle: the Starkey Project. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Science Update: Issue 13, March 

2006

Page-Dumroese, Deborah S.; Abbott, Ann M.; Rice, Thomas M. (2009). Forest Soil Disturbance 

Monitoring Protocol: Volume II: Supplementary methods, statistics, and data collection. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-82b. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 64 

p.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 693

Paquet, M. (1997). Toward a mountain caribou strategy for British Columbia. British Columbia 

Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. 72 pp

Paragamian, V.L. (2000). The effects of variable flows on Burbot spawning migrations in the 

Kootenai River, Idaho, USA, and Kootenay Lake, British Columbia, Canada, after construction of 

the Libby Dam. Pages 111-123 In V.L. Paragamian and D.W. Willis (editors), Burbot: biology, 

management, and ecology. American Fisheries Society, Fisheries Management Section, 

Publication Number 1, Bethesda, Maryland.

Paragamian, V., Beamesderfer, R.C.P. and Ireland, S.C. (2005) Status, Population Dynamics, and 

Future Prospects of the Endangered Kootenai River White Sturgeon Population with

and without Hatchery Intervention. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:518–532

Paragamian, V., & Kruse, G. (2001). Kootenai River white sturgeon spawning migration behavior 

and a predictive model. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21(1), 10-21.

Parker, T. & Johnson, F.D. (1993, March 2–4). Cedar groves: The ultimate old growth. 

Proceedings from the Interior Cedar, Hemlock, White Pine Forests symposium: Ecology and 

Management. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource 

Sciences.

Parker, J., Wulfhorst, J.D., & Kamm, J. (2002). Social assessment for the Idaho Panhandle 

National Forests. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 159 p.

Partners in Flight [PIF]. (2000). Idaho bird conservation plan (version 1.0). Hamilton, MT: Idaho 

Partners in Flight. 167 p. Retrieved from: http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/pl_id_10.pdf. 

(21 September 2011).

Partners in Flight [PIF] & Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory [RMBO].(2010). PIF landbird 

population estimate database. [Web Application]. Available at: http://rmbo.org/pif_db/laped/.

Partridge, F. (1983). Kootenai river fisheries investigations in Idaho. Boise, ID: Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game.

Patten, R. (1989). Watershed response model for forest management WATBAL Users Guide. 

Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, ID, unpublished.

Patton, D. (1987). Is the use of "management indicator species" feasible? Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry, v2(1) 33-34.

Peet, R.K. (2000). Forests of the Rocky Mountains. In M.G. Barbour & W.D. Billings (Eds.), 

North American terrestrial vegetation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 32 p.

Perry, D.; Hessburg, P.; Skinner, C.; Spies, T.; Stephens, S.; Taylor, A. H. Franklin J.; McComb,

B.; Riegel, G. (2011). The ecology of mixed severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and 

Northern California. Forest and Ecology Management 262:703-717

Petersen, J., & Kitchell, J. (2001). Climate regimes and water temperature changes in the 

Columbia River: bioenergetic implications for predators of juvenile salmon. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58(9), 1831-1841.

Pfister, R.D., Baker, W. L., Fiedler, C.E., Thomas, J.W. (2000). Contract Review of Old-Growth 

Management on School Trust Lands: Supplemental Biodiversity Guidance. 08/02/2000
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

694 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Pierson, E.D., Wackenhut, M.C., Altenbach, J.S., Bradley, P., Call, P., Genter, D.L., ... & Welch, 

L. (1999). Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Boise, ID: Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game.

Poole, K. G., and Mowat, G. (2005). Winter Habitat Relationships of Deer and Elk in the 

Temperate Interior Mountains of British Columbia. Wildlife Society Bulletin, v 33 (4): 1288-

1302.

Postel, S., & Carpenter, S. (1997). Freshwater ecosystem services. In G.C. Daily (Ed.), Nature’s 

services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, (pp. 195-214). Washington, DC: Island 

Press.

Powell, D.C. (1999). Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and 

southwestern Washington: An implementation guide for the Umatilla National Forest. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. F14-SO-TP-03-99. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Powell, R.A. and Zielinski, W. J. (1994). Fisher. Pp. 38-73. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, 

Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven W.; Lyon, L. Jack., William J., 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: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Pratt, K. L. (1992, August). A review of bull trout life history. In: P.J. Howell & D.B. Buchanan 

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Gearhart Mountain, OR and 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society: 5-9.

Pratt, K. L. & Huston, J.E. (1993). Status of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Lake Pend 

Oreille and the Lower Clark Fork River: Draft. Spokane, WA: The Washington Power Company.

Proctor, M. F., McLellan, B. N., & Strobeck, C. (2002). Population fragmentation of grizzly bears 

in southeastern British Columbia, Canada. Ursus, 13153-160.

Proctor, M. F., McLellan, B. N., Strobeck, C., & Barclay, R.M.R. (2005). Genetic analysis reveals 

demographic fragmentation of grizzly bears yielding vulnerably small populations. Proceedings 

of the Royal Society. British Columbia, Canada. 8 p.

Proctor, M., Boulager, J., Nielsen, S., Servheen, C., Kasworm, W., Radandt, T., & Paetkau, D. 

(2007, March). Abundance and density of Central Purcell, South Purcell, Yahk, and south Selkirk 

Grizzly Bear Population Units in southeast British Columbia.

Proctor, M. F., Paetkau, D., McLellan, B. N., Stenhouse, G. B., Kendall, K. C., Mace, R. D., 

Kasworm, W. F., Servheen, C., Lausen, C. L., Gibeau, M. L., Wakkinen, W. L., Haroldson, M. A., 

Mowat, G., Apps, C. D., Ciarniello, L. M., Barclay, R. M. R., Boyce, M. S., Schwartz, C. C. and 

Strobeck, C. (2012). Population fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of grizzly bears in 

western Canada and the northern US. Wildlife Monographs. 180:1-46.

Pyne, S.J. (1982). Fire in America: A cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 695

Quesnel, H. and Steeger, C.. (2002). Stand Structure Retention In Old-growth Forests Of the 

Rocky Mountain Trench Final Report Invermere Forest District, Enhanced Forest Management 

Pilot Project

Quigley, T.M. & Arbelbide, S.J. (Eds.). (1997, June). An assessment of ecosystem components in 

the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: Volume III. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Quigley, T.M., Haynes, R.W., and Graham, R.T., technical editors. (1996). Integrated scientific 

assessment for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service, 

General Technical Report, PNW-382. 303p

Rahel, F. J., & Olden, J. D. (2008). Assessing the Effects of Climate Change on Aquatic Invasive 

Species. Conservation Biology, 22(3), 521-533.

Reeves, G. H., Benda, L. E., Burnett, K. M., Bisson, P. A., Sedell, J. R., & Nielsen, J. L. (1995). A 

disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of 

evolutionarily significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. In, Evolution 

and the aquatic ecosystem: Defining unique units in population conservation (pp. 334-349). 

American Fisheries Society.

Rehfeldt, GE, Hoff, R.J. and Steinhoff, R.J. (1984). Geographic patterns of genetic variation in 

Pinus monticola. Botanical Gazette 145: 229-239

Reichel, J.D. (1996). Preliminary amphibian and reptile survey of the Helena National Forest: 

1995. Helena, MT: USDA Forest Service, Helena National Forest, 96 p.

Reichel, J.D. (1997). Amphibian, reptile, and northern bog lemming survey on the Rocky 

Mountain Front: 1996. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 86p,

Reichel, J.D. & Beckstrom, S.G. (1993). Northern bog lemming survey: 1992. Unpublished 

report. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 64 p. Retrieved from: 

http://mtnhp.org/animal/reports/mammals/NBL_survey_1992.pdf. (21 September 2011).

Reichel, J.D. & Beckstrom, S.G. (1994). Northern bog lemming survey: 1993. Helena, MT: 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 87 p. Retrieved from: 

http://mtnhp.org/animal/reports/mammals/NBL_survey_1993.pdf. (21 September 2011).

Reichel, J.D. & Corn, J.G. (1997). Northern bog lemmings: Survey, population parameters, and 

population analysis. A report to the Kootenai National Forest. Helena, MT: Montana Natural 

Heritage Program. 27 p.

Reichel, J.D. & Flath, D. (1995). Identification of Montana’s amphibians and reptiles. Montana 

Outdoors 26, 15-34.

Rettie, W., & Messier, F. (1998). Dynamics of woodland caribou populations at the southern limit 

of their range in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76(2), 251-259.

Rich, T.D., Beardmore, C. J., Berlanga, H., Blancher, P. J., Bradstreet, M. S. W., Butcher, G. S., 

Demarest, D. W., Dunn, E. H., Hunter, W. C., Inigo-Elias, E. E., Kennedy, J. A., Martell, A. M.,

Panjabi, A. O., Pashley, D. N., Rosenberg, K. V., Rustay, C. M., Wendt, J. W., and Will, T. C.. 
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

696 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

(2004). Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Richardson, B.A. Rehfeldt, G.E. and Kim, M.S. (2009). Congruent climate-related genecological 

responses from molecular markers and quantitative traits for western white pine (Pinus 

monticola). International Journal of Plant Sciences 170(9): 1120-1131.

Richens, V. B. and Lavigne, G. R. (1978). Response of white-tailed deer to snowmobiles and 

snowmobile trails in Maine. Canadian Field-Naturalist, v. 92(4): 334-344.

Rieman, B., & Dunham, J. (2000). Metapopulations and salmonids: A synthesis of life history 

patterns and empirical observations. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 9(1-2), 51-64.

Rieman, B.E., Dunham, J.B., & Clayton, J. (2006). Emerging concepts for management of river 

ecosystems and challenges to applied integration of physical and biological sciences in the Pacific 

Northwest, USA: Draft September 2005. Boise, ID: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

Rieman, B.E., Hessburg, P.F., Lee, D.C., Thurow, R.F., & Sedell, J.R. (2000). Toward an 

integrated classification of ecosystems: Defining opportunities for managing fish and forest 

health. Environmental Management, 25(4), 425-444.

Rieman, B. E., Isaak, D., Adams, S., Horan, D., Nagel, D., Luce, C., & Myers, D. (2007). 

Anticipated Climate Warming Effects on Bull Trout Habitats and Populations Across the Interior 

Columbia River Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136(6), 1552-1565.

Rieman, B.E. & Isaak, D. (2010). Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky 

Mountain West: Implications and alternatives for management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR250. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Rieman, B. E. & McIntyre, J.D. (1993). Demographic and habitat requirements for the 

conservation of bull trout (Salvelinus Confluentus). Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-302. Ogden, UT: USDA 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Rieman, B. E., & McIntyre, J. D. (1995). Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat 

patches of varied size. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 124(3), 285-296.

Rieman, B., Lee, D., McIntyre, J., Overton, K., & Thurow, R. (1993). Consideration of extinction 

risks for salmonids. Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin, 14, 1-12. Boise, ID: U. S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Ritchie, M. W., Wing, B. M. and Hamilton, T. A. (2008). Stability of the large tree component in 

treated and untreated late-seral interior ponderosa pine stands. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 38:919-923

Roche, C. T., & Busacca, A. J. (1987). Soil-vegetation relationships in a subalpine grassland in 

northeastern Washington. Northwest science, 61(3), 139-147.

Rockwell, F.I. (1917, January 10). Western white pine bulletin. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest 

Service, Northern Rocky Mountain District, Office of Silviculture. 310 p.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 697

Roe, L.S. & Shelly, J.S. (1992). Update to the status review of Howellia Aquatilis: Field surveys, 

monitoring studies, and transplant experiments. Unpublished report. Helena, MT: USDA Forest 

Service, Flathead National Forest, and Montana Natural Heritage Program. 51 p.

Rollins, M.G., Morgan, P., & Swetnam, T. (2002). Landscape-scale controls over 20th century 

fire occurrence in two large Rocky Mountain (USA) wilderness areas. Landscape Ecology, 17, 

539-557.

Rominger E. M. (1995). Late Winter Foraging Ecology of Woodland Caribou. PhD from 

Washington State University. 60 pp. 

Rominger, E. M. and Oldemeyer, J. L. (1989). Early-winter habitat of woodland caribou, Selkirk 

Mountains, British Columbia. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(1): 238-243.

Ruediger, B., Claar, J., Gniadek, S., Holt, B., Lewis, L., Mighton, S., & Williamson, A. (2000) 

August). Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. Forest Service Pub. R1-00-53. 

Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; USDI Bureau of Land 

Management; and USDI National Park Service. 142 p.

Ruediger, B. & Lloyd, J. (2003). Proceedings from International Conference on Wildlife Ecology 

and Transportation: A rapid assessment process for determining potential wildlife, fish and plant 

linkages for highways (pp. 205-225).

Ruggiero, L. F., Aubry, K. B., Buskirk, S. W., Lyon, L. J., and Zielinski, W. J. tech. eds. (1994). 

The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and 

Wolverine. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort 

Collins, CO. GTR-RM-254. 184 pp.

Ruggiero, L.F., Aubry, K. B., Buskirk, S. W (and others). (2000). Ecology and Conservation of 

Lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480 pp. Available: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr030.pdf

Running, S. (2006). Climate change. Is global warming causing more, larger wildfires?. Science 

(New York, N.Y.), 313(5789), 927-928.

Russell, J.C. & Adams-Russell, P.A. (2003). Social Assessment: Kootenai National Forest –

Update: 2003. Placerville, CA: Adams-Russell Consulting. 123 p.

Russell, J.C. & Downs, M.A. (1995). Social assessment for the Kootenai National Forest. Libby, 

MT. 318 p.

Russell, J.C., Adams-Russell, P., Frament, E., & Niccolucci, M. (2006, March). Conditions and 

trends: Social and economic systems for the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Plan Revision Zone. 

Libby, MT: USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest. 93 p.

Rust, Steven K. (2000). Representativeness of Research Natural Areas on National Forest System 

Lands in Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-45. Fort Collin, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 129 p. 

Saab, V., Block, W., Russell, R., Lehmkuhl, J., Bate, L., & White, R. (2007). Birds and burns of 

the interior West: Descriptions, habitats, and management in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-712. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 23 p.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

698 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Safford, H. D., Carlson, C. H., & Schmidt, D. A. (2009). Effects of fuel treatments on fire severity 

in an area of wildland-urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, California. Forest ecology 

and management, 258(5), 773-787.

Safranyik, L., Nevill, R., & Morrison, D. (1998). Effects of stand density management on forest 

insects and diseases. Technology Transfer Note No. 12. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; 

Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Center. 4 p.

Sala, A., and Callaway, R. (2004). Physiological responses of old growth ponderosa pine and 

western larch to restoration cutting and burning treatments. Final Report. Division of Biological 

Sciences, University of Montana.

Salwasser, Hal. (2009). Regional Conservation of Old-Growth Forest in a Changing World: A 

Global and Temporal Perspective. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. 2009. Old growth in a new 

world: a Pacific Northwest Icon Reexamined. Washington, DC: Island Press. 344 p.

Samman, S. & Logan, J. (Eds.). (2000). Assessment and response to bark beetle outbreaks in the 

Rocky Mountain area. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-62. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46 p.

Samman, S., Schwandt, J.W., & Wilson, J.L. (2003). Managing for healthy white pine ecosystems 

in the United States to reduce the impacts of white pine blister rust. Forest Service Report R1-03-

118. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service. 10 p.

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 with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Region, Missoula, MT.

Samson, F.B. (2006). Habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of the northern 

goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodepecker, American marten 

and fisher. Unpublished report. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region.

Sandberg, D.V., & Dost, F.N. (1990). Effects of prescribed fire on air quality and human health. 

In J.D. Walstad, S.R. Radosevich, & D.V. Sandberg (Eds.), Natural and prescribed fire in pacific 

northwest forests (pp. 91-298). Corvallis, OR; Oregon State University Press.

Schmidt, K.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Hardy, C.C.; Hann, W.J.; Bunnell, D.L. (2002). Development of 

Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management. RMRS-GTR-87. USDA 

Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 50 pp.

Schoen, J. W., Beier, L. R., Lentfer, J. W., and Johnson, L. J. (1986). Denning ecology of brown 

bears on Admiralty and Chichogof Islands. In Bears: their biology and management. Seventh 

International Conference on Bear Research and Management. Pages 293-304.

Schoener, T. W. (1983). Field experiments on interspecific competition. The American Naturalist, 

v 122(2): 240-285.

Schultz, R. D., and Bailey, J. A. (1978). Responses of National Park elk to human activity. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management, v 42(1): 91-100.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 699

Schwab, N.A. and DuBois, K. (2006). Bat conservation plan and strategy for Montana (Draft). 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; University of Montana; and the Montana Bat Working Group.

Schwandt, J.W. (2006, August). Whitebark pine in peril: A case for restoration. R1-06-28. Coeur 

d’Alene, ID: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Northern Region. 20 p.

Schwandt, J.W., Marsden, M.A., & McDonald, G.I. (1994). Pruning and thinning effects on white 

pine survival and volume in northern Idaho. In: D.M. Baumgartner, J.E. Lotan, & J.R. Tonn 

(Eds.), Interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: Ecology and management (pp. 167-172). 

Spokane, WA: Washington State University Cooperative Extension.

Schwartz, C. C., Haroldson, M. A., & White, G. C. (2010). Hazards Affecting Grizzly Bear 

Survival in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(4), 654-667.

Schwartz, M. K., Mills, L. S., McKelvey, K. S., Ruggiero, L. F. and Allendorf, F. W. (2002). DNA 

reveals high dispersal synchronizing the population dynamics of Canada lynx. Nature. V. 415: 

520-522.

Schwartz, M. K., Copeland, J. P., Anderson, N. J., Squires, J. R., Inman, R. M., McKelvey, K. S., 

Pilgrim, K. L., Waits, L. P. and Cushman, S. A. (2009). Wolverine gene flow across a narrow 

climatic niche. Ecology. 90(11): 3222-3232

Scott, M. D. and G. Servheen (1985). Caribou ecology. Idaho Department of Fish and Game P-R 

Job Progress Report. Project Number W-160R-11.136 138 p.

Seip, D. R. (1991). Predation and caribou populations. Rangifer 11:46-52.

Seip, D. R., Johnson, C. J., and Watts, G. S. (2007). Displacement of mountain caribou from 

winter habitat by snowmobiles. The Journal of Wildlife Management, v 71(5): 1539-1544

Servheen, C. (1981). Grizzly bear ecology and management in the Mission Mountains, Montana. 

PhD Dissertation, Unviersity of Montana. Missoula, MT. 139 pp.

Servheen, C. (1983). Grizzly bear food habits, movements, and habitat selection in the Mission 

Mountains, Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 47 (4): 1026-1035.

Servheen, C. (2010). Email from Chris Servheen, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Coordinator to Rebecca Shoemaker, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Research 

Assistant. (Cited in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011a).

Servheen, C. and Cross, M. (2010). Climate change impacts on grizzly bears and wolverines in 

the northern U.S. and transboundary Rockies: strategies for conservation. Report on a workshop 

held September 13-15, 2010, in Fernie, British Columbia. Canada.

Servheen, C. and Lyon, L. J. (1989). Habitat use by woodland caribou in the Selkirk Mountains. 

J. Wildl. Manage. 53(1): 230-237

Servheen, C., Gore, J., and Layser, T. (1991). Delineation of the Kalispell-Granite and Lakeshore 

Bear Management Units in the Selkirk Recovery Zone. Internal communications.

Servheen, C., Waller, J. S., and Sandstrom, P. (2001). Identification and management of linkage 

zones for grizzly bears between the large blocks of public lands in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. C.L. 
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

700 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Irwin, P. Garrett, K.P. McDermott. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North 

Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 161-179.

Servheen, C., Waller, J. S. and Sandstrom, P. (2003). Identification and management of linkage 

zones for wildlife between the large blocks of public lands in the northern Rocky Mountains. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, MT. 83 pp.

Servheen, C., Waller, J.S., & Sandstrom, P. (2003). Identification and management of linkage 

zones for wildlife between the large blocks of public lands in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Missoula, MT: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 83 p.

Sexauer, H. M. & James, P.W. (1997). Microhabitat use by juvenile bull trout in four streams 

located in the Eastern Cascades, Washington. In W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin & M. Monita (Eds.), 

Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings (pp. 361-370). Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Bull 

Trout Task Force, Trout Unlimited Canada.

Sheley, R., Manoukian, M., & Marks, G. (1999). Preventing noxious weed invasion. In: R.L. 

Sheley & J.K. Petroff (Eds.), Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds (pp. 69-72). 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Shelly, J.S. & Gamon, J. (1996). Howellia aquatilis (water Howellia) recovery plan. Unpublished 

draft. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and Montana Natural Heritage Program. 44 p.

Shepard, B., May, B., & Urie, W. (2005). Status and conservation of Westslope cutthroat trout 

within the Western United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 25(4), 1426-

1440.

Shepherd, L., Schmiegelow, F. and Macdonald, E. (2007). Managing fire for woodland caribou 

inJasper and Banff National Parks. Rangifer (Spl. 17):129-140.

Sime, C.A., Asher, V., Bradley, L., Lance, N., Laudon, K., Ross, M., Nelson, A., & Steuber, J. 

(2011). Montana gray wolf conservation and management: 2010 annual report. Helena, MT: 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 168 p.

Simpson, K. (1987). The effects of snowmobiling on winter range use by Mountain Caribou.

British Columbia Ministry Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. Wildlife 

Working Report No. WR-25.

Simpson, K., and Terry, E. (2000). Impacts of backcountry recreation activities on Mountain 

Caribou – management concerns, interim management guidelines and research needs. B.C. 

Ministry Environment, Land and Parks. Wildlife Branch, Victoria. B.C. Wildlife Working Rep. 

No. WR-99. 11pp.

Simpson, K., Terry, E., and Hamilton, D. (1997). Toward a Mountain Caribou management 

strategy for British Columbia: habitat requirements and sub-population status. B.C. Ministry of 

Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report WR-90. 29 

pp.

Skaar. D. (1990). Montana common loon management plan. Unpublished report prepared for the 

U.S. Forest Service, Region 1. 61 pp
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 701

Slone, J. B. (2007). Resource selection function modeling of grizzly bear habitat in the Selkirk 

and Cabinet-Yaak ecosystems. M.S. Thesis, University Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 103 pp.

Smith, J.K. & Fischer, W.C. (1997). Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern Idaho. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-363. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 142 p.

Smucker, K. and Cilimburg, A. (2008). Surveying for Flammulated Owls in Montana via Citizen 

Scientists and Technicians.

Snider, M. D., & Miller, R. F. (1985). Effects of tractor logging on soils and vegetation in eastern 

Oregon. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 49(5), 1280-1282.

Spahr, R.L, Armstrong, D., & Rath, M. (1991). Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of 

the Intermountain region. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service.

Spence, B.C., Lomnicky, G.A., Hughes, R.M., & Novitzki, R.P. (1996, December). An ecosystem 

approach to salmonid conservation. 21TR-450l-96-6057. Corvallis, OR: ManTech Environmental 

Research Services Corp.

Spies, T. A. (2006). Maintaining old-growth forests. In: Haynes, B. T. Bormann, D. C. Lee, and J. 

R. Martin, technical editors. Northwest Forest Plan-the first ten years (1994-2003): synthesis of 

monitoring and research results. General technical report PNW-GTR-651. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon

Spies, T. A.; Hemstrom, M. A.; Youngblood, A., and Hummel, S. (2006). Conserving old-growth 

forest diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation Biology. 20(2): 351-362.

Spies, T. A.; Duncan, S. L.; Johnson, N. K.; Swanson, F. J.; Lach, D. (2009). Conserving Old 

Growth in a New World. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. 2009. Old growth in a new world: a 

Pacific Northwest Icon Reexamined. Washington, DC: Island Press. 344 p.

Squires, J. R., Ruggiero, L.F., Kolbe, J. A., and DeCesare, N. J. (2006). Lynx Ecology in the 

Intermountain West: Research Progress Summary, Summer 2006. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 51 pp

Squires, J.R., Copeland, J. P., Ulizio, T. J., Schwartz, M. K. and Ruggiero, L. F.. (2007). Sources 

and patterns of wolverine mortality in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management

71(7):2213-2220. 

Squires, J. R., DeCesare, N. J., Kolbe, J. A., and Ruggiero, L. F. (2008). Hierarchical den 

selection of Canada lynx in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management, v 72(7): 1497-

1506.

Squires, J. R., DeCesare, N. J., Kolbe, J. A., and Ruggiero, L. F. (2010). Seasonal resource 

selection of Canada lynx in managed forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of 

Wildlife Management, v 74(8): 1648-1660.

Stagliano, D.M., Stephens, G.M, & Bosworth, W.R. (2007). Aquatic invertebrate species of 

concern on USFS Northern Region lands: Report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Northern 

Region, Missoula, MT.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

702 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Steeger, C., and Quesnel, J. (2003). Impacts of partial cutting on old growth forests in the Rocky 

Mountain Trench, British Columbia. Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Project (EFMPP) 

Report 17.

Stein, S.M., Alig, R.J., White, E.M., Comas, S.J., Carr, M., Eley, M., ... & Beauvais, T.W. (2007). 

National forests on the edge: Development pressures on America’s national forests and 

grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-728. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 26 p. Retrieved from: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/fote/GTR728.pdf. (27 September 2011).

Steeger, C. and Quesnel, J. (2003). Impacts of partial cutting on old growth forests in the Rocky 

Mountain Trench, British Columbia. Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Project (EFMPP) 

Report 17.

Stephens, S. L., and Moghaddas, J. J. (2005). Silvicultural and reserve impacts on potential fire 

behavior and forest conservation: twenty-five years of experience from Sierra Nevada mixed 

conifer forests. Biological Conservation 125:369-379

Stephens, S.L., Moghaddas, J.J., Edminster, C., Fiedler, C.E., Haase, S., Harrington, M., ... & 

Youngblood, A. (2009). Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire 

severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological Applications, 19(2), 305-320.

Stephens, S. L., Millar, C. I., & Collins, B. M. (2010). Operational approaches to managing 

forests of the future in Mediterranean regions within a context of changing climates. 

Environmental Research Letters, 5(2), 024003.

Stevenson, R. O. (1984). The relationship of fire history to furbearer populations and harvest. 

Final Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-22-2, Job 7.13R. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

Stevenson, S, K., Armleder, H.M. Jull, M. J., King, D. G., McLellan, B. N. and Coxson, D. N. 

(2001). Mountain caribou in managed forests: recommendations for managers, 2nd edition. 

British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Victoria, British Columbia. 58 pp

Sumner, J. and Rogers, R. (2006). Montana peregrine falcon survey. Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks. Helena, MT. 51 pp

Swanson, M. E., Franklin, J. F., Beschta, R. L., Crisafulli, C. M., DellaSala, D. A., Hutto, R. L., & 

.Swanson, F. J. (2011). The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on 

forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment, 9(2), 117-125.

Sweeney, J. M. and Sweeney, J.R. (1984). Snow depths influencing winter movements of elk. 

Journal of Mammalogy, v. 65(3): 524-526

Sweetapple, S. (2011, March). 2010 air quality ozone season summary for the Coeur d’Alene 

area. Coeur d’Alene, ID: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 43 p.

Swetnam, T.W., Allen, C.D., & Betancourt, J.L. (1999). Applied historical ecology: Using the 

past to manage for the future. Ecological Applications, 9(4), 1189-1206.

Taylor, A. R. and Knight, R. L. (2003). Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perceptions. Ecological Applications, 13 (4): 951-963.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 703

Thiel, R. P. (1985). Relationships between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in 

Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist, v 113(2): 404-407

Thomas, A. (1995). Forest Carnivores in Idaho: Habitat Conservation Assessments (HCA's) and 

Conservation Strategies (CS's). Prepared by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nez Perce 

Tribe, and Sawtooth National Forest. The Idaho State Conservation Effort. 126 pp

Thomas, D. W. (1988). The distribution of bats in different ages of Douglas-fir forests. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management, v 52(4): 619-626.

Thomas, D. W. and West, S. D. (1991). Forest Age Associations of Bats in the Southern 

Washington Cascade and Oregon Coast Ranges. Pages 295-303 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, A. 

B. Carey, and M. H. Huff (tech coordinators): Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-Fir 

Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. PNW-GTR285

Thomas, J. W., Franklin J. F., Gordon, J. and Johnson, K. N. (2006), The Northwest Forest Plan: 

Origins, Components, Implementation Experience, and Suggestions for Change. Conservation 

Biology, 20:277–287

Thompson, J. (2005). Fisher conservation in the Pacific States: field data meet genetics. Science 

Findings 70. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 5 p

Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., & Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest resilience, biodiversity, 

and climate change: A synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability in forest ecosystem. 

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 43, 67 p.

Thurow, R.F., Lee, D.C., & Rieman, B.E. (1997). Distribution and status of seven native 

salmonids in the Interior Columbia River Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17, 1094-1110.

Tihen, J.A. and D.B. Wake. (1981). Vertebrae of Plethodontid salamanders from the Lower 

Miocene of Montana. Journal of Herpetology. 15(1):35-40.

Tirmenstein, D. A. (1983). Grizzly bear habitat and management in the Rattlesnake National 

Recreation Area and Wilderness. M. S. Thesis, University of Montana. 213 pp

Todd, A. W., Keith, L. B., and Fischer, C. A. (1981). Population ecology of coyotes during a 

fluctuation of snowshoe hares. Journal of Wildlife Management. 45:629-640

Tomback, D.F. (2007). Overview of whitebark pine ecosystems: Ecological importance and future 

outlook. [Oral Presentation]. In: E.M. Goheen and R.A. Sniezko (Eds.), Proceedings of the 

Conference Whitebark Pine: A Pacific Coast Perspective, 2006 August 27-31, Ashland, OR, (pp. 

6-19). R6-NR-FHP-2007-01. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Tomback, D.F., Arno, S.F., & Keane, R.E. (2001). Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and 

restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Tomback, D.F. & Kendal, K.C. (2001). Biodiversity losses: The downward spiral. In: D.F. 

Tomback, S.F. Arno, & R.E. Keane (Eds.), Whitebark pine communities: Ecology and restoration, 

(pp. 243-259). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

704 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Turner, M.G., D.C. Donato, W.H. Romme. (2012). Consequences of spatial heterogeneity for 

ecosystem services in changing forest landscapes: Priorities for future research. Landscape 

Ecology DOI 10.1007/s10980-012-8741-4.

Tyler, N. J. C. (1991). Short-term behavioural responses of Svalbard reindeer Rangifer tarandus 

platyrhynchus to direct provocation by a snowmobile. Biological Conservation 56:179-194

Unnasch, R.S., Braun, D.P., Comer, P.J., & Eckert, G.E. (2009, January). The ecological integrity 

assessment framework: A framework for assessing the ecological integrity of biological and 

ecological resources of the national park system. 46 p. Retrieved from: 

http://www.natureserve.org/publications/NPS_EcologicalIntegrityFramework_January09.pdf. (27 

September 2011).

Urban, D. L., O'Neill, R. V., & Shugart, J. H. (1987). Landscape ecology. BioScience, 37(2), 119-

127.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2000). Census 2000 Profile. U.S. Department of Commerce 

Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved for reference document on February 01, 

2012 http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.

U.S. Department of Energy [USDE] & USDI Bureau of Land Management [USDI BLM]. (2008, 

November). Final programmatic environmental impact statement (PESI) for the designation of 

energy corridors on federal lands in the 11 western states (DOE/EIS-0386): Volumes I-IV.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (1990). Air quality criteria for particulate 

matter: Vol. II of III. Washington, DC: Office of Research and Development.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA]. (1998, April 23). Interim air quality policy on 

wildland and prescribed fires. 43 p. Retrieved from: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. (1977). National forest landscape management.

USDA Forest Service. (1983). Old-Growth Management in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. September 1983.

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Environmental Assessment: Selkirk Mountains caribou herd 

augmentation. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 14 pp. 

+ Appendices

USDA Forest Service. (1989a). Colville National Forest food storage closure order. Dated 1989. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Colville National Forests 2 pp.

USDA Forest Service. (1989b). Idaho Panhandle National Forests forest plan monitoring and 

evaluation report. 1989. Coeur d’Alene, ID: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests

USDA Forest Service. (1991). Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Letter from Forest Supervisor 

to District Rangers and Staff Officers regarding explanations on implementing old growth 

standards on the Forest. Coeur d’Alene, ID
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 705

USDA Forest Service. (1994). Conservation strategy Howellia aquatilis Flathead National Forest. 

Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 26 p.

USDA Forest Service. (1995a). Inland native fish strategy: Interim strategies for managing fishproducing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana and portions 

of Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions.

USDA Forest Service. (1995b). Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) implementation plan. 

USDA Forest Service, Region 1.

USDA Forest Service. (1997, April). USFS R1 air quality monitoring plan. 56 p.

USDA Forest Service. (1998, October). Northern region overview: Detailed report. Missoula, 

MT: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 212 p.

USDA Forest Service, Committee of Scientists. (1999). Sustaining the people’s lands: 

Recommendations for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands into the next century. 

193 p. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available from: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/news_archived/science/. (27 September 2011).

USDA Forest Service. (1999). Vegetation response unit characterizations and target landscape 

prescriptions. Libby, MT: USDA Northern Region, Kootenai National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan. January 2000, FS-648

USDA Forest Service. 2000. North Zone Geographic Area Assessment: synthesis and 

interpretation of terrestrial information. Internal report for forest planning. USDA Forest Service, 

Northern Region, Idaho Panhandle National Forests 57 pp

USDA Forest Service. (2000b). Synthesis and interpretation of terrestrial information: North zone 

geographic area assessment. [Unpublished Draft]. Coeur d’Alene, ID: USDA Forest Service, 

Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 57 p.

USDA Forest Service. (2001). Forest Service energy implementation plan. Unpublished report , 

9p. http://www.fs.fed.us/geology/fseip.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. (2003b). Guidance for aquatic species passage design. Missoula, MT: 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region; Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Region.

USDA Forest Service. (2003, March). Technical report: Analysis of the management situation for 

the revision of the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle forest plans.

USDA Forest Service. (2003c). Wilderness needs assessment—2003. USDA Forest Service, 

Northern Region. 58 p.

USDA Forest Service. (2003, December). Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) inventory 

mapping protocol. 55 p.

USDA Forest Service. (2004). National strategy and implementation plan for invasive species 

management. 24 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/Invasive_Species.pdf.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

706 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Situation summary and management strategy for mountain caribou 

and winter recreation on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. 48 pp

USDA Forest Service. (2007a). Loss of open space position paper. Washington Office. 

Unpublished report. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policyanalysis/loss-of-open-spacepositionpaper.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. (2007b). Recreation Facility Analysis: Process Guidebook & Ranking 

Instructions: Washington Office. Unpublished report.

USDA Forest Service. (2007, March). Northern Rockies lynx management direction: Record of 

decision [ROD]. National forests in Montana and parts of Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. 51 p. + 

attachments.

USDA Forest Service. (2008a). Roadless area conservation; National forest system lands in 

Idaho; Final Environmental Impact Statement [FEIS}; Appendix C, Volume 3; Idaho Panhandle, 

Kootenai, Nez Perce, and Wallowa Whitman National Forests. 338 p.

USDA Forest Service. (2009). Designation of Section 368 Energy Corridors on National Forest 

System Land in 10 Western States – Record of Decision. 79 

p. http://corridoreis.anl.gov/documents/docs/WWEC_FS_ROD.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. (2010 September). Executive Summary Status and Conservation of 

Whitebark Pine. USDA Forest Service Region 1. 30p.

USDA Forest Service. (2010a). Idaho Panhandle National Forests forest plan monitoring and 

evaluation reports 2007, 2008 and 2009. Coeur d’Alene, ID: USDA Forest Service, Northern 

Region, Idaho Panhandle National Forests.

USDA Forest Service. (2010b). KIPZ climate change report. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest 

Service, Region 1. 236 p.

USDA Forest Service. (2011a). Region 1, Regional Forester’s sensitive species list (wildlife). 

Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 5 p.

USDA Forest Service. (2011b). Final supplemental environmental impact statement [FSEIS]: 

Forest plan amendments for motorized access management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak 

grizzly bear recover zones. Libby, MT: USDA Forest Service, Kootenai, Lolo and Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests.

USDA Forest Service. 2011c. Record of Decision Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access 

Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. USDA Forest 

Service, Kootenai, Lolo and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. November 2011. Libby, MT

USDA Forest Service. 2011d. Lolo National Forest food storage closure order. Dated March 25, 

2011. 2 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2011e. Kootenai National Forest food storage and sanitation closure order. 

Dated June 3, 2011. 5 pp.

USDA Forest Service. (2013). Idaho Panhandle National Forests forest plan monitoring and 

evaluation reports for 2010-2011. April 2013. Coeur d’Alene, ID: USDA Forest Service, Northern 

Region, Idaho Panhandle National Forests.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 707

USDA Forest Service. (2013b). KIPZ Management Indicator Species Selection Documentation. 

Unpublished report. 10 pp.

USDA Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior [USDI]. (2000). National fire plan. 

Managing the impact of wildfire on communities and the environment. September 8, 2000. 17 

p. http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/NFP/overview.shtml.

USDA Forest Service [USDA FS] & USDI Bureau of Land Management [USDA BLM]. (1982, 

September 7). Guidelines for eligibility, classification and management of river areas: Wild and 

scenic rivers guidelines (Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 173).

USDA Forest Service [USDA FS] & USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (2008). 

Memorandum of understanding between the USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement No. 08-MU-1113-2400-

264.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1975). Federal Register: Determination of the grizzly bear as 

threatened throughout the conterminous United States. July 28, 1985. 40 FR 31734

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1984). Federal Register: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants: Determination of endangered status for the population of woodland caribou found in 

Washington, Idaho, and southern British Columbia. October 25, 1984. 48 FR 49425

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1985). Selkirk mountain caribou management plan. Portland, 

OR. 118 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (1993). Grizzly bear recovery plan. Missoula, MT 

181 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (1994). Recovery plan for woodland caribou in the 

Selkirk Mountains. Portland, OR: Selkirk Mountain Woodland Caribou Recovery Team, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. 71pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (1994, September 6). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants: Determination of endangered status for the Kootenai River population of 

white sturgeon. Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 171, pp. 45989-46002.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (1998a). Bull trout biological opinion for the 

effects to bull trout from continued implementation of land and resource management plans and 

resource management plans as amended by the interim strategy for managing fish-producing 

watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada 

(INFISH) and the interim strategy for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in 

eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH).

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1998). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: one year 

finding for a petition to list the harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) in eastern North 

America as endangered or threatened. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register Vol. 63 

(88);21577-21578.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (1998, June 10). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants: Determination of threatened status for the Klamath River and Columbia River 

distinct population segments of bull trout. Federal Register 63 FR 31647.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

708 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (1999a, November 1). Endangered and threatened 

wildlife and plants: Determination of threatened status for bull trout in the coterminous United 

States; Final Rule. Federal Register 64 FR 58910.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (1999b). Recovery plan for the white sturgeon 

(Acipenser transmontanus) Kootenai River population. Portland, OR: USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 96 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1999). Federal Register 64 (164) 46542-46558. Final rule to 

remove the American peregrine falcon from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife 

and to remove the similarity of appearance provision for free flying peregrines in the 

conterminous United States; final rule.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2000). Federal Register 65 (58) 16052-16086. Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous US 

Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule. March, 24, 2000

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (2002). Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants: Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan, Klamath River, Columbia River, 

and St. Mary-Belly River distinct population segments. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/Recovery.html. (27 September 

2011).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003a). News Release: Grants in Pacific region support land 

acquisition, conservation planning for endangered species—Greater Priest Lake multi species 

HCP for Bonner and Boundary counties, Idaho. Dated July 14, 2003.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003b). Notice of 90-day petition finding: wolverine. Fed. 

Reg., Vol. 68, No. 203. Tuesday, October 21, 2003.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2003c). Monitoring Plan for the American Peregrine Falcon, A 

Species Recovered Under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service –

Divisions of Endangered Species and Migratory Birds and State Programs, Pacific Region: 

Portland, OR. 53 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (2005, September 12). Recovery outline: 

Contiguous United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx. Helena, MT: Montana 

Field Office, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (2006). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants; Critical Habitat Designation for the Kootenai River Population of the White Sturgeon. 

Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 26 /Wednesday, February 8, 2006.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007a). Biological Opinion on the Northern Rocky Mountains 

Lynx Amendment. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Helena, MT. 94 pp. plus appendices.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007b). National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Region 1. Helena, MT. 23 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (2008a). Birds of conservation concern: 2008. 

Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory 

Bird Management. 85 p. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 709

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (2008b, July 25). Bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) 5-year review. Portland, OR: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 53 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (2008c, July 9). 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and

threatened wildlife and plants: Critical habitat revised resignation for the Kootenai River 

population of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus). Federal Register 73 FR 39506.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008d). Southern Selkirk Mountain Caribou Population 

(Rangifer tarandus caribou): 5-Year Review, Summary and Evaluation, December 2, 2008. 40 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009a). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United states Distinct Population 

Segment of Canada Lynx. Federal Register, v 74(36):8616-8702. February 25, 2009.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009b). Federal Register: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 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, April 2, 2009, v 74(62): 15123-15188

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (2010a). Endangered and threatened wildlife and 

plants; 90–Day finding on a petition to list Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine) as endangered or 

threatened with critical habitat. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 138. Pp 42033-42040. USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010b). [October 18] 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Critical Habitat Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull 

Trout in the Coterminous United States (Salvelinus confluentus). Federal Register. 75 FR 200.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011a). Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation 

Biological Opinion on the Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access Management within 

the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones on the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, 

and Lolo National Forests. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office, Kalispell, MT, 

and Northern Idaho Field Office, Spokane, WA. 227 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011b). Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) 5-Year Review: 

Summary and Evaluation. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office. 

Missoula, MT. 205 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2011c). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the Selkirk Woodland caribou

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the Selkirk Woodland caribou 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013). 50 CFR part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American 

Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Establishment of a Nonessential 

Experimental Population of the North American Wolverine in Colorado, Wyoming, and New 

Mexico; Proposed Rules. Federal Register, February 4, 2013. v 78(23): 7864-7890.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Idaho Fish and Game, and 
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

710 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

USDA Wildlife Services.( 2009). Rocky Mountain wolf recovery 2008 interagency annual report. 

C.A. Simes and E.E. Bangs, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, 

Montana, 59601

Van Der Plank, J.E. (1984).Disease Resistance in Plants. 2nd Ed. Academic Press, Inc. New York, 

NY, 194 p.

van Wagtendonk, J.W. (2004). Fire and landscapes, patterns and processes. In: Sierra Nevada 

Science Symposium, Science for the Management and Conservation, October 7-10, 2002, Kings 

Beach, CA (pp. 69-78). Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-193. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station.

Vandendriesche, D. (2005, April). Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle planning zone: Construction of 

vegetation yield profiles for forest plan revision. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 

Management Service Center.

Verner, J. (1984). The guild concept applied to management of bird populations. Environmental 

Management, v 8(1): 1-14.

Vinkey, R.S. (2003). An evaluation of fisher (Martes pennanti) introductions in Montana 

(Master’s thesis). University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 97 p.

Volson, D. (1994). Habitat use of a grizzly bear population in northern Idaho. (Master’s thesis). 

University Idaho, Moscow, ID. 106 pp.

Vroom, G.W., Herrero, S., and Ogilvie, R.T. (1977). The ecology of winter den sites of grizzly 

bears in Banff National Park, Alberta. Int. Conf. On Bear Research and management. 3: 321-330.

Wakkinen, W. (2008). Electronic message to Lydia Allen (USFS) concerning the findings and 

application of B. Slone M.S. thesis work to the Selkirk grizzly bear habitat. Dated 20 October 

2008.

Wakkinen, W., DeGroot, L., Clarke, R., & Hill, T. (2009a). 2009 woodland caribou census: South 

Selkirk mountains. 8 p.

Wakkinen, W. L. and B. K. Johnson. (2000). Selkirk Ecosystem Project: Study 1-Selkirk 

Mountains Grizzly Bear Ecology; Study 2-Selkirk Mountains Caribou Transplant; Study 3-

Grizzly Bear Enforcement and Education Project. 1998-1999 Annual Report. Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 38 pp.

Wakkinen, W.L., Johnson, B.K., & Slone, J.B. (2009). Selkirk ecosystem project: January 2008-

December 2008. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 32 p.

Wakkinen, W. L. & Kasworm, W.F. (1997). Grizzly Bear and Road Density Relationships in the

Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zones. Idaho Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 28pp.

Wakkinen, W.L. & Kasworm, W.F. (2004). Demographics and population trends of grizzly bears 

in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems of British Columbia, Idaho, Montana and 

Washington. Ursus 15(1) Workshop Supplement: 65-72 (2004).

Wakkinen, W. L. and Slone, B. (2010). Selkirk ecosystem woodland caribou movement analysis. 

Idaho Fish and Game Report. 8 pp.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 711

Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and 

transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology & Society, 9(2), 1.

Walker, B.H. & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a 

changing world. Washington, DC: Island Press. 174 p.

Ward, A. L. and Cupal, J. J. (1979). Telemetered heart rate of three elk as affected by activity and 

human disturbance. 27 pp.

Warren, C. (1990). Ecotypic response and habitat use of woodland caribou translocated to the 

southern Selkirk Mountains, northern Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 

191 pp

Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group [WWHCWG]. (2010). Washington 

Connected Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and 

Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia, WA. 223 pp.

Watson, P., Wilson, J., Thilmany, D., & Winter, S. (2007). Determining economic contributions 

and impacts: What is the difference and why do we care. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 

37(2); 140-146.

Weir, J. N., Mahoney, S. P., McLaren, B., and Ferguson, S. H. (2007). Effects of mine 

development on woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus distribution. Wildlife Biology 13:66-74.

Werner, J.K., & Reichel, J.D. (1996). Amphibian and reptile monitoring/survey of the Kootenai 

National Forest: 1995. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 119 p.

West, N. E., & Whitford, W. G. (1995). The intersection of ecosystem and biodiversity concerns 

in the management of rangelands. Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, 472-79.

Westerling, A. L., Hidalgo, H. G., Cayan, D. R., & Swetnam, T. W. (2006). Warming and Earlier 

Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science, 313(5789), 940-943.

White, E.M. & Stynes, D.J. (2009, March). Spending profiles of national forest visitors, NVUM 

round 2 update. 68 p.

White, P. J., Davis, T., Borkowski, J., Reinhart, D., McClure, C., and Perotti, P. (2005). Wildlife 

Responses to Motorized Winter Recreation in Yellowstone: 2005 Annual Report. USDI National 

Park Service, Yellowstone National Park. 58 pp.

Wilson, A.R., & J.H. Larsen, Jr. (1988). Activity and diet in seepage-dwelling Coeur d’Alene 

salamanders (Plethodon vandykei idahoensis). Northwest Science, 62(5), 211-217.

Wilson, A.G., Jr., E.M. Wilson, C.R. Groves, and R.L. Wallace. (1997). U.S. distribution of the 

Coeur d’Alene salamander (Plethodon idahoensis Slater and Slipp). Great Basin Naturalist. 

57(4):359–362.

Wisdom, M.J., Holthausen, R.S., Wales, B.C., Hargis, C.D., Saab, V.A., Lee, D.C., ... & Eames, 

M.R. (2000). Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrate of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin; 

Broad-scale trends and management implications: Vol. 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. 

Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

712 Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS

Wisdom, M. J., Ager, A. A., Preisler, H. K., Cimon, N. J., and Johnson, B. K. (2005). Effects of 

Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Pages 67-80 in Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, The 

Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Alliance 

Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Wissmar, R.C. (1997). Historical perspectives. (pp. 66 – 79) in J.E. Williams, C.A. Wood, and 

M.P. Dombeck (Ed.). Watershed restoration: principles and practices. American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, Maryland.

Witmer, G. W., Martin, S. K., and Sayler, R. D. (1998). Forest carnivore conservation and 

management in the interior Columbia basin: issues and environmental correlates. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-420. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 51 p. (Quigley, T. M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 

Project: scientific assessment).

Witt, C.; Shaw, J. D., Thompson, M. T., Goeking, S. A., Menlove, J., Amacher, M. C.; Morgan, T. 

A., Werstak, C. (2012). Idaho’s Forest Resources, 2004–2009. Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB-14. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

134 p.

Wittmer, H.U., McLellan, B.N., Serrouya, R., and Apps, C.D. (2007). Changes in landscape 

composition influence the decline of a threatened woodland caribou population. Journal of 

Animal Ecology. 76:568-579.

Wu, J., & Loucks, O. L. (1995). From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A 

paradigm shift in ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology, 70(4), 439.

Wunder, L. and Carey, A.B. (1996). Use of the Forest Canopy by Bats. Northwest Science. 70, 

Special Issue: 79-85.

Wydoski, R. S. & Whitney, R.R. (2003). Inland fishes of Washington. Bethesda, MD: American 

Fisheries Society and Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 322 p.

Young, W. T., and Scarnecchia, D. L. (2005). Habitat use of juvenile white sturgeon in the 

Kootenai River, Idaho and British Columbia. Hydrobiologia 537:265-271

Youngblood A., Metlen, K. L. and Coe, K. (2006). Changes in stand structure and composition 

after restoration treatments in low elevation dry forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology 

and Management 234:143-163.

Zack, A.C. (1994). Early succession in western hemlock habitat types of northern Idaho. 

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 311 p.

Zack, A.C. & Morgan, P. (1994). Fire history on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. 

Unpublished report, on file with the Idaho Panhandle National Forests, 3815 Schreiber Way, 

Coeur d’Alene, ID, 83815. 44 p.

Zager, P. E. (1980). The influence of logging and wildfire on grizzly bear habitat in northwestern 

Montana. PhD Dissertation. University of Montana. Missoula, Montana. 131 pp.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Idaho Panhandle NF - EIS 713

Zhang, J. M., Ritchie, W. and Oliver, W. W. (2008). Vegetation responses to stand structure and 

prescribed fire in an interior ponderosa pine ecosystem. Canadian Journal of Forest Research

38:909-918