United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

August 2013

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement

For the Revised Land Management 

Plan

Kootenai National Forest
Art: by Frank Kujawa

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

Lincoln, Sanders, and Flathead Counties in Montana

Boundary and Bonner Counties in Idaho

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Faye Krueger

Regional Forester, Northern Region

200 E. Broadway

Missoula, MT 59807

For Information Contact: Paul Bradford

Kootenai National Forest

31374 US Highway 2

Libby, MT 59923

406-293-6211

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

developed for programmatic management of the 2.2 million acres administered by the Kootenai National 

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

Table of Contents

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................. xiii

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 .......................................................................................................................................3

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

Vegetation .............................................................................................................................................4

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

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

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

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

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

Timber ...................................................................................................................................................7

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

Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................8

Decision Framework...............................................................................................................................10

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

Relationship to Other Entities.................................................................................................................11

County Governments...........................................................................................................................11

State.....................................................................................................................................................11

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

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

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

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

Regional Scale.....................................................................................................................................12

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 ..............................................................................................18

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

KNF Managed as Roadless Area Complexes.....................................................................................30

Reduction of Roadless Areas..............................................................................................................31

Open All Roadless Areas to Snowmobile Use....................................................................................31

No Winter Motorized Recreation Alternative.....................................................................................31

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

Pro-Motorized Recreation...................................................................................................................32

Site-Specific Travel Management.......................................................................................................32

Small Sales only Alternative...............................................................................................................33

Wildlife Linkage Alternative ..............................................................................................................33

Natural Fires........................................................................................................................................33

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

Growth Management ..........................................................................................................................34

Varying/Additional Standards and Guidelines....................................................................................34

Conformance with the Resource Planning Act (RPA)........................................................................35

Comparison of Alternatives....................................................................................................................35

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

Introduction and 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 KNF..........................................................................................................................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 .......................................................................................................52

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

Forest Vegetation Condition ...............................................................................................................65

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................94

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

Programs or Revision Topics............................................................................................................112

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................115

Rare Plants............................................................................................................................................119

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................119

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................119

Key Indicator ....................................................................................................................................119

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................119

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................119

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................124

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................129
Effects Determination........................................................................................................................130

Non-native Invasive Plants ...................................................................................................................131

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................131

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................131

Key Indicator.....................................................................................................................................131

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................131

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................132

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................136

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................139

Fire and Fuels Management..................................................................................................................140

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................140

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................140

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................141

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................141

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

Ecosystems........................................................................................................................................142

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

Ecosystems........................................................................................................................................143

Affected Environment — Wildland-Urban Interface........................................................................145

Environmental Consequences — Wildland-Urban Interface ............................................................145

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................148

Watershed, Soils, Riparian, Aquatic Habitat, and Aquatic Species......................................................151

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................151

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................151

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................153

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................153

Analysis Area ....................................................................................................................................153

Changes between Draft and Final......................................................................................................155

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................155

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................188

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................201

Effects Determination........................................................................................................................204

Terrestrial Wildlife................................................................................................................................205

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................205

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................206

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................207

Analysis Area ....................................................................................................................................207

Summary of Effects Determinations.................................................................................................211

Management Indicator Species..........................................................................................................212

Old Growth, Pileated Woodpecker, Marten, and Northern Goshawk...............................................212

Organization of the Following Analysis............................................................................................214

Changes between Draft and Final......................................................................................................215

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species...............................................................................215

Sensitive Species...............................................................................................................................261

Management Indicator Species (MIS)...............................................................................................322

Other Species or Habitat Components...............................................................................................344

Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................387

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................387

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................387

Key Indicator.....................................................................................................................................390

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................390
Changes between Draft to Final........................................................................................................390

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................390

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................392

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................394

Human Uses and Designations of the Forest ............................................................................................395

Access and Recreation..........................................................................................................................396

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................396

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................396

Key Indicators...................................................................................................................................399

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................400

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................400

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................401

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................417

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................429

Lands/Special Uses...............................................................................................................................431

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................431

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................431

Key Indicators...................................................................................................................................436

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................436

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................436

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................440

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................441

Inventoried Roadless Areas..................................................................................................................443

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................443

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................444

Key Indicator ....................................................................................................................................444

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................444

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................446

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................448

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................453

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

Designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Recommended Wilderness .....................................463

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

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................464

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

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................464

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................464

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................467

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................471

Wild and Scenic Rivers ........................................................................................................................472

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................472

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................473

Key Indicator ....................................................................................................................................474

Analysis Area....................................................................................................................................474

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................474

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................475

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................475

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................477

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................481

Research Natural Areas........................................................................................................................483

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................483
Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................483

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................484

Changes between Draft and Final......................................................................................................484

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................484

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................485

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................487

Special Areas.........................................................................................................................................488

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................488

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................488

Key Indicator.....................................................................................................................................489

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................489

Analysis Area ....................................................................................................................................489

Changes between Draft and Final......................................................................................................489

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................489

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................490

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................493

Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................495

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................495

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................495

Key Indicator.....................................................................................................................................498

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................498

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................498

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

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................502

American Indian Rights and Interests...................................................................................................503

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................503

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................503

Key Indicator.....................................................................................................................................506

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................506

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................506

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................507

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................510

Production of Natural Resources...............................................................................................................511

Timber...................................................................................................................................................512

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................512

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................512

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................512

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

Analysis Area ....................................................................................................................................513

Changes between Draft and Final......................................................................................................513

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................513

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................517

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................523

Minerals ................................................................................................................................................525

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................525

Legal and Administrative Framework...............................................................................................526

Key Indicators ...................................................................................................................................530

Methodology and Analysis Process...................................................................................................530

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) .....................................................................................531

Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................................536

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................538
Livestock Grazing.................................................................................................................................539

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

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

Key Indicators...................................................................................................................................540

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................540

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................540

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................543

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................548

Special Forest Products ........................................................................................................................549

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................549

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................549

Key Indicator ....................................................................................................................................549

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................549

Analysis Area....................................................................................................................................549

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................549

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................550

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................551

Social and Economic Environment ......................................................................................................553

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................553

Legal and Administrative Framework ..............................................................................................553

Key Indicators...................................................................................................................................554

Methodology and Analysis Process..................................................................................................554

Analysis Area....................................................................................................................................555

Changes between Draft and Final .....................................................................................................557

Affected Environment (Existing Condition).....................................................................................557

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................575

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................................580

Other Required Disclosures..................................................................................................................582

Environmental Justice.......................................................................................................................582

American Indian Religious Freedom Act .........................................................................................582

Unavoidable Adverse Effects............................................................................................................582

Relationship of Short-term uses and Long-term Productivity ..........................................................583

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.................................................................583

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential............................................................................584

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland ....................................................................................584

Threatened and Endangered Species.................................................................................................584

Wetlands and Floodplains.................................................................................................................584

Conflicts with Other Agency or Government Goals or Objectives ..................................................585

Chapter 4. List of Preparers......................................................................................................................587

Chapter 5. Agencies & Individuals Receiving EIS...................................................................................589

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement...........................................................................589

Chapter 6. Glossary...................................................................................................................................591

Chapter 7. Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................615

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison Percent MA Allocation by Alternatives.....................................................................v

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

Table 3. Acres and Percent Administered by the KNF, by County ..............................................................2

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 Percent..................37

Table 6. Comparison of Resource Key Indicators by Alternatives.............................................................38

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

...................................................63

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

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

Table 9. Percentage of the Total Forested Area on the KNF that Currently Meets Old Growth Definitions 

and the Estimated Old Growth Amounts for each of the Next 5 Decades..........................................77

Table 10. Average Snags per Acre for the entire KNF by Dominance Group, Habitat Type Group, and 

Snag Sizes Classes...............................................................................................................................81

Table 11. Average Snags per Acre on the KNF for Areas within Wilderness/Roadless Areas and for the 

Areas outside of those Designations....................................................................................................82

Table 12. Snag Density Ranges and Averages for Wilderness/Roadless Areas on the KNF by Habitat 

Type and Dominance Groups (average snags are displaced in parentheses) ......................................82

Table 13. Snags and Live Trees per Acre Ranges by Seral Stage and Diameter Class...............................83

Table 14. Estimated Amount of Forested Vegetation that would be Actively Managed by Alternative and 

Budget Scenario...................................................................................................................................97

Table 15. Change in Acres by Dominance Group by Alternative over the next 50 Years..........................98

Table 16. Change in Acres by Size Class by Alternative over the next 50 Years.....................................101

Table 17. Change in Acres of Very Large Size Class over the next 50 years, by Alternative and Budget 

Scenario.............................................................................................................................................102

Table 18. 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............................................104

Table 19. 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 ....................................................107

Table 20. Thousand Metric Tons of Carbon Sequestered in the 5th Decade by Alternative ....................111

Table 21. Rare Plant Species, Status, Occurrence, and Habitat Guilds on the KNF.................................121

Table 22. Non-native Invasive Plant Species of Concern on the KNF .....................................................133

Table 23. Acres by Weed Risk Rating for NFS Lands on the KNF..........................................................136

Table 24. Watershed Sensitivity Rating, Forestwide ................................................................................158

Table 25. Watershed Disturbance Rating, Forestwide ..............................................................................160

Table 26. Distribution of Final Watershed Condition Ratings..................................................................163

Table 27. Number of 303(d)-Listed Subwatersheds and Pollutants of Concern .......................................164

Table 28. 303(d)-Listed Subwatersheds by Major Drainage Basin...........................................................164

Table 29. Summary of Disturbance Ranges and Trends for Post-Harvest Soil Conditions Monitored over 

Three Decades (1992 to 2010) ..........................................................................................................166

Table 30. Summary of Disturbance Ranges and Trends for Post-Harvest Soil Conditions Monitored over 

the past Two Decades (1992-2010)...................................................................................................167

Table 31. Disturbance Coefficients...........................................................................................................168

Table 32. Status of Federally Listed Species on the KNF.........................................................................209

Table 33. Species Analyzed and the Effects Determinations for each Alternative ...................................211

Table 34. MIS for the Kootenai National Forest.......................................................................................212

Table 35. Acres of Goshawk Habitat ........................................................................................................213

Table 36. Acres of Marten Habitat............................................................................................................213

Table 37. Acres of Pileated Woodpecker..................................................................................................214

Table 38. Lynx Habitat and Critical Habitat by Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) on the Kootenai National 

Forest (2010) .....................................................................................................................................219

Table 39. Acres of Lynx Multi-story Foraging and Stand Initiation Habitat (ERG 2012)........................223

Table 40. Components of the NRLMD that Address the PCE of Lynx Critical Habitat...........................226

Table 41. Acres of Lynx Multi-story Foraging and Stand Initiation Habitat (ERG 2012)........................230

Table 42. Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Bear Management Unit Summary for the 2011 Bear......................245
Table 43. Bear Year 2011 Motorized Access Conditions for Bears Outside of Recovery Zone (BORZ) 

Areas Situated on the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai National Forests...........................................247

Table 44. Core, OMRD, and TMRD parameters for the BMU subunits within the North Continental 

Divide Recovery Zone (NCDRZ) Located on the KNF as of 2010 (have not changed since 2008) 247

Table 45. Estimated Acres Burned by Decade on the Forest....................................................................275

Table 46. Acres of Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat............................................................................276

Table 47. Acres of Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat............................................................................279

Table 48. Habitat Estimates for Fisher (acres)..........................................................................................286

Table 49. Acres of Fisher Habitat.............................................................................................................287

Table 50. Acres of Fisher Habitat.............................................................................................................289

Table 51. Estimated Habitat for Flammulated Owl (acres) ......................................................................291

Table 52. Acres of Flammulated Owl Habitat ..........................................................................................292

Table 53. Acres of Flammulated Owl Habitat ..........................................................................................295

Table 54. Management Indicator Species for the Kootenai National Forest ............................................322

Table 55. Percent Security Habitat within the Planning Subunits on the KNF ........................................330

Table 56. Acres of Chipping Sparrow and Dusky Flycatcher Habitat......................................................336

Table 57. Acres of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat...................................................................................336

Table 58. Acres of Hammond’s Flycatcher Habitat..................................................................................336

Table 59. Acres of Hairy Woodpecker Habitat.........................................................................................337

Table 60. Acres of Chipping Sparrow and Dusky Flycatcher Habitat......................................................340

Table 61. Acres of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat...................................................................................340

Table 62. Acres of Hammond’s Flycatcher Habitat..................................................................................340

Table 63. Acres of Hairy Woodpecker Habitat.........................................................................................341

Table 64. 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)...................345

Table 65. Birds of Conservation Concern for the Bird Conservation Region that overlaps the Forest (Bird 

Conservation Region 10 = Northern Rockies)..................................................................................346

Table 66. Partners in Flight Priority Habitats/Species for Montana (PIF 2000).......................................347

Table 67. Dominant Vegetation Type for the KNF based on FIA Subplots, Vegetation Response Units, 

VMP Organized to Approximate the PIF Priority Habitats..............................................................351

Table 68. Estimated Winter Range Acres on NFS lands..........................................................................358

Table 69. Acres Closed to Over-Snow Motor Vehicle Use (may include Winter Range and Non-winter 

Range ................................................................................................................................................359

Table 70. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use................359

Table 71. Snow Use Routes Outside of Area Closures*...........................................................................360

Table 72. Snow Use Areas Outside of Area Closures* ............................................................................360

Table 73. Miles of Snow Use Routes in Winter Range ............................................................................361

Table 74. Acres of Snow Use Areas in Winter Range..............................................................................361

Table 75. Acres Closed to Over-Snow Motor Vehicle Use by Alternative ..............................................366

Table 76. Miles of Snow Use Routes Outside of Area Closures..............................................................367

Table 77. Acres of Snow Use Areas Outside of Area Closures................................................................367

Table 78. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use for 

Alternative B Modified.....................................................................................................................367

Table 79. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use for Alterative 

C........................................................................................................................................................368

Table 80. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use for Alterative 

D........................................................................................................................................................368

Table 81. Miles of Snow Use Routes in Winter Range for Alternative B Modified ................................369

Table 82. Miles of Snow Use Routes within Winter Range for Alternative C.........................................369

Table 83. Miles of Snow Use Routes within Winter Range for Alternative D.........................................370

Table 84. Acres of Snow Use Areas within Winter Range for Alternative B Modified...........................370
Table 85. Acres of Snow Use Areas within Winter Range for Alternative C...........................................371

Table 86. Acres of Snow Use Areas within Winter Range for Alternative D...........................................371

Table 87. Forest Roads Access Restrictions..............................................................................................375

Table 88. Acres (1987 Plan as amended) of Management Areas 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9....................................376

Table 89. National Ambient Air Quality Standards..................................................................................387

Table 90. Summary of KNF Roads by Functional Class ..........................................................................402

Table 91. Summary of KNF Roads by Traffic Service Level...................................................................403

Table 92. Summary of KNF Roads by Operational Maintenance Level...................................................403

Table 93. Miles of Managed and Allowed Use on the KNF1

....................................................................405

Table 94. Summary of KNF Roads by Designated Uses ..........................................................................407

Table 95. Summary of KNF Trails by Managed and Designated Uses.....................................................408

Table 96. Average Annual Road Maintenance Accomplished 2001 through 2012 ..................................410

Table 97. Average Annual Trail Maintenance Accomplished ..................................................................410

Table 98. Percent Satisfaction Index1 Scores from Recreation Users.......................................................412

Table 99. Forestwide Inventoried Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Area...................................413

Table 100. Publically Developed Recreation Sites (Number and Capacity).............................................414

Table 101. Privately Developed Recreation Sites on the KNF .................................................................416

Table 102. Current Inventory of Scenic Integrity Objectives....................................................................417

Table 103. Summary of Acres where Road Construction may be Allowed (by acres and percent of Forest)

...........................................................................................................................................................418

Table 104. Summary Miles of Trail by Type of Use by Alternative.........................................................419

Table 105. Summary of Acres Where Motor Vehicle Use (excluding over-snow) may be Allowed by 

Alternative (Acres and Percent of Forest).........................................................................................420

Table 106. Summary of Over-snow Vehicle and Mechanized Use Area by Alternative (Acres and Percent 

of Forest) ...........................................................................................................................................421

Table 107. Acres by Alternative Where Hand-held Motorized Equipment would be Prohibited.............422

Table 108. Percentage Summer Recreation Opportunity Spectrum by Alternative..................................424

Table 109. Percentage Winter Recreation Opportunity Spectrum by Alternative ....................................424

Table 110. Percentage of KNF by Scenic Integrity Objective Category...................................................426

Table 111. Summary of Non-recreation Special Use Authorizations.......................................................439

Table 112. Potential Wilderness Inventory Summary (IRAs)...................................................................448

Table 113 Potential Wilderness Inventory by IRA, and Suitability Ratings.............................................449

Table 114. Potential Wilderness Inventory Rated Suitable as Recommended Wilderness.......................451

Table 115. 1987 KNF Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness.................................................................452

Table 116. Idaho Roadless Rule Areas and Jointly Managed IRAs on the Kootenai National Forest......453

Table 117. Acres of Recommended Wilderness by Alternative ...............................................................454

Table 118. Acres of Inventory Roadless Area Management Area Allocation by Alternative ..................456

Table 119. Inventoried Roadless Area Management Area Allocation by Alternative ..............................457

Table 120. Summary of MA1b and MA4 Access and Recreation Site-Specific by Alternative...............460

Table 121. Acres of Recommended Wilderness Areas by Alternative .....................................................470

Table 122. Summary of Eligible Rivers on the KNF (1987 Forest Plan)..................................................476

Table 123. KNF Rivers Identified During Plan Revision as Eligible to Add to the Wild, Scenic, and 

Recreational River System by Alternative ........................................................................................478

Table 124. Established Research Natural Areas on the KNF....................................................................484

Table 125. Proposed Research Natural Areas on the KNF .......................................................................485

Table 126. Designated Special Areas on the KNF....................................................................................490

Table 127. Recommended Special Areas by Alternative ..........................................................................491

Table 128 Timber Suitability for the 1987 Plan........................................................................................514

Table 129. Annual Volume of Timber Processed by Tree Size Class (Excluding Pulpwood) for the 

Kootenai National Forest Impact Zone, 2011 ...................................................................................515
Table 130. Annual Total Capacity and Capability* to Process Trees by Size Class (Excluding Pulpwood) 

for the Kootenai National Forest Impact Zone, 2011 .......................................................................515

Table 131. Timber Suitability by Alternative ...........................................................................................517

Table 132. Allowable Sale Quantity and Volume Sold by Alternative — Decade 1 ...............................518

Table 133. Acres Harvested to meet ASQ and Volume Sold — Decade 1 ..............................................519

Table 134. Long-term Sustained-yield Capacity (LTSYC) by Alternative (MMCF/year).......................519

Table 135. Acres Suitable for Timber Production, Percent Scheduled for Harvest, and First Decade 

Harvest within Inventoried Roadless Areas......................................................................................522

Table 136. Summary of Lands Available for Disposal of Mineral Materials...........................................537

Table 137. KNF Allotments – Suitability Determination and Status, Existing Condition .......................542

Table 138. Range Capability and Suitability by Allotment and Alternative B Modified, C, and D.........545

Table 139. Acres of Management Areas where Commercial Use of Special Forest and Botanical Products 

is Not Allowed by Alternative ..........................................................................................................550

Table 140. Counties within the Analysis Area: Acreage and Percent Administered by KNF..................556

Table 141. Change in Population by County and State ............................................................................557

Table 142. Population by Race, 2010 .......................................................................................................558

Table 143. Planning Area Communities by Ideal Type............................................................................563

Table 144. Employment by Industry, 2001 and 2008...............................................................................565

Table 145. Per Capita Income by County and State .................................................................................567

Table 146. Compensation by Industry, 2001 and 2008 ............................................................................568

Table 147. Wildland Dependency —Total Labor Income by Category (2010 data)................................571

Table 148. Current Role of the KNF-Related Contribution to the Area Economy...................................572

Table 149. Federal Land Payments to Analysis Area Counties, 2009......................................................574

Table 150. Federal Land Payments as a Share of Total General Government Revenue, FY2007 (2009 

dollars) ..............................................................................................................................................574

Table 151. Employment by Program for Current Management and by Alternative (average annual, decade 

1).......................................................................................................................................................577

Table 152. Labor Income by Program for Current Management and by Alternative (average annual, 

decade 1; Thousands of Dollars).......................................................................................................578

Table 153. Economic Efficiency by Alternative (in thousands of dollars)...............................................579

List of Figures

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

Figure 2. Kootenai National Forest 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 KNF.....................................................................56

Figure 7. Desired and Current Forest Composition by Dominance Group at the Forestwide Scale...........66

Figure 8. Desired and Current Forest Structure by Size Classes at the Forestwide scale...........................72

Figure 9. Age class Distribution of Forested Acres over the entire KNF...................................................73

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

Setting .................................................................................................................................................89

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

Biophysical Setting .............................................................................................................................90

Figure 12. Desired and Current Forest Composition by Dominance Type for the warm/moist Biophysical 

Setting .................................................................................................................................................91

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

............................................................................................................................................................92
Figure 14. Desired and Current Forest Composition by Dominance Group for the Subalpine Biophysical 

Setting..................................................................................................................................................93

Figure 15. Desired and Current Forest Structure by Size Classes for the Subalpine Biophysical Group ...94

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 ....................................................154

Figure 17. KNF Watershed Sensitivity Rating..........................................................................................157

Figure 18. Watershed Sensitivity Rating by Major Drainage Basin .........................................................158

Figure 19. KNF Watershed Disturbance Rating........................................................................................159

Figure 20. Watershed Disturbance Rating by Major Drainage Basin .......................................................160

Figure 21. Watershed Condition Rating....................................................................................................162

Figure 22. Watershed Condition Rating by Major Drainage Basin...........................................................163

Figure 23. Conservation & Restoration Subwatersheds............................................................................172

Figure 24. Currently known Bull Trout Distribution ................................................................................175

Figure 25. Probable Bull Trout Historic Range (from Lee et al. 1997).....................................................176

Figure 26. Currently known Westslope Cutthroat Trout Distribution.......................................................178

Figure 27. Probable Historic Westslope Cutthroat Trout Distribution (Lee et al. 1997) ..........................179

Figure 28. Currently known Interior Redband Trout Distribution ............................................................180

Figure 29. Probable Interior Redband Trout Distribution (from Lee et al. 1997).....................................181

Figure 30. Distribution of Northern Leopard Frog in Montana ................................................................185

Figure 31. Disjunct Populations of Northern Leopard Frog in Western Montana ....................................186

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

Operations Guide...............................................................................................................................391

Figure 33. Operational Maintenance Level by District .............................................................................404

Figure 34. Visitor Participation and Main Recreation Activity on the KNF (2007, NVUM)...................412

Figure 35. Kootenai National Forest Landownership Pattern ...................................................................438

Figure 36. Potential Wilderness Inventory Map........................................................................................447

Figure 37. Map of KNF Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreation Rivers....................................................480

Figure 38. Volume Cut and Sold on the KNF (in MMBF) .......................................................................516

Figure 39. Alternative A — Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term Sustained-Yield 

Capacity.............................................................................................................................................520

Figure 40. Alternative B Modified — Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term 

Sustained-Yield Capacity ..................................................................................................................520

Figure 41. Alternative C — Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term Sustained-Yield 

Capacity.............................................................................................................................................521

Figure 42. Alternative D — Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term Sustained-Yield 

Capacity.............................................................................................................................................521

Figure 43. Displays the Locatable Minerals Potential for the KNF ..........................................................533

Figure 44. Displays the Oil and Gas Potential for the KNF......................................................................534

Figure 45. Suspended Oil & Gas Leases on the KNF ...............................................................................535

Figure 46. Actual Grazing Use on the Kootenai National Forest..............................................................541

Figure 47. Counties in the Analysis Area..................................................................................................556

Figure 48. Population by County by Decade.............................................................................................558

Figure 49. Percent Land Ownership by County ........................................................................................560

Figure 50. Percent Unemployment by County ..........................................................................................566

Figure 51. Percent Unemployment by Month by County .........................................................................567

Figure 52. Forest Service Payments by County — 1986 to 2009 (in constant, 2009 dollars)...................573
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 Recreational Rivers

Appendix F — Special and Research Natural Areas

Appendix G — Response to Public Comments
Acronyms

Column of Acronyms Column of Acronyms

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation MCF Thousand Cubic Feet

ASQ Allowable Sale Quantity MIS Management Indicator 

Species

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle MMBF Million Board Feet

AUMs Animal Unit Months MMCF Million Cubic Feet

BLM Bureau of Land Management MOU Memorandum of 

Understanding

BMUs Bear Management Units MT DEQ Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality

BMPs Best Management Practices 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

PCE Primary Constituent 

Element

GA Geographic Area RHCAs Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Area

GIS Geographic Information System RNAs Research Natural Areas

HRV Historic Range of Variability ROD Record of Decision

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project

ROS Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum

IDT Interdisciplinary Team SRZ Selkirk Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Zone

INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy USC United States Code

IPNF Idaho Panhandle National Forest USDA United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

IRAs Inventoried Roadless Areas USDI United States 

Department of Interior

KIPZ Kootenai Idaho Panhandle Zone USFS United States Forest 

Service

KNF Kootenai National Forest USFWS US Fish & Wildlife 

Service

LMP Land Management Plan WSA Wilderness Study Area

LTSYC Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity WUI Wildland Urban Interface

MA Management Area

Kootenai National Forest - EIS i 

Summary

Proposed Action

The Kootenai National Forest (KNF) proposes to revise its Land and Resource Management Plan. The 

area affected by the proposal includes about 2.2 million acres of public land. The final Forest Plan would 

designate seven management area (MA) themes across the Forest: Wilderness (Designated, 

Recommended, and Wilderness Study Area); Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers; Special Areas (botanical, 

geological, historical, recreational, scenic, or zoological); Research Natural Areas (RNAs) (established 

and recommended); 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 KNF

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, as 

described in the Forest Plan, regarding: 

• 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

(MA4)

Primary Rec Areas

(MA7)

General Forest

(MA6)

Backcountry

(MA5)

Little human-caused change Substantial human-caused change

Kootenai National Forest – 2,219,100 Acres
Summary 

ii Kootenai National Forest - 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 KNF. The final Forest Plan would guide 

natural resource management activities on the Forest, and 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 U.S.C. 1606(e) (5) (A)).

Public Involvement

In late 2000, the KNF 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 KNF hosted public meetings, open houses, field trips, and workgroup 

meetings. Approximately 15 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 KNF hosted approximately 75 workgroup meetings from August 2003 to September 

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

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

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

desired conditions for each of the revision topics within the 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 May 12, 2006, the Forest released the Proposed Land Management Plan under the 2005 Planning 

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

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

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

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

development of the final 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

Kootenai National Forest - 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 Forest 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), 22 

percent as backcountry (MA5), and 63 percent as general forest (MA6). Thirty-six percent of the Forest 

would be suitable for timber production.

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

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

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

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

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

(MA1 — 342,600 acres; MA5 — 477,900 acres). This alternative also has more acres recommended as 
Summary 

iv Kootenai National Forest - EIS

wilderness (214,800 acres) than any other alternative. About 59 percent would be allocated to general 

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

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

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

available for timber production and motorized access with 75 percent allocated to MA6 (general forest). 

There would be fewer acres allocated to recommended wilderness (36,100 acres or about 2 percent) and 

backcountry (MA5 – less than 13 percent of the Forest). Thirty-eight percent of the Forest would be 

suitable for timber production.

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 Forest 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 2011 November (FSEIS and ROD)).

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.

• 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.

• Wilderness Study Area — The Wilderness Study Area on the Forest was established by an Act of 

Congress in 1977. The Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area and its management would continue as 

outlined by the Wilderness Study Act, regardless of which alternative is selected for 

implementation.

• Designated Wilderness — The Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Designation remains constant for 

all alternatives.
Summary

Kootenai National Forest - EIS v

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. Comparison Percent MA Allocation by Alternatives

MA Alternative A1 Alternative B

Modified

Alternative C Alternative D

MA1a – Designated Wilderness 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2%

MA1b – Recommended Wilderness4 3.4% 4.6% 9.7% 1.6%

MA1c – Wilderness Study Area 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%

MA2 – Eligible Wild & Scenic Rivers n/a 1.7% 2.0% 2.3%

MA3 – Special Areas 0.1%2 1.4% 1.4% 1.4%

MA4 – Research Natural Areas 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

MA5a – Backcountry (Non-motorized 

Year-round)

15.5% 10.4% 15.2% 5.1%

MA5b – Backcountry (Motorized Yearround (Summer only on designated 

routes/areas)

3 7.7% 5.5% 2.2%

MA5c – Backcountry (Motorized Winter, 

Non-motorized Summer)

n/a 3.9% 0.9% 5.3%

MA6 – General Forest n/a 63.5% 58.7% 75.5%

MA7 – Primary Recreation Area n/a 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

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 For Alternative A, MA3 and 4 are a combined total, from MA21 in 1987 Plan

3 For Alternative A, MA5a and 5b are a combined total from MAs 2, 3, and 29 in the 1987 Plan 4 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 Kootenai National Forest - 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

Third most 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

Least acres of security 

habitat
Summary

Kootenai National Forest - EIS vii

Revision Topic (some Key Indicators) Alternative

A B Modified C D

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 over-snow vehicle use is 

consistent with desired condition

Percent of the Forest where mechanized use is allowed

76 percent

88 percent

N/A

96 percent

74 percent

87 percent

77 percent

91 percent

67 percent

82 percent

68 percent

86 percent

81 percent

90 percent

8 percent

94 percent

Recommended Wilderness

Acres of recommended wilderness (includes overlapping 

MAs)

102,500 acres 105,300 acres 242,800 acres 37,300 acres

Timber

Number of acres suitable for timber production 739,300 acres 793,700 acres 753,800 acres 852,700 acres

Percent Suitable 33 percent 36 percent 34 percent 38 percent

Predicted Volume Sold 50.5 MMBF 47.5 MMBF 36.8 MMBF 50.5 MMBF

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) 87.5 MMBF 80.2 MMBF 75.9 MMBF 98.7 MMBF

1 Desired Forest Condition (DFC)

Kootenai National Forest - 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 Kootenai National Forest (KNF) 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 KNF. 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 Kootenai National Forest - 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 KNF is located in the northwest corner of Montana (primarily within Lincoln and Sanders 

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

proclaimed Kootenai and a portion of the Kaniksu National Forest (figure 2). The KNF is 

divided into five ranger districts: Rexford, Fortine, Three Rivers, Libby, and the Cabinet. Seven 

geographic areas (GAs) are defined within the revised Plan: Bull, Clark, Fisher, Koocanusa, 

Libby, Tobacco, and Yaak. Two large rivers, the Kootenai and the Clark Fork, along with several 

smaller rivers and their tributaries, are major features of the Forest. The Whitefish Range, Purcell 

Mountains, Bitterroot Range, Salish Mountains, and Cabinet Mountains are all part of the rugged 

terrain radiating from the river valleys. In the north-central part of the Forest, the land is more 

open with gently rolling forested hills lying in the shadows of the Whitefish Range.

The KNF is one 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 habitat. Grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and bull trout 

are examples of some of these rare and listed species.

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

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

Fortine, Trego, Stryker, the Yaak community, Rexford, Noxon, and Heron, Montana. The nearest 

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

economic influence on the local communities as well. The majority of land administered by the 

KNF is located in Lincoln and Sanders counties in Montana with smaller portions of land in 

Flathead County, Montana and Boundary and Bonner counties in Idaho (table 3).

Table 3. Acres and Percent Administered by the KNF, by County

County Acres Administered by KNF Percent of County 

Administered by KNF

Bonner, ID 39,200 3%

Boundary, ID 10,300 1%

Flathead, MT 49,100 1%

Lincoln, MT 1,690,300 72%

Sanders, MT 428,500 24%

Total Acres 2,217,400
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 3

Figure 2. Kootenai National Forest Area Map

Purpose

The purpose of the action is to revise the 1987 Forest Plan for the KNF. 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 regional forester 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 

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 Plan where adjustments are necessary.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

4 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 KNF 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

• 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.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 5

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 risk.

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.

Fire

Issue Statement: Forest Plan management strategies may affect the restoration and maintenance 

of the fire-adapted ecosystems on the KNF. 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 wildland fire (both prescribed fire and natural, unplanned 

ignitions) as a management tool.

A substantial amount of acreage on the KNF is fairly remote in terms of road access. In many of 

these areas, it can be difficult or undesirable to use mechanical treatments to manage the 

vegetation in order to help achieve the desired forest conditions. Therefore, in these areas, it is 

especially important to consider the use of fire 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 prescribed fire and natural, unplanned 

ignitions may be used to help achieve desired conditions; and

• How much fuel treatment is anticipated and the relative reduction in risk that could 

occur.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

6 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

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 Montana completed an elk management plan in 2004, 

with specific habitat and population goals and objectives that did not always match those found 

in the Forest Plan (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 2004).

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).
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 7

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 management area 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).

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 KNF 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 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

8 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

levels, 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

• Cultural Resources

• 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 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 9

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 KNF proposed action identified from public comment and internal (Forest 

Service) input.

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

workgroup meetings. Approximately 15 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 KNF hosted approximately 42 workgroup meetings from August 2003 to May 

2004. These meetings were held in the communities within the KNF and the workgroups focused 

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

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

discuss and develop desired conditions for each of the revision topics within the 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 KNF 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 Rule, the Forest was required to prepare an EIS in conjunction with the 

revised LMP. Therefore, beginning in June 2004, based on what the KNF 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, 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 KNF hosted more than 33 workgroup meetings in the same communities focusing on the 

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 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

10 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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, showing the major changes and providing the 

rationale for changes to the starting option map, was released to the public and workgroups. 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 Forest 

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

Plan and 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 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 KNF and an identification of the 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 11

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 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.

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 KNF lands were invited to participate in Forest Plan development. All county plans 

were considered as the planning process developed.

State

Several Montana State agencies are affected by, or affect, Forest Service management. These 

include Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Montana State Environmental Protection Agency, 

Department of Natural Resource Conservation, and Montana Department of Transportation. The 

Forest coordinated information with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and Montana State 

Environmental Protection Agency during all phases of the process. These offices provided 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

12 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

formal comments during the scoping and other public involvement stages. Statewide assessments 

were considered in the development of the revised Forest Plan.

Tribes

The forest supervisor and members of the planning team met with tribal representatives from the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho during development of 

the revised Forest Plan. As a result, specific tribal comments were incorporated in this EIS and 

revised Forest Plan.

Federal

Management of federal lands adjacent to the KNF 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 Flathead and Lolo 

National Forests. The forests met to ensure management problems weren’t created because of 

KNF 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 KNF. Following is a brief description of these assessments or policies and their 

effect on the KNF 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 

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 KNF 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 Forest 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 Idaho 

Panhandle National Forests, 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
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 13

important to consider the findings and management strategies contained in these larger 

assessments, such as the Columbia River Basin Assessment (2003) and the Northern Region 

Overview (USDA Forest Service 1998 October) and how they applied to the Forest.

Forestwide Scale

In October 1995, the social and economic assessment for the KNF was completed under private 

contract and updated in 2003. 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 (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 KNF that are in Idaho.

Monitoring and evaluation reports for the 1987 Forest Plan contributed significantly to the 

knowledge of the need for change.

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 15

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the KNF 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 

study. However, not all possible alternatives were carried into detailed study as the list of options 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

16 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 FEIS. 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), and wilderness study area (WSA) (MA1c). Management areas range from little humancaused 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

Kootenai National Forest - 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 KNF manages one Congressionally designated 

wilderness area – the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness — as 

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. If, 

over the life of this Plan, Congress designates any 

additional wilderness areas on the KNF, those areas would 

be allocated to this MA (FSM 1923 and 2320; FSH 

2409.19).

7

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.

8

1c Wilderness Study 

Area (WSA)

The KNF manages one Congressionally designated WSA –

the Ten Lakes WSA.

9

2 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.

New2

3 Special Areas These areas are administratively designated areas and 

managed to protect and conserve the values for which they 

were identified.

21

4 Research Natural 

Areas (RNAs)

Research natural areas are established to provide for 

research, observation, and study and are designated jointly 

with the Forest Service Research Station. The KNF has 

eight established RNAs totaling 5,210 acres under the 

1987 Plan.

21

5a Backcountry1 These areas provide semi-primitive non-motorized 

recreation year-round.

2, 29

5b Backcountry1 These areas provide motorized and non-motorized 

recreation year-round (motorized summer only on 

designated routes/areas).

3, 29

5c Backcountry1 These areas provide semi-primitive, non-motorized 

recreation year-round and over-snow motor vehicle 

recreation.

new

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 not suitable for timber 

production, based on the timber suitability analysis.

Mixture of: 3, 

5, 10, 11, 

12, 13, 14, 

15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, 20, 

23, 24, and 

31

7 Primary 

Recreation Areas

This MA applies to two areas on the KNF. They are the 

Turner Mountain Ski area and the area around Lake 

Koocanusa.

6, 30

1 Backcountry areas are relatively large areas, generally without roads, and provide a variety of motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities 2 Although the 1987 Forest Plan was amended to include eligible wild and scenic rivers, there was no management area 

defined for this feature
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

18 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 Opinions:

• 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 2011 November (FSEIS and ROD)).

Direction for the retained decisions is located in appendix B of the revised Forest Plan.

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.

• 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.

• Wilderness Study Area — The Wilderness Study Area on the Forest was established by 

an Act of Congress in 1977. The Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area and its management 

would continue as outlined by the Wilderness Study Act, regardless of which alternative 

is selected for implementation.

• Designated Wilderness — The Cabinet Mountains 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,
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 19

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. Old growth is managed to 

provide for a minimum of 10 percent of effective and replacement old growth.

Fire: Under the 1987 Forest Plan, each MA lists standards for prescribed fire and the use of 

natural, unplanned ignitions. The AMS identified several impediments to the use of natural, 

unplanned ignitions 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 

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 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 on roads and trails may be

allowed on 76 percent of the NFS lands on the KNF. Over-snow vehicle use would be allowed 

on 88 percent and mechanized use on 96 percent of the land base.

Recommended Wilderness: The 1987 Forest Plan recommended 78,500 acres for wilderness 

designation (allocated to MA8): the Scotchman Peaks recommended wilderness (36,200 acres 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

20 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

(in addition to 22,000 acres on the IPNF, which joins the Kootenai portion of the Scotchman area 

and is also recommended for wilderness in the 1987 IPNF Forest Plan)); 35,500 acres of Cabinet 

Mountain Wilderness additions; and 6,800 acres in the Northeast corner of the Forest, along the 

periphery of the Ten Lakes Montana Wilderness Study Area. The Forest Plan also recommended 

an additional 26,000 acres within the Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area (allocated to MA9) for 

wilderness designation. The total acres recommended as wilderness under the 1987 Forest Plan 

is 102,500.

Timber: Based on historic and current condition and trends, timber harvest levels would 

continue to be well below the ASQ in the Plan of 227 million board feet (MMBF)2

. Direction is 

to maximize growth and yield through short rotations, a 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 

739,300 acres or 33 percent of the Forest. Based on modeling for Plan revision, the predicted 

volume sold for the first decade is 50.5 MMBF/year and the ASQ (unconstrained budget) 87.5

MMBF/year.

 2 The 1987 Forest Plan set the ASQ at 227 MMBF annually. In November, 1995, the Chief of the Forest 

Service issued a decision on a Forest Plan appeal related to a technical error in the calculation of the 

KNF’s ASQ. The issue centered on how timber age classes were catalogued in the inventory information 

used to calculate ASQ. A description of the problem is in the FY92 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. 

The decision required that the Forest is not to exceed a sell volume of 150 MMBF per year until the Forest 

Plan is either amended or revised.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 21

Alternative B Modified – Proposed Action

This alternative 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), 22 percent as backcountry (MA5), and 63 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 (63 

percent of the Forest) and would rely on a variety of management techniques (e.g., timber 

harvest, planting, thinning, natural unplanned ignitions, prescribed burns, and mechanical fuel 

treatment). MA1 and 5 (approximately 32 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 for resource benefit

and prescribed burns. 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 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Fire: This alternative emphasizes the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource 

objectives and prescribed fire, particularly in the backcountry (MA5 — 487,400 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 MAs 1 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 230,500 acres to MA1 and 487,400 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 vegetative conditions (wildlife habitat) that are currently outside of desired conditions (MA6 

— 63 percent or 1,408,800 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 74 

percent of the Forest. Over-snow vehicle use would be allowed on 87 percent of the Forest and 

mechanized use (e.g., mountain bikes) on 91 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 105,300 acres for wilderness. This 

includes recommending three new wilderness areas (Roderick at 23,500 acres, Scotchman Peaks 

at 35,900 acres, Whitefish Divide at 16,000 acres) and recommending 29,900 acres added to the 

existing Cabinet Mountain Wilderness.

Timber: There are 793,700 acres suited for timber production (or 36 percent of the Forest). The 

predicted volume sold for the first decade is 47.5 MMBF/year and the ASQ (unconstrained 

budget) is 80.2 MMBF/year.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Kootenai National Forest - 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 —

342,600 acres; MA5 — 477,900 acres) and more acres recommended as wilderness (MA1b 

214,800 acres) than any other alternative (see figure 4). About 59 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 future condition would be emphasized in MA6 (59 

percent of the Forest) and would rely on a variety of management techniques (e.g., timber 

harvest, planting, thinning, natural unplanned ignitions, prescribed burns, and mechanical fuel 

treatment). MA1 and 5 (approximately 37 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 prescribed burns. 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 Kootenai National Forest - 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 the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource 

objectives and prescribed fire in all MAs except MA3, 4, and 7. Natural, unplanned ignitions and 

prescribed fire 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 342,600 acres to MA1 and 477,900 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 potentially be less land available for active 

restoration of habitat for native species preferring open-canopied, large-tree forest conditions

(MA6 – 59 percent of the Forest or 1,302,200 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 67 percent 

of the NFS lands on the KNF. Over-snow vehicle use would be allowed on 82 percent and 

mechanized use (e.g., mountain bikes) on 86 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 217,300 acres for wilderness. This 

includes seven new wilderness areas (Allen Peak at 20,500 acres; Big Creek at 6,600 acres; Gold 

Hill West at 12,200 acres; Roderick at 23,500 acres; Saddle Mountain at 14,300 acres; 

Scotchman Peaks at 37,300 acres; and Whitefish Divide at 40,100 acres), an addition to Ten 

Lakes (9,100 acres) and an addition to the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness (53,700 acres).

Timber: There are 753,800 acres (34 percent of the Forest) suited for timber production. The 

predicted volume sold for the first decade is 36.8 MMBF/year and the ASQ (unconstrained 

budget) is 75.9 MMBF/year.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Kootenai National Forest - 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 75 percent allocated to MA6 (general forest) (see figure 5). There would 

be fewer acres allocated to recommended wilderness (MA1b – less than 2 percent of the Forest) 

and backcountry (MA5 – less than 13 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 (75 

percent of the Forest) and would rely on a variety of management techniques (e.g., timber 

harvest, planting, thinning, natural unplanned ignitions, prescribed burns, and mechanical fuel 

treatment). Timber management and production is emphasized while moving towards vegetation 

desired conditions. MA1 and 5 (approximately 20 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 for resource benefit and prescribed burns. 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 Kootenai National Forest - 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 natural, unplanned ignitions to meet 

resource objectives and prescribed fire would be utilized in backcountry MAs while use of fire

and timber harvest practices would be utilized on the rest of the Forest.

Watersheds, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats/Species: Improvements to watersheds, 

soils, riparian, 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 vegetative 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 on 81 percent of the Forest. Over-snow vehicle use 

may be allowed (on roads and trails) on 90 percent of the Forest and mechanized use (e.g.,

mountain bikes) on 94 percent of the Forest. Existing developed recreation sites would be 

maintained. Dispersed recreation opportunities would continue to be available with some 

improvements made to concentrated use areas.

Recommended Wilderness: This alternative recommends 37,300 acres for wilderness as 

additions to the existing Cabinet Mountains Wilderness area (MA1a).

Timber: This alternative has the highest amount of timber production from suitable timberlands. 

There are 852,700 acres (38 percent of the Forest) suited for timber production. The predicted 

volume sold for the first decade is 50.5 MMBF/year and the ASQ (unconstrained budget) 98.7

MMBF/year.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Kootenai National Forest - 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 II 

4 of the 1987 Forest Plan.

This alternative was considered, but not analyzed in detail because it has been apparent since 

early monitoring and evaluation reports that the 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 preference. 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 Alternatives B Modified and C, 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 Kootenai National Forest - 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 were adequately addressed in Alternatives B, 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 43 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 vegetative 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 KNF, that are within the state of Idaho. This rule was issued 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 KNF alternatives 

were developed to conform to the management designations and direction in the Idaho Roadless 

Rule for those portions of inventoried roadless areas in Idaho.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Kootenai National Forest - 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. In order to meet 

this requirement, the EIS considers an alternative that would recommend more wilderness than 

the proposed action, as well as an alternative that recommends less.

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. Based on this evaluation,

thirteen roadless areas were rated as high in both capability and availability. These roadless areas 

were recommended for wilderness in Alternative C. Alternative C recommends nine areas as 

wilderness (242,800 acres) versus Alternative B Modified (the proposed action) which 

recommends four areas (105,300 acres). The IRAs not recommended for wilderness were 

primarily placed into either MA5 or MA3. These designations also limit activities such as road 

construction and timber cutting that could affect wilderness character.

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 eligible wild and scenic river designation for those rivers that 

had been inventoried and found to be eligible by a coalition in support of wild and scenic rivers. 

Their report (Colburn et al. 2011) describes an inventory they conducted and the resulting 

eligible wild and scenic rivers. A systematic inventory of named streams and rivers was 

completed by the KNF 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 inventories conducted by the KNF and the 

group’s report. Although some of the rivers are the same, the coalition listed several additional 

rivers that were not designated as eligible wild and scenic rivers by the KNF. Although found to 

be eligible for wild and scenic rivers by the group, the following rivers are not included in any 

KNF action alternatives for the following reasons:

Callahan Creek: This creek was found by the group to have fisheries, geology, historic, 

recreation, and scenic values. The KNF recognized some of these same values, but the 

only rare, unique, or exemplary value was the historic value. The creek was allocated to 

a special area, MA3, because it is a historic mining and logging district that is eligible 

for the national register of historic places. MA3 would protect and manage these historic 

values.

Granite Creek: This creek was found by the group to have fisheries, recreation, and 

scenic values. The KNF recognized some of these same values, but they were not rare, 

unique, or exemplary. Under the action alternatives, a portion of this creek is within 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

30 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

designated wilderness, with the remainder in a mix of MA1b (recommended wilderness) 

or MA5b (backcountry motorized).

Libby Creek: This creek was found by the group to have fisheries and recreation values. 

The KNF found no outstandingly remarkable values for this creek. Therefore, this creek 

is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Rock Creek: This creek was found by the group to have fisheries values. The KNF 

found scenery, wildlife, and botanical values, but they were not rare, unique, or 

exemplary. This area was allocated to MA5b (backcountry motorized) and MA3.

Ross Creek: This creek was found by the group to have botanical, fisheries, 

recreational, and scenic values. The KNF found botanical values for the area. However, 

this creek runs dry in the late summer and would not be appropriate as an eligible wild 

and scenic river. Most of the area is allocated to MA1b (recommended wilderness), 

MA3 (special area), and MA4 (research natural area).

Star Creek: This creek was found by the group to have geologic and scenery values. 

The KNF found no outstandingly remarkable values for this creek. Therefore, this creek 

is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Swamp Creek: This creek was found by the group to have fisheries, recreation, and 

scenery values. The KNF found it is not free-flowing, but has a ditch bill diversion. 

Therefore, this creek is not eligible as a wild and scenic river.

Wigwam River: This River was found by the group to have fisheries, recreation, and 

scenery values. The KNF found it had a fisheries value for bull trout. Most of this river 

is in Canada. The fisheries value because of bull trout presence is protected through 

critical habitat designation. Therefore, this creek was not determined to be eligible as a 

wild and scenic river.

The number of additional creeks and rivers suggested for designation as eligible wild and scenic 

rivers supports the determination that these values are not rare, unique, or exemplary features. 

The KNF 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 IPNF and the 

Flathead, 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.

KNF 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 C, almost all of the 

lands in IRAs would be managed to retain their roadless character because they would be 

allocated to MA1 (342,600 acres) or MA5 (477,900 acres). Under this alternative, only 6,100 

acres of IRAs are 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 the need to 

provide vegetation management options to treat and reduce hazardous fuels and restore 

vegetation.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 31

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 2011 November (FSEIS 

and ROD)), 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-10 Big game).

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 (outside of Idaho) must follow the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294 

Subpart B). Inventoried roadless areas within Idaho must follow the Idaho Roadless Rule (36 

CFR 294 Subpart C). 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 

snowmobile use. Approximately 87 percent of the lands (regardless of whether they are in an 

IRA or not) within the KNF allow over-snow vehicle use under Alternative B Modified, 82

percent under Alternative C, and 90 percent under Alternative D. All roadless areas outside 

MA1a (designated wilderness), MA1b (recommended wilderness), and MA4 (research natural 

areas) may be available for snowmobile use based on MA direction.

Other areas on the Forest are closed to over-snow vehicle use to provide non-motorized 

recreation opportunities. These areas provide opportunities for primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized 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 was addressed in Alternative C, with the 

emphasis on more recommended wilderness (MA1b) and winter non-motorized backcountry 

(MA5a). In addition, area closures for winter motorized use may occur where needed to protect 

wildlife and other resources under any of the alternatives.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

32 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Access and Roads

This alternative responds to public comments to open all available roads for use and 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 

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 2011 November

(FSEIS 2011)) 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.

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 

KNF, 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 KNF motor 

vehicle use map (MVUM).

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 2011 November 

(FSEIS 2011)) 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 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 33

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 

evaluate detailed travel management information such as the location, condition, and current 

uses of individual roads and trails.

The KNF has published motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs) 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. 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 sitespecific 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 (i.e., 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 applies 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 

34 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

direction. The MAs were numerous and generally small in size. Adjoining MAs often had 

different or unclear direction on the use of fire and 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 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 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 this 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 35

Proposed Standards

• Maximum road density of 1.5 miles/section — Road densities standards were included 

in the 1987 Plan as a way to provide secure habitat for 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 2011 November (FSEIS and ROD)), 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 KNF. 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 management 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 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

36 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

areas shown in the revised Forest Plan. Where possible, Alternative A was crosswalked to the 

revised Forest Plan MAs for comparison purposes.

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.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 37

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

MA Alternative A Alternative B Modified Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

1a 93,500 4.2% 93,700 4.2% 93,700 4.2% 93,700 4.2%

1b 76,500 3.4% 102,700 4.6% 214,800 9.7% 36,100 1.6%

1c 34,100 1.5% 34,100 1.5% 34,100 1.5% 34,100 1.5%

2 n/a n/a 38,300 1.7% 45,100 2.0% 50,200 2.3%

3 15,900 0.1% 31,400 1.4% 30,500 1.4% 31,700 1.4%

4 --1 -- 9,800 0.4% 8,400 0.4% 8,400 0.4%

5a 343,800 15.5% 231,100 10.4% 336,700 15.2% 112,600 5.1%

5b --2 -- 169,800 7.7% 121,200 5.5% 47,900 2.2%

5c n/a n/a 86,500 3.9% 20,000 0.9% 117,500 5.3%

6 n/a n/a 1,408,800 63.5% 1,302,200 58.7% 1,674,500 75.5%

7 n/a n/a 12,900 0.6% 12,400 0.6% 12,400 0.6%

Total Acres 563,800 2,219,100 2,219,100 2,219,100

* Acres are based on a single management area designation; where management areas overlap, the following hierarchy was used: MA1a, MA4, MA1b, MA1c, MA2, MA3, and MA7 1 For Alternative A, MA3 and 4 are a combined total, from MA21 in 1987 Plan

2 For Alternative A, MA5a and 5b are a combined total from MAs 2, 3, and 29 in the 1987 Plan
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

38 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 6. Comparison of Resource Key Indicators by Alternatives

Resource and indicator(s) Alternative

A 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

Greatest 

improvement

Greatest 

improvement

Greatest 

improvement

Greatest 

improvement

Third highest amount 

of carbon 

sequestered

Second greatest 

improvement

Second greatest 

improvement

Second greatest 

improvement

Second greatest 

improvement

Second highest 

amount of carbon 

sequestered

Third greatest 

improvement

Third greatest 

improvement

Third greatest 

improvement

Third greatest 

improvement

Least amount of carbon 

sequestered

Fire

Use of fire (prescribed and natural, unplanned 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 

opportunities for soil 

and aquatic 

resources and also 

includes a balance 

with passive 

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
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 39

Resource and indicator(s) Alternative

A B Modified C D

restoration 

opportunities

Terrestrial Wildlife

Changes in forest composition, structure, and pattern

Acres of security habitat

See Vegetation 

section above

Third most 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

Least 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 over-snow vehicle use is 

consistent with desired condition

Percent of the Forest where mechanized use is allowed

Percent of Forest by Scenic Integrity Objectives 

Category(ies)

 Very High

 High

 High/Moderate

 Moderate

 Moderate/Low

 High to Low

Percent of Forest by ROS Class

 Summer ROS:

 Primitive

 Semi-Primitive Non-motorized

 Semi-Primitive Motorized

 Roaded Natural/Rural

 Winter ROS:

76 percent

88 percent

N/A

96 percent

11 percent

31 percent

47 percent

11 percent

10 percent2

57 percent

10 percent

23 percent

74 percent

87 percent

77 percent

91 percent

12.9 percent

0.1 percent

23.9 percent

0.7 percent

0 percent3

62.4 percent

8 percent

54 percent

16 percent

22 percent

67 percent

82 percent

68 percent

86 percent

17.5 percent

0.1 percent

23.9 percent

0.7 percent

0 percent

57.8 percent

9 percent

56 percent

16 percent

22 percent

81 percent

90 percent

84 percent

94 percent

9.6 percent

0.1 percent

15.1 percent

0.7 percent

0 percent

74.5 percent

8 percent

58 percent

12 percent

22 percent
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

40 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Resource and indicator(s) Alternative

A B Modified C D

 Primitive

 Semi-Primitive Non-motorized

 Semi-Primitive Motorized

 Roaded Natural/Rural

<1 percent

5 percent

87 percent

8 percent

<1 percent

14 percent

78 percent

8 percent

<1 percent

24 percent

68 percent

8 percent

<1 percent

7 percent

85 percent

8 percent

Recommended Wilderness

Acres of recommended wilderness (includes overlapping 

management areas)

102,500 acres 105,300 acres 242,800 acres 37,300 acres

Timber

Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 1,711,800 acres 1,711,800 acres 1,711,800 acres 1,711,800 acres

Other resources limit timber or management precludes timber 

production as an objective 972,500 acres 918,100 acres 958,000 acres 859,100 acres

Number of suitable acres available for timber production 739,300 acres 793,700 acres 753,800 acres 852,700 acres

Percent Suitable 33 percent 36 percent 34 percent 38 percent

Predicted Volume Sold 50.5 MMBF 47.5 MMBF 36.8 MMBF 50.5 MMBF

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ)

Long-term Sustained Yield

87.5 MMBF

15.7 MMCF

80.2 MMBF

17.0 MMCF

75.9 MMBF

16.3 MMCF

98.7 MMBF

18.1 MMCF

1 Alternative A (No-action – Existing Forest Plan) 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 2 Alternative A does not have ROS classes, but general categories by Management Area 3 Turner Mountain Ski Area (MA7) is the only area that has this Scenic Integrity Objective Classification (Moderate/Low) and totals 852 acres
Kootenai National Forest - EIS 41

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

Introduction and 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 KNF, 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 Kootenai National Forest - 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 KNF

Physical and Biological Environment

In order to provide a better understanding of the ecological setting and importance of the KNF, 

one must first look at where the Forest is in relation to a larger landscape.

The KNF is set within the Northern Rocky Mountain Steppe-Coniferous Forest – Alpine 

Meadow Province and includes two ecological subsections, the Flathead Valley and Northern 

Rockies section, both of which are influenced by inland maritime and continental weather 

patterns.

The KNF 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 (upper 

Kootenai Sub-basin Assessment on the KNF). These broad-scale assessments were reviewed and 

the resulting information incorporated into this analysis.

Ranges of high craggy peaks mark the Forest with Snowshoe Peak in the Cabinet Mountains 

Wilderness at 8,738 feet, the highest point. The Whitefish Range, Purcell Mountains, Bitterroot 

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

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

timbered hills lying in the shadows of the Whitefish Range. Topography, aspect, and elevation 

serve to modify local climate in a very complex fashion. The climate of the KNF has been 

described as "modified pacific maritime" in character, meaning that compared to the remainder 

of Montana, this area's climate resembles that found along the Pacific coast. The character 

becomes "modified" by occasional intrusions of the arctic air masses, more commonly found in 

the remainder of the state, which can bring winter temperatures down to -30° F with heavy 

snowfalls in the mountains. Average annual temperatures of 45° F reflect the moderating 

influence of the pacific air masses. Summer temperatures are moderate with few days reaching 

over the 90° mark. The wet season in the Forest usually occurs in the fall and early winter.

The Forest is dominated by two major rivers, the Kootenai and the Clark Fork, along with 

several smaller rivers and their tributaries. Two hydroelectric dams on the Clark Fork have 

created the Cabinet Gorge and Noxon reservoirs within the Forest boundary. State Highway 200 

parallels these reservoirs as it crosses the Forest. The Kootenai River is spanned by another 

hydroelectric (and flood-control) project, Libby Dam. This structure located about 18 miles 

upstream from Libby, Montana, has created Lake Koocanusa, a 90-mile-long reservoir reaching 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 43

northward into the Canadian Rockies. Lake Koocanusa is almost totally surrounded by national 

forest lands...no private summer home or condominium developments here. State Highway 37 

follows the east shore to Rexford and beyond to Eureka, Montana. The elevation of the Kootenai 

River as it leaves the Forest and the state is 1,862 feet, the lowest point in Montana.

The Yaak, Fisher, Tobacco, and Vermillion Rivers are smaller rivers within the confines of the 

Forest. There are over 100 lakes inside the boundaries of the KNF ranging from small alpine 

lakes to 1,240-acre McGregor Lake.

Severe winters are uncommon; temperatures can range from below 0 degrees Fahrenheit in the 

winter to above 100 degrees in the summer. Precipitation averages 20 to 40 inches annually, but 

can attain over 80 inches within some GAs. Most of the region has been glaciated with 

landforms typical of this process.

Mixed evergreen-deciduous forest predominates with Douglas-fir, larch, and cedar-hemlock as 

common forest types.

Soils are mostly cool, moist Inceptisols with a variety of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic 

rocks forming the mountain masses.

Large mammals in this province include grizzly and black bear, caribou, deer, moose, elk, 

mountain goat, mountain lion, and bobcat. Smaller mammals include red squirrel, flying squirrel, 

marten, fisher, redtailed chipmunk, picas, hoary marmots, and bushytail woodrat. Birds found 

most often are eagles, hawks, grouse, turkeys, chickadees, nuthatches, thrushes, and bluebirds. 

Fish include bull trout, landlocked salmon, sturgeon, rainbow trout, brook trout, and cutthroat 

trout.

Ecological Sustainability

Many of the decisions to be made in the Forest Plan will affect the Forest’s 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

44 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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).

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 KNF (Russell et al. 2006). Following are excerpts from this document, giving a 

general description of the historical and socio-economic setting for the KNF.

Historical Setting

The social and economic environment for the KNF incorporates a geographic region including 

northwestern Montana and portions of the panhandle region of northern Idaho. The Canadian 

provinces of Alberta and British Columbia are across the international border with Idaho and 

Montana. The states and provinces of this region are the historical homeland for Native 

American tribes including the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 45

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 d’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 

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 the communities of Libby and 

Troy. 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 Libby in Montana. The first farmers arrived in the region around 

1869 growing flax and other grains. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

46 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

The KNF contains portions of five counties in two states: Flathead, Lincoln, and Sanders 

counties in Montana and Bonner and Boundary counties in Idaho. These counties comprise the 

analysis area for the social and economic environment. These are the counties that are likely to 

be affected by KNF management. These counties are also influenced by a larger regional 

economy comprised of the surrounding counties.

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 Troy 

(957) and Eureka (1,017) in Lincoln County, Plains (1,126) in Sanders County, Moyie Springs 

(685) in Boundary County, and Clark Fork (566) and Priest River (1,863) in Bonner 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

Kootenai National Forest - 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 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Forest Vegetation

Introduction

The ecosystems and vegetation of the KNF are dynamic. The processes of succession and 

disturbance patterns have produced the current vegetative 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 vegetative 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 yields. 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

Kootenai National Forest - 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 vegetative 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 (USDA Forest Service 

2003 March)) 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

50 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

were developed in part to better understand how disturbance, vegetation, and other ecosystem 

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 AMS Technical 

Report for the KIPZ Forest Plan Revisions (March 2003) contained preliminary information on 

HRV for the KNF. 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 KNF, 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, 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

Kootenai National Forest - 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 1910s through the 1960s;

• 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;

• Spatial and numerical analysis of 1930s/1940s maps on six townships selected to portray 

the diversity of the KNF landscape;

• 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 October), 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.

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 sensing and an inventory source.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

52 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 1993 to 1995 on the KNF. 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 KNF. 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 KNF, as well as the lands of other ownership, both within and adjacent to the KNF 

boundaries.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 53

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

• 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.

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 KNF towards a condition that is more resistant 

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 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 Forest 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

54 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

comments were responded to in appendix G. 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 

KNF.

Processes and conditions that occur in vegetative 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 (Pfister et al. 1977). 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 (Pfister et al. 1977).

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 cedarhemlock 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 Fischer and Bradley (1987), 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 55

• 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 KNF, 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 22 percent of KNF 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 37 percent of the KNF NFS forested lands. This setting includes 

low-elevation upland sites with deeper soils on north and east aspects, extensive midelevation 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 41 percent of the KNF 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. Vegetative response units 7 through 11 comprise this setting.

These biophysical settings are broad groupings of vegetative 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 vegetative 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 vegetative response units, and a discussion of the methodology used to delineate them 

is presented in USDA Forest Service 1999.

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 KNF are displayed in figure 6.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

56 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 6. Map of the three Biophysical Settings on the KNF
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 57

Disturbance Types and Processes

The AMS Technical Report (USDA Forest Service 2003 March) 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 KNF, 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 KNF and the IPNF (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 

58 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 KNF 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 KNF, 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 KNF, 

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 KNF 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., nonlethal 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 59

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 dominated 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 covers and benches and the lower portions of northern 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 

60 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 KNF, 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, 

Fischer and Bradley (1987).

Across the Forest, 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 95 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 61

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, from 1988 to 1997, the acres 

harvested with regeneration prescriptions on the KNF went from over 11,000 acres per year 

down to approximately 5,000 by 1997. This downward trend continued so that by the years 2001 

and 2002, the annual regeneration harvest was approximately 1,000 acres (KNF Monitoring and 

Evaluation Reports for 1997, 2001, and 2002). Relative to the entire forested acreage on the 

KNF, the 1,000 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).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

62 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

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 KNF 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 KNF 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 Forest was susceptible to mortality from mountain pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle, 

and western pine beetle. 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 19.2 percent of the Douglas-fir may be killed by the Douglas-fir 

beetle, and up to 1.0 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 to determine what the root 

disease hazard was on lands within the boundaries of the KNF. The results indicate that 

approximately 6.8 percent of the area has a high hazard, 27.2 percent is moderate, 65.2 percent is 

rated as low and approximately 9.2 percent has no hazard (additional information about this 

analysis is available in the project record).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 63

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

5.6% 13.2% 5.8% 75.4% 4.5% 6.6% 18.9% 29.9%

Mountain Pine Beetle/Western 

Pine Beetle in Ponderosa Pine

0.8% 2.9% 1.8% 94.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.1% 1.0%

Douglas-fir Beetle In Douglas-fir 5.1% 19.6% 21.0% 54.3% 3.1% 8.8% 7.4% 19.2%

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 

64 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Historically, western white pine was a common tree species on the KNF, 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 

(Hagle and Byler 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 65

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 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 93 percent of the national forest land on the KNF is classified as being 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. The KNF contains some of the most diverse and 

productive forests found within the Inland Northwest. In addition, because trees dominate most 

landscapes on the KNF, 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 Forest, as opposed to the many other types of plants (e.g., shrubs, forbs, 

ferns, grasses, mosses and lichens).

Forest Composition

On the KNF, there are fourteen native conifer species1 as well as four broadleaved species2

. The 

conifer species typically dominate the Forest with the broadleaved species being much less 

prevalent. The 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 Water birch, paper birch, quaking aspen, and black cottonwood
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

66 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 KNF, the most abundant Dominance Groups are the Douglas-fir and the subalpine fir 

mix (figure 7). Each of those groups occupies over 24 percent of the forested acres. Intermediate 

in abundance levels are the grand fir/cedar/hemlock mix, lodgepole pine, and the western larch, 

with each of these groups occupying between approximately 11 and 17 percent. The ponderosa 

pine and western white pine are the rarest groups depicted in the figure with each occupying 

approximately 3 percent or less.

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 condition, it is apparent that the objective is to 

increase the amount of western larch, ponderosa pine, and western white pine across the Forest;

and to decrease the amount of Douglas-fir, grand fir/hemlock/cedar mix, and subalpine fir mix. 

The desire for lodgepole pine is to keep it at current levels. The species to decrease are relatively 

drought-and fire-intolerant, and are fairly susceptible to various insects and diseases. 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 

that the most effective approach to maintaining biodiversity, and therefore the sustaining forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 67

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 KNF 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 KNF are less productive and are not as 

resilient. 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, 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 

68 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 four 

to nine percent of the forested area on the KNF, while it is only dominate on approximately one 

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 KNF has been 

helping to restore the western white pine. 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 KNF). 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 69

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

70 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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)

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 type is 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 percent cited among four long-term tests need to be 

adjusted for the frequency of the rust resistance traits to determine susceptibility (60.3 – 27

percent 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 (IPNFs) 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 0.7 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 four species that 

occur on the KNF, paper birch, quaking aspen, and black cottonwood are the most common with 

water birch being relatively rare. Although these species are not shown in figure 8, 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 71

ridges and mountain tops across the KNF. 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).

The most recent inventory information indicates that some live whitebark pine trees occur over 

approximately 2 percent of the forested area of the KNF (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. 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 2010).

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 KNF, 

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 KNF has been implementing many of the restoration actions that 

are suggested in that strategy for the last one to two decades. For example, the KNF 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. Both the 

Canada lynx and grizzly bear have habitat that overlaps 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

72 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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. The medium and small size classes occupy the greatest amount of the forested area on 

the KNF, at approximately 30 and 27 percent, respectively. The large and seed/sap size classes 

occupy lower amounts of the forested lands, approximately 23 percent and 20 percent, 

respectively. In general, stands in the seed/sap size class range from 0 to 40 years old. Stands in 

the small and medium size classes range in age from 40 to 70 and 70 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 Classes at the Forestwide scale

In addition to depicting the current distribution of size classes on the KNF, figure 8 also 

illustrates the desired amount. The desired ranges that are illustrated in the figure also 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 the large size class and reduce 

the amount of the small and medium size classes.

Age Class

Figure 9 presents the distribution of the current age classes of forest stands for the KNF. 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 KNFapproximately 49 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. 

Although it was a much less significant factor compared to wildfires, regeneration type timber 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 73

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 KNF

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 middle-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

74 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

aged stands on the Forest. Typically these middle-aged stands are dominated by trees in the small 

or medium size classes.

Old Growth

The KNF has adopted the definitions of old growth 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 KNF, there are eight old growth types that are described in detail in that 

publication (see pages 23-30). 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 require 

at least ten trees per acre, at least 150 years in age, 21 inches in diameter, and have a minimum 

stand density of 80 square feet of basal area. A thorough discussion concerning how the KNF has 

been using the Green et al. 1992 publication to identify old growth stands is described in USDA 

Forest Service (2011). Old growth management direction that was provided in the 1987 Forest 

Plan is presented in the environmental consequences section.

The KNF utilizes two different inventory and analysis “tools” to monitor and manage the old 

growth resource. One method uses inventory information from the Forest Inventory and Analysis 

(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 KNF 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 8.9 percent (with a 90 percent confidence interval of 7.0 to 10. 9 percent)

of the forested acreage across the entire KNF meets the definition of old growth. As shown in 

that report, the old growth is well distributed across the fourteen landscape analysis areas on the 

Forest. Estimates and confidence intervals for the individual landscapes are presented in Bush 

and Reyes (2013a).

The KNF 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, as the trees age and/or grow larger in size (USDA 

Forest Service 2011a). Stand-level information from the 2010 Forest Plan Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report indicates that 10.8 percent of the forested lands are occupied by stands 

meeting the old growth criteria and an additional 5.2 percent is being managed with the objective 

that they meet the old growth criteria in the future.

 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 75

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). 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).

Regarding the historic range of variability of old growth on the KNF, 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 KNF 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 KNF 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 KNF considered an alternative that included 

those elements but for the reasons that were summarized on page 32 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 

KNF, which is approximately 9-11 percent of the entire forested acreage, add to that amount 

another 19-21 percent of the forested acreage, to achieve a combined 30 percent of the forested 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

76 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

area in reserves to be managed for old growth purposes. The premise of the 30% seems to be 

either that it may have represented an approximation of the average amount of the forested area 

on the KNF 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 KNF 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 (LSRs) 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 KNF 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 KNF. 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 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 77

managed fire-perhaps harkening back to prehistorical 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).

In an effort to investigate how many acres of forested stands on the KNF 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 9

below provides a summary of the results of that analysis. More information on the methodology 

and results, including the confidence intervals as well as the estimates for the individual 

landscape analysis areas, is provided in Bush and Reyes (2013b).

Table 9. Percentage of the Total Forested Area on the KNF that Currently Meets Old Growth 

Definitions and the Estimated Old Growth Amounts for each of the Next 5 Decades

Year

2013 2023 2033 2043 2053 2063

8.9 10.1 10.5 11.4 12.7 13.9

As illustrated in table 9 above, the amount of old growth that is predicted to occur across the 

Forest in the future increases substantially during the next 50 years. 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 

KNF 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 KNF 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

78 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 78 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 KNF 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.

The KNF 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. Both the terms resilience as well as resistance (see glossary for definitions) 

are used in this EIS and revised Forest 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 site-specific, 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 KNF 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 79

Example 2: Within old growth stands that occur in the Warm/Moist biophysical setting and 

contain substantial amounts of shade intolerant species (i.e., western Montana Zone Old Growth 

Type 4 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., western Montana Zone Old Growth Type 5 

and 6 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 

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 and Franklin 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

80 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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, 

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 provides 

habitat structures (including den sites) for a different and very wide suite of wildlife 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 a 

gradual creation of snags until all the trees are killed. Depending on 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 existing snags on the KNF, an analysis was 

recently completed using FIA information collected on the Forest (Bollenbacher et al. 2009b). 

Table 10 provides a summary of the estimated average number and size distribution of snags per 

acre that occur across the forested areas of the KNF. The information is separated by Dominance 

Group, Habitat Type Group, and three snag sizes. The three Habitat Type Groups correspond 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 81

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 10). 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.

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.

Table 10. Average Snags per Acre for the entire KNF 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 6.8 2.2 0.7

Low Mid ElevMoist11.7 4.1 1.5

Subalpine 14.4 3.2 0.9

Lodgepole Pine All Settings 9.6 1.4 0.3

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 plots per strata are available in that document.

Average snag densities for wilderness/roadless areas and the other forested lands are displayed in 

table 11. As this table indicates, the average snag densities in the wilderness/roadless areas are 

greater than those outside of those areas. However, when one compares the confidence intervals 

surrounding those averages, the differences are only statistically significant for the 15 inches 

plus snag class.1

 1 This is illustrated in table 2 of Bollenbacher et al. 2009.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

82 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 11. Average Snags per Acre on the KNF 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

12.6 3.9 1.1

Outside of 

Wilderness/Roadless 

Areas

9.8 2.4 0.8

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 12 below displays the range and average number of snags that occur in the 

wilderness/roadless areas on the KNF by Habitat Type and Dominance Groups. These snag 

densities are the desired amounts in the revised Forest Plan.

Table 12. Snag Density Ranges and Averages for Wilderness/Roadless Areas on the KNF 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 3.3-15.9 (6.8) 1.0-6.1 (2.2) 0.3-2.2 (0.7)

Low Mid Elev-Moist 6.3-17.1 (11.7) 2.4-7.2 (4.1) 0.5-2.6 (1.5)

Subalpine 11.1-25.1 (14.4) 2.9-6.5 (3.2) 0.5-2.1 (0.9)

Lodgepole Pine All Settings 3.6-14.0 (9.1) 0.5-4.3 (1.2) 0.1-1.1 (0.3)

Data in this table is from the KNF 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 western Montana 

(Kootenai, Flathead, Lolo, and Bitterroot National Forests), Bollenbacher et al. (2009) found that 

the percent of FIA plots having any snags occurring on them, varied from approximately 2 to 32

percent, depending upon the habitat type, Dominance groups, and snag class.

1 The conclusion is 

that over a lot of 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 vegetative 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 Bollenbacher et al. (2009) for more details.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 83

Table 13 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 this table is for 

wilderness/roadless areas across all of the western Montana 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.

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 12 that currently occur in the roadless/unroaded areas.

Table 13. 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 1.6 - 3.6 (2.5) 0.5 - 1.2 (0.8) 1.7 - 3.8 (2.7)

Low and Mid 

Elevation Moist

3.7 - 8.3 (5.9) 0.9 - 2.8 (1.8) 1.5 - 4.7 (3.0)

Subalpine 3.8 - 5.3 (4.6) 1.0 - 1.6 (1.3) 1.7 - 2.6 (2.2)

Lodgepole 

Pine

All 0.6 – 1.5 (1.0) 0.1 - 0.4 (0.2) 0.5 - 1.2 (0.8)

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 0.7-2.5 (1.6) 0.1-0.8 (0.4) 9.6-16.3 (12.8)

Low and Mid 

Elevation Moist

2.8 - 7.6 (5.0) 0.3 - 1.8 (1.0) 10.0 - 20.7 (15.2)

Subalpine 3.0 - 4.7 (3.8) 0.7-1.4 (1.0) 9.9 – 13.0 (11.4)

Lodgepole 

Pine

All 0.6 - 1.5 (1.0) 0.1 - 0.4 (0.2) 3.8 - 6.8 (5.2)

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 1.8 – 5.0 (3.2) 0.6 - 1.7 (1.1) 22.2 - 30.3 (26.1)

Low and Mid 

Elevation Moist

3.3 - 13.1 (7.7) 1.2 – 5.9 (3.4) 31.2 – 54.0 (42.3)

Subalpine 5.4 - 8.8 (7.0) 1.6 - 2.8 (2.2) 29.3 – 36.3 (32.8)

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)

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 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

84 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 (Keane et al. 

2002). 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.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 85

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 KNF 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 KNF. 

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 forest to insects, diseases, and wildfires (Hessburg et al. 

1999, Hessburg et al. 2000). As part of that assessment, several subwatersheds that occur on the 

KNF (Yaak) were analyzed. Conclusions made that are applicable to those watersheds regarding 

how the landscape pattern has 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;

• 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

86 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

For root diseases, the changes in the forest has 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 KNF, 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 forest on the KNF 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 

Forest 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 

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. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 87

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 KNF 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 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 Forest 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.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

88 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 provides a substantial amount of information on how 

terrestrial vegetation and disturbance processes can affect carbon cycles as well as forest 

productivity. The KNF and IPNF 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 KNF 

are approximately 171 million metric tons. In addition, preliminary estimates indicate that the 

forests on the KNF and IPNF 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 KNF, 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 KNF. 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 KNF is 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 22 percent of the KNF 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 units 1 and the south and west aspects of 

unit 2), the stands are generally open-grown and park-like, containing abundant large-diameter 

ponderosa pine and lesser amounts of large-diameter Douglas-fir. Openings are generally less 

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 units 3 and north and east aspects of 

unit 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 89

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 and western larch are well 

below desired conditions, while Douglas-fir is well above. The desire is to increase the amount 

of ponderosa pine and western larch while decreasing Douglas-fir.

PP = ponderosa pine; DF = Douglas-fir; LP = lodgepole pine; and 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 

90 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

(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 large size class is below desired conditions, while small and 

medium size classes are above. Seedling/saplings are at the low end of their desired range. The 

desire is to increase the amount of large and seedling/sapling 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 37 

percent of KNF 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 91

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, western larch and white pine are underrepresented while Douglas-fir and grand fir/cedar/hemlock are over-represented. The desire is to 

increase the amount of western larch and white pine 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 by Dominance Type for the warm/moist 

Biophysical Setting
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

92 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

(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 Structures 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 large and seedling/sapling 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.

Subalpine Composition, Structure, and Pattern

This biophysical setting occurs over approximately 41 percent of the KNF 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 93

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, white pine is below and western larch and 

lodgepole pine are at the bottom of their desired ranges while spruce/fir is above their desired 

range. The desire is to increase the amount of lodgepole pine, western larch and white pine while 

decreasing 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 large size class is below desired conditions, while small and 

medium size classes are above. Seedling/saplings are at the low end of their desired range. 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 

94 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

(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 

Group

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. 

Some direction is specifically targeted towards lodgepole pine (e.g., forestwide goal #16, timber 

objective #4, and a protection objective, p. II-10) with the intent to reduce the amount of stands 

on the KNF that are dominated by this species and that are in a susceptible condition to attacks 

by mountain pine beetle attacks.

The 1987 Forest Plan contains direction that addresses items related to forest structure. Some of 

these components are associated with the desire to have diverse age classes of forest stands for 

the purpose of maintaining the viability of all species (e.g., forestwide goal #7) or sufficient 

snags and replacement snags for snag-dependent species (e.g., forestwide goal #8 and wildlife 

and fish objective, p. II-7). There is some forestwide direction related to old growth (e.g., 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 95

forestwide wildlife and fish objective p. II-7, forestwide standard, p. II-22) as well as an entire 

MA13 assigned to old growth. The old growth related MA contains a goal of maintaining a 

minimum of 10 percent (below 5,500 feet in elevation) of the land base within each drainage in 

old growth, with the type of old growth representing the major habitat types and species. MA13

contains numerous standards for old growth that relate to what kind of activities may or may not 

occur in old growth stands and what kind of fire suppression activities and strategies should be 

taken. In 1991, a supplement (supplement #85) for the KNF to Forest Service Manual (FSM) 

2400 was developed to describe the process that the Forest would follow for the validation of old 

growth prior to any activities occurring that could affect old growth habitat.

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 manage 

the Forest. For forest lands identified as suitable for timber production (approximately 56 percent 

of the total forested lands on the KNF) the objective was to manage those timber stands (with the 

exception of some old growth stands) with a “rotation age” of 80 to 120 years (i.e., the stands 

would be regenerated by a harvest at an interval of between 80 and 120 years). Although some 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.

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 C in the 

revised Plan for more information on this direction) in the revised 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 2011 November (FSEIS)). All of this direction 

influences where vegetation management treatments can occur and/or what kind of treatments 

can be used, including prescribed fires and the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet 

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 prescribed fire 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-OBJ-FIRE-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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

96 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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).

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 action 

alternatives have a plan component (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 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 97

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 – approximately 35,000 acres per decade (see appendix B for the 

analysis process in developing this number). 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.

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 14 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 14. Estimated Amount of Forested Vegetation that would be Actively Managed by Alternative 

and Budget Scenario

Alternative and Budget Scenario Acres of Forest Vegetation 

Managed During First 

Decade

Percent of Total Acreage on 

the KNF that would have 

Forest Vegetation 

Management During First 

Decade

A – without budget constraint 57,320 2.6
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

98 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Alternative and Budget Scenario Acres of Forest Vegetation 

Managed During First 

Decade

Percent of Total Acreage on 

the KNF that would have 

Forest Vegetation 

Management During First 

Decade

A – with budget constraint 61,150 2.8

B Modified – without budget constraint 194,700 8.9

B Modified – with budget constraint 158,140 7.1

C – without budget constraint 191,290 8.6

C – with budget constraint 163,360 7.4

D – without budget constraint 165,440 7.6

D – with budget constraint 156,180 7.0

Table 14 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 15 illustrates the change to forest composition (indicated by the distribution of dominance 

groups) 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 forested acres; both those that had timber harvest or prescribed burning activities, 

and those that did not.

Table 15 indicates some of the dominance groups are moving towards desired conditions while 

others are not. Those dominance groups that are generally moving towards desired conditions 

under both budget scenarios include ponderosa pine, western white pine, western larch (with the 

exception of Alternative A under both budget scenarios and Alternative D under the constrained 

budget) and the grand fir/cedar/western hemlock mix (except Alternative C with constrained 

budget). Those dominance groups that are generally moving away from desired conditions under 

both budget scenarios include Subalpine fir mix, lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir (except 

Alternative D with unconstrained budget).

Table 15. 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 +37,000 +36,156 +44,339 +38,560 +46,886

Douglas-fir -437,700 +42,046 +19,349 +28,493 -19,098

Lodgepole Pine Within 2 -128,471 -117,368 -115,162 -129,710

Western Larch +252,800 -2,405 +18,581 +8,893 +13,292

Grand fir/Cedar/ 

Western Hemlock mix

-6,100 -12,055 -32,305 -28,002 -26,074
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 99

Dominance Group Minimum Change 

needed to be within 

Desired Condition 

Range

Alt A 1 Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

White Pine +67,800 +16,524 +46,215 +39,035 +37,196

Subalpine Fir mix -73,900 +86,640 +74,000 +76,976 +82,020

Results with Constrained Budget

Ponderosa Pine +37,000 +35,111 +30,855 +30,549 +31,846

Douglas-fir -437,700 +64,662 +40,177 +40,672 +56,453

Lodgepole Pine Within 2 -132,985 -131,081 -131,482 -142,317

Western Larch +252,800 -22,420 +8,649 +9,050 -4,186

Grand fir/Cedar/ 

Western Hemlock mix

-6,100 -25,752 -25,974 +1,381 -33,970

White Pine +67,800 +30,546 +29,390 +1,117 +37,311

Subalpine fir mix -73,900 +88,850 +86,611 +87,024 +89,537

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 Lodgepole pine is currently within the desired condition range. To stay within the range, there should be no more than a 

94,500 acre reduction or no more than a 131,600 acre increase in Lodgepole pine

Under a constrained budget, fewer acres are actively managed and less progress is made in 

moving towards desired conditions. Alternative B Modified would trend slightly more of the 

dominance groups towards the desired conditions and to a greater degree than would Alternative 

C under both budget scenarios. Alternatives A and D would not trend the dominance groups 

toward the desired conditions as much as would Alternative B Modified or Alternative C.

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 

Douglas-fir are moving away from desired conditions while lodgepole pine 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 33-38 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 14, during the first decade only about three to nine 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

100 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

35,000 acres/decade of stand replacing fire), it is not enough to have a substantial beneficial 

impact at the scale of the entire KNF 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.

Broadleaved tree species (e.g., water birch, paper birch, quaking aspen, and black cottonwood) 

dominate relatively few forest stands on the KNF (approximately 0.7 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, blowdown, 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 a fairly close 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 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 

 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 101

restoration activities, that alternative would have the least potential for activities to occur that 

would benefit that species.

Table 16 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.

Table 16. 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 Within 2 -75,849 -85,168 -84,833 -81,655

Small -172,600 +338,462 +263,420 +258,304 +324,260

Medium -281,500 -278,208 -262,271 -255,848 -280,929

Large/Very large +221,900 +54,032 +128,011 +127,165 +77,382

Results with Constrained Budget

Seedling/sapling Within 2 -87,475 -66,652 -60,030 -91,789

Small -172,600 +251,859 +194,234 +210,306 +204,919

Medium -281,500 -236,657 -223,697 -241,342 -210,937

Large/Very large +221,900 +110,286 +134,742 +129,377 +132,481

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 seedling/sapling size class is within the desired range. If more than 76,000 acres are lost or more than 232,300 

acres added, this size class will no longer be within the desired range

Table 16 indicates that under the unconstrained budget scenario that the seedling/sapling size 

class is generally moving out of the desired range under all alternatives (except Alternative A, 

which is close). In this unconstrained budget scenario, the large/very large size class trends 

toward the desired condition under all alternatives, but Alternatives B Modified and C have a 

much larger beneficial impact than Alternatives A and D.

Under the assumption of a constrained budget, the amount of the seedling/sapling size class 

moves out of the desired range under Alternatives A and D, but stays within the desired range for 

Alternative B Modified and C. The constrained budget would result in the large/very large size 

class trending towards the desired range much more in Alternative B Modified and Alternative 

D, then would Alternatives C and A.. Depending upon the alternative and budge scenario that is 

being considered, the seedling/sapling size class may or may not move outside of the desired 

range. However, for all alternatives and both budget scenarios, that size class decreases 

substantially by the 5th decade. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

102 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

With the unconstrained budget scenario, Alternative B Modified and C are slightly better in 

trending the vegetation towards the desired condition for size class as compared to the other 

alternatives (A and D). With the constrained budget scenario, Alternative B Modified trends the 

overall size class distribution towards the desired conditions to the greatest degree, with

Alternative C ranked second, and Alternative A and D much less so.

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 17 below. 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.

Despite the relatively large amount of the forest that is predicted to have stand replacing type 

wildfires during the next 50 years (approximately 173,000 acres total or 35,000/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 17, Alternative B 

Modified is predicted to increase the amount of forest in the very large size class slightly more 

than Alternative C, and substantially more than Alternatives A and D under the unconstrained 

budget scenario. In comparison, assuming that the budget is constrained, Alternative C is 

predicted to increase the amount of forest in the very large size class more than Alternative B 

Modified, which would increase the very large size class more than Alternative A and D.

Table 17. Change in Acres of Very Large Size Class over the next 50 years, by Alternative and 

Budget Scenario

Budget Scenario Alternative A Alternative B 

Modified

Alternative C Alternative D

Unconstrained +91,346 +110,126 +108,864 +88,203

Constrained +99,372 +103,370 +111,953 +97,459

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 the small size class, 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 Forest Vegetation Simulator

and incorporated into the Spectrum model. The amount of snags by density class was reported by 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 103

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 18 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 

104 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 18. 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 20 11 -9 20 10 -10 20 10 -10 20 14 -16

6-9.9 7 14 7 6 14 8 6 14 8 7 13 6

10+ 73 75 2 73 75 2 73 76 3 73 73 0

Snags 

20”+ 

DBH

0-0.9 29 26 -3 29 27 -2 29 26 -3 29 27 -2

1-3.9 60 39 -21 60 37 -23 60 37 -23 59 39 -20

4+ 11 35 24 12 36 24 12 37 25 11 34 23

Constrained Budget

Snags 

10-20” 

DBH

0-5.9 21 8 -13 20 8 -12 20 7 -13 21 7 -4

6-9.9 6 13 7 6 11 5 6 11 5 6 13 7

10+ 73 78 5 73 81 8 73 83 10 73 80 7

Snags 

20”+ 

DBH

0-0.9 29 27 -2 29 28 -1 29 27 -2 29 28 -1

1-3.9 60 37 -23 60 36 -24 60 34 -26 60 35 -25

4+ 11 36 25 12 37 25 12 39 27 11 37 26
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 105

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 wildlife standard (p. II-23) indicates that openings created by timber 

harvest would generally be 40 acres or less. For one specific MA (MA14) there is some direction 

that is specific to grizzly bear habitat regarding the desire to maintain corridors between harvest 

units and to maximize edge effects.

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 (USDA Forest 

Service 1995), NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007 March), 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

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D contain a forestwide goal (Goal-01) and a desired condition 

(FW-DC-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-WL-FSH-01 and GA-DC-WL-LIB-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 

106 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 forest 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 some of 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, which would manage 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 a protection standard (#14, p. II-26) that 

indicates that integrated pest management strategies and treatments would be used to reduce 

losses from insects and diseases to acceptable levels. In addition, there are two objectives 

(Protection objective p. II-10 and Fire objective p. II-11) that express the desire to minimize the 

number of acres lost to damaging wildfires and to attempt to harvest as much of the lodgepole 

pine susceptible to mountain pine beetle as possible before it is killed. Finally, there is one 

forestwide goal (Goal #17) that expresses a desire to use prescribed fire to simulate natural 

ecological processes, prevent excessive natural and activity fuel buildups, create habitat diversity 

for wildlife, reduce suppression costs, and maintain ecosystems.

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 alternatives contain numerous Forest Plan components that provided direction regarding 

the need and desire to increase the resistance and resiliency of the forest conditions to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 107

disturbances and stressors. For example, forestwide vegetation and fire goals (Goal-01) and 

desired conditions (FW-DC-VEG-01, 03, 04, 05, 06, 11, FW-DC-FIRE-02, 03) articulate the 

need and vision for managing the Forest towards that overall goal. In addition, forestwide 

vegetation and fire objectives (FW-OBJ-VEG-01, FW-OBJ-FIRE-01) and guidelines (FW-GDLVEG-01, 02) contain additional direction and guidance on this topic.

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 KNF are currently quite different from the range of historical conditions 

with regard to composition, structure, landscape pattern, and ecological processes. Consequently, 

the Forest is 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 19 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 19. 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 7% 9% 25% 25% 24%

High/Very 

High/Extreme

93% -9% -25% -25% -24%

Bark Beetles Low 5% 9% 4% 3% 5%

Moderate 83% -8% -5% -4% -8%

High 11% 4% 1% 1% 4%

Defoliators Low 10% 0% 2% -1% 2%

Moderate 49% -12% -12% -12% -8%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

108 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 41% 12% 11% 11% 7%

Results with Current Budget Level

Fire Low/Moderate 7% 8% 19% 20% 19%

High/Very 

High/Extreme

93% -8% -19% -20% -19%

Bark 

Beetles

Low 5% 1% 2% 1% 1%

Moderate 83% -4% -3% -1% -2%

High 11% 3% 1% 0% 1%

Defoliators Low 10% -5% -3% -2% -4%

Moderate 49% -14% -10% -11% -10%

High 41% 18% 13% 13% 14%

Fire hazard — As illustrated in table 19, a large percentage of the total forested acres on the 

KNF were 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 19 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 KNF 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, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 109

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 

19, most of the forested acres (83 percent) have a hazard rating of moderate at the beginning of 

decade one. Under both of the budget scenarios, all of the alternatives show a slight increase in 

the 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 have the smallest increase in 

acreage of high hazard rating for the bark beetles.

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 19, most of the forested acres have a hazard rating of moderate (49 percent) or 

high (41 percent) at the beginning of decade 1, while approximately 10 percent is in the low 

category. Under all alternatives, the proportion of acres with a high rating increases by the 5th 

decade while the amount in moderate and low categories 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. Compared to Alternative A, the action alternatives all have smaller 

increases in the high hazard category. In addition, the unconstrained budget scenario results in a 

smaller increase in the high hazard for all alternatives compared to the constrained budget.

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 KNF is expected to be affected by the mountain pine beetle 

(primarily killing lodgepole pine) in the next few decades. 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 KNF. 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 15 and 

subsequent discussion). The increases predicted in ponderosa pine, larch, and white pine with the 

associated decrease in Douglas-fir and grand fir/cedar/western hemlock mix (under the action 

alternatives) will improve conditions and serve to otherwise reduce root disease impacts. 

However, the predicted increases in the subalpine fir mix and grand fir/cedar/western hemlock 

mix (under Alternative A only) will increase susceptibility to root disease. Those alternatives that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

110 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

do the best job moving vegetation towards desired condition (Alternatives 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 

Research Group (2012) and Chew (2012). The analysis concluded that the acres affected by root 

disease on the KNF 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 15 and subsequent discussion), Alternatives B Modified and C under the unconstrained 

budget scenario, and Alternatives A and B Modified under the constrained budget scenario, 

provide the greatest increase in white pine. 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 (both 

budget scenarios) 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 

Forest is 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 conditions 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 111

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 of Alternatives B

Modified, C, and D presented above in the “Management Direction” 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 20

summarizes the total metric tons of carbon sequestered 50 years from now (in the 5th decade of 

the model).

Table 20. 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 175,219 174,640 175,273 172,529

Carbon sequestered in wood products 1,718 1,641 1,553 1,942

Carbon sequestered in acres burned by wildfire 1,405 1,319 1,312 1,331

Total Carbon 178,342 177,600 178,138 175,802

Results with Current Budget Level

Carbon sequestered in inventory of forested acres 179,830 177,709 178,457 177,987

Carbon sequestered in wood products 999 946 841 955

Carbon sequestered in acres burned by wildfire 1,365 1,341 1,325 1,349

Total Carbon 182,194 179,996 180,623 180,291

At the unconstrained budget level, Alternative D has the least carbon sequestered because it has 

the highest number of acres with regeneration harvest. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

112 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Currently, the KNF stores approximately 160 million metric tons. For all alternatives, the KNF 

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 26.4 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 20.4 million metric tons over the next 50 years.

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 (e.g., 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 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 may limit the ability to 

maintain the desired snag levels that are indicated under the action alternatives (i.e., FW-DCVEG-07 and FW-GDL-VEG-04). However, because these recreation areas are generally very

small in size, the effect of not having snags or 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 type concerns. However, these effects are likely 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 113

Effects from Wildlife Management

Measures to protect certain wildlife species limit treatments to move vegetation towards desired 

conditions. Management direction for grizzly bear, lynx, 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 KNF that are suitable for that tree species to grow are located in BMUs. In addition, 

most of the whitebark pine habitat on the KNF 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 (USDA Forest Service 2007 March). One 

substantial impact this direction has on the forest vegetation is to limit the ability to precommercial thin (and other similar treatments) 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 man-caused disturbances. Since these 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 KNF 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.

As noted above, management requirements for 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 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 KNF.

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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

114 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

from being lost to stand-replacing wildfires. These stands currently tend to be distributed over 

most of the landscapes on the KNF, 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 natural, unplanned ignitions 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 

MA for old growth (MA13), with a standard that indicates that unplanned ignitions “will not be 

used in this MA.” Therefore, natural, unplanned ignitions would be suppressed if there was a risk 

of losing old growth stands. The action alternatives do not contain this direction. Therefore, 

natural, unplanned ignitions 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. 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 prescribed burning and the use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet 

resource objectives generally has a positive effect on vegetation condition. Management 

direction in the revised Forest Plan emphasizes increased use of both prescribed and natural, 

unplanned ignitions to improve vegetative 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 vegetationdesired 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. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 115

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 meet the requirements of state implementation plans and smoke 

management plans. The direction limits the use of prescribed fire 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.

Effects from Mining

There is one large-scale underground mine in operation on the Forest and two underground 

mines in the planning phase. These mines undergo site-specific NEPA to determine effects and 

required mitigation. The Troy mine is an underground silver and copper mine and has been in 

operation for many years. A reclamation plan is currently under development. The Rock Creek 

and the Montanore mines are proposed underground copper and silver mines. These proposed 

mines are undergoing site-specific NEPA analysis. The effect of these mines on vegetation is 

being determined at the project level. Generally, the impacts to the terrestrial vegetation 

components that are addressed in this section on forest vegetation that results from mining are

very localized and at the scale of the Forest, they would be insignificant.

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 KNF 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 Forest 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. 

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:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

116 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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 KNF. 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 KNF 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 being 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 

2010, the forests in the region (including the KNF), 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 KNF. 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 KNF 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 makes 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 KNF, 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 KNF are summarized in the KIPZ Climate Change Report (USDA Forest Service 

2010b). In general, given the existing condition of the forest vegetation on the KNF, the 

potential effects of climate change can be summarized as:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Vegetation 117

○ Increase 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 vegetative 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 (Littell et al. 2010, McKenzie et al. 2009).

• 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 KNF. 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-urban 

interface areas, there is a greater probability of more human-caused wildfire ignitions that 

could have effects on the forest vegetation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

118 Vegetation Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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 KNF 

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 

KNF 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.

• Shared Border with Canada: As described in more detail in the fire and fuels section of 

this FEIS, the northern portion of the KNF 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 

Forest when wildfires occur near the USA-Canadian border. As noted in the fire and fuels 

section, the general impact may is that some natural, unplanned ignitions that ignite on the 

KNF that may have otherwise been allowed to burn to meet resource objectives may become 

suppressed as a result of objectives or concerns raided by the Canadians. This could have a 

small negative impact on trending the forest vegetation on the KNF towards desired 

conditions, but the degree of this effect is unknown.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Rare Plants 119

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 KNF is 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 NFS 

land within the KNF. However, one threatened plant species, Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s 

catchfly), is “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. The Spalding’s catchfly is 

known to occur on private lands in the Tobacco Valley area near Eureka, Montana.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

120 Rare Plants Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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). According to USFWS, the Spalding’s catchfly 

is suspected to occur on the KNF, but to date no populations of have been found.

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.

Sensitive Plant Species

Sensitive plant species that are known or suspected to occur in the KNF are listed in table 21. 

Currently, there are 53 sensitive plant species that are known, or suspected to occur on the KNF.

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Rare Plants 121

Table 21. Rare Plant Species, Status, Occurrence, and Habitat Guilds on the KNF

Scientific Name Common Nate Status1 Occurrence2 Habitat Guild3

Amerorchis rotundifolia Round-leaved orchis S K M

Allium acuminatum Tapertip onion S K D

Bidens beckii Water marigold S K A

Blechnum spicant Deer fern S S M

Botrychium ascendens Upswept moonwart S K M

Botrychium crenulatum Dainty moonwart S H M

Botrychium hesperium Western moonwort S K M

Botrychium paradoxum Paradox moonwort S K C

Botrychium pedunculosum Stalked moonwart S K M

Brasenia schreberi Watershield S K A

Carex amplifolia Big-leaf sedge S K M

Carex chordorrhiza String-root sedge S K A

Carex prairea Prairie sedge S K P

Carex rostrata Beaked sedge S K A

Carex vaginata Sheathed sedge S K DR

Clarkia rhomboidea Common clarkia S K D

Collema curtisporum Short-spored jelly lichen S K DR

Corydalis sempervirens Pink corydalis S K D

Cypripedium fasciculatum Clustered lady’s-slipper S K D

Cypripedium parviflorum Small Yellow lady’s-slipper S S DR

Cypripedium passerinum Sparrow’s-egg lady’s-slipper S K DR

Drosera anglica English sundew S K P

Drosera linearis Slender-leaf sundew S S P, C

Dryopteris cristata Crested shield fern S K P

Epipactis gigantean Giant helleborine S S P

Eriophorum gracile Slender cotton grass S K P

Eriophorum viridicatinatum Green keeled cottongrass S S P

Eupatorium occidentale Western joepye weed S S C

Gentianopsis simplex Hiker’s gentian S S A, DR

Grimmia brittoniae Britton’s dry rock moss S K D, M

Grindelia howellii Howell’s gumweed S S D

Heterocodon rariflorum Western pearl flower S K D

Lathyrus bijugatus Tule pea S K D

Lomatium geyeri Geyer’s bisquit root S K P

Lycopodiella inundata Northern bog clubmoss S S P

Lycopodium dendroideum Ground pine club moss S K C, DR, M

Lycopodium lagopus One-cone clubmoss S S M

Meesia triquetra Meesia moss S K P

Mimulus ampliatus Stalk-leaved monkey flower S K M

Mimulus breviflorus Shortflower monkey flower S K M

Mimulus clivicola Bank monkey-flower S S D
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

122 Rare Plants Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Scientific Name Common Nate Status1 Occurrence2 Habitat Guild3

Nodobryoria subdivergens Old man’s beard S K S

Ophioglossum pusillum Northern adder’s tongue S H P

Phegopteris connectilis Northern beechfern S K M

Pinus albicaulis Whitebark pine S K C

Psilocarphus brevissimus Dwarf wooly heads S K A

Scheuchzeria palustris Pod grass S K P

Schoenoplectus 

subterminalis

Water clubrush S K A

Scorpidium scorpioides Scorpidium moss S K P

Silene spaldingii Spalding’s catchfly T S D

Trichophorum cespitosum Tufted club rush S K A, DR

Utricularia intermedia Flat-leaved bladderwort S K A

Viola selkirkii Selkirk’s violet 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

& Forested Subalpine, S = Subalpine Grassland

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 KNF rare plant species listed in table 21 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 Species Guild

The aquatic plant habitat guild contains nine 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Rare Plants 123

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 Species Guild

This species guild is composed of 13 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 KNF 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 

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 seven 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 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

124 Rare Plants Kootenai National Forest - EIS

drought conditions), and activities as described above that occur or originate on other ownership 

lands.

Dry Forest Plant Species Guild

This species guild consists of one federally listed threatened plant species and eight sensitive 

species. The federally listed species (Silene spaldingii) is not currently known to occur on the 

KNF, 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 KNF, and the effects of these various stressors 

may be exacerbated in some areas as a result. Long-term fire exclusion and grazing exclusion 

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

Five sensitive species are assigned to the cold plant guilds.

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.

Subalpine Grassland Plant Species Guild

This species guild occurs in the non-forested portions of the subalpine zone and includes one 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Rare Plants 125

objectives have been followed where potential habitat for the two threatened plant species 

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;

(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 (USDA Forest 

Service 1995) 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 KNF, it is important to realize the difficulties associated with assessing 

the impacts of broad Forest Plan direction to 47 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 #6 includes the desire to provide for the 

environmental needs of sensitive species, as necessary to prevent them from becoming 

threatened (Plan p.II-1). All of the 1987 Forest Plan direction is required as part of the laws, 

regulations, and policies previously mentioned.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

126 Rare Plants Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

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 KNF 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 (Prescribed Fire, the use of Natural, Unplanned Ignitions, and 

Wildfires) 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 KNF Forest Plan, in general, with regard to using natural, unplanned ignitions to 

meet resource objectives. There are a number of barriers that prevented the KNF 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. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Rare Plants 127

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 

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 

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-to-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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

128 Rare Plants Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

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 would 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 28 sensitive 

species. 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 to meet resource 

objectives 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 KNF, 14 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Rare Plants 129

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 

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

Eight 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 KNF; 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 prescribed fire or natural, unplanned ignitions), 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-VEG-07). 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 and Forested Subalpine Plant Species Guild

Five sensitive plant species occurs in this guild. Threats to this plant are primarily mechanical 

activities and fire. Forestwide guideline FW-GDL-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 this plant than would the other 

alternatives.

Effects on Subalpine Grassland Plant Species Guild

Only one sensitive plant species occurs in this subalpine grassland guild, the old man’s beard. 

Because this plant is primarily 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 this 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 KNF. There 

are no cumulative effects from the decisions we are making in the revised Forest Plan except for 

past actions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

130 Rare Plants Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

Effects Determination

Based on the analysis of all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, other interrelated 

and interconnected activities, and the cumulative effects of other federal and non-federal 

activities within the Planning Area, it has been determined that the implementation of the No 

Action Alternative or the other Action Alternatives would have No Effect on Spalding’s Catchfly 

(Silene spaldingii).

Regarding those plant species that are listed by the regional forester as being sensitive (including 

the newly listed whitebark pine), implementing any of the alternatives may impact individuals 

or their habitat, but would not likely result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of 

viability. The effects analysis provided in this document and within the rare plant and forest 

vegetation specialist reports (located in the project record), meet the requirements for a 

biological evaluation as outlined in FSM 2672.42.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Non-native Invasive Plants 131

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. 

The KNF has entered into an agreement with Lincoln County.

• 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."

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

132 Non-native Invasive Plants Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 KNF have the potential to 

disperse noxious weeds or increase the likelihood that they will become established at a given 

site. This increase in dispersal and establishment is above what would happen naturally as a 

result of seed transport by wind, water, or wildlife.

Current control efforts are aimed at eradicating new invaders (table 22) 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, tansy ragwort, and Canada thistle. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Non-native Invasive Plants 133

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 intact plant 

communities.

On the KNF, it is fairly common to see noxious weeds 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 weed species have migrated away from the road right-of-way onto 

undisturbed hillsides, especially within the drier vegetation types. Orange hawkweed has an 

increased presence on moist habitat types under full canopies and is converging on the edges of 

the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness. 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. In 2007, the KNF completed an integrated weed management plan for the Forest. 

Table 22 lists the noxious weeds that are known to occur on the KNF, as well as potential 

invaders. Plants listed in 22 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.

Table 22. Non-native Invasive Plant Species of Concern on the KNF

Scientific Name Common Name PI=Potential Invader, NI=New Invader, 

WS=Widespread Invader

PI NI WS

Anchusa officinalis Bugloss X

Arctium minus Common burdock X

Artemisia absinthium Absinth wormwood X

Berteroa incana Hoary alyssum X

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass X

Bryonia alba White briony X

Butomus umbellatus Flowering rush X

Cardaria draba Whitetop (hoarycress) X

Carduus acanthoides Plumeless thistle X

Carduus nutans Musk thistle X

Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed X

Centaurea maculosa Spotted knapweed X

Centaurea pratensis Meadow knapweed X

Centaurea repens Russian knapweed X

Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle X

Chaenorrhinum minus Dwarf snapdragon X

Chondrilla juncea Rush skeletonweed X

Chrysanthemum 

leucanthemum

Oxeye daisy X

Cichorium intybus Chicory X
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

134 Non-native Invasive Plants Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Scientific Name Common Name PI=Potential Invader, NI=New Invader, 

WS=Widespread Invader

PI NI WS

Cirsium arvense Canada thistle X

Conium maculatum Poison-hemlock X

Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed X

Crupina vulgaris Common crupina X

Cynoglossum officinale Common hound’s-tongue X

Cytisus scoparius Scot’s broom X

Echium vulgare Blueweed X

Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian olive X

Euphorbia esula Leafy spurge X

Hieracium aurantiacum Orange hawkweed X

Hieracium piloselloides

Hieracium caespitosum, 

Hieracium floribundum, 

Hieracium pretens

Meadow hawkweed 

complex

X

Hieracium pratense Yellow hawkweed X

Hypericum perforatum Common St. John’s-wort X

Hypochaeris radicata Spotted cat’s-ear X

Isatis tinctoria Dyer’s woad X

Kochia scoparia Kochia X

Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax X

Linaria vulgaris Yellow toadflax X

Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife X

Matricaria maritime 

agrestis

Scentless chamomile X

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian watermilfoil X

Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle X

Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese knotweed X

Potentilla recta Sulfur cinquefoil X

Ranunculus acris Tall buttercup X

Senecio jacobaea Tansy ragwort X

Tamarix spp. Tamarisk, Saltcedar X

Tanacetum vulgare Common tansy X

Verbascum spp. Mullein X

Veronica chamaedrys Germander speedwell X

Veronica officinalis Common speedwell X

The list of noxious weeds in the table above includes the state of Montana and Lincoln and 

Sanders County lists as well as other weed species that the Forest considers important. The state 

of Montana and Lincoln County are very concerned about new invaders, especially three 

relatively new weed invaders: tansy ragwort, rush skeleton weed, and orange hawkweed. There 

is a strong desire to keep these species from moving east of the Continental Divide into the large 

farming areas of central and eastern Montana. The state has provided added monies for surveys 

and spraying to contain the expansion of these species and to eradicate them. Even though strong 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Non-native Invasive Plants 135

emphasis is placed on these species, concern also remains for all the other weed species listed. 

Control is not confined to the three species above. 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.

The 2007 Weeds FEIS and ROD places the emphasis on an integrated aerial and ground weed 

control operation. Existing weed infestations have expanded greatly in numbers, aerial extent, 

and diversity over the past 25 years. The most common weed on the KNF is spotted knapweed. 

In 1995, county weed specialists estimated that knapweed infested over 240,000 acres in Lincoln 

County and 175,000 acres in Sanders County (Hirsch and Leitch 1996). The current estimate is 

over 300,000 acres in Lincoln County (USDA Forest Service 2007b Weeds FEIS). Two-thirds of 

the total infestations are in forestlands and rangelands with the remaining third in road or railway 

corridors. Weed risk on the KNF, as documented in the 2007 Weeds FEIS, estimates that with 

current levels of disturbance, 63 percent of the Forest (1,400,800 acres) is at high risk, with 27 

percent (603,800 acres) at moderate risk.

Additional information that was developed from the weed risk assessment that is mentioned 

above is displayed in table 23.

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

136 Non-native Invasive Plants Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 23. Acres by Weed Risk Rating for NFS Lands on the KNF

Biophysical Group/ Forestwide Weed Risk Rating Acres Percent of Biophysical 

Group/ Forestwide

Warm/Dry High 410,900 83

Warm/Dry Moderate 81,700 17

Warm/Dry Total 492,700

Warm/Moist High 573,000 70

Warm/Moist Moderate 245,600 30

Warm/Moist Total 818,600

Subalpine High 416,900 46

Subalpine Moderate 276,400 31

Subalpine Low 212,100 23

Subalpine Total 905,400

Water None 2,200

Water Total 2,200

Forestwide High 1,400,800 63

Forestwide Moderate 603,800 27

Forestwide Low 212,100 10

Forestwide None 2,200 0

Forest Total 2,218,900

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 goal (#23, p II-2) for noxious weeds 

and it expresses the desire to stop the spread of weeds and to suppress the existing weed levels.

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 that are 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-DC-RIP-04, 06; FW-DC-AQH-01; FW-OBJ-SOIL-01; FW-STD-RIP-03, 04; FW-DGLRIP-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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Non-native Invasive Plants 137

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.

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 regards to potential effects on motorized and non-motorized access and recreational 

opportunities on the KNF. Therefore, the risk that weeds would be introduced and/or spread as a 

result of these activities is similar for all the alternatives.

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 2.4 percent of the forested acres during the 

first decade), while Alternatives B Modified and C would result in the largest number of acres 

(each is approximately 7.1 percent) being treated during that time period. Alternative D is 

predicted to treat approximately 6.7 percent. If the budget constraint was removed, most of the 

alternatives would treat more acres. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative A would treat 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

138 Non-native Invasive Plants Kootenai National Forest - EIS

the smallest number of acres (approximately 2.5 percent), followed by Alternative D (6. 4 

percent), Alternative C (7.2 percent) and lastly, Alternative B Modified (7.3 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 

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 ignitions 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 being used to meet resource objectives that is 

anticipated for the action alternatives.

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 KNF. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Non-native Invasive Plants 139

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 final EIS, the amount of 

livestock grazing on the KNF 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 

(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 KNF: The regional 

population is expected to increase in the area surrounding the KNF. As the human population 

increases in the region, it is expected that there will be more recreational use of the KNF. It is 

anticipated that all types of recreational use will increase, but 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 in the future. 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 

140 Fire & Fuels Management Kootenai National Forest - 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 

to achieve management objectives; whether through the use of prescribed fire (i.e., a planned 

ignition) or natural, unplanned ignitions (i.e., ignited by lightning as opposed to humans).

Fire management programs oversee all aspects of fire suppression as well as the use of natural, 

unplanned ignitions 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 the 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Fire & Fuels Management 141

• 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 

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 the alternatives would 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 KNF. 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 KNF, 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 

142 Fire & Fuels Management Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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

Fire-Adapted Ecosystems

The affected environment for the “Vegetation” section provides a comprehensive discussion on 

the historical and current role that fire has had on the KNF, the types of wildfires that historically 

occurred on the KNF 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 KNF, 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 KNF during the last 100 years. Historically, fire has played a 

significant role in ecosystem processes for vegetation on the Forest. Historical fire levels for the 

Forest 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 KNF has averaged approximately 5 percent of its area. The KNF has 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 KNF has used prescribed burning on approximately 80,000 acres. 

Over the last 3 year period (2008 to 2010), the number of wildfires per year that occurred on the 

KNF ranged from 76 to 176 and the number of acres that burned annually from those fires varied 

from 88 to 2,600 acres (this included one fire that was 2,400 acres in size).

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 not be considered appropriate due to potential adverse 

resource or social-economic impacts. Part of the decision criteria to determine whether a natural, 

unplanned 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.

Prescribed fire 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 fires that may be managed to meet resource objectives. Most of 

the lightning storms that ignite wildfires occur in July and August on the KNF. 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 that are managed to meet resource objectives during 

the summer. In addition, the potential size of the natural, unplanned fire being managed to meet 

resource objectives is likely greater than most fires ignited by planned ignitions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Fire & Fuels Management 143

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 KNF contains some direction regarding the role that fire should 

have on affecting the ecosystems. Forestwide goal #17 (p. II-2) states: “Use prescribed fire to 

simulate natural ecological processes, prevent excessive natural and activity fuel buildups, create 

habitat diversity for wildlife, reduce suppression costs, and maintain ecosystems.” In addition, a 

forestwide desired condition states: “Where lands are to resemble a near-natural condition fire 

will be allowed to operate with minimal constraint as an agent of ecological adjustment and 

maintenance” (vol. 1, p. II-19). However, as opposed to the action alternatives, Alternative A 

does not have any specific 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 22 individual MAs that are contained 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 (planned ignitions) may be used in all MAs except MA7 (Cabinet Mountains 

Wilderness Area). 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, twelve MAs (5, 6, 13, 15-21, 23, and 24) have standards that do not allow the 

use of natural, unplanned ignitions and the acres that these MAs occupy is substantial; 

approximately 25 percent of the total acres on the KNF.

Six MAs (2, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 29) allow the use of natural, unplanned ignitions with some 

exceptions. These six MAs occupy approximately 24 percent of the total acres on the Forest. For 

these MAs, natural, unplanned ignitions can only be used to meet resource objectives if the fire 

is predicted to stay within one of these MAs or adjacent ones that also have been approved for 

the use of natural, unplanned ignitions. Also, natural, unplanned ignitions in these MAs may only 

be managed to meet resource objectives if the fire effects are such that “...the fire must not 

adversely affect the goals or standards of this or any other MA.”

The remaining four MAs (10, 11, 12, and 14) that contain direction on the use of natural, 

unplanned ignitions allow its use only if the fire occurs during the non-critical fire season AND 

meets the other stipulations that were discussed above. This last group of four MAs comprises 

approximately 45 percent of the total acreage on the KNF.

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 to meet resource objectives; 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

144 Fire & Fuels Management Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

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 natural, 

unplanned ignitions) as a tool to assist in the restoration and maintenance of the various 

ecosystems on the KNF. However, management direction also recognizes that in certain 

situations and locations natural, unplanned ignitions 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 KNF. 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;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Fire & Fuels Management 145

therefore, would 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 that would 

more likely be used for Alternative B Modified would fall between that of Alternatives C and D. 

Most of the MAs (and the vast majority of the total acres on the KNF) allow the use of natural,

unplanned ignitions as a restoration and maintenance tool. The special area MAs (MA3), the 

research natural areas (MA4), and the primary recreation areas (MA7) generally do not allow the 

use of unplanned ignitions. For those areas, the risk that a wildfire 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 vegetative 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 

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 30 percent of the lands on the KNF are within this WUI area1 and the 

KNF has 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 KNF 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 

KNF and in the way the 1987 Forest Plan has been implemented. For about a decade the KNF 

has focused its fuel reduction programs around the WUI and has 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, implementation of the 1987 

 1 There are different definitions for the WUI area. This estimate was based on the areas that were 

identified in the various community protection plans as being in the WUI.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

146 Fire & Fuels Management Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

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 5,000 to 15,000 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 KNF 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Fire & Fuels Management 147

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 KNF, 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 

“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 are 

fairly similar to the action alternatives.

Effects from Timber Management

Under Alternative A, the 1987 Forest Plan direction was to suppress wildfires in those MAs 

where timber production was an objective. The action alternatives do not have this emphasis on 

protecting timber values. Therefore, there is a greater opportunity to allow natural wildfires to 

burn and help maintain/restore the fire adapted ecosystems.

Effects from Watershed, Soil, Riparian, and Aquatic Management

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 resources. 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) for grizzly bear and lynx, the use of fire would be 

constrained somewhat in certain areas of the KNF. However, all of the alternatives (including the 

no-action) would be affected in the same way.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

148 Fire & Fuels Management Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 KNF 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).

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Fire & Fuels Management 149

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 KNF. 

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 

natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives to 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." Therefore, The Wildland Fire 

Leadership Council directed the development of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire 

Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy). The Cohesive Strategy utilizes a collaborative 

"from-the-ground-up" approach built through active involvement of all levels of government 

and non-governmental 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 KNF. 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 (i.e., 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 of 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 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

150 Fire & Fuels Management Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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 KNF. 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 wildlandurban 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 KNF, 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 KNF 

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 KNF 

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 KNF 

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 KNF 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 KNF 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 KNF in the vicinity of the border, 

communications occur between the KNF 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 KNF that may 

have otherwise been allowed to burn to meet resource objectives on the KNF could be 

suppressed or managed differently due to Canadian concerns. The impact on the forest 

vegetation on the KNF could be a small negative impact in trending the forest vegetation on 

the KNF towards desired conditions.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 151

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 effect 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, protection of watershed health improvement in soil 

quality, and maintenance of 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 

152 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - 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. The 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 (36CFR219.19). Regulations further 

state that the effects on these species and the reason for their choice as management indicator 

species need to be documented (36CFR219.19 (a) (1).

• Executive Order 11988: Directs federal agencies 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 153

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 the watersheds, soils, and aquatic species in the KNF includes all lands 

within the outside boundary of the KNF (figure 16). This includes the 2.2 million acres that are 

under direct NFS lands management, as well as large blocks of corporate timberland and private 

properties. A significant piece of this contiguous area is under the management of the Plum 

Creek Timber Company and has been actively managed for resource production in the past. The 

analysis conducted for this assessment, particularly the existing condition, includes several 

assumptions relating to activities on the private lands, especially the large blocks of corporate 

forestry lands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

154 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - 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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 155

Changes between Draft and Final

The objective in the revised Forest Plan for the KNF River Invertebrate Prediction and 

Classification System was adjusted based on comment to achieve a range of scores between 0.80 

and 1.20.

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,

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.

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 Forest resulting in aquatic and riparian habitat conditions measurably different 

from those that existed prior to human development. Natural (primarily wildfire) and humancaused (timber harvest, fire suppression, road construction, mining, dams, introduction of nonnative species, recreation, 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 effects 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 affect 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 

156 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Watersheds

The primary hydrologic unit upon which watershed condition has been assessed is the 6th-level

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, vegetative cover, and aquatic habitat) and human caused disturbances 

(e.g., road construction and vegetative treatments).

Two primary factors were used in the watershed characterization process: 1) inherent watershed 

sensitivity and 2) watershed disturbances from land management activities (see appendix D). 

Table 26 shows the distribution of watershed ratings across the entire Forest.

Watershed Condition Ratings serve to identify landscape function based on inherent watershed 

sensitivity and riparian and watershed 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 contribute to 

the identification of priority areas for restoration and recovery that may help to reduce the effects 

of past management activities. These ratings are not independent from other components of the 

revised Forest Plan, but provide a baseline to understand current and desired conditions for soil 

and aquatic resources. These ratings are intended to provide a consistent framework to assist 

specialists and decision makers in evaluating management actions and that those actions will not 

limit or prevent attainment of desired conditions for soil and 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. To measure inherent sensitivity of each subwatershed, two factors were used; mean 

annual precipitation and percent of streams that have a gradient of less than 2 percent. These 

factors were combined to determine an overall Watershed Sensitivity Rating. Subwatersheds 

across the planning unit appear to have a relatively moderate sensitivity to natural or human 

caused disturbances (see table 24), when considering climatic and land type variables, with a 

majority of these subwatersheds located in the Kootenai River drainage, which should be 

considered in the context of the distribution of subwatersheds on the Forest, as 56 percent are 

located in that drainage (see figures 17 and 18). Additionally, it appears that there are a relatively 

high number of drainages in the Stillwater River area rated as “High,” although that basin only 

makes up 2 percent of the entire planning area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 157

Figure 17. KNF Watershed Sensitivity Rating
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

158 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 24. Watershed Sensitivity Rating, Forestwide

Watershed Sensitivity Rating Number of Subwatersheds (% of Forest)

Low 8 (6%)

Moderate 82 (64%)

High 38 (30%)

Total 128

Figure 18. Watershed Sensitivity Rating by Major Drainage Basin

2) 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: percent equivalent clearcut acres, percent intact riparian, 

stream crossing density, percent detrimental compaction, and riparian area road density. See 

appendix D, for a more detailed discussion of the analysis for determining Watershed 

Disturbance Ratings. Based on that analysis, almost 86 percent of the Forest is considered to 

have a low to moderate level of human disturbances (see table 25), with most of the higher levels 

of human influences occurring in the southern portion of the Kootenai River Drainage (see 

figures 19 and 20) which is a function of the relatively larger land area associated with that 

drainage, as mentioned above. Table 25 shows the distribution of Watershed Disturbance Ratings 

across the Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 159

Figure 19. KNF Watershed Disturbance Rating
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

160 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 25. Watershed Disturbance Rating, Forestwide

Watershed Disturbance Rating Number of Subwatersheds (% of Forest)

Low 57 (45%)

Moderate 53 (41%)

High 18 (15%)

Total 128

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 

geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 161

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 26 summarizes the 

proportion of the Forest subwatershed by category. The majority of the KNF has a moderate to 

low subwatershed condition. Figure 22 displays subwatershed conditions by major river basin(s). 

Data indicates that the Kootenai River drainage has a relatively higher proportion of land area 

with a moderate level of sensitivity to disturbance; is in a disturbed condition or a combination 

of both, which is a function of the large amount of the landscape in that drainage. Approximately 

60 percent of all subwatersheds in the planning area occur in the Kootenai River basin (see 

figure 22).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

162 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 21. Watershed Condition Rating
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 163

Table 26. Distribution of Final Watershed Condition Ratings

Rating Number of Subwatersheds (% of Forest

Low 52 (41%)

Moderate 62 (48%)

High 14 (11%)

Total 128

Figure 22. 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 one-half of the subwatersheds associated with the Forest include or have the 

potential to influence one or more of these listed segments.

Individual stream segments, lakes, and other water bodies have been listed as "Water Quality 

Limited Segments" (i.e., "impaired") by the state of Montana (Montana DEQ 2010) and are 

described in subsection 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as waters that do not meet state standards;

a broad term that includes water quality criteria, designated uses, and anti-degradation policies. 

These segments or water bodies involve 54 percent of the subwatersheds (N=141) on the Forest. 

The dominant pollutants currently affecting "impaired" water bodies are sediment and 

temperature. Other pollutants are listed for a small number of subwatersheds.

Subwatersheds with impaired waters are shown in tables 27 and 28. Subwatersheds in the 

following tables may be located in more than one GA and have been counted in each GA; 

therefore, the total number of watersheds is overstated in some cases.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

164 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 27. Number of 303(d)-Listed Subwatersheds and Pollutants of Concern

Pollutant of Concern Subwatersheds

Cadmium 3

Lead 5

Metals 5

Nutrients 11

Sediment 29

Thermal modification 21

Zinc 2

Table 28. 303(d)-Listed Subwatersheds by Major Drainage Basin

Pollutant of 

Concern

Bull Lake Clark Fork 

River

Fisher 

River

Lake 

Koocanusa

Libby 

Creek

Tobacco 

River

Yaak 

River

Cadmium 2 1

Lead 1 3 1

Metals 3 1

Nutrients 2 1 1 1 7

Sediment 2 5 8 1 4 10

Temperature 1 5 6 1 4 3

Zinc 2
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 165

Soils

Volcanic ash from eruptions along the Pacific Northwest Cascade Range has significantly 

influenced forest soil on the KNF. 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 vegetative 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 et al. 1985, Froehlich and McNabb 1983). 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.

Post-harvest data collection for soil impacts has occurred on the KNF over the past 23 years 

(1988-2010). Monitoring activities from 1988 through 1991 involved a walk-through procedure, 

which only provided a qualitative description of harvest activity effects. Beginning in 1992, soil 

sampling incorporated a line transect methodology and also included the previous walk-through 

procedures. Current sampling on the KNF follows soil sampling procedures and guidelines from 

the Forest Service Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009) for sitespecific analysis of management effects in an activity area. Data points collected during soil 

sampling transects fall into one of three categories: 1) no disturbance; 2) disturbance present, but 

not detrimental; and 3) detrimental soil disturbance. Detrimental disturbance is defined in FSM 

2550 and Region 1 Supplement 2500-99-1.

The soil characteristics selected as indicators of management influence on soil productivity are 

compaction, rutting, burn severity, displacement, surface erosion, and mass movement. When 

management activities, such as timber harvest or burn treatment, cause the indicators to exceed 

the threshold established in the soil quality standards; the disturbance is considered detrimental, 

thus having the potential to impair site productivity. Authorized forest roads as defined in 36 

CFR 212.1 are not considered part of the productive land base and are excluded from evaluation 

of disturbance from harvest activities, although they may be considered when analyzing effects 

on other soil functions.

Under direction in the 2011 Soil Quality Monitoring Guide, soil monitoring includes both timber 

management-related temporary roads and landings outside of activity areas. Such data was not 

included in the soil sampling protocol under previous direction in FSM 2550.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

166 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

imposed, but compaction and displacement were still widespread between the early 1980s and 

early 1990s.

However, post-harvest soil monitoring over the past two decades has indicated that the extent of 

detrimental disturbance has declined over time as newer harvest equipment and procedures have 

been implemented (L. Kuennen, personal communication, 2008, Kuennen 2005, Niehoff 2002). 

As activities on the KNF 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 post-harvest soil monitoring data (1992) showed that 

approximately half of the soil data collected did not meet regional soil quality standards and 

exceeded the 15 percent requirements. This deviation from the standard is assumed to be the 

result of the transition from clearcut to intermediate harvest activities, resulting in more 

equipment entries into a particular unit and more pile burning. Changes in harvest and site 

preparation methods quickly changed disturbance values on post-harvest sites to less than 15 

percent and even less than 5 percent in many cases. Additional reasons for improvement include: 

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 date, the KNF has collected over 234,000 individual data points associated with post-harvest 

linear transect soil monitoring, which includes approximately 13,033 acres. At the same time an 

additional 9,279 acres involving 257 units were reviewed between 1988-2010 involving walkthrough soil monitoring procedures. To display overall trends and post-harvest conditions, the 

linear transect data points collected from 1992 to 2010 have been compiled in table 29. It should 

be kept in mind that the units monitored were randomly selected following harvest activities. 

Soil monitoring data collected from 1988 to 1991 only included walk-through reviews and thus 

is not represented in the table 29.

Table 29. Summary of Disturbance Ranges and Trends for Post-Harvest Soil Conditions Monitored 

over Three Decades (1992 to 2010)

Range of Detrimental Soil Disturbance # of Units % of Total

0 – 5 206 52

6 – 10 129 32

11 – 15 48 12

>15 15 4

Total 398 100%

Observations from field visits and monitoring of units that were harvested from as early as the 

1930s show that many affected soils are recovering. In general, main skid trails and landings, 

which were heavily disturbed in the past and involved considerable soil displacement, often 

remain in some disturbed condition; while many of the side skids and other disturbances are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 167

improving to levels that show either minimal or no longer traceable impacts to soils and 

surrounding vegetation. Recall that the signs of remaining disturbance may often be more 

directly related to the land type or soil characteristics present than the past activity which 

occurred.

Post-harvest monitoring results are displayed by decade in table 30 and contribute to the 

estimated range of detrimental soil disturbance. Monitoring has 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, forwarders, rubber tired 

skidders, skyline yarding, and helicopter harvest, are also included. During the two decades 

monitored, more rubber tired skidder, forwarder, feller-buncher units were monitored as these 

harvest procedures were expected to display much higher impacts to soils than would be 

expected in similar units; and similar physical conditions where skyline harvest activities had 

occurred along with the fact that these procedures were more actively being used.

Regional soil standards require that 15 percent detrimental disturbance within an activity area 

should not be exceeded. Disturbance levels provided in table 30 shows that impacts in more than 

90 percent of the field visited and monitored units remained below 15 percent after harvest 

activities, while 99 percent of the units sampled in the past decade remained below 15 percent. 

Given current management strategies, the KNF is meeting regional soil quality requirements and 

supporting an upward trend, compared to previous harvest methods. It should also be noted that 

most burn piles continue to fall outside of the 15 percent detrimental disturbance category. 

However, it should be noted that there has been an increase in the number and size of these 

activities, which coincides with machinery and harvest practice changes over time. Between 

years 1988-1991 soils data was collected using a random walk-through procedure, therefore, 

cannot be represented in table 30.

Table 30. Summary of Disturbance Ranges and Trends for Post-Harvest Soil Conditions Monitored 

over the past Two Decades (1992-2010)

Range of Detrimental Soil Disturbance 1990s 2000s

# of Units % # of Units %

0 – 5 72 56 134 50

6 – 10 34 26 95 36

11 – 15 13.5 11 35 13

>15 9.5 7 5 1

Total 129 100% 269 100%

To approximate current soil conditions, residual impacts from past management-related 

disturbances on soils were estimated from the annual KNF Soil Monitoring reports and 

supporting KNF soil monitoring database. The KNF soil monitoring database consists of field 

data which was randomly selected and field monitored to determine post-harvest soil disturbance 

values. As a result, this database contains only a small representative percent (5-15 percent) of 

the total annual harvest actions for a given year. Many of the land areas (soil polygons) 

monitored in the field to determine soil disturbance values were treated or harvested more than 

once. The potential detrimental soil disturbance values are based on empirically derived 

coefficients that were obtained and averaged from numerous monitoring sites throughout the 

KNF (Kuennen 2005). The assumptions are limited to the harvest and slash disposal methods for 

which disturbance coefficients have been determined, and the coefficients assume that BMPs
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

168 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

have been implemented. The end detrimental soil disturbance figure is a composition of all 

disturbances and does not separate each category of disturbance values, where present, within a 

given unit. Although the KNF soil monitoring database originated in 1988, the average

disturbance values listed in table 31 below are based on 48,660 soil monitoring sites collected 

between 2000-2005 which is more closely aligned with current management activities than data 

sampled prior to 2000 (L. Kuennen, personal communication, 2009). Thus, the value of 8

percent detrimental soil disturbance for summer tractor is a “statistical summary” which takes 

into account not only the skid trails but temporary roads, mechanized piling, and fire lines within 

the units being surveyed. Detailed spreadsheet results are available in the project file and past 

Forest Plan monitoring reports.

Table 31. Disturbance Coefficients

Equipment Class Season of Operation Disturbance Coefficient

Dozer NA 15

Tractor Summer 8

Tractor Winter 4

Forwarder Summer 4

Forwarder Winter 2

Excavator Piling NA 2

Skyline NA 1

Cable Yarding NA 1

Site Preparation NA 2

Fireline Construction NA 1

Helicopter NA 0

Grazing NA 2

Horse Logging NA 2

In general, the amount of heavily disturbed soils increases directly with the machinery operations 

and the amount of area impacted where heavy equipment makes repeated passes over the same 

ground, particularly during times of high soil moisture.

The detrimental soil disturbance percent is not necessarily an additive to other past management 

activities. This is because the percentages listed for each management activity includes some 

units with excavator piling, fire line construction, and/or grazing. In addition, disturbance from 

these activities usually overlaps at least a portion of the skidding disturbance.

Tractor logging acres are split in half, which represents logging before and after 1992; (15 to 8 

percent respectively). This reduction of soil disturbance exceeding 15 percent is based on the 

change from dozer operations, which resulted in 85-95 percent of a given unit acres being 

disturbed to a much smaller percent of disturbance using excavator equipment.

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 169

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 by 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.

The conditions of riparian areas can be an indicator of overall ecosystem quality. There are an 

estimated 385,000 acres of riparian areas across the planning unit, and on average, these areas 

are considered to be approximately 91 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 

stable condition or improving. It is estimated that almost all subwatersheds on the Forest have a 

low to moderate amount of disturbance. 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.

Roads can have a relatively high impact on riparian areas and overall road density in a watershed 

can be an indicator of these effects. There are an estimated 2,000 miles of road located in 

riparian areas, which amounts to approximately 14 percent of all road miles on the planning unit, 

with an average road density of 2.9 mi/mi2. Another potential indicator of riparian condition 

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 12,000 stream crossings across the entire planning 

unit and an average of 2.4 stream crossings/mi2, for all subwatersheds on the Forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

170 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Aquatic Habitat/Species

Species distribution and abundance have changed 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.

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 171

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 51 conservation subwatersheds and 46 restoration subwatersheds on the 

Forest (figure 23), as identified by the aquatic conservation strategy and salmonid assessment for 

the Forest.

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 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

172 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 23. Conservation & Restoration Subwatersheds

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 list (USDA Forest Service 2011b).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 173

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (Threatened)

Current bull trout distribution on the Forest is shown in figure 24. 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 (figure 25). Although many populations of native aquatic 

species are stable or improving, bull trout are considered to be in decline across their range; and 

local extirpations have occurred across the planning area. 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, and intensive land management activities such as road construction and 

timber harvest that have affected habitat conditions for the species.

Status of the Species

The bull trout in the coterminous United States was 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 (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 1998

June). 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 (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2008b). Critical habitat has been 

designated for bull trout (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 October).

Distribution

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. Bull trout populations on the KNF are included in 

the Columbia River distinct population segment.

The Columbia River bull trout distinct population segment is represented by relatively 

widespread populations that have declined in overall range and numbers of fish. There have been 

numerous local extirpations reported throughout the Columbia River basin. 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 Washington and Oregon.

Habitat and Life History Needs

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.

Throughout their lives, bull trout require complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, 

undercut banks, boulders, and pools (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). Bull trout exhibit 

three life history types: adfluvial, fluvial, and resident, all which require cold water temperatures 

<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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

174 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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. 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). 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 

may decrease survival of eggs and young juveniles in the gravel during winter through spring 

(Pratt 1992, Pratt and Huston 1993).

In summer, key aquatic habitat elements for bull trout include: (1) spawning habitat with water 

quality and quantity (including flow regimes) conditions and substrates favorable to incubation 

and larval development; (2) rearing habitat with water quality (including temperature conditions) 

and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support 

juvenile growth and mobility; (3) rearing habitat with foraging to support juvenile development; 

(4) cover habitat, including shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver 

dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks; and (5) 

migration corridors for adults and juveniles free of obstruction and excessive predation with 

favorable water quantity and quality conditions.

Core Areas

The draft recovery plan (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) 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 (a group of one or more local bull trout 

populations that exist within core habitat) constitutes the basic unit on which to gauge recovery 

(USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 175

Figure 24. Currently known Bull Trout Distribution
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

176 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 25. Probable Bull Trout Historic Range (from Lee et al. 1997)

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 to be 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 bull trout draft recovery plan describes 121 bull trout core areas across the species range in 

five states (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) and the KNF has lands within six core areas 

(Cabinet Gorge Reservoir, Noxon Reservoir, Clark Fork River, Bull Lake, Kootenai River, and 

Lake Koocanusa).

Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) (Sensitive)

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 26. 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 27), 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. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 177

2005). Migration barriers (dams, irrigation diversions, road-stream crossings) have isolated or 

eliminated habitat once available to migratory populations.

Status of the Species

Westslope cutthroat trout is a state species of special concern in Montana (S2). This species is a 

Region 1 Sensitive Species.

Distribution

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 KNF (see figure 26).

Habitat and Life History Needs

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 

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 seven to eight inches. Adfluvial and stocks in 

warmer waters reach lengths of twelve to fifteen 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

178 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 26. Currently known Westslope Cutthroat Trout Distribution
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 179

Figure 27. Probable Historic Westslope Cutthroat Trout Distribution (Lee et al. 1997)

Interior Redband Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) (Sensitive)

The allopatric form (i.e., not found in the same areas as steelhead trout) of interior redband trout 

is found in the Kootenai River drainage. Current interior redband trout distribution on the Forest 

is shown in figure 28. Distribution of the species throughout the Columbia Basin is shown in 

figure 29 (Lee et al. 1997). Historically, this species was widely distributed throughout the 

Columbia River Basin, although it was not widespread on the KNF. Current populations on the 

KNF range from strong to depressed. Hybridization and competition are its main threats.

Status of the Species

Inland redband trout is a state species of special concern in Montana (S1) and included on the 

Region 1 Sensitive Species list (USDA Forest Service 2011b).

Distribution

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).

Habitat and Life History Needs

Inland redband trout are found in a range of stream habitats. They prefer cool 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

180 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

Figure 28. Currently known Interior Redband Trout Distribution
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 181

Figure 29. Probable Interior Redband Trout Distribution (from Lee et al. 1997)

Kootenai River White Sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) (Endangered)

This species is restricted to the Kootenai River. These fish have not successfully spawned in 

recent years due to changes in river flow dynamics resulting from operations of the Libby Dam. 

Past land management activities conducted by the Forest Service, such as road construction and 

timber harvest, are considered a secondary impact to populations of this species (Lee et al. 

1997).

Status of the Species

The Kootenai River white sturgeon was listed as an endangered species in 1994 (USDI, Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1994 September). The recovery plan for the Kootenai River population of the 

white sturgeon was completed in 1999 (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 1999b).

Critical habitat has been designated for Kootenai River white sturgeon; however, none was 

designated on the KNF.

Distribution

The white sturgeon is an ancient fish that inhabits large rivers, lakes, and marine environments 

from southern California to 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 Kootenai River 

white sturgeon exhibits both the riverine and adfluvial life histories.

The Kootenai River white sturgeon is restricted to 168 miles of the Kootenai River from Cora 

Linn Dam, Canada, upstream to Kootenai Falls, Montana. The white sturgeon is native to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

182 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 (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 (> 100 km) migrations 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 KNF contains watersheds which 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 1994). 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 the Kootenai River white sturgeon (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). It is highly 

unlikely that forest management activities affect the mainstem Kootenai River or the Kootenai 

River white sturgeon population; therefore, this species does not have species-specific 

requirements beyond those of the Cold Water Group in the development of plan components.

Habitat and Life History Needs

Kootenai River white sturgeon requires rocky substrates (boulder and cobble) and high water 

velocities (three to seven ft/sec) for spawning. These appear to be the two most critical spawning 

elements. 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.

Older white sturgeon is relatively sedentary in the deepest locations of the Kootenai River 

drainage, often selecting low velocity waters greater than twenty feet deep. Kootenai River white 

sturgeon is typically found over sand substrates. There are very few areas within the lower 

Kootenai River that contain substrates greater in size than sand. Due to the dominance of the 

small diameter substrates it is not known whether these fish are selecting for sand or are forced 

to use it. White sturgeon are opportunistic feeders and subsist on insects, clams, snails, plant 

material, and fish (Brown 1971).

Western Toad (Bufo boreas) (Sensitive)

This species is in widespread decline throughout its range. 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.

Western toad ecology, biology, habitat use, status, and conservation are described and 

summarized in Maxell et al. (2009) and Reichel and Flath (1995).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 183

Status of the Species

The western toad is currently recognized as two subspecies with Bufo boreas currently 

recognized as occurring in Montana. 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 ranked 

as S2 in Montana. The western toad is a Forest Service Northern Region sensitive species.

Distribution

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 

Montana, the western toad is found throughout the mountains and intermountain valleys of the 

western third of the state on both sides of the Continental Divide. They are considered fairly 

common and well distributed throughout their range in Montana as well as on the Forest.

Population Sizes and Trends

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). 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).

Population sizes or trends are unknown for Montana (Maxell et al. 2009). The boreal toad was 

considered the most abundant amphibian of the western third of Montana in previous decades 

(Maxell et al. 2003) and is still encountered widely and frequently but not commonly, and is no 

longer ranked as the most abundant amphibian. Numerous surveys since the early 1990s indicate 

this species has experienced regional population declines in the state. The population size is 

unknown and direct measures of population trend on the Forest are not available. However, 

surveys conducted between 1993 and 1995 located 63 adults. Of the 134 wetland sites surveyed 

during the 1993 and 1994 field seasons, 10 had evidence of successful breeding and five 

additional sites were confirmed during the 1995 field season (Werner and Reichel 1996).

Habitat and Life History Needs

Habitats used by western toads in Montana 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, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

184 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 2005b).

Coeur d'Alene Salamander (Plethodon idahoensis) (Sensitive)

This species is endemic to northern Idaho, northwest Montana, northeast Washington, and 

southern British Columbia. Past 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.

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).

Status of the Species

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 S2 in Montana (NatureServe 

2011a). The Coeur d'Alene salamander is a Forest Service Northern Region sensitive species.

Distribution

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 KNF and IPNF. 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).

Population Sizes and Trends

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 Montana; 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 and MFWP 

2008).

Habitat and Life History Needs

Montana 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).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 185

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 and MFWP 2008).

Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) (Sensitive)

Globally the northern leopard frog is classified as G5 (secure) and nationally as N5 (secure) for 

both the U.S. and Canada (NatureServe 2011c). Throughout the states in which it occurs its rank 

varies widely from S1 (at high risk) to S5 (common, widespread, and abundant). It is ranked as 

S1S3 in Montana (NatureServe 2011c). It is listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

(Tier 1) in Montana and has been on the regional foresters list of sensitive species for a number 

of years.

Status and Distribution

This species is known from Great Slave Lake and Hudson Bay, Canada, south to Kentucky and 

New Mexico. It has a spotty distribution in the west where it has been introduced in many 

localities (NatureServe 2011c). The northern leopard frog’s historical distribution is irregular but 

includes western Montana except in the Big Hole area, as well as the tip of the Idaho Panhandle 

and southeast and parts of southwest Idaho (Stebbins 1985).

In Montana, the species range includes the eastern two-thirds of the state (figure 30); however, 

there are two disjunct populations that occur in the western portion of the state, including the 

Forest (figure 31). On the Forest northern leopard frogs are documented as occurring only in the 

Tobacco Valley area in several small populations.

Figure 30. Distribution of Northern Leopard Frog in Montana
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

186 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 31. Disjunct Populations of Northern Leopard Frog in Western Montana

Population Sizes and Trends

Overall population size is unknown, although in North America there are thousands of 

populations (NatureServe 2011c). The total adult population is probably in the hundreds of 

thousands or millions (Ibid). Over the last few decades, northern leopard frog populations have 

undergone declines and extinctions across much of the western portion of their range (Stebbins 

and Cohen 1995). Overall population trend is considered to be decreasing (globalamphibians.org 

2008). It is still widespread and common in many areas, especially in lowland areas, but many 

other populations appear to have declined, especially in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, 

Wyoming, and Montana where the species no longer is extant in most localities where it 

historically occurred. It has nearly disappeared from the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem; is 

apparently extirpated from most of its historical range in Washington; has not been observed in 

recent years in the few historical localities in Oregon; and local extirpations have been reported 

for Alberta and British Columbia (Hammerson et al. 2004).

In central Montana, out of 47 historic sites revisited in the mid-1990s, northern leopard frogs 

were only found at nine (19 percent). Recent extirpations are reported in all of western Montana 

and across much of the neighboring states (Reichel and Flath 1995) (MNHP and MFWP 2005a). 

Most northern leopard frog populations in western Montana apparently became extinct sometime 

in the late 1970s or early 1980s when virtually no amphibian studies were being conducted in the 

state (Maxell 2000, page 142). Although historically known to occur in several locations on the 

Forest, most populations of northern leopard frog appear to have been extirpated (MNHP and 

MFWP 2005a). Only two population centers are now known to exist in western Montana, one of 

which is on the Forest in the Tobacco Valley (Werner and Reichel 1996, Maxell et al. 2009).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 187

Habitat and Life History Needs

Habitats used by northern leopard frogs in Montana include low-elevation and valley bottom 

ponds, spillway ponds, beaver ponds, stock reservoirs, lakes, creeks, pools in intermittent 

streams, warm water springs, potholes, and marshes (Hammerson et al. 2004). Northern leopard 

frogs require a mosaic of habitats to meet annual requirements of all life stages. They occupy a 

variety of wetland habitats of relatively fresh water with moderate salinity, including springs, 

slow streams, marshes, bogs, ponds, canals, floodplains, beaver ponds, reservoirs, and lakes, 

usually in permanent water with rooted aquatic vegetation (MNHP and MFWP 2005a).

Adults and juveniles commonly feed in open or semi-open wet meadows and fields with shorter 

vegetation, usually near the margins of water bodies where there is permanent water and growth 

of cattails or other aquatic vegetation, yet they may forage far from water in damp meadows 

(Stebbins 1985). They seek cover underwater and seem to avoid denser vegetation (MNHP and 

MFWP 2005a).

Western Pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata) (Sensitive)

Status of the Species

Western pearlshell is a state species of special concern in Montana (S2) and also included on the 

Region 1 Sensitive Species list (USDA Forest Service 2011b).

Distribution

Montana’s populations of M. falcata may be significantly contracting and becoming less viable 

with stream-decreased flows, warming, and degradation. Previously reported mussel beds in the 

larger rivers (Blackfoot, Big Hole, Bitterroot, Clark Fork,) are extirpated from the drainage or 

are at such low densities that long-term viability is unlikely. This mussel species appears to have 

crossed the continental divide in Montana from west to east with its salmonid host, the westslope 

cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi. This is the only native trout in the Missouri River 

headwaters. Reports of the eastern M. margaritifera in Montana are apparently due to the 

mistaken assumption that a mussel could not cross the continental divide (MNHP and MFWP

2011b).

Habitat and Life History Needs

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 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. Boulder-sheltered 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 Montana were typically and 

historically Oncorhynchus spp. (e.g., westslope cutthroat trout); but Salmo and Salvelinus
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

188 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

(introduced species) and even Rhinicthys and Catostomus (dace and suckers) are anticipated to 

be suitable hosts as well.

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; 

are easy to collect; differ in their tolerance to amount and types of pollution; are 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 (RIVPACS) 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 KNF, with a sampling period beginning in 1998. An average 

RIVPACS 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 RIVPACS 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 and b), 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 189

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.

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

190 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

As protection measures outlined in the 1995 INFISH Biological Opinion continue 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 entire planning unit will be at least maintained, at 

current proportions (KNF River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System score of at 

least 0.83).

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. The additional direction under the 

revised Forest Plan standards and guidelines will further enhance conditions for 

macroinvertebrates, with an expected increase in the KNF RIVPACS score over what will occur 

under Alternative A.

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 (Spence et al. 1996, Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 191

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. Riparian conservation areas will help to reduce the threats associated 

with the factors of decline in riparian condition and contribute to the comprehensive recovery 

and restoration strategy for listed fish species and their habitats.

Although RHCAs are currently applied during project planning and implementation, Alternatives 

B Modified, C, and D include more appropriate direction for future management and restoration 

of these areas. Proposed forestwide direction includes specific standards associated with 

RHCAs, such as FW-STD-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 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 

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 

watersheds provide habitats that can support population strongholds of federally listed and 

sensitive species. Conditions in restoration subwatersheds 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 higher priority for the protection or restoration of listed fish species, 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

192 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

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., Montana 

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. Direction in the revised Forest Plan that provides for this 

restoration component 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 193

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, 

04, and 05) restore riparian and aquatic habitats (FW-STD-RIP-01, 02, and 03; and FW-OBJAQH-01, 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, 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.

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 MA6 (general forest).

Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Alternative 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 Alternatives 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

194 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

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, 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. 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 195

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 affects to the soil and aquatic ecosystem. Maintenance, 

closure, and decommissioning of roads are expected to continue at similar levels or slightly 

decreased levels compared to more recent management.

Alternatives B Modified, C, 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, which 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 that are 

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.

 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

196 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

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 include 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, 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-02 emphasizes the protection of water quality during all management 

 

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 197

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-03). 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, 04, and 05). 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 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) 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, 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 KNF 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

198 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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

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

wilderness or non-motorized recreation under the 1987 Forest 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.

Alternatives B Modified, C, D

The protections from INFISH and managing a designated motor vehicle route system 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 KNF (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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 199

There is one large-scale underground mine in operation on the Forest and two underground 

mines in the planning phase. These mines undergo site-specific NEPA to determine effects and 

required mitigation. The Troy mine is an underground silver and copper mine and has been in 

operation for many years. A reclamation plan is currently under development. The Rock Creek

and the Montanore mines are proposed underground copper and silver mines. These proposed 

mines are undergoing site-specific NEPA analysis. The effect of these mines on watersheds is 

being determined at the project level. The Forest Plan provides direction that will protect 

watersheds and the water resources.

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, 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, 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

200 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

KNF 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.

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).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 201

Alternatives B Modified, C, 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 KNF.

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 

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 

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, D

In addition to protections provided by INFISH direction, forestwide direction common to all 

action alternatives included guidelines to minimize effects to RHCAs from fires 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

202 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 by aquatic 

organism 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 

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 

western Montana, 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 (USDA Forest Service 

2010b).

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 

northwestern Montana, 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 northwest Montana. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Watershed Resources 203

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 (Dunham et al. 2003, Casola et al. 2005, 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 (Petersen and Kitchell 

2001, Morrison et al. 2002, Bartholow 2005, Kaushal et al. 2010, Isaak et al. 2010). Lower 

summer streamflows and higher air temperatures, as observed over recent decades in 

northwestern Montana, 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 

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 nonnative 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 northwestern Montana may be less than other, relatively drier and warmer 

subbasins in the Columbia River basin (Rieman et al. 2007).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

204 Watershed Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 and Kootenai basins of 

northwestern Montana (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).

Haak et al. (2010) conclude that risks to native trout resulting from projected increases in winter 

flood risk in north Idaho and northwestern Montana 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 and Kootenai basins face high to 

moderate risk of increased winter flooding (Haak et al. 2010).

Effects Determination

Based on the analysis of all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, other interrelated 

and interconnected activities, and the cumulative effects of other federal and non-federal 

activities within the Planning Area it has been determined that the implementation of the No 

Action Alternative or the other Action Alternatives would have No Effect on white Sturgeon or 

its designated critical habitat, May Affect and would Likely Adversely Affect bull trout and 

designated bull trout critical habitat.

Implementing any alternative including the No Action Alternative May Impact individual 

westslope cutthroat trout, interior redband trout, and western pearl shell but would not lead 

toward federal listing under the ESA. The analysis provided in this document represents the 

biological evaluation for the three aquatic species designated as sensitive on the KNF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 205

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 KNF 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 KNF 

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 KNF. 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 KNF, 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 KNF 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 KNF includes Canada lynx and grizzly bear. Canada 

lynx critical habitat occurs on the KNF. In 2011, the Region 1 Sensitive Species list was 

amended (USDA 2011a). Proposed terrestrial MIS for the KNF 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.

Cooperation between the state of Montana and federal agencies is useful to ensure proper 

management of the fish and wildlife resources. The Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

206 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Strategy Montana (MFWP 2005), as well as other state species management plans (e.g., elk, 

wolf, mule deer, and white-tailed deer) have 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.

• 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 207

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 KNF; 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 (23); 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.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

208 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

KNF. 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 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 209

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. Again, this will most likely be provided by MAs 1 and 5.

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 32 displays 

changes in federally listed species from the 1987 Forest Plan to current (2013).

Table 32. Status of Federally Listed Species on the KNF

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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

210 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Status 1987 Status 2013

Grizzly bear Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened Threatened

Peregrine falcon1 Falco peregrinus Endangered Delisted

Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus Not Listed Proposed Threatened

A current species list was obtained, dated 08/15/2012, from the Montana Field Office's website 

(http://www.fws.gov/montanafieldoffice/) 1 Analyzed under Sensitive Species section

2 Canada Lynx Critical Habitat also present on the KNF

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. When the decision for the NRLMD was made, it was determined that it 

contributed to the conservation and recovery of lynx, and USFWS agreed. 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.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 211

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.

Summary of Effects Determinations

Table 33 summarizes the effects determinations for T&E species, as well as other species and 

habitats analyzed in this report.

Table 33. Species Analyzed and the Effects Determinations for each Alternative

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species

Effects Determinations

Alt A Alt B Mod Alt C Alt D

Canada Lynx - Lynx canadensis T MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA

Canada Lynx – Critical Habitat AA AA AA AA

Grizzly Bear - Ursus arctos horribilis T MALAA MALAA MALAA MALAA

North American Wolverine – Gulo gulo luscus P NLJ NLJ NLJ NLJ

Sensitive Species

American Peregrine Falcon-Falco peregrinus anatum MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Bald Eagle – Haliaeetus leucocephalus MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Bighorn Sheep - Ovis canadensis MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Black-backed Woodpecker – Picoides arcticus MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Common Loon – Gavia immer MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Fisher – Martes pennanti MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Flammulated Qwl – Otus flammeolus MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Gray Wolf – Canis lupus MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Harlequin Duck – Histrionicus histrionicus MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Northern Bog Lemming – Synaptomys borealis 

chapmani

MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Townsend's Big-eared Bat – Corynorhinus townsendii MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Management Indicator Species

Rocky Mountain Elk – Cervus canadensis nelsoni MI MI MI MI

Landbird Assemblage (insectivores) MI MI MI MI

Other Species or Habitat Components

Migratory Birds MI MI MI MI

Big Game MI MI MI MI

Connectivity MI MI MI MI

AA - Adversely Affect

E - Endangered

LAA - Likely to Adversely Affect

MI - May Impact

MIIH - May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but is not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability

NLJ - Not Likely to jeopardize the continued existence

P - Proposed

T - Threatened
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

212 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Management Indicator Species

Table 34 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 34. MIS for the Kootenai National Forest

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 (page 12 in Castenada 2004), 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 

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 35, 36, and 37 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 213

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 is likely more habitat available to 

goshawks than shown in the analysis results because goshawk nest selection show 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 35. Acres of Goshawk Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No treatment Scenario 

(acres)

0 804,074 804,074 804,074

1 533,467 533,537 542,565

2 471,466 497,922 505,697

5 582,255 543,966 557,120

Source: Ecosystem Research Group 2012

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 36. 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

0 964,849 354,050 964,849 354,050 964,849 354,050

1 711,622 189,306 703,393 207,103 714,147 218,973

2 641,946 126,227 617,645 141,440 625,828 156,321

5 762,059 80,930 686,341 90,690 692,551 91,072

Source: Ecosystem Research Group 2012
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

214 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 does not appear to be any 

viability concern with pileated woodpeckers.

Table 37. Acres of Pileated Woodpecker

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No treatment Scenario 

(acres)

0 292,644 292,644 292,644

1 252,148 251,218 268,094

2 272,173 275,305 297,455

5 378,565 349,924 374,291

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 33 above. 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 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 215

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-10, 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;

• 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

Two threatened species occur on the KNF: the Canada lynx and the grizzly bear. Critical habitat 

for lynx is also located on the KNF. One proposed species also occurs: the North American 

wolverine.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

216 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Canada Lynx ─ Lynx canadensis

Affected Environment

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 final lynx listing 

rule (Clark 2000) gives population and habitat status on a national scale. The USDA Forest 

Service (2007) developed the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (NRLMD) which 

is based upon this strategy. This decision amends the forest plans by providing lynx habitat 

management objectives, standards, and guidelines. It is 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 2007a). Additional information is located in the various references 

cited.

In general, the LAUs or critical habitat were used for the analysis boundaries, although in some 

cases activities occurring on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., connectivity). The period 

considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. However, the habitat 

analysis, such as the ERG analysis (ERG 2012), also looked at vegetation changes over the next 

50 years.

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 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, multi-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 217

storied 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.

On the KNF, 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 similar to that 

described in Squires et al. (2010). Lynx 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. Stands with abundant horizontal cover are common in the area of the KNF where lynx and 

snowshoe hare are most abundant (north of Libby but west of Koocanusa and east of Pete Creek 

in the Yaak). Lynx rarely use, or are absent in, the Cabinets and West Cabinets. The reason is 

unknown, but it may be due to the topography being steeper or to unfavorable climatic 

conditions (snow conditions) (Squires, personal communication, September 6, 2012).

Summer foraging habitat (also good summer hare habitat) consists of early successional stages 

of dense, young (approximately 15 to 30-year old) forests. This short time-frame (about 15 

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. Denning habitat is abundant 

on the KNF and is not limiting (Squires, personal communication, September 6, 2012).

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 2005).

Lynx habitat within the Northern Rockies Geographic Area has been delineated into smaller 

LAUs for analysis and management purposes. These LAUs are defined in Ruediger et al. (2000) 

as approximating the size of a lynx home range (25-50 mi2) and containing at least 10 mi2 

(6,400 acres) of primary vegetation capable of supporting lynx. Within each LAU, the NRLMD 

identifies certain measures to use in assessing the current vegetation condition of the LAU 

relative to sustaining a lynx home range. Approximately 67 percent of the KNF is within the 

LAUs (roughly 1,492,611 out of 2,219,100 acres).

The KNFs mapped LAUs have remained the same since the 2007 NRLMD.

Current management for lynx on the KNF is directed by the NRLMD, which amended the Forest 

Plan. The NRLMD determined that there would be long-term benefits or maintenance of lynx 

habitat, although some short-term adverse effects by implementing the direction in the NRLMD. 

The NRLMD contains direction related to vegetation, grazing, human uses, and linkage areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

218 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

With regard to percentage of lynx habitat in the stand initiation structural stage, the NRLMD 

requires that no additional regeneration harvest is allowed if more than 30 percent of lynx habitat 

in an LAU is in a stand initiation structural stage that does not provide winter snowshoe hare 

habitat, except for fuel treatments in the wildland urban interface. On the KNF, none of the 

LAUs on the Forest exceed the 30 percent stand initiation structural stage (table 38).

Under the NRLMD, no more than 15 percent of lynx habitat on NFS lands in an LAU may be 

changed by regeneration harvest in a 10-year period. Percent is the percent of total LAU acres 

that provide lynx habitat. The Forest has regenerated less than 15 percent of any LAU over the 

past 10 years.

No LAU should have more than two adjacent LAUs that exceed 30 percent. There are no LAUs 

that have any adjacent LAUs that exceed 30 percent.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 219

Table 38. Lynx Habitat and Critical Habitat by Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) on the Kootenai National Forest (2010)

Lynx Analysis 

Unit (LAU)

Total Lynx 

Habitat in 

LAU on 

NFS Lands 

(Acres)

Total Lynx 

Habitat in 

LAU – all 

Ownerships 

(Acres)4

Early Stand 

Initiation 

Structural Stage 

Habitat on NFS 

Lands [Acres 

(% of NFS Lynx 

Habitat in LAU)]

Early Stand 

Initiation 

Structural Stage 

Habitat – all 

Ownerships 

[Acres (% of 

Lynx Habitat on 

all Ownerships in 

LAU)]1

Habitat Changed to 

Early Stand Initiation 

Structural Stage on 

NFS lands Over the 

Past 10 Years by 

Timber Management 

with Regeneration 

Harvests [Acres (%)]2

Number of 

Adjacent LAUs 

that Exceed 30 

% Lynx Habitat 

in an Early 

Stand Initiation 

Structural Stage

Is the 

LAU 

within 

Critical 

Habitat 

(Y/N)?3

Young/Dodge 16,258 16,258 622 (4) 622 (4) 364 (2) 0 Y

Boulder/Sullivan 22,432 22,432 1,673 (8) 1,673 (8) 449 (2) 0 Y

Good 12,389 12,389 1,554 (12) 1,554 (12) 144 (1) 0 Y

North Fork Big 15,727 15,727 333 (2) 333 (2) 0 (0) 0 Y

Lookout 17,023 17,023 398 (2) 398 (2) 207 (1) 0 Y

South Fork Big 20,451 20,455 296 (1) 296 (1) 276 (1) 0 Y

Parsnip 14,248 14,248 568 (4) 568 (4) 491 (3) 0 Y

McGuire/Tenmile 20,145 20,145 599 (3) 599 (3) 504 (3) 0 Y

Sutton 16,092 16,092 1,988 (12) 1,988 (12) 626 (4) 0 Y

Pinkham 24,713 24,713 3,663 (15) 3,663 (15) 3,284 (13) 0 Y

Therriault 37,878 37,878 22 (<1) 22 (<1) 21 (<1) 0 Y

Grave 38,332 38,332 1,096 (3) 1,096 (3) 0 (0) 0 Y

Krinklehorn 10,809 10,809 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 Y

Edna 14,628 14,632 265 (2) 265 (2) 265 (2) 0 Y

Swamp 19,628 19,629 77 (<1) 77 (<1) 77 (<1) 0 Y

Fortine 17,805 17,809 529 (3) 529 (3) 342 (2) 0 Y

Sunday/Trego 31,859 31,860 1,096 (3) 1,096 (3) 351 (1) 0 Y

Robinson 41,141 41,141 357 (1) 357 (1) 229 (1) 0 Y

Hawkins 47,572 47,572 402 (1) 402 (1) 109 (<1) 0 Y

Baldy 29,870 29,870 260 (1) 260 (1) 0 (0) 0 Y
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

220 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Lynx Analysis 

Unit (LAU)

Total Lynx 

Habitat in 

LAU on 

NFS Lands 

(Acres)

Total Lynx 

Habitat in 

LAU – all 

Ownerships 

(Acres)4

Early Stand 

Initiation 

Structural Stage 

Habitat on NFS 

Lands [Acres 

(% of NFS Lynx 

Habitat in LAU)]

Early Stand 

Initiation 

Structural Stage 

Habitat – all 

Ownerships 

[Acres (% of 

Lynx Habitat on 

all Ownerships in 

LAU)]1

Habitat Changed to 

Early Stand Initiation 

Structural Stage on 

NFS lands Over the 

Past 10 Years by 

Timber Management 

with Regeneration 

Harvests [Acres (%)]2

Number of 

Adjacent LAUs 

that Exceed 30 

% Lynx Habitat 

in an Early 

Stand Initiation 

Structural Stage

Is the 

LAU 

within 

Critical 

Habitat 

(Y/N)?3

Lost Horse 28,506 28,506 4,108 (14) 4,108 (14) 952 (3) 0 Y

Skookum 34,427 34,427 354 (1) 354 (1) 332 (1) 0 Y

Thunder 26,617 26,617 51 (<1) 51 (<1) 0 (0) 0 Y

China 23,000 23,000 1,653 (7) 1,653 (7) 0 (0) 0 Y

Callahan 34,409 34,409 372 (1) 372 (1) 0 (0) 0 N

Crowl 12,533 12,533 12 (<1) 12 (<1) 0 (0) 0 N

Keeler 13,433 13,433 62 (1) 62 (1) 163 (1) 0 N

Ross 22,734 23,124 45 (<1) 45 (<1) 45 (<1) 0 N

McElk 7,439 10,941 0 (0) 547 (5) 0 (0) 0 N

Silver Butte 19,248 19,973 33 (< 1) 33 (< 1) 0 (0) 0 N

West Fisher 12,247 12,601 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 N

Crazy 22,557 22,728 81 (<1) 81 (<1) 0 (0) 0 N

Treasure 24,610 24,610 1,989 (8) 1,989 (8) 0 (0) 0 N

Lower Quartz 11,198 11,274 72 (1) 79 (1) 0 (0) 0 Y

Upper Quartz 15,651 15,698 73 (<1) 73 (<1) 0 (0) 0 Y

Upper Pipe 14,208 15,848 57 (<1) 126 (1) 0 (0) 0 Y

Lower Pipe 13,517 16,043 907 (7) 1,867 (12) 55 (<1) 0 Y

Bristow 16,429 16,699 1,150 (7) 1,150 (7) 540 (3) 0 Y

Cripple 28,676 30,461 1,005 (4) 1,233 (4) 450 (2) 0 Y

Dry Fork/Weigel 17,603 17,603 718 (4) 718 (4) 352 (2) 0 Y

Upper Wolf 12,438 15,379 1,689 (14) 2,692 (18) 369 (3) 0 Y

Bull 16,111 16,111 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 N
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 221

Lynx Analysis 

Unit (LAU)

Total Lynx 

Habitat in 

LAU on 

NFS Lands 

(Acres)

Total Lynx 

Habitat in 

LAU – all 

Ownerships 

(Acres)4

Early Stand 

Initiation 

Structural Stage 

Habitat on NFS 

Lands [Acres 

(% of NFS Lynx 

Habitat in LAU)]

Early Stand 

Initiation 

Structural Stage 

Habitat – all 

Ownerships 

[Acres (% of 

Lynx Habitat on 

all Ownerships in 

LAU)]1

Habitat Changed to 

Early Stand Initiation 

Structural Stage on 

NFS lands Over the 

Past 10 Years by 

Timber Management 

with Regeneration 

Harvests [Acres (%)]2

Number of 

Adjacent LAUs 

that Exceed 30 

% Lynx Habitat 

in an Early 

Stand Initiation 

Structural Stage

Is the 

LAU 

within 

Critical 

Habitat 

(Y/N)?3

Rock 22,511 22,558 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 N

Vermilion 36,635 36,637 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 N

Beaver/Whitepine 23,996 24,003 125 (<1) 125 (<1) 991 (4) 0 N

Trout/Martin 26,844 26,844 171 (1) 171 (1) 179 (1) 0 N

Elk/Pilgrim 18,340 18,340 160 (1) 160 (1) 284 (2) 0 N

The table shows the amount of lynx habitat in a stand initiation stage (i.e., early stand initiation stage) that does not currently provide winter snowshoe hare habitat 1 These acres are lynx habitat that currently does not provide sufficient vegetation quantity or quality (height) to be used by snowshoe hare and lynx in winter. No additional 

regeneration harvest is allowed if more than 30% of lynx habitat in a LAU is in a stand initiation structural stage (i.e., early stand initiation stage) that does not provide winter snowshoe 

hare habitat, except for limited fuel treatments in the wildland urban interface. These acres are applied towards Standard VEG S1 in the NRLMD 2 Portion of the total LAU acres that provide lynx habitat (suitable + unsuitable acres). No more than 15% of lynx habitat on NFS lands in a LAU may be changed by regeneration 

harvest in a 10-year period. These acres are applied towards Standard VEG S2 in the NRLMD 3 Those KNF LAUs north of Highway 2 are within designated Critical Habitat for lynx. Those LAUs south of Highway 2 are not within designated Critical Habitat (USDI 2009). There are 

additionally 5,583 acres of KNF lands within Critical Habitat that occurs outside of any LAU. Those 5,583 acres consist of islands of KNF lands surrounded by corporate lands in the 

southeast part of the Forest near McGregor Lake. Not all of those 5,583 acres would actually be lynx habitat (spruce-fir types), although the exact amount of non-lynx habitat within 

those 5,583 acres is not known

4 Stand data for non-NFS lands is based primarily on photo-interpretation. Habitat types are inferred based on information for adjacent stands. Stand data is updated when vegetation 

management activities are known to have occurred. Some non-NFS landowners may provide stand data, if available
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

222 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Lynx habitat on the KNF was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 (ERG 

2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 39 below displays two of 

the relevant scenarios. The existing 1987 Forest Plan as amended by the 2007 NRLMD 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 and 

NRLMD 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 actual multi-story 

foraging habitat doubles over five decades. Notably, the change in the vegetation component of 

lynx habitat was modeled in light of a warmer/drier climate (which could alter the amount and 

location of lynx habitat in the future). Some of the large acreage of stands in the middle size 

class that currently exists on the KNF converts into the large size class over the next five 

decades. This contributes to an increase in multi-story lynx foraging habitat. However, a lack of 

adequate snow in the long-term may render some of that habitat less than optimal for lynx in the 

long-term, even if the vegetation components are there.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 223

Table 39. Acres of Lynx Multi-story Foraging and Stand Initiation Habitat (ERG 2012)

Decade 1987 Forest Plan as amended by the 2007 NRLMD No-Treatment Scenario

Multi-Story Stand Initiation Multi-Story Stand Initiation

Actual Habitat Potential 

Habitat

Actual Habitat* Potential 

Habitat

Actual Habitat Potential 

Habitat

Actual Habitat Potential 

Habitat

0 149,781 263,572 518 718 149,781 263,572 518 718

1 148,584 241,667 508 2,050 148, 759 241,759 498 1,858

2 184,605 255,279 508 3,096 185,250 256,015 493 3,127

5 285,567 338,328 0 8,410 291,248 347,041 0 16,148

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 don’t quite meet all the criteria of being habitat at a particular point in time, but are on the trajectory to become “actual” habitat

*The acres of “actual” stand initiation habitat is small likely due the SIMPPLLE model “regenerating” suitable cover types at lower than 70% crown closure for seedling-sapling size 

classes. It is likely that stand initiation habitat is more abundant than the SIMPPLLE model is able to predict (section 4.6.1 in ERG 2012). As explained in the ERG report, given that 

there are protections in place in the NRLMD for the stand initiation habitat type, and the shift in management focus to the importance of multi-story foraging habitat, the limitations of 

the model to predict “actual” stand initiation habitat, the ERG report did not carry the analysis of “actual” stand initiation habitat further
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

224 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Possible lynx linkage areas have been identified (Claar et al. 2003, USDA 2007) and are 

intended to assist in land use planning in order 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 (seven) identified linkage areas (Claar et al. 2003, USDA 

2007, KNF Lynx Taskforce 1997) for lynx in the analysis area. See the wildlife specialist’s report 

in the project record which contains a map of these linkage areas (taken from the NRLMD 

[figure 1-1 in USDA 2007]). Four of these seven cross private lands between parcels of KNF 

lands, while another two cross the Kootenai River or Lake Koocanusa. The remaining linkage 

area lies within the KNF along the Cabinet Mountains. Six of the seven linkage areas cross nonlynx habitat at lower elevations between LAUs, while the linkage area in the Cabinet Mountains 

is within LAUs at higher elevation.

A large portion of the LAUs are also within the recovery zones for grizzly bear on the Forest (62 

percent of the total LAU acreage is within a bear management unit [BMU], including 53 percent 

of the acreage of LAUs within critical habitat – 87 percent of the total LAU acreage is within a 

BMU or a Bears Outside of Recovery Zone polygon [BORZ], including 86 percent of the 

acreage of LAUs within critical habitat). Canada lynx are afforded the security provided for 

bears in these areas. Security for bears is maintained by controlling and/or managing access and 

this maintains or improves Canada lynx use by reducing the risk of displacement and poaching. 

With the advancement in snowmobiles and increase in winter recreation on the Forest there has 

been an increase in snowmobile use throughout lynx habitat. Motorized vehicle access 

management strategies for grizzly bear were analyzed (USDA 2011). There will be lower levels 

of motorized vehicle access and an increase in the amount of core (secure) habitat which in turn 

would potentially provide higher levels of security for lynx. The majority of lynx critical habitat 

is located within a grizzly bear recovery zone or within a BORZ polygon on the KNF. Many 

areas of the Forest have limited accessibility for snowmobiling off-route due to tree densities and 

topography.

Within lynx habitat within LAUs on the KNF there are approximately 120 miles of groomed 

over-snow motorized routes and approximately another 46 miles of designated routes. 

Additionally, there are approximately five miles of groomed cross-country ski trails within 

LAUs and lynx habitat, and another five miles that are designated. These mileages are less than 

those found in table K-8 of USDA 2007 (Lynx Amendment FEIS) due to better mapping and 

some routes being dropped due to lack of snow (M. Laws, personal communication, September 

17, 2012). There are no designated play areas on the KNF (table K-8 in USDA 2007). Within 

lynx habitat within the critical habitat boundary on the KNF there are approximately 100 miles 

of groomed over-snow motorized routes and approximately another 42 miles of designated 

routes. Additionally, there are approximately five miles of groomed cross-country ski trails 

within lynx habitat within the critical habitat boundary, and another five miles that are 

designated.

The NRLMD was intended to address the major threats to lynx, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, and as such, adverse effects have been reduced and jeopardy precluded 

through its implementation.

The KNF is within Critical Habitat Unit 3. There are approximately 911,403 acres of designated 

critical habitat on the KNF (41%). The majority of critical habitat acres (>99%, or 905,820 of 

911,403 acres) on the KNF are within a LAU. Approximately 5,583 acres of critical habitat on

the KNF in the southeast corner of the Forest is located in intermixed ownership and do not lie 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 225

within a LAU. Not all of the acres within those 5,583 acres would be lynx habitat, just as not all 

acres within a LAU are lynx habitat. Thirty-two (32) of the 49 LAUs (65%) on the KNF are 

located within designated critical habitat. Maps of the LAUs and critical habitat on the KNF can 

be found in the wildlife specialist’s report in the project record.

The primary constituent element (PCE) of lynx critical habitat (USDI 2009) is:

Boreal forest landscapes supporting a mosaic of differing successional forest stages and 

containing:

a. 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;

b. Winter snow conditions that are generally deep and fluffy for extended periods of time;

c. Sites for denning that have abundant coarse woody debris, such as downed trees and root 

wads; and

d. 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.

A large portion of critical habitat on the KNF is also within the recovery zones for grizzly bear 

on the Forest (53 percent of the acreage of LAUs within critical habitat – 88 percent of the total 

critical habitat LAU acreage is within a BMU or a BORZ polygon). Just as with lynx habitat, 

Canada lynx in critical habitat on the KNF, are afforded the security provided for bears in the 

Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery zone and the BORZ polygons. Security for bears is 

maintained by controlling and/or managing access and this maintains/improves Canada lynx use 

by reducing the risk of displacement and poaching. With the advancement in snowmobiles and 

increase in winter recreation on the Forest there has been an increase in snowmobile use 

throughout critical habitat. Motorized vehicle access management strategies for grizzly bear 

were analyzed (USDA 2011). There will be lower levels of motorized vehicle access and an 

increase in the amount of core (secure) habitat which in turn will potentially provide higher 

levels of security for lynx. The majority of lynx critical habitat is located within a grizzly bear 

recovery zone or within a BORZ polygon on the KNF. Many areas of the Forest have limited 

accessibility for snowmobiling off-route due to tree densities and topography.

Of the seven identified linkage areas on the KNF (Claar et al. 2003, USDA 2007, KNF Lynx 

Taskforce 1997), five of them are at least partially within critical habitat or adjacent to critical 

habitat.

The NRLMD and Critical Habitat

Critical habitat was designated after the completion of the NRLMD. Although the NRLMD did 

not specifically address lynx critical habitat, it does contain direction that contribute to the 

maintenance of the PCE of lynx critical habitat. Table 40 below lists the NRLMD components 

and what part of the PCE they address.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

226 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 40. Components of the NRLMD that Address the PCE of Lynx Critical Habitat

PCE Component*

NRLMD Direction that 

Address the PCE

Snowshoe Hares/Hare 

Habitat

Denning Matrix Habitat

ALL O1 X

ALL S1 X

VEG O1 X

VEG O2 X

VEG O3 X

VEG O4 X

VEG S1 X

VEG S2 X

VEG S5 X

VEG S6 X

VEG G1 X

VEG G5 X X

VEG G10 X

VEG G11 X

GRAZ O1 X

GRAZ G1 X

GRAZ G2 X

GRAZ G3 X

GRAZ G4 X

HU G1 X

HU G2 X

HU G5 X

HU G8 X

*Deep, fluffy snow is also part of the PCE, but this in an environmental element and KNF management actions do not 

have any effect on it

The NRLMD, although it pre-dates the designation of critical habitat, does maintain and address 

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

or improve not only lynx habitat where snowshoe hares would occur, but also the 

interconnecting “matrix” habitat as well. The NRLMD was designed to conserve lynx, and 

although there may be short-term adverse effects for lynx, there would be long-term benefits or 

maintenance of lynx habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 227

Key Stressors

Canada lynx are vulnerable to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation which can result in 

displacement or abandonment of den sites. This can occur from the removal or degradation of 

suitable habitat conditions due to timber harvest or fire or from human disturbance.

The following Forest Service management activities may have had direct or indirect effects on 

forested, riparian, and high-elevation habitats in the past and potentially led to displacement of 

lynx:

• Timber Harvest – changes in mature and late-successional forest stand composition and 

structure affecting the amount and availability of large down wood and presence of multistory canopy layers. Precommercial thinning can reduce the amount of snowshoe hare 

habitat, and therefore reduce habitat quality for lynx. Both fire and timber harvest can 

fragment lynx habitat.

• Fire (both planned and natural, unplanned ignitions used to meet resource objectives) –

removal of standing snags and down wood, reduction of canopy coverage, or direct 

mortality;

• Long-term Fire Suppression – landscape-scale effects to vegetation composition and 

structure that interrupts natural disturbances;

• Road and Trail Maintenance and Construction – habitat loss and loss/reduction or 

fragmentation of secure habitat;

• Recreational Use – increased human use in suitable habitat areas; and

• Development Opportunities such as Mining – major mining activities (e.g., Rock Creek, 

Montanore, and Troy Mines) can include substantial mitigation plans.

National Forest System lands make up a high percentage of the lands suitable for lynx habitat;

however, stressors to this species group that may cause habitat loss, displacement, or mortality 

that are outside the control of Forest Service management may include (addressed under 

Cumulative Effects):

• Climate Change – a reduction in cold climatic conditions that create and maintain boreal 

forests as lynx habitat;

• Activities on Private and State Lands – developments to support increased human 

populations that may impact connectivity between public lands. Decisions made by these 

landowners regarding management of motorized roads and trails on their lands, as well as 

vegetation changes could potentially result in impacts to lynx;

• Hunting and Trapping – Canada has a legal trapping season just north of the Forest. The 

state of Montana prohibits trapping of lynx; however, legal trapping of other species occurs 

in Montana. Some lynx home ranges overlap the international border. Poaching may occur 

but the magnitude of this form of mortality is unknown (page 2-16 in Ruediger et al. 2000); 

and

• Loss of Habitat throughout its Range in Canada – human use of lynx range can result in 

loss, fragmentation, or alteration of important habitat elements. 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 related to all these 

industries.

Lynx are generally tolerant of human activity (page 1-12 and 2-6 in Ruediger et al. 2000), 

although it cannot be completely ruled out that in a few instances human activity could create a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

228 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

large enough disturbance that individual lynx may be temporarily displaced away from the 

activity. Most forest visitors do not venture far from open motorized routes, which again limit 

the opportunities for lynx to encounter humans. Motor vehicle use is limited to roads, trails, and 

areas designated on motor vehicle use maps (MVUM), and in general, cross-country motorized 

travel is prohibited. Cross-country over-snow motorized use is limited by topography and 

vegetation. Newer technologies may allow snowmobile users to access more area (page 57 in 

Cordell et al. 1990). The compaction of snow (e.g., from snowmobiles or other recreation trails) 

was thought to allow competing predators (e.g., coyotes) that are normally restricted due to snow 

depth (Murray and Boutin 1991, Murray et al. 1995) to access areas of deeper snow and 

therefore venture into lynx habitat during the winter. This was once thought to have an effect on 

lynx (Ruediger et al. 2000, page 93 in Koehler and Aubry 1994, pages 94-95 in Buskirk et al. 

2000). However, Kolbe et al. (2007) found that compacted trails from over-snow motorized 

vehicles in their study area (western Montana) had only minimal impacts on coyote movements 

and foraging success. The results of the Kolbe et al. (2007) study and the effects of snow 

compaction on lynx were discussed in the NRLMD BO (pages 53-55 in USFWS 2007). On page 

55 in the BO for the NRLMD it states, “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.”

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors Under Forest Service Control:

Timber Harvest: The NRLMD applies to the existing Plan. Under Alternatives B Modified, C, 

and D FW-STD-WL-01 would be applicable. This standard states that the NRLMD would be 

applied. Activities such as precommercial thinning or treatments that may impact multi-story 

forage habitat would apply the NRLMD. 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, FW-DC-WL01which 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-DC-VEG-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 

support the NRLMD direction to provide for lynx denning habitat.

Table 41 below displays the results of ERGs modeling completed in 2012 showing the change in 

lynx habitat over the course of five decades (ERG 2012). Table 41 shows three scenarios. First, it 

shows Alternative B Modified. The 1987 Forest Plan as amended with the 2007 NRLMD and the 

“No Treatment” scenario are included to provide context for the alternatives. All three scenarios 

are modeled with a warmer/drier climate over the next five decades, leading to a larger acreage 

burned than has occurred in the recent past. All three scenarios assume that the current level of 

fire suppression would continue into the future, keeping in mind that the model assumed that 

some of these fires would escape initial attack. “Actual” habitat are those acres expected to exist 

at a particular point in time. “Potential” habitat is those acres that do not meet all the criteria of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 229

being habitat at a particular point in time, but are on the trajectory to become “actual” habitat. 

There is a large amount of stand acres currently in the middle size class, and over time a lot of 

these acres move into the large size class. This contributes to an increase in multi-story foraging 

habitat for lynx. Of note in the table is that under all scenarios the amount of “actual” multi-story 

lynx foraging habitat approximately doubles over five decades, and Alternative B Modified has 

the largest increase of the scenarios displayed. Additionally, after only one decade, Alternative B 

Modified has moved more acres into “actual” multi-story foraging habitat than both the 1987 

Forest Plan and the No Treatment scenarios. It is the change in the vegetation component of lynx 

habitat that was modeled in light of a warmer/drier climate. A lack of adequate snow in the longterm may render some of that habitat less than optimal for lynx in the long-term, even if the 

vegetation components are there. The results for the other alternatives do not vary substantially 

from Alternative B Modified. This is due to the limited amount of vegetation treatments due to 

budgets compared to the amount of natural succession/in-growth of stands and natural 

disturbance processes. The ERG report concludes that all the alternatives “...are fully compatible 

with recovery and clearly minimize risks to species viability to the degree that habitat 

availability affects lynx” (page 80 in ERG 2012).

For lynx, 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).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

230 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 41. Acres of Lynx Multi-story Foraging and Stand Initiation Habitat (ERG 2012)

Decade Alternative B Modified (acres of habitat) 1987 Forest Plan as Amended by the 2007 

NRLMD (acres of habitat)

No treatment Scenario (acres of habitat)

Multi-story Stand Initiation Multi-story Stand Initiation Multi-story Stand Initiation

Actual 

Habitat

Potential 

Habitat

Actual 

Habitat*

Potential 

Habitat

Actual 

Habitat

Potential 

Habitat

Actual 

Habitat*

Potential 

Habitat

Actual 

Habitat

Potential 

Habitat

Actual 

Habitat*

Potential 

Habitat

0 149,781 263,572 518 718 149,781 263,572 518 718 149,781 263,572 518 718

1 155,185 243,186 518 1,713 148,584 241,667 508 2,050 148,759 241,759 498 1,858

2 195,527 258,049 503 2,498 184,605 255,279 508 3,096 185,250 256,015 493 3,127

5 304,014 341,772 0 8,832 285,567 338,328 0 8,410 291,248 347,041 0 16,148

This table adds a third scenario, Alternative B Modified, compared to the previous lynx habitat table 39. This table displays the 1987 Forest Plan and the no treatment scenario to 

provide context for the alternatives. All 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 are 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

*The acres of “actual” stand initiation habitat is small likely due the SIMPPLLE model “regenerating” suitable cover types at lower than 70% crown closure for seedling-sapling size 

classes. It is likely that stand initiation habitat is more abundant than the SIMPPLLE model is able to predict (section 4.6.1 in ERG 2012). As explained in the ERG report, given that 

there are protections in place in the NRLMD for the stand initiation habitat type, and the shift in management focus to the importance of multi-story foraging habitat, the limitations of 

the model to predict “actual” stand initiation habitat, the ERG report did not carry the analysis of “actual” stand initiation habitat further
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 231

Fire (planned ignitions 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 

existing Plan. Alternative B Modified, C, and D have more flexibility than the existing 1987 Plan 

to use fire (both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) and would be consistent with 

the NRLMD with regard to using fire (implemented through FW-STD-WL-01. 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 area 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 KNF. Management under the existing 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 will potentially create smaller scale 

disturbances and therefore a mosaic of different stand ages/structures contributing to future lynx 

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 will have the amounts and 

arrangements of habitats similar to what they evolved with.

Under the revised Forest Plan there will be varying amounts of predicted active fuels reduction 

among the action alternatives. Alternative C (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active 

restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and 

A (14,115 acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B 

Modified (19,480 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C 

(19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). Approximately 10,000 

acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 8,000 

acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the alternatives, C (2,345 acres) will be 

expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under constrained budgets in the first 

decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 acres), D (1,627 acres) and then A (1,615 acres). Of the 

alternatives, D (6,543 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year 

under unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed by A (5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 

acres) and then C (4,649 acres). These acreage estimates were modeled with the assumption that 

the treatments had to meet the direction in the NRLMD; therefore these estimates are consistent 

with the direction the NRLMD.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

232 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Alternative C (342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (230,500 acres), 

A (204,300 acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire may also be used more in 

MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) 

have more than D (278,000 acres). Both passive and active restoration, and a general trend 

towards the desired conditions for vegetation under the action alternatives, will aid in creating 

more resilient and sustainable lynx habitat. Passive restoration will be a more realistic option in 

places such as wilderness areas. Those lower-elevation 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 stand-replacing fire over large scales will be 

reduced in the long term under the action alternatives, thereby allowing patch sizes to better 

approximate historic conditions and maintain heterogeneity of stand conditions. Even where lynx 

habitat is within historic conditions, restoring non-lynx habitat to historic conditions will reduce 

the chance of a large-scale fire starting in the lower-elevation forests and moving into lynx 

habitat. Implementation of FW-DC-FIRE-03 will 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-DCVEG-01, MA1b-DC-FIRE-01, MA1b-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1c-DC-VEG-01, MA1c-DCFIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA2-DC-FIRE-01, MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-GDLFIRE-01 through 03, MA5abc-DC-VEG-01, MA5abc-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5abc-GDL-FIRE01. This direction in the revised Plan offers more flexibility than the existing 1987 Forest Plan to 

use fire (planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) to move towards the desired 

conditions for vegetation. The direction for the use of fire in the revised Forest Plan is consistent 

with the direction in the NRLMD.

Landscape Connectivity: Connectivity of lynx habitat is incorporated into the existing Plan 

through the NRLMD. In Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, FW-STD-WL-01 applies the 

NRLMD. The direction in the revised Forest Plan is consistent with the direction in the 

NRLMD, including the GA direction in the revised Forest Plan which identifies general areas to 

provide connectivity for wildlife. That GA direction is consistent with the linkage areas 

identified in the NRLMD.

FW-DC-WL-17 and FW-GDL-WL-12 through 14 also provide direction relative to connectivity. 

FW-GDL-WL-12 in the revised Forest Plan states: “During the construction or reconstruction of 

highways that cross national forest lands, or high use forest roads, wildlife crossing features 

should be included in the design where necessary to contribute to connectivity of wildlife 

populations.” FW-GDL-WL-13 in the revised Forest Plan states: “Management activities within 

one-quarter mile of existing crossing features, and future crossing features developed through 

interagency coordination, should not prevent wildlife from using the crossing features. The 

vegetation and structural components of connectivity, including snags and downed wood, should 

be managed according to the desired conditions for vegetation.” The revised Forest Plan defines 

a wildlife crossing as: “A structure that facilitates the safe movement of wildlife across a manmade barrier such as a highway or railroad, or warning systems for motorists that reduce the

likelihood of a collision with wildlife. Examples include overpasses, underpasses, culverts, 

fencing, and electronic systems that detect the presence of large animals and flash warning signs 

to slow down drivers.” No crossing structures currently exist on the KNF. The direction in the 

revised Forest Plan was developed to address the importance of connectivity. The development 

of crossing structures is dependent on future interagency coordination and collaboration with the 

public, primarily because the highways and railroads that may be barriers for wildlife are not 

under the jurisdiction of the KNF. However, the KNF may manage lands near future crossing 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 233

structures and have thus identified the need to manage lands near those features to maintain the 

effectiveness of those features.

Crossing structures will be developed through interagency cooperation and NFS lands around 

those structures will be managed to maintain their function. The vegetation components of 

connectivity will be managed according to FW-DC-VEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-05, FW-DCVEG-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, will be similar to conditions 

that lynx evolved with in this ecosystem. Allowing fire to play a more natural role will aid in 

maintaining/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-BUL-01, GA-DC-WL-BUL-04, GA-DC-WL-CLK03, GA-DC-WL-FSH-01, GA-DC-WL-KOO-02, GA-DC-WL-LIB-01, GA-DC-WL-LIB-04, 

GA-DC-WL-TOB-02, GA-DC-WL-TOB-03, and GA-DC-WL-YAK-01. These areas will

include linkage areas identified in the NRLMD. Many of these areas either overlap lynx habitat 

within LAUs or will connect LAUs. This direction will also support lynx movement to habitat on 

adjacent forests and also into Canada.

Combined, all this direction will provide connectivity within the Forest and linkage to habitats 

outside the Forest. This will maintain opportunities for lynx to disperse and allow for genetic 

exchange within the lynx population on the KNF and with adjacent lynx populations.

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 will also occur for other species, such as lynx. The Access Amendment 

provides large areas with limitations on motorized use, and these areas will have lower human 

presence because many Forest visitors stay near open motorized routes. Therefore there will be a 

lower likelihood of negative interactions with lynx such as disturbance/displacement and 

poaching opportunities during the non-winter months. FW-GDL-WL-10 gives direction to retain 

security habitat for elk, and this will benefit other species such as lynx during the fall elk hunting 

season. The security areas for elk will 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 during the fall. Direction to provide security habitat for lynx and other 

threatened and endangered species will be found in FW-DC-WL-03. The transportation system 

on the Forest will 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-DC-WL-01, 

MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, and MA5abc-DC-WL-01. Combined, all this direction 

provides secure habitat for lynx across the Forest and will benefit lynx by contributing areas with 

less human presence due to the lack of motorized use. Lynx using habitat (denning, foraging, and 

connectivity) within these areas will have a lower likelihood of encountering people and 

therefore a lower likelihood of being disturbed or displaced by human activity.

There will be no difference in the specific roads or trails open to motor vehicle use between the 

alternatives. The acres available for cross-country motor vehicle use (except over-snow 

motorized use) will also not change. There will be a difference in the acreage where roads/trails 

may be designated for motorized use. Alternative D (1,792,900 acres) will have the most acres 

available in that regard, followed by Alternatives A (1,677,200 acres), B Modified (1,637,300 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

234 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

acres), and C (1,490,400 acres). The acreage available for over-snow vehicle use will be greatest 

under Alternative A (1,961,100 acres), followed by Alternatives D (1,988,500 acres), B Modified 

(1,920,500 acres), and C (1,814,800 acres). These acreages reflect what will remain open to 

over-snow vehicle use based on closure order issued in conjunction with the final ROD for the 

Forest Plan. The desired conditions for over-snow vehicle use will have that use allowed on 

1,500,700 acres under Alternative C, followed by 1,713,000 acres under Alternative B Modified, 

and 1,859,100 acres under Alternative D. These are the acres where the MA desired conditions 

allows over-snow vehicle use. These acres reflect the intent for future closures, following sitespecific winter travel management. In addition to the differences in MA allocations among the 

alternatives, the existing area closures on the Forest will be retained under all alternatives. 

Mechanized use will be allowed on more acres in Alternative A (2,125,400 acres), followed by 

Alternatives D (2,082,200 acres), B Modified (2,012,900 acres), and C (1,902,700 acres). 

However, not every acre will be accessible due to terrain and vegetation.

The more acres available for these type of uses, the greater the chance of disturbance to 

individual lynx. However, there will be habitat available on the Forest where motorized use will

not occur or some uses will be restricted, including wilderness, roadless, and non-motorized 

backcountry. Thus lynx will 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 existing Plan and includes direction related to roads and recreation, 

which are designed to maintain or improve lynx habitat. In Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, 

FW-STD-WL-01 states that the NRLMD will be applied.

Recreational Use: The direction listed above for road/trail maintenance and construction will

also reduce impacts from recreation. Recreational use is generally dependent on a road and trail 

system to facilitate access. Although lynx are generally tolerant of human presence (pages 1-12 

and 2-6 in Ruediger et al. 2000), disturbance may be great enough to cause displacement of 

individual cats in some circumstances. FW-STD-WL-02 and 03, MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DCWL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, and MA5abc-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 will 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 existing Plan and contains direction related to mining 

activities in lynx habitat. Alternatives B Modified, C, and D will be consistent with that direction 

(implemented through FW-STD-WL-01).

Direction in the revised Forest Plan that will apply to mining includes FW-DC-WL-03 which 

states that populations of threatened and endangered species trend towards recovery and that 

habitat will be available on NFS lands for occupation. Den sites will be protected through FWDC-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-17 and FW-GDL-WL12 through 14 will provide direction for maintaining connectivity and applies not only to 

highways, but also to high-use Forest roads such as a haul/supply route.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 235

Analysis of Effects on Critical Habitat

The final rule designating critical habitat (USFWS 2009) also described three types of actions 

that may adversely affect critical habitat. Briefly, these are:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

In matrix habitat, activities that change vegetation structure or condition would not be considered 

an adverse effect to lynx critical habitat unless those activities would create a barrier or impede 

lynx movement between patches of foraging habitat and between foraging and denning habitat 

within a potential home range, or if they adversely affect adjacent foraging or denning habitat.

The previous sections of this report analyzed the impacts of the revised Forest Plan on lynx, 

primarily by analyzing the effects on the habitat required by lynx. Thus, that analysis also 

provides an analysis of the specific impacts on lynx critical habitat. The PCE for lynx critical 

habitat and the actions resulting in adverse effects on critical habitat are described above. This 

guidance directs the analysis of effects below.

There are approximately 909,816 acres of designated critical habitat on the KNF (41%). The 

majority of critical habitat acres (99%, or 904,242 of 909,816 acres) on the KNF are within a

LAU. Approximately 5,583 acres of critical habitat on the KNF in the southeast corner of the 

Forest is located in intermixed ownership and do not lie within a LAU. Not all of the acres 

within those 5,583 acres would be lynx habitat, just as not all acres within a LAU are lynx 

habitat. Thirty-two (32) of the 49 LAUs (65%) on the KNF are located within designated critical 

habitat.

The NRLMD, although it pre-dates the designation of critical habitat, does maintain and address 

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

or improve not only lynx habitat where snowshoe hares would occur, but also the 

interconnecting “matrix” habitat as well. The NRLMD was designed to conserve lynx, and 

although there may be short-term adverse effects for lynx, there would be long-term benefits or 

maintenance of lynx habitat.

Actions that would reduce or remove understory vegetation within boreal forest stands 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

236 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

The vegetation components of the PCE of lynx critical habitat will be maintained or 

improved under the revised Forest Plan. Timber harvest, thinning, fire suppression, and 

fire use can all result in effects on the understory vegetation within boreal forest stands in 

critical habitat, although most result in temporary changes. The effects will be same as 

discussed previously for lynx habitat. With all vegetation management, the NRLMD will

be applied under all of the alternatives. Activities such as precommercial thinning or 

treatments that may impact multi-story forage habitat will also apply the NRLMD. 

Although there may be short-term adverse effects, in the long-term the PCE of lynx 

habitat will be maintained or improved. By implementing the NRLMD, understory 

vegetation in boreal forest stands in critical habitat will be maintained. As described 

earlier, the amount of multi-story forage habitat on the KNF is expected to double over the 

next five decades under the action alternatives.

The use of fire (planned and unplanned ignitions) to restore ecological processes and 

maintain or improve lynx habitat is included in the NRLMD and applies to the existing 

Plan. The action alternatives have more flexibility than the existing 1987 Forest Plan to 

use fire and will be consistent with the NRLMD with regard to using fire (implemented 

through FW-STD-WL-01). The ecosystems in which lynx live are adapted to standreplacing 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.

Fire and fire suppression have had a large impact on the distribution and amount of lynx 

habitat available on the KNF. Management under the existing Plan includes fire 

suppression in many instances, but also includes the use of fire to meet resource 

objectives. 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 will likely be larger than what would have been 

expected historically.

Allowing fire to play a more natural role over time will potentially create smaller scale 

disturbances and therefore a mosaic of different stand ages/structures contributing to 

future lynx habitat. The revised Forest Plan has FW-DC-FIRE-03 that provides direction 

to allow the increased role of fire in helping trend vegetation towards desired conditions. 

FW-DC-FIRE-03 in the action alternatives is consistent with the NRLMD. The NRLMD 

contains objective Veg 03 which states: “Conduct fire use activities to restore ecological 

processes and maintain or improve lynx habitat.” FW-DC-FIRE-03 in the action 

alternatives states: “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, wildfires continue to be suppressed where necessary to 

protect life, property and key resources.”

The desired conditions for vegetation in the action alternatives are based on historic 

conditions and natural processes where fire was a natural part of the ecosystem. Lynx 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 237

evolved with those conditions and consequently will have the amounts and arrangements 

of habitats similar to what they evolved with. The action alternatives are consistent with 

the NRLMD primarily through the standard FW-STD-WL-01 that states the NRLMD will

be applied. 

Alternative C (16,337 acres/year) wll have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 

acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B 

Modified (19,480 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). 

Approximately 10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action 

alternatives, with 8,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the 

alternatives, C (2,345 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per 

year under constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 acres), 

D (1,627 acres) and then A (1,615 acres). Of the alternatives, D (6,543 acres) will be 

expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained budgets in 

the first decade, followed by A (5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 acres) and then C (4,649 

acres). These acreage estimates were modeled with the assumption that the treatments had 

to meet the direction in the NRLMD; therefore these estimates are consistent with the 

direction the NRLMD.

In addition to the management direction found in the NRLMD, the action alternatives will

add another desired condition, FW-DC-WL-01,which provides direction for den sites and 

will minimize the chance that timber harvest related disturbance at den sites would 

displace lynx. Additionally, timber harvest will be a tool to achieve the desired conditions 

for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-05, FW-DC-VEG-08, and FWDC-VEG-11) in the revised Forest Plan and will maintain or improve lynx habitat. 

Moving conditions towards historic conditions in the lower elevation forests will reduce 

the chance of a large-scale fire beginning in those non-lynx habitats and moving into lynx 

habitat. FW-GDL-VEG-03 will retain downed wood, which will support the NRLMD 

direction to provide for lynx denning habitat.

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.

The action alternatives contain desired conditions for vegetation that are consistent with 

the NRLMD and will result in the maintenance of lynx critical habitat. These desired 

conditions are based on natural disturbance processes with which wildlife, including lynx, 

evolved with on the KNF. These desired conditions also assume a warmer/drier climate in 

the future and the need to allow stands to be resilient to disturbance. An increase in 

acreage burned (natural, unplanned ignitions and planned ignitions) under a warmer/drier 

climate and mechanical treatments to move towards the desired conditions for vegetation 

will result in doubling the amount of multi-story foraging habitat over the next five 

decades. The action alternatives will not only maintain lynx habitat, including critical 

habitat, but will increase the amount of suitable habitat on the KNF. Although where 

boreal forest habitat occurs on the KNF may shift as the climate becomes warmer, at least 

over the next five decades the amount of habitat will increase under the action 

alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

238 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

The 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 use of fire to meet resource objectives will be more likely in the action 

alternatives and most likely in MA1 (230,500 acres in Alternative B Modified, 204,300 

acres in the existing Plan equivalent to MA1). Fire may also be used more in MA5 

compared to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) 

have more than D (278,000 acres).Both passive and active restoration, and a general trend 

towards the desired conditions for vegetation under the action alternatives, will aid in 

creating more resilient and sustainable lynx critical habitat. Passive restoration will be a 

more realistic option in places such as wilderness areas. Those lower-elevation 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 

stand-replacing fire over large scales will be reduced in the long-term (vegetation changes 

were modeled over the next five decades) under the action alternatives, thereby allowing 

patch sizes to better approximate historic conditions and maintain heterogeneity of stand 

conditions. Even where lynx habitat is within historic conditions, restoring non-lynx 

habitat to historic conditions will reduce the chance of a large-scale fire starting in the 

lower-elevation forests and moving into lynx habitat. Implementation of FW-DC-FIRE-03 

will 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 action alternatives that supports 

expanded use of fire (planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) includes: MA1aDC-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-DCFIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA2-DC-FIRE-01, MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-

GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA5abc-DC-VEG-01, MA5abc-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5abcGDL-FIRE-01. This direction in the action alternatives offers more flexibility than the 

existing 1987 Forest Plan to use fire (planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions) 

to move towards the desired conditions for vegetation. The direction for the use of fire in 

the action alternatives is consistent with the direction in the NRLMD.

Matrix habitat between patches of boreal forest habitat will also be managed according to 

the desired conditions for vegetation. Matrix habitat will also be in a similar condition to 

that which lynx evolved with on the KNF under natural disturbance processes. Movement 

towards the desired conditions for vegetation will maintain matrix habitat and make it 

more resilient to disturbance (e.g., fire, insects, and disease).

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.

The NRLMD will be applied under all alternatives, including the direction in the NRLMD 

related to roads. Guideline HU G6 in the NRLMD specifically mentions that methods to 

avoid or reduce the effects on lynx in lynx habitat should be used when upgrading 

unpaved roads to maintenance levels 4 or 5, if the result would be increased traffic speeds 

and volumes, or a foreseeable contribution to increases in human activity or development. 

FW-DC-WL-17 and FW-GDL-WL-12 through 14 in the action alternatives will maintain 

connectivity and is consistent with direction in the NRLMD for linkage areas. The action 

alternatives will maintain or improve connectivity within and between boreal landscapes 

for lynx on the KNF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 239

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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. The LAUs or 

critical habitat were used for the analysis boundaries, although in some cases activities occurring 

on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., connectivity). The period considered for this analysis 

is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. Some vegetation habitat changes were evaluated 

on a longer timeframe if the effects were expected to last beyond the life of the Plan.

All past activities on the Forest has resulted in the current habitat conditions. Those current 

habitat conditions have multi-storied foraging habitat within HRV (page 80 in ERG 2012). 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.

Fuels reduction efforts are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they are near 

residences. Within the WUI, there are approximately 336 acres (<1%) of lynx habitat on state 

lands within a LAU. There are additionally 3,535 acres (2%) of lynx habitat within the 

WUI/LAU overlap on corporate timber lands (Plum Creek) and 147 acres (<1%) on other private 

lands. Of these lynx habitat acres, none of the state lands in the WUI/LAU overlap occurs in 

critical habitat, while only 58 acres (<1%) on corporate timber lands and 10 acres (<1%) on 

other private ownerships occur in the WUI/LAU overlap. Additionally, the 5,583 acres of critical 

habitat on KNF lands that are not within a LAU are surrounded primarily by corporate timber 

lands and some state lands (also within critical habitat). If fuels reduction activities on those 

other ownerships 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. If it is lynx habitat, then treatment will render those acres at 

least temporarily unsuitable. Although the acreage lost to these treatments on non-federal 

ownerships may be minimal in light of the expected large increase in multi-story foraging on 

KNF lands, those acres on non-federal lands may impact connectivity of lynx habitat.

There are approximately 3,333 acres of state lands within LAUs within the KNF boundary, along 

with 34,817 acres of corporate timber lands and 12,058 acres of other private lands. Of those 

acres of other land ownerships within LAUs, 2,506 acres of the state land is within critical 

habitat, along with 25,849 acres of corporate timber lands and 7,264 acres of other private lands. 

The critical habitat boundary within the KNF boundary contains lands that are outside of a LAU. 

Those acres in this category on KNF lands (5,583 acres) have been discussed above. When acres 

outside of LAU boundaries but inside of the KNF boundary are included in the totals, there are 

5,626 acres of Montana State lands in critical habitat within the KNF boundary. Additionally 

there are 63,603 acres of corporate timber lands; 9,419 acres of other private lands; and 360 

acres of USFWS land in this category.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

240 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation has developed a Habitat 

Conservation Plan that covers state lands within the KNF boundary. This HCP was “designed to 

avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the impacts of incidental take on threatened and endangered 

species as a result of timber harvest and related activities to the maximum extent practicable” 

(page 1-1 in Vol. 2 of MT DNRC and USFWS 2010). The HCP includes measures to protect 

lynx on some State Trust Lands in Montana.

The desired condition for connectivity in the revised Forest Plan (FW-DC-WL-17, FW-GDLWL-12 through 14) will direct the KNF to work with other agencies and landowners when 

highways are proposed to be constructed or reconstructed to incorporate crossing structures 

where needed. The Plan will be in compliance with the NRLMD relative to connectivity. This 

will 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 will

increase.

Climate change will have the potential to alter the amount and distribution of lynx habitat on the 

KNF and adjacent ownerships. Coupled with past fire suppression, climate change can increase 

the impact of insects and disease and change the amount of habitat available for lynx. The 

desired conditions for vegetation and fire (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 05, FW-DC-VEG-08, FWDC-VEG-11, and FW-DC-FIRE-03) in the revised Forest Plan will shift vegetation to a more 

sustainable and resilient condition better able to adapt to climate change. That will 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 will 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 KNF 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.

Lynx and snowshoe hare are adapted to life in the deep snow. Changes in snow patterns due to a 

warming climate will put snowshoe hares at a disadvantage, and as a prey species for lynx the 

tight relationship between hares and lynx may dissolve as each species responds differently to 

climate change (Ruggiero et al. 2008). Disruption of predator-prey interactions can result when 

the species respond differently to climate change (Parmesan 2006). Lynx habitat may shift 

upward in elevation and north in latitude as the climate warms, and peninsular extensions of 

habitat may become fragmented (page 8617 in USDI 2009, Ruggiero et al. 2008, Carroll 2007). 

If a warming climate leads to less snowfall and warmer temperatures, snowshoe hare populations 

may decline as lynx predation efficiency increases. Snowshoe hare population declines may then 

lead to shifts in plant species composition, litter decomposition, nitrogen cycling of boreal 

forests, and effects on other predators/prey species linked to the lynx/snowshoe hare food chain 

(page 1202 in Schmitz et al. 2003). Gonzales et al. (2007) modeled the potential shift in boreal 

forest and areas that have continuous winter snow coverage for at least four months a winter. 

They predicted a potential decline of up to two-thirds of potential habitat in the lower 48 United 

States by the year 2100. Lynx habitat may shift northward as much as 125 miles. Areas that 

could lose potential lynx habitat in the long-term (around the year 2100) includes the KNF 

(Gonzales et al. 2007) [Note: the KNF specific vegetation modeling for the next five decades 

conducted by ERG predicts a doubling of multi-story foraging habitat for lynx, and this includes 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 241

modeling under a warmer/drier climate with increased insects/disease/fire. However, the model 

used for the KNF by ERG is not able to predict snow duration/depth/consistency. A lack of

adequate snow in the long-term may render at least some lynx habitat on the KNF less than 

optimal for lynx.]

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 Montana/Idaho, 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. Populations in Canada provide gene flow into lynx populations south of the border 

(Schwartz et al. 2002). 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 Montana/Idaho.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may affect, and is likely to adversely affect lynx and would 

adversely affect critical habitat. The effect determination is based on:

• The Plan will be in compliance with the NRLMD through FW-STD-WL-01. Even though 

the net result will be maintenance or improvement of lynx habitat, there will still be shortterm affects from the NRLMD. The NRLMD contains direction related to vegetation 

management, livestock grazing, human uses, and landscape connectivity. The NRLMD was 

determined to have adverse effects for lynx, and those effects would continue with the action 

alternatives. Activities such as fuels reduction and thinning could have adverse effects on 

critical habitat even if consistent with the NRLMD;

• The PCE of critical habitat would be maintained or improved through implementation of the 

NRLMD and additional direction provided in the revised Forest Plan. This includes direction 

related to vegetation (snowshoe hare habitat), denning, and connectivity of habitat. The 

desired conditions for vegetation and fire will maintain lynx critical habitat in the long-term, 

although there will be short-term adverse effects due to some lynx critical habitat 

temporarily being converted from suitable to unsuitable. Over the course of the next five 

decades implementation of the action alternatives, which includes the NRLMD, will result in 

an increase in multi-story foraging habitat in critical habitat and elsewhere across the KNF; 

and

• The ERG report concludes that all the alternatives “...are fully compatible with recovery and 

clearly minimize risks to species viability to the degree that habitat availability affects lynx” 

(page 80 in ERG 2012). Multi-story foraging habitat is expected to dramatically increase 

over the next five decades.

Grizzly Bear – Ursus arctos horribilis

Affected Environment

Grizzly bear population ecology, biology, habitat description, and relationships identified by 

research are described in the FWS Grizzly Bear Management Plan (USFWS 1993), the 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Guidelines (IGBC 1986), and the Forest Plan Amendment 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

242 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

for Motorized Access Management Within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Zones (2011) and corresponding biological opinion (USFWS 2011), herein referred to as the 

Access Amendment.

Two recovery zones overlap the KNF: the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone (CYRZ) and the North 

Continental Divide Recovery Zone (NCDRZ or NCDE).

The CYRZ is situated in the KNF, IPNF, and a small portion of the Lolo National Forest. A small 

portion (roughly three percent of the total acreage) of the NCDE is situated in the KNF; 

however, the majority is in the Flathead National Forest. The ecosystems/recovery zones are also 

tied to areas in Canada, with the back and forth movement of bears between the two countries. 

See the wildlife specialist’s report in the project record for a map that displays the BMUs and 

BORZ polygons on the KNF.

In general, the BMUs and BORZ were used for the analysis boundaries, although in some cases 

activities occurring on adjacent areas were also evaluated (e.g., connectivity). The period 

considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. Vegetation changes 

were evaluated on a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the life of the 

Plan.

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, Volson 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. Natural caves or excavated dens, often 

above 6,000 feet, are entered after the first snowfall and occupied for four to five months.

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 vegetative 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.

Johnson and Gautreaux (2008 pages 4-5) summarized grizzly bear habitat use in the CYE:

“Spring Habitat: The four most used spring habitat components in the Yaak portion of the 

ecosystem in order are: closed timber, timbered shrub field, graminoid side-hill park, and mixed 

shrub/cutting unit. In the Cabinet Mountains portion they are, in order: mixed shrub/snow chute, 

graminoid side-hill park, closed timber, and timbered shrub field.

A strong preference for south aspects is present in the Cabinet Mountains portion of the 

ecosystem. All aspects appear to be used in the Yaak portion; however, a slight selection for 

south and east aspects seems to be evident.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 243

Spring habitat is primarily below 1,600 meters (5,250 feet) in elevation in the Cabinet Mountains 

portion and below 1,400 meters (4,590 feet) elevation in the Yaak portion. Food habits indicate 

bears are using grasses, sedges, succulent forbs, and the corms of glacier lily and biscuit root in 

the spring.

Summer Habitat: The three most used summer habitat components in the Yaak portion of the 

ecosystem in order are: timbered shrub field, mixed shrub/cutting unit, and closed timber. In the 

Cabinet Mountains portion they are, in order: timbered shrub field, mixed shrub/snow chute, and 

mixed shrub cutting unit.

In the Cabinet Mountains portion of the ecosystem all aspects appear to get substantial use with 

the exception of north aspects in September. All aspects appear to be used equally in the Yaak 

portion.

Summer habitat is primarily above 1,600 meters (5,250 feet) in elevation in the Cabinet 

Mountains portion and above 1,500 meters (4,920 feet) elevation in the Yaak portion.

Dominant food sources include succulent forbs, insects, and berries (mostly huckleberry).

Fall Habitat: The three most used fall habitat components in the Yaak portion of the ecosystem 

in order are: timbered shrub field, closed timber, and mixed shrub/cutting unit. In the Cabinet 

Mountains portion they are, in order: timbered shrub field, closed timber, and mixed shrub/snow 

chute.

In the Cabinet Mountains portion of the ecosystem all aspects appear to get equal use except 

south aspects in November. All aspects appear to be used equally in the Yaak portion.

Fall habitat is primarily above 1,400 meters (4,590 feet) in elevation in the Cabinet Mountains 

portion, with the exception of November. Lower elevation use in November (down to 1,100 

meters) is associated with big game hunting season. Use is above 1,400 meters (4,590 feet) 

elevation in the Yaak portion as well.

Bear diets revert back to grasses and sedges during late rains and subsequent green-up. Berries 

may still be important when huckleberries are still available and mountain ash berries persist on 

plants beyond the first snow fall.

Den Use: The two most used den habitat components in the Yaak portion of the ecosystem in 

order are: timbered shrub field and closed timber. In the Cabinet Mountains portion they are, in 

order: beargrass side-hill park and timbered shrub field.

A clear preference for south aspects is present in the Cabinet Mountains portion of the 

ecosystem, however all aspects are used. In the Yaak portion south aspects appear to be avoided 

while other aspects are equally used.

Dens are around 1,700 meters (5,580 feet) in elevation in the Yaak portion of the ecosystem and 

higher (mean elevation of 1,891 meters, 6,200 feet) in the Cabinet Mountains portion.”

Management

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 KNF. In addition, the state 

of Montana has a grizzly bear policy (MCA 12.9.103) that outlines policy guidelines for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

244 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) to promote the conservation of grizzly bears in 

Montana.

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 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 the recovery zones have been delineated into one of two management 

situations; MS1 and MS3. MS1 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.

For analysis and monitoring purposes, grizzly bear habitat within the recovery zones is further 

separated into bear management units (BMU), which approximate the size of a female’s home 

range. Each BMU is monitored for various population and habitat components identified as 

important for recovery of the species. There are 22 BMUs in the CYRZ, and 2 in the KNF 

portion of the NCDE.

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 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 Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone. Route densities include 

both roads and motorized trails. The standards that were established and their status (Bear Year 

2011) are displayed in table 42. Most of the BMUs listed in the table are on the KNF, although 

BMUs 18-21 are primarily on the IPNF and 22 is primarily on the Lolo National Forest.

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).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 245

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 (USDI 2011 page 13, USDA 2011 

Access Amendment FEIS pages 78 and 335-340, USDA 2011 Access Amendment ROD page 

60).

Open Motorized Route Density (OMRD) – is calculated on a BMU basis using 

moving-windows analysis. A moving-windows road density analysis takes the road density 

within a specified distance (“window”) around each pixel. A percentage of pixels (i.e., 

percentage of the BMU) within certain road densities levels can then be calculated.

Total Motorized Route Density (TMRD) – is calculated on a BMU basis using 

moving-windows analysis. A moving-windows road density analysis takes the road density 

within a specified distance (“window”) around each pixel. A percentage of pixels (i.e., 

percentage of the BMU) within certain road densities levels can then be calculated.

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).

Table 42. 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

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

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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

246 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Bear Management 

Unit

Open Roads >1 

mi/mi2 (%)

Total Roads >2 

mi/mi2 (%)

% Federal 

Land % Core Priority

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

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.

Over-snow Motorized Use

Kasworm et al. (2010) summarized den emergence data for 62 den exit dates from 1983 until 

2009. Most (81%) occurred during April, but ranged from the third week of March to the third 

week of May (page 58 in Kasworm et al. 2010).

The biological opinion for the Access Amendment (USFWS 2011c) summarized the existing 

condition for over-snow vehicle access within the CYRZ. Those numbers have been updated for 

this analysis. There are 53 miles of groomed trails and 58 miles of ungroomed routes on the KNF 

portion of the CYRZ, and there are 7 miles of groomed routes and 4 miles of ungroomed routes 

on the KNF portion of the NCDE. Off-route use occurs on approximately 18,686 acres within the 

KNF portion of the CYRZ and 7,905 acres of the KNF portion of the NCDE. Off-route 

snowmobile travel occurs on about only 5 percent of modeled denning habitat within the CYRZ 

portion of the KNF and 21 percent of the NCDE portion of the KNF. Negative impacts on 

grizzly bears are primarily limited to the den emergence period (basically the month of April), 

particularly for female bears with cubs of that year. There is the potential of separating a mother 

and cub, which could result in cub mortality, although such effects have never been documented 

and there are no known scientific papers supporting this potential impact. This potential impact, 

and the limited movement of females with cubs during spring emergence, was discussed in 

Haroldson et al. 2002. Given the small population size of grizzly bears, the overlap of less than 

10 percent of modeled denning habitat in the CYRZ, and the seasonally-declining numbers of 

snowmobilers by April of each year, the probability of a snowmobile encountering a female with 

cubs using a particular patch of denning habitat is low (page A-43 in USFWS 2011c –

information cited in USFWS 2011c is from the 2009 draft supplemental EIS for the Access 

Amendment). This information can also be found in USDA 2011, which is the final supplemental 

EIS for the Access Amendment (pages 98-99 in USDA 2011). Even in the NCDE portion of the 

KNF, the likelihood of impacts to grizzly bears from over-snow motorized use is likely low. 

USFWS wrote in their 5-year review for grizzly bear (page 38 in USFWS 2011b), “Our best 

information suggests that current levels of snowmobile use are not appreciably reducing the 

survival or recovery of grizzly bears.” The NCDE population has been increasing and is likely 

headed towards delisting, so current levels of over-snow motorized use does not appear to be 

preventing the population from recovering. 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 [FWS 2002]” (page 36 in 

USFWS 2011b).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 247

Outside of the Recovery Zones

While the focus of the standards is the CYRZ, grizzly bears occupy additional areas outside the 

CYRZ. These areas are referred to as bears outside of recovery zone (BORZ). There are five 

areas (BORZ polygons) on the KNF and IPNF near the CYRZ. 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 43.

Table 43. 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

Cabinet Face Cabinet-Yaak KNF 28,052 27,093 164.1 (164.1) 130.0 (128.0)

Clark Fork Cabinet-Yaak KNF 101,899 100,421 236.3 (256.1) 172.4 (176.9)

MissionMoyieCabinet-Yaak IPNF 71,545 58,472 200.3 (200.3) 167.3 (167.3)

Tobacco Cabinet-Yaak KNF 287,240 266,947 1109.3 (1,123.9) 867.0 (867.0)

West 

Kootenai

Cabinet-Yaak KNF 173,122 169,705 607.9 (615.3) 323.7 (315.9)

1 National Forest System Lands

2 2010 represents the environmental baseline identified in the amendments to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 

2011)

North Continental Divide Recovery Zone

The NCDRZ population of grizzly bears is considered to be expanding and is known to contain a 

large number of bears, based in part on DNA research (Kendall et al. 2009, Mace et al. 2012, and 

page 25 in USFWS 2011b).

Table 44 displays the OMRD, TMRD, and Core existing conditions for the KNF’s BMUs within 

the NCDE. Over 99 percent of the acres in both Krinkelhorn and Therriault are NFS lands, with 

less than 1 percent private lands (approximately 360 acres private lands in Krinklehorn and 140 

acres private in Therriault).

Table 44. Core, OMRD, and TMRD parameters for the BMU subunits within the North Continental 

Divide Recovery Zone (NCDRZ) Located on the KNF as of 2010 (have not changed since 2008)

BMU Subunit OMRD TMRD Core

Krinklehorn BMU (47,151 acres) 18% 11% 75%

Therriault BMU (67,538 acres) 23% 10% 71%

Habitat connectivity

Habitat connectivity within and between the SRZ and CYRZ has been identified as a possible 

factor that influences habitat (Servheen et al. 2001 and 2003, Proctor et al. 2002 and 2005). The 

main “fracture zones” identified in Servheen et al. (2003) that overlap the boundary of the KNF 

are:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

248 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

1. In the CYRZ – Highways 2 and 56 and the railway lines that parallel Highway 2;

2. Between the CYRZ and the Bitterroot mountains – Highway 200 and the parallel railway; 

and

3. Between the CYRZ and the NCDRZ – Highways 2 and 93.

Although it is important to provide connectivity between the CYRZ and the SRZ, the “fracture 

zone” between the two does not overlap KNF lands and nor do the “linkages” identified in 

Servheen et al. (2003). Connectivity between the KNFs BMUs in the CYRZ and the NCDRZ is 

involved in the “fracture zone” between those two recovery zones listed in Servheen et al. (2003) 

and are associated with Highways 2 and 93. 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 2008a). In addition, occurrences of bear movement 

between the CYRZ and NCDRZ have been confirmed (ibid).

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 CYRZ.

Attractants

Human-bear conflicts are also reduced through limiting attractants via mandatory food storage 

orders. Mandatory food storage orders on both the KNF and portions of the IPNF were 

implemented in 2011 to replace the voluntary orders and this would continue under the action 

alternatives. Previously, in 2001, the KNF implemented forestwide voluntary food storage 

guidelines to encourage national forest users to store food in a manner that reduces human-bear 

conflicts.

The 2011 mandatory food storage order (“Occupancy and Use Restrictions – Food Storage and 

Sanitation Special Order”) prohibits:

1. Improperly possessing or storing any food, refuse or other attractant, as specified in the 

order from March 1 through December 1 annually. [36 CFR 261.58 (cc)];

2. Improperly camping as specified in the Order March 1 through December 1 annually. [36 

CFR 261.58 (e)]; and

3. Improperly possessing, storing, or transporting any bird, fish, or other animal, or parts 

thereof, as specified in the order from March 1 through December 1 annually [36 CFR 261.58 

(s)].

The order requires that:

1. Human, pet and livestock food (except baled or cubed hay without additives), and refuse 

shall be acceptably possessed or acceptably stored in bear-resistant manner;

2. Camping or sleeping areas shall be established at least 1⁄2 mile from known animal carcass 

that is on the ground;

3. Any harvested animal carcass shall be acceptably possessed or stored when within 1⁄2 mile 

of a camping or sleeping area or within 200 yards of a NFS trail (unless the carcass is being 

field dressed, transported, being prepared for eating, or being prepared for acceptable 

storage);
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 249

4. The responsible party shall report the death and location of livestock to a Forest Service 

official within 24 hours of discovery. In remote areas, where it is not possible to meet the 24 

hour timeframe, the report should be made within 48 hours; and

5. Burnable attractants (such as food leftovers or bacon grease) shall not be buried, discarded, 

or burned in an open campfire.

The presence of food attractants may result in bear/human encounters that often lead to the 

relocation or the death of the bear. To date, there have been no grizzly bear deaths associated 

with food attractants on NFS lands in the CYRZ or in the two NCDE subunits on the KNF. There 

has been a concerted effort to improve sanitation on NFS lands throughout the ecosystem, with 

many campgrounds now having bear-resistant garbage and/or food storage containers to reduce 

such encounters and the potential for subsequent habituation. Currently, 39 developed recreation 

sites have bear resistant garbage containers on the KNF. Thirty-four other recreation sites have 

food storage containers.

Additionally, a reduction in motorized vehicle access under the Access Amendment may result in 

a reduction of dispersed campsites where food attractants might occur or a concentration of 

dispersed camping with more food attractants in fewer sites. Regardless, the mandatory food 

storage order would remain in effect, thereby requiring that attractants not be available to bears 

and thereby limiting the likelihood of a human-bear conflict due to attractants.

Key Stressors (Risks and Threats)

At the present, human-caused mortality is considered to be the major factor limiting grizzly bear 

recovery. Specifically, human-caused mortality is related to:

• Attraction of grizzly bears to improperly stored food or garbage (indirect and cumulative 

effect);

• Increased human occupancy of grizzly bear habitat, causing increased interactions and stress 

(cumulative effect);

• Hunting/mistaken identity or poaching (cumulative effect);

• Attraction of grizzly bears to the improper disposal of dead livestock (indirect and 

cumulative effect); and

• Chance interactions between livestock and grizzly bears leading to depredation on livestock 

(indirect and cumulative effect).

Motorized use of roads and trails within grizzly bear habitat may produce or facilitate several 

kinds of effects to grizzly bears, including the following:

• Direct shooting 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 (cumulative effect);

• Lethal attractants (human and animal foods and garbage) that arrive in grizzly bear habitat in 

motorized vehicles may result in habituated bears that must eventually be destroyed (indirect 

and cumulative effect);

• 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 (indirect 

effect);
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

250 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• Other 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 (indirect and cumulative effect); and

• Direct vehicle collision mortality may occur along major highways within and between the 

recovery zones, both on NFS and private lands (indirect and cumulative effect).

Habitat security is an important element of grizzly bear management, helping to minimize 

human-caused bear mortalities. Schwartz et al. (2010) concluded that security habitat and road 

densities in non-security habitat can impact grizzly bear survival. For both grizzly and black 

bears, roads have been tied to decreased use of habitat or increased mortality due to human 

access (Brody 1984, Holland 1986, and Mace and Manley 1993, Mattson et al. 1996, Kasworm 

and Manley 1989, McLellan 1989, page 43 in ICST 2007, page A-39 in USDI 2006c, and pages 

2-8 in USDI 2006d).

Grizzly bear mortalities, both natural and human-caused, are important factors limiting the 

growth of bear populations in the CYRZ (USDI 1993). The mortality goal for the CYRZ is zero 

human-caused mortality (USDI 1993). This goal has not been reached as a number of mortalities 

occurred since research began in the CYRZ in the early 1980s.

Legal hunting of grizzly bears no longer occurs (although it occurred in British Columbia until 

2008) but grizzly bears are taken by poachers and occasionally are mistakenly killed during the 

black bear hunting season. As a result, Montana instituted a mandatory black bear hunter testing 

and certification program to help educate hunters in distinguishing species and reducing 

mistaken identity, and therefore, reducing grizzly bear mortalities. Black bear hunting seasons 

have also been shortened in recent years, reducing the potential for mistaken identity. Idaho has 

voluntary testing.

Of the 57 grizzly bear mortalities recorded between 1982 and June 2011 in the CYRZ, 41 are 

identified as human caused. Of the 41 human-caused mortalities that have been documented 

within the CYRZ since 1982, 78 percent (32 total) were ascribed a known cause of death. 

Management removal (of problem bears) and bears killed due to sanitation issues, poaching, or 

mistaken identity during hunting represented 53 percent (17 total) of this subset of 32 known 

human-caused mortalities. Seventy-five percent of grizzly bears killed under the management 

removal category occurred in British Columba (3 out of 4 bears, with the fourth bear being 

within the US on non-NFS ownership). Mortalities on NFS lands tend to be associated with 

poaching, mistaken bear identification, and self-defense often associated with big game hunting 

activities (summarized in table A3 on page A-28 of USDI 2011).

Grizzly habitat has changed on the Forest due mainly to fire suppression over the last several 

decades. Natural disturbance processes that create openings, such as fire, have not been allowed 

to function naturally. If this continues, there would be fewer openings available to provide bear 

forage. Climate change can potentially alter the distribution and amounts of bear forage, and 

alter disturbance processes.

Major ground disturbing activities can also degrade habitat and displace grizzly bears. Mining is 

an example of a major ground disturbing activity. One large mine is currently in operation (Troy 

Mine) on the KNF, and two more are proposed (Rock Creek and Montanore).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 251

Environmental Consequences – Grizzly Bear

Effects to Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Attractants: There is currently a mandatory food storage order for the Forest. This applies to all 

alternatives, including Alternative A. Additionally, under the action alternatives, FW-STD-WL04 states that permit and operating plans shall specify 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.

Road Impacts: Current management of roads within grizzly bear habitat is guided by the Access 

Amendment. This is also true under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D. Under the action 

alternatives , FW-DC-WL-02, FW-DC-WL-04 and 05, FW-STD-WL-02 and 03, MA1a-DCWL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, MA5abc-DC-WL-01, GADC-WL-KOO-03, GA-DC-WL-LIB-02 and 03, GA-DC-WL-TOB-01, and GA-DC-WL-TOB03 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, as well as mistaken identity during the state’s black bear and big game 

hunting seasons, would be less in these areas compared to those with open roads.

FW-STD-WL-02, in particular, is important for minimizing road impacts to grizzly bears 

because it states that the Access Amendment is applied. Motorized routes facilitate human 

access, so limiting the availability of motorized routes providing more habitat for bears where 

the likelihood of human presence is lower. In these areas the chance of disturbance to grizzly 

bears is lower, as is the risk of mistaken identity or intentional illegal shooting of grizzly bears 

during the state’s black bear and big game hunting seasons, as well as during the rest of the bear 

year. Non-motorized access can still occur throughout the KNF, and although there is still a 

chance of human-bear interactions, there is a lower probability due to lower human densities in 

those areas without motorized routes. There is 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-17 and FW-GDL-WL-12 through 14 will reduce the impacts of roads 

on connectivity. Maintaining or improving connectivity for grizzly bears will aid in gene flow 

between populations and in recruiting bears to the CYRZ population from the NCDE.

There will be no change in roads, trails, or areas open to motor vehicle use in the alternatives (as 

designated per 36 CFR 212 Subpart B). There is a difference in the acreage where roads/trails 

may be designated for motor vehicle use. Alternative C (1,490,400 acre motorized) will have the 

least acreage allowing motorized use followed by Alternatives B Modified (1,637,300 acre 

motorized), A (1,677,200 acre motorized), and D (1,792,900 acre motorized). Although those 

acres are available for designating roads/trails as open to motor vehicle use, not all of those acres 

will be open as actual motorized use is limited to the designations displayed on the Forest 

MVUMs. In addition, the Access Amendment, with its limits on miles of open/total roads in the 

BORZ areas, and other direction in the revised Forest Plan will limit opportunities for motor 

vehicle use designations and the potential associated road impacts on grizzly bear connectivity 

between the NCDE and the Cabinet-Yaak recovery zone. FW-STD-WL-02 would maintain or 

improve the availability or security habitat for not only grizzly bears, but other species as well.

Motorized Over-snow Vehicle Use: This is primarily a concern during spring emergence 

(essentially the month of April). Alternative A has 1,961,100 acres open to over-snow motorized 

use. Alternative C (1,814,800 acres over-snow motorized) has the least acreage allowing oversnow motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (1,920,500 acres over-snow 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

252 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

motorized), D (1,988,500 acres over-snow motorized), and A (1,961,100 acres over-snow 

motorized). These acreages reflect what remains open to over-snow vehicle use based on closure 

order issued in conjunction with the final ROD for the Forest Plan. The desired conditions for 

over-snow vehicle use has that use allowed on 1,500,700 acres under Alternative C, followed by 

1,713,000 acres under Alternative B Modified, and 1,859,100 acres under Alternative D. These 

are the acres where the MA desired conditions allows over-snow vehicle use. These acres reflect 

the intent for future closures, following site-specific winter travel management. In addition to the 

differences in MA allocations among the alternatives, the existing area closures on the Forest are 

retained under all alternatives. All alternatives have the same acreage of designated wilderness 

(MA1a, 93,700 acres). Alternative C (214,800 acres) has the most land in recommended 

wilderness (MA1b), followed by Alternatives B Modified (102,700 acres), A (102,500 acres), 

and D (36,100 acres). MA1a does not allow over-snow motorized use.

These acre figures are for the entire Forest, not just grizzly bear denning habitat. Only 5 percent 

of modeled grizzly bear denning habitat currently has snowmobile use during spring emergence 

in the CYRZ portion of the KNF and 21 percent of the NCDE portion of the KNF, for example;

the Action Alternatives would potentially reduce this figure even lower.

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. FW-DC-WL-01 is 

supported by FW-GDL-WL-01 which restricts activities during spring emergence (4/1-5/1) 

where predicted denning habitat occurs. With FW-DC-WL-03, recovery of threatened and 

endangered species will 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-STD-WL-05 

states that no grooming of snowmobile routes in grizzly core habitat will occur in the spring after 

April 1 of each year. This will reduce the chance that disturbance could occur during spring 

emergence due to snowmobile use. Combined, this direction results in the lowering of the 

likelihood that over-snow vehicle use will disturb grizzly bears during spring emergence.

There is currently a low likelihood of over-snow vehicle use impacting grizzly bears during 

spring emergence on the KNF. The biological opinion for the Access Amendment (USFWS 

2011) summarized the existing condition for over-snow access within the CYRZ. Those numbers 

have been updated for the BA. There are 53 miles of groomed trails and 58 miles of ungroomed 

routes on the KNF portion of the CYRZ, and there are 7 miles of groomed routes and 4 miles of 

ungroomed routes on the KNF portion of the NCDE. Off-route use occurs on approximately 

18,686 acres within the KNF portion of the CYRZ and 7,905 acres of the KNF portion of the 

NCDE. Off-route snowmobile travel occurs on about only 5 percent of modeled denning habitat 

within the CYRZ portion of the KNF and 21 percent of the NCDE portion of the KNF. Negative 

impacts on grizzly bears are primarily limited to the den emergence period (basically the month 

of April), particularly for female bears with cubs of that year. There is the potential of separating 

a mother and cub, which could result in cub mortality, although such effects have never been 

documented and there are no known scientific papers supporting this potential impact. Given the 

small population size of grizzly bears, the overlap of less than 10 percent of modeled denning 

habitat, and the seasonally-declining numbers of snowmobilers by April of each year, the 

probability of a snowmobile encountering a female with cubs using a particular patch of denning 

habitat is low (page A-43 in USFWS 2011 – information cited in USFWS 2011 is from the 2009 

Draft supplemental EIS for the Access Amendment). This information can also be found in 

USDA 2011, which is the final supplemental EIS for the Access Amendment (pages 98-99 in 

USDA 2011). The Action Alternatives would potentially result in even less overlap of over-snow 

motorized recreation and denning habitat due to the reduction in the acreage where this form of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 253

recreation would be allowed. Consequently, the probability of a snowmobile encountering a 

female with cubs using a particular patch of denning habitat would be even lower than the 

existing condition, which is already estimated to be low.

Livestock/Grizzly Bear Interaction: FW-GDL-WL-15 states that the elements in the IGBC 

guidelines will be applied, which includes direction on grazing. The IGBC guidelines also apply 

under current management. Grazing occurs in six allotments that overlap BMUs (14,609 acres or 

1 percent of the BMU acres on the Forest – this includes 4,880 acres in the NCDE portion of the 

Forest) and 13 allotments that overlap the BORZ (210,468 acres or 37 percent of the BORZ 

(mostly in the Tobacco BORZ and two allotments in the West Kootenai BORZ). All grazing 

permits will have sanitation measures to reduce attractants that would cause a 

human/livestock/bear conflict (FW-STD-WL-04). FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that grazing occurs at 

sustainable levels while protecting vulnerable resources and FW-DC-WL-03 states that recovery 

of threatened and endangered species will be the long-term desired condition. If any 

livestock/grizzly problems occur in the future, this direction from the Plan will aid in resolving 

the conflict.

Major Ground Disturbing Activities (Mining): None of the action alternatives makes any

changes in lands available for locatable (e.g., gold, silver, copper) or leasable (e.g., oil, gas, coal, 

geothermal resources, potassium, sodium, phosphates, oil shale, and sulfur) minerals compared 

to the existing Forest Plan (Alternative A). The action alternatives are the same as the existing 

Plan in regards to locatable minerals in that 264,000 acres are recommended to be formally 

withdrawn from mineral entry. There are no lands administratively unavailable for mineral

leasing under the revised Forest Plan, which is the same as the existing Plan. The revised Forest 

Plan contains no stipulations concerning surface occupancy for mineral leasing, whereas the 

existing Plan had 515,000 acres where no surface occupancy stipulations would apply. 

Stipulations under the revised Forest Plan will be identified at the site-specific level. The 

disposal (removal) of mineral material (e.g., salable minerals such as sand, rock, gravel) under 

the revised Forest Plan is not allowed or should not occur on 772,000 acres, compared to 

223,900 acres under the existing Plan.

Mining activities could potentially occur in grizzly bear habitat under the revised Forest Plan, 

just as they can under the existing Plan. Mining activity could result in loss of habitat within the 

footprint of the mine, disturbance to grizzly bears, displacement from habitat, or impacts to 

connectivity. Major mining activities (i.e., Rock Creek, Montanore, and Troy Mines) 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 Access Amendment, but rather are expected to assure 

achievement of proposed standards, which result in an improvement over existing conditions.

Guideline FW-GDL-WL-15 states that the elements in the IGBC guidelines will be applied, 

which includes direction on minerals activities. The IGBC guidelines also apply under current 

management. FW-DC-WL-01, FW-DC-WL-03, and FW-DC-WL-04 will minimize disturbance 

impacts to grizzly bears. Additionally, the Access Amendment (applied through FW-STD-WL02) sets access standards that each BMU will trend towards, so future mitigation will likely 

entail offsetting any increases in access and decreases in core habitat resulting from the mining 

or other land use proposal, such that the access standards will be met as per the Access 

Amendment. FW-DC-WL-17 and FW-GDL-WL-12 through 14 will reduce the impacts of a high 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

254 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

use haul/supply route on connectivity if that is considered an issue for future ground disturbing 

actions.

The effects of mining activities on grizzly bears are not expected to be greater under the revised 

Forest Plan compared to existing conditions. Those existing or being developed under the 

existing Plan includes the Troy Mine, Montanore, and Rock Creek. The IGBC guidelines and the 

Access Amendment will apply to the revised Forest Plan, just as they do with the existing Plan. 

The revised Forest Plan has the additional direction related to connectivity. Combined, this 

direction will reduce or limit the potential impacts of mining activities on grizzly bears.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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, primarily within BMUs and BORZ, 

and adjacent lands. Areas between recovery zones were evaluated for connectivity effects. The 

period considered for this analysis is the anticipated life of the Plan, 10-15 years. Vegetation

changes were evaluated on a longer timeframe if they were anticipated to last longer than the life 

of the Plan.

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.

Access management to limit the amount of roads and thereby reduce the chance of a humangrizzly 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 

CYRZ and NCDE 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 (private lands) that 

have resulted in relocation or mortality of problem bears. The desired conditions for vegetation 

in the revised Forest Plan will maintain or improve habitat, including connectivity for grizzlies 

within the KNF, and contribute toward maintaining or improving grizzly habitat on NFS lands.

The desired condition for connectivity (FW-DC-WL-17 and FW-GDL-WL-12 through 14) in the 

revised Forest Plan will direct the KNF to work with other agencies and landowners when 

highways are proposed to be constructed or reconstructed to incorporate crossing structures 

where useful. This will also aid in maintaining some connectivity between NFS lands as private 

lands are subdivided in the future. It will also help reduce road related grizzly bear mortalities. 

The most likely places for private lands to be subdivided will be in the valleys where 

communities already exist, or nearby. These are the areas that already pose difficulties for 

connectivity. The revised Forest Plan has GA desired conditions that allow wildlife to move to
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 255

and from Canada. There is connectivity issues in Canada (Proctor et al. 2008) associated with 

Highway 3 in British Columbia that makes it difficult for grizzly bears to cross that highway and 

associated private lands. Connectivity issues in Canada can impact the movement of grizzly 

bears to/from the KNF.

The Access Amendment established management direction for NFS lands within grizzly bear 

habitat. However, the CYRZ also includes 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 will

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 will continue to take place on lands belonging to various entities, potentially 

creating an attractant such as carcasses, and leading to human-wildlife conflicts. The Rock Creek 

and Montanore mines are currently undergoing analysis and it is unknown when implementation 

may occur. The Troy Mine is preparing environmental documents for an updated reclamation 

plan and for further exploration in the vicinity of the existing mine. These separate analyses 

would determine the extent of impacts to grizzly bears and habitat.

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 will

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-VEG-10 and 

11) in the revised Forest Plan will move stands closer to historic conditions and make them more 

resilient and sustainable. Climate change induced shifts in vegetation may impact 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.

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 (i.e.,

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 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 CYRZ. Hunter encounters with grizzly bears may 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

256 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

result in a bear death due to mistaken bear identification, self-defense, or opportunistic poaching. 

Changes in access availability with implementation of the Access Amendment may influence 

habitat use and attendant mortality risk by reducing access within the United States portion of 

the CYRZ.

MFWP and IDFG have a public education program to teach hunters and other members of the 

public how to identify grizzly bears and black bears. MFWP also has a public education program 

to teach hunters how to handle attractants in the back country. Bear specialists with state 

agencies are key to reducing grizzly bear mortality. Specialists deal with nuisance bears, work 

with landowners and the public to prevent the habituation of bears, and foster local public 

support for grizzly bear conservation. 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. 

Not only does MFWP work to reduce mortality of grizzly bears, but they also augment the CYE 

grizzly bear population with grizzly bears from other parts of Montana (pages A-74 and A-75 in 

USFWS 2011).

The KNF also participates in information/education activities aimed at reducing human/bear 

conflicts and lowering the risk of mortality for grizzly bears. Some of these efforts are done in 

coordination with state agencies and others are done by the KNF individually. The Forest 

participates in public education by staffing booths at local events, participating in public 

meetings aimed at reducing human-bear conflicts, placing informational signs at campsites and 

trailheads regarding proper behavior in bear country and how to identify grizzly bears, and 

providing information at the front desks of district offices and the supervisor’s office. These 

efforts not only reduce the risk of a human-bear conflict on NFS lands, but on other land 

ownerships where grizzly bears may be encountered as well.

The roads and travel management policy at 36 CFR 212 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 to manage motorized uses 

through a designated system of roads, trails, and areas. This policy is complimentary to road 

management objectives in grizzly bear habitat and may serve as a method for implementing road 

management decisions.

The NCDE population may soon be proposed for delisting and a conservation strategy 

completed. The details of a future conservation strategy are not completed, so it is difficult to 

analyze the impacts at this time. Any changes needed to the Forest Plan due to the conservation 

strategy and delisting of this population of grizzly bears would be considered at that time.

Effects Determination

Each of the action alternatives may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the grizzly bear. The 

effects determination is based in part on:

• One key component of all alternatives would be the incorporation of the recently completed 

Access Amendment (FW-STD-WL-02) which reduces road-related impacts on grizzly bears. 

The Access Amendment determined that there would be adverse effects from 

implementation of the decision (USFWS 2011). As this revised Forest Plan incorporates the 

Access Amendment, the revised Forest Plan would also have adverse effects for grizzly 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 257

bears. The Access Amendment would result in most BMUs meeting or exceeding research 

benchmarks for core, OMRD, and TMRD;

• The parameters in FW-STD-WL-03 are the existing conditions for the NCDE BMU subunits 

on the KNF, and the NCDE population is nearing delisting;

• The acreage available to designate routes/areas for motor vehicle use and over-snow 

motorized use would decrease under Alternatives B Modified and C compared to existing 

conditions;

• Connectivity will be improved/maintained under the revised Forest Plan;

• FW-STD-WL-04 states that permit 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. The 

Forest also has a forestwide sanitation order; and

• Those desired conditions for vegetation and fire are based on historic conditions and natural 

disturbance processes. Grizzly bears on the KNF evolved with those natural disturbance 

processes, so trending towards the desired conditions will restore/maintain grizzly bear 

seasonal habitat, forage, cover, and the vegetation component of connectivity. The desired 

conditions for vegetation, which are based on natural disturbance processes, will make 

grizzly bear habitat more resilient and resistant to large-scale disturbances.

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 (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 2013a, Copeland et al. 2010, Copeland et al. 2007, Copeland 1996, Inman et 

al. 2012 and 2012b, Ruggiero et al. 1994, Thomas 1995, USDI 2003, 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 Forest.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

258 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 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 

conducive to human development (Copeland et al. 2007). Wolverines appear capable of adjusting 

to human disturbance (USDI 2013, 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).

Weaver (2011) mapped wolverine habitat in the Ten Lakes area of the Forest. Weaver’s map is 

based on work done by Inman (Weaver 2011 page 58). This map by Weaver (2011) is consistent 

with the expectation that wolverine habitat will occur in the Ten Lakes vicinity based on 

Copeland et al. (2010) persistent snow mapping.

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 2013a). Persistent spring snow cover 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 259

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 

KNF 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). Those areas most likely to have wolverines are the Cabinets, West Cabinets, 

Northwest Peak, and Ten Lakes areas.

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.

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 2013a page 7879). As 

concluded in USDI (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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

260 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

spring snow related to climate change is the main factor in loss/fragmentation of wolverine 

habitat (USDI 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 Montana 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 2013a pages 7890 and 7877-7880):

• Dispersed recreation such as snowmobiling, skiing, backpacking, and hunting for other 

species;

• 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 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 2013a 

page 7877). USDI (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 2013a 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 (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.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 261

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 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 2013a 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 is 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 

2013a).

Effects Determination

None of the action alternatives is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the wolverine.

This determination is based in part on:

• 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 KNF.

Region 1 updated the sensitive species list in 2011.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

262 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

American Peregrine Falcon - Falco peregrinus anatum

Affected Environment

Peregrine falcon population biology, ecology, habitat description and relationships identified by 

research are described in USFWS (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). Formal 

surveys for nesting peregrine falcons, including those on the Forest, are conducted by Montana 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (Sumner and Rogers 2006).

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 (USFWS 2003). 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, which are used 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 KNF. Natural nesting habitat has not changed significantly since populations 

crashed and is still largely available.

Key Stressors Affecting the Species (Risks and Threats) – Indirect Effects

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, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 263

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-07, FW-GDL-WL-16, and GADC-WL-BUL-03 will limit disturbance around peregrine nests and will decrease the likelihood 

of displacement or nest abandonment. In particular, FW-GDL-WL-16 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 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-WL07, FW-DC-WL-09 through 14, FW-GDL-WL-05, 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

264 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Alternative C (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 acres/year) under 

constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (19,480 acres/year) 

will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 

acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). Approximately 10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning 

will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 8,000 acres/year of prescribed burning 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 (342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (230,500 acres),

A (204,300 acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire may also be used more in 

MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) 

have more than D (278,000 acres).

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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. 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.

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.

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 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, FW-STD-VEG-01 and 

02, FW-GDL-VEG-01 through 06, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FW-DC-WL-07, FW-DC-WL-09 through 

14, FW-GDL-WL-05, 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 265

will be managed for historic conditions and improved resiliency to large-scale disturbance 

processes.

As on NFS lands, disturbance associated with human presence and most management activities 

would be minimized somewhat due to the inaccessible nature of peregrine nesting habitat. 

Subdivision of private property has the potential to alter or remove habitat for native birds and 

thereby change prey availability on those sites.

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-07, FW-GDL-WL-16, and GA-DC-WL-BUL-03 will limit 

disturbance around peregrine nests and will decrease the likelihood of displacement or nest 

abandonment. In particular, FW-GDL-WL-16 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-07, FW-DC-WL09 through 14, FW-GDL-WL-05, 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 USFWS (1986, 2007), the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan 

(MBEWG 1994, MBEWG 2010), 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 databases (2011) and in the National Bald 

Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007).

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 

266 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Habitat and Life History Needs

In Montana, 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 (USFWS 2007). 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).

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 267

Environmental Consequences – Bald Eagle

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Nesting: Nest sites are currently protected and managed according to the MBEMP and National 

Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007). Management activities that could impact nesting 

habitat include prescribed fire, timber harvest, roads, and others. FW-GDL-WL-02 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-WL03 and 04 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-VEG01 through 07, FW-DC-VEG-11, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FW-DC-WL-06, FW-DC-WL-11 and 12, 

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-02 places timing 

restrictions and distance buffers around bald eagle roosts that will reduce the chance of 

disturbance that would displace eagles. FW-GDL-WL-03 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, FWDC-FIRE-03, FW-DC-WL-16, FW-GDL-WL-08 through 11, GA-DC-WL-CLK-01 and 02, GADC-WL-FSH-02 and 03, WL-KOO-01 and 04, GA-DC-WL-LIB-02 and 03.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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., vegetativon 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 

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. 

Improvement or maintenance of ungulate habitat, including increased resiliency to large-scale 

disturbance processes, will be accomplished through FW-DC-VEG-01 through 05, FW-DCVEG-10 and 11, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FW-DC-WL-16, FW-GDL-WL-08 through 11, GA-DC-WL-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

268 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

CLK-01 and 02, GA-DC-WL-FSH-02 and 03, GA-DC-WL-KOO-01 and 04, GA-DC-WL-LIB02 and 03. Direction that will improve or maintain the resiliency of nesting habitat to climate 

change includes FW-DC-VEG-01 through 07, FW-DC-VEG-11, FW-DC-FIRE-03, FW-DCWL-06, FW-DC-WL-11 and 12, and much of the “Watershed, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic 

Resources” section of the revised Plan.

Disturbance associated with human presence and most management activities would likely 

continue. Subdivision of private property has the potential to alter or remove habitat for bald 

eagles and also ungulates (winter food for eagles).

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-02 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-11, FW-DC-WL-12, FW-GDLWL-02 through 04, FW-GDL-WL-08 through 11; 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.

Bighorn Sheep - Ovis canadensis

Affected Environment

There are four bighorn sheep herds that occur on the KNF: Kootenai Falls (Kootenai Falls 

hunting district #100), Koocanusa/Ural-Tweed (Ural-Tweed #101), Ten Lakes (Galton Range 

#102), and Berray Mountain (Cabinet Mountains #123). Two of the herds, Koocanusa/UralTweed and Ten Lakes, are native sheep (MFWP 2010).

Compared to elsewhere in Montana, sheep habitat in northwest Montana is dominated by 

timbered stands with shrub communities and very little grass-dominated communities. 

Historically this may have been different, but with active fire suppression over the last several 

decades, conifer encroachment has occurred on northwestern Montana sheep ranges. Historically 

under natural disturbance processes, sheep ranges were primarily ponderosa pine/bunchgrass 

communities (MFWP 2010).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 269

The Forest was used for the analysis area, with more focus on those areas with known bighorn 

herds as listed above. 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

Bighorn sheep habitat consists of mesic/xeric open habitats near escape terrain (cliffs, talus 

slopes). Elevational ranges of habitat can vary greatly, and sheep can be found from alpine areas 

to desert canyons throughout their range in western North America. Many of these open habitats, 

such as those found on the KNF, are fire adapted and maintained. Bighorn primarily feed on 

grass and forbs but will also eat shrubs as well. Winter ranges typically have low amounts of 

snow and are on south facing aspects (NatureServe 2011).

Key Stressors

The primary risk factor for bighorns is all-age epizootic dieoffs, generally associated with 

interactions with domestic sheep (although domestic goats may also be carriers). This risk is 

greatly exacerbated by the fact that domestic and wild sheep are attracted to each other, and can 

actively seek each other out over great distances. A single bighorn visiting a domestic herd 

(including rams being drawn in by females in season) can then return to a wild herd and initiate 

an epizootic dieoff. A single domestic sheep seeking out a wild herd can bring about the same 

end. This contact could occur from domestic sheep on private lands, on trailing routes, from 

domestic sheep or goats being used for noxious weed treatment, or from pack goats (Tomasik 

2011). No active or vacant domestic sheep or goat allotments occur on the KNF, nor are there 

any allotments adjacent to the KNF (see the map in the project record produced by the Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management, USDA and USDI 2012).

Stressors on Forest Service lands can include:

• Domestic sheep allotments (none on the KNF);

• Non-sheep livestock allotments;

• Domestic sheep trailing routes (none on the KNF);

• Noxious weeds;

• Fire/fire exclusion;

• Placing treatments that will attract bighorns between bighorns and domestic sheep or 

goats on non-NFS ownership;

• Use of domestic sheep or goats for weed treatment;

• Use of pack goats;

• Human disturbance (and associated dogs) in lambing and wintering habitat; and

• Motorized or nonmotorized routes in key habitat areas.

These stressors can lead to habitat alteration, disturbance/displacement of individual sheep, or 

even mortality.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

270 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Environmental Consequences – Bighorn Sheep

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Fire/Vegetation Management: Active fire suppression over the last several decades has 

degraded bighorn sheep habitat by allowing conifer encroachment. Alternative A would be likely 

to result in continued active fire suppression. The action alternatives contain more flexibility to 

use fire to restore/maintain habitat conditions.

All three action alternatives trend vegetation conditions towards desired conditions (FW-DCVEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-05, FW-DC-VEG-10, FW-DC-VEG-11, and FW-DC-FIRE-03), 

which are based on historic conditions and natural disturbance processes. FW-DC-FIRE-03 will 

be particularly useful for restoring and maintaining bighorn sheep habitat. Trending towards 

these desired conditions will restore bighorn habitat across the KNF to a condition that bighorns 

would have found on the KNF historically under natural disturbance processes.

Vegetation conditions, under all action alternatives, will be maintained or improved for bighorn 

sheep in the long-term. 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 (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration 

followed by Alternatives B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 

acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified 

(19,480 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (19,129 

acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). Approximately 10,000 acres/year 

of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 8,000 acres/year of 

prescribed burning 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, 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, MA2-DC-FIRE-01, 

MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA5abc-DC-VEG-01, MA5abc-DCFIRE-01, and MA5abc-GDL-FIRE-01. These will be useful to maintain/restore bighorn sheep 

habitat in the long-term.

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 (342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (230,500 acres), 

A (204,300 acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire may also be used more in 

MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) 

have more than D (278,000 acres).

The increased use of fire, both planned ignitions and natural, unplanned ignitions, will maintain 

or improve the pattern of bighorn habitat across the Forest. Managing for the desired conditions 

for vegetation (historic conditions) will likely result in a pattern of bighorn habitat similar to 

what was found historically under natural disturbance processes.

FW-DC-WL-16 states that habitat for native ungulates will be managed in coordination with the 

state and that cover will be managed according to the desired conditions for vegetation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 271

FW-DC-VEG-10 provides direction for the treatment of noxious weed infestations, and this will 

aid in preventing the degradation of bighorn habitat by noxious weeds. Other direction in the 

action alternatives that will maintain/restore bighorn habitat includes: GA-DC-WL-CLK-01, 

GA-DC-WL-KOO-01 and 04.

Connectivity of bighorn sheep habitat will be maintained or improved through not only the 

desired conditions for vegetation and fire, but also through FW-DC-WL-17, and FW-GDL-WL12 through 14.

Lands activities, such as the construction of utility corridors, could impact bighorn habitat within 

the footprint of that activity.

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 security and 

connectivity of bighorn habitat. Alternative C (1,490,400 acres motorized, 1,812,700 acres oversnow motorized) will have the least acreage allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B 

Modified (1,637,300 acres motorized, 1,918,400 acres over-snow motorized), A (1,677,200 acres 

motorized, 1,961,100 acres over-snow motorized), and D (1,792,900 acres motorized, 1,987,700 

acres over-snow motorized). These acreages reflect what will remain open to over-snow vehicle 

use based on closure order issued in conjunction with the final ROD for the Forest Plan. The 

desired conditions for over-snow vehicle use will have that use allowed on 1,500,700 acres under 

Alternative C, followed by 1,713,000 acres under Alternative B Modified, and 1,859,100 acres 

under Alternative D. These are the acres where the MA desired conditions allows over-snow 

vehicle use. These acres reflect the intent for future closures, following site-specific winter travel 

management. In addition to the differences in MA allocations among the alternatives, the 

existing area closures on the Forest will be retained under all alternatives. All alternatives have 

the same acreage of wilderness (MA1a, 93,700 acres). Alternative C (214,800 acres) will have 

the most land in recommended wilderness (MA1b), followed by Alternatives B Modified 

(102,700 acres), A (102,500 acres), and D (37,300 acres). MA1a does not allow over-snow 

motorized use.

The Access Amendment reduced road densities within grizzly bear habitat, and in some cases 

where bighorn sheep habitat overlaps grizzly habitat bighorn sheep will benefit from the lower 

likelihood of disturbance.

Disturbance can potentially occur during management activities, special uses, lands activities, 

mining activities, and the collection of forest products. Disturbance will be avoided or 

minimized through implementation of FW-DC-WL-01, FW-GDL-WL-08 and 09, and FW-GDLWL-11. This includes on winter range and within lambing areas. GA direction will also limit 

disturbance on winter range: GA-DC-WL-CLK-01, GA-DC-WL-KOO-01, GA-DC-WL-LIB-03, 

and GA-DC-WL-TOB-06.

Grazing: No sheep/goat allotments currently exist on the KNF. Cattle allotments do exist on the 

KNF. FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that grazing will be done in a sustainable manner that protects 

resources. This will include sensitive species and their habitat, such as bighorn sheep. 

Implementation of this direction will maintain forage for bighorn sheep.

Interaction with Domestic Sheep/Goats: Under current management, no domestic sheep/goat 

grazing occurs on the KNF. There are no active or vacant allotments on the KNF or adjacent to 

the KNF that sheep from the KNF could encounter during a foray (see the map in the project 

record, USDA and USDI 2012). There is a very low likelihood of contact because of a lack of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

272 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

overlap of bighorn sheep herds and domestic sheep allotments. Pack goats are rare on the KNF 

(M. Laws, personal communication, 2012) and the use of domestic goats for weed control 

currently does not occur on the KNF (D. Shotzberger, personal communication, 2012). 

Therefore, it is very unlikely that bighorn sheep will come into contact with domestic goats on 

KNF lands.

Under the action alternatives, FW-DC-GRZ-01 allows grazing to occur as long as vulnerable 

resources are protected. This direction will provide protection for bighorn sheep if domestic 

sheep grazing would be proposed in the future.

Bighorn sheep may interact with domestic sheep and goats on private lands adjacent to the KNF. 

Vegetation treatments that improve or maintain bighorn habitat on KNF lands have the potential 

to draw bighorn sheep closer to private lands with domestic sheep. FW-DC-WL-16 directs the 

KNF to coordinate with the state on the management of big game habitat, and this will provide a 

means to identify potential issues with KNF vegetation treatments drawing bighorn sheep near 

domestic sheep on private lands.

The Four Step Outline for conducting bighorn sheep viability analysis identified in the August 

19, 2011 USDA Forest Service letter (Holtrop 2011, Weldon 2012) were used in this effects 

analysis. These steps include gathering the applicable data on bighorn range and domestic sheep 

allotments, assessing the overlap, assessing the likelihood of contact based on spatial and 

temporal overlap between allotments and bighorn sheep herds, and identifying management 

practices where necessary to separate domestic and bighorn sheep. The maps used in this 

analysis that showed domestic sheep allotments and bighorn sheep range were developed 

through a joint effort between the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Wild Sheep Working Group (Holtrop 2011, Weldon 

2012).

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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, with more focus on 

those areas with existing herds. 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 potentially impacted the pattern of 

bighorn habitat on the Forest. Fire suppression in particular may have led to encroachment of 

conifers into bighorn foraging habitat or caused increased tree densities in previously opencanopied stands. Recreation may have also impacted bighorn in some locations by causing 

disturbance. The creation of Koocanusa Reservoir changed the availability of habitat along the 

river in that location.

Timber management is likely to continue on non-NFS ownerships. Their effects will depend on 

whether dry forest/open habitat that is outside of historic conditions is restored and the amount 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 273

of disturbance to bighorn sheep. The development of private land may also lead to habitat loss 

and disturbance.

If the climate becomes warmer, it will favor the vegetation conditions that bighorn prefer (open 

or dry forest habitats). Unfortunately, fire suppression has led to increased stand densities and 

ladder fuels. 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 is 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 snowpack may cause a change in bighorn use of winter range (page 92 

in USDA 2010).

Disease transmission is the greatest threat to bighorn sheep. Domestic sheep grazing on other 

ownerships may expose bighorn sheep to disease and consequently spread it onto KNF lands. 

The state works with private landowners where the risk of transmission occurs and attempts to 

minimize the potential.

Grazing will continue on other ownerships, and if it reduces the availability of grasses and 

shrubs there may be a reduction in bighorn 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 of bighorn sheep. This determination is

based in part on:

• Disturbance will be avoided or minimized through implementation of FW-DC-WL-01, FWGDL-WL-08 and 09, and FW-GDL-WL-11. This includes on winter range and within 

lambing areas;

• No active/vacant sheep/goat allotments currently exist on the KNF. Cattle allotments do exist 

on the KNF. FW-DC-GRZ-01 states that grazing will be done in a sustainable manner that 

protects resources. This will include sensitive species and their habitat, such as bighorn 

sheep;

• All three action alternatives trend vegetation conditions towards desired conditions (FWDC-VEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-05, FW-DC-VEG-10, FW-DC-VEG-11, and FW-DCFIRE-03), which are based on historic conditions and natural disturbance processes. FWDC-FIRE-03 will be particularly useful for restoring and maintaining bighorn sheep habitat. 

Trending towards these desired conditions will restore bighorn habitat across the KNF to a 

condition that bighorns would have found on the KNF historically under natural disturbance 

processes; and

• GA directions that will improve or maintain bighorn sheep habitat through minimizing 

disturbance or improving the vegetation component of habitat include: GA-DC-WL-CLK-01 

and 02, GA-DC-WL-KOO-01 and 04, GA-DC-WL-LIB-03, and GA-DC-WL-TOB-01.

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

274 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

KNF.

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. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 275

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 (MNHP and MFWP 2011). 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, 

black-backed 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). On the KNF however, there was a substantial decrease in the acres of insect 

and disease between these two timeframes. During the mid to late 1970s and the 1980s the 

mountain pine beetle infested and killed a majority of the lodgepole pine on the Forest, with very 

large tracts of land that provided habitat for these species, and other woodpecker species as well, 

for a number of years.

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 45 displays by decade the amount of acres burned on the KNF over the past several 

decades.

Table 45. Estimated Acres Burned by Decade on the Forest

Decade Acres Burned

2000 - present 49,800

1990 - 1999 75,000

1980 - 1989 31,800

1970 - 1979 13,100

In each of the past three decades an abundance of habitat in the form of burned forest was 

available on the Forest. Between 2000 and 2007 approximately 37,248 acres of fire occurred on 

the KNF, with 20,182 in high severity and 17,066 in moderate severity that provided high quality 

habitat for these species prior to timber salvage. Only about 19 percent of the high severity and 8

percent of the moderate severity fire areas were harvested with large stands of burned forest 

retained for use by black-backed woodpeckers for several years. Based on Samson’s (2006) 

analysis, the amount of burned forest present on the KNF over the past three decades exceeds the 

critical habitat threshold required for a minimum viable population of black-backed woodpecker 

(approximately 29,400 acres required for the regional population).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

276 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Black-backed woodpecker habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 

(ERG 2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 46 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 46. Acres of Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No Treatment Scenario (acres)

0 29,582 29,582

1 6,368 7,208

2 11,526 12,195

5 24,049 23,340

Source: Ecosystem Research Group 2012. Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

Late-Successional Forests

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 vegetation writeup) also identified a fairly significant reduction in late-successional forest habitats, especially on 

the KNF. However, late-successional forest habitats 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 characteristics. The current trend is such that latesuccessional 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.

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. Results of the analysis identified that overall 

there is an abundance of snags available throughout the Forest to provide habitat for a number of 

bird species, including the black-backed woodpecker, during periods when burned habitat is not 

available. 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).

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 277

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. 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 latesuccessional 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).

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-14 and FW-GDLWL-05 will maintain habitat post-disturbance to provide for the habitat requirements of species 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

278 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 acres/year) under 

constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (19,480 acres/year) 

will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 

acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). Approximately 10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning 

will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 8,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in 

Alternative A. Of the alternatives, C (2,345 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration 

treatments per year under constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 

acres), D (1,627 acres) and then A (1,615 acres). Of the alternatives, D (6,543 acres) will be 

expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained budgets in the first 

decade, followed by A (5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 acres) and then C (4,649 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. 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 

(342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (230,500 acres), A (204,300 

acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire may also be used more in MA5 compared 

to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) have more than D 

(278,000 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, 

MA2-DC-FIRE-01, MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA5abc-DC-VEG-01, 

MA5abc-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5abc-GDL-FIRE-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 47 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. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 279

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 KNF is expected to provide substantial 

burned forest habitat over time (page 83 in ERG 2012).

Table 47. Acres of Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 

(acres)

1987 Forest Plan (acres) No Treatment Scenario 

(acres)

0 29,582 29,582 29,582

1 7,121 6,368 7,208

2 11,225 11,526 12,195

5 17,766 24,049 23,340

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).

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 (1,490,400 

acres) will have the least acreage allowing motor vehicle use, followed by Alternatives B 

Modified (1,637,300 acres motor vehicle use), A (1,677,200 acres motor vehicle use), and D 

(1,792,900 acres motor vehicle use). All alternatives have the same acreage of designated 

wilderness (MA1a, 93,700 acres). Alternative C (214,800 acres) will have the most land in

recommended wilderness (MA1b), followed by Alternatives B Modified (102,700 acres), A 

(102,500 acres), and D (37,300 acres).

FW-GDL-WL-21 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

280 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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-21 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 will be relatively disturbance free. Alternative C (1,490,400 acres motorized) 

will have the least acreage allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified 

(1,637,300 acres motorized), A (1,677,200 acres motorized), and D (1,792,900 acres motorized). 

All alternatives have the same acreage of wilderness (MA1a, 93,700 acres). Alternative C 

(214,800 acres) will have the most land in recommended wilderness (MA1b), followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (102,700 acres), A (102,500 acres), and D (37,300 acres).

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 281

mobile species, such as the black-backed woodpecker, are able to respond better to climate 

change (page 91 in USDA 2010).

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-14 and FW-GDL-WL-05 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-12;

• 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 KNF 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 10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action 

alternatives.

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.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

282 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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. Fifty four of 72 currently used nesting lakes (75%) in 

Montana are bordered by public land, although private landowners taken as a whole own land on 

the greatest number of lakes (39). Of the 38 lakes on the KNF with known or suspected loon 

nesting, only 16 are wholly or partially on NFS lands. 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, 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 283

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, specifically in northwest Montana. 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 – Common Loon

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-WL20 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 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

284 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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-10, and FW-GDL-WL-20 will minimize disturbance.

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 Forest 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. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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.

Fuels reduction/timber sale efforts are possible on all land ownerships, in particular where they 

are near residences. If these are done near lakes with loons this could lead to disturbance.

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 2010).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 285

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.

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. FW-GDL-WL-20 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-20 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-10 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 

(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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

286 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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., 

vegetation 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) are shown in the table 48.

Table 48. 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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 287

Fisher habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 (ERG 2012). ERG 

modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 49 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 49. Acres of Fisher Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No Treatment Scenario (acres)

0 703,423 703,423

1 490,732 500,822

2 422,852 430,347

5 453,621 460,835

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 (Risks and Threats) Affecting the Fisher

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.

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;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

288 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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-12 and 13 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-21 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 50 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 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 289

viability is at risk (page 85 in ERG 2012). The other alternatives are similar to Alternative B 

Modified.

Table 50. Acres of Fisher Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan (acres) No Treatment Scenario 

(acres)

0 703,423 703,423 703,423

1 497,631 490,732 500,822

2 447,004 422,852 430,347

5 522,938 453,621 460,835

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).

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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 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 2010).

Trapping mortality, both legal and incidental (marten trapping), can contribute to population 

declines or prevent a population from increasing.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

290 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - 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 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-12 and 13 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-WLBUL-01, GA-DC-WL-CLK-03, GA-DC-WL-FSH-01, GA-DC-WL-KOO-02, GA-DC-WLLIB-01, GA-DC-WL-TOB-02, and GA-DC-WL-YAK-01. Additionally, FW-DC-WL-17, 

and FW-GDL-WL-12 through 14 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. 

(1997), 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 

(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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 291

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 

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 51 (Bush and Lundberg 2008).

Table 51. 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 52 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

292 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 52. Acres of Flammulated Owl Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

Actual Habitat Potential Habitat Actual Habitat Potential Habitat

0 23,984 72,265 23,984 72,265

1 27,311 81,336 27,997 89,735

2 19,284 100,466 20,046 112,533

5 30,681 132,111 34,064 133,051

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 don’t 

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 table 51 above, 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 Kootenai) 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 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 293

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 Affecting the Flammulated Owl

Stressors outside Forest Service control include:

• The private development of montane forests;

• 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;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

294 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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.

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-09, FW-DC-WL-10, FW-DC-WL-11, FW-DC-WL-12 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 295

Flammulated owl habitat was modeled by Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) in 2012 (ERG 

2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. Table 53 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 53. 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 23,984 72,265 23,984 72,265 23,984 72,265

1 28,350 78,521 27,311 81,336 27,997 89,735

2 32,093 91,887 19,284 100,466 20,046 112,533

5 35,954 145,679 30,681 132,111 34,064 133,051

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 don’t 

quite meet all the criteria of being habitat at a particular point in time, but are on the trajectory to become “Actual” habitat

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).

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

296 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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-12.

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 (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified 

(15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 acres/year) under constrained budgets. 

With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (19,480 acres/year) will have the most 

active restoration followed by Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A 

(13,723 acres/year). Approximately 10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted 

under the action alternatives, with 8,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the 

alternatives, C (2,345 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year 

under constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 acres), D (1,627 

acres) and then A (1,615 acres). Of the alternatives, D (6,543 acres) will be expected to have 

more regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed 

by A (5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 acres) and then C (4,649 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,
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 297

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) 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 (+128,011 acres), C 

(+127,165 acres), D (+77,382 acres), and A (+54,032 acres). With constrained budgets, there will

be an increase in acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives B Modified 

(+134,742 acres), D (+132,481 acres), C (+129,377 acres), and A (+110,286 acres). All of these 

increases will push the amount of large/very large size class acres towards the desired conditions. 

A lot of the middle size class becomes large/very large over the next 50 years.

This means is 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 (1,490,400 acres) will have the least acreage allowing motor 

vehicle use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (1,637,300 acres), A (1,677,200 acres), and D 

(1,792,900 acres).

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-16 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

298 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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-09, 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. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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.

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 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 299

Effects Determination

Each action alternative 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-12;

• 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. Potential habitat is within HRV and remains there over the next 

five decades, although at the low end of the range of variability (page 87 in ERG 2012).

Gray Wolf – Canis lupus

Affected Environment

Gray wolf population biology, ecology, habitat description, and relationships identified by 

research are described in USFWS et al. (2009), USFWS (2009), 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).

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). Montana 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

300 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 (Risks and Threats) Affecting the Species

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.

Environmental Consequences – Gray Wolf

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Ungulate Habitat: Big game habitat is managed under the existing Plan (Alternative A). Under 

the action alternatives, FW-DC-WL-08 states that wolves will find an abundance of big game for 

prey. FW-DC-WL-16 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-08 and 09, and 

disturbance during the birthing period would be minimized by FW-GDL-WL-11. Security 

habitat for ungulates will be provided through FW-DC-WL-02, FW-DC-WL-04 and 05, FWDC-WL-08, FW-STD-WL-02 and 03, MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL01, MA3-DC-WL-01, MA5abc-DC-WL-01, GA-DC-WL-CLK-02, GA-DC-WL-FSH-02, GA-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 301

DC-WL-KOO-04, GA-DC-WL-LIB-02 and 03, GA-DC-WL-TOB-01 and 03. GA direction that 

maintains or improves the vegetation aspect of wolf/big game habitat across the Forest (pattern) 

includes: GA-DC-WL-CLK-01, GA-DC-WL-FSH-02 and 03, GA-DC-WL-KOO-01 and 04, 

GA-DC-VEG-LIB-03, GA-DC-WL-LIB-02, GA-DC-WL-TOB-04, and GA-DC-WL-YAK-03.

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 KNF. 

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 6,115 ac/yr (constrained budget), or 5,732 ac/yr (unconstrained budget) and 

have 8,000 ac/yr prescribed fire. More natural, 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 (16,337 acres/year) will have the most predicted active 

restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and 

A (14,115 acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B 

Modified (19,480 acres/year) will have the most predicted active restoration followed by 

Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). 

Approximately 10,000 ac/yr of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action alternatives, 

with 8,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the alternatives, C (2,345 acres) 

will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under constrained budgets in the 

first decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 acres), D (1,627 acres) and then A (1,615 acres). Of 

the alternatives, D (6,543 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year 

under unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed by A (5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 

acres) and then C (4,649 acres).

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 for habitat restoration/maintenance. The 

use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) is more likely in MA1, and Alternative C 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

302 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

(342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (230,500 acres), A (204,300 

acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire may also be used more in MA5 compared 

to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) have more than D 

(278,000 acres).

Human Access/Roads: High road densities have been negatively linked to wolf survival or 

persistence in an area (Thiel 1985).

Alternative A, the current Plan, manages threatened and endangered species habitat based on the 

best available information. Under the action alternatives, FW-DC-WL-08 states a desired 

condition that there will be a low level of disturbance around wolf dens and rendezvous sites, 

and FW-GDL-WL-18 sets timing restrictions and distance buffers around those sites. FW-DCWL-02, FW-DC-WL-04 and 05, FW-DC-WL-08, FW-STD-WL-02 and 03, MA1a-DC-WL-01, 

MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, MA5abc-DC-WL-01, GA-DC-WLCLK-02, GA-DC-WL-FSH-02, GA-DC-WL-KOO-04, GA-DC-WL-LIB-02 and 03, GA-DCWL-TOB-01 and 03 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 (1,490,400 acres motorized, 1,812,700 acres over-snow motorized) will 

have the least acreage allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (1,637,300 

acres motorized, 1,918,400 acres over-snow motorized), A (1,677,200 acres motorized, 

1,961,100 acres over-snow motorized), and D (1,792,900 acres motorized, 1,987,700 acres oversnow motorized). These acreages reflect what will remain open to over-snow vehicle use based 

on closure order issued in conjunction with the final ROD for the Forest Plan. The desired 

conditions for over-snow vehicle use will have that use allowed on 1,500,700 acres under 

Alternative C, followed by 1,713,000 acres under Alternative B Modified, and 1,859,100 acres 

under Alternative D. These are the acres where the MA desired conditions allows over-snow 

vehicle use. These acres reflect the intent for future closures, following site-specific winter travel 

management. In addition to the differences in MA allocations among the alternatives, the 

existing area closures on the Forest will be retained under all alternatives. In addition to the 

differences in MA allocations among the alternatives, the existing area closures on the Forest 

will be retained under all alternatives. All alternatives have the same acreage of wilderness 

(MA1a, 93,700 acres). Alternative C (214,800 acres) will have the most land in recommended 

wilderness (MA1b), followed by Alternatives B Modified (102,700 acres), A (102,500 acres), 

and D (37,300 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 303

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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 KNF.

The desired condition for connectivity FW-DC-WL-17, and FW-GDL-WL-12 through 14, in the 

revised Forest Plan will direct the KNF 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 KNF, making 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

304 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

them more susceptible to large-scale disturbance (fire, insects, and disease). Winter range for 

ungulates has been lost or altered due to subdivisions, Libby Dam, and other human 

developments. As 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 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 KNF.

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-08, FW-STD-WL-02 and 

03, MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, MA5abc-DCWL-01, GA-DC-WL-CLK-02, GA-DC-WL-FSH-02, GA-DC-WL-KOO-04, GA-DC-WL-LIB02 and 03, GA-DC-WL-TOB-01 and 03 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 action alternative 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-08 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-18;

• FW-DC-WL-02, FW-DC-WL-04 and 05, FW-DC-WL-08, FW-STD-WL-02 and 03, MA1aDC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, MA5abc-DC-WL01, GA-DC-WL-CLK-02, GA-DC-WL-FSH-02, GA-DC-WL-KOO-04, GA-DC-WL-LIB02 and 03, GA-DC-WL-TOB-01 and 03 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 will 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 305

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) 

and USFWS (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 to the Species (Risks and Threats)

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);
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

306 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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

• 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, 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, Carlson 2004).

Environmental Consequences – Harlequin Duck

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 307

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 (16,337 acres/year) will have 

the most active restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 

acres/year), and A (14,115 acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, 

Alternative B Modified (19,480 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A (13,723 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-19 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-10 also provide direction to minimize disturbance.

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. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

308 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

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 2010).

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 harlequin ducks 

on all ownerships.

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-10 maintains aquatic and riparian habitat; and

• Disturbance to harlequin ducks may occur due to management activities and recreationists. 

FW-DC-WL-01, FW-DC-WL-10, and FW-GDL-WL-19 provide direction to minimize 

disturbance.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 309

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 Forest. The 

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 Montana, 

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 Montana range in size 

from 1 to approximately 349 acres (Reichel and Corn 1997). On the Kootenai it is estimated that 

a total of 275 acres of habitat are occupied and an additional 75 acres are considered potential 

habitat (Johnson 2004).

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 Affecting the Species Group

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;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

310 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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

• 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 – Northern Bog Lemming

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Loss or Degradation of Bog Habitat: Under Alternative A, wetlands will continue to be 

protected. Direction in the action alternatives to protect peatlands can be found in FW-DC-VEG12 and FW-GDL-VEG-09. FW-GDL-VEG-09 sets a buffer up to 600 feet around peatlands. 

Much of the direction in the Watershed, Soils, Riparian, and Aquatic Habitats portions in 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 

(342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (230,500 acres), A (204,300 

acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire may also be used more in MA5 compared 

to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) have more than D 

(278,000 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, MA1b-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 311

GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, MA1c-DC-VEG-01, MA1c-DC-FIRE-01, MA1c-GDL-FIRE-01 and 02, 

MA2-DC-FIRE-01, MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA5abc-DC-VEG-01, 

MA5abc-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5abc-GDL-FIRE-01. This will be useful to maintain/restore the 

uplands that surround bog lemming habitat.

Alternative C (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 acres/year) under 

constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (19,480 acres/year) 

will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 

acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). Approximately 10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning 

will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 8,000 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 600 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 Alternative A, wetlands will continue to be 

protected. 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-21 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 600 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-WL21 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

312 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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).

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.

All the action alternatives will contribute toward maintaining or improving northern bog 

lemming habitat.

Timber harvest occurring on private or state lands, if near peatlands or bogs, could impact habitat 

quality.

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 2010). Bog/peatland habitat is naturally fragmented, adding to the difficulty 

for bog lemmings to shift distribution.

Effects Determination

Each action alternative 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 600 feet around peatlands. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 313

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;

• FW-DC-WL-01 and FW-GDL-WL-21 could also be used to support setting a distance buffer 

around important occupied northern bog lemming habitat;

• Off-road motorized use is not allowed unless in designated areas (MVUM maps), and this 

minimizes the chance that northern bog lemming habitat will be degraded; and

• Snowmobile 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-21 and FW-GDL-VEG-09 

could be used to minimize over-snow-motorized use in bog lemming habitat.

Townsend's Big-Eared Bat – Corynorhinus townsendii

Affected Environment

Bats are a useful 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 bats varies (Miller et al. 2005, IDFG 

2005, and MFWP 2005). The best available source of ecological and occurrence information is 

from state agencies, and the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP and MFWP 2011). 

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.

Numerous surveys have been conducted throughout the Forest in conjunction with the state 

agencies and portions of the Forest was included as part of a regional survey effort (Hendricks et 

al. 1995, 1996 and Hendricks and Maxell 2005). 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 for Idaho 

(Pierson et al. 1999) and the Montana Bat Management Plan (Schwab and DuBois 2006). 

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 KNF 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 late-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

314 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

successional/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

The lack of association of Townsend’s big-eared bat to any forest type during the 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 latesuccessional/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).

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 useful stop over areas for migrating waterfowl migration roosts 

may provide useful 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 Forest (only one cave is known on the KNF- (Kenelty 

cave). Abandoned/inactive mines are scattered throughout the Forest. Not all of these sites are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 315

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. No occupied key roosting habitat in the form of caves, tunnels, 

and abandoned buildings is known to exist on the KNF. There are few documented hibernacula 

and maternity roosts in Montana and none for the KNF (Hendricks and Maxell, 2005). In 

Montana four maternity colonies of Townsend’s big-eared bats have been found in natural caves 

and one in an abandoned mine. Suitable roost sites, especially maternity roosts probably limit 

distribution of this species.

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 

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). Although there are fewer snags outside of wilderness/roadless areas, 

the 90 percent confidence intervals for wilderness/roadless area snags overlaps the mean 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

316 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

Key Stressors Affecting Bats

Schwab and Dubois (2006) described the main threats to bats in Montana. 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;

• 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:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 317

• 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;

• 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 – Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

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-06 allows the installation of bat gates on abandoned mines. FW-GDL-WL-17 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

318 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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-12, and FW-DC-WL-15, 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-14 and FW-GDL-WL-05 provides direction for maintaining 

unlogged conditions post-fire. This will also aid in providing snags for bat roosting.

FW-GDL-WL-06 and 07 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.

FW-DC-WL-15 states that caves, mines, and snags provide areas for roosting, hibernation, or 

maternity sites for various species of bats.

Direction in the revised Forest Plan that maintains snag habitat includes: FW-DC-VEG-07, FWGDL-VEG-04 and 05, and FW-DC-WL-12.

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 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.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 319

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.

Several variables determine the amount of bat habitat across the Forest in the form of large 

snags/trees and the vegetation useful to provide prey habitat. 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 is 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 if natural disturbance 

processes are allowed to function, particularly fire (FW-DC-FIRE-03).

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 (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified 

(15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 acres/year) under constrained budgets. 

With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (19,480 acres/year) will have the most 

active restoration followed by Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A 

(13,723 acres/year). Approximately 10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted 

under the action alternatives, with 8,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the 

alternatives, C (2,345 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year 

under constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 acres), D (1,627 

acres) and then A (1,615 acres). Of the alternatives, D (6,543 acres) will be expected to have 

more regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed 

by A (5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 acres) and then C (4,649 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 bat habitat. FW-DC-FIRE03 reads, "The use of fire (both planned ignitions 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, 

undesirable unplanned ignitions continue to be suppressed where necessary to protect life, 

property and other key resources."

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 (+128,011 acres), C 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

320 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

(+127,165 acres), D (+77,382 acres), and A (+54,032 acres). With constrained budgets, there will 

be an increase in acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives B Modified 

(+134,742 acres), D (+132,481 acres), C (+129,377 acres), and A (+110,286 acres). All of these 

increases will push the amount of large/very large size class acres towards the desired conditions. 

A lot of the middle size class becomes large/very large over the next 50 years.

What this means is bats 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.

There could be a loss of habitat associated with special use permits. Primarily this will be 

through the loss of snags. Special use permits that involve old buildings can disturb bats or affect 

roosting habitat. FW-GDL-WL-07 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-17 provides direction to minimize or avoid disturbance around active 

key habitat features such as roost sites and 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 will 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 will 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-06.

Prey Availability: Most fires will continue to be actively suppressed under Alternative A, and 

the current level of vegetation treatments would continue.

The desired conditions for vegetation (FW-DC-VEG-01 through 08, FW-DC-VEG-11, and FWDC-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. Only a few water troughs are on 

the Forest (10-12) and no issues with wildlife drowning in them have been detected. FW-DCGRZ-01 states that grazing will occur at sustainable levels while protecting vulnerable 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-09, FW-DCWL-10, FW-DC-WL-11, and FW-DC-WL-13.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 321

common to most species in this analysis. 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 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. 

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.

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 (page 90 in 

USDA 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.

Effects Determination

Each action alternative 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:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

322 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• FW-GDL-WL-06 and 07 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-17;

• FW-DC-WL-15 states that caves, mines, and snags provide areas for roosting, hibernation, 

or maternity sites for various species of bats;

• Both snags and large trees increase in abundance under the revised Forest Plan;

• 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-12; 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 if natural disturbance processes are allowed to function, particularly fire (FW-DCFIRE-03).

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 the table 54 for 

the rationale for MIS selection (also see the KIPZ MIS Selection paper, USDA 2013).

Table 54. Management Indicator Species for the Kootenai National Forest

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 323

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.

Affected Environment

Rocky Mountain elk are a hunted species with secure populations. 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. Elk have 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 the analysis of security habitat, the planning subunit was the scale of 

analysis agreed upon during coordination with MFWP early in the revision process.

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). For example, on the KNF over 55 percent of the winter range is 

also in the 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

324 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

Key Stressors Affecting Elk

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 325

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 14,115 acres/year (constrained budget) or 13,723 acres/year (unconstrained 

budget).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-10 and 

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 FWDC-FIRE-03, fire plays an increased role in helping to trend vegetation towards desired 

conditions.

Alternative C (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 acres/year) under 

constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (19,480 acres/year) 

will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 

acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). Approximately 10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning 

will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 8,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in 

Alternative A. Of the alternatives, C (2,345 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration 

treatments per year under constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 

acres), D (1,627 acres) and then A (1,615 acres). Of the alternatives, D (6,543 acres) will be 

expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained budgets in the first 

decade, followed by A (5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 acres) and then C (4,649 acres).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

326 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - 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 KNF, 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 

KNF 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 

KNF, 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 KNF, so the 

amount and pattern of big game habitat would be similar to what they evolved with on the KNF. 

This includes the amount of winter range, cover, and forage.

There is GA direction that pertains to maintaining or improving habitat (vegetation components) 

on winter range for big game: GA-DC-WL-CLK-01, GA-DC-WL-FSH-02 and 03, GA-DC-WLKOO-01 and 04, GA-DC-VEG-LIB-03, GA-DC-WL-LIB-02, GA-DC-WL-TOB-04, and GADC-WL-YAK-03.

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 (342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (230,500 acres), 

A (204,300 acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire may also be used more in 

MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) 

have more than D (278,000 acres).

FW-GDL-WL-10 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/maintained and security habitat is less likely to be lost to a largescale disturbance (fire, insects, and disease).

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, FW-OBJ-VEG-02, GA-DCVEG-FSH-01, GA-DC-WL-FSH-03, GA-DC-VEG-KOO-01, GA-DC-WL-KOO-04, GA-DC-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 327

VEG-LIB-03, and GA-DC-VEG-TOB-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 didn’t 

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 KNF, 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 KNF 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 KNF and navigate to their chosen non-motorized recreation spot by driving a 

motorized vehicle on the KNF’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 KNF.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

328 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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-08, FW-GDLWL-09, and FW-GDL-WL-11 which limit disturbance to big game on winter range and during 

birthing/parturition.

Although FW-GDL-WL-10 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-10 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 (1,490,400 acres 

motorized, 1,812,700 acres over-snow motorized) will have the least acreage allowing motorized 

use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (1,637,300 acres motorized, 1,918,400 acres oversnow motorized), A (1,677,200 acres motorized, 1,961,100 acres over-snow motorized), and D 

(1,792,900 acres motorized, 1,987,700 acres over-snow motorized). These acreages reflect what 

will remain open to over-snow vehicle use based on closure order issued in conjunction with the 

final ROD for the Forest Plan. The desired conditions for over-snow vehicle use will have that 

use allowed on 1,500,700 acres under Alternative C, followed by 1,713,000 acres under 

Alternative B Modified, and 1,859,100 acres under Alternative D. These are the acres where the 

MA desired conditions allows over-snow vehicle use. These acres reflect the intent for future 

closures, following site-specific winter travel management. In addition to the differences in MA 

allocations among the alternatives, the existing area closures on the Forest will be retained under 

all alternatives. All alternatives have the same acreage of wilderness (MA1a, 93,700 acres). 

Alternative C (214,800 acres) will have the most land in recommended wilderness (MA1b), 

followed by Alternatives B Modified (102,700 acres), A (102,500 acres), and D (37,300 acres). 

MA1a does not allow over-snow motorized us.

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 or 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.

Mineral 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 329

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-10 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 realistic and attainable. FW-OBJ-WL-02 was adjusted to set the objective to 

increase by one the number of planning subunits that has at least 30 percent security, and 

increase by one the number of high emphasis planning subunits that have at least 50 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-10 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-10 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 potential for impacts of non-motorized use of 

closed roads on security habitat.

The glossary definition of elk security habitat for FW-GDL-WL-10 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 KNF 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 KNF will generally use the planning subunit as the analysis unit for elk security as this was 

the agreed upon measurement scale through coordination with the managers of the elk 

populations, MFWP, and were identified by high, medium, and low emphasis during the early 

stages of this revision process. The map that resulted from that coordination with MFWP is 

included in the specialist’s report. This map may be updated during the life of the revised Forest 

Plan based upon continuing coordination with MFWP.

Based on FW-GDL-WL-10 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

330 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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-10, 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.

The following table 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-10, 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.

Many of the planning subunits on the Forest already provide at least 30 percent security habitat 

for elk during the hunting season (table 55). Only a few high emphasis planning subunits provide 

at least 50 percent security habitat for elk currently. FW-GDL-WL-10 and FW-OBJ-WL-02 will

maintain or improve the availability of security habitat on the Forest.

Table 55. Percent Security Habitat within the Planning Subunits on the KNF

KNF Planning Subunit Fall % Security

Alexander 22%

Beaver 45%

Big 31%

Billiard 43%

Boulder 20%

Bristow 13%

Buckhorn 42%

Bull 40%

Callahan 42%

Crazy 23%

Cripple 17%

Dodge 23%

Elk 31%

Fortine 19%

Grave 56%

Green 48%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 331

KNF Planning Subunit Fall % Security

Grizzly 49%

Ksanka 43%

Lake 56%

Lower Yaak 35%

Marten 36%

McElk 29%

McGregor 0%

McSutten 36%

McSwede 19%

Meadow 1%

Murphy 44%

Northeast Yaak 47%

Northwest Yaak 48%

O'Brien 21%

Parsnip 45%

Pilgrim 23%

Pine 35%

Pinkham 7%

Pipestone 17%

Pleasant 7%

Quartz 19%

Riverview 9%

Rock 36%

Seventeenmile 55%

South Fork Yaak 47%

Sheep 17%

Silverfish 46%

Spar 34%

Stillwater 45%

Sunday 37%

Swamp 9%

Treasure 44%

Trego 45%

Trout 57%

Twentyodd 54%

UBig 65%

Vermilion 45%

Whitepine 19%

Wigwam 56%

Wolf 17%

Total Subunit Forest Service Lands 35%

Calculations exclude waterbodies such as the Clark Fork River and Kootenai River
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

332 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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-10 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-17, FW-GDL-WL-12, FW-GDL-WL-13, FW-GDL-WL-14, 

MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, MA5abc-DCWL-01, GA-DC-WL-BUL-01, GA-DC-WL-BUL-04, GA-DC-WL-CLK-03, GA-DC-WL-FSH01, GA-DC-WL-02, GA-DC-WL-LIB-01, GA-DC-WL-LIB-04, GA-DC-WL-TOB-02, GA-DCWL-TOB-05, GA-DC-WL-YAK-01, and GA-DC-WL-YAK-04. Cover is managed according to 

FW-DC-WL-16 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 beyond 

the borders of the KNF for the cumulative effects analysis. Affects to cover/forage were analyzed 

at the Forest scale, with cumulative effects again looking beyond the KNF borders. Spatial 

relationships are address through FW-DC-WL-08, FW-OBJ-WL-02, FW-GDL-WL-10, and GADC-WL-FSH-02 which contain references to the distribution of habitat or specifically mention 

areas of intermixed ownership. Domestic livestock do not occur over much of the KNF, but their 

impacts will be minimized through FW-DC-GRZ-01.

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-10 

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, FW-STD-WL-03, MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, 

MA1c-DC-WL-01, MA3-DC-WL-01, GA-DC-WL-CLK-02, GA-DC-WL-FSH-02, GA-DCWL-KOO-01, GA-DC-WL-KOO-03, GA-DC-WL-LIB-02, GA-DC-WL-LIB-03, GA-DC-WLTOB-01, GA-DC-WL-TOB-03, GA-DC-WL-TOB-04, and GA-DC-WL-YAK-02. Cover, as 

mentioned previously, is managed according to FW-DC-WL-16 and the desired conditions for 

vegetation and fire.

Winter range factors include forage, cover, roads/disturbance, and livestock management 

(Christensen et al. 1993). Forage/cover are managed according to FW-DC-WL-16 and the 

desired conditions for vegetation and fire, in addition to GA-DC-WL-CLK-01, GA-DC-WLFSH-02, GA-DC-WL-FSH-03, GA-DC-WL-KOO-01, GA-DC-WL-KOO-04, GA-DC-VEGLIB-03, GA-DC-WL-LIB-02, GA-DC-WL-TOB-04, and GA-DC-YAK-03. Roads/disturbance 

are managed on big game winter range according to FW-GDL-WL-08, FW-GDL-WL-09, GADC-WL-BUL-02, GA-DC-WL-CLK-01, GA-DC-WL-FSH-02, GA-DC-WL-KOO-01, GA-DCWL-KOO-03, GA-DC-WL-LIB-02, and GA-DC-WL-TOB-04. Livestock do not occur over 

much of the KNF, but their impacts will 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. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. What are found below are the cumulative effects that 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 333

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-10. The Montana Statewide Elk Management Plan 

(MFWP 2004) does a good job of summarizing all the factors influencing elk populations in the 

Elk Management Units overlapping the Forest. These factors include predators, timber harvest, 

subdivision of private lands, noxious weeds, severe winters, and security on all land ownerships. 

Elk populations had been variable over the last decade covered by the Montana Statewide Elk 

Management Plan (MFWP 2004).

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 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

334 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 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

The action alternatives may impact security habitat and the vegetativon components of 

cover/forage for elk. This determination is based in part on:

• Many planning subunits on the Forest already provide at least 30 percent security habitat for 

elk. Only a few high emphasis planning subunits have more than 50 percent security;

• Based on FW-GDL-WL-10, security habitat will be maintained or increased over the life of 

the Forest Plan;

• During the winter period, FW-GDL-WL-08 and 09 are designed to minimize or avoid 

disturbance to big game on winter ranges, and FW-GDL-WL-11 reduces disturbance on 

calving areas;

• In addition to the desired conditions for vegetation and fire, habitat connectivity will be 

improved through FW-DC-WL-17, and FW-GDL-WL-12 through 14;

• Additional direction within the revised Forest Plan that contributes to security habitat for elk, 

provides areas with low levels of disturbance during the rest of the year, or improves the 

vegetation components of elk habitat includes: GA-DC-WL-CLK-01 and 02; GA-DC-WLFSH-02 and 03; GA-DC-WL-KOO-01, 03, and 04; GA-DC-WL-LIB-02 and 03; and GADC-WL-TOB-01 and 04; and GA-DC-WL-YAK-03. These either specifically mention 

maintaining security habitat for big game within specific GAs, or will decrease disturbance 

or maintain the vegetation components of big game habitat;

• Connectivity will be also improved by: GA-DC-WL-CLK-03, GA-DC-WL-FSH-01, GADC-KOO-02, GA-DC-WL-LIB-01, GA-DC-WL-TOB-02, and GA-DC-WL-YAK-01;

• Wilderness areas (MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01), IRAs, and 

other non-motorized areas (FW-STD-WL-02 and 03, FW-GDL-WL-10, MA3-DC-WL-01, 

and MA5abc-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-16).

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 335

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.

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 56 displays two of the relevant scenarios modeled for chipping sparrow and dusky 

flycatcher habitat (ERG 2012). ERG modeled several scenarios for comparison purposes. The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

336 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 56. Acres of Chipping Sparrow and Dusky Flycatcher Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 218,218 218,218

1 237,438 233,244

2 264,322 262,045

5 275,500 276,466

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

Table 57 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 57. Acres of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 1,474,772 1,474,772

1 1,249,930 1,245,364

2 1,192,221 1,195,519

5 1,123,404 1,111,837

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

Table 58 displays two of the relevant scenarios 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 58. Acres of Hammond’s Flycatcher Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 528,684 528,684

1 451,743 467,160

2 483,538 521,051

5 681,760 694,720

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Both scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the 

current level of fire suppression

Table 59 displays two of the relevant scenarios 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 337

Table 59. Acres of Hairy Woodpecker Habitat

Decade 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 1,752,715 1,752,715

1 1,685,835 1,700,544

2 1,663,915 1,665,891

5 1,868,565 1,893,620

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;

• 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-DC-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

338 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 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 (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 acres/year) under 

constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (19,480 acres/year) 

will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 

acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). Approximately 10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning 

will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 8,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in 

Alternative A. Of the alternatives, C (2,345 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration 

treatments per year under constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 

acres), D (1,627 acres) and then A (1,615 acres). Of the alternatives, D (6,543 acres) will be 

expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained budgets in the first 

decade, followed by A (5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 acres) and then C (4,649 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 

(342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (230,500 acres), A (204,300 

acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire may also be used more in MA5 compared 

to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) have more than D 

(278,000 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, MA2-DC-FIRE-01, 

MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA5abc-DC-VEG-01, MA5abc-DCFIRE-01, and MA5abc-GDL-FIRE-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.

"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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 339

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).

GA direction that assists in trending towards the desired conditions for vegetation and fire 

includes: GA-DC-VEG-CLK-01, GA-DC-VEG-FSH-01, GA-DC-VEG-KOO-01, GA-DC-VEGLIB-03, and GA-DC-VEG-TOB-01.

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 

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) 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 (+128,011 acres), C 

(+127,165 acres), D (+77,382 acres), and A (+54,032 acres). With constrained budgets, there will

be an increase in acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives B Modified 

(+134,742 acres), D (+132,481 acres), C (+129,377 acres), and A (+110,286 acres). All of these 

increases will push the amount of large/very large size class acres towards the desired conditions. 

A lot of the middle size class becomes large/very large over the next 50 years.

This means 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 60 displays some of the relevant scenarios jointly modeled for chipping sparrow and dusky 

flycatcher habitat (ERG 2012). The existing amount of habitat is within HRV and increases over 

the next five decades under all the alternatives. The alternatives are similar in outcomes. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

340 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Increases in habitat are due to increasing low/moderate severity fire. There is no indication that 

these two species are at a viability risk (page 90 in ERG 2012).

Table 60. Acres of Chipping Sparrow and Dusky Flycatcher Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 218,218 218,218 218,218

1 245,943 237,438 233,244

2 262,771 264,322 262,045

5 293,485 275,500 276,466

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the current 

level of fire suppression

Table 61 displays some of the relevant scenarios of 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 61. Acres of Olive-sided Flycatcher Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 1,474,772 1,474,772 1,474,772

1 1,249,483 1,249,930 1,245,364

2 1,170,844 1,192,221 1,195,519

5 1,178,232 1,123,404 1,111,837

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the current 

level of fire suppression

Table 62 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 62. Acres of Hammond’s Flycatcher Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 528,684 528,684 528,684

1 452,450 451,743 467,160

2 484,102 483,538 521,051

5 683,186 681,760 694,720

Source: Ecosystem Research Group (2012). Scenarios consider a warmer/drier climate and a continuance of the current 

level of fire suppression

Table 63 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. The alternatives result in similar outcomes. The increase in habitat is driven by 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 341

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 63. Acres of Hairy Woodpecker Habitat

Decade Alternative B Modified 1987 Forest Plan No Treatment Scenario

0 1,752,715 1,752,715 1,752,715

1 1,685,667 1,685,835 1,700,544

2 1,657,260 1,663,915 1,665,891

5 1,859,910 1,868,565 1,893,620

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-09 through 14, FW-GDL-WL-05, and 

FW-DC-GRZ-01.

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 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 (1,490,400 acres motor vehicle) will have the least 

acreage allowing motor vehicle use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (1,637,300 acres

motor vehicle), A (1,677,200 acres motor vehicle), and D (1,792,900 acres motor vehicle). All 

alternatives have the same acreage of designated wilderness (MA1a, 93,700 acres). Alternative C 

(214,800 acres) will have the most land in recommended wilderness (MA1b), followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (102,700 acres), A (102,500 acres), and D (37,300 acres).

MA5 can also contribute to security. Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 

acres) have more than D (278,000 acres).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

342 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

Cumulative Effects

Please see the “Cumulative Effects Common to Most Species” section at the end of this wildlife 

analysis for additional information. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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 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 or maintain 

habitat into a more resilient condition and nearer to what would have been present historically 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 343

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 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

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;

• Alternative C (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 

acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B 

Modified (19,480 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). Approximately 

10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 

8,000 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, MA2-DCFIRE-01, MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA5abc-DC-VEG-01, 

MA5abc-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5abc-GDL-FIRE-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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

344 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Other Species or Habitat Components

Migratory Birds

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 and USFWS 2008) 

(FS 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.

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 were included to provide a framework to focus the discussion and 

analysis by focusing on migratory bird priority species/habitats.

Partners in Flight 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 64 displays the 

species they identified for continental importance within the Intermountain West Avifaunal 

Biome.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 345

Table 64. 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

Bendire’s Thrasher Western shrublands N

California Condor Various N

Greater Sage-Grouse Western shrublands N

Gunnison Sage-Grouse Western shrublands N

Spotted Owl Coniferous Forest N

Management3

Black Swift Various Y

Brewer’s Sparrow Western shrublands Y

Cassin’s Finch Coniferous forest Y

Grace’s Warbler Mixed forest N

Lewis’s Woodpecker Riparian Y

Olive-sided Flycatcher Coniferous forest Y

Pinyon Jay Woodland N

Rufous Hummingbird Western shrublands Y

Swainson’s Hawk Grassland Y

White-throated Swift Various Y

Willow Flycatcher Riparian Y

Long-term Planning and Responsibility4

Black Rosy-Finch Tundra N

Brown-capped Rosy-Finch Tundra N

Calliope Hummingbird Western shrublands Y

Clark’s Nutcracker Coniferous forest Y

Dusky Flycatcher Western shrublands Y

Flammulated Owl Coniferous forest Y

Gray Flycatcher Woodland N

Gray Vireo Woodland N

Green-tailed Towhee Western shrublands N

McCown’s Longspur Grassland N

Mountain Bluebird Western shrublands Y

Red-naped Sapsucker Mixed forest Y

Sage Sparrow Western shrublands N

Sage Thrasher Western shrublands N

Virginia’s Warbler Woodland N

White-headed Woodpecker Coniferous forest Y

Williamson’s Sapsucker Coniferous forest Y

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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

346 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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, and the document was used to organize 

the discussion in this analysis by focusing on those species/habitats that have been identified at a 

broad scale as being important. It was essentially used to provide a framework, along with the 

following documents, to facilitate discussion of migratory landbirds within this analysis by 

focusing on key species and habitats.

Two documents (USFWS 2008 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) (USFWS 2008). That report helps 

focus conservation effort on the species that need it. The Forest lies within BCR 10 (Northern 

Rockies). Table 65 lists the species of concern for that BCR, not all of which are found on the 

Forest.

Table 65. 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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 347

Common Name Scientific Name Is the Forest w/in the Range of 

Species?*

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 KNF 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 below. This 

document and the following table (table 66) were used to provide a framework to focus the 

discussion and analysis by focusing on priority species and habitats.

Table 66. Partners in Flight Priority Habitats/Species for Montana (PIF 2000)

Partners in Flight Priority Habitats and Species

Habitat Species Priority 

Level1 Is the Forest 

w/in the Range 

of Species?2

Grassland

Mixed Grass Prairie Mountain plover I N

Burrowing owl I Y

Sprague's pipit I N

Baird's sparrow I Y

Ferruginous hawk II Y

Long-billed curlew II Y

Lark bunting II Y

Grasshopper sparrow II Y

McCown's longspur II N

Chestnut-collared longspur II N

Northern harrier III Y

Short-eared owl III Y

Bobolink III Y

Intermountain Grasslands Columbian sharp-tailed grouse II Y

Shrubland

Sagebrush Shrubsteppe Sage grouse I N

Loggerhead shrike II Y
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

348 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Partners in Flight Priority Habitats and Species

Habitat Species Priority 

Level1 Is the Forest 

w/in the Range 

of Species?2

Brewer's sparrow II Y

Sage thrasher III N

Lark sparrow III Y

Montane Shrubland Calliope hummingbird II Y

Nashville warbler III Y

MacGillivray's warbler III Y

Lazuli bunting II Y

Common poorwill III N

Green-tailed towhee III N

Clay-colored sparrow III Y

Forest

Dry Forest Flammulated owl I Y

Lewis's woodpecker II Y

Blue grouse III Y

Chipping sparrow III Y

Cassin's finch III Y

Red crossbill III Y

Cedar Hemlock Brown creeper I Y

Vaux's swift II Y

Winter wren II Y

Chestnut-backed chickadee III Y

Golden-crowned kinglet III Y

Varied thrush III Y

Burned Forest Black-backed woodpecker I Y

Olive-sided flycatcher I Y

Three-toed woodpecker II Y

Townsend's solitaire III Y

Moist Douglas-fir/Grand fir Northern goshawk II Y

Williamson's sapsucker II Y

Sharp-shinned hawk III Y

Pileated woodpecker II Y

Plumbeous/Cassin's vireos III N/Y

Townsend's warbler III Y

Whitebark pine Clark's nutcracker III Y

Aspen Ruffed grouse II Y

Red-naped sapsucker II Y

Ovenbird III Y

Wet Subalpine fir (spruce/fir) Great gray owl III Y

Boreal owl III Y

Limber Pine/Juniper N/A
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 349

Partners in Flight Priority Habitats and Species

Habitat Species Priority 

Level1 Is the Forest 

w/in the Range 

of Species?2

Dry Subalpine fir/Lodgepole pine N/A

Riparian

Riparian Deciduous Forest 

(Cottonwood/Aspen)

Interior least tern I N

Barrow's goldeneye II Y

Hooded merganser II Y

Bald eagle II Y

Black-billed cuckoo II N

Yellow-billed cuckoo II N

Red-headed woodpecker II N

Cordilleran flycatcher II Y

Veery II Y

Red-eyed vireo II Y

Killdeer III Y

Eastern screech owl III N

Western screech owl III Y

Downy woodpecker III Y

Least flycatcher III Y

American redstart III Y

MacGillivray's warbler III Y

Orchard oriole III Y

Riparian Shrub Willow flycatcher II Y

Rufous hummingbird III Y

Gray catbird III Y

Warbling vireo III Y

Song sparrow III Y

Hardwood Draws Swainson's hawk III Y

Riparian Coniferous Forest Harlequin duck I Y

Hammond's flycatcher II Y

American dipper III Y

Wetlands

Prairie Pothole Piping plover I N

Horned grebe II Y

White-faced ibis II Y

Marbled godwit II Y

Franklin's gull II Y

Forster's tern II Y

Black tern II Y

Clark's grebe III N

Black-crowned night heron III N

Black-necked stilt III Y
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

350 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Partners in Flight Priority Habitats and Species

Habitat Species Priority 

Level1 Is the Forest 

w/in the Range 

of Species?2

Willet III N

Wilson's phalarope III Y

LeConte's sparrow III Y

Nelson's sharp-tailed sparrow III N

Intermountain Valley Wetlands Common loon I Y

Trumpeter swan I N

Common tern II Y

American bittern III Y

Yellow-headed blackbird III Y

Irrigation Reservoirs >640 ac Caspian tern II Y

American white pelican III Y

Irrigation Reservoirs <640 ac Transient shorebirds II Y

High Elevation Wetlands N/A

Unique Habitats Peregrine falcon II Y

Black swift II Y

Black rosy finch II N

White-tailed ptarmigan III Y

Chimney swift III N

Red-winged blackbird III Y

Brewer's blackbird III Y

1 Montana Priority Levels (PIF) uses a priority system rather than producing planning information about all species. Their 

assumption is that if conservation measures are focused on the identified species/habitats then other species will benefit 

as well (page 23 in PIF 2000). The priority levels are: (I) Conservation Action – species with declining populations or high 

area importance, (II) Monitoring Species – species in need but with lesser threat or stable/increasing populations in 

Montana, (III) Local Concern – species of concern which are not in imminent risk or are near-obligates for high priority 

habitats, (IV) Non-priority – rare migrants, extremely peripheral occurrence, or lack of imminent risk and are not included 

in the PIF conservation planning effort (pages 24-25 in PIF 2000) 2 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: flammulated owl, 

chipping sparrow, black-backed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, Hammond's flycatcher, 

common loon, harlequin duck, and peregrine falcon.

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 67 displays the dominant vegetation types for the KNF. There is some overlap in 

categories, and therefore some double-counting. For example, some acres counted as "riparian" 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 351

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 

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 67. Dominant Vegetation Type for the KNF based on FIA Subplots, Vegetation Response 

Units, VMP Organized to Approximate the PIF Priority Habitats

Dominant Vegetation Type Estimated % of KNF1 Estimated Acres

Dry forest (ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir) 29 643,845

Lodgepole pine 15 328,794

Cedar/western hemlock 6 130,038

Subalpine fir (spruce/fir) 20 441,198

Moist grand fir 4 83,520

Aspen/birch/cottonwood 1 13,744

Misc. forest (alpine larch, mountain hemlock, 

western larch, white pine, intolerant mix)

17 374,256

Whitebark pine <1 8,458

Waterbodies (lakes, ponds, reservoirs, marsh, 

swamp, river)

<1 5,177

Riparian (INFISH) 12 257,082

Grassland 2 48,598

Shrubland 4 96,658

Burned forest <1 8,246*

Non vegetation 1 13,315

1 Percentages and acreages do not tally to 100% due to rounding and overlap between some of the categories leading to 

double-counting

*Recently burned, un-harvested acres based on 2003-2009 fires and 2003-2010 harvest. For species such as the blackbacked woodpecker, recently burned forests are the most suitable habitat.

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):
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

352 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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;

• 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. 

Alternative A is 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-DCVEG-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 (16,337 acres/year) will have the 

most active restoration followed by Alternatives B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 

acres/year), and A (14,115 acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, 

Alternative B Modified (19,480 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). 

Approximately 10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action 

alternatives, with 8,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the alternatives, C 

(2,345 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under constrained 

budgets in the first decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 acres), D (1,627 acres) and then A 

(1,615 acres). Of the alternatives, D (6,543 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration 

treatments per year under unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed by A (5,644 acres), 

B Modified (4,980 acres) and then C (4,649 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. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 353

The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire for habitat restoration or maintenance. 

The use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) is more likely in MA1, and 

Alternative C (342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (230,500 acres), 

A (204,300 acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire may also be used more in 

MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) 

have more than D (278,000 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, MA2-DC-FIRE-01, 

MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA5abc-DC-VEG-01, MA5abc-DCFIRE-01, and MA5abc-GDL-FIRE-01. This will be useful to maintain/restore migratory bird 

habitat in the long-term.

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).

GA direction that assists in trending towards the desired conditions for vegetation and fire

includes: GA-DC-VEG-CLK-01, GA-DC-VEG-FSH-01, GA-DC-VEG-KOO-01, GA-DC-VEGLIB-03, and GA-DC-VEG-TOB-01.

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-14 will

maintain a diversity of patch sizes of fire-killed trees to provide wildlife habitat, and FW-GDLWL-05 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 action alternatives that will benefit members of this group by 

maintaining or improving habitat include: FW-DC-WL-09 through 14, FW-GDL-WL-05, 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 patterns 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

354 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

similar to what they evolved with on the Forest. Additionally, stands will be more resilient to 

large-scale disturbance (fire, insects, and disease).

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) 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 (+128,011 acres), C 

(+127,165 acres), D (+77,382 acres), and A (+54,032 acres). With constrained budgets, there will

be an increase in acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives B Modified 

(+134,742 acres), D (+132,481 acres), C (+129,377 acres), and A (+110,286 acres). All of these 

increases will push the amount of large/very large size class acres towards the desired conditions. 

A lot of the middle size class becomes large/very large over the next 50 years.

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.

Birds needing openings or early-successional stands would see a decline in those conditions in 

the next 50 years. The KNF 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 would outpace the creation 

of new seedling/sapling stands. Under unconstrained budgets, Alternative B Modified (-85,168 

acres) will have the biggest loss of seedling/sapling size class, followed by Alternatives C (-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 355

84,833 acres), D (-81,655 acres), and A (-75,849 acres). A loss of more than approximately 

76,000 acres will push the seedling/sapling size class below HRV. Under constrained budgets, 

Alternative D will have the greatest loss (-91,789 acres), followed by Alternatives A (-87,475 

acres), B Modified (-66,652 acres), and C (-60,030 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.

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 

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 (1,490,400 acres motor vehicle) will have the least 

acreage allowing motor vehicle use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (1,637,300 acres

motor vehicle), A (1,677,200 acres motor vehicle), and D (1,792,900 acres motor vehicle). All 

alternatives have the same acreage of designated wilderness (MA1a, 93,700 acres). Alternative C 

(214,800 acres) will have the most land in recommended wilderness (MA1b), followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (102,700 acres), A (102,500 acres), and D (37,300 acres).

MA5 can also contribute to security. Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 

acres) have more than D (278,000 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

356 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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-07, FW-DC-WL-10, FW-GDL-WL-02, FW-GDL-WL19, and FW-GDL-WL-21.

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. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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 2010).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 357

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

The action alternatives may impact individuals or habitats for migratory birds. 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, 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 (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by 

Alternatives B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 

acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B 

Modified (19,480 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives 

C (19,129 acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). Approximately 

10,000 acres/year of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 

8,000 acres/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A;

• Birds needing openings or early-successional stands will see a decline in those conditions in 

the next 50 years. The KNF 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 B Modified (-85,168 acres) will have the biggest loss of seedling/sapling size 

class, followed by Alternatives C (-84,833 acres), D (-81,655 acres), and A (-75,849 acres). A 

loss of more than approximately 76,000 acres will push the seedling/sapling size class below 

HRV. Under constrained budgets, Alternative D will have the greatest loss (-91,789 acres), 

followed by Alternatives A (-87,475 acres), B Modified (-66,652 acres), and C (-60,030 

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, C (2,345 acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments 

per year under constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 acres), 

D (1,627 acres) and then A (1,615 acres). Of the alternatives, D (6,543 acres) will be 

expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained budgets in the 

first decade, followed by A (5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 acres) and then C (4,649 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, MA2-DCFIRE-01, MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA5abc-DC-VEG-01, 

MA5abc-DC-FIRE-01, and MA5abc-GDL-FIRE-01. This will be useful to maintain/restore 

migratory bird habitat in the long-term;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

358 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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.

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.

Winter range is one of the most important components of big game habitat. The Forest provides 

winter range for mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goat. 

Table 68 shows the amount of winter range, by species, on the Forest from a variety of data 

sources. Most data sources only give a rough approximation of the amount of winter range on 

the Forest due to the scale of the data.

Table 68. Estimated Winter Range Acres on NFS lands

Species Winter Range (acres) on the KNF

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 672,772

Elk (general/winter)2 367,465

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 354,883
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 359

Species Winter Range (acres) on the KNF

Moose (general/winter)2 989,070

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 13,690

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 284,173

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 8,407

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 10,139

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 7,917

Mountain Goat (winter)3 5,316

Total Acres (where at least one species uses it 

as winter range)

4 1,353,058

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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980

4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range

Table 69 displays the acres within over-snow motorized use closure areas (area closures).

Table 69. Acres Closed to Over-Snow Motor Vehicle Use (may include Winter Range and Nonwinter Range

Area Closure Acres on NFS Lands

Cabinet Mountains Wilderness 93,709

Other-snow Use Closure Areas 162,156

Total 255,865

Table 70 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. The largest overlap of 

the closure areas with winter range is for mountain goat, which again is logical given that 

mountain goats tend to winter at higher elevations that most of the other ungulates.

Table 70. 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 Range (elk/deer)1 47,146 (7%)

Elk (general/winter)2 32,281 (9%)

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 35,752 (10%)

Moose (general/winter)2 70,666 (7%)

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 4,304 (31%)

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 32,580 (11%)

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 2,206 (26%)

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 5,951 (59%)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

360 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Species Winter Range on NFS Lands within Area 

Closures (% of Winter Range)

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 3,338 (42%)

Mountain Goat (winter)3 3,797 (71%)

Total Acres (where at least one species uses it 

as winter range)4 102,110 (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

2 MTFWP winter range coverage’s. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980

4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range

Tables 71 and 72 display the snowmobile use routes and areas that occur outside of the area 

closures.

Table 71. Snow Use Routes Outside of Area Closures*

Miles on NFS Lands

Snow Use Routes 945

* 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 72. Snow Use Areas Outside of Area Closures*

Acres on NFS Lands

Snow Use Areas 49,236

* 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 73 and 74 display the overlap between winter range, snow use routes, and snow use areas. 

For most species there is little overlap of snow use routes and winter range. Although many of 

the miles of snow use routes are within moose winter range, the overall amount of moose winter 

range on the Forest is so large that the effects are diluted. Also, given the large extent of moose 

winter range on the Forest, it is to be expected that any snow use route may overlap moose 

winter range. The acres of snow use areas that overlap moose winter range is very small (1%), as 

it is for all the other ungulate species. The impact to moose winter range will be very small if the 

miles of snow use routes were converted to acres (actual footprint of the routes). If the miles of 

snowmobile/ski trail routes were buffered to determine the “zone of influence,” the impact 

would still be low (<10 percent of winter range impacted for these species 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 each species. For example, using a 200 meter 

buffer on each side for deer for ski trails (the distance recommended in Freddy et al. (1986) to 

prevent locomotor responses to people 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 less than 10 percent. Even a very conservative 

estimate of impacts such as this, which very likely overestimates the extent of impacts, the 

results are low. Using a similar buffer for elk and moose also results in a low impact (<10%). If a 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 361

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 (<15%) for deer, elk, and moose. Using a conservative buffer of 500 meters on 

each side of a route for bighorn sheep (distance of bighorn sheep from “high use” routes in 

Papouchis et al. [2001]) also results in a low impact (<10%). This coarse-scale, forestwide look 

at the impacts of snow routes on big game winter range indicates a low impact forestwide.

There is very little overlap with bighorn sheep and mountain goat winter range.

Table 73. Miles of Snow Use Routes in Winter Range

Species Miles of Snow Use Routes on NFS Lands w/in 

Winter Range

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 160

Elk (general/winter)2 133

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 81

Moose (general/winter)2 540

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 3

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 70

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 1

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 0

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 0

Mountain Goat (winter)3 0

Total Acres (where at least one species uses it 

as winter range)4 632

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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980

Table 74. 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 Range (elk/deer)1 1,131 (<1%)

Elk (general/winter)2 853 (<1%)

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 1,035 (<1%)

Moose (general/winter)2 11,823 (1%)

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 0 (0%)

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 314 (<1%)

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 0 (0%)

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 0 (0%)

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 173 (2%)

Mountain Goat (winter)3 0 (0%)

Total Acres (where at least one species uses it 

as winter range)4 12,295 (1%)

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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

362 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980. 

4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range

Key Stressors Affecting Big Game

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);

• 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 14,115 acres/year (constrained budget), or 13,723 acres/year (unconstrained 

budget). Fire suppression is more likely to continue under Alternative A.

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-DC-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 363

FIRE-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 (16,337 acre/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives B 

Modified (15,815 acre/year), D (15,618 acre/year), and A (14,115 acre/year) under constrained 

budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified (19,480 acre/year) will have the 

most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (19,129 acre/year), D (16,543 acre/year), and 

A (13,723 acre/year). Approximately 10,000 acre/year of prescribed burning is predicted under 

the action alternatives, with 8,000 acre/year of prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the 

alternatives, C (2,345 acres) is expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under 

constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by B Modified (1,828 acres), D (1,627 acres) 

and then A (1,615 acres). Of the alternatives, D (6,543 acres) is expected to have more 

regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained budgets in the first decade, followed by A 

(5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 acres) and then C (4,649 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 KNF, 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 

KNF 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 KNF, 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 KNF, 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 KNF.

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 

(342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by B Modified (230,500 acres), A (204,300 

acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire may also be used more in MA5 compared 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

364 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B Modified (487,400 acres) have more than D 

(278,000 acres).

FW-GDL-WL-10 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-10 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, FW-OBJ-VEG-02, GA-DCVEG-FSH-01, GA-DC-WL-FSH-03, GA-DC-VEG-KOO-01, GA-DC-WL-KOO-04, GA-DCVEG-LIB-03, and GA-DC-VEG-TOB-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, 

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 didn’t 

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 365

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 KNF, 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 KNF 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 KNF and navigate to their chosen non-motorized recreation spot by driving a 

motorized vehicle on the KNF’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 KNF.

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-08, FW-GDL-WL-09, and FW-GDLWL-11 which limit disturbance to big game on winter range and during birthing/parturition.

Although FW-GDL-WL-10 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-10 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 (1,490,400 acres 

motorized, 1,812,700 acres over-snow motorized) will have the least acreage allowing motorized 

use, followed by Alternatives B Modified (1,637,300 acres motorized, 1,918,400 acres oversnow motorized), A (1,677,200 acres motorized, 1,961,100 acres over-snow motorized), and D 

(1,792,900 acres motorized, 1,987,700 acres over-snow motorized). These acreages reflect what 

will remain open to over-snow vehicle use based on closure order issued in conjunction with the 

final ROD for the Forest Plan. The desired conditions for over-snow vehicle use will have that 

use allowed on 1,500,700 acres under Alternative C, followed by 1,713,000 acres under 

Alternative B Modified, and 1,859,100 acres under Alternative D. These are the acres where the 

MA desired conditions allows over-snow vehicle use. These acres reflect the intent for future 

closures, following site-specific winter travel management. In addition to the differences in MA 

allocations among the alternatives, the existing area closures on the Forest would be retained 

under all alternatives. Some of these snowmobile closure areas overlap winter range. All 

alternatives have the same acreage of wilderness (MA1a, 93,700 acres). Alternative C (214,800 

acres) will have the most land in recommended wilderness (MA1b), followed by Alternatives B 

Modified (102,700 acres), A (102,500 acres), and D (37,300 acres). MA1a does not allow oversnow motorized use.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

366 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 or 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-10 will minimize disturbance, along with FW-GDL-WL-08, 09, and 11.

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 KNF, but their impacts would be 

minimized through FW-DC-GRZ-01. 

Table 75. Acres Closed to Over-Snow Motor Vehicle Use by Alternative

Alternative Forest Service Acres

A 258,000

B Modified 298,600

C 404,300

D 230,600

As shown Table 75, the acres of area closures where over-snow motor vehicle use is not 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 

76 and 77, respectively. Again, Alternative C has the least miles of snow use routes and acres of 

snow use areas due to an increase in recommended wilderness.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 367

Table 76. Miles of Snow Use Routes Outside of Area Closures

Alternative Forest Service Miles

A 945

B Modified 937

C 918

D 945

Table 77. Acres of Snow Use Areas Outside of Area Closures

Alternative Forest Service Acres

A 49,236

B Modified 49,187

C 39,263

D 49,233

Tables 78 through 80 display the acres of winter range within area closures by alternative.

Table 78. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use for 

Alternative B Modified

Species Winter Range on NFS Lands within Area Closures (% of 

winter range)

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 59,022 (9%)

Elk (general/winter)2 34,844 (9%)

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 40,681 (12%)

Moose (general/winter)2 83,821 (8%)

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 4,304 (31%)

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 33,190 (12%)

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 2,561 (30%)

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 4,593 (45%)

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 2,732 (35%)

Mountain Goat (winter)3 4,019 (76%)

Total Acres (where at least one species 

uses it as winter range)

4 117,622 (9%)

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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980 4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

368 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 79. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use for 

Alterative C

Species Winter Range on NFS Lands within Area Closures (% of 

winter range)

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 63,283 (9%)

Elk (general/winter)2 36,681 (10%)

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 48,650 (14%)

Moose (general/winter)2 125,811 (13%)

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 4,938 (36%)

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 33,852 (12%)

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 2,561 (30%)

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 7,294 (72%)

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 3,081 (39%)

Mountain Goat (winter)3 4,274 (80%)

Total Acres (where at least one species 

uses it as winter range)

4 166,889 (12%)

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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980

4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range

Table 80. Acres of Winter Range within the Areas Closed to Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use for 

Alterative D

Species Winter Range on NFS Lands within Area Closures (% of 

winter range)

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 45,792 (7%)

Elk (general/winter)2 33,582 (9%)

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 36,356 (11%)

Moose (general/winter)2 72,077 (7%)

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 4,304 (3%)

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 32,551 (11%)

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 2,206 (26%)

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 5,198 (51%)

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 1,756 (22%)

Mountain Goat (winter)3 3,094 (58%)

Total Acres (where at least one species 

uses it as winter range)

4 99,240 (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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980 4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 369

Tables 81 through 83 display the overlap of snow use routes with winter range by action 

alternative.

Table 81. Miles of Snow Use Routes in Winter Range for Alternative B Modified

Species Miles of Snow Use Routes on NFS Lands w/in Winter 

Range

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 160

Elk (general/winter)2 133

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 81

Moose (general/winter)2 540

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 3

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 70

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 1

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 0

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 0

Mountain Goat (winter)3 0

Total Acres (where at least one species 

uses it as winter range)

4 632

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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980

4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range

Table 82. Miles of Snow Use Routes within Winter Range for Alternative C

Species Miles of Snow Use Routes on NFS Lands w/in Winter 

Range

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 160

Elk (general/winter)2 133

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 81

Moose (general/winter)2 535

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 3

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 70

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 1

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 0

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 0

Mountain Goat (winter)3 0

Total Acres (where at least one species 

uses it as winter range)

4 628

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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980 4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

370 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 83. Miles of Snow Use Routes within Winter Range for Alternative D

Species Miles of Snow Use Routes on NFS Lands w/in Winter 

Range

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 161

Elk (general/winter)2 133

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 81

Moose (general/winter)2 539

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 3

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 70

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 1

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 0

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 0

Mountain Goat (winter)3 0

Total Acres (where at least one species 

uses it as winter range)

4 632

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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980

4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range

Tables 84 through 86 display the overlap of snow use areas with winter range by action 

alternative.

Table 84. Acres of Snow Use Areas within Winter Range for Alternative B Modified

Species Acres of Snow Use Areas on NFS Lands w/in Winter 

Range (% of winter range)

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 1,131 (<1%)

Elk (general/winter)2 853 (<1%)

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 1,035 (<1%)

Moose (general/winter)2 11,823 (1%)

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 0 (0%)

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 314 (<1%)

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 0 (0%)

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 0 (0%)

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 173 (2%)

Mountain Goat (winter)3 0 (0%)

Total Acres (where at least one species 

uses it as winter range)

4 12,295 (1%)

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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980

4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 371

Table 85. Acres of Snow Use Areas within Winter Range for Alternative C

Species Acres of Snow Use Areas on NFS Lands w/in Winter 

Range (% of winter range)

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 1,114 (<1%)

Elk (general/winter)2 853 (<1%)

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 1,023 (<1%)

Moose (general/winter)2 11,819 (1%)

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 0 (0%)

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 314 (<1%)

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 0 (0%)

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 0 (0%)

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 173 (2%)

Mountain Goat (winter)3 0 (0%)

Total Acres (where at least one species 

uses it as winter range)

4 12,268 (1%)

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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980 4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range

Table 86. Acres of Snow Use Areas within Winter Range for Alternative D

Species Acres of Snow Use Areas on NFS Lands w/in Winter 

Range (% of winter range)

KIPZ General Winter Range (elk/deer)1 1,131 (<1%)

Elk (general/winter)2 853 (<1%)

Mule Deer (general/winter)2 1,035 (<1%)

Moose (general/winter)2 11,823 (1%)

Bighorn Sheep (general/winter)2 0 (0%)

Whitetail Deer (winter)2 314 (<1%)

Mountain Goat (general/winter)2 0 (0%)

Mountain Goat (likely winter)3 0 (0%)

Mountain Goat (possible winter)3 173 (2%)

Mountain Goat (winter)3 0 (0%)

Total Acres (where at least one species 

uses it as winter range)

4 12,295 (1%)

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

2 MTFWP winter range coverages. Shows general/winter range (winter range can be used during other seasons as well 

and are not solely used as winter range), 1:100,000

3 From Gayle Joslin’s (MTFWP) “Mountain Goat Habitat Management Plan for the Cabinet Mountains,” 1980

4 This total is not a cumulative total of all the individual acreages in each column because there is overlap among the 

species’ winter ranges. This is the total of acres where at least one species may use it as winter range
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

372 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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 

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 or 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 373

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 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-10, 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;

• Wilderness areas (MA1a-DC-WL-01, MA1b-DC-WL-01, MA1c-DC-WL-01), IRAs, and 

other non-motorized areas (FW-STD-WL-02 and 03, FW-GDL-WL-10, MA3-DC-WL-01, 

and MA5abc-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-CLK-01 and 02; GA-DC-WL-FSH-02 and 03; GA-DC-WL-KOO-01, 

03, and 04; GA-DC-WL-LIB-02 and 03; and GA-DC-WL-TOB-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-08 and 09 are designed to minimize or avoid 

disturbance to big game on winter ranges, and FW-GDL-WL-11 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-16). 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

374 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Connectivity

Affected Environment

Connectivity was evaluated as several scales. First, the effects of the 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 KNF is contiguous with the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to the west, Canada to the 

north, the Flathead NF to the east, and the Lolo NF to the south. Wildlife and natural ecosystem 

processes occur irrespective of political boundaries. On the KNF, 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) and highways (200, 2, 56, and 37) has reduced connectivity of patches to some 

degree. In addition, roads may also serve as dispersal routes for some wildlife and plant species.

There is one small ski area on the KNF (Turner Mountain) 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 

eleven existing electric transmission lines on the KNF. All of the lines, except for one, are a part 

of the northwest power transmission grid and are interconnected. All of the lines are of two sizes, 

115kv and 230kv.

Railroads also can create barriers to wildlife movement, such as the railroad that parallels the 

Kootenai River.

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.

Changes to connectivity have largely been associated with roads. Just prior to the time the 

existing Forest Plan was approved in September, 1987, about 27 percent of the NFS roads had 

either yearlong or seasonal prohibitions in effect (table 87) (1987 Forest Plan FEIS, page IV-51). 

The Plan projected that in order to provide the issue resolution desired, about 57 percent of the 

roads would eventually need some form of prohibition. This would be about double the miles of 

road with prohibitions at the time the revised Forest Plan was approved. The assumption was that 

the number of new roads needed to harvest timber would increase significantly, and that they 

would all have prohibitions in effect when the timber sales were completed - the net result being 

an increase in the number of miles of road with prohibitions but the number of miles of roads 

without prohibitions would remain the same. The need for additional prohibitions was to protect 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 375

dispersed recreation values, provide for wildlife security in big game winter and summer range, 

reduce road maintenance costs, and provide for grizzly bear recovery. Because of the significant 

increase in the amount of miles of road under prohibitions needed (from 27 percent to 57 

percent), it was assumed that it would take about 10 years to accomplish. This is about an 11 

percent increase each year to reach the planned level.

By 1997, the objective of having prohibitions on approximately 57 percent of the Forest's roads 

(Forest Plan page II-10) was achieved. By 2002, the percentage of existing roads with either 

yearlong or seasonal prohibitions reached 63 percent. In 2004, the percentage stabilized at 63 

percent and continued to be stable through 2007. It has increased to 65 percent in 2009. Table 87 

shows the progression. The roads with prohibitions are both yearlong and seasonal prohibitions. 

The percentage of roads with prohibitions is 8 percent greater than estimated, and the total 

amount roads without prohibitions are 1,699 miles less than was estimated in the 1987 Forest 

Plan. This is partly a result of the fact that new road construction was less than anticipated due to 

reductions in the timber sale program. Prohibitions have been placed on roads that previously 

had no prohibitions (which were not anticipated to have prohibitions in the Forest Plan) and on 

newly constructed roads. The reasons for these unanticipated prohibitions include additional 

wildlife habitat security measures, to decrease potential sedimentation, and to improve 

hydrological conditions.

The trend over the last five years is that the number of roads where motor vehicle use is 

prohibited, either yearlong or seasonally, has risen slightly (approximately 86 miles).

Table 87. Forest Roads Access Restrictions

FY Total 

Miles of 

Road

Total Miles of 

Road with 

Prohibitions

% of Total 

Roads with 

Prohibitions

Total Miles of 

Road without 

Prohibitions

Difference in 

Miles of Road 

without 

Prohibitions 

since FY87

87 6,200 1,669 27% 4,530 0

92 7,149 3,784 53% 3,365 (1,165)

97 7,460 4,275 57% 3,185 (1,345)

02 7,954 4,982 63% 2,934 (1,596)

04 7,916 4,971 63% 2,945 (1,585)

06 7,908 4,968 63% 2,940 (1,590)

07 7,888 4,983 63% 2,905 (1,645)

08 7,886 5,030 64% 2,856 (1,674)

09 7,888 5,057 65 2,831 (1,699)

* National Forest System roads only, where motor vehicle use is prohibited either yearlong or seasonally

The 1987 Forest Plan contained direction for connectivity, generally in terms of providing travel 

corridors for big game. In many cases, these travel corridors were simply timbered stands, 

approximately 150-300 feet wide, which occurred between regeneration harvest units. The 

importance of connectivity has been addressed in recovery plans (grizzly bear [1993]), the 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines [1986], various biological opinions, and the Northern 

Rockies Lynx Management Direction (2007).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

376 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

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 2 and 3 in the existing Forest 

Plan) areas are generally without roads and are in unsuitable timberlands. These areas vary in 

size (300 to 22,000 acres) 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. See table 88.

Table 88. Acres (1987 Plan as amended) of Management Areas 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9

Management Area Description Existing Acres

2 Semi-primitive Non-motorized 302,800

3 Semi-primitive Motorized 13,400

7 Existing Wilderness 93,500

8 Recommended Wilderness 102,500*

9 Montana Wilderness Study Area 34,100*

* 26,000 acres overlap in both MA8 and 9. These 26,000 acres are both within the Wilderness Study Area and are 

Recommended Wilderness

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) on the KNF account for 28 percent of the land base. 257,000 

acres (or 11 percent of NFS lands) of the IRAs currently allow for road construction and road 

reconstruction and 265,000 acres do not allow for road construction/road reconstruction (1

percent of land base). There are 117,000 acres currently in recommended wilderness. IRAs

contribute to connectivity and provide security habitat for species.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 377

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 KNF. 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 

amount and changed the age-class structure of five needle pines (i.e., western white pine and 

whitebark pine) throughout the Forest.

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

378 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Related to Key Stressors under Forest Service Control

Vegetation/Fire Management: Alternative A is most likely to result in the continued 

suppression of most fires.

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 conditions towards desired conditions (FW-DCVEG-01 through FW-DC-VEG-08, FW-DC-VEG-10 and 11, FW-STD-VEG-01 and 02, FWGDL-VEG-01 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 (16,337 acres/year) will have the most active restoration 

followed by Alternatives B Modified (15,815 acres/year), D (15,618 acres/year), and A (14,115 

acres/year) under constrained budgets. With an unconstrained budget, Alternative B Modified 

(19,480 acres/year) will have the most active restoration followed by Alternatives C (19,129 

acres/year), D (16,543 acres/year), and A (13,723 acres/year). Approximately 10,000 acres/year 

of prescribed burning will be predicted under the action alternatives, with 8,000 acres/year of 

prescribed burning in Alternative A. Of the alternatives, C (2,345 acres) will be expected to have 

more regeneration treatments per year under constrained budgets in the first decade, followed by 

B Modified (1,828 acres), D (1,627 acres) and then A (1,615 acres). Of the alternatives, D (6,543 

acres) will be expected to have more regeneration treatments per year under unconstrained 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 379

budgets in the first decade, followed by A (5,644 acres), B Modified (4,980 acres) and then C 

(4,649 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

or maintenance of habitat pattern. The action alternatives have more flexibility to use fire for 

habitat restoration or maintenance. The use of natural, unplanned ignitions (passive restoration) 

is more likely in MA1, and Alternative C (342,600 acres) will have the most MA1, followed by 

B Modified (230,500 acres), A (204,300 acres equivalent to MA1), and D (163,900 acres). Fire 

may also be used more in MA5 compared to MA6, and Alternatives C (477,900 acres) and B 

Modified (487,400 acres) have more than D (278,000 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, MA2-DC-FIRE-01, 

MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-GDL-FIRE-01 through 03, MA5abc-DC-VEG-01, MA5abc-DCFIRE-01, and MA5abc-GDL-FIRE-01. This will be useful to maintain or 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-STD-TBR-08, 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/ acre in the 10"-20" dbh range 

woill 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/ acre 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 

380 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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) 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 (+128,011 acres), C 

(+127,165 acres), D (+77,382 acres), and A (+54,032 acres). With constrained budgets, there will 

be an increase in acres in this size class in the next 50 years for Alternatives B Modified 

(+134,742 acres), D (+132,481 acres), C (+129,377 acres), and A (+110,286 acres). All of these 

increases will push the amount of large/very large size class acres towards the desired conditions. 

A lot of the middle size class becomes large/very large over the next 50 years.

The GA direction is suited for the dynamic habitats found on the KNF and is compatible with the 

desired conditions for vegetation and fire found in the 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 KNF and is better than having 

static, inflexible, mapped polygons that are incompatible with the KNF’s dynamic natural 

disturbance processes. Additionally, because there are currently no crossing structures existing or 

planned across highways that cut through the KNF, nor are there any multi-agency/landowner 

agreements to manage connectivity within or adjacent to the KNF’s boundary, the flexible nature 

of the GA and forestwide direction allows the KNF 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 the revised Forest 

Plan is more compatible with the dynamic habitats and natural disturbance processes on the KNF 

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 KNF. The KNF’s concept for 

connectivity is similar to the KNF’s concept for the desired conditions for vegetation and fire. 

The habitats, and connectivity, on the KNF are dynamic and reflective of natural disturbance 

processes. Managing for the desired conditions for vegetation and fire in the revised Forest Plan, 

combined with the connectivity direction in the GA and forestwide sections of the action 

alternatives, will provide the habitats and connectivity similar to the conditions species on the 

KNF evolved with under natural disturbance processes.

Grazing can impact connectivity through alteration of vegetation communities, although this 

impact will be small on the KNF because of the limited grazing opportunities. Grazing can 

reduce the amount of forage available for native wildlife, the presence of livestock can cause 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 381

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 

populations. Alternative C (1,490,400 acres motorized, 1,812,700 acres over-snow motorized) 

will have the least acreage allowing motorized use, followed by Alternatives B Modified 

(1,637,300 acres motorized, 1,918,400 acres over-snow motorized), A (1,677,200 acres 

motorized, 1,961,100 acres over-snow motorized), and D (1,792,900 acres motorized, 1,987,700 

acres over-snow motorized). These acreages reflect what will remain open to over-snow vehicle 

use based on closure order issued in conjunction with the final ROD for the Forest Plan. The 

desired conditions for over-snow vehicle use will have that use allowed on 1,500,700 acres under 

Alternative C, followed by 1,713,000 acres under Alternative B Modified, and 1,859,100 acres 

under Alternative D. These are the acres where the MA desired conditions allows over-snow 

vehicle use. These acres reflect the intent for future closures, following site-specific winter travel 

management. In addition to the differences in MA allocations among the alternatives, the 

existing area closures on the Forest will be retained under all alternatives. All alternatives have 

the same acreage of wilderness (MA1a, 93,700 acres). Alternative C (214,800 acres) will have 

the most land in recommended wilderness (MA1b), followed by Alternatives B Modified 

(102,700 acres), A (102,500 acres), and D (37,300 acres). MA1a does not allow over-snow 

motorized use.

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, FW-STD-WL-02 through 03.

The desired condition (FW-DC-WL-17) will be for the KNF to work cooperatively with other 

agencies when there is a proposal to build or improve highways bisecting the KNF. When 

crossing structures are part of those highway projects, then human activities on the KNF 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 KNF lands near future crossing structures is the same for all action 

alternatives (FW-DC-WL-17, FW-GDL-WL 13 through 15). The KNF 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 KNF 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 KNF 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-BUL 01, GA-DC-WL-CLK-03, GA-DC-WL-FSH-01, GA-DC-WL-KOO-02, GADC-WL-LIB-01, GA-DC-WL-TOB-01 and 02, GA-DC-WL-TOB-02, and GA-DC-WL-YAK-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

382 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

01. 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), IRAs, and other 

non-motorized areas (FW-STD-WL-02 and 03, MA3-DC-WL-01, and MA5abc-DC-WL-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-AR01 and 03, MA1b-STD-AR-01, MA1b-STD-AR-03, MA1c-STD-AR-03 and 04).

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 KNF 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.

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. That section summarizes activities and effects that are 

common to most species in this analysis. 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 383

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 KNF 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 

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 2010). Many adaptation opportunities (pages 92-93 in USDA 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 KNF. 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 that affects the KNF. Two draft maps showing these 

efforts in Canada were submitted to the KNF 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 KNF’s revised Forest Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

384 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 KNF across 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 KNF.

In 2010 British Columbia and the state of Montana signed a memorandum of understanding that 

recognizes the value of the natural resources in the North Fork of the Flathead River Basin. This 

area provides connectivity between Canada and the US for wildlife, including wide-ranging 

carnivores. As part of the MOU, mining, oil, and gas development and coalbed gas extraction 

would not be permitted. The MOU provides a framework for collaboration between British 

Columbia and Montana on environmental protection, climate action, and renewable energy (BC 

and MT MOU 2010). This MOU will maintain wildlife habitat and connectivity between 

Montana and Canada and will benefit native species using the area.

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-17) is for the KNF to work cooperatively with other 

agencies when there is a proposal to build or improve highways bisecting the KNF. When 

crossing structures are part of those highway projects, then human activities on the KNF 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 KNF lands near future crossing structures will be the same for all action 

alternatives (FW-DC-WL-17, FW-GDL-WL-13 through 15);

• GA direction that is specifically directed at maintaining/improving connectivity includes: 

GA-DC-WL-BUL 01, GA-DC-WL-CLK-03, GA-DC-WL-FSH-01, GA-DC-WL-KOO-02, 

GA-DC-WL-LIB-01, GA-DC-WL-TOB-01 and 02, GA-DC-WL-TOB-02, and GA-DC-WLYAK-01. 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), IRAs, and 

other non-motorized areas (FW-STD-WL-02 and 03, MA3-DC-WL-01, and MA5abc-DCWL-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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Terrestrial Wildlife 385

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 

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 will continue to take place on lands belonging to various entities, 

potentially diminishing the amount of habitat for wildlife or displacing them.

Ski area expansion, utility corridor construction, grazing, and mining are all possible future 

effects that could impact habitat or cause disturbance. The Rock Creek and Montanore mines are 

currently undergoing analysis and it is unknown exactly when implementation may occur. The 

Troy Mine is preparing environmental documents for an updated reclamation plan and for further 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

386 Terrestrial Wildlife Kootenai National Forest - EIS

exploration in the vicinity of the existing mine. Those separate analyses would determine the 

extent of impacts to species and their habitat.

The Montana State Wildlife Conservation Strategy would improve habitat for a variety of 

species, and when utilized on non-NFS ownerships should complement habitat improvement or 

maintenance on NFS lands. Several species analyzed in this document 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 will 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 motor vehicle 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. Private land development can lead to a loss of 

habitat and negatively impact connectivity. This can be especially problematic for small, isolated 

populations.

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Air Quality 387

Air Quality

Introduction

This section discloses the affected environment and environmental consequences to air quality 

that would result from implementing different programmatic level management strategies for the 

KNF. 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 unwanted wildfires. Although there are 

other potential sources of air pollution from management activities that occur on the KNF (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 forest 

“Vegetation” sections of this final EIS, there is strong need to use fire to maintain and restore the 

fire-adapted ecosystems on the KNF and as a tool to reduce hazardous fuels in the WUI.

In addition to considering how the alternatives may affect air quality from wood smoke, the 

potential impact of the alternatives on health concerns from asbestos exposure from the former 

vermiculite mine near Libby is presented.

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 Montana, 

the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MT 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. Prescribed fires that are ignited by land managers are considered 

anthropogenic, and therefore, subject to regulation.

Table 89 displays the NAAQS for the six criteria pollutants identified by EPA:

Table 89. 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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

388 Air Quality Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Pollutant Level Averaging Time Level Averaging 

Time

1.5 μg/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary

Nitrogen Dioxide 53 ppb Annual (Arithmetic Average) Same as Primary

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, Montana has designated these areas and other areas of 

concern as Impact Zones. In accordance with the Interim Policy, Montana 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 for prescribed burns within the state of Montana. 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 Montana and Idaho. Adherence to the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group Operating

Guide (2010) is the current accepted smoke management plan for the state of Montana.

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.

In 1998 the EPA released the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires

(Interim Policy) (US EPA 1998). 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Air Quality 389

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 naturally ignited fire 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, issued 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.

In Montana, the Forest Service is required to annually obtain an open burning permit from MT 

DEQ in order to conduct prescribed burning statewide. In addition, the Forest Service

participates in an organization known as the Montana-Idaho Airshed Group for prescribed burns 

within the state of Montana. 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 Montana and 

Idaho. During the fall burning season (September – December), the smoke management unit

coordinates with MT DEQ on burn approvals. During the winter season (December – February), 

the smoke management unit is not in operation; however, burning can potentially take place with 

special approval from MT DEQ. Montana DEQ also requires burners to use Best Available 

Control Technology. Their policy defines Best Available Control Technology as: those 

techniques and methods of controlling emission of pollutants from an existing or proposed open 

burning source which limit those emissions to the maximum degree which the Department of 

Environmental Quality determines, on a case-by-case basis, is achievable for that source, taking 

into account impacts on energy use, the environment, and the economy and any other costs, 

including the cost to the source.

For Lincoln County, Montana, special rules have been implemented concerning air quality. A 

special permit, as well as daily burn approval, must be granted from the Libby Air Quality 

District. These special regulations exist to protect the Libby and Eureka Impact Zones.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

390 Air Quality Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 unwanted 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.

Changes between Draft to Final

A discussion of the asbestos related health concerns in the vicinity of Libby was added to this 

“Air Quality” section.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Because the area contained within the KNF 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 

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 Eureka and Libby. Libby is also 

classified as a non-attainment area for the PM2.5 annual standard (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. Areas of population generally exist in valley bottoms 

where mixing and dispersion of air is reduced. Sources of pollution within these impact zones, 

including smoke, are closely monitored and regulated.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Air Quality 391

Figure 32. Western Montana Airsheds and Impact Zones taken from the MT/ID Airshed Group 

2010 Operations Guide

The MT 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 (NRCG 

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 

sources responsible for visibility impairments (US EPA, March 2001).

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.

In the Rainy Creek-Alexander area northeast of Libby, Montana, a vermiculite mine was in 

operation on private land for about 70 years. The mine closed in 1990. In 2002, the mine and 

some areas around Libby and Troy were placed on the EPA’s National Priorities List for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

392 Air Quality Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Superfund Sites due to contamination from amphibole asbestos (see 

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/libby/background.html). A portion of the land within the 

boundary of the National Priority List area for Libby is administered by the KNF (see 

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/libby/). Asbestos is a recognized human carcinogen and 

is classified as a hazardous substance (40 CFR 302.4). Inhaled asbestos is associated with three 

major diseases: Asbestosis (scaring of lung tissue that eventually restricts one’s ability to inhale); 

Lung Cancer (asbestos increases the risk of lung cancer, especially in combination with exposure 

to tobacco smoke); and Mesothelioma (cancer of the lung lining and chest wall) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/libby/healthrisk.html). Although oral ingestion and 

dermal exposure routes may exist, health risks from these exposures are low compared to health 

risks from inhalation (USDHHS 2001). Chronic exposure is a significant risk factor for asbestosrelated disease, although brief episodic exposures may contribute to disease (USDHHS 2008).

In 2006, researchers discovered that amphibole asbestos fibers were present in the crevices of 

tree bark near the former mine site (Ward et al. 2006, Ward et al. 2012). Fibers were also located 

in the duff layer of the soil. Subsequent research evaluated potential asbestos exposures from 

firewood-harvesting simulations, from burning contaminated firewood, and from activities 

designed to simulate various types of work that Forest Service employees might undertake in the 

area (Hart et al. 2007, Ward et al. 2009, and Hart et al. 2009). As a result of these research 

activities, the Forest Service developed an informational brochure for dissemination to the public 

that contains precautions to consider when recreating or harvesting firewood in the area (USDA 

2009). In addition, until more definitive information is available regarding the potential risks of 

conducting management activities in this area, the Forest Service is taking precautionary 

measures such as changing the way it conducts fire suppression activities in the area and 

modifying or delaying tree thinning and other forest management activities that could potentially 

put employees or the public at risk.

The Forest Service, Montana Department of Natural Resources, EPA, and the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health are working together to research the question of whether or 

not asbestos fibers are released in wildfire smoke. Ongoing as well as future research is planned 

by this group. The Montana Logging Association is also working with the agencies mentioned 

above on questions related to how logging or other vegetation management activities may impact 

employee and public health issues associated with the asbestos. In addition, the KNF 

collaborated with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health during the summer 

of 2012 to conduct more research/monitoring on the potential asbestos exposure of employees or 

contractors while doing typical work chores in the field.

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 (page II-6) and standards (Air Quality standard #13) and the 

action alternatives contain forestwide desired conditions (FW-DC-AQ-01) and guidelines (FWGDL-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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Air Quality 393

is managed to meet resource objectives, and how much unwanted wildfire may occur. The 

alternatives do contain plan components related to fire that could influence these elements and 

they are summarized below.

Regarding the asbestos health issues associated with the Rainy Creek-Alexander area, the 

potential contamination of national forest lands had not been identified as a concern at the time 

the 1987 Forest Plan was developed. Therefore, the 1987 Forest Plan does not contain any 

direction related to that issue. In contrast, all of the action alternatives associated with the revised 

Forest Plan contains direction related to the continued coordination and cooperation of the KNF 

with other agencies to evaluate and manage health risks associated with the area and to design 

any management activities in the area to mitigate the risks (GA-DC-MIN-LIB-01). In addition, 

in the event of wildfires occurring in the area, direction was added to all the action alternatives to 

manage a wildfire incident to limit firefighter and public exposure to the asbestos (GA-DCFIRE-LIB-02).

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 within the KNF boundary is classified as a Class I Airshed. 

Smoke from prescribed fire, natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives, and

wildfires all may cause visibility impairments.

Smoke from unwanted 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 allowing natural, unplanned ignitions to be

managed to meet resource objectives. Because natural, unplanned ignitions being managed to 

meet resource objectives is still considered a natural event, smoke from these events is currently 

unregulated by MT 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 

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 air-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

394 Air Quality Kootenai National Forest - EIS

quality regulations on natural, unplanned ignitions that are 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 MT 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.

Concerning the asbestos issue, all of the alternatives respond equally to this concern. Even 

though the No-Action alternative does not contain specific direction related to this concern, the 

KNF has, and will continue to manage the area according to recommendations and input from 

EPA and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. As new research and risk 

assessments are conducted, the KNF will adjust management practices as appropriate to provide 

for human safety.

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 KNF 

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 KNF 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 KNF from managing natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives, including 

air quality. While there is not specific regulation addressing wildfires, the MT DEQ still 

maintains the authority to enforce NAAQS, including stopping land managers from allowing a 

fire to burn during times of poor air quality.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Air Quality 395

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

• Cultural Resources

• American Indian Rights and Interests
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

396 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Access and Recreation

Introduction

The focus of outdoor recreation management is to provide a 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 and Trail 

Management Objectives, Travel Management, and Road and Trail Maintenance; and Recreation, 

including Recreation Setting, 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 

KNF. 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 397

• 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 

398 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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.

• American with Disabilities Act (ADA), 1990, 42 U.S.C. 1201

• 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 KNF.

• 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 399

transportation facilities and federal lands access transportation facilities under a unified 

program with policy similar to federal-aid highways and other public transportation 

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

• 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 Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and 

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 considered 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 scenic integrity objectives categories.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

400 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 considered, over-snow vehicle use would be 

allowed, over-snow vehicle use would be consistent with desired conditions, or mechanized use 

would be allowed.

Each MA identifies the desired condition and any restrictions (standards) to motor vehicle use, 

over-snow vehicle use, or mechanized use. GIS was then used to calculate the number of acres 

for each MA across the Forest. Acres currently closed to over-snow vehicle use because of 

winter range were also included. The summary acres where motor vehicle use, over-snow 

vehicle use, and mechanized use would be desired or allowed within each alternative were then 

calculated.

Note: Where motor-vehicle use is discussed in this FEIS relative to road, trail, and area or crosscountry travel, it includes all types of motor vehicles as defined at 212.1 except over-snow 

vehicles. This generally indicates wheeled motor vehicles such as automobiles, four-wheel drive 

vehicles, and OHVs (except over-snow), but also 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). Effects of these two 

recreation opportunities are analyzed as separate activities in this FEIS and are referred to as 

either “motor vehicle use” or “over-snow vehicle use.”

When the term motorized access or motorized recreation is used, it refers to all vehicles ─ both 

motor-vehicles (excluding over-snow) and over-snow vehicles.

Each alternative was analyzed for the total number of acres and percentage of the Forest in 

various ROS classes and categories of scenic integrity objectives. The inventoried ROS was used

along with the desired condition range for ROS for each MA. Each MA includes desired 

conditions 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 snow-covered ground conditions. The term over-snow vehicle is used when referring 

to winter (snow-covered ground conditions) motorized recreation opportunities. (See the FEIS 

glossary for the full definitions of these terms per 36 CFR 212.) The descriptive “wheeled” was 

included to contrast with over-snow 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 definitions at 36 CFR 212 or 

current KNF motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs). The legal order on the KNF MVUM states: “It 

is prohibited to possess or operate a motor vehicle on NFS lands on the KNF other than in 

accordance with these designations (CFR 261.13)....This map does not display nonmotorized 

uses, over-snow uses, or other facilities and attractions on the KNF...”
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 401

Where over-snow vehicle use is legally allowed or prohibited is established by existing legal 

orders under §261.50 and §261.54.

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 

when referring to road, trail, and area designations for non-over snow recreation use. This does 

not change any existing or analyzed recreation opportunity and only clarifies terminology.

Update to Acres Allowing Road Construction: These acres were corrected in the FEIS to 

reflect MA direction.

Site-Specific Changes in Trail and Area Motor Vehicle Use, Over-snow Use, Mechanized 

Use, and Hand Held Motorized Use: The miles of trail and acres of area by use have been 

updated in the final EIS. For action alternatives trails and areas where motorized, mechanized, or 

hand held motorized uses are allowed were updated to include site-specific restrictions in MA1b 

(recommended wilderness) and MA4 (Research Natural Areas). Trails (within, or accessing) and 

areas within MA1b or MA4, will have a legal closure issued in conjunction with the final ROD.

Analysis of Acres Where Over-Snow Vehicle Use is Consistent with Desired Conditions: In 

addition, analysis was completed on acres where over-snow vehicle use would be consistent with 

desired conditions. Management areas 2 (eligible wild rivers), 3 (botanical, zoological, and 

historic special areas), and 5a (backcountry year-round non-motorized) have desired conditions 

of year-round non-motorized opportunities.

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 SemiPrimitive 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 an MA, the acres of inventoried ROS were used to 

determine acres by ROS.

Table 58 in the DEIS incorrectly displayed ROS for the IPNF, and has been changed to display 

ROS for the KNF.

Update to Number of Recreation Sites, National Visitor Use Monitoring Information: The 

number of recreation sites (developed, dispersed, and privately provided) have been updated 

based on additional dispersed sites inventory and data correction. National Visitor Use 

information has been updated with 2012 revisions of Round 2 data. While Round 3 data was 

collected in 2012, the final report is not yet available.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Transportation System

Across the KNF there are approximately 7,863 miles of road and 1,500 miles of trails under 

Forest Service jurisdiction. Additional miles of roads cross the Forest, but are managed and 

administered by other jurisdictions such as state, county, or private.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

402 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 and trails has been constructed. . This transportation 

system has continual management and maintenance needs. The roads provide access for 

administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands. 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 and trails is founded in laws, regulations, and agency directives.

One part of that direction requires management objectives be established for all NFS routes. 

These management objectives take into consideration: MA direction; needs for coordination of 

uses; access management, and the 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:

• 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. Generally, most arterial and collector roads are aggregate surfaced, although some 

have a paved surface. Most local roads are native surfaced. Table 90 displays the miles by 

functional class.

Table 90. Summary of KNF Roads by Functional Class

Functional Class Miles

Arterial 324

Collector 2,264

Local 5,254

Not assigned 21

Total 7,863

Source: Infra: Travel Routes 12/2012

• 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 403

• 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 91 displays the miles by traffic service level.

Table 91. Summary of KNF Roads by Traffic Service Level

Traffic Service Level Miles

Level A 124

Level B 143

Level C 1,906

Level D 5,164

Not Assigned 526

Total 7,863

Source: Infra: Travel Routes 12/2012

• 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 92 displays the miles of roads by operational maintenance level. Figure 33 displays the 

operational maintenance level by district.

Table 92. Summary of KNF Roads by Operational Maintenance Level

Operational Maintenance Level Miles

Level 5 69

Level 4 125

Level 3 1,512

Level 2 1,931

Level 1 4,214

Not Assigned 12

Total 7,863

Source: Infra: Travel Routes 12/2012
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

404 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 33. Operational Maintenance Level by District

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 KNF. Over the last 15 to 20 years, 

the KNF has decommissioned approximately 980 miles of road.

The KNF 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 transportation system and are treated to reduce the risk of undesirable 

resource impacts in the absence of routine maintenance while in stored (closed) status. Over the 

last 15 to 20 years the KNF has put about 283 miles of NFS roads into intermittent stored 

service.

Site-specific, project-level travel analyses conducted across the KNF are used to prioritize 

maintenance needs and identify opportunities for decommissioning roads or treating roads for 

intermittent stored service as the KNF 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) document the intended purpose of an NFS trail based on 

management direction, including access objectives. Strategies defined in the Federal Trail Data 

Standards developed by the Forest Service, NPS, BLM and FWS include:

• 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 a 

management decision or intent to accommodate and/or encourage a specified type of trail 

use. Manage strategies used are: encourage, accept, and discourage.

• Restricted Use – Restricted uses are those where use is restricted by CFR or Forest Order. 

The most typical or restriction are to motor vehicle use or over-snow motor vehicle use. 

Restrict strategies used are eliminate and prohibit. Where use is not restricted, it is allowed.

There can be more than one managed use per trail or trail segment and the managed use may 

only be a subset of the allowed uses on the trail. Not all trails where use is allowed are actively 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 405

managed for that use. For example, a trail may allow (no restrictions) mountain bike use, but not 

be maintained for mountain bike use, so mountain bike use is discouraged.

Table 93 displays the miles of trails on the KNF managed for various uses. There are a total of 

1,812 miles of trail on the KNF. Managed uses are only indicated when there is a specific 

management need for the information. For example, the 43 miles of trail managed for crosscountry skiing are the trails that are groomed, while all 1,812 miles of trails are open to crosscountry skiing.

Table 93. Miles of Managed and Allowed Use on the KNF1

Type of Use Use Miles Activity Managed

Non-motorized Hiker/Pedestrian 1,463

Non-motorized Pack and Saddle 1,017

Non-motorized Cross-country Ski 43

Mechanized Bicycle 84

Motorized Motor Vehicle/Motor Bike 144

Motorized Motor Vehicle OHV <50 inches 38

Motorized Over-snow 2842

1

Total miles of managed/allowed use will not sum equal to miles of trail as there may be overlapping uses per trail or trail 

segment

2 Includes roads with dual designations as snow trails

Source: Infra Travel Routes 5/2013 (Miles have been rounded)

Partners, volunteers, organizations, and other funding sources such as the State OHV and 

Recreation Trail Program are important to the KNF in managing trail uses.

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 and every person served. 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. Providing a “fair” allocation between different forest users is a 

challenging task and the KNF recognizes it cannot equally meet the needs of all recreation 

groups.

Motorized recreation management on the KNF began in the 1960s, with U-Regulations in 

designated wilderness and recreation areas. Motor vehicle use restrictions were proposed in 

newly established Scenic Areas (Northwest Peaks and Ten Lakes) to “preserve the wilderness 

atmosphere and back up the management goals for these areas.” Trail conditions, existing uses, 

and potential for conflict were the rational used for the restrictions.

Federal off-road vehicle (ORV) policy was established by Executive Order (EO) 11644 in 1972, 

(and amended by EO 11989 in 1977) 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 minimize conflicts among the various users of those lands.” 

In response to this EO and regulations from 36 CFR 295 (1973), the KNF published its first 

Travel Plan in February 1977, according to Supervisor Morden in a 1980 letter. This travel plan 

identified ‘National Forest land designated open’, ‘Area closed to all motorized vehicles’, and 

‘area with restrictions or closures’, as well as designated roads open or with restrictions to motor 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

406 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

vehicle use. The Travel Plan index listed reasons for restrictions including: elk calving, winter 

game range, primitive recreation, and fragile soils. Subsequent travel plans were published 

forestwide in 1978 and a color map circa 1980-1983.

Use of motor vehicles regulations were updated in 1978 (36 CFR 295, 1978) to include 

publication of maps, monitoring effects of vehicle use off forest development roads, and moved 

prohibitions regarding use of vehicles to part 261. Forest supervisors in the Northern Region 

were delegated the responsibility to monitor the effect of off-road vehicle use, 1979 R1 

Guidelines. Comments on a 1979 draft copy of the KNF off-road vehicles monitoring plan 

indicate little ORV use, and little resource or public safety concerns with ORV use at that time. 

In 1980, the KNF reexamined road closures and motorized restrictions with the public; looking 

at the basic purposes of the restriction, alternative ways to carry out the restrictions necessary, 

and ways to simplify the travel map.

In the Northern Region and on the KNF, road, trail, and off-road motorized vehicle planning was 

combined to produce travel plan maps for public information. Areas and routes where motorized 

use was restricted, and areas that were managed for motorized uses, were noted on the circa 

1980-1983 KNF Travel/Recreation Guide. Reasons for restrictions included wildlife habitat 

protection, soil erosion hazard, and non-motorized recreation. In addition, site-specific areas and 

roads were mapped that were ‘open to motorized vehicles managed primarily for recreation’.

District specific access maps were published from 1984 through 2005. The access maps were 

updated as needed, not necessarily on a yearly basis. These maps stated that ‘Many of these road 

management decisions were developed in cooperation with the State of Montana Fish, Wildlife, 

and Parks Department, primarily to protect wildlife habitat and provide security. Use of roads is 

also restricted to protect soil and water quality, and provide non-motorized recreation 

opportunities’. These maps displayed route and area restriction by season and mode of use (all 

motorized vehicles, over-snow vehicles). In addition recreation sites, routes, and areas that were 

open year round to all use were displayed.

The 1987 EIS for the Forest Plan included rational for road restriction to ‘minimize the cost of 

maintaining a road after a project has been completed, protect recreation value of an area, or 

protect wildlife values (1987 EIS, page II-86). Motorized restrictions proposed in the 1987 

Forest Plan in recommended wilderness (MA8) were implemented by Forest Order. This 

included area restriction to all motorized uses in additions to the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness 

and Scotchman Peaks recommended areas.

In 2001, the Off-Highway Vehicle Record of Decision and Plan Amendment for Montana, North 

Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota amended nine forest plans, including the 1987 Kootenai 

Forest Plan. This decision prohibited “wheeled” cross-country motor vehicle use on all NFS and 

BLM public lands in the three state areas except within 300 feet of roads and trails for access to 

a campsite. This decision provided direction to minimize resource damage and user-conflicts per 

the requirements of EO 11644 and the prohibition was implemented by Forest Order.

In 2006, district maps were published, which also had travel management information. These 

maps displayed motorized use route and area restrictions by season and mode of use (all 

motorized vehicles, over-snow vehicles). In addition recreation sites, snowmobile trails, routes,

and areas that were open year round to all use were displayed.

In response to the roads and travel management regulations at 36 CFR 212, each district 

completed a Travel Analysis Report for trails and maintenance level 2 through 5 roads. The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 407

analysis process included; describing the situation, identifying issues, assessing benefits, 

problems and concerns; and describing opportunities and setting priorities. The assessment of 

opportunities included benefit and concern criteria such as; known public desire for motorized 

access, user conflict, user safety, wildlife concerns, aquatic/watershed concerns, and spread of 

noxious weeds.

In 2009, the KNF published motor vehicle use maps (MVUMS) as required by 36 CFR 2012 

Subpart B, designating the roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. Once the MVUMs were 

published, the use of motor vehicles (except over-snow vehicles) off designated NFS roads, 

trails, and areas was prohibited. Although the KNF continues to offer district access maps for 

recreation planning, the MVUMs are the legal order reflecting where motor vehicle use (except 

over-snow) is allowed.

Over-snow vehicle use continues to be governed by Forest Orders pursuant to 36 CFR 261.54, 

which includes area closures established in site-specific planning to protect wildlife habitat and 

non-motorized recreation. Generally, forest monitoring has not indicated a need for change 

regarding over-snow vehicle use on the KNF. Two exceptions would include the over-snow 

vehicle use in the Ten Lakes Wilderness Study Area, which is currently undergoing site-specific 

travel management planning, and the boundary area of the Scotchman Peaks recommended 

wilderness area near Savage Peak.

Road Access

The current access status for NFS roads is summarized in table 94. The table displays the total 

miles of road, the miles designated yearlong, and the miles designated seasonally. The KNF

currently has about 3,553 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 94. Summary of KNF Roads by Designated Uses

Total Miles of Road Miles of Roads 

Designated Yearlong 

for Motorized Use

Miles of Roads 

Designated Seasonally 

for Motorized Use

Miles of Roads Open 

to Non-motorized and 

Mechanized Use

7,863 2,832 721 7,858

Source – Infra: Travel Routes 5/2010

All roads (whether designated for motor vehicle use or not) on the KNF allow non-motorized

and mechanized use. The only exception is road 401 in the Rainy Creek drainage which is closed 

to all traffic for health and safety reasons. The actual ability to use roads by non-motorized

means may be limited due to vegetation. Many roads on the KNF 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.

Trails Access

Table 95 displays the miles of trails on the KNF managed for various uses, and miles of trail 

open to those uses. The difference between managed and open miles is that the term ‘managed’

indicates a management decision or intent to accommodate and/or encourage a specific trail use. 

For example, the 43 miles of trail managed for cross-country skiing are the trails that are 

groomed for cross-country skiing, while all trails open (not restricted) cross-country skiing.

Miles of trail where use is described as ‘open’ is used in the environmental effects section. Miles 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

408 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

of managed trail is dependent on budget constraints, maintenance schedules and partnerships, 

and may change year to year.

Table 95. Summary of KNF Trails by Managed and Designated Uses

Type of Use Use Miles Activity 

Managed

Miles Trail Designated 

Open to Use1

Non-motorized Hiker/Pedestrian 1,463 1,812

Non-motorized Pack and Saddle 1,017 1,809

Non-motorized Cross-Country Ski 43 1,812

Mechanized Bicycle/game cart 84 1,718

Motorized Motor Vehicle/Motor Bike 144 144

Motorized Motor Vehicle/OHV <50 inches 38 38

Motorized Over-snow 2842 971

1 Motor vehicle use designated, or over-snow vehicle or mechanized use not restricted 2 Groomed over-snow routes

All trails (whether designated for motor vehicle use or not) on the KNF allow non-motorized 

use, such as hikers. The actual ability to use trails by non-motorized means may be limited due to 

trail design, vegetation, or maintenance.

Motor Vehicle Use Areas (36 CFR 212 Subpart B): Cross-country motor vehicle use has been 

prohibited across most of the Forest since 2001 as a result of the 2001 Off-Highway Vehicle Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and portions of South Dakota Try-State OHV Decision 

(2001). Two areas on the Kootenai allow for cross-country motor vehicle use: the Douglas Hill 

off highway vehicle area (approximately 200 acres) and the Lake Koocanusa drawdown area 

(approximately 3,600 acres). Both of these areas are located on the Rexford Ranger District. 

Other than these two areas, motor vehicle use is only allowed on those roads and trails as 

designated on the Forest MVUMs.

Over-snow Vehicle Use Area: In winter (generally December 1 – April 30) with adequate snow 

cover, the Forest is generally open to over-snow cross-country use. Over-snow motor vehicle use 

cross-country use is allowed where it is not expressly prohibited with a legal order (36 CFR 

261.50). The areas closed by Forest Order are the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, the 1987 

Forest Plan recommended wilderness areas, and several areas managed for non-motorized 

recreation and wildlife winter range protection. Of the 2,219,000 acres of the KNF, 

approximately 1,961,000 acres have no yearlong prohibition to cross-country over-snow vehicle 

use. However, not all of the areas available to over-snow vehicles are actually used. Vegetation,

topography, access, and precipitation have a large influence on opportunities for this type of use.

Mechanized Use: Mechanized use is managed the same as over-snow vehicle use. Under the 

1987 Forest Plan, mechanized use is allowed where it is not expressly prohibited with a legal 

order (36 CFR 261.50). Legal orders currently in effect prohibit mechanized use year-round on 

approximately 94 miles of NFS trails and approximately across 94,000 acres of NFS lands. The 

only area where mechanized use is prohibited is designated wilderness (e.g., Cabinet Mountains 

Wilderness).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 409

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).

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 Forest’s 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 1,400 miles of aggregate surfaced road on the KNF. 

Assuming an average life of 20 years, the Forest could be re-surfacing approximately 70 miles 

per year.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

410 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 KNF has been able to maintain, on an annual basis, approximately 20 percent of the 

open roads on the Forest (see table 96). As a result, roads are maintained on a priority basis. User 

safety, resource protection, and mission needs are used to prioritize roads for maintenance.

Ongoing travel analysis continues to identify opportunities to treat roads for intermittent stored 

service or decommission unneeded roads to reduce the overall road maintenance burden.

Table 96. Average Annual Road Maintenance Accomplished 2001 through 2012

Miles of Open Roads in 2012

(Op. ML 2,3,4, &5)

Average Miles Receiving 

Maintenance Over 13-year 

Period

Average % of Open Roads 

Receiving Maintenance Over 

13-Year Period

3,637 681 20%

Source – Road Accomplishment Reports from 2001-2013

Roads identified during travel analysis as needed for the long-term, but not needed in the shortterm, 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 costs for trails are generally less than those for road systems, allocated 

trail maintenance funding generally falls short of what is needed to maintain the trails to 

standards (see table 97). Partners, volunteers, and organizations play a vital role in assisting with 

trail maintenance forestwide.

Table 97. Average Annual Trail Maintenance Accomplished

Miles of Trail Miles Maintained to Standard % Maintained to Standard

1,812 920 51%

Source – NRM Trail Accomplishment 2009-2012

Recreation

The KNF finalized its Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA) Report in September of 2007 and 

developed a Recreation Niche Statement with public involvement. The niche serves as the vision 

for the Forest’s recreation program and to ensure unique attributes are maintained for future 

generations. The following is the KNF recreation niche:

Vast by Nature, Uncrowded by Design

Bordering Canada and nestled in the mountainous terrain of NW Montana, the 

KNF holds impressive forests, wildlife and landscapes, including striking cliffs, 

spires, river canyons, and the magnificent peaks of the Cabinet Mountains 

Wilderness and the Whitefish Range. This vast uncrowded landscape has been 

the lifeblood for many people’s for thousands of years and continues to foster a 

pioneer spirit passed down through generations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 411

These ties to the land and history are the foundation for interpretation and 

education for new and traditional visitors. Water, in all forms, has played a 

significant role in shaping recreation with reservoirs, rivers, waterfalls, glacial 

lakes, and snow providing a variety of year round day-use activities.

The RFA is a living, working road map to guide the Forest in providing a quality, sustainable 

recreation sites program. It describes the vision for the overall Forest recreation program and 

outlines proposals specific to individual developed recreation sites.

The process enables the Forest to focus limited resources on the highest priority sites and 

facilities. The results provided the Forest information to improve quality recreation opportunities 

and reduce deferred maintenance. The 2007 RFA satisfies the Chief’s requirement (FSM ID 

2310-2003-1) to complete facility master planning for recreation sites.

The proposals and guidance are the end result of the national Recreation Site Facility Master 

Planning process. Existing and projected visitor demands, recreation program niche, resource 

conditions, links to the community, program costs, and revenue were all considered in 

developing the RFA.

Visitor Use

There are a variety of tools to collect information on the number and type of visitors to the 

Forest. This includes campground and cabin receipt records, partnership records (such as 

Snowmobile Clubs), campground host records, employee and public observations, and 

professional knowledge. These sources of information are typically at the site level, for example 

the number of vehicles parked at Stone Hill Climbing site on a given day.

The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program provides information about recreation 

visitors to NFS managed lands at the national, regional, and forest level. Information about the 

quantity and quality of recreation visits is required for national forest plans, Executive Order 

12862 (Setting Customer Service Standards), and implementation of the National Recreation 

Agenda. While the NVUM provides use numbers and types of activities at the forest level, it 

does not provide site-specific information. The latest National Visitor Use Monitoring data is 

from 2007 (Round 2), as updated.

Visitation is estimated through a combination of traffic counts and surveys of exiting visitors, 

and provides a snapshot of estimated use. Visitation estimates for 2007 on the KNF is 892,000

national forest visits. Over 72 percent of these visits were from people who lived within 100 

miles of the Forest. Those visitors indicated what their primary activity was as shown in figure

34.

The average visit to the KNF lasts about 9 hours; however, over half of the visits to this Forest 

last less than 5 hours. Approximately 25 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 38 percent of all visits are made by people who visit more than 50 

times per year. Conversely, only about 25 percent of the visits are made by people who visit, at 

most, 5 times per year.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

412 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 34. Visitor Participation and Main Recreation Activity on the KNF (2007, NVUM)

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, such as 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. Overall satisfaction with KNF recreation management 

remains high as shown in table 98 from the 2007 National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey.

Table 98. Percent Satisfaction Index1 Scores from Recreation Users

Items Rated Satisfied Survey Respondents (%)

Developed 

Sites2 Undeveloped Areas (GFAs)

Wilderness

Developed Facilities (includes restroom cleanliness 

and facility condition)

78.2 71.1 58.9

Access (includes parking availability, parking lot 

condition, road condition and trail condition)

79.9 75.5 95.7

Services (includes availability of information, signage, 

employee helpfulness)

65.0 51.0 60.4

Perception of Safety 94.5 96.6 100.0

1 This is a composite rating. It is the proportion of satisfaction ratings scored by visitors as satisfied or very satisfied

2 This category includes both Day Use and Overnight Use Developed Sites
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 413

The future trend for both annual recreation maintenance and capital improvement funding is 

level to decreasing (Recreation Budget Trend 2013). Managing increasing visitors and more 

diverse visitors with level to smaller programs will continue to be a challenge. The Recreation 

Facility Analysis process is one tool to help align the Forest’s recreation site infrastructure with 

current and future demands and budgets to meet future desired conditions.

Recreation Settings

The Forest Service uses ROS to describe different recreation experiences using setting, activities,

and experience. There are five ROS classes which apply to the KNF: primitive, semi-primitive 

non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, and rural.

In 1987, the Forest Plan did not quantify how many acres on the Forest were available in the 

different ROS classes. Instead, the various MAs were identified as being appropriate for a range 

of the ROS classes.

The current inventoried ROS is based on modeling of travel routes and terrain. Travel routes 

include KNF MVUMs for summer ROS classifications, and area closures to over-snow motor 

vehicle use and the winter-groomed snowmobile route system for winter ROS classifications. 

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Inventory Mapping Protocol-December 2003

(USDA Forest Service 2003 December) was used for this analysis. Summer ROS is defined as

May 1 through December 1, and winter ROS as December 2 through April 30.

ROS classes were mapped for summer and winter seasons to address the issue of motorized and 

non-motorized opportunities during these seasons. Big game 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 99.

Table 99. Forestwide Inventoried Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Area

ROS Class Percent of Forest

Summer Winter

Primitive 10 <1

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 57 5

Semi-Primitive Motorized 10 87

Roaded Natural/Rural1 23 8

1 Inventoried Rural ROS classes are more appropriately classified as Roaded Natural

The inventoried ROS shows the difference between summer, where cross-country motor vehicle

use has been restricted forestwide since 2001; and winter, where cross-country over-snow 

vehicle is only restricted in areas closed to over-snow vehicle use. The winter ROS also differs 

from summer ROS in that the effects of snowmobiles being able to approach closed area 

boundaries was modeled. Acres of primitive ROS is lower in winter than summer because of 

this. Difficulty of access due to terrain and/or vegetation was not considered.

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 opportunities 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

414 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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. 

Redesign and reconstruction of developed sites has 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 use. 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 KNF manages a wide array of developed recreation 

sites

The KNF currently has 72 publicly managed recreation sites (Development Scale 3 to 5); over 

900 dispersed sites (Development Scale 0-2) and 53 privately managed recreation sites or 

opportunities, as shown in table 100 and 101. A developed site is designed and engineered to 

provide user comfort with some level of investment, such as toilets, tables, or fire rings. A 

dispersed site may have investments which are provided primarily to protect resources.

These numbers have changed little from what was in place when the Forest Plan was completed 

in 1987. Additional facilities include boat launches, target ranges, snowmobile shelters, and 

cabin rentals. The current capacity of publically developed recreation sites is just over 650,000 

people during the managed season (typically Memorial Day through Labor Day).

Table 100. Publically Developed Recreation Sites (Number and Capacity)

Sites - Publicly Developed Number of Sites Capacity PAOT1 Capacity – Managed Season 

(PAOT1 x days in season)

Boat Launch 17 1,000 168,800

Cabin and Lookout Rentals 11 57 11,200

Family Campgrounds 26 2,600 310,520

Group Sites or Picnic Areas 11 1,050 150,000

Swimming Areas 4 340 33,610

Trailhead/Observation Point 3 373 155,500

Total Public Developed 72 5,420 689,680

Source – Infra: Recreation Sites2013 1 Persons At One Time (PAOT)

Capacity, measured by Persons At One Time (PAOT), is the number of people who can occupy a 

developed recreation site, and is the basis for design of the site. Occupancy rates have generally 

increased over time as more recreationists are using the same number of developed recreation 

sites. In addition, the distribution of recreation use across the Forest has changed from 1987 to 

2012.

Use at campgrounds along rivers such as Bull River and Yaak River have increased by 6 to 7

percent. Use at destination lake campgrounds such as McGregor Lake and North Dickey Lake 

have increased by 25 to 26 percent. Use along Lake Koocanusa was high in the 1990s primarily 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 415

due to fishing. In recent years the fisheries has decreased and the level of the lake has not 

reached full pool, leaving some recreation sites without access to the water during part of the 

year, resulting in a decrease in use.

Use at developed sites on the north portion of Lake Koocanusa, such as Rexford Bench boat 

launch have increased, primarily due to Canadian visitors. Occupancy at several sites forestwide 

over the last 3 to 5 years has reached upwards of 60 percent including: Dorr Skeels 

(campground, boating, and swimming), North Dickey Lake (campground, boating, and 

swimming), North Shore (campground and boating), and Rexford Bench (campground and 

boating).

The KNF partners with between 50-60 groups each year to provide for recreation opportunities 

that would not otherwise be provided. In 2011 organizations, individuals, and groups donated 

over 33,000 volunteer hours, including campground hosts and trail work. The KNF has, and will 

continue, to partner with groups and organizations, work with volunteers, and look for other 

funding grants to provide recreation opportunities.

Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed use accounts for over 85 percent of the use on the KNF (2007, NVUM). Dispersed 

recreation occurs on areas of the Forest outside of developed sites or general forest areas where 

recreation facilities, if present, are primarily 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 are an 

important component of the Forests 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.

In 2010 the KNF began inventory of dispersed sites (2009 R1 dispersed site inventory protocol). 

Approximately 900 dispersed sites have been inventoried. As of October, 2012 approximately 60

percent of the Forest has been inventoried. The current dispersed sites inventory includes: 14 

campgrounds, 1 horse camp, 460 camping areas, 3 fishing sites, 161 day-use areas, 9 boating 

areas, 1 rock climbing areas, 3 observations sites, 9 snow parks, 158 trailheads, and 71 turnouts 

along the Lake Koocanusa Scenic Byway. Inventory of dispersed sites on the Forest is an 

ongoing effort.

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 

vehicle use 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 motor vehicle access restrictions. These access 

restrictions have generated a strong reaction from forest users who are dissatisfied with the 

reduction in designated roads available for motor vehicle use.

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 101 displays the current Recreation Special 

Uses permitted on the KNF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

416 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 101. Privately Developed Recreation Sites on the KNF

Privately Developed # of Permits or Agreements

Groomed Cross-Country Ski/Shelter 1

Groomed Snowmobile Area/Shelter 4

Marina 2

Organization Camp 2

Outfitter and Guide 37

Park, Playground 2

Ski Area 1

Target Range 4

Total Private Developed 53

Recreation Events (vary from year to year) 4

Source: SUDS 2013

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 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 KNF 

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 Forest’s landscapes also serve as a backdrop 

to rural communities. The scenery contributes to community sense of place and quality of life for 

residences.

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 KNF 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 the scenic 

resources of NFS lands as valuable public assets that should be protected and managed for the 

enjoyment of future generations. Most landscapes on the KNF contain some degree 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, creating 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, utilities, mines, reservoirs, communication sites, and gravel pits. Structures such as power 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 417

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 typically 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. Below is the current inventory of acres and percentage of scenic 

integrity objectives (table 102).

Table 102. Current Inventory of Scenic Integrity Objectives

Scenic Integrity Objective Acres % of Forest

Very High 245,590 11

High 680,863 31

Moderate 1,032,187 47

Low 260,896 11

Very Low 0 0

Total 2,219,536 100

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 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 8,600 miles, with an eventual total of 10,050 miles 

by the end of the second decade.

For all action alternatives new road construction (permanent or temporary) would be restricted in 

MA1a, 1b, 1c, MA2 (Eligible Wild Rivers), 3 (Botanical, Zoological, and Historic Special 

Areas), and 4. New road construction may be allowed after site-specific project planning under 

certain conditions in MA5a, 5b, and 5c. New road construction may be allowed after sitespecific project planning in MA2 (Eligible Scenic, and Recreational Rivers), MA3 (Recreational, 

Geological, and Scenic Special Areas), MA6, and MA7. Forestwide direction in the various 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

418 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

resource sections would apply to road construction. For areas within inventoried roadless areas 

in Montana, new road construction would need to meet the requirements in the 2001 Roadless 

Area Conservation Rule. Areas within inventoried roadless areas in Idaho would need to meet 

the requirements of the Idaho Roadless 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 the total number of 

miles of NFS roads may decrease because these alternatives would include an objective to 

decommission or place into intermittent stored service 150 to 350 miles of road over the life of 

the Plan (FW-OBJ-AR-03).

Because MA allocations change by alternative, the areas where road construction may be 

allowed vary. Table 103 summarizes how the alternatives vary. Alternative D has the greatest 

percentage of the Forest allowing road construction while Alternative C has the least.

As described in the “Affected Environment” section, there are currently about 7,894 miles of 

NFS roads on the KNF. This is a result of road construction work over the last 100 years and 

road decommissioning work done over the last 15 to 20 years. Given the backlog of 

decommissioning work yet to be completed and that additional roads may be identified as not 

being needed, it is possible that the total number of miles of NFS roads will continue to be 

reduced as the Forest moves toward the road network needed for safe and efficient travel and for 

administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands.

Table 103. Summary of Acres where Road Construction may be Allowed (by acres and percent of 

Forest)

Alternative Road Construction 

Allowed

Road Construction 

Allowed w/Conditions

Road Construction Not 

Allowed

A 1,652,400 acre (75%) 316,200 acre (14%) 251,500 acre (11%)

B Modified 1,467,500 acre (66%) 487,400 acre (22%) 264,300 acre (12%)

C 1,369,200 acre (62%) 477,900 acre (21%) 372,000 acre (17%)

D 1,745,000 acre (79%) 278,000 acre (12%) 196,100 acre (9%)

Travel Management

Motor Vehicle Use Designations (36 CFR 212 Subpart B) for Roads: There are no proposed 

changes to current road motor vehicle designations (MVUM) under any alternative of the revised 

Forest Plan. Therefore, the number of miles of roads available for motor vehicle use will be the 

same for all alternatives (see table 90 above).

There are no proposed site-specific changes to current over-snow road vehicle designations 

under any alternative of the revised Forest Plan. Therefore, the number of miles of roads 

available for over-snow vehicle use will be the same for all alternatives.

Motor Vehicle Use Designations (36 CFR 212 Subpart B) and Non-motorized Use 

Designations for Trails: Allowed uses on trails will vary by alternative, based on MA allocation. 

For all action alternatives, mechanized and over-snow vehicle use will not be allowed within 

designated wilderness (MA1a), recommended wilderness (MA1b), or research natural areas 

(MA4). Trails inside designated wilderness (MA1a) are already closed to mechanized or 

motorized use. Areas and trails within, or accessing MA1b and MA4 will have a legal closure 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 419

issued in conjunction with the final ROD, closing the routes to over-snow motor vehicle and 

mechanical use where it is currently permitted (Trail ATM Codes 09 &10).

Table 104 displays the miles of trail by type of use for each alternative. Alternative C, with the 

most MA1b recommended wilderness will close 343 miles of trail to mechanized uses, including 

mountain biking. Some of these trails are currently used by mountain bikers (e.g., Trail 26 

Whitefish Divide), and loop ride opportunities will be lost. Alternative D reduces the miles of 

trail where mechanical use is allowed the least, with Alternative B Modified in the middle.

Alternative C, with the most MA1b recommended wilderness, will close 211 miles of trail to 

over-snow vehicles. Some of these trails may be used by over-snow vehicles and opportunities 

will be lost. Alternative D reduces the miles of trail where over-snow motor vehicle use is 

allowed the least, with Alternative B Modified in the middle.

Under Alternative C, there is one non-conforming use in MA1b recommended wilderness. 

Moose Creek Trail 877, within the Allen Mountain area, is currently designated as a motor cycle 

trail. If Alternative C were the selected alternative, the decision maker would need to address this 

non-conforming use.

Table 104. Summary Miles of Trail by Type of Use by Alternative

Type of Use Use

Miles of Trail by Allowed Use on KNF

Alt. A Alt. B 

Modified

Alt. C Alt. D

Non-motorized Hiker/Pedestrian 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,812

Pack and Saddle 1,809 1,809 1,809 1,809

Cross-Country Ski 1,812 1,812 1,812 1,812

Mechanized Bicycle/Game Cart 1,718 1,575 1,375 1,659

Motorized

Motor Vehicle (Motorcycle/ORV) 144 144 144 144

Over-snow 971 908 760 946

Motor Vehicle Use Designations (36 CFR 212 Subpart B) for Cross-Country Use Areas:

Currently, the KNF has designated cross-country motor vehicle use in two areas on the Forest 

(Douglas Hill and Koocanusa drawdown areas), totaling approximately 3,800 acres. On the rest 

of the Forest, motor vehicle use is only allowed on those roads and trails as designated on the 

forest MVUMs. The number of acres designated for cross-country motor vehicle use (3,800 

acres) is the same for all alternatives since there are no proposed changes to the areas currently 

designated for that use.

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 MA2 (Eligible Scenic 

and Recreational Rivers), MA3 (Recreational, Geological, and Scenic Special Areas), MA5b, 

MA6, and MA7. As shown in table 105, Alternative C will result in the least amount of acres 

where motor vehicle use on roads and trails may be allowed. In comparison, Alternative D has 

about 302,300 additional acres where motor vehicle use on roads and trails may be allowed. This 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

420 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

is because there are fewer acres of recommended wilderness and more acres of MA5b in 

Alternative D than in Alternative C.

Alternatives A and B Modified are relatively the same in the number of acres where motor 

vehicle use on roads and trails may be allowed (approximately 240,000 acres difference between 

the two) and lie about midway between Alternatives C and D. Under all alternatives, no changes 

would be made to current motor vehicle access without site-specific project analysis and NEPA.

Table 105. Summary of Acres Where Motor Vehicle Use (excluding over-snow) may be Allowed by 

Alternative (Acres and Percent of Forest)

Alternative Motor Vehicle Use May be Allowed

A 1,677,200 acres (76%)

B Modified 1,637,300 acres (74%)

C 1,490,400 acres (67%)

D 1,792,900 acres (81%)

Over-snow Vehicle Cross-Country Use: Under Alternative A, motorized use, including oversnow vehicles, is prohibited yearlong on approximately 258,000 acres. The areas where oversnow vehicle use is prohibited are designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, recreation, 

and other area closures for big game winter range.

For the action alternatives, over-snow vehicle use is not allowed in MA1a (designated 

wilderness), MA1b (recommended wilderness), and MA4 (RNAs). These areas will be closed to 

snowmobiling as part of the forest plan decision. Areas on the Forest that are currently closed to 

over-snow vehicle use for big game winter range (94,500 acres) will also remain closed. Under 

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, there is a direct effect to the number of acres available for 

over-snow vehicle use based on the amount of recommended wilderness (MA1b) and research 

natural areas (MA4).

Areas allocated to recommended wilderness (MA1b) or research natural areas (MA4), that 

currently allow over-snow cross-country use, 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 final 

ROD for the Forest Plan. Areas that were recommended wilderness in the 1987 Forest Plan that 

are not allocated to MA1b in the revised Forest Plan (15,600 acres under Alternative B 

Modified), will be opened to over-snow vehicle use.

In addition, the action alternatives have desired conditions and guidelines for certain MAs for 

year-round non-motorized use. Management area 2 (Eligible Wild Rivers), MA3 (Botanical, 

Zoological, and Historic Special Areas), and MA5a have desired conditions for year-round nonmotorized use. These acres reflect the desired conditions. The ROD issued for the revised Forest 

Plan will not close these areas to over-snow use. Site-specific winter travel management 

planning and subsequent NEPA is needed to meet these desired conditions.

Table 106 shows acres that would be open to over-snow cross-country use, based on the Forest 

Order that will be issued in conjunction with final ROD (under the “open” column header). This 

table also shows the number of acres where over-snow vehicle use is consistent with MA desired 

conditions (under the “Desired Condition” column header). As shown in table 106, Alternatives 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 421

B Modified and C would result in a reduction in the number of acres designated open to oversnow vehicle use from current. Alternative C would result in the greatest reduction (6 percent). 

Alternative D shows a slight increase (2 percent) in acres designated open to over-snow vehicle 

use from current conditions. When comparing desired conditions, Alternative C has the least and 

Alternative D the most acres where over-snow vehicle use is consistent with the desired 

condition.

Table 106. Summary of Over-snow Vehicle and Mechanized Use Area by Alternative (Acres and 

Percent of Forest)

Alternative Over-snow Vehicle Use

Mechanized Use not 

Open Restricted 1 Desired Condition2

A 1,961,100 acre (88%) N/A 2,125,400 acre (96%)

B Modified 1,920,500 acre (87%) 1,713,000 acre (77%) 2,012,900 acre (91%)

C 1,814,800 acre (82%) 1,500,700 acre (68%) 1,902,700 acre (86%)

D 1,988,500 acre (90%) 1,859,100 acre (84%) 2,082,200 acre (94%)

1 Acres that will remain open to over-snow vehicle use based on order issued in conjunction with the final ROD for the 

Forest Plan

2 Acres where the MA desired condition would allow over-snow vehicle use

Mechanized Use: Under the 1987 Plan and current Forest Orders, mechanized use is allowed 

everywhere on the KNF except for designated wilderness (Cabinet Mountains Wilderness). 

Under the action alternatives, mechanized use is prohibited in MA1a (designated wilderness) and

MA1b (recommended wilderness. Acres allocated to MA1a remain constant for all alternatives.

As shown in table 106 above, Alternatives B Modified, C, and D would result in a reduction in 

the number of acres available for mechanized use. Alternative C would result in the greatest 

reduction (approximately 15 percent from current conditions), whereas Alternative D would 

result in the least reduction (approximately 2 percent from current).

There is a direct effect to the number of acres or trails available for motorized, mechanized and 

hand held motorized use based on the amount of MA1b and MA4. Areas that are allocated to 

recommended wilderness (MA1b)or RNAs except on designated routes (MA4), that use is not 

currently restricted, will have a legal order prohibiting mechanized use (as per 36 CFR 

261.55(c)) issued in conjunction with the ROD for the revised Forest Plan.

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 KNF except for 

designated wilderness (Cabinet Mountains Wilderness). Under the action alternatives, use of 

motorized equipment is prohibited in MA1a (designated wilderness), MA1b (recommended 

wilderness), and MA1c (wilderness study area). Table 107 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

422 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 107. 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 

not Allowed 1

127,800 230,500 342,600 163,900

1 The use of hand-held equipment for administrative purposes is excluded

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, blading, ditch and culvert cleaning, etc.) is 

periodically performed on approximately 3,637 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. The approximately 

4,214 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 would not vary by alternative. Annual maintenance is funded by Congress 

annually. Partnerships and volunteer work would continue to be important in maintaining trails.

Recreation

The 1987 Forest Plan projected 314,000 acres of the inventoried roadless areas would remain 

roadless and would be managed for semi-primitive and primitive recreation opportunities. In 

addition, the 1987 Forest Plan stated another 126,000 acres of roadless areas allocated to other 

resource management goals would provide additional semi-primitive recreation opportunities 

until development activities occur. The demand for roadless recreation opportunities (including 

wilderness) was estimated to be 65,000 Recreation Visitor Days in the first decade (1987 Forest 

Plan).

Developed Recreation

The 1987 Forest Plan stated that existing developed recreation facilities would be expanded if 

demand increased beyond the capacity of the existing facilities. In addition, it stated that with 

state, county, and local ski club cooperation, there would be an increase in the amount of 

groomed cross-country ski trails and snowmobile trails. No new facilities are proposed for 

construction, reconstruction, or decommissioning in any alternative of the revised Forest Plan. 

The revised Forest Plan does not propose to expand existing groomed routes for either cross-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 423

country skiing or for snowmobile use. These activities would only be considered during sitespecific planning at the project level.

Existing developed recreation facilities will be upgraded as funding becomes available; however, 

many of the existing facilities are outdated. For example, parking spurs in many of the KNF 

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 around the Forest. 

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.

Under Alternative A, all of the developed recreation sites listed in table 100 are managed under 

MA6 (Developed Recreation Sites) under the 1987 Forest Plan. MA6 encompasses 

approximately 3,570 acres. The 1987 Forest Plan stated that existing developed recreation 

facilities would be expanded if demand increases beyond the capacity of the existing facilities 

(page II-6). The 1987 Forest Plan provides sideboards for recreation, wildlife and fish, range, 

timber, soil/water/air, riparian, minerals/geology, lands, facilities, and fire within these areas 

(Plan, pages III-17 through III-19). 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.

Other developed recreation sites in many of the other MAs in the 1987 Forest Plan would be 

managed under most of the same principles that guide MA6 under the revised Forest Plan.

Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, 10 of the current developed recreation sites would be 

managed under MA7 (Primary Recreation Areas). MA7 encompasses about 15,800 acres and 

includes lands associated with Lake Koocanusa and Turner Mountain Ski area. The desired 

condition in MA7 is to maintain and improve these recreation sites (MA7-DC-AR-01). MA7 

also provides management direction regarding timber harvest, recreation management, road 

construction and maintenance, and scenery management within these areas. Any management 

activity in the developed recreation areas will be 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.

Recreation Setting

Management area allocations will affect recreation opportunities in each alternative. The 

quantity, quality, and distribution of recreation opportunities depend on the mix of ROS classes 

available. Alternative C reflects additional wilderness and non-motorized backcountry settings. 

Alternative D reflects more emphasis on development and active management. Alternative B 

Modified, the proposed action, falls between C and D.

The ROS acres for Alternative A in table 108 and 109 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

424 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 108. Percentage Summer Recreation Opportunity Spectrum by Alternative

Summer ROS Class Percentage of KNF Forest Acreage by Alternative

A1 B Modified C D

Primitive 10% 8% 9% 8%

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 57% 54% 56% 58%

Semi-Primitive Motorized 10% 16% 14% 12%

Roaded Natural/Rural 23% 22% 21% 22%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

1 Inventoried acres

Table 109. Percentage Winter Recreation Opportunity Spectrum by Alternative

Winter ROS Class Percentage of KNF Forest Acreage by Alternative

A1 B Modified C D

Primitive <1% <1% <1% <1%

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized 5% 14% 24% 7%

Semi-Primitive Motorized 87% 78% 68% 85%

Roaded Natural/Rural 8% 8% 8% 8%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

1 Inventoried ROS

Visitor use is expected to continue to increase, regardless of alternative selected. Management 

actions can be taken 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 limitation on use, such as seasonal or year-long closures or actions to encourage 

use, such as the development of trailhead parking or directional information or 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 KNF.

As part of forest plan revision, the wilderness character of inventoried roadless areas is evaluated

and some are recommended for new wilderness or additions to existing wilderness. In addition, 

the proposed alternatives describe desired conditions for areas where motor vehicle use may be 

considered (MA5a, b, and c). Management area allocations of inventoried roadless areas vary 

according to alternative themes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 425

The Forest’s MVUMs display the current routes designated for motor vehicle use and there are 

no changes proposed under any alternative. Future site-specific travel management planning will 

consider additional motorized road or trail opportunities where motorized use is allowed within 

the MA direction.

Dispersed Recreation

Effects to dispersed recreation are indirectly covered under the “Travel Management” section, 

described by the difference in acres available for designated motor vehicle use (tables 105 and 

106). The number of miles of roads and trails available for motor vehicle use (excluding 

consideration over-snow vehicle use) is the same for the four alternatives since there are no 

proposed changes to the currently designated route system (see table 94 and 95). The number of 

acres designated for cross-country motor vehicle use (as shown on the MVUMS) is the same for 

the four alternatives since there are no proposed changes to the areas currently designated for 

that use.

The difference where 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 D provides the most area (81 percent), followed by A (76 percent), B Modified (74 

percent), and C with the least area (67 percent).

Recreation Special Uses

In all alternatives, existing special uses would continue. Opportunities for additional recreation 

special uses may be affected by 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 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 are most likely to provide the 

greatest public benefits 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 must 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 110) are based on the theme of the alternative and the mix of MAs 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

426 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 110. Percentage of KNF by Scenic Integrity Objective Category

Scenic Integrity Objective

Percentage of KNF Forest Acreage by Alternative1

A1 B Modified C D

Very High 11.0% 12.9% 17.5% 9.6%

High 31.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

High/Moderate 23.9% 23.9% 15.1%

Moderate 47.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%

Moderate/Low 11.0% 0%2 0%2 0%2

High to Low 62.4% 57.8% 74.5%

Total 100.0% 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. 2 Turner Mountain Ski Area (MA7) is the only area that has this scenic integrity objectives classification (Moderate/Low) 

and totals 852 acres.

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 

BMPs 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 427

other locations because of log truck traffic, helicopter operations, and the noise from chainsaws. 

Visitors may experience prolonged displacement 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 previously has 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 vegetation management 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 timber harvest activity. Depending on resource objectives, some logging roads 

can be left open to create additional dispersed recreation opportunities.

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 (ROD 2007) (USDA Forest Service 2007 March)

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, 08, 09) 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 KNFs MVUM limits motor vehicle use to 

designated routes yearlong or seasonally, often in response to wildlife needs. The revised Forest 

Plan does not propose any changes to existing yearlong or seasonal designations. Route and area 

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 treating roads to reduce sediment 

production and transport to surface waters or to provide for aquatic organism passage. Actions 

taken might be culvert removal, out-sloping of road prisms, or the removal of unstable fills. 

These types of treatments are generally done on roads that are not designated for motor vehicle 

use. Any roads receiving these types of treatments are generally no longer drivable. On occasion, 

these treatments may be completed on roads that are currently designated for motor vehicle use 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

428 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

(Maintenance Level 2, 3, 4, and 5), but this is expected to occur infrequently. In some cases, 

roads receiving these types of treatments may be converted to trails which may allow other 

vehicle classes (e.g., OHVs, UTVs, 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 

setting, could cause a shift in recreation use. The degree of these effects is difficult to determine 

and 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 Minerals 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 they would likely use existing roads. These may be 

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.

The potential for oil and gas development on the KNF is low, with only a small portion of the 

Forest having a moderate potential for development. Well sites and other facilities would affect 

national forest visitors depending on the location of development and the setting affected.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Access & Rec 429

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 KNF 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.

If either the Rock Creek or Montanore mining proposals begin operations, it can be anticipated 

that commercial and operational traffic will increase (on both NFS roads and other county and 

state roads) due to facility construction and production operations. These traffic conditions 

would be localized in that the area influenced would be limited to the location of the mine 

facilities and the eventual terminal facilities for hauling operations.

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 Authorization. Depending on the terms and conditions written into any new authorizations, 

opportunities for access to NFS lands may be created.

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 KNF 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

430 Access & Rec Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Technical advancements in over-snow vehicles now allow the average visitor to travel many 

places where only skilled riders traveled as recently as 5 years ago. The development of the ATV 

has added a new motor vehicle use in the summer and allows many people to travel on routes 

into areas that they may not have been able to travel into previously. Lastly, the development of 

the mountain bike in the 1980s 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, and 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.

All alternatives accommodate 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 would propose the least amount of forest 

management, thereby emphasizing the primitive and semi-primitive classes of recreational 

opportunities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Lands/Special Uses 431

Lands/Special Uses

Introduction

This section addresses landownership administration and adjustments and special uses of NFS 

lands on the KNF.

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 KNF 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 

432 Lands/Special Uses Kootenai National Forest - 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 30 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Lands/Special Uses 433

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 

434 Lands/Special Uses Kootenai National Forest - 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Lands/Special Uses 435

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).

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

436 Lands/Special Uses Kootenai National Forest - 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 KNF 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 2,219,000 acres of NFS lands that are the administrative responsibility 

of the KNF. This is the result of the original congressionally designated lands and the 

conveyances (acquisitions, disposals, and exchanges) that have occurred to date.

The KNF landownership pattern varies with location (see figure 35).

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Lands/Special Uses 437

Within the proclaimed boundary of the KNF there are approximately 390,000 acres of non-NFS 

lands. These non-NFS lands are comprised of state and local government, other agency, 

corporate and private ownership; and large waterbodies.

The KNF has administrative responsibility for surveying and marking of approximately 2,500 

miles of landline.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

438 Lands/Special Uses Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 35. Kootenai National Forest Landownership Pattern

Special Uses

Special use authorizations permit occupancy and use on NFS lands by federal, state, and local 

agencies, 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Lands/Special Uses 439

developed facilities such as roads, communication sites, dams, and utility/energy transmission 

infrastructure.

Currently there are 677 non-recreation special use authorizations in effect. Table 111 summarizes 

the current status with the categories and number of permits in each category.

Close to 70 percent of all authorizations are related to roads (DOT easements, FRTA easements, 

FLPMA easements and permits). The next closest category is for waterlines which account for 

about 10 percent of current authorizations. Outfitter and Guide authorizations account for about 

5 percent and the remaining 15 percent is spread through all the other categories.

Table 111. Summary of Non-recreation Special Use Authorizations

Special Use Category # of Permits

Airport or Airway Beacon 1

Airport, Heliport 2

Broadcast Translator/Low Power TV & FM 5

Building 3

Cable Television 1

Cellular 4

Cultivation 3

Dot Easement 28

Experimental and Demonstration 1

Facility Manager 3

Federal Land Policy & Mgmt Act Easement 30

Federal Land Policy & Mgmt Act Permit 107

Fiber Optical Cable 1

Forest Road and Trail Act Easement 331

Hydroelectric Project, FERC Exempted 1

Hydroelectric Project, FERC Licensed 1

Irrigation Water Ditch 5

Irrigation Water Trans Pipeline < 12" D 17

Liquid Waste Disposal Area 1

Livestock Area 2

Microwave-Common Carrier 5

Microwave-Industrial 1

Motion Picture and TV Location 1

Nondisturbing Use 2

Passive Reflector 4

Powerline 6

Powerline, REA Financed 4

Private Mobile Radio Service 9

Railroads Right-of-Way 2

Residence, Privately-Owned Building 1

Resource Monitoring Site 4
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

440 Lands/Special Uses Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Special Use Category # of Permits

Service Building 2

Sign 1

Slurry Pipeline 1

Stockpile Site 1

Stream Gauging Station 2

Telephone and Telegraph Line 2

Telephone Line, REA Financed 2

Transfer Station 3

Warehouse and Storage Yard 1

Water Conveyance Easement, PL 99-545 3

Water Quality Monitoring Station 1

Water Trans Pipeline < 12" D 70

Water Trans Pipeline >=12" D 1

Weather Station 1

Total 677

Source: INFRA: Special Uses Data System (SUDS) 1/2010

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 issued 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) lands that were desirable to be 

acquired and lands that were available for disposal.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

None of the alternatives propose to make any site-specific changes to the existing landownership 

on the KNF. No conveyances (acquisitions, disposals, or exchanges) are proposed. Any of 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 propose to make any site-specific changes to existing special use 

authorizations or rights-of-way on the KNF.

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Lands/Special Uses 441

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 & 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 allocations, 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 

lands within the KNF 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, 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.

If either the Rock Creek or Monantore mining proposals begin operations, it can be anticipated 

that authorizations would be granted for electric transmission lines. These would be localized in 

that the area influenced would be limited to the location of the mine facilities and existing power 

line source points. As part of probable mitigation measures for wetlands it can also be expected 

that additional lands would be conveyed as NFS lands resulting in a slight increase of the 

number of acres administered by the KNF.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

442 Lands/Special Uses Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Landownership and special uses can be expected to be influenced by a variety of factors.

As described in the “Affected Environment” section, the KNF has administrative responsibilities 

for 2,219,000 acres of NFS lands. At this time the KNF is not actively pursuing any adjustments 

in landownership. But, in recent years, external entities have made land acquisitions and have 

transferred ownership to the national forests; and there is some likelihood that these types of 

actions may 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 

in the acres of 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 KNF these sites typically occupy small acreages (1 to 2 

acres).

Boundary survey and marking will continue and occasional encroachments are likely to be 

discovered.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 443

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Introduction

Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 acres that 

meet the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act. Roadless area 

inventories have been completed during the Roadless Area Resource Evaluations of 1972 

(RARE I), 1979 (RARE II) 1987 KNF Plan EIS, appendix C, and 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule.

For NFS lands in Montana, current IRAs are those areas mapped under the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart B). 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. An IRA map layer is also retained in the KNF GIS 

library.

For NFS lands in Idaho, IRAs 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.

Inventoried roadless areas are distributed across the Forest comprising approximately 638,000 

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 (approximately 

35,100 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. This 

analysis is included as appendix C – Wilderness Evaluation. This analysis evaluates the effects of 

the revised Forest 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.

Areas not recommended for wilderness could still be considered for wilderness by Congress. 

Impacts on the areas’ inherent wilderness character (undeveloped nature, naturalness, 

opportunity to provide primitive and unconfined recreation, and natural ecosystem) could detract 

from future consideration of the area as wilderness.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

444 Inventoried Roadless Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• The Wilderness Act of September 9, 1964 (P.L. 88-577): Defines wilderness and sets forth 

policy and implications for wilderness designation.

• Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977: “provides for the study of certain lands to 

determine their suitability for designation as wilderness in accordance with the Wilderness 

Act of 1964”, and for other purposes.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 219.27(b): Special Designations - (b) Wilderness Area Reviews states: ‘Unless 

federal statute directs otherwise, all undeveloped areas that are of sufficient size as to make 

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.

• 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294 Subpart B): The 2001 Roadless 

Rule establishes prohibitions on road construction, road reconstruction, and timber 

harvesting on inventoried roadless areas on NFS lands. The intent of the 2001 Roadless Rule 

is to provide lasting protection for inventoried roadless areas within the NFS in the context 

of multiple-use management. IRAs are identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps 

contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement Volume 2 dated November 2000 and in appendix C of the Forest Plan FEIS.

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.” In addition, they may have improvements if 

they meet the criteria in section 71.11, and for areas east of the 100 meridian, they must also 

meet the criteria in 71.12.

1. Areas contain 5,000 acres or more.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 445

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."

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.

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 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 is the degree to which that area 

contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness recommendation 

without regard to its availability for or need as wilderness. This includes environmental as 

well as manageability considerations.

• Availability — All NFS lands determined to meet wilderness capability requirements are 

considered potentially available for wilderness designation. However, 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.

• Need — The need for an area to be designated as wilderness is determined through an 

analysis of the degree to which it contributes to the overall National Wilderness Preservation 

System. This evaluation is conducted at the regional level considering factors such as 

geographic distribution of areas and representations of landforms and ecosystems.

Each of the forty-three areas of potential wilderness inventory was evaluated to determine 

suitability as recommended wilderness between 2003 and 2005 for the revised Forest Plan. 

These inventories were reviewed again in 2012 based on comments received on the DEIS. 

Updated information used to review the evaluations includes: comments from the draft Forest 

Plan and DEIS, underrepresented plan communities maps, sensitive plant occurrences (Montana 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

446 Inventoried Roadless Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Natural Heritage Program 2012), and TE&S wildlife species presence. The IRAs were first 

assessed for capability and availability. The regional need analysis was then applied.

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 Regional Needs Assessment found that designation of additional wilderness acreage in the 

region could provide a greater level of habitat security for additional plant species that are rare at 

the global or state level according to the state Natural Heritage Programs. The KNF is included 

in the Flathead Valley Ecological section of the Northern Region. This ecological section would 

gain acreage of under-represented cover types with the addition of IRAs into the wilderness 

system (USDA Forest Service 2003).

The four under-represented types on the KNF are vegetation response units 2 (ponderosa pine), 5 

(western redcedar and western hemlock), 8 (western redcedar and western hemlock –wet), and 

Aquatic Response Unit types representing forest-dominated riparian areas.

Changes between Draft and Final

The 2001 Roadless Rule was the subject of litigation in multiple jurisdictions. Ultimately, the 

rule was judicially upheld (2012) and it is in effect, with the exceptions of the states of Idaho and 

Colorado where separate rules apply. See Wyoming v. U.S.D.A., 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011) 

(upholding 2001 Roadless Rule); Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 

2002) (reinstating Roadless Rule); Jayne v. Sherman, No. 11-35269 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2013). The 

2001 Roadless Rule will be implemented on Kootenai National Forest Inventoried Roadless 

Areas (36 CFR 294 Subpart B).

Memorandum 1042-156 expired May 30, 2012 and was removed: Secretary of Agriculture 

Vilsack reserved decision authority for projects in inventoried roadless areas. However, the Chief 

continues to reserve decision authority for certain types of projects (1920, May 31, 2012).

Wilderness evaluation ratings were reviewed and updated as needed for capability, availability, 

and need (appendix C). While individual element ratings did change, no suitability rating for 

recommended wilderness was changed between the DEIS and FEIS. Summary sheets by IRA 

have been added to appendix C.

Definitions, minor edits, and clarifications have been made throughout the section.

Changes in recommended wilderness for the Whitefish Divide area were made in response to 

public comment. These changes included removing areas above the town of Eureka and 

Williams Creek from recommended wilderness from DEIS to FEIS in Alternative B Modified 

due to concerns with management needs in the WUI and public water supply areas.

A section was added under effects to access and recreation to address the site-specific decisions 

to be made in recommended wilderness area: area and trail closure to motorized vehicle, 

mechanized uses, and motorized equipment and removing motorized restrictions on areas that 

are no longer recommended.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 447

Figure 36. Potential Wilderness Inventory Map
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

448 Inventoried Roadless Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Inventory of Roadless Areas

The1987 Plan identified 32 IRAs with a total of 403,300 acres. A review of the 32 IRAs and 

other unroaded areas was updated as part of the initial Forest Plan revision efforts in 1999. The 

purpose of the 1999 update was to review unroaded areas for updated criteria, correct mapping 

errors through application of GIS mapping and adjust the inventory for areas where harvest had 

occurred, or where planned and did not occur. The criteria for delineation of roadless and other 

unroaded areas were based on the Regional Roadless Area Inventory protocol (Regional Office, 

1996). The updated inventory identified 11 additional areas and 235,870 additional acres for a 

total of 43 IRAs and 639,100 acres of NFS land (see figure 36). This inventory was included in 

the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

For the purposes of this evaluation, the IRAs shown in figure 36 have been determined to qualify 

as the potential wilderness inventory. They are all areas within NFS lands and satisfy the 

definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act, and subsequent policy 

or direction.

Table 112 summarizes the change in potential wilderness inventory that has occurred since the 

1987 Forest Plan was adopted. Currently, a total of 43 areas of potential wilderness inventory 

(IRAs), are distributed across the Forest comprising approximately 638,034 acres of 

undeveloped area. These areas provide a range of primitive and semi-primitive recreation 

opportunities. Overall, recreation levels are relatively low compared to the use that is occurring 

in roaded and developed areas that offer easier access and a greater variety of amenities and 

services.

Table 112. Potential Wilderness Inventory Summary (IRAs)

1987 Forest Plan 1999 Inventory1 (NFS 

Land Only)

Net Change 1987 to 

2001

Number of Areas 32 43 +11

Total Acres 403,300 638,034 234,734

1 Acres updated 2013 with current GIS mapping

Under direction of the Chief of the Forest Service (Roadless Activities Review Process, May 31, 

2012 letter) certain activities planned roadless areas will continue to be reviewed at the national 

or regional level.

Evaluation for Wilderness Potential

Each of the 43 roadless areas was evaluated to rate and then determine their 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 IRAs were suitable for potential inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. Table 113 is a summary of the potential wilderness inventory suitability 

evaluation ratings by IRA. IRAs are listed alphabetically in this report and appendix C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 449

Table 113. Potential Wilderness Inventory by IRA, and Suitability Ratings

IRA Total Area 

KNF Acres

Rating

Name # Capability Availability Need

Alexander1 696 6,714 Low/Mod Moderate Low

Allen Peak1 185 29,618 Moderate High High

Barren Peak1 183 14,526 Moderate Moderate Moderate

Berray Mountain 672 9,105 Moderate Moderate High

Big Creek1 701 7,526 Moderate Moderate High

Buckhorn Ridge 661 28,789 High High High

Cabinet Face East 671 50,192 High Low to High High

Cabinet Face West 670 13,683 High High High

Cataract Creek 665 25,441 Moderate Low High

Chippewa 682 1,261 High High Moderate

Cube Iron 784 623 Low High Low

Devil’s Gap1 698 5,350 Mod/High High High

East Fork Elk 678 6,766 Moderate Moderate High

Flagstaff 690 11,103 Moderate Moderate Moderate

Galena 677 19,293 Moderate Moderate High

Gold Hill 668 6,452 Low/Mod Moderate Low

Gold Hill West 176 15,072 Moderate High Moderate

Government 

Mountain

673 10,084 Low/Mod Moderate Moderate

Grizzly Peak 667 7,436 Moderate High Moderate

Huckleberry 

Mountain1 699 8,959 Moderate Moderate Moderate

LeBeau 507 1,258 Low High Moderate

Lone Cliff Smeads 674 5,115 Low Low Moderate

Lone Cliff West1 674a 5,311 Low/Mod Low Moderate

Maple Peak 141 3,588 Low High Low

Marston Face 172 9,092 Moderate High Moderate

McKay Creek 676 15,286 Mod/high Moderate Moderate

McNeeley 675 6,653 Low High High

Mt Henry1 666 13,596 Moderate High Low

Northwest Peaks 663 15,341 High High High

Roberts 691 10,815 Moderate Moderate Moderate

Robinson Mountain1 164 7,030 Moderate High Low

Rock Cr 693 806 High Low High

Roderick 684 29,657 High High High

Saddle Mountain1 168 14,666 Mod/High High Moderate

Scotchman Peaks 662 54,439 High High Moderate

Ten Lakes & Ten 

Lakes Contiguous

683 & 

683a

48,510 Mod/High Moderate High

Thompson Seton 483 29,379 Moderate High Moderate

Trout Creek 664 30,866 Moderate Low Moderate
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

450 Inventoried Roadless Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

IRA Total Area 

KNF Acres

Rating

Name # Capability Availability Need

Tuchuck 482 2,235 Moderate High Moderate

West Fork Elk 692 5,117 Low Low High

West Fork Yaak1 694 8,232 Mod/Low High Moderate

Willard Estelle 173 33,046 High Moderate Moderate

Zulu 166 10,004 Moderate High Moderate

Total 638,034

1 IRA added since 1987 Forest Plan

In addition to inherent wilderness quality (ratings for capability, availability, and need), 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 wilderness, adjacent property, adjacent forest’s 

evaluation, public comments, social and economic considerations, or administrative 

recommendations.

The areas of potential wilderness inventory were rated as high, moderate, or low for each of the 

three categories of suitability. Based on the inventories, each area was then rated as suitable or 

not for inclusion as potential wilderness. Recommended wilderness differed by action 

alternative. The recommendation of wilderness was made based on a composite of the three 

ratings, alternative theme, and other considerations such as: size and shape, location to 

designated wilderness, adjacent property, public comments, social and economic considerations, 

or administrative recommendations. See appendix C for specific information on recommended 

wilderness by IRA.

IRAs rated as low in any category were dropped from further consideration unless recommended 

for wilderness in the1987 Plan, or there were other considerations. For example, Rock Creek 

IRA was evaluated as Low for Availability, however portions of the area were recommended as 

wilderness due to it being adjacent to the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. Fifteen potential 

wilderness inventory areas were determined not to be suitable based on a low rating, and were 

not recommended as wilderness in any alternative.

An additional twelve potential wilderness inventory areas, while rated moderate or high in all

suitability categories, were determined to not be suitable based on other considerations and not 

recommended as wilderness in any alternative. Reasons for this varied from identified public 

concerns, need of treatment for fuel reduction, adjacent private lands, unmanageable boundaries, 

existing recreation uses (over-snow, motorized and/or mechanical), and white bark pine 

restoration needs or road/fish restoration needs.

For example, Northwest Peaks IRA rated high in all suitability categories, but was determined 

not to be suitable based on comments from the public and elected officials. This area is a popular 

over-snow vehicle use area. The majority of Northwest Peaks IRA is allocated to MA3 (special 

areas) in all alternatives to maintain its unique character, and allow for existing uses (see 

appendix C for suitability ratings, and rational for determination of recommended wilderness).

Parts of fifteen IRAs, grouped in nine areas, were identified as capable, available, and 

determined suitable as recommended wilderness (see table 114). The Potential Wilderness 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 451

inventory (IRA and surrounding areas) identified as suitable as recommended wilderness total 

251,107 acres or approximately 11 percent of the KNF. Recommended wilderness in the FEIS is 

comprised of all of parts of the Potential Wilderness inventory and varies by alternative.

Table 114. Potential Wilderness Inventory Rated Suitable as Recommended Wilderness

IRA Total IRA 

Acres

Rated Suitable as Recommended Wilderness

Name # Acres1 Name

Allen Peak 185 29,618 20,500 Allen Peak

Barren Peak 183 14,526 2,059 Cabinet Mountains2

Big Creek 701 7,526 6,616 Big Creek

Cabinet Face East 671 50,192 33,667 Cabinet Mountains2

Cabinet Face West 670 13,683 8,027 Cabinet Mountains2

Chippewa 682 1,261 361 Cabinet Mountains2

Gold Hill West 176 15,072 12,117 Gold Hill West

Marston Face 172 9,092 7,887 Whitefish Divide

McKay Creek 676 15,286 8,741 Cabinet Mountains2

Rock Creek 693 806 581 Cabinet Mountains2

Roderick 684 29,657 23,472 Roderick

Saddle Mountain 168 14,666 14,291 Saddle Mountain

Scotchman Peaks 662 54,439 37,268 Scotchman Peaks

Ten Lakes3 683 33,778 33,778 Ten Lakes Montana Wilderness 

Study Area

Ten Lakes

Contiguous

683a 14,732 8,257 Ten Lakes Contiguous Area 

Thompson Seton 483 29,379 27,954 Whitefish Divide

Tuchuck 482 2,235 2,153 Whitefish Divide

Area outside IRAs 3,378

Total 251,107

1 Potential wilderness acres do not match total 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

2 Existing Cabinet Mountains Wilderness additions

3 Includes acres for Ten Lakes WSA (MA1c)

This evaluation of potential wilderness inventory 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. The evaluation was completed with the express purpose during forest 

planning to identify all lands that meet the criteria for being evaluated for wilderness suitability 

and possible recommendation to Congress for wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12.71).

Areas not recommended for wilderness in the revised Forest Plan remain IRAs, and could still be 

considered for wilderness by Congress.

Recommended Wilderness

As a result of decisions made in the 1987 Forest Plan, 102,500 acres were recommended for 

wilderness (see table 115). This included 26,000 of the 34,200 acres of the Ten Lakes Montana 

Wilderness Study Area (MWSA). Under the Northern Regions FSM 1923.12 the approach for 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

452 Inventoried Roadless Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

conducting wilderness study on further planning areas in Ten Lakes MWSA is pending 

Congressional action. The Ten Lakes MWSA would continue to be managed under the 1977 

Montana Wilderness Study Act in all action alternatives. Alternative A is the existing condition 

for recommended wilderness and Montana Wilderness Study Area. These 1987 areas 

recommended for wilderness including the MWSA, were identified because of special or unique 

features and public support

Table 115. 1987 KNF Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness

Name MA8 Acres1 MA91 Acres

Cabinet Additions 33,600

Scotchman Peaks 36,100

Ten Lakes Contiguous Area 6,800

Ten Lakes Montana Wilderness Study Area 26,000

Total 102,500 76,500 26,000

1 Acres have been updated from the 1987 Forest Plan to reflect current GIS layers and data.

Under the 1987 Forest Plan, the use of motorized and mechanized equipment in recommended 

wilderness and the WSA is allowed to varying degrees. The Ten Lakes contiguous area (MA8) 

and wilderness study area (MA9) remain open to snowmobiles in winter while the other 

recommended wilderness areas are closed to vehicles year-round. There has been use in the 

Scotchman Peaks recommended wilderness by over-snow vehicles, which is not permissible. 

Law enforcement patrols and monitoring of the area will continue.

Levels of recreational motorized travel forestwide were much lower in the mid-1980s when the 

1987 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 nonmotorized mechanized transport such as game carts, backcountry in-line skates or skate boards, 

or hang gliders.

Idaho Roadless Rule

Approximately 35,100 acres, in five IRAs managed by the KNF, are located in the state of Idaho 

and are managed under the Idaho Roadless Rule of 2008. The Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR 294 

Subpart C) establishes management direction for designated roadless areas in the state of Idaho.

The five areas straddle both state lines and forest boundaries. Only the portions of IRAs located 

in the state of Idaho are managed under the Idaho Roadless Rule. A total of ten IRAs are 

managed jointly with other forests. Total IRA acres are shown in table 116 for reference.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 453

Table 116. Idaho Roadless Rule Areas and Jointly Managed IRAs on the Kootenai National Forest

Area IRA 

Number KNF Acres Other Forest Acres3 Total IRA Acres

Idaho1 Montana2 Idaho1 Montana2 Forest

Buckhorn Ridge 661 100 28,688 6,600 2,900 IPNF 38,288

East Fork Elk 678 6,766 100 IPNF 6,866

Maple Peak 141 3,588 8,700

6,469

IPNF

LNF 18,757

Willard Estelle 173 23,300 9,745 35,000 IPNF 68,045

North West 

Peaks 663 15,341 5,500 IPNF 20,841

Roberts 691 7,400 3,417 10,814

Scotchman 

Peak 662 500 54,439 19,900 12,300 IPNF 86,639

Trout Creek 664 30,866 8,500 IPNF 39,366

Thompson 

Seton 483 29,379 52,234 FNF 81,613

Tuchuck 482 2,235 17,730 FNF 19,965

West Fork Elk 692 3,700 1,500 5,200

Total 35,100

1 Managed under the Idaho Roadless Rule 2008

2 Managed under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule 3 Managed under other Forest Plan

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), issued in 2007. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

454 Inventoried Roadless Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

General Effects

The following discussion includes general effects on roadless areas, identified as potential 

wilderness inventory areas (IRAs) for Forest Planning. Management allocations will not directly 

affect the character of potential wilderness inventory areas (IRAs) until a planned management 

activity is scheduled. Activities may be proposed in IRAs, but must be further evaluated in sitespecific NEPA prior to approval and implementation. Management activities that substantially 

alter the undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless area of 5,000 acres or more, generally 

requires preparation of an EIS (FSH 1909.15 21.2).

The allocation of 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. 

Table 117 displays the acres by recommended wilderness area for each alternative.

Table 117. Acres of Recommended Wilderness by Alternative

Recommended Wilderness Area Acres by Alternative1

A B Modified C D

Scotchman Peaks 36,100 35,900 37,300

Cabinet Additions 33,600 29,900 53,700 37,300

Ten Lakes (includes MA1c WSA when 

Ten Lakes Contiguous is 

recommended wilderness)

32,800 34,600

Whitefish Divide 16,000 40,100

Roderick 23,500 23,500

Saddle Mountain 14,300

Allen Peak 20,500

Big Creek 6,600

Gold Hill West 12,200

Total Acres 102,500 105,300 242,800 37,300

1 Acres don’t match forestwide summary acres by MA because of overlapping acres within MA

Each alternative displays a mix of land and resource uses that meet public needs for additional 

recommended wilderness areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System based on the 

alternative theme. Recommended wilderness areas differed by alternative, addressing a range of 

options.

The Whitefish Divide recommended wilderness area is made up of parts of up to three IRAs, 

depending on the alternative: Marston Face, Thompson Seton, and Tuchuck. Changes in 

recommended wilderness for Whitefish Divide were made between draft and final in response to 

public comment.

In Alternative B Modified areas above the town of Rexford and Williams Creek were moved 

from recommended wilderness MA1b to backcountry MA5a due to concerns from the 

community. These concerns included potential management needs within areas that provide 

public water for the town of Rexford and areas of past logging in Williams Creek. This 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 455

alternative would provide for some mechanized use on trails. The areas of concern were 

allocated to MA5a.

The revised Forest Plan Whitefish Divide recommended wilderness area on the KNF includes 

areas which are outside of an IRA (cherry stem of closed road systems and associated harvest in 

Blue Sky and Williams Creek) for manageability. Areas outside of the IRA account for 

approximately 13 percent of the total acres of recommended wilderness in Alternative B

Modified, and 5 percent of the recommended wilderness in Alternative C.

Alternative B Modified does not include the Ten Lakes Area as recommended wilderness but

adds two additional areas: Whitefish Divide and Roderick. Both Whitefish Divide and Roderick 

areas have similar evaluations as Ten Lakes, but provide a higher degree of solitude. In addition, 

the Ten Lakes area is valued by local communities for its over-snow motorized opportunities.

Alternative C recommends the most wilderness, retaining the same areas as under the current 

Plan and adding six additional areas: Whitefish Divide, Roderick, Saddle Mountain, Allen Peak, 

Big Creek, and Gold Hill West. Alternative D recommends the least wilderness, recommending 

only the parts of the Cabinet Additions.

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 issued since the original Forest Plan and the amendments were 

adopted. The 1987 ROD identified three recommended wilderness areas: Scotchman Peaks, 

Cabinet Additions, and Ten Lakes Contiguous Area for a total of 102,500 acres. The Ten Lakes 

MWSA would continue to be managed under the Montana Wilderness Study Act.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

All action alternatives recommend some wilderness, to varying degrees. Alternative B Modified

recommends four potential wilderness areas: Scotchman Peaks, Cabinet Additions, Whitefish 

Divide, and Roderick for a total of 105,300 acres. Alternative C recommends nine potential 

wilderness areas for a total of 242,800 acres while Alternative D recommends the least number 

of acres, 37,300 acres (Cabinet Wilderness Additions). Desired conditions, standards, and 

guidelines for MA1c (Wilderness Study Area) would apply regardless of which alternative are

selected for implementation. Under the Northern Regions FSM 1923.12 the approach for 

conducting wilderness study on further planning areas in Ten Lakes MWSA is pending 

Congressional action. The Ten Lakes MWSA would continue to be managed under the 1977 

Montana Wilderness Study Act in all action alternatives.

Consequences to Roadless Areas from Forest Plan Components Associated with other 

Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Allocations

Research shows Americans that 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 Montana and Idaho should continue to 

consider this need for non-motorized hiking trails as they complete their wilderness assessments 

(Regional Wilderness needs assessment 2003).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

456 Inventoried Roadless Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 118 shows the distribution of the 638,034 acres of inventoried roadless area, across the 

range of MAs in each alternative. All the acres shown were included in the roadless area review 

completed for forest plan revision (see appendix C). Inventoried roadless areas, although 

allocated to various MAs, would also be managed under either the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule, or for areas in Idaho, the 2008 Idaho Roadless Rule.

Table 118. Acres of Inventory Roadless Area Management Area Allocation by Alternative

MA Alt A1 Alt B

Modified2 Alt C2 Alt D2

MA1a Wilderness 0 0 0 0

MA1b Wilderness Recommended 76,085 100,716 205,334 35,912

MA1c Wilderness Study Area 34,521 33,778 33,778 33,778

MA2 Eligible Wild and Scenic 

River 0 8,610 8,140 12,770

MA3 Special Areas 7,907 14,186 12,379 13,650

MA4 Research Natural Areas Included in 

MA3 6,668 5,855 5,856

MA5a Backcountry - Nonmotorized Year-round 234,690 225,382 322,861 110,799

MA5a/5b Combined 27,326 0 0 0

MA5b Backcountry - Motorized

Year-round (Summer only on 

designated routes/areas)

1,349 153,844 33,607 47,759

MA5c Backcountry – Winter 

Motorized, Summer Nonmotorized

0 81,375 9,967 114,582

MA6 General Forest Area 243,788 13,468 6,105 262,926

MA7 Recreation Area 76 0 0 0

Unknown 12,226 0 0 0

1 The 1987 Forest Plan did not categorize MA by these descriptions, acres are rounded and may not equal total potential 

wilderness inventory due to GIS mapping.

2 Acres do not match forestwide summary acres by MA because of overlapping acres within MA, and acres outside of 

IRAs included in recommended wilderness are not shown.

Management area allocation 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 (MA2, MA3, MA4, MA5a, 

MA5b, and MA5c); and areas that are recommended as wilderness (MA1b). Management area 

allocations will not directly affect the character of IRAs until management activities are planned 

and implemented. Table 119 summarizes the MAs allocated to each IRA for each alternative.

In general, Alternative D allocates the most acres of IRAs to allow a full range of development 

opportunities. Alternatives A, B Modified, and C allocate the least acres of IRAs to development 

and provide the best opportunity to maintain their underdeveloped roadless character.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 457

Table 119. Inventoried Roadless Area Management Area Allocation by Alternative

Inventoried Roadless 

Area

Area Action Alternative/MA(s)

Name # B Modified C D

Alexander 696 2,5a 2,5a 2,5a

Allen Peak 185 Allen Peak 2,3,5b 1b, 2,3,5a,5b,6 2,3,6

Barren Peak 183 Cabinet Addn’s 5b 1b,5a,5b 6

Berray Mountain 672 2,5a 2,5a 2,6

Big Creek 701 Big Creek 2,5c 1b, 2,6 2,5c

Buckhorn Ridge 661 5a,5c 5a,5b,6 5c

Cabinet Face East 671 Cabinet Addn’s 1b,2,4,5a,5b 1b,2,,5a,6 1b, 2,4,5a,6

Cabinet Face 

West

670 Cabinet Addn’s 1b, 2,4,5a 1b, 2,5a,6 1b, 2,4,5a,6

Cataract Creek 665 2,4,5a,5b 2,4,5a 2,4,6

Chippewa 682 Cabinet Addn’s 1b,2,5a,6 1b,2,5a,5b,6 1b,2,6

Cube Iron 784 5a 5a 5b

Devil’s Gap 698 5b 5b 6

East Fork Elk 678 5a,5c 5a 6

Flagstaff 690 2,3,4,5a,5c 2,3,4,5a 2,3,4,6

Galena 677 3,5b 3,5a 3,6

Gold Hill 668 6 5c 6

Gold Hill West 176 Gold Hill West 3,5c 1b,3,5a,5c,6 3,5c,6

Government Mtn 673 2,5a 2,5a 2,5b,6

Grizzly Peak 667 5a 5a,5b,6 5a,6

Huckleberry Mtn 699 5b 5b 6

LeBeau 507 4,5b 4,5a 4,6

Lone Cliff Smeads 674 5b 5b 6

Lone Cliff West 674a 5b 5a 6

Maple Peak 141 5b 5b 6

Marston Face 172 Whitefish Div 5a,5b,6 1b,5a,5b,6 5c

McKay Creek 676 Cabinet Addn’s 1b, 3,5a,5b,6 1b, 3,5a,5b 1b,3,6

McNeeley 675 5b 5b 6

Mt Henry 666 2,5a 2,5a,5c 2,5c

Northwest Peaks 663 3,5a,5c,6 3,5a,5b 3,5b,5c,6

Roberts 691 5a 5a,5b,6 5b

Robinson Mtn 164 5a 5a 5a,5c

Rock Cr 693 Cabinet Addn’s 1b,3,5b,6 1b,3,5b 3,6

Roderick 684 Roderick 1b,2,5a,5b,6 1b,2,5a,5b,6 2,5a

Saddle Mtn 168 Saddle Mtn 2,5a,5c,6 1b,2,5a,6 2,5a,6

Scotchman Peaks 662 Scotchman Pks 1b,2,3,4,5a,5c 1b,2,3,4,5a 2,3,4,5a,6

Ten Lakes 683 Ten Lakes Cont 1c,2,35a,5b,6 1b,1c,2,3,5a,5b,

5c 1c,2,3,5c,6

Thompson Seton 483 Whitefish Div 1b,5a,5b,6 1b,2,5a,5b 2,5a,5c

Trout Creek 664 5a,5b 5a 6
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

458 Inventoried Roadless Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Inventoried Roadless 

Area

Area Action Alternative/MA(s)

Name # B Modified C D

Tuchuck 482 Whitefish Div 5a 1b,2,5b 2,5c

West Fork Elk 692 5a 5a 5b

West Fork Yaak 694 2,4,5a 2,4,5a 2,4,5a,6

Willard Estelle 173 3,5a 3,5a 3,5c

Zulu 166 3,5c 3,5a 3,5c

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 IRAs and recommended 

wilderness. Effective fire suppression, insect and disease infestations, and vegetation and fuel 

types on the KNF have led to excessive fuel buildup. Lightening caused fires may be managed to 

meet resource benefits 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 the MA5s would use prescribed fire and natural, unplanned ignitions 

to meet resource objectives as the primary mechanism for managing vegetation (MA5a, b, cGDL-Fire-01). The use of natural, unplanned ignitions 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 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 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 

area) are not available for timber harvest. Limited timber harvest could occur in MA2 (scenic or 

recreation rivers), MA3 (special areas) and MA4 (research natural areas); only if done to 

maintain or restore the values or meet the objectives of the area. Timber harvest is also limited in 

the MA5s (backcountry).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 459

For those lands in MA6, timber harvest could occur for the purposes of timber production. Other 

forestwide management direction would apply to these areas and could constrain the extent, 

timing, and duration of timber harvest in MA6 (see standards and guidelines for MA 6 in the 

revised Forest Plan).

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 the MA5s, 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.

Timber harvest in MA6 could be more extensive. Alternatives B Modified and C only have small 

acreages allocated to MA6 (6,000 – 13,000 acres). In these alternatives, the 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 6,500 acre Gold Hill roadless area, 

allocated to MA6 in Alternatives B Modified and D. This roadless area is small in size and 

currently provides limited primitive recreation opportunities or opportunities for solitude.

Alternative D allocates a larger portion of roadless areas (more than 250,000 acres) to MA6, 

where timber harvests would have a larger impact on roadless characteristics. 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.

Vegetation and fuel treatments designed to increase hardwoods, reduce conifer encroachment, 

reduce fuels, maintain some level of old growth, are desirable in IRAs because these actions help 

restore natural conditions.

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 IRA values and 

wilderness characteristics. However, actions which maintain, restore, protect, or enhance wildlife 

habitat also improve natural integrity and ecosystem function and benefit IRA and wilderness 

values in the long-term.

Allocations of MAs that are non-motorized and benefit wildlife should also have beneficial 

effects on IRAs. Alternative C would result in the most lands allocated in non-motorized MAs, 

improving roadless character of the individual IRAs.

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, 

any such improvement structures are generally small and localized and would have a negligible 

effect upon undeveloped character and wilderness characteristics.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

460 Inventoried Roadless Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Effects from Minerals Management

Inventoried roadless areas in prescription which are administratively unavailable for mineral 

development will be largely unaffected by development. All other IRAs are potentially affected 

by development of minerals under the mining law. 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 

IRAs and to wilderness characteristics. These impacts may reduce roadless inventories by 

removing portions of IRAs where mining occurs. However, evidence of past mining, and even 

ongoing mining operation, do not necessarily preclude wilderness consideration, although they 

may make it less likely.

The exploration and development of locatable minerals is allowed within IRAs and 

recommended wilderness as secured by the Mining Act of 1872 and does not vary by alternative. 

Therefore, effects are common to all alternatives.

Effects from Access and Recreation Management

Areas that are recommended for wilderness will be managed to protect the wilderness character 

of that area. As the population grows, use is likely to increase. An increase in use may lead to 

improvement of trailhead facilities or visitor use management techniques.

Opportunities for primitive and non-motorized recreation will be found in IRAs and areas 

recommended for wilderness designation. Inventoried roadless areas that are assigned to other 

MAs will be managed for the recreation opportunities appropriate to the assigned MAs. The 

existing settings are generally semi-primitive non-motorized in character.

Trails and new trail construction is usually compatible with maintaining wilderness 

characteristics and undeveloped character.

In roadless areas allocated to recommended wilderness (MA1b) foot and horse travel will be 

permitted. In MA1b (and MA4) motorized and mechanized travel will be prohibited. MA1b will 

also prohibit motorized equipment, with the exception of hand held motorized equipment (i.e.,

chain saw) for administrative use. The Ten Lakes MWSA is MA1c, and will be managed under 

the Montana Wilderness Study Act. The Ten Lakes WSA acres are not included in this analysis.

Roadless areas not recommended for wilderness may have a variety of motorized or mechanized 

opportunities depending on the MA assigned. Table 120 displays the miles or acres of change in 

open or closed access and recreation use. Alternative C, then B Modified, A, and D provide for 

the most non-motorized, non-mechanized travel opportunities in IRAs. See the “Access and 

Recreation” section for additional information on road and area closures in MA1b and MA4.

Table 120. Summary of MA1b and MA4 Access and Recreation Site-Specific by Alternative

Type of Access or Recreation Alt A Alt B 

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Trail Motor Vehicle Use Miles

Open 144 144 144 144

Change 0 0 0 0

Over-snow Motor Vehicle Use1 Acres

Open 1,961,100 1,920,500 1,814,800 1,988,500

Closed 258,000 300,700 406,400 231,400
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 461

Type of Access or Recreation Alt A Alt B 

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Change to Closed 0 58,300 155,000 10,700

Mechanized Use (bicycle, cart, etc.) Acres (includes all trails in area)

Open 2,125,400 2,012,900 1,902,700 2,082,200

Closed 93,700 206,200 316,400 136,900

Change 0 112,500 222,700 43,200

1

The Ten Lakes WSA (MA1c) is not included in these numbers

Cross-country motor-vehicle use off of designated roads and trails and outside designated areas 

as displayed on the KNF MVUMs is prohibited. Over-snow vehicle use would be restricted by 

Forest Order in all MA1b and MA4 designated areas. Changes in number of acres by alternative 

includes: acres in MA4, additional closures areas MA1b, and reductions in acreage from 1987 

recommended wilderness area closures that are not recommended wilderness in this analysis.

Mechanized use (wheeled forms of transportation including non-motorized carts, wheelbarrows, 

bicycles, and any other non-motorized, wheeled vehicle) would be restricted on trails and crosscountry in MA1b.

Motorized equipment would not be allowed in all MA1b, with the exception of hand held 

motorized equipment, such as chain saws, for administrative use. The intent of this exception is 

to allow for administrative use of motorized equipment for activities such as trail maintenance. 

Motorized equipment restrictions do not include small battery-hand carried devices such as 

flashlights, GPS, cameras, or cell phones.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actives that were 

considered with regard to cumulative effects to the wilderness resource. Cumulative effects have 

been considered for the life of the Plan. The area of consideration is the KNF.

Reasonable and foreseeable actions on NFS lands include: future vegetation management, 

mining/reclamation, population growth, expansion of ski areas, and reduction of fuels in WUI. 

Community plans, such as the County Comprehensive Plans and Fire Plans, may influence the 

management of IRAs.

Population growth and development increases the need for public open space. Growth in Lincoln 

and Sanders Counties, as well as surrounding areas in Montana, Idaho, and Washington, is likely 

to increase recreation use of the Forest including an increase in use within recommended 

wilderness. 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.

Inventoried roadless area characteristics are changed by development such as roads, timber 

management, recreation facilities, reservoirs, etc. The development of the KNF for human 

benefit is a long-term continuing trend. The development of roads and management of vegetation 

has affected roadless areas in the past. Since the mapping of roadless areas in 1999 and the 

evaluation for wilderness potential there have been fewer developments which have changed the 

roadless characteristics of those IRAs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

462 Inventoried Roadless Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

The alternatives rank D, A, B Modified, and C from the least to most area retaining a roadless 

undeveloped character over the next 15 years. In terms of wilderness recommendation, the 

alternatives rank C, B Modified, D, and A from the most to the least area recommended.

Subsequent to the most recent potential wilderness evaluation, no management activities have 

been implemented which would affect the character of the roadless areas to the extent they 

would be precluded from future wilderness inclusion. Management activities, which have 

occurred, include trail management, surveys for noxious weeds, and ongoing studies for grizzly 

bear and other species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Wilderness 463

Designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Recommended 

Wilderness

Introduction

The Wilderness Act of 1964 requires the preservation of wilderness character 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 KNF manages three types of areas for their “wilderness character,” designated wilderness, 

wilderness study area, and recommended wilderness. The KNF manages the Cabinet Mountains 

Wilderness Area. The United States Congress designated this area in 1964, consisting of 

approximately 93,700 acres. All of this wilderness is located in Montana and is managed by the 

KNF.

The KNF manages one wilderness study area (WSA) — the Ten Lakes WSA. This wilderness 

study area was designated in 1977, as part of the Montana Wilderness Study Act (Public Law 95-

150). It is administered to maintain the wilderness character that existed in 1977, and the 

potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Some uses that existed 

prior to the 1977 Act continue to occur in the WSA.

The KNF manages areas recommended as additions to the national wilderness preservation 

system. Once the decision is made to recommend an area as wilderness, management actions and

decisions affecting these areas should be consistent in protecting and preserving the wilderness 

character (R1 Consistency Paper). If it is determined that the area is best suited to wilderness 

designation, the desired condition is to protect wilderness character by:

• Allowing only non-motorized, non-mechanized recreation year around;

• Evaluating any new uses, structures or facilities to determine the effect on wilderness 

character. New structures and/or facilities need to be commensurate with those that would be 

constructed in a wilderness setting and consistent in maintaining wilderness character; and

• Administrative use of motorized equipment for maintenance (chain saws, rock drills, and 

limited use of helicopters) is allowed to continue until designation.

By controlling the setting (environmental, social, and managerial conditions), managers 

influence the nature and quality of experiences to a substantial degree (Cole and Hall 2009). If 

Congress were to drop an area from further consideration as recommended wilderness, 

management would be reconsidered.

This section addresses areas that have already been designated as wilderness or WSAs and 

recommended wilderness areas. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

464 Wilderness Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

• Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977 (P.L.95-105): Provides for the study of certain 

lands to determine their suitability for designation as wilderness in accordance with the 

Wilderness Act of 1964, and for other purposes. These areas are referred to as Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs).

• National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1600):

Provides that management direction for wilderness be incorporated into Forest Plans and sets 

minimum standards for the content of the Plans.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 293: Wilderness–Primitive Areas

• 36 CFR 212.57: Monitoring of effects of motor vehicle use on designated roads and trails 

and in designated areas.

• 36 CFR 261.18: Prohibitions in National Forest Wilderness.

Key Indicator

• Acres of recommended wilderness.

Changes between Draft and Final

Clarification and additional information was provided on the three areas that will be managed for 

wilderness character: designated wilderness, recommended wilderness, and wilderness study 

areas.

Information was added as to the percent of IRAs allocated to MA5, and reference to the 

“Roadless Area” section was added.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area

The Cabinet Mountains derived their name from early French explorers who observed that the 

mountains resembled a series of closets or cabinets. The Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area is 

located in the southwest-central portion of the KNF, in both Lincoln and Sanders counties. The 

Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area is approximately 34 miles long and varies from 1⁄2 mile to 7 

miles wide. Elevations range from 2,500 feet to 8,700 feet above sea level, and the vegetation is 

predominantly subalpine. Glaciations have produced spectacular features such as high craggy 

peaks, vertical cliffs, knife edge ridges, and many amphitheater-like basins.

Encompassing approximately 94,000 acres, the area includes more than 20 hiking trails, 85 small 

lakes (many of which are stocked), ridge-top panoramas, and alpine meadows. The numerous 

drainages from this area flow into the Kootenai and Clark Fork Rivers; and elevations range 

from 2,500 feet at the base of Grambauer Mountain to 8,738 feet at Snowshoe Peak. As the result 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Wilderness 465

of a wetter climate, the vegetation differs from what characterizes much of western Montana. Elk 

are the primary game species but the area is also home to grizzly bear, deer, moose, mountain 

goat, black bear, mountain lion, and numerous smaller animals.

The Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area is currently managed under MA7 of the 1987 Forest 

Plan, and the 2009 Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Plan.

Travel by visitors is apparent on many of the trails leading through the alpine meadows and 

along streams to many of the lakes; however, trails give access to only about 15 percent of the 

area. Recreation use in 2007 was estimated at just over 12,000 national forest visits. Types of 

recreation use vary, with day hiking a major portion of total wilderness use. Other activities 

include but are not limited to backpacking, horseback riding, fishing, and hunting.

There are significant mineral reserves such as copper and silver. Efforts to develop those 

minerals are ongoing, see “Minerals” section. There have been no oil and gas leases issued; 

hence, there are no valid oil or gas lease rights.

Wilderness campsite inventory and conditions surveys have been completed since 1983 by 

wilderness rangers. In 2008 a campsite and weed inventory was completed under partnership 

with the University of Montana. A total of 460 weed patches were mapped, with 15 different 

species of weeds identified. In terms of area covered, orange hawkweed and spotted knapweed 

are the most abundant.

The Cabinet Mountains Wilderness is designated as Class I Wilderness area under the Clean Air 

Act amendments of 1977. Air quality related values have been actively monitored since 1993 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a).

Ten Lakes Montana Wilderness Study Area

The Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977 (MWSA) required the study of certain lands to 

determine their suitability for designation as wilderness. The Ten Lakes MWSA lies entirely in 

Lincoln County and is comprised of approximately 34,000 acres. Elevations range from 

approximately 4,000 feet to nearly 8,000 feet. There are several small lakes in the area. The size 

and configuration of the area is such that many people hike in and out the same day. The 

vegetation is sub-alpine with a few spruce basins scattered over the area. The west side is pine 

and fir and is high quality winter range for elk and deer. The boundary of the Ten Lakes MWSA 

was delineated in the 1977 Act.

After study, analysis, and evaluation of public comments, the Ten Lakes MWSA Final Report 

and Proposal was completed in 1985. This report was an administrative report to Congress, and 

recommended that 26,000 of the 34,000 acres include wilderness recommendation. Congress has 

not acted on this recommendation.

The Ten Lakes MWSA includes parts of the Ten Lakes Inventoried Roadless Area #638 (IRA). 

In addition, 26,000 acres of the 34,000 total acres was recommended as wilderness under the 

1987 Forest Plan, managed as MA8 and MA9.

Language in the 1977 Act required that the areas be managed to maintain their presently existing 

wilderness character and potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation system. 

In 1996 the Montana Wilderness Association filed a complaint that this part of the act had been 

violated. A Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Dismissal to the Montana Wilderness 

Association lawsuit affirms that, pending completion of site-specific travel management plans, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

466 Wilderness Kootenai National Forest - EIS

the KNF will manage the Ten Lakes WSA in accordance with applicable law and policy, 

including but not limited to the Montana Wilderness Study Act and Forest Service Manual 2329. 

This settlement agreement was reached with the understanding that new travel management 

plans could either resolve any dispute between the parties or serve to narrow any remaining areas 

of dispute regarding management of the MWSA (WSA Settlement Agreement March 2007).

The Fortine Ranger District is currently working on a travel management plan, including Ten 

Lakes MWSA, in the Galton Project. The Galton DEIS is expected in 2013. The Galton project 

will analyze wilderness character of the MWSA, and will implement any decisions needed to 

ensure the wilderness character that existed in 1977 is maintained. Evaluation of the wilderness 

character, and any changes since 1977, will be analyzed in the Galton project and is not part of 

the forest plan revision.

In 2008, Region 1 Supplement to Forest Service Manual 2329, provided clarification for 

management of WSAs. The MWSA is to be managed to maintain wilderness character as it 

existed at the time of designation in 1977. Uses and facilities that existed in 1977 can be allowed 

to continue subject to 36 CFR 212.57. However, if increases in amount of use occur, the line 

officer should consider how the increases affect wilderness character and the area’s potential for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Under the 1987 Forest Plan, over-snow vehicle use is permitted in the Ten Lakes WSA with no 

restriction on dates of use. All of the area open to over-snow vehicle use is not necessarily used 

because of terrain, vegetation, dangerous avalanche potential, and personal preferences. There 

are very few places currently accessed by over-snow vehicles that were not accessed in 1977. 

One difference in use from 1977 to present is with the newer snowmobile technology. 

Snowmobiles are now capable of travel in powder-snow conditions, whereas, earlier 

snowmobiles required harder and more crusted snow, which typically occurs later in the season.

Cross-country motor vehicle use (excluding over-snow vehicle use) is not allowed under the 

1987 Plan, as amended. There are no trails in the Ten Lakes WSA designated for motor vehicle

use (per 36 CFR 212 Subpart B).

There are currently no restrictions in the 1987 Plan, or in Forest Special Orders, to mechanized 

use in the Ten Lakes WSA. According to direction (R1 FMS 2329), mountain bikes may be 

allowed on trails that had established motor-bike use in 1977; or on non-motorized trails as long 

as the aggregate amount of mountain bike and motorcycle use maintains the wilderness character 

of the WSA as it existed in 1977. Use levels must be such to maintain the area’s potential for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Recommended Wilderness

In the 1987 Forest Plan a total of 102,500 acres, in three areas, were recommended for 

wilderness: Cabinet Mountains Wilderness additions, Scotchman Peaks, and Ten Lakes areas. 

Areas recommended for wilderness were defined in the 1987 Forest Plan as MA8 and MA9. 

Under the 1987 Forest Plan, the use of motorized and mechanized equipment in recommended 

wilderness and the WSA is allowed, to varying degrees.

The Ten Lakes contiguous area (MA8) and wilderness study area (MA9) remain open to 

snowmobiles in winter while the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness and Scotchman Peaks 

recommended wilderness areas are closed to vehicles year-round. No recommended wilderness 

is currently closed to bicycles or other non-motorized mechanized transport such as game carts, 

backcountry in-line skates or skate boards, or hang gliders.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Wilderness 467

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. The Cabinet Mountains Wilderness is managed and regulated in an effort to limit human 

impacts and influences to desired limits. Project proposals within these areas are evaluated for 

compliance with wilderness values. Commercial use of wilderness is controlled by special use 

permits and the operation plans that are required under the special use permits.

General Effects

Because direction for wilderness management is detailed in law, regulation, and agency policy 

and in specific management plans, management in the revision alternatives does not differ. In all 

alternatives, the existing Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area (MA1a) and Ten Lakes WSA 

(MA1c) acres remain the same. There will be no affect to undeveloped or special features and 

values in any alternative.

Significant effects to wilderness areas are not expected under any alternative nor are effects 

expected to differ by alternative. In all action alternatives the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness 

Area (MA1a) is managed under its Wilderness Management Plan (2009).

In all action alternatives the Ten Lakes WSA (MA1b) would be managed to protect wilderness 

character, as it existed in 1977, and allow activities which do not degrade wilderness character.

All action alternatives and the no-action alternative (Alternative A) propose to manage some of 

the area directly adjacent to the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area as recommended wilderness 

(MA1b). Alternative C contains the most recommended wilderness (MA1b) adjacent to the 

Cabinet Mountains 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 (MA1b) 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 (MA1b) have the potential effect of protecting wilderness resources. In 

general, alternatives that have areas recommended for wilderness exclude motorized and 

mechanized uses.

Recommended wilderness (MA1b) can affect existing wilderness and WSAs. All alternatives 

recommend new areas for wilderness designation. Designation of new wilderness may change 

patterns of recreation use and reduce pressure in the existing wilderness. 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 may 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.

Approximately 95 percent of the IRAs not allocated as recommended wilderness is allocated to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

468 Wilderness Kootenai National Forest - EIS

MA5a. IRAs not allocated as recommended wilderness would be managed under forestwide 

standards for IRAs, and MA5 or other MA direction.

Both wilderness and the WSA may be affected by MA allocation of adjacent lands by alternative.

Alternative C, and then B Modified, would add the most to the size of the protected areas; and 

therefore, discourage motorized trespass. Alternative D has the least amount of recommended 

wilderness and would potentially have the most affect by management of adjacent lands in MA6 

due to motorized use.

Effects of Forestwide Direction

Alternative A – No-action Alternative

Alternative A includes three areas identified as recommended wilderness in the 1987 Forest Plan: 

Cabinet Additions, Scotchman Peaks, and Ten Lakes Area. Total acres were 102,500.

The Scotchman Peaks area is recommended wilderness in Alternatives A, B Modified, and C. 

Alternative C includes an area on the north end of Scotchman Peaks IRA which is not included 

in Alternative B Modified.

Additions to the existing Cabinet Mountains Wilderness are recommended in all alternatives. 

Alternatives A and D are similar in additions to the Cabinet Mountains. Alternative A has 

additional area by Treasure Mountain and Alternative D has additional area by Goat Creek being 

included. Ten Lakes Area is included in Alternatives A and C.

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. This alternative 

allocates 105,300 acres to recommended wilderness on four areas: Cabinet Additions, Roderick, 

Scotchman Peaks, and Whitefish Divide.

Alternative C

Alternative C includes nine areas as recommended wilderness totaling 217,300 acres. The nine 

areas are Allen Peak, Big Creek, Cabinet Additions, Gold Hill West, Roderick, Saddle Mountain, 

Scotchman Peaks, Ten Lakes Contiguous Area and Whitefish Divide. Alternative C provides for 

the largest area as recommended wilderness, emphasizing the alternative theme of natural 

disturbance processes, use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives, and 

prescribed burns in addition to low-frequency management activities in order to meet watershed 

and vegetation restoration objectives.

Alternative D

Alternative D has the least recommended wilderness, identifying only the Cabinet Additions for 

a total of 37,300 acres. This alternative provides more options for vegetation management and 

motorized or mechanized access across more areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Wilderness 469

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 121 (below) displays the 

recommended wilderness acres by alternative. Motor vehicle use would not be allowed in these 

areas. Motor vehicle use is prohibited in the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Area in all four 

alternatives. Although single track motor vehicle use is allowed within the Ten Lakes WSA as 

outlined in the Montana Wilderness Study Act, there are no designated trails per 36 CFR 212 

Subpart B in any of the four alternatives. 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 121 (below) 

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. Any area that currently has no prohibition to over-snow 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 final ROD for the 

revised Forest Plan. See “Roadless Area” section in this chapter. Over-snow vehicle use is 

prohibited in the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Area in all four alternatives. Over-snow vehicle 

use is allowed within the Ten Lakes WSA in all four alternatives as outlined in the Montana 

Wilderness Study Act. 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. See 

“Roadless Area” section in this chapter. Alternative C would prohibit mechanized use on the 

most acreage while Alternative D would limit this use on the least number of acres. 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 final Forest Plan. Mechanized use is prohibited in the 

Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Area in all four alternatives. Mechanized use is allowed within the 

Ten Lakes WSA in all four alternatives as outlined in the Montana Wilderness Study Act. 

Allowed uses within the wilderness area and the WSA do not vary by alternative.

Alternative C provides the most recommended wilderness adjacent to the Cabinet Mountains 

Wilderness. Larger areas increase diversity of wilderness and provide greater benefit to the 

National Wilderness Preservation System.

Effects from Fire and Fuels Management

Naturally-ignited fires significantly affects 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 such a key process, fire suppression and climate 

change have made the vegetation on the KNF more susceptible to large-scale disturbance (fire, 

insects, and disease). The importance of fire and impacts of fire suppression have long been 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

470 Wilderness Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 as well as on adjacent lands. Fire in its 

natural role has a positive effect on the natural character of wilderness character. Wildland fire 

would continue as reintroduced process in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness under all 

alternatives, and would have similar effects.

Alternative C, which emphasizes the use of natural disturbances, provides the most benefit to the 

natural character as use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives would be 

more likely. Impacts to opportunities for solitude could be expected where visitors encounter 

crews working on firing operations.

Effects from Vegetation Management

Vegetation management in wilderness and WSAs is restricted to unplanned ignitions and 

prescribed fire in 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. All alternatives provide 

for use of natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives in wilderness.

Natural, unplanned ignitions will be utilized in wilderness, recommended wilderness, and 

WSAs. Alternatives C and B Modified respectively, would benefit most from wildland fire with 

larger areas of backcountry, where Alternative D would benefit least.

Effects from Access and Recreation Management

Wilderness itself is equally treated under the alternatives. The Cabinet Mountains Wilderness 

and Ten Lakes WSA may be affected by management of adjacent lands. All alternatives 

recommend additions to the size of protected area and further discourage motorized trespass in to 

wilderness (see table 121). Alternative C has the most non-motorized areas next to the Cabinet 

Mountains Wilderness and is the best for maintaining wilderness character. Although Alternative 

B Modified has fewer acres of recommended wilderness adjacent to the Cabinet Mountains 

Wilderness, it has the most acres adjacent in MA5a (non-motorized backcountry); thus, is the 

second best at protecting the wilderness area. Alternatives A and D are less beneficial than the 

other alternatives.

Alternatives A and C include Ten Lakes Contiguous Area, recommended wilderness adjacent to 

the Ten Lakes WSA, and would provide for additional solitude.

Table 121. Acres of Recommended Wilderness Areas by Alternative

Recommended Wilderness Area Acres by Alternative1

A B Modified C D

Allen Peak 20,500

Big Creek 6,600

Cabinet Additions 33,600 29,900 53,700 37,300

Gold Hill West 12,200

Roderick 23,500 23,500

Saddle Mountain 14,300
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Wilderness 471

Recommended Wilderness Area Acres by Alternative1

A B Modified C D

Scotchman Peaks 36,100 35,900 37,300

Ten Lakes (includes MA1c MWSA 

acres when Ten Lakes Contiguous 

Area is recommended wilderness)

32,800 34,600

Whitefish Divide 16,000 40,100

Total Acres 102,500 105,300 242,800 37,300

1 Acres don’t match forestwide summary acres by MA because of overlapping acres with RNAs that are on top of 

proposed wilderness

Recreation and travel management in the WSA does not change by alternative. Motorized or 

mechanized use in place prior to 1977 may continue as allowed by law. Recommended 

wilderness in Alternative C would provide for the most non-motorized use area.

Areas that are recommended for wilderness will be managed to protect the wilderness character 

of that area. An increase in use may lead to improvement of trailhead facilities or the visitor use 

management techniques.

Effects from Minerals Management

The Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area and Ten Lakes WSA have been withdrawn from 

mineral entry and are not available for new leases or claims. Surface and mineral estates within 

the wilderness are entirely federal. Mining activities can result in both short-term and long-term 

effects from associated structures, roads, vegetation clearing, and general ground-disturbing 

activities. Two mines are currently under analysis for development under the Cabinet Mountains 

Wilderness.

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 KNF.

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. There have been mineral developments surrounding the 

Cabinet Mountains Wilderness.

Population growth and development increases the need for public open space. Growth in Lincoln 

and Sanders County, as well as surrounding areas of Flathead County, Idaho, and Washington is 

likely to increase recreation use of the Forest, including an increase in 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.

No Forest Plan alternative would change the amount of existing wilderness that occurs within the 

state of Montana or the National Wilderness Preservation System. Currently the KNF contributes 

approximately 2 percent of designated wilderness within Montana, and less than 1/1000 percent 

of national wilderness.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

472 Wild & Scenic Rivers Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 

River 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 473

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 KNF 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 

474 Wild & Scenic Rivers Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 297 — Wild and Scenic Rivers

Key Indicator

• Miles of eligible, wild, and scenic or recreational rivers.

Analysis Area

The analysis area for wild, scenic, and recreational rivers is the named rivers and streams on the 

KNF.

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 KNF. The 

inventory of the named rivers and streams on the KNF 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 475

assessment is the individual forest. That is, the rivers and streams on the KNF 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 KNF 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. The outstandingly 

remarkable values were then summarized over the entire river system.

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

Based on public comment, the inventory of potentially eligible wild and scenic rivers was 

reviewed and changes made to eligible rivers for Alternative B Modified. Under this alternative, 

the Grave Creek and Quartz Creek systems are no longer considered eligible as wild and scenic 

rivers.

Updates have been made to the outstandingly remarkable values in tables 122 and 123 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. Information was summarized 

for the entire river system and 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 

476 Wild & Scenic Rivers Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

The 1987 Forest Plan initially identified four rivers that appeared to be eligible for consideration 

per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act: the Yaak, Kootenai, Bull, and Vermilion Rivers. While there 

was no specific MA assigned to wild and scenic rivers under the 1987 Forest Plan, these areas 

were “protected to maintain the characteristics which led to their existing status” (1987 Plan, p. 

II-27).

The 1987 Forest Plan was amended in February 1989 and October 1989 to include additional 

section and tributaries of the Bull River and Big Creek and additional management standards.

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 KNF. The inventory of named rivers 

and streams on the KNF resulted in the identification of 752 candidates to consider for 

eligibility: Libby District (206), Cabinet District (180), Three Rivers District (189), Rexford 

District (84), and Fortine District (93). An assessment of these 752 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 are additional rivers and streams eligible 

for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These additional rivers are 

summarized in table 123.

The 1987 KNF Forest Plan did not contain any monitoring items in relation to eligible, suitable, 

or designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. During the life of the Plan, no suitability studies were 

conducted on any of the eligible rivers.

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 (USDA Forest 

Service 1995) direction have resulted in the protection of those rivers and streams where 

fisheries were the identified outstandingly remarkable value.

Table 122 summarizes the eligible rivers that were included in the 1987 KNF Forest Plan 

subsequent to 1989 Forest Plan amendments. Figure 37 displays their location (use the map code 

listed in table 122 as a reference to figure 37).

Table 122. Summary of Eligible Rivers on the KNF (1987 Forest Plan)

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)

Kootenai River

S - 1 K1 Scenery, 

Fisheries, 

Recreation, 

and History

9.3 1.3 Recreational 737

S - 2 K2 10.1 1.9 Recreational 363

S - 3 K3 8.8 5.0 Recreational 2,299

S - 4 K4 10.3 0.5 Recreational 237

S - 5 K5 8.7 6.7 Recreational 2,308

Yaak River

S - 1 Y1 Scenery, 

Recreation, 

19.1 3.5 Recreational 1,842

S - 2 Y2 9.8 7.1 Recreational 2,734
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 477

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)

S - 3 Y3 and History 11.4 6.2 Recreational 2,068

S - 4 Y4 9.3 9.0 Wild 2,586

Bull River System

S - 1 (Bull River) B1 Scenery 11.3 5.7 Recreational 1,911

S - 2 (Bull River) B2 9.1 3.4 Recreational 1,608

S - 3 (N. Fork &

Middle Forks of Bull 

River)

B3 17.4 12.6 Wild 4,135

S - 4 (E Fork Bull 

River)

B4 4.5 4.1 Recreational 1,119

S - 5 (E Fork Bull 

River)

B5 3.0 3.0 Wild 997

Big Creek System

S - 1 (Big Creek) BC1 Recreation 7.6 7.6 Recreational 2,261

S - 2 (S Fork Big 

Creek)

BC2 6.7 6.7 Recreational 2,103

S - 3 (Little N F Big 

Creek)

BC3 1.6 1.6 Wild 452

S - 4 (Good Creek) BC4 2.4 2.4 Wild 717

S - 5 (NF Big 

Creek)

BC5 5.6 5.6 Wild 1,797

S - 6 (Copeland 

Creek)

BC6 1.8 1.8 Wild 564

S - 7 (Lookout 

Creek)

BC7 2.4 2.4 Wild 725

S - 7 (EF Lookout 

Creek)

BC7 1.5 1.5 Wild 443

S - 7 (Lookout 

Creek Trib)

BC7 1.7 1.7 Wild 515

Vermilion River

S - 1 V1 Scenery and 

History

13.2 11.1 Recreational 3,599

Total 186.1 112.4 38,120

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

Under Alternative A there would be no new river miles identified as eligible on the KNF. The 

1987 ROD and amended Plan identified approximately 112.4 miles of rivers on NFS land (and 

the associated corridors containing about 38,120 acres) on the KNF as eligible for study as 

additions to the National Wild and Scenic River system (see table 122)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

478 Wild & Scenic Rivers Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

For the FEIS, the eligible rivers differed by alternative, addressing a range of management 

options.

In addition to the existing eligible rivers identified in the 1987 ROD and subsequent 

amendments, Alternatives C and D identify approximately 60 additional miles of river on NFS 

land (and the associated corridors containing about 18,300 acres) as eligible for study as 

additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System (see table 123 below).

In addition to the existing eligible rivers identified in the 1987 ROD and subsequent 

amendments, Alternative B Modified includes the same additional eligible rivers as Alternatives 

C and D with the exception of the Grave Creek and Quartz Creek Systems. Review of these 

creek systems between draft and final found the outstandingly remarkable values for most 

segments were bull trout and sensitive plants. The presence of these features are not necessarily 

“rare, unique, or exemplary” across the KNF, with bull trout and sensitive plants found on many 

creeks and rivers throughout the Forest. Critical habitat for bull trout and occurrence of sensitive 

plants are protected regardless of management area designation. Alternative B Modified has 17 

additional miles of river (and the associated corridors containing 5,300 acres) as eligible for 

study as additions to the National Wild and Scenic River System (see table 123 below).

Table 123 summarizes the additional eligible rivers by alternative. Figure 37 displays their 

location (use the map code listed in table 123 as a reference to figure 37).

Table 123. KNF Rivers Identified During Plan Revision as Eligible to Add to the Wild, Scenic, and 

Recreational River System by Alternative

Alt River/Segments(s) Map 

Code

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value(s)

Length 

on all 

Lands 

(miles)

Length 

on NFS 

Lands 

(miles)

Preliminary 

Classification

Acres 

(on 

NFS 

Lands)

Bull River System

B 

Mod, 

C, D

S - 6 (N.F. of the E. 

Fork Bull River)

B6 Scenery 2.2 2.2 Recreational 616

B 

Mod, 

C, D

S - 7 (N.F. of the E. 

Fork Bull River)

B7 1.4 1.4 Wild 497

Grave Creek System

C,D S - 1 (Grave Creek) GC1 Fisheries 13.0 12.5 Recreational 3,699

C,D S - 2 (Stahl Creek) GC2 4.3 4.3 Recreational 1,244

C,D S - 3 (Clarence 

Creek)

GC3 5.2 5.2 Recreational 1,654

C,D S - 4 (Blue Sky 

Creek)

GC4 6.3 6.3 Recreational 2,002

Quartz Creek System

C,D S - 1 (Quartz Creek) QC1 Fisheries and 

Botany

9.5 8.4 Recreational 2,572

C,D S - 2 (West Fork 

Quartz Creek)

QC2 2.8 2.8 Wild 892

C,D S - 3 (West Fork 

Quartz Creek)

QC3 3.1 3.1 Recreational 904
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 479

Alt River/Segments(s) Map 

Code

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value(s)

Length 

on all 

Lands 

(miles)

Length 

on NFS 

Lands 

(miles)

Preliminary 

Classification

Acres 

(on 

NFS 

Lands)

Vinal Creek System

B 

Mod, 

C, D

S - 1 (Vinal Creek) VC1 Scenery and 

Recreation

4.1 3.9 Scenic 1,074

B 

Mod, 

C, D

S - 2 (Turner Creek) VC2 1.0 1.1 Scenic 386

West Fork Yaak River

B 

Mod, 

C, D

S - 1 YWF1 Scenery and 

History

4.3 4.2 Wild 1,330

B 

Mod, 

C, D

S - 2 YWF2 5.6 4.5 Recreational 1,428

Total 62.8 59.9 18,298

Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D eligible rivers would be allocated to MA2 and would 

be managed to protect the outstandingly remarkable values for which these rivers are eligible to 

the National Wild and Scenic River System. This direction would apply to those streams 

identified as eligible in the existing Plan, as well as the additional river miles identified as 

eligible for each alternative. Alternative B Modified designates approximately 130 miles of 

streams on NFS lands (and the associated corridors containing 43,451 acres) as eligible wild and 

scenic rivers. Alternatives C and D designates approximately 172 miles of streams on NFS lands 

(and the associated corridors containing 56,418 acres) as eligible wild and scenic rivers.

Figure 37 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

480 Wild & Scenic Rivers Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 37. Map of KNF Eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreation Rivers
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Wild & Scenic Rivers 481

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 as eligible. More areas are protected as 

eligible for wild and scenic rivers under Alternatives C and D than under the other alternatives. 

Alternative B Modified protects those rivers with the highest level of “rare, unique, and 

exemplary” attributes. Alternative A protects the least amount of rivers as eligible for wild and 

scenic rivers.

Effects from Vegetation Management

Although all river corridors are removed from calculation of the ASQ, trees could be harvested

in 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 and endangered species or native 

ecological communities. 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.

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.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

482 Wild & Scenic Rivers Kootenai National Forest - EIS

KNF 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 those rivers 

(e.g., Kootenai River, Yaak River, and Bull River) which predominantly flow through lands other 

than NFS lands, there has been continual development on private property. Water-related 

activities such as fishing, rafting, kayaking, and similar uses are expanding as the population in 

the 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Research Natural Areas 483

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 KNF 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 

484 Research Natural Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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

Kootenai National Forest resource specialists and research scientists, along with the Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, have identified NFS lands on the KNF that possess ecological 

characteristics that make them desirable for RNA establishment. The revised Forest Plan would 

designate three additional RNAs in addition to the eight established RNAs already on the KNF.

Changes between Draft and Final

Following field review, the boundaries of two proposed RNAs were adjusted and increased in 

size. The boundary adjustments were to improve management, make them locatable on the 

ground, and protect additional areas of whitebark pine (a sensitive species). The Huson Peak 

RNA increased 984 acres and the Seven Point Genetical RNA increased 399 acres. These 

changes in boundaries were made to Alternative B Modified.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

There are currently eight established RNAs on the KNF (table 124 below). The 1987 KNF ROD 

proposed eight RNAs for possible establishment. These eight RNAs totaled approximately 3,140 

acres when the ROD was issued in 1987. All eight RNAs have been officially established since 

the ROD was signed. Most of the eight RNAs had boundaries modified and refined when they 

were officially established and now total approximately 5,210 acres. See appendix F for a 

description of these areas and detailed maps.

Table 124. Established Research Natural Areas on the KNF

RNA Name District Established (Acres)

Big Creek Rexford 178

Hoskins Lake Three Rivers 376

LeBeau Fortine 411

Lower Ross Creek Three Rivers 1,874

Norman Parmenter Libby 1,289

Pete Creek Meadows Three Rivers 153

Ulm Peak Cabinet 689

Wolf Weigel Libby 240

Total Acres 5,210
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Research Natural Areas 485

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

This alternative reflects the 1987 Forest Plan, as amended. Under Alternative A, eight areas, 

encompassing 5,210 acres would continue to be managed as RNAs. These areas represent 

examples of late-successional plan 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 MA21 of the 1987 Forest Plan. This MA provides specific direction for the 

management of these areas for non-manipulative research, observation, and study. This MA also 

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, resulting in an increase of approximately 4,609 acres managed as 

RNAs. Alternatives C and D would also add three new RNAs, but two of them would be smaller, 

resulting in an increase of 3,226 acres managed as RNAs. See table 125 for a summary of 

proposed RNAs and acreages by alternative. These areas, along with the existing RNAs, are 

allocated to MA4.

Table 125. Proposed Research Natural Areas on the KNF

RNA Name District Alt B Modified Proposed 

Acres

Alt C and D Proposed 

Acres

Doonan Peak Three Rivers 504 504

Huson Peak Libby 1,715 731

Seven Point Genetical Cabinet 2,390 1,991

Total Additional Acres 4,609 3,226

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.

Doonan Peak: The area contains hybrids of a cross between western larch and alpine larch. It is 

known as hybrid larch. This site has an extensive, well-developed distributional overlap of 

western larch and alpine larch and their natural hybrids. Trees of all three taxa are present in both 

old growth and young age classes. It is the largest known concentration of hybrid larch in 

northwestern Montana. After the St. Mary’s area in the Bitterroot Valley, it is the most extensive 

natural hybridization zone of western larch and alpine larch. The site also contains a tree that is 

nominated for the Montana Champion Tree Program for alpine larch. The proposed RNA is 

located adjacent to the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness. The area is in a rugged glacial cirque 

having a steep headwall with talus slopes and an adjacent subalpine ridge.

Huson Peak: The area contains a viable stand of whitebark pine. This stand is an historic 

representation of the species for western Montana and northern Idaho. The site is used for 

collecting seed for a breeding program to determine genetic resistance of the species to white 

pine blister rust. It is not known if these trees contain any rust resistance, but they are alive and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

486 Research Natural Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

well, while many of the stands in the area have been killed by the rust. The stands are generally 

located above 5,800 feet elevation.

Seven Point Genetical: The area contains a viable stand of whitebark pine. This stand is an 

historic representation of the species for western Montana and northern Idaho. The site is used 

for collecting seed for a breeding program to determine genetic resistance of the species to white 

pine blister rust. It is not known if these trees contain any rust resistance, but they are alive and 

well, while many of the stands in the area have been killed by the rust. The stands are generally 

located above 5,800 feet elevation.

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 4,609 acres (Alternative B Modified) or 3,226 

acres (Alternatives C and D) under MA4-STD-AR-02. In addition, MA4 includes MA4-GDLAR-02 which allows mechanized use (e.g., mountain bikes and other non-motorized, wheeled 

vehicles) only on NFS routes. These standards and guidelines would protect the natural 

processes within the RNAs.

Effects from Vegetation Management

MA21 (Alternative A) and MA4 (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.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Research Natural Areas 487

mechanized use is limited to established trails. These limited recreation activities would not 

result in any change in the lands proposed 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 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed RNAs.

Fuels management activities (e.g., prescribed burning) are likely to continue. It is unlikely that 

fire and fuels management activities would likely result in any change to established or proposed 

RNAs since fuels management activities generally take place outside of RNAs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

488 Special Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

The KNF did not identify any special areas that were classified as “paleontological.”

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Special Areas 489

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 KNF.

Changes between Draft and Final

The Affected Environment has been updated to correct the omission of the Devil Gap Special 

Area, which was designated under the 1987 Forest Plan. It was also updated to explain why 

Boyd Mill is no longer designated as a special area.

All alternatives were updated to remove the traditional cultural (a subset of historical) special 

areas. These areas will be managed separate, outside of the forest plan.

Based on public comment, the existing Devil Gap Special Area was added to Alternative B 

Modified. Also based on public comment, four new special areas were added to Alternative B 

Modified: 494 Road Bedrock Meadow, East Fork Bull River, Hamilton Gorge, and Swamp 

Mountain Meadows. These areas have special characteristics and meet the intent of special area 

designation. See appendix F for a description of these areas.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

The 1987 Forest Plan as amended included 15 special areas. One of these areas, Boyd Mill, is no 

longer designated as a special area. Most of this area is a cemetery, which was transferred to the 

county. The remaining 14 special areas encompass 17,659 acres (see table 126). Descriptions and 

maps of these special areas are included in appendix F.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

490 Special Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

The Proposed Plan that was released in 2006 identified 35 established special areas on the KNF. 

Subsequent review of the special areas found that 20 of the 35 had not been designated following 

Forest Service direction. The 14 special areas listed in table 126, plus Boyd Mill which is no 

longer a special area, were designated by the regional forester either prior to the 1987 Plan, or 

through the decision on the 1987 Plan and subsequent amendments. The 20 that had not been 

formally designated were then reviewed in the action alternatives for possible recommendation.

Table 126. Designated Special Areas on the KNF

Name District Existing (Acres) Classification

Berray Cedars Cabinet 86 Botanical

Devil Gap Cabinet 831 Geological

Hidden Lake Fortine 607 Botanical

Kootenai Falls Three Rivers/Libby 420 Historical

Lower West Fork Yaak Falls Three Rivers 274 Geological

Northwest Peak Scenic Area Three Rivers 4,714 Scenic

Rexford Hoodoos Rexford 76 Geological

Ross Creek Scenic Area Three Rivers 101 Scenic

Star Canyon Three Rivers 81 Geological

Ten Lakes Scenic Area Fortine 6,542 Scenic

Tenmile Talus Rexford 390 Geological

Upper Big Creek Riparian 

Ecosystem

Rexford/Libby 2,966 Botanical

Wood Creek Larch Scenic 

Area

Three Rivers 115 Scenic

Yahk Mining District Three Rivers 456 Historical

Total Acres 17,659

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 14 existing special areas listed above in table 126 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 17,659 acres. Except for areas 

overlapping with RNAs or the WSA, these areas are allocated to MA21 in the 1987 Forest Plan.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D retain all existing special areas. The one exception to 

retaining all existing special areas is the removal of Devil Gap under Alternatives C and D. This 

special area was dropped under the action alternatives in the DEIS because the area was not as 

unique or special as other geologic areas on the Forest. Based on public comment, this area has 

been added back into Alternative B Modified, reflecting the retention of all existing special areas 

under this alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Special Areas 491

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D designate additional special areas and expand the size of 

some of the special areas that were previously established. See table 127 for a listing of 

recommended areas for Alternatives B Modified, C, and D.

Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D, two existing areas are recommended to be expanded. 

The Northwest Peaks Scenic Area would be increased by 8,534 acres and the Ten Lakes Scenic 

Area increased 8,403 acres. These expansions would be made to include the adjacent acreages 

that have high scenic value and improve manageability of the existing special areas. See 

appendix F for more information on these two proposed expansions.

Under Alternative B Modified, 36 new special areas are recommended, totaling 13,699 acres. 

Alternatives C and D will recommend 32 new special areas, totaling 13,366. The additional 4 

areas under Alternative B Modified were added based on public comment on the DEIS. The 4 

areas were found to be unique and of special value to be added to Alternative B Modified. See 

appendix F for more information on all recommended special areas.

The existing and additional areas and acreages recommended as special areas are allocated to 

MA3. This MA provides direction to ensure these areas are managed for public use and 

enjoyment and to protect their unique or special characteristics.

Table 127. Recommended Special Areas by Alternative

Name Alternative Recommended 

(Acres)

Classification

494 Road Bedrock Meadow B Mod 35 Botanical

Bad Medicine B Mod, C, D 1,938 Zoological

Barnum Wetland B Mod, C, D 227 Botanical

Barron Creek B Mod, C, D 326 Historical

Bitterroot Point B Mod, C, D 126 Botanical

Callahan Historic Mining & 

Logging District

B Mod, C, D 3,262 Historical

Cody Lakes B Mod, C, D 194 Botanical/Zoological

East Fork Bull River B Mod 109 Botanical

East Fork Pipe Creek B Mod, C, D 1,118 Geological

Falls Creek B Mod, C, D 42 Scenic/Geological

Flower Lake B Mod, C, D 16 Botanical

French Creek Cedars B Mod, C, D 131 Botanical

Gateway Prairie B Mod, C, D 2,147 Botanical

Halverson Face B Mod, C, D 47 Botanical

Hamilton Gorge B Mod 144 Geological

Kelsey Creek B Mod, C, D 53 Botanical

Kenelty Caves B Mod, C, D 87 Geological

Little North Fork Falls B Mod, C, D 6 Recreational

Lost Horse Fen B Mod, C, D 308 Botanical

Lower Sunday Creek 

Ecosystem

B Mod, C, D 150 Botanical

Northwest Peak Scenic Area B Mod, C, D 8,5341 Scenic
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

492 Special Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Name Alternative Recommended 

(Acres)

Classification

Pete Creek B Mod, C, D 320 Botanical

Pinkham Falls B Mod, C, D 21 Geological

Rock Creek Meadows B Mod, C, D 185 Botanical

Rocky Fivemile Forest B Mod, C, D 215 Botanical

Ross Falls B Mod, C, D 44 Geological

Spar Springs B Mod, C, D 196 Geological

Spread Otis Creeks B Mod, C, D 382 Botanical

Stone Hill B Mod, C, D 760 Recreational/Geological

Sutton Falls B Mod, C, D 113 Geological

Swamp Mountain Meadows B Mod 45 Botanical

Ten Lakes Scenic Area B Mod, C, D 8,4031 Scenic

Tenmile Falls B Mod, C, D 187 Geological

Tepee Lake B Mod, C, D 46 Botanical

Terriault Pass B Mod, C, D 493 Geological

Vermilion Falls B Mod, C, D 99 Recreational/Historical

Vinal Lake B Mod, C, D 83 Botanical

Yaak Falls B Mod, C, D 44 Historical/Recreational

Total Acres 30,636

1 Additional acres to those existing

The 2006 Proposed Plan included additional recommended special areas. These areas were 

reviewed to see if they would be managed for recreational use while protecting their values. 

Many of the areas were determined to be protected under revised forest plan direction (for 

example, protection of fens through a guideline to buffer peatlands, FW-GDL-VEG-09). 

Furthermore, recreational use is not desired for some of these areas. Characteristics of each area 

were also reviewed to see if they were special or unique values on the Forest. The remaining 

areas recommended as special areas met the criteria of recreational use and special 

characteristics or values.

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. Alternative B Modified 

recommends the most additional acreage, at 30,636 acres, while Alternatives C and D 

recommend slightly less, at 30,303 acres. Alternative A does not recommend any additional 

Special Areas and would not result in any increase.

Effects from Vegetation Management

Special areas are not suitable for timber production. Timber harvest is allowed in these areas as a 

tool to maintain or restore the values for which they were determined to be a special area, but do 

not contribute to the ASQ. Natural ecological processes (e.g., plant succession) and disturbances 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Special Areas 493

(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 scenic and recreational areas. Trail maintenance work can be 

expected to have little, if any, impact on Special Area characteristics.

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, zoological, and 

historical 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.

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 KNF 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

494 Special Areas Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

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.

Neither the Rock Creek nor Montanore mining proposals, if they were to begin operations, is 

likely to have an effect on any designated Special Area since these projects occur outside of 

designated Special Areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Cultural Resources 495

Cultural Resources

Introduction

Historic properties include cultural sites that reflect past use of the area, having value as defined 

by the National Register of Historic Places (Register) Criteria for Eligibility for their: a) 

association with important events, b) association with important people in our history, c) 

distinctive historical or architectural style, and d) potential to provide information about the past. 

A property can be eligible under one or more of these criteria, and generally are at least 50 years 

old. Identification of historic properties is completed through field inventory, sites are evaluated 

for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, and a selection of those properties is 

formally nominated for listing on the Register. Through this process, current and potential 

impacts to eligible properties are identified and protection measures designed and implemented.

Legal and Administrative Framework

Law and Executive Orders

• 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)

• Section 106: Requires each agency to take into account the effects of its actions on 

historic properties, prior to approving expenditure of federal funds on an undertaking or

prior to issuing any license. Furthermore, an agency must afford the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (an independent federal agency created by NHPA) an 

opportunity to comment on any of the agency's undertaking that could affect historic 

properties.

• 36 CFR 800: Provides explicit direction for the identification of sites, the determination of 

project effects on sites, requirements for consultation with state historic preservation offices,

and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and how to develop agreements.

The Department of Interior has posted guidelines for identifying and nominating traditional 

cultural properties under the NHPA in Bulletin 38. A traditional cultural property is defined 

generally as one that is eligible to the National Register because of its association with 

cultural practices or beliefs of living community that (a) are rooted in that community's 

history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

community. The Forest Service has issued policy on the interpretation of Bulletin 38. If a 

property or area being considered for treatment under the provisions of the NHPA does not 

meet all specified criteria, the Section 106 provisions do not apply. The concerns expressed 

for designation may be very real and very important; but consideration of any traditional 

cultural values associated with the area might properly occur under some other mechanism 

or process, such as NEPA or American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

• Section 101(a) (8): Gives the Secretary of Interior (National Park Service) the responsibility 

and authority to assess "significant threats to properties included in, or eligible for inclusion 

on, the National Register in order to:

• (A) Determine the kinds of properties that may be threatened;

• (B) Ascertain the causes of the threats; and

• (C) Develop and submit to the President and Congress recommendations for appropriate 

action."
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

496 Cultural Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

The Park Service will turn to individual agencies to report such information. This would require 

a forestwide assessment of known sites, factoring in their present condition, potential for threat, 

and recommendations for protection.

• Section 110 (a) (2) (A): Directs federal agencies to establish "a preservation program for the 

identification, evaluation, and nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, and 

protection of historic properties" to "ensure that such properties under the jurisdiction or 

control of the agency are identified, evaluated, and nominated to the National Register". This 

would require development of a schedule for the identification, evaluation, and nomination 

of unrecorded sites.

• 36 CFR 79: Establishes standards, procedures, and guidelines to be followed by federal 

agencies to preserve collections of prehistoric and historic material remains and associated 

records that are recovered in conjunction with federal projects and programs under certain 

federal statutes. This action should ensure that federally-owned and administered collections 

of prehistoric and historic materials remains and associated records are deposited in 

repositories that have the capability to provide adequate long-term curatorial services.

• 36 CFR 60: Sets forth basic procedures of evaluation and nomination of sites to the National 

Register of Historic Places, procedures for the operations of state historic preservation 

officers, and minimum qualification standards for cultural resource professionals.

• 36 CFR 219.24: Provides guidance for addressing cultural and historic sites in forest plans. 

Forest planning shall provide for the identification, protection, interpretation, and 

management of significant cultural resources on NFS lands. Forest planning shall provide an 

overview of known data relevant to history, ethnography, and prehistory of the area under 

consideration: including known cultural resource sites; identify areas requiring more 

intensive inventory; providing for evaluation and identification of appropriate sites for the 

National Register of Historic Places; providing for establishing measures for the protection 

of significant cultural resources from vandalism and other human depredation, and natural 

destruction; identifying the need for maintenance of historic sites on, or eligible for inclusion 

in the National Register of Historic Places; and identifying opportunities for interpretation of 

cultural resources for the education and enjoyment of the American Public.

• Executive Order 11593 of 1971, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment: States that the federal government will provide leadership on preserving, 

restoring, and maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the Nation. Directs 

federal agencies through federal plans and programs to preserve cultural resources, 

contribute to the preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned sites, structures, and 

objects of historic, architectural, or archaeological significance. It orders federal agencies to 

locate, inventory, and nominate to the National Register all properties under their control or 

jurisdiction that meets the criteria for nomination. It also directs federal agencies to exercise 

caution during the interim period to ensure cultural resources under their control are not 

inadvertently damaged, destroyed, or transferred.

• Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) P.L. 96-95) and 36 CFR Part 

7 Sec 2a: The Congress finds:

• (1) Archaeological resources on public lands and Indian lands are an accessible and 

irreplaceable part of the Nation's heritage;

• (2) These resources are increasingly endangered because of their commercial 

attractiveness;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Cultural Resources 497

• (3) Existing federal laws do not provide adequate protection to prevent the loss and 

destruction of these archaeological resources and sites resulting from uncontrolled 

excavations and pillage; and

• (4) There is a wealth of archaeological information which has been legally obtained by 

private individuals for noncommercial purposes and which could voluntarily be made 

available to professional archaeologists and institutions...

The purpose of this section is to provide protection for archaeological resources found on public 

lands and Indian lands of the United States. The legislation provides civil and criminal penalties 

for those who remove or damage archaeological resources in violation of the prohibitions 

contained in the bill. The bill prohibits the removal of archaeological resources on public lands 

or Indian lands without first obtaining a permit from the affected federal land manager or Indian 

Tribe.

• Section 470ii (c): States that "Each federal land manager shall establish a program to 

increase public awareness of the significance of the archaeological resources located on 

public lands and Indian lands and the need to protect such resources.” It further directs that 

an annual report of such progress will be submitted to Congress.

• Section 470mm: Directs federal agencies to:

• (a) Develop plans for surveying lands under their control to determine the nature and 

extent of archaeological resources on those lands;

• (b) Prepare a schedule for surveying lands that are likely to contain the most 

scientifically valuable archaeological resources; and

• (c) Develop documents for the report of suspected violations of this act and establish 

when and how those documents are to be completed by officers, employees, and agents 

of their respective agencies.

• 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 associative funerary 

objects. The law also provides for criminal penalties in the illegal trafficking in Native 

American human remains and cultural items.

• Executive Order 13287 of 2000, Preserve America: Reinforces the federal government 

policy for “protection and enhancement of America’s historic treasures, and to recognize and 

treat cultural resources as assets. Federal agencies shall advance this policy through the 

protection of, continued use of, and reinvestment in, the federal government’s historic 

buildings and sites and by conforming to the highest standards of care for, and consideration 

of, the unique cultural heritage of communities, and of the Nation.” Each agency is directed 

to: (a) review its regulations, management policies, and general operating procedures for 

compliance with Section 110 of the NHPA, and (b) develop annual goals and measures as 

part of their compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (P.L. 103-62) 

and report annually on the protection of historic and archeological properties within its care. 

The order also encourages the formation of partnerships with Indian tribes, state and local 

governments, and the private sector to promote public understanding of the preservation and 

use of historic properties.

• 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

498 Cultural Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

practitioners while avoiding adversely affecting the sites and maintaining the confidentiality 

of the sites.

Key Indicator

• Effects to eligible historic properties (which can be either no adverse1 or adverse2.

Methodology and Analysis Process

Analysis methods used for historic properties include a review and synthesis of all pertinent 

literature, records, and documentation available on the history and prehistory of the Forest. This 

information includes not only that which is available from a variety of generalized sources, but 

also information resulting from several years’ worth of Forest Service cultural resource 

inventories. Information of previously documented sites can be an indicator of the type, 

frequency, and location of sites likely to be found within the analysis area. This cumulative 

knowledge provides the basis for a prehistoric site probability model.

Alternative A reflects the 1987 Forest Plan, as amended to date, and accounts for current laws 

and regulations that have evolved since the original Forest Plan and the amendments were 

adopted. New information on the number of cultural sites will be analyzed through GIS. Output 

levels will be recalculated for this alternative to comply with these new sources of information. 

The no-action alternative retains the 1987 Forest Plan goals and objectives, standards,

guidelines, and MA prescriptions, as amended. This alternative serves as the baseline for 

comparison for the other three “action” alternatives.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

Historic properties reflect the prehistoric and historic past. The prehistoric period is that time 

predating any written history of a people. Through the use of geological, biological, sociological, 

and archaeological evidence the prehistory of the KNF goes back at least 8,000 years, when 

people moved across the landscape hunting and gathering. These early people were mobile 

hunters and gatherers, taking advantage of the wide range of mineral resources here, as well as 

the varied plant, animal, and aquatic life. Although the lifestyle of these early residents is 

becoming clearer, there is still much to be learned about the interaction of these people with their 

environment.

Prehistoric sites can take the form of camps, trails, rock art, cambium-peeled trees, quarries, 

burial grounds, and others. The Kootenai Indians were the last prehistoric group to inhabit the 

area. The time of their arrival as well as their origin remains one of the great puzzles of North 

American prehistory. Their language is unique and distinctive from that of their neighbors. 

Ethnographic research of the Kootenai tribe was only recently undertaken, beginning in the 

 1 No adverse could include stabilizing a historic property such as controlling erosion of an archaeological 

site, restoring and maintaining a historic building, or reducing fuels concentrations around a historic 

property. This kind of treatment is designed and agreed upon through consultation conducted under 

Section 106 of the NHPA with the State Historic Preservation Officer. 2 Adverse effects are impacts to the integrity of the property that destroy a portion of or the entire property. 

A direct adverse impact occurs during the activity itself; such as when a road is built through a historic 

property and the construction process destroys the site. Indirect adverse impacts are a side effect of the 

activity or occur after the activity is complete; an example is runoff from a road that eventually erodes a 

historic property adjacent to it. Adverse impacts can be avoided altogether through project design or 

mitigated. These avoidance or mitigation measures are agreed to in consultation conducted under Section 

106 of NHPA with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Cultural Resources 499

1940s with the work of Turney-High and Manning in the 1980s (Manning 1983). These studies 

suggest a lifestyle highly influenced by the European culture: the introduction of the horse, fur 

trapping and trade, missionaries, mining, and homesteading. Sites relating specifically to this era 

have yet to be clearly distinguished from sites of earlier activities. An ethnographic document by 

the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho (Elders of the Kootenai Nation 1990) describes the history of the 

tribe and the effect of European settlement on aboriginal lands.

The KNF contains land that is subject to treaty rights for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes. These treaty rights provide for hunting and fishing. Certain sites are still in use by Native 

Americans exercising their rights under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

The written history began with the trapper’s and explorer’s journals written in the early 1800s. 

The early traders were sent by Hudson’s Bay and the Northwest Fur Trade companies. The 

remainder of the historic period is marked by the coming of the railroads, which opened land to 

miners scouring the Forest for gold and silver. Quickly, mining camps turned into towns. The 

demand for lumber ushered in the early loggers. The Homestead Act of 1862 provided 

opportunities for anyone willing to apply, file for deed of title, and improve their 160 acres to 

become landowners. Archaeologists have been piecing together a description of how the native 

peoples used the land now known as the Kootenai National Forest.

Several major activities dominate the history of the 19th and 20th centuries within this region, all 

represented by recorded sites on the Forest. These include: fur trade missionaries, mining, 

homesteading and agriculture, transportation, logging, and public management of the resources. 

All of these themes are represented by recorded sites on the Forest.

This prehistoric and historic past left its mark on the landscape that is visible today as cultural 

sites. The KNF has conducted cultural resources inventories in areas of planned projects and to 

date has completed 3,242 investigations, covering 1,709,332 acres of surveyed land. Through 

cultural resource survey 1,759 cultural sites have been identified within the KNF, including 

1,138 historic sites and 624 prehistoric sites. Of the historic sites, 353 have been determined as 

not eligible and 151 have been determined as not eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places. Another 634 historic sites have not yet been evaluated. Of the prehistoric sites, 54 have 

been determined as not eligible and 306 have been determined as eligible to the National 

Register of Historic Places, with 261 prehistoric sites not yet evaluated. If the artifacts present at 

a location do not warrant formal recording as a formal site, then they are recorded as “isolated 

finds.” There are 48 historic and 44 prehistoric isolated finds on the Forest. In addition to the 

known historic and prehistoric sites, it is likely that many more will be uncovered as projects are 

planned for areas previously unexamined.

Information on cultural sites is kept on file as hard copy site and inventory forms, as well as on 

GIS and within the National Heritage Infra data base. Information concerning the nature and 

location of any cultural resource is confidential and not subject to public disclosure as per Public 

Law 94-456, [16 U.S.C. 470 hh Section 9 (a & b)].

Environmental Consequences

The Heritage Program requirements for compliance with law and regulation are the same for all 

alternatives. The difference between the alternatives is the amount of survey, site evaluation, and 

possible mitigation required.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

500 Cultural Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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, causes disturbance and destruction of cultural 

resources. Natural causes include damage by wind and water erosion, fire, weathering, and other 

natural processes. The type of cultural resources and their management allocation must be taken 

into account to assess project effects.

Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and 36 CFR 800 regulations is fulfilled by a process 

to establish the presence of historic properties within the area of potential effect for each 

alternative; through background research, State Historic Preservation Office consultation, and an 

appropriate level of field investigation. This takes into account the number of alternatives under 

consideration, the magnitude of the undertaking and its likely effects, and the views of the State 

Historic Preservation Office/Tribal Historic Preservation Office and any other interested parties.

Alternative A — No-action Alternative

Under the 1987 Forest Plan there were two identified historic special interest areas for cultural 

resources that were afforded special protection and enhancement treatment. The management 

direction was, and is designed, to protect and enhance the cultural resource within these special 

areas. The one additional special area identified in the revised Forest Plan would be excluded 

from special treatment under Alternative A.

Those MAs under the 1987 Forest Plan that allow for more active management (suitable 

timberland) would be more likely to have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources 

found through inadvertent discoveries after compliance with Section 106 (MAs 11, 12, 14, 15, 

and 16). MA2, 3, 7 through 10 would have less potential to adversely affect cultural resource 

areas.

Alternative B Modified, C, and D

For Alternatives B Modified, C, and D the MAs have the same direction and only the size and 

location of the areas change. 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,

MA6 and 7 are the most intensively managed and have the highest potential for adversely 

affecting cultural sites. However, as with Alternative A, MA3, 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.

Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA is required of all agency “undertakings” and would 

be consistently applied to Alternatives B Modified, C, and D. There would most likely be a 

decreased cultural resource workload for Alternative C which emphasizes wilderness and an 

increased cultural resource workload for Alternative D, as it emphasizes more active

management related to timber production.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Cultural Resources 501

Consequences to Cultural Resources from Forest Plan Components Associated with 

other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects that are Consistent in All Alternatives

Effects from Recreation Management

The direct effects are related to management activities such as construction or reconstruction of 

developed and undeveloped recreation sites, such as adding new campground spurs and 

waterlines. The management of dead and dying vegetation can also have a direct effect on 

cultural resources. For the planned recreation projects direct effects can be eliminated or 

mitigated.

The indirect effects occur from recreation site use and would include such activities as trampling, 

which could expose sites and adversely affect their physical integrity. Another indirect effect is 

from looting of sites to remove artifacts, which is an adverse effect as well as a felony.

Unauthorized, user-created routes and areas have already affected historic properties within 

route/area prisms. A direct effect can be caused by motorized vehicle uses or the consequences of 

such use, including physical damage resulting in or from erosion, down-cutting, rutting, or 

displacement or damage to cultural features.

Indirect effects are associated with motorized vehicle uses but occur outside designated routes 

and areas, such as adjacent dispersed camping areas or areas where travel off of designated 

routes or areas may occur. The proximity of sensitive cultural resources, such as rock art, rock 

shelters, historic structures, and Traditional Cultural Properties, to designated routes or areas is 

important when determining where resources could be susceptible to greater threats or risks. 

Indirect effects could include those listed for direct effects, but also include destructive actions 

like vandalism and looting.

Any adverse effects can be mitigated through compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

Effects from Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

The direct effects from the management of eligible wild and scenic rivers have the potential to 

directly affect cultural resources. The indirect effect of recreational use also has the potential to 

affect cultural resources. Any adverse effects can be mitigated through compliance with Section 

106 of the NHPA.

Effects from Botanical, Geological, Historical, Recreational, Scenic, or Zoological Areas

The direct effects of management of Special Areas depend on the management direction 

specified for the resource managed within Special Areas. Any vegetation management, including 

fire use, has the potential for adverse effects. These effects can be mitigated through compliance 

with Section 106 of the NHPA.

Effects that Vary Between Alternatives

Effects from Wilderness Management

The management of wilderness may include camp site maintenance, which can cause damage to 

any cultural resources. The only other potential adverse effect would involve access. Roads 

provide access for the management of cultural sites and motorized restrictions limit access for 

that purpose. However, limitations on access into wilderness can contribute to protection of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

502 Cultural Resources Kootenai National Forest - EIS

cultural resources by limiting use. Alternative C provides the most recommended wilderness, and

therefore, the greatest protection to cultural resources through limited use. Conversely, 

Alternative D provides the least amount of recommended wilderness, and thus, the least 

protection to cultural resources by limiting use.

Effects from Motorized Use Management

Adverse effects on cultural resources have been shown in past actions where motorized users 

have gone off road. When increased motorized use is planned, adverse effects can be mitigated 

through compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Alternative D provides the most motorized 

access, and thus, the least protection to cultural resources and the most mitigation needed. 

Alternative C provides the least amount of motorized access, therefore, the most protection to 

cultural resources and the least mitigation needed.

Effects from General Forest Management

General forest management, including vegetation management and fire use, has the potential for 

adverse effects to cultural resources. The adverse effects can be caused by machinery and 

vehicles: including tree felling, skidding, and burning of slash piles, and construction or 

reconstruction of roads. Any adverse effects can be mitigated through compliance with Section 

106 of the NHPA. Alternative D provides the most timber harvest, and thus, the least protection 

to cultural resources and the most mitigation needed. Alternative C provides the least amount of 

timber harvest, therefore, the most protection to cultural resources and the least mitigation 

needed.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects, over time, can include loss and damage to cultural resources ranging from

damage to the complete loss of a site. Adverse effects can occur to sites due to surface or 

subsurface disturbance with subsequent loss of physical and scientific integrity. Adverse effects 

to cultural resources representing the prehistoric period is also considered as a loss for the 

traditional cultural integrity by Tribes. Forest management causing surface disturbance may 

expose sites to illegal collection of artifacts (looting). Any adverse effects can be mitigated 

through compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS American Indians 503

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 

KNF, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have reserved, through a U.S. Treaty (the 

Hellgate Treaty of 1855), Tribe off-reservation Treaty Rights. The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho also 

exercises rights under the Hellgate Treaty. 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 with regard to managing the resources on which the Treaties are based. 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 Kalispel, Spokane, and Coeur d' 

Alene Tribes.

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.” 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.

• 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;
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

504 American Indians Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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 American Indian Religious Freedom Act.

• 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 LowIncome 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS American Indians 505

• 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 

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.

 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-to-government 

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 

506 American Indians Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

• 36 CFR 261 Prohibitions in Areas Designated by Order; Closure of National Forest 

System 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 Indicator

• The measurement indicators for American Indian Consultation are the effects to tribal 

interests as defined by Tribes, including tribally affiliated cultural resources, sacred sites, 

treaty rights, and religious freedom.

Methodology and Analysis Process

Effects to tribal interests are known only through direct tribal consultation. The Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes have responded to outreach on Forest Plan revision with expressed 

interest in consultation throughout the process.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

There are five federally-recognized American Indian nations with cultural affiliation on the 

KNF: the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, the Spokane 

Tribe, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Forest Service administered lands today 

occupies lands that were in traditional aboriginal territory. The aboriginal territory of the 

Kalispel, Coeur d’Alene, and Spokane Tribes overlap with the territory now managed by the 

KNF along the Clark Fork Valley with the territory used by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The entire Forest is within aboriginal territory for the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.

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 KNF help to sustain a way of life, cultural integrity, social cohesion, and economic wellbeing for Tribes.

The KNF 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.

The Flathead, Kootenai, and Upper Pend d'Oreilles Indian Tribes (Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes) reserved rights under the Hellgate Treaty of 1855 (July 16, 1855). The 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS American Indians 507

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho also exercises rights under the Hellgate Treaty. 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.

The KNF has been meeting these treaty responsibilities by employing a Tribal Liaison from the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, a position that has been in place since 1981. The 

Tribal Liaison is informed of planned projects on the Forest and coordinates with the appropriate 

tribal departments and Tribal Council, as well as with members of the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho to 

identify issues. Issues are discussed with the line officers, who take these issues into 

consideration in making management decisions.

Consultation on Forest Plan revision began with the five tribes in 2002. The IPNF covered 

consultation with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, and 

the Spokane Tribe 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 28 Special Areas.

These Special Areas would require management strategies for managing the resources in the 

areas. Special Areas may be added by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes at later dates.

The Special Areas are associated with the traditional beliefs of the Tribe in relation to its origins, 

cultural history, or the nature of the world; where the 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

Alternative A – No-action Alternative

Alternative A does not include identified traditional/cultural special areas (i.e., MA3 in the 

revised Forest Plan), therefore, does not provide the Forest with specific direction for the 

management of these areas. Alternative A has a forestwide standard for cultural resources that 

requires the Forest to consult with Native American traditional religious leaders on any project 

having the potential to affect Native American cultural sites and practices.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D

Under Alternatives B Modified, C, and D traditional/cultural special areas would be managed 

under MA3. These alternatives also require the Forest to consult with tribes when management 

activities may impact treaty rights and/or cultural sites and cultural use areas, according to the 

consultation protocol (FW-GDL-AI-01). The desired conditions for American Indian Rights and 

Interests, for all action alternatives, would be for the KNF: 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 Hellgate Treaty are 

not significantly impacted or diminished (FW-DC-AI-01); to 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 (FW-DC-AI-02); and to recognize and protect 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

508 American Indians Kootenai National Forest - EIS

traditional cultural areas as associated with the traditional beliefs of a Tribe about its cultural 

history (FW-DC-AI-03).

See the “Cultural Resource” section for management specific to traditional/cultural special areas.

Consequences to Tribal Interest and Treaty Rights from Forest Plan Components 

Associated with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Prescriptions

Areas allocated to traditional/cultural areas (MA3) are located across the Forest. They are 

usually small (less than 1,000 acres). Traditional/cultural areas would emphasize non-motorized 

recreation experiences and access. Alternatives B Modified, C, and D would preclude road 

construction in traditional/cultural areas (MA3-STD-AR-01); and allow mechanized use on 

designated routes only (MA3-GDL-AR-03). Reconstruction of existing roads would be allowed 

(MA3-GDL-AR-06). These standards and guidelines would protect those identified special areas 

(MA3) identified as important to tribal rights and interest. In addition, the Forest would consult 

with tribes when management activities may impact treaty rights and/or cultural sites and 

cultural use (FW-GDL-AI-01).

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.

Alternative B Modified provides a mix of active and natural restoration activities; Alternative C 

has more concentration on natural vegetation succession patterns (see sections on wildlife, 

aquatics and botany for additional analysis); and Alternative D uses more active restoration 

activities than B Modified or C.

Effects from Access and Recreation Management

Effects could be related to management activities such as construction or reconstruction of 

developed and undeveloped recreation sites, such as adding new campground spurs, waterlines, 

signs, and outhouses. The management of dead and dying vegetation could also have a direct 

effect. Other effects could occur from recreation site use and would include such activities such 

as trampling; which could adversely affect traditional plants, as well as changing the traditional 

character of an area by introducing negative visual and audio impacts.

Unauthorized, user-created routes and areas could affect tribal resources. A direct effect could be

caused by motorized vehicle uses or the consequences of such use; including physical damage 

resulting in or from erosion, down-cutting, rutting, and damage to tribal resources.

Indirect effects are associated with motorized vehicle uses but occur outside designated routes 

and areas, such as adjacent dispersed camping areas or areas where travel off of designated 

routes or areas may occur. The proximity of sensitive tribal resources, such as rock art, rock 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS American Indians 509

shelters, and Traditional Cultural Properties, to designated routes or areas is important when 

determining where resources could be susceptible to greater threats or risks.

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. 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 nontribal members. All action alternatives would rely on forestwide elements specific to American 

Indian Rights and Interests (FW-DC-AI-01 through 03) to recognize impacts that may result 

from access and recreation management. The Forest would consult with tribes when access and 

recreation management activities may impact treaty rights and/or cultural sites and cultural use 

(Alternatives B Modified, C, and D - FW-GDL-AI-01; Alternative A – Forestwide Standard 

#12). There is some potential risk to sacred sites where American Indians conduct ceremonies 

that require privacy. If a road were built to or near such a site, the associated increase in 

visitation could make it difficult to conduct ceremonies there, undermining the important cultural 

practice. A tribe could request the KNF temporarily close the site to non-tribal members for a 

short period under the 2008 Farm Bill Authority. Road construction and reconstruction is not 

allowed in MA1a, b, and c (MA1a-STD-AR-01, 02; MA1b-STD-AR-03, 04; MA1c-STD-AR03, 04). Road construction is also not allowed in botanical, historical (aka cultural areas), and 

zoological areas (MA3-STD-AR01), nor in MA5a, b, and c (see Plan for exceptions) (MA5a, b, 

c-STD-AR-01).

Effects from Wilderness and Backcountry Management

The management of wilderness may include camp site maintenance, which can cause damage to 

tribal resources. The only other potential adverse effect would involve access. Roads provide 

access for the management of tribal resources and motorized restrictions limit access for that 

purpose. However, limitations on access into wilderness can contribute to protection of tribal 

resources by limiting use. All action alternatives would rely on forestwide elements specific to 

American Indian Rights and Interests (FW-DC-AI-01 through 03) to recognize impacts that may 

result from wilderness management. The Forest would consult with tribes when access and 

recreation management activities may impact treaty rights and/or cultural sites and cultural use 

(Alternatives B Modified, C, and D - FW-GDL-AI-01; Alternative A – Forestwide Standard 

#12). The exercise of treaty rights and traditional uses of wilderness areas, proposed wilderness,

and backcountry areas may be enhanced by maintaining the integrity of landscapes and plant 

resources in those areas. Sacred sites are likely to be located in these areas. There is still a 

potential that landscape integrity and sacred sites may be affected because of the activities that 

are permitted under the action alternatives. However, prior to implementing resource 

management activities impacts on Tribal government and Tribal practices would be assessed and 

consultation requirements fulfilled.

Effects from Minerals Management

Hard rock mining has had adverse effects on tribal resources, including the effects on health, 

integrity, and the general welfare of tribal people and their landscapes. All action alternatives 

would rely on forestwide elements specific to American Indian Rights and Interests (FW-DC-AI01 through 03) to recognize impacts that may result from access and recreation management. 

The Forest would consult with tribes when minerals management activities may impact treaty 

rights and/or cultural sites and cultural use (Alternatives B Modified, C, and D - FW-GDL-AI01; Alternative A – Forestwide Standard #12).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

510 American Indians Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Cumulative Effects

The past, present, and foreseeable future impacts to tribal resources are most pronounced in the 

establishment, current maintenance, and future maintenance of developed and dispersed 

recreation sites. The cumulative adverse direct and indirect effects of mining on tribal resources 

include audio and visual effects, as well as natural resource contamination.

There would be limited cumulative effects to tribal interests because of consultation 

requirements. The effects of other programmatic management and policy decisions would also 

be limited because they do not approve site-specific actions. Management decisions such as 

PACFISH, INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995), the NRLMD (USDA Forest Service 2007

March), and the management direction for grizzly bears in the motorized access management 

within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery zones (2011) ensure that projects are 

conducted in a way that minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. By doing this, these 

programmatic actions safeguard the exercise of treaty rights and traditional uses of the NFS 

lands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 511

Production of Natural Resources

This section includes the following resources:

• Timber

• Minerals

• Livestock Grazing

• Special Forest Products
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

512 Timber Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Timber

Introduction

The KNF contains 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 Indicators

• Number of suitable acres available for timber production;

• Associated allowable sale quantity;

• Acres of 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Timber 513

Timber demand is based on a capacity and capability analysis completed by the University of 

Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research (Sorenson 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 present net 

value. The Spectrum model was used to determine ASQ, predicted timber volume sold, 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 KNF. 

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 

Sorenson 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 1,263,000 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, and old growth. 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

514 Timber Kootenai National Forest - EIS

and data. Table 128 displays timber suitability at the time the 1987 Plan was adopted and 

amended as it is currently being implemented.

Table 128 Timber Suitability for the 1987 Plan

Suitability Category 1987 Plan - as Written 1987 Plan - as Amended 

and Currently 

Implemented

Total NFS Lands 2,245,000 2,219,100

Non-Forest Land (1) -82,000 -144,600

Withdrawn Lands (2) -35,000 -89,000

Irreversible Resource Damage is likely (3) -340,000 -253,000

Adequate Restocking not assured (3) 0 -20,700

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production 1,788,000 1,711,800

Lands where MA prescriptions preclude timber 

production, where management requirements 

cannot be met, or not cost efficient in meeting 

timber production objectives.

-525,000 -972,500

Lands Suitable for Timber Production 1,263,000 739,300

(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 223 

MMBF per year was estimated for the KNF (KNF Forest Plan EIS, page II-57), based on 

regional goals used in the 1980 Resource Planning Act projections. In addition, analysis of 

potential timber supply requirements for the KNF was developed for five decades, resulting in 

ranges from 178 to 224 MMBF in the first two decades.

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 KNF (Sorenson 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 KNF non-reserved timberland is located in two Montana counties: Lincoln 

and Sanders. More than 20 percent of the recent (2009) timber harvest in this two-county area 

originated from the KNF. Most (96 percent) of the timber harvested from these counties 

consisted of green (live) trees. The species composition of the harvested volume in this twocounty area was: 40 percent Douglas-fir, 22 percent ponderosa pine, 21 percent lodgepole pine, 

10 percent western larch, and four percent true firs. House logs, posts and small poles, and other 

mills received less than one percent of the timber harvest volume. Pulp and paper mills utilized 

nine percent of the 2009 harvest from the two-county region.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Timber 515

The KNF identified a five-county area as the “Kootenai National Forest 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 KNF. 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 Kootenai National Forest Impact Zone are Bonner and Boundary 

counties in Idaho; and Flathead, Lincoln, and Sanders counties in Montana. Within the fivecounty area there are 39 timber-processing facilities currently operating as of 2011: 19 sawmills, 

9 log home manufacturers, 6 log furniture manufacturers, 2 veneer and plywood facilities, 2 

cedar products manufacturers, and one post and small pole plant.

Capacity to process timber in the KNF impact zone is estimated at 142 million cubic feet 

(MMCF), with 55 percent of capacity being used in 2011. Mills in the KNF impact zone are 

currently using about 77 MMCF of timber annually (table 129). Approximately 90 percent (69.6

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. Nearly nine percent (6.6 MMCF) of the volume 

processed comes from trees 7.0 - 9.9 inches DBH, while slightly over one percent (1.1 MMCF) 

of processed volume comes from trees less than 7 inches DBH.

Table 129. Annual Volume of Timber Processed by Tree Size Class (Excluding Pulpwood) for the 

Kootenai National Forest 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 1,122 <7 1,122 MCF

7-9.9 6,583 7-9.9 25,280

10+ 69,594 10+ 302,147

Total 77,299 Total 328,549

About 68 percent (96 MMCF) of existing capacity in the KNF impact zone is not capable of 

efficiently utilizing trees less than 10 inches DBH (table 130). Slightly over 45 MMCF of 

timber-processing capacity is capable of utilizing trees less than 10 inches DBH, and the 

majority of this capacity (36.7 MMCF)is in the 7 to 9.9 inches DBH class.

Table 130. Annual Total Capacity and Capability* to Process Trees by Size Class (Excluding 

Pulpwood) for the Kootenai National Forest Impact Zone, 2011

Thousand Cubic Feet of Timber Thousand Board Feet Scribner of Timber

Tree DBH (inches) Capability Tree DBH (inches) Capability

<7 8,563 <7 8,563 MCF

7-9.9 36,723 7-9.9 141,018

10+ 96,418 10+ 442,323

Total Capacity 141,705 Total Capacity 591,904

* 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 the 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. Only about 13 percent of capacity in the less than

7 inches DBH category is currently utilized to process trees less than 7 inches DBH, and just 

slightly more than 18 percent of capacity in the 7 to 9.9 inches DBH category is being used to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

516 Timber Kootenai National Forest - EIS

process trees 7 to 9.9 inches DBH. More than 12.8 MMCF of capacity capable of using trees 7 to 

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 KNF 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 38 displays 

the total volume of timber cut and sold on the KNF 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.

* Timber volumes prior to 1974 did not include the portion of the Kaniksu National Forest now administered by the 

Kootenai.

Figure 38. Volume Cut and Sold on the KNF (in MMBF)

The 1987 Forest Plan set the ASQ at 2,270 MMBF for the first decade, or 227 MMBF annually. 

In November 1995, the Chief of the Forest Service issued a decision on a Forest Plan appeal 

related to a technical error in the calculation of the KNF’s ASQ. The issue centered on how 

timber age classes were cataloged in the inventory information used to calculate ASQ. A 

description of the problem is in the FY92 Monitoring Report. The decision required that the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Timber 517

Forest is not to exceed a sell volume of 150 MMBF per year until the Forest Plan is either 

amended or revised.

Timber supply under the 1987 Forest Plan was described in the AMS Technical Report (USDA 

Forest Service 2003 March) 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 KNF has averaged 44.4 MMBF/year 

(2005 to 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 1,711,800 acres as tentatively suitable. See table 128 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, 811,100 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 

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 (3, 5a, 5b, 5c, 7, and part of 2), but only to meet other resource objectives. 

These acres are not suitable for timber production. Table 131 displays timber suitability for each 

alternative.

Table 131. Timber Suitability by Alternative

Timber Suitability Alternative A Alternative B 

Modified

Alternative C Alternative D

Acres Tentatively Suitable 1,711,800 1,711,800 1,711,800 1,711,800

Acres where management objectives 

limit timber harvest where mgmt 

requirements cannot be met

811,100 811,100 811,100 811,100

Acres where management precludes 

timber production as an objective

161,400 107,000 146,900 48,000

Acres Suitable for Timber Production 739,300 793,700 753,800 852,700

Percent of NFS Land Suitable for 

Timber Production

33% 36% 34% 38%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

518 Timber Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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). Acres suitable for timber production are slightly 

lower in this alternative than found in the action alternatives. This is because MAs under the 

1987 Forest Plan were very small, fragmented, and discretely determined timber suitability. The 

MA allocation of the 1987 Plan combined with amendments and current conditions limits the 

acres suitable for timber production below those found in the action alternatives.

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 = 925,000 acres (42 percent of the 

Forest); Alternative B Modified = 913,200 acres (41 percent of the Forest); Alternative C = 

940,400 acres (42 percent of the Forest); and Alternative D = 855,100 acres (39 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 

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 132 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 132. 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

87.5

15.6

80.2

14.7

75.9

14.0

98.7

17.6

Predicted Volume Sold 

MMBF/yr 50.5 47.5 36.8 50.5
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Timber 519

Measure Alt A1 Alt B Modified Alt C Alt D

MMCF/yr 9.2 8.6 6.7 9.2

Numbers for Alternative A reflect the 1987 Plan as amended and implemented. 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 133 displays the acres harvested in decade one to achieve the volumes shown in table 132. 

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. Alternatives B

Modified and C have more intermediate harvest acres to move vegetation towards desired 

condition while Alternatives A and D have more acres with regeneration harvest to maximize 

timber harvest volume.

Table 133. Acres Harvested to meet ASQ and Volume Sold — Decade 1

Alt A Alt B Modified Alt C Alt D

Acres to meet ASQ 57,320 94,800 91,290 65,440

Acres to meet Predicted Volume Sold 61,150 58,280 63,450 56,400

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 

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 134

displays the LTSYC for the Forest.

Table 134. 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 15.7 17.0 16.3 18.1

Source: Spectrum model analysis

Figures 39 through 42 display the ASQ and predicted volume sold 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 sold is limited by current budgets, it is well below the LTSYC for each 

alternative.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

520 Timber Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Figure 39. Alternative A — Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term SustainedYield Capacity

Figure 40. Alternative B Modified — Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term 

Sustained-Yield Capacity
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Timber 521

Figure 41. Alternative C — Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term SustainedYield Capacity

Figure 42. Alternative D — Allowable Sale Quantity, Predicted Volume, and Long-Term SustainedYield Capacity

Alternative D has the highest LTSYC, followed by Alternatives B Modified and C. The ASQ in 

Alternatives A and D are the closest to LTSYC over most of the modeling period, while 

Alternatives B Modified and C are the furthest from LTSYC. All alternatives reach LTSYC 

before the end of the modeled time period.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

522 Timber Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

Effects from Inventoried Roadless Areas

The amount of IRAs that are allocated to MAs suitable for timber production varies by 

alternative. Table 135 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. For the 

predicted volume sold level, no alternative shows any timber harvest in IRAs in the first decade 

and minimal acres are scheduled for harvest over the planning horizon.

Table 135. 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 37,100 50% 0.5

B Modified 4,900 62% 2.3

C 2,000 67% 1.3

D 61,200 71% 9.5

Predicted Volume Sold

A 37,100 0% 0.0

B Modified 4,900 39% 0.0

C 2,000 42% 0.0

D 61,200 12% 0.0
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Timber 523

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, with fewer acres scheduled under 

constrained budgets (the predicted timber volume level). Alternatives B Modified and C have the 

fewest acres of IRA suitable for timber production and have little timber volume generated from 

these lands. Alternative D has the most acres of IRA suitable for timber production, with a larger

percentage of those lands scheduled for harvest under the ASQ run. 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 KNF. 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 more than double 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.

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 from other sources, laws, and regulations all affect the amount of timber that may be 

harvested from the KNF. Budgets and court decisions also impact timber supply potential. 

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 KNF. 

Diversification of wood product manufacturing has historically allowed Montana mills to be 

more resilient in changing markets (Montana DNRC 2010). This diversification leads to new 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

524 Timber Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 KNF. If demand decreases and mills close, there may be less desire for wood fiber from 

the KNF. A decrease in demand may reduce the amount of timber sold from the KNF under all 

alternatives.

Alternative Sources for Wood Fiber

The supply of wood fiber from private and state lands and adjacent national forests impacts KNF 

demand. If wood fiber supplies decrease from private and state lands and adjacent national 

forests, there will be an increasing demand for wood fiber from the KNF. If supplies increase 

from private and state lands and adjacent national forests, there may be a decrease in demand for 

wood fiber from the KNF. A decrease in demand may reduce the amount of timber sold from the 

KNF under all alternatives.

Subdividing corporate timberlands

Montana, like many states across the West, is experiencing a massive divestiture of commercial 

timberlands for development and subdivisions (Montana DNRC 2010). Corporate timberland has 

become more valuable for recreational or residential real estate than for timber production. This 

development results in increased fragmentation of forested landscapes and decreased timber 

harvest on private lands. 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 KNF. The limit on timber harvest from fragmentation of 

adjacent lands would limit the amount of timber sold from the KNF under all alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Minerals 525

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’s 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 available for 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 approved, 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 

526 Minerals Kootenai National Forest - 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Minerals 527

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 and 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 

528 Minerals Kootenai National Forest - 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Minerals 529

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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

530 Minerals Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

• 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 December 11, 1989 MOU with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

(formerly Department of State Lands) to promote efficiency and effectiveness in 

administration and regulation of mineral resources.

• 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 KNF.

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 KNF.

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 KNF.

Lands which are legally unavailable for leasing are:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Minerals 531

• 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 WSAs, 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 KNF, the number of acres where the Forest 

Service has exercised its discretion to refrain from authorizing the disposal of mineral materials.

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

A variety of mineral deposit types and mineral resources, including gold, silver, and copper, 

occur within the boundaries of the KNF. 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 43 which 

shows mineral potential on the KNF and figure 44 which displays oil and gas potential on the 

KNF.

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 KNF, there are about 150,100 acres currently withdrawn, leaving approximately 

2,069,900 acres available for locatable mineral resource 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 at the discretion of the Forest Service.

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, developing the site, operating the site, and reclaiming the site.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

532 Minerals Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 and 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 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

There are three large scale locatable mineral operations at different levels of development and/or 

permitting. They are:

• Troy Mine — In production under an approved Plan of Operations. Federal and state 

agencies preparing environmental documents for an updated reclamation plan.

• Rock Creek Mine — Forest Service in the process of completing a supplemental final 

EIS.

• Montanore — Federal and state agencies in the process of completing a supplemental 

draft EIS.

Across the KNF there are approximately 27 approved Plans of Operations for various small scale 

locatable mineral operations (lode and placer mining sites). Before approval, or before these 

types of mining activities can occur, a NOI is typically submitted by a proponent to the ranger 

district where the proposed operations would occur. The district ranger determines whether a 

more detailed Plan of Operations is required, based on whether such operations will likely cause 

significant disturbance of surface resources. The KNF annually receives around 10 to 15 of these 

NOIs per year.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Minerals 533

Figure 43. Displays the Locatable Minerals Potential for the KNF

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.

Two environmental assessments (one in 1980, and one in 1982) analyzed oil and gas leasing on 

the KNF. The KNF is not proposing to do any additional leasing analysis in this EIS. As per 36 

CFR 228.102 (c), any further leasing analysis will be done under a separate environmental 

document.

No leasable minerals are presently being produced on the KNF, and the anticipated demand for 

leases is expected to remain low. Geothermal resources are not known to occur on the KNF.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

534 Minerals Kootenai National Forest - EIS

restoration theme. Approximately 35,000 acres of IRAs administered by the KNF lie within 

Idaho and are in 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.

Figure 44. Displays the Oil and Gas Potential for the KNF

About 37,300 acres are under lease(s) on the KNF at this time (see figure 45 below). All leases 

are currently suspended in accordance with the 1985 court decision of Conner vs. Burford.

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 WSAs (unless oil and gas leasing is specifically allowed by the statute designating the 

study area). On the KNF there are about 127,800 acres that are legally unavailable for mineral 

leasing, leaving approximately 2,091,200 acres available for mineral leasing proposals.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Minerals 535

Figure 45. Suspended Oil & Gas Leases on the KNF

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 KNF is crushed rock for in-service purposes 

used for road surfacing. The demand for quality rock sources is often dependent upon the 

locations of active management operations and the needs for resource protection. Presently there 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

536 Minerals Kootenai National Forest - EIS

is an adequate supply of rock sources of suitable quality (hardness and durability) across the 

Forest for in-service construction uses. There is a public demand for salable materials 

predominantly used for construction and landscaping purposes. On average, there are 

approximately 175 contracts administered annually on the KNF for personal use, public works, 

or commercial uses.

About 1,998,000 acres on the KNF currently allow for the disposal of mineral materials leaving 

approximately 221,000 acres where it is not permitted.

Mine Reclamation

An assessment completed by the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (Hargrave et al. 1999) 

summarized the abandoned mines on the KNF and identified those sites that may pose human 

health and environmental risks. Approximately 32 sites on, or partially on, NFS lands were 

identified as having potential safety problems. Several mine reclamation projects have been 

completed in the last 5 to 10 years and there are currently several projects scheduled to start in 

2011, including closure of abandoned portals. The remaining 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 locatable minerals or leasable minerals on the KNF. No need for new withdrawals has 

been identified and no additional areas are proposed for withdrawal. No changes to existing 

access are proposed.

Consequences to Minerals from Forest Plan Components Associated with other 

Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Prescriptions

Locatable Minerals

Alternative A recommends that approximately 264,000 acres be formally withdrawn from 

mineral entry.

Alternatives B Modified, C, and D do not propose any lands for withdrawal to mineral entry. 

There is no difference between Alternatives 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 515,000 acres where a no surface occupancy stipulations would 

apply and approximately 227,00 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Minerals 537

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.

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 (see table 

136). Alternative C would be most limiting followed by Alternative B Modified, D, and A.

Table 136. Summary of Lands Available for Disposal of Mineral Materials

Disposal of Mineral Materials Available Disposal of Mineral Materials Not Allowed 

of Should Not Occur

Alt. A 1,995,200 ac. (90%) 223,900 ac. (10%)

Alt. B

Modified

1,447,000 ac. (65%) 772,000 ac. (35%)

Alt. C 1,343,000 ac. (61%) 875,900 ac. (39%)

Alt. D 1,720,600 ac. (78%) 498,500 ac. (22%)

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 Recovery Zone and mapped areas of grizzly bear occupancy outside of but 

adjacent to the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone.

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 

538 Minerals Kootenai National Forest - 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 

KNF 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, 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.

If either the Rock Creek or Montanore mining proposals begin operations, it can be anticipated 

that a portion of non-renewable resources would be depleted as a result of being extracted and 

processed. Requests for approval 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 approved. Since Congress has imposed a moratorium on patenting of mining 

claims, there would be no changes in the acres of patented lands unless Congress was to lift the 

moratorium.

Given the low probable occurrence of leasable minerals on the KNF, and the court decision in 

Conner vs. Burford, there is little likelihood of mineral lease applications being made on the 

KNF.

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.

Final reclamation work would be expected once the Troy mine ceases production operations. 

Reclamation work is likely to occur 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Livestock Grazing 539

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 

540 Livestock Grazing Kootenai National Forest - 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 KNF, 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 KNF. For example, settlers utilized 

horses to work their farms and as a means of transportation, while cattle provided them with 

beef, milk, and butter. Some families also raised sheep, hogs, and goats in small numbers. A few 

farmers specialized in livestock production, especially on the Tobacco Plains (Miss et al. 1994).

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 KNF. 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.

Livestock grazing on the KNF is limited by the following:

• The nature of available range (transitory forage);

• The lack of over-wintering facilities;

• The remoteness of the available range; and

• The expense of providing adequate water and range developments.

The 1987 KNF Forest Plan projected permitted livestock use at 12,600 AUMs per year on 45 

allotments. Since most of the range program on the KNF is dependent on transitory range (land 

which produces forage or has inherent forage producing capabilities and can become available 

on a temporary basis as a result of partial or complete removal of the overstory vegetation 

through fire, logging, or other events) this number could vary over the years. As the type of 

timber removal changed from clear cutting/seed tree to shelterwood/improvement cuts, the 

amount of available forage dropped. This combined with other factors (e.g., reduction in the 

number of full time ranchers, property subdivision, and market prices) has reduced the number 

of AUMs to approximately 4,713 in 2010. Figure 46 displays the authorized (actual use) AUMs 

from the Forest since the 1987 KNF Forest Plan went into effect. The average actual use for the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Livestock Grazing 541

past 10 years (2001 through 2010) was at 5,092 AUMs or 40 percent of the 1987 Forest Plan 

projected use.

Figure 46. Actual Grazing Use on the Kootenai National Forest

As a result of reduced grazing levels, many allotments have become inactive or vacant. Since the 

1987 Forest Plan, one allotment (Swamp Creek) was closed as the result of a land exchange. The 

Roberts allotment was combined with the Loon allotment to create the Loon-Roberts allotment, 

reducing the number of allotments to 43. Of the 43 remaining allotments on the Forest, 26 are 

vacant and one is inactive. The Fiscal Year 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report identifies 

and recommends termination of the vacant allotments: Mud Griffith Creeks, Upper Grave Creek, 

Seventeen Mile, South Fork, Upper Ford, Yaak River, Bobtail, Elliot-Cowell, Granite-Cherry, 

Jumbo-Bayhorse, Libby Creek, McMillan, Barron, Quartz, Prospect, Schrieber, Sheldon 

Mountain, Surprise, Swede Mountain, West Fisher, Canyon Creek, Cripple Horse, Marten Creek, 

Big Beaver, Green Mountain, and Tuscor Creek. The Pinkham Ridge allotment has been 

inactive; however, it is not being considered for closure. The monitoring report identified that no 

change to the Plan was needed for the active allotments.

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

542 Livestock Grazing Kootenai National Forest - EIS

The rangeland suitability analysis identified 921,700 acres capable of grazing on the KNF. There 

are approximately 149,000 acres on the KNF that are suitable for livestock grazing. This 

represents about 7 percent of the KNF.

Acres of suitability for rangeland by allotment are displayed in table 137. All acres were 

generated by 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 

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 137. KNF Allotments – Suitability Determination and Status, Existing Condition

Allotment Status Allotment 

Acres

Capable 

Acres

Percent 

Capable

Suitable 

Acres

Percent 

Suitable

Barren vacant1 3,985 1,464 37% 398 10%

Big Beaver Cr vacant1 611 122 20% 43 7%

Bobtail vacant1 4,893 3,265 67% 2,082 43%

Canyon Cr vacant1 11,860 4,342 37% 3,003 25%

Cripple Horse vacant1 18,258 10,004 55% 6,923 38%

Dead Horse active 809 441 54% 357 44%

Edna active 4,549 2,058 45% 948 21%

Elliot-Cowell vacant1 9,437 3,812 40% 2,295 24%

Fairview active 64,438 14,340 22% 10,413 16%

Five Mile active 6,725 1,307 19% 706 10%

Granite-Cherry vacant1 8,337 4,588 55% 3,296 40%

Grave Creek active 5,414 4,535 84% 2,645 49%

Green Mountain vacant1 870 241 28% 70 8%

Jumbo Bayhorse vacant1 5,963 552 9% 330 6%

Lake Creek active 6,820 3,072 45% 2,262 33%

Libby Creek vacant1 5,764 3,100 54% 1,897 33%

Loon-Roberts active 7,838 4,947 63% 1,839 23%

Martin Creek vacant1 952 61 6% 15 2%

McMillan vacant1 33,319 10,013 30% 7,410 22%

Mud Griffith Crks vacant1 6,198 2,103 34% 801 13%

Pinkham Creek active 53,191 29,871 56% 16,134 30%

Pinkham Ridge vacant 18,178 13,842 76% 6,740 37%

Prospect vacant1 6,768 1,043 15% 804 12%

Quartz Creek vacant1 6,755 2,075 31% 1,201 18%

Rondo-Mud Lake active 11,638 4,129 35% 3,169 27%

Scalp Mountain active 25,372 13,433 53% 8,301 33%

Schrieber vacant1 2,230 1,153 52% 716 32%

Seventeen Mile vacant1 225 7 3% 5 2%

Sheldon Mountain vacant1 7,936 4,239 53% 3,510 44%

South Fork vacant1 1,020 194 19% 69 7%

Sunday Creek active 26,526 22,663 85% 12,075 46%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Livestock Grazing 543

Allotment Status Allotment 

Acres

Capable 

Acres

Percent 

Capable

Suitable 

Acres

Percent 

Suitable

Surprise vacant1 4,447 1,911 43% 1,617 36%

Swamp Creek vacant 1,796 0 0% 0 0%

Swamp Fortine active 61,344 35,604 58% 19,672 32%

Swede Mountain vacant1 19,605 5,163 26% 2,722 14%

Tobacco Siding active 212 97 46% 65 31%

Trego active 8,678 7,251 84% 4,255 49%

Tuscor Creek vacant1 404 84 21% 15 4%

Upper Ford vacant1 3,996 1,261 32% 813 20%

Upper Grave Creek vacant1 31,401 8,160 26% 1,380 4%

Warland active 8,800 3,898 44% 2,441 28%

West Fisher vacant1 1,911 1,108 58% 734 38%

West Kootenai active 32,275 21,101 65% 14,828 46%

Yaak River vacant1 730 0 0% 0 0%

Total 542,479 252,652 47% 149,002 27%

1 Vacant and recommended to close in the 2009 Forest Plan monitoring report

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: 2 – Semiprimitive non-motorized; 6 – Developed Recreation Sites; 7 – Existing Wilderness; 8 –

Recommended Wilderness; 9 – Wilderness Study Area, 19 – Steep lands; 20 – Administrative 

Sites; 21 — Special Areas for Research Natural Areas, (SA, BOT and RIP); 24 – Low 

Productivity Areas, 29 – Primitive Recreation; and 30 – Lake Koocanusa Drawdown Area. There 

would be no new grazing allotments identified.

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 MA5a, 5b, 5c, 6 and 73

, 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. 3 For MA7 – Primary Recreation Area – grazing is allowed to continue within the West Kootenai 

allotment.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

544 Livestock Grazing Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Considering environmental consequences and alternative MA allocations, rangeland suitability 

was determined for each action alternative (table 138). Alternative D would have the largest 

acreage of suitable rangeland; Alternative C would have the least 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 5,000 AUMs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Livestock Grazing 545

Table 138. Range Capability and Suitability by Allotment and Alternative B Modified, C, and D

Allotment Status Suitable 

Acres

Capable 

Acres

Percent 

Capable

Suitable 

Alt B

Modified

Acres

Percent 

Suitable 

Alt B

Modified

Suitable 

Alt C 

Acres

Percent 

Suitable 

Alt C

Suitable 

Alt D 

Acres

Percent 

Suitable 

Alt D

Barren vacant1 3,985 1,464 37% 465 12% 416 10% 465 12%

Big Beaver Creek vacant1 611 122 20% 43 7% 43 7% 43 7%

Bobtail vacant1 4,893 3,265 67% 2,082 43% 2,082 43% 2,082 43%

Canyon Creek vacant1 11,860 4,342 37% 3,038 26% 3,038 26% 3,038 26%

Cripple Horse vacant1 18,258 10,004 55% 6,940 38% 6,940 38% 6,940 38%

Dead Horse active 809 441 54% 387 48% 387 48% 387 48%

Edna active 4,549 2,058 45% 951 21% 951 21% 951 21%

Elliot-Cowell vacant1 9,437 3,812 40% 2,291 24% 2,291 24% 2,291 24%

Fairview active 64,438 14,340 22% 10,461 16% 10,461 16% 10,461 16%

Five Mile active 6,725 1,307 19% 753 11% 753 11% 753 11%

Granite-Cherry vacant1 8,337 4,588 55% 3,296 40% 3,290 39% 3,296 40%

Grave Creek active 5,414 4,535 84% 2,370 44% 2,349 43% 2,370 44%

Green Mountain vacant1 870 241 28% 70 8% 70 8% 41 5%

Jumbo Bayhorse vacant1 5,963 552 9% 381 6% 381 6% 381 6%

Lake Creek active 6,820 3,072 45% 2,433 36% 2,433 36% 2,433 36%

Libby Creek vacant1 5,764 3,100 54% 1,898 33% 1,898 33% 1,898 33%

Loon-Roberts active 7,838 4,947 63% 1,839 23% 1,839 23% 1,839 23%

Martin Creek vacant1 952 61 6% 16 2% 16 2% 16 2%

McMillan vacant1 33,319 10,013 30% 7,413 22% 7,413 22% 7,413 22%

Mud Griffith Creeks vacant1 6,198 2,103 34% 881 14% 850 14% 881 14%

Pinkham Creek active 53,191 29,871 56% 16,670 31% 16,670 31% 16,670 31%

Pinkham Ridge vacant 18,178 13,842 76% 6,785 37% 6,785 37% 6,785 37%

Prospect vacant1 6,768 1,043 15% 808 12% 808 12% 808 12%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

546 Livestock Grazing Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Allotment Status Suitable 

Acres

Capable 

Acres

Percent 

Capable

Suitable 

Alt B

Modified

Acres

Percent 

Suitable 

Alt B

Modified

Suitable 

Alt C 

Acres

Percent 

Suitable 

Alt C

Suitable 

Alt D 

Acres

Percent 

Suitable 

Alt D

Quartz Creek vacant1 6,755 2,075 31% 922 14% 922 14% 922 14%

Rondo-Mud Lake active 11,638 4,129 35% 3,171 27% 3,171 27% 3,171 27%

Scalp Mountain active 25,372 13,433 53% 8,538 34% 8,536 34% 8,538 34%

Schrieber vacant1 2,230 1,153 52% 716 32% 716 32% 716 32%

Seventeen Mile vacant1 225 7 3% 5 2% 5 2% 5 2%

Sheldon Mountain vacant1 7,936 4,239 53% 3,495 44% 3,495 44% 3,495 44%

South Fork vacant1 1,020 194 19% 69 7% 69 7% 69 7%

Sunday Creek active 26,526 22,663 85% 12,148 46% 12,148 46% 12,148 46%

Surprise vacant1 4,447 1,911 43% 1,625 37% 1,625 37% 1,625 37%

Swamp Creek vacant 1,796 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Swamp Fortine active 61,344 35,604 58% 20,077 33% 20,077 33% 20,077 33%

Swede Mountain vacant1 19,605 5,163 26% 2,720 14% 2,712 14% 2,720 14%

Tobacco Siding active 212 97 46% 65 31% 65 31% 65 31%

Trego active 8,678 7,251 84% 4,325 50% 4,325 50% 4,325 50%

Tuscor Creek vacant1 404 84 21% 15 4% 15 4% 15 4%

Upper Ford vacant1 3,996 1,261 32% 775 19% 775 19% 775 19%

Upper Grave Creek vacant1 31,401 8,160 26% 1,229 4% 399 1% 2,170 7%

Warland active 8,800 3,898 44% 2,449 28% 2,449 28% 2,449 28%

West Fisher vacant1 1,911 1,108 58% 734 38% 734 38% 734 38%

West Kootenai active 32,275 21,101 65% 13,172 41% 13,172 41% 13,172 41%

Yaak River vacant1 730 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 542,479 252,652 47% 148,523 27% 147,577 27% 149,435 28%

1 Vacant and recommended to close in the 2009 Forest Plan monitoring report.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Livestock Grazing 547

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 KNF through implementation of INFISH (USDA Forest Service 

1995) 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, Alternative D would allow for the greatest percent of motor vehicle 

use (82 percent) and mechanized use (95 percent) across the KNF, followed by Alternative B 

Modified (75 percent for motor vehicle use; 91 percent for mechanized use), and Alternative C, 

which would allow the least amount of motor vehicle use (68 percent) and mechanized use (87 

percent) of the action alternatives. 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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

548 Livestock Grazing Kootenai National Forest - EIS

be replaced by forested cover types, the newly available areas can reduce grazing pressure on 

other ranges. Under a constrained budget, Alternative C is predicted to have the most acres with 

regeneration harvest (about 1,740 acres), followed by Alternative D (1,660 acres), Alternative A 

(about 1,640 acres) and Alternative B Modified (about 1,600 acres). Based on the unconstrained 

budget scenario, Alternative C would have the least acres with regeneration harvest (2,983 

acres), followed by Alternative B Modified (3,128 acres), Alternative A (4,812 acres), and 

Alternative D (5,353 acres).

Effects from Vegetation Management

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 natural, unplanned ignitions than in the other alternatives. Both Alternatives 

B Modified and C have about 22 percent of land allocations in MA5, which is greater than for 

Alternative D. 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 KNF 

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 three counties identified for the KNF, 

including lands administered by the BLM, and the state of Montana adjacent to the KNF, 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 two major counties that the KNF lays within 

(Sanders and Lincoln counties). 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Special Forest Products 549

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 KNF 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 

550 Special Forest Products Kootenai National Forest - 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 KNF 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 KNF 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 KNF honors the unique legal relationship, including the trust relationship, between 

the federal government and Indian tribal governments.

In addition, the Forest Service has the responsibility to honor Indian Tribes’ reserved rights 

(handbook direction 2409.18, section 87.2). The gathering of forest products by the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe is a reserved right on the KNF. The Salish Kootenai 

may remove special forest and botanical products without charge or permit (36 CFR 223.239(e)).

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 and historical 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 139. 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 93,700 93,700 93,700 93,700

MA1b Recommended Wilderness 76,500 102,700 214,800 36,100

MA1c Wilderness Study Area 34,100 34,100 34,100 34,100

MA2 Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers 38,100 38,300 45,100 50,200

MA3 Botanical, Geological, Historical, 

Recreational, Scenic, or Zoological 

Areas 1

15,900 31,400 30,500 31,700

MA4 Established and Recommended 9,800 8,400 8,400
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Special Forest Products 551

Management Area Alt A Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Research Natural Areas 2

Total 258,300 310,000 426,600 254,200

1 Personal use also not allowed in botanical and historical special areas

2 Personal use also not allowed in this MA

Table 139 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 D 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.

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

552 Special Forest Products Kootenai National Forest - EIS

The increased population also results in increased housing density on lands adjacent to the KNF. 

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 553

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 KNF. 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 

554 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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

Social assessments were completed to determine lifestyles, values, and issues regarding forest 

management. Analysis was conducted by sociologists. Primary data was collected using a 

discussion guide with an open-ended format. Discussants represented diverse stakeholder groups 

including recreation groups, business owners, loggers, mill owners, economic development staff, 

local government officials, Forest Service staff, teachers, environmental groups, and other 

community opinion leaders. Findings were summarized in the social assessments (Russell and 

Adams-Russell 2003, Parker et al. 2002, Russell and Downs 1995).

An assessment of social conditions and trends for the planning zone was also completed. This 

document compiled findings of the social assessments 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.

National forest contributions to employment and income and changes by alternative were 

estimated with input-output analysis using the IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 555

modeling system (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. 

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 KNF contains portions of five counties in two states: Flathead, Lincoln, and Sanders 

counties in Montana and Bonner and Boundary counties in Idaho (see table 140 and figure 47). 

As shown in table 140, more than 95 percent of the KNF is located within Lincoln and Sanders 

counties in Montana. Lincoln County contains the highest acreage of national forest land, with 

72 percent of the county administered by the KNF.

The analysis area for the social and economic environment is comprised of counties within a 

zone of influence for KNF management. Counties were selected based on the concept of a 

functional economy (Johnson 1995). Counties were also selected based on the potential impact 

KNF 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 KNF 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 Lincoln, 

Sanders, and Flathead counties in Montana and Boundary and Bonner counties in Idaho.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

556 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 140. Counties within the Analysis Area: Acreage and Percent Administered by KNF

County Total County 

Acres

Total FS 

Acres

% of County 

FS Acres

Acres Admin. 

by KNF

% of County 

Admin. by KNF

Flathead 

County, MT

3,365,600 1,781,000 53% 49,100 1%

Lincoln 

County, MT

2,351,000 1,753,600 75% 1,690,300 72%

Sanders 

County, MT

1,785,100 921,300 52% 428,500 24%

Bonner 

County, ID

1,227,600 472,600 38% 39,200 3%

Boundary 

County, ID

817,300 490,800 60% 10,300 1%

Source: Idaho: County Profiles of Idaho, 2001; Montana: Montana Natural Resource Information System

Figure 47. Counties in the Analysis Area

An assessment on condition and trends of the social and economic systems for the KIPZ was 

completed in 2006 (Russell et al. 2006). Analysis for the Plan draws on this in-depth assessment, 

especially for the social environment. For purposes of description, the 2006 assessment breaks 

the local counties down into two categories: Direct and Regional. The Direct counties have 

borders within the KIPZ forests, receive payments, and have other economic and social benefits 

from management of the KNF or IPNF. The Regional counties have limited or no lands within 

the boundaries of the KIPZ forests and KIPZ contributions to socioeconomic conditions in those 

counties are generally subordinate to other local and regional influences.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 557

The five counties for the KNF analysis area are all categorized as direct counties in the 2006 

assessment with the exception of Flathead County. Flathead County is not heavily influenced 

socially or economically by management of the KNF. This county contains only a small portion 

of lands administered by the KNF. It is also more urban, with a diverse economic composition, 

and is less impacted by KNF management. However, Flathead County is important as part of the 

functional economy for the KNF and is included in the analysis area for the Plan.

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 KNF are included in the analysis areas. This larger regional economy for the KNF 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 increased from 1980 to 2010 (see table 141 and figure 48). 

The growth rates in Flathead, Sanders, and Bonner counties exceed those of their respective 

states, while Boundary and Lincoln counties are growing at a slower rate. Flathead and Bonner 

counties experienced the most growth and Lincoln County the least growth.

Table 141. Change in Population by County and State

Region 1980 1990 2000 2010 Percent Change 

(1980-2010)

Montana 786,690 799,065 902,195 989,415 25.8%

Flathead, MT 51,966 59,218 74,471 90,928 75.0%

Lincoln, MT 17,752 17,481 18,837 19,687 10.9%

Sanders, MT 8,675 8,669 10,227 11,413 31.6%

Idaho 947,983 1,006,749 1,293,953 1,567,582 65.4%

Bonner, ID 24,163 26,622 36,835 40,877 69.2%

Boundary, ID 7,289 8,332 9,871 10,972 50.5%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

558 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census

Figure 48. Population by County by Decade

The growth in population experienced by Flathead County is reflective of the increasing 

development and economic diversification of Kalispell, Montana, and its close proximity to the 

major trade center of Missoula, Montana. The growth in Bonner County is similarly reflective of 

increasing economic development in Sandpoint, Idaho, and its close proximity to major trade 

centers of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and Spokane, Washington.

All counties saw an increase in median age from 2000 to 2010. In 2010, the median age for 

Flathead was 41.2, Lincoln 48.9, Sanders 49.8, Bonner 45.8, and Boundary 42.8. 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 composition of all counties is fairly homogenous and predominantly white, (see table 

142) with Bonner County having the highest percentage (96.0 percent) and Sanders County the 

lowest percentage (91.6 percent). Within all counties, American Indian is the next largest ethnic 

group (for a single race), with Sanders County having the highest percentage (4.4 percent) and 

Bonner County the lowest percentage (0.8 percent).

Table 142. Population by Race, 2010

Flathead 

County, MT

Lincoln 

County, MT

Sanders 

County, MT

Bonner 

County, ID

Boundary 

County, ID

Total Population 90,928 19,687 11,413 40,877 10,972

White alone 86,802 18,881 10,453 39,261 10,398

Black or African 

American alone

201 23 17 58 29

American Indian 1,028 182 505 315 189
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 559

Flathead 

County, MT

Lincoln 

County, MT

Sanders 

County, MT

Bonner 

County, ID

Boundary 

County, ID

alone

Asian alone 531 60 34 182 62

Native Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific Is. 

alone

58 9 1 42 6

Some other race 384 71 44 163 58

Two or more races 1,924 461 359 854 230

Percent of Total

White alone 95.5% 95.9% 91.6% 96.0% 94.8%

Black or African 

American alone 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%

American Indian 

alone 1.1% 0.9% 4.4% 0.8% 1.7%

Asian alone 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6%

Native Hawaiian & 

Other Pacific Is. 

alone

0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Some other race 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5%

Two or more races 2.1% 2.3% 3.1% 2.1% 2.1%

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, Lincoln and 

Flathead counties have the largest percentage of land under federal ownership at 75 and 71 

percent respectively. Boundary County has the next largest at 61 percent. Sanders County is 52 

percent federally owned with an additional 15 percent under tribal ownership. Bonner County 

has the least amount of federally owned land, at 44 percent. Figure 49 displays the percent by 

land ownership for each county.

For all counties, most of the federal ownership is NFS lands. The exception is Flathead County, 

where a large portion of the federal ownership is National Park Service land. As stated earlier, 

the KNF administers the largest portion of lands in Kootenai and Sanders counties. NFS lands in 

Flathead County are predominantly Flathead National Forest while the majority of NFS lands in 

Bonner and Boundary counties are administered by the IPNF. Approximately one-half of Sanders 

County NFS lands are administered by the Lolo National Forest.

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

560 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Source: Montana Natural Resource Information and Idaho County Profiles

Figure 49. Percent Land Ownership by County

The five counties in the analysis area are noted for their natural resources. The counties are 

heavily forested, ranging from 70 percent (Flathead County) to 95 percent (Lincoln 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, 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.

Lincoln and Sanders counties have mineral deposits that have been mined since the early days of 

settlement. The most important of these mining resources are silver and copper. Even though 

mining in the area has declined, there is some new interest in mining. The Revett silver mine, 

south of Troy Montana, is currently operating, and there is consideration for opening two new 

mines in Lincoln and Sanders counties. The Revett Corporation is considering development of 

the Rock Creek mine for silver and copper extraction. This site is located in Sanders County near 

the Idaho and Montana border. The Noranda Corporation has indicated interest in development 

of the Montanore Mine, also for silver and copper extraction. The ore deposits are located in 

Sanders County under the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness area, but the mine site will be located 

in Lincoln County.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 561

Ranching and agriculture have traditionally been important uses of land. Recently, however, land 

has been taken out of agricultural and corporate forest use and put into subdivision and housing 

developments. As a result of this trend, the demand for land and land prices increase, assessed 

value and taxes increase, and agricultural and private forestry lands become more expensive to 

maintain and more tempting to sell for profit (Russell and Downs 1995).

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

Social assessments were completed for the KNF (Russell and Downs 1995, Russell and AdamsRussell 2003), covering Lincoln and Sanders counties in Montana. A social assessment was also 

completed for the IPNF (Parker et al. 2002), encompassing communities within Boundary, 

Bonner, Kootenai, Benewah, and Shoshone counties in Idaho. 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

562 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

• 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.

• 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 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 563

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 to 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.

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 143 lists those 

communities from Russell et al. (2006) that are within the planning area.

Table 143. Planning Area Communities by Ideal Type

Place Community Ideal Type

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
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

564 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Place Community Ideal Type

Lincoln County, MT

Eureka Transition

Fortine Transition

Libby Transition

Rexford Rural Forest

Troy Transition

Sanders County, MT

Dixon Rural Forest

Heron Rural Forest

Hot Springs Rural Forest

Lonepine Rural Forest

Noxon Rural Forest

Paradise Rural Forest

Plains Transition

Thompson Falls Transition

Trout Creek Rural Forest

Associated Communities Outside of the Study Area

Spokane, WA Urban Regional Center

Kalispell, MT 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 144 displays employment by industry for 2001 and 2008.

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. Sanders County had the 

highest percentage in proprietor employment (42.7 percent) and Flathead County the lowest 

(31.2 percent) in 2008.

The Government sector was one of the top three employers in all five counties. All counties saw 

a decline in the percentage of employment in Government from 2001 to 2008. In 2008, Lincoln 

and Boundary counties were above the percent of Government employment for the entire U.S. 

(13.5 percent), while the remaining three counties were below the national figure.

Retail trade, health care, and construction are also top employers in all five counties. Retail trade 

fell from 2001 to 2008 in Flathead, Sanders, and Bonner. Health care also decreased in all 

counties except Lincoln. Construction increased in all five counties. All counties except Bonner 

County also saw a decline in manufacturing employment from 2001 to 2008.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 565

Table 144. Employment by Industry, 2001 and 2008

Flathead Lincoln Sanders Bonner Boundary

2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008

Employment by Place of Work

Total Employment 50,173 63,713 8,742 9,833 5,162 5,924 20,258 25,272 5,021 5,810

By Type (percent of total employment)

Wage and salary employment 70.9% 68.8% 64.8% 61.0% 60.2% 57.3% 64.7% 60.5% 70.7% 66.5%

Proprietors employment 29.1% 31.2% 35.2% 39.0% 39.8% 42.7% 35.3% 39.5% 29.3% 33.5%

By Industry (percent of total employment)

Farm employment 2.3% 1.7% 3.6% 3.5% 10.2% 9.3% 3.1% 2.8% 8.1% 9.4%

Non-farm employment 97.7% 98.3% 96.4% 96.5% 89.8% 90.7% 96.9% 97.2% 91.9% 90.6%

 Private employment 88.3% 90.2% 79.5% 82.9% 75.2% 78.4% 85.1% 87.2% 70.4% 70.9%

 Forestry, fishing, related activities, and 1.5% 1.2% 7.2% 5.4% 5.2% 4.3% 3.9% 2.7% 6.7% (D)

 Mining 0.6% 1.0% 0.5% 3.0% 1.2% 2.1% 0.6% 0.9% 0.2% (D)

 Utilities 0.3% 0.3% (L) (D) 1.1% 0.7% (D) 0.5% (D) 0.2%

 Construction 9.6% 11.5% 7.6% 9.6% 6.8% 9.5% 10.4% 11.5% 6.9% 10.4%

 Manufacturing 8.2% 6.4% 9.4% 4.5% 6.8% 6.0% 9.3% 9.9% 9.9% 6.0%

 Wholesale trade 1.9% 2.1% 1.0% (D) 1.7% 1.6% (D) 1.4% 1.3% 0.9%

 Retail trade 13.2% 12.5% 12.0% 12.4% 9.5% 9.1% 16.0% 13.7% 10.9% 11.5%

 Transportation and warehousing 2.8% 2.2% 2.7% 2.8% 3.4% 3.3% 2.3% 2.0% 3.5% 3.4%

 Information 1.5% 1.4% 1.6% 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 1.2% 1.2% 0.9% 0.7%

 Finance and insurance 3.5% 4.0% 2.6% 2.2% 2.1% 2.2% 2.9% 3.0% 1.0% 2.1%

 Real estate and rental and leasing 4.7% 7.2% 4.1% 5.7% 4.0% 6.1% 4.5% 7.6% (D) 3.6%

 Professional and technical services 6.6% 5.0% 3.1% (D) (D) 3.1% 5.1% 5.6% 3.8% 3.9%

 Management of companies and 0.3% 0.3% (D) (D) (D) 0.2% 0.3% (D) 0.0% 0.0%

 Administrative and waste services 5.5% 6.4% (D) 3.4% (D) 1.7% 2.3% (D) 1.7% 3.3%

 Educational services 0.9% 1.2% 0.4% 0.7% (D) 3.1% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.8%

 Health care and social assistance 8.6% 9.5% 9.7% 11.7% (D) 9.6% 6.2% 6.0% 11.2% 8.6%

 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 3.1% 3.6% 2.0% 2.6% 1.4% 1.9% 3.9% 3.6% 0.9% 0.8%

 Accommodation and food services 9.3% 8.8% 6.9% 6.3% 6.6% 7.5% 6.5% 6.3% 3.3% 2.5%

 Other services, except public admin. 6.2% 5.7% 6.7% 7.4% 5.0% 5.7% 6.6% 6.6% 4.6% 5.0%

Government and government. enterprises 9.4% 8.1% 17.0% 13.7% 14.6% 12.4% 11.7% 10.0% 21.4% 19.7%

 Federal, civilian 1.7% 1.3% 5.4% 4.9% 2.5% 2.3% 1.3% 0.8% 2.5% 2.6%

 Military 0.8% 0.7% 1.1% 1.0% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8%

 State and local 6.9% 6.1% 10.5% 7.9% 11.0% 9.1% 9.7% 8.6% 18.1% 16.3%

(D) Not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals; (L) less than 10 jobs

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis website http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/, table CA25
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

566 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - 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

50) indicates that all counties show higher than average annual unemployment rates when 

compared to state rates. Lincoln, Sanders, and Boundary Counties have the highest 

unemployment rates while Flathead and Bonner are lower.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/lau

Figure 50. Percent Unemployment by County

Unemployment has a strong seasonal pattern among the counties as indicated in figure 51. 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

Lincoln

Sanders

Bonner

Boundary

Flathead

Montana

Idaho
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 567

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/lau

Figure 51. Percent Unemployment by Month by County

The per capita income by county and state is displayed in table 145. Of the five counties, only 

Flathead County, Montana is above the state’s average per capita income. In 2008, Flathead 

County had the highest and Boundary County the lowest per capita income. All five counties and 

both states were below the national per capita income level of $40,166 in 2008. Lincoln 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 145. Per Capita Income by County and State

County/State 1998 Per Capita 

Income

2008 Per Capita 

Income

1998 – 2008 Average 

Annual Growth Rate

Flathead County $23,125 $34,982 4.2%

Lincoln County $16,438 $27,191 5.2%

Sanders County $15,748 $25,162 4.8%

Montana State $21,459 $34,622 4.9%

Bonner County $18,938 $31,127 3.8%

Boundary County $16,728 $24,382 3.8%

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 146 displays the percentage of income 

generated by major industries in 2001 and 2008.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

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

Flathead

Lincoln

Sanders

Bonner

Boundary
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

568 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 146. Compensation by Industry, 2001 and 2008

Flathead Lincoln Sanders Bonner Boundary

2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008

Earnings by Place of Work

Total Earnings (thousands of dollars) 1,103,520 1,791,163 160,282 232,988 78,004 115,123 370,991 605,381 101,403 148,794

By Industry (percent of total earnings)

Farm earnings 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 3.1% 2.2% 0.3% 0.3% 2.7% 6.3%

Nonfarm earnings 99.7% 99.8% 99.8% 99.7% 96.9% 97.8% 99.7% 99.7% 97.3% 93.7%

 Private earnings 83.1% 84.2% 62.8% 65.4% 65.6% 68.5% 77.8% 80.0% 63.8% 59.7%

 Forestry, fishing, related activities, and 

other

1.0% 0.7% 6.2% 4.7% 2.7% 1.6% 2.8% 1.4% 6.4% (D)

 Mining 0.6% 0.9% 0.2% 6.4% 1.6% 3.0% 1.0% 1.3% 0.0% (D)

 Utilities 1.0% 0.9% 0% (D) 4.1% 3.3% (D) 1.8% (D) 0.1%

 Construction 8.4% 10.2% 4.6% 5.8% 3.6% 5.4% 7.2% 8.1% 3.9% 7.7%

 Manufacturing 15.4% 10.9% 16.1% 4.7% 9.4% 8.2% 15.7% 15.9% 16.3% 8.6%

 Wholesale trade 2.4% 3.3% 0.8% (D) 1.7% 1.4% (D) 1.9% 1.5% 1.7%

 Retail trade 10.9% 10.6% 7.4% 8.2% 5.8% 7.3% 17.9% 18.5% 8.4% 9.9%

 Transportation and warehousing 4.9% 3.6% 3.4% 2.7% 3.5% 3.4% 2.7% 1.9% 4.0% 4.0%

 Information 2.0% 1.9% 2.2% 1.2% 1.9% 0.9% 1.6% 1.3% 0.5% 0.3%

 Finance and insurance 4.7% 5.9% 2.9% 1.9% 2.9% 2.6% 3.7% 3.7% 0.8% 2.5%

 Real estate and rental and leasing 1.0% 1.4% 0.4% 1.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% (D) 0.5%

 Professional and technical services 5.5% 4.1% 1.7% (D) (D) 2.8% 3.8% 4.6% 4.3% 3.1%

 Management of companies and 

enterprises

0.5% 0.9% (D) (D) (D) 0% 0.5% (D) 0.0% 0.0%

 Administrative and waste services 3.7% 4.7% (D) 2.5% (D) 0.4% 0.7% (D) 0.6% 1.5%

 Educational services 0.6% 1.0% 0.2% 0.3% (D) 5.4% 1.1% 0.8% 0.9% 1.8%

 Health care and social assistance 10.7% 13.0% 9.7% 14.4% (D) 14.3% 5.7% 6.0% 12.6% 9.1%

 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1.4% 1.8% 0.8% 1.5% 0.3% 0.7% 2.2% 2.5% 0.1% 0.2%
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 569

Flathead Lincoln Sanders Bonner Boundary

2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008 2001 2008

 Accommodation and food services 5.7% 5.7% 3.2% 3.7% 3.4% 4.4% 3.4% 3.5% 1.3% 1.0%

 Other services, except public admin. 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.8% 2.2% 3.1% 3.4% 3.5% 1.7% 2.3%

Government and gov't. enterprises 16.7% 15.6% 37.0% 34.3% 31.3% 29.2% 22.0% 19.6% 33.5% 34.0%

 Federal, civilian 4.7% 3.6% 18.0% 18.3% 9.1% 9.3% 3.9% 2.6% 7.8% 9.7%

 Military 0.6% 1.0% 1.0% 1.7% 1.2% 2.0% 0.7% 1.1% 0.6% 1.2%

 State and local 11.3% 10.9% 18.0% 14.3% 21.0% 17.9% 17.4% 15.9% 25.0% 21.3%

(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/regioma;/reis/ , table CA06
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

570 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - 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 146 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 in 2001. By 2008, manufacturing’s 

contribution had decreased in all but Bonner County and was no longer in the top three industries 

for earnings in Lincoln and Boundary counties. 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. 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 147 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 Lincoln County (31.8 percent) and lowest in Flathead 

and Bonner counties. For all counties, timber is a significant contributor to wildland income

(greater than six percent), while grazing and recreation are less than three percent. Data in the 

table is based on economic activity in the year 2010.

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. 

Some of this is due to the change in the economy in some counties, such as sawmill closures in 

Lincoln County. However, another reason for the change in dependency numbers is because of 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 571

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 Flathead and Bonner counties) derive more than 15 percent of their total 

county labor income coming wildland-based sectors in the economy.

Table 147. Wildland Dependency —Total Labor Income by Category (2010 data)

County % Total

Non-Wildland

% Grazing % Timber % Mining % Wildland 

Government

% 

Recreation

Flathead 86.9% 0.1% 6.5% 2.2% 2.3% 1.9%

Lincoln 68.2% 0.2% 7.8% 9.7% 11.2% 2.9%

Sanders 81.4% 0.6% 6.6% 4.1% 4.8% 2.6%

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%

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 KNF are displayed in table 148, 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 1,190 full- and part-time jobs and 

$55 million in labor income in the study area attributable to the KNF activities. This is 1.2 

percent of the employment and 1.5 percent of the labor income of the study area economy. The 

products, uses, and services of the KNF have its largest effect in the government sector with 373 

(31 percent) of the 1,188 jobs and $20.3 million (37 percent) of the $55.46 million labor income. 

The five sectors with the most employment attributable to KNF activities are government; 

accommodation and food services; forestry and related activities; manufacturing; and retail trade. 

For labor income, the top five sectors are government; mining; manufacturing; forestry and 

related activities; and health care.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

572 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 15 percent 

dependency on wildland-based industries. The analysis of jobs and income attributable to KNF 

activities indicates there is only a small portion (just over one 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 148. Current Role of the KNF-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 4,605 96 $119,007 $3,480

Mining 802 72 $63,030 $9,316

Utilities 412 3 $89,746 $747

Construction 11,404 57 $388,853 $2,144

Manufacturing 7,014 81 $382,163 $4,481

Wholesale Trade 1,815 21 $91,028 $1,062

Retail Trade 12,683 80 $378,225 $2,261

Transportation & Warehousing 2,189 17 $110,890 $756

Information 1,329 8 $51,701 $326

Finance & Insurance 3,158 17 $153,467 $843

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 5,091 31 $126,489 $785

Prof, Scientific, & Tech Services 4,528 29 $221,722 $1,383

Management of Companies 263 3 $21,423 $238

Admin, Waste Mgmt & Rem Serv 4,652 26 $115,297 $649

Educational Services 1,285 7 $27,338 $146

Health Care & Social Assistance 9,329 72 $382,391 $2,941

Arts, Entertainment, and Rec 3,221 23 $61,447 $448

Accommodation & Food Services 8,034 128 $141,502 $2,353

Other Services 6,514 44 $112,453 $783

Government 11,299 373 $582,102 $20,312

Total 99,631 1,188 $3,620,274 $55,455

Forest Service as Percent of Total --- 1.2% --- 1.5%

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 

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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 573

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 

one 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 52. The graph shows the 

payments to counties have fluctuated greatly over the last two decades. Payments somewhat 

stabilized in 2001 under the Secure Rural School Act. In the analysis area, Lincoln County has 

received the highest payments since 1986, with payments substantially higher than the other 

counties.

Source: U.S. Forest Service at https://fsplaces.fs.fed.us/fsfiles/unit/r4/payments_to_states.nsf

Figure 52. 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 can be and recently have been limited by Congress through 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.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

574 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Table 149 shows total federal payments to counties for 2009. Flathead County received the 

highest and Boundary County the lowest payments in lieu of taxes. Lincoln County has the 

highest total federal payments.

Table 149. Federal Land Payments to Analysis Area Counties, 2009

Flathead 

County, 

MT

Lincoln 

County, 

MT

Sanders 

County, 

MT

Bonner 

County, ID

Boundary 

County, ID

Total Federal Land Payments 

by Geography of Origin ($)

4,248,027 7,003,860 3,243,246 1,463,137 2,551,205

PILT 2,253,122 570,558 298,584 289,913 210,551

Forest Service Payments 1,994,905 6,433,277 2,944,657 1,174,639 2,340,554

BLM Payments 0 25 5 -1,415 100

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 150. Lincoln 

County is the most affected by the payments to government, with almost 25 percent of the 

county revenues generated by federal land payments. Bonner and Flathead counties are the least 

affected, with less than 5 percent of their county revenue generated by federal land payments.

Table 150. Federal Land Payments as a Share of Total General Government Revenue, FY2007 (2009 

dollars)

Flathead 

County, 

MT

Lincoln 

County, 

MT

Sanders 

County, 

MT

Bonner 

County, ID

Boundary 

County, ID

Total General Revenue 59,997 16,337 10,768 35,989 19,726

Taxes 34,012 5,912 5,752 19,609 3,989

Intergovernmental Revenue 9,965 6,392 3,202 8,337 4,713

Total Charges 12,809 2,496 1,152 5,932 10,556

All Other (Miscellaneous) 3,212 1,537 662 2,112 468

Federal Land Payments (FY 2006) 2,401 4,072 1,284 1,034 1,064

Percent of Total

Taxes 56.7% 36.2% 53.4% 54.5% 20.2%

Intergovernmental Revenue 16.6% 39.1% 29.7% 23.2% 23.9%

Total Charges 21.3% 15.3% 10.7% 16.5% 53.5%

All Other (Miscellaneous) 5.4% 9.4% 6.1% 5.9% 2.4%

Federal Land Payments (FY 2006) 4.0% 24.9% 11.9% 2.9% 5.4%

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 575

Environmental Consequences

General Effects

The KNF provides 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 KNF, 

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 

KNF. This section addresses the potential effects from KNF 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 Lincoln, Sanders, and Boundary counties 

and faster growth in Flathead and Bonner counties.

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 KNF. 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 motor vehicle use (except for over-snow vehicle use) do not change by alternative. 

Opportunities for over-snow 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 

highest timber harvest level. Alternative A has the second lowest amount of land in 

recommended wilderness and the second highest timber harvest level and motorized recreation 

opportunities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

576 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Lifestyles, Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs

The outputs and values provided by the KNF 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 577

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 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 151 displays the employment and table 152 the income associated with KNF management 

for the five-county analysis area by alternative. These tables compare the alternatives to current 

levels of employment and income.

Table 151. 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 122 138 138 138 138
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

578 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Resource Current 

Mgmt

Alt A Alt B

Modified

Alt C Alt D

Wildlife and Fish: non-local only 68 77 77 77 77

Grazing 4 4 4 4 4

Timber 210 496 463 361 496

Minerals 157 157 157 157 157

Payments to States/Counties 139 139 139 139 139

Forest Service Expenditures 488 488 488 488 488

Total Forest Management 1,188 1,499 1,467 1,365 1,499

Percent Change from Current 26.1% 23.4% 14.8% 26.1%

Table 152. 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 $3,203 $3,619 $3,619 $3,619 $3,619

Wildlife and Fish: non-local only $1,928 $2,178 $2,178 $2,178 $2,178

Grazing $36 $36 $36 $36 $36

Timber $9,666 $23,260 $21,745 $16,948 $23,260

Minerals $12,462 $12,462 $12,462 $12,462 $12,462

Payments to States/Counties $4,938 $4,938 $4,938 $4,938 $4,938

Forest Service Expenditures $23,223 $23,223 $23,223 $23,223 $23,223

Total Forest Management $55,455 $69,716 $68,201 $63,404 $69,716

Percent Change from Current --- 25.7% 23.0% 14.3% 25.7%

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. 

Under this act, forest management does not affect federal payments to states and counties. An 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 579

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 110 jobs and $4,000,000 in labor income in all alternatives.

Payments to Counties

KNF 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 A and C would provide the 

highest while Alternatives B Modified 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 $1,671,000 under Alternative C to a low of $1,545,000 under Alternative D. The 

current level of payments associated with the KNF for the five-county area is $7,860,000 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. Affects would be greatest in 

those counties where federal payments are a larger portion of the county budget, such as Lincoln 

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 153 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 153. Economic Efficiency by Alternative (in thousands of dollars)

Alt. A Alt. B Modified Alt. C Alt. D

Present Net Value $1,390,261 $1,384,369 $1,391,150 $1,382,820

Present Value of Benefits $1,865,443 $1,859,551 $1,866,333 $1,858,002

Present Value of Costs $475,182 $475,182 $475,182 $475,182

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 

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

580 Social & Economics Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Alternative C and the alternative with the lowest present net value is Alternative D. However, as 

table 153 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 KNF found there is a concern among some stakeholders that new residents are changing 

the nature of their communities. The new residents have different values about the use of natural 

resources in general and the harvesting of timber in particular (Russell and Downs 1995:311).

Development of Forestlands

There has also 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

Montana, like many states across the West, is experiencing a massive divestiture of commercial 

timberlands for development and subdivisions (Montana DNRC 2010). Corporate timberland has 

become more valuable for recreational or residential real estate than for timber production. This 

development results in increased fragmentation of forested landscapes with increasing ex-urban 

migration and greater desire for recreational properties and other amenity values. Impacts of 

fragmentation include wildlife habitat degradation, public access issues, and increased 

challenges of providing public services and fire protection for new housing developments. This 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Social & Economics 581

divestiture of corporate timberlands adds to the current trends for increased housing density 

within and adjacent to the national forest.

Future Mining or Wood Products Development

Diversification of wood product manufacturing has historically allowed Montana mills to be 

more resilient in changing markets (Montana DNRC 2010). The majority of timber harvested in 

Montana comes off private lands, with one-third from non-industrial private lands. The Montana 

Statewide Forest Resource Strategy (Montana DNRC 2010) recognizes the need to foster 

responsible management of private lands that integrates harvest of traditional and non-traditional 

forest products as a tool for good land stewardship. 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.

There is the potential for the development of two large-scale copper and silver mines on the KNF 

in the foreseeable future. If these mines are developed, there would be a positive impact on local 

jobs and income.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

582 Other Required Disclosures Kootenai National Forest - 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 assessments for the KNF (Russell and Adams-Russell 2003, Russell and Downs 1995) 

and the assessment of social conditions and trends (Russell et al. 2006) did not identify any 

disproportionate impacts from forest management. In addition, collaboration 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. There are five federally-recognized American Indian nations with 

cultural affiliation on the KNF: the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the Kalispel Tribe, the Coeur 

d’Alene Tribe, the Spokane Tribe, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The 

aboriginal territory of the Kalispel, Coeur d’Alene, and Spokane Tribes, overlap with the 

territory now along the Clark Fork Valley with the territory used by the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho 

and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The entire Forest is within aboriginal territory 

for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. 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 KNF 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 Hellgate 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.

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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Other Required Disclosures 583

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 of time 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 of time.

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 

(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 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

584 Other Required Disclosures Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 wildland fire for multiple 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 final 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).

Wetlands and Floodplains

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).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Kootenai National Forest - EIS Other Required Disclosures 585

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.

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 587

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 KNF, past employees on the KNF 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

Laws, Mary KNF Recreation Specialist

Scaife, Dan IPNF Hydrologist/Fisheries Biologist

Sutton, Darcie KNF Writer Editor

Support to the Interdisciplinary Team:

Name Unit Position

Carlson, John KNF Fish and Wildlife Program Manager

Gier, John KNF Soils Scientist

Kindel, Kenneth KNF Hydrologist

Kmonk, Nancy KNF GIS Support

Peel, Timory Contract Transportation

Rose, Dan KNF Fire/Fuels

Timmons, Rebecca KNF Archeologist

Shotzberger, Deena KNF Silviculturist

Williams, Emily IPNF Forest Planner (Coconino NF, detailed to IPNF)

Young, Will IPNF Hydrologist and Fisheries Biologist (detailed to IDT)

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 589

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

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Northwestern Division

X

Chief of Naval Operations

Energy and Environmental Division

X

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 8 (Montana Office)

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 591

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.

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.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

592 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Term Definition

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 30;

Winter = December 1 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 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.

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.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 593

Term Definition

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.

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.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

594 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Term Definition

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.

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 NSF 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.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 595

Term Definition

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 

vegetation 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.

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.

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
Chapter 6. Glossary 

596 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Term Definition

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.

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).
Chapter 6. Glossary

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 597

Term Definition

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.

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 (6,734 square kilometers). 

The recovery zone is located in northwestern Montana and 

northern Idaho and includes portions of the KNF, Lolo, and 

IPNF.

Northern Continental Divide grizzly bear recovery zone: The 

Northern Continental Divide grizzly bear recovery zone is 

approximately 8,933 square miles (5,717,164 acres). The 

recovery zone is located in northwestern Montana and 

includes portions of six national forests, including the 

Kootenai, two Indian Reservations, Glacier National Park, 

state of Montana, and private lands. There are approximately 

115,190 acres of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem

on the KNF.

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.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

598 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Term Definition

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.

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.

Inceptisol A gray-brown soil consisting mainly of clay and silt loams 

that is not particularly fertile but can be productive when 

properly managed.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 599

Term Definition

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).

Invasive Weeds See Noxious Weeds

Inventoried Roadless Area

(IRAs)

For National Forest System lands in Montana, 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.

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.

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.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

600 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Term Definition

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.

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 (LAU) An LAU 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.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 601

Term Definition

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.

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 

602 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 603

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

(PDO)

A pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at 

least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years. 

The PDO 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), 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 

604 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 605

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 areas 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 

606 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 607

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 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 Forest 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 planning subunits. 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 

608 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 Function Any service, role, or task that soil performs, especially:

Sustaining biological activity, diversity, and productivity;

Regulating and partitioning water and solute flow (hydrologic 

function);

Filtering, buffering, degrading, and detoxifying potential 

pollutants;

Storing and cycling nutrients; and

Providing support for buildings and other structures (trees) 

and to protect archaeological treasures (cultural features).

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.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 609

Term Definition

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.

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.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

610 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Term Definition

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.

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.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 611

Term Definition

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.

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.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

612 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Term Definition

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. 

Vegetation 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 vegetation 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.

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 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 predominately 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 may 

not support beneficial uses.

High: Watersheds may have limited 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 it is assumed that beneficial uses are 

not generally supported.
Chapter 6. Glossary

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 613

Term Definition

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.

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.
Chapter 6. Glossary 

614 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Term Definition

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.
Kootenai National Forest - EIS 615

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., 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. 32ppAlmack, J.A. (1985). An evaluation of grizzly bear habitat 

in the Selkirk mountains of north Idaho. (Master’s thesis). University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

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 Association for the Advancement of Science. (2004). New Threat for Peregrine 

Falcons. ScienceNow, January 13, 2004, Noreen Parks. 

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.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

616 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

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).

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. & Kasworm, W. (1989). Final report: east front grizzly studies. Montana Department 

of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, MT. 332 pp.

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., 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

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: 
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 617

Direct and indirect effects. BioScience, 60(8), 602-613. Retrieved from: 

http://www.usu.edu/beetle/documents/Bentzetal_2010.pdf. (27 September 2011).

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

Bissell, G. (2005). Third annual common loon report 2002-2004: Draft. Helena, MT: Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 17 p. + 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.

Bollenbacher, B. & Hahn, B. (2008, September). USFS Northern Region old growth management 

considerations. USDA Forest Service. 21 p.

Bollenbacher, B., Bush, R., & Lundberg, R. (2009b). Estimates of snag densities for western 

Montana forests in the northern region: Region one vegetation classification, mapping, inventory 

and analysis report. Numbered Report 09-05 v1.3.

Bollenbacher, B. (2010, June 7). Pattern of vegetation matters on the KIPZ. Unpublished report. 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 18 p.

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.

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 and Montana [BC and MT MOU]. (2010). Memorandum of Understanding and 

Cooperation on Environmental Protection, Climate Action, and Energy. February 18, 2010. 2 pp

Brody, A. J. (1984). Habitat use by black bears in relation to forest management in Pisgah 

National Forest, North Carolina. Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee. 123 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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

618 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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). Wildlife habitat estimate updates for the region 1 conservation 

assessment. Numbered Report 08-04 v1.0. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, 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 Kootenai National Forest. 

Region 1 Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis Report # 13-6 v1.0, 

February 23, 2013. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Renewable Resource 

Management. 

Bush, R. and Reyes, B. (2013b). Future Old Growth Estimates for the Kootenai National Forest. 

Region 1 Vegetation Classification, Mapping, Inventory, and Analysis Report # 13-8 v1.0. 

Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Renewable Resource Management. Caissie, D. 

D. (2006). The thermal regime of rivers: a review. Freshwater Biology, 51(8), 1389-1406.

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

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
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 619

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.

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.

Carrol, C. (2007). Interacting Effects of Climate Change, Landscape Conversion, and Harvest on 

Carnivore Populations at the Range Margin: Marten and Lynx in the Northern Appalachians. 

Conservation Biology, Volume 21, No. 4, 1092–1104

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.

Castenada, B. (2004). Kootenai National Forest Considerations for Management of Old Growth. 

Cover letter (1pp) and white paper 61pp.

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. and 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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

620 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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).

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 621

Cole, David N., & Hall, Troy E. (2009). Perceived Effects of Setting Attributes on Visitor

Experiences in Wilderness: Variation with Situational Context and Visitor Characteristics. 

Environmental Management (2009) 44:24-36.

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]. (2003). COSEWIC 

assessment and update status report on the wolverine Gulo gulo in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 41 

pp.

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.

Cordell, H. K., Bergstrom, J. C., Harmann, L. A., and English, D. B. K. (1990). An analysis of the 

outdoor recreation and wilderness situation in the United States: 1989-2040. USDA Forest 

Service, GTR-RM-189. 122 pp.

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.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

622 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

De Leo, G. A., & Levin, S. (1997). The Multifaceted Aspects of Ecosystem Integrity. 

Conservation Ecology (11955449), 1(1), 3.

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.

DuBois, K. (2008, August 20). 2007 bald eagle nesting season summary: Memo to Montana Bald 

Eagle Working Group. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 4 p.

Duncan, Celestine A. (2008). Montana Weed Management 

Plan. http://agr.mt.gov/weedpest/pdf/2008weedPlan.pdf

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.

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 623

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

Elders of the Kootenai Nation. (1990) Century of Survival – A Brief History of the Kootenai 

Tribe of Idaho. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho. 31p.

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

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 

624 Kootenai National Forest - 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.

Fischer, W. C. and Bradley, A. F. (1987). Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types. 

General Technical Report INT-223. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 95 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.

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.

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.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 625

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.

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.

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.

Gonzales, P., Neilson, R.P., McKelvey, K.S., Lenihan, J.M., and Drapek, R.J. (2007). Potential 

impacts of climate change on habitat and conservation priority areas for Lynx canadensis (Canada 

lynx). Report to the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C., and 

NatureServe, Arlington, VA. 19 pages.

Graham, P. (1981). Status of white sturgeon in the Kootenai river. Kalispell, MT: Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Unpublished report.

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.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

626 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

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).

Hammerson, G., Solís, F., Ibáñez, R., Jaramillo, C., Fuenmayor, Q. (2004). Lithobates pipiens. In: 

IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. 

Retrieved for reference document on 09 January 2012.

Hanski I. 1999. Habitat connectivity, habitat continuity, and metapopulations in dynamic 

landscapes. Oikos, 87, 209–219.

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.

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.

Hargrave, P., English, A., Kershen, M., Liva, G., Loon, J., Madison, J., & Witnergerst, R. 

(1999). Abandoned-inactive mines of the Kootenai National Forest-administered land. Open-File 

Report MBMG 395. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Region 1 by Montana Bureau of 

Mines and Geology. Retrieved from: http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/pdf-openfiles/MBMG395_Kootenai.pdf. (27 September 2011).

Harig, A., & Fausch, K. (2002). Minimum habitat requirements for establishing translocated 

cutthroat trout populations. Ecological Applications, 12(2), 535-551.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 627

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).

Hart, J.F. , T. J. Ward, T. M. Spear, K. Crispen, and T. R. Zolnikov. (2007). Evaluation of asbestos 

exposures during firewood harvesting simulations in Libby, MT, USA-Preliminary Data. Annals 

of Occupational Hygiene, Vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 1-7.

Hart, J. F., T.M. Spear, T. J. Ward, C. E. Baldwin, M.N. Salo and M. I. Elashheb. (2009). An 

Evaluation of Potential Occupational Exposure to Asbestiform Amphiboles near a Former 

Vermiculite Mine. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. Vol. 2009, Article ID 189509. 10 

pgs.

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.

Hash, H. S. (1987). Wolverine. Pp. 574-585 in Novak et al. Wild Furbearer Management and 

Conservation in North America.

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.

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

Heinemeyer, K. S. (1993). Temporal dynamics in the movements, habitat use, activity, and 

spacing of reintroduced fishers in northwestern Montana. 169 p.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

628 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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: A Literature Review 

and Adaptive Management Strategy. USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 

50pp.

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., Jurist, K.A., Genter, D.L., & Reichel, J.D. (1995). Bat survey of the Kootenai 

National Forest, Montana: 1994. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 48 p.

Hendricks, P., Jurist, K.A., Genter, D.L., & Reichel, J.D. (1996). Bats of the Kootenai National 

Forest, Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 99 p.

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., Lenard, S., Currier, C., & Johnson, J. (2005). Bat use of highway bridges in southcentral Montana. Report to the State of Montana Department of Transportation. Helena, MT: 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 31 p.

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. and Reichel, J. D. (1998). Harlequin duck research and monitoring in Montana: 

1997. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 28 pp.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 629

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

Hillis, J.M., Thompson, M.J., Canfield, J.E., Lyon, L.J., Marcum, C.L., Dolan, P.M., & 

McCleerey, D.W. (1991). Proceedings of a symposium on elk vulnerability; Defining elk security: 

The Hillis paradigm. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 7 p.

Hilty, J. A., Lidicker Jr., W.Z., & Merenlender, A.M. (2006). Corridor ecology: The science and 

practice of linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press. 323 p.

Hirsch, S.A. & Leitch, J.A. (1996, July). The impact of knapweed on Montana’s economy. 

Agricultural Economics Report No. 355. Fargo, ND: Department of Agricultural Economics, 

Agricultural Experiment Station, North Dakota State University. 52 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.

Holland, T. M. (1986). Grizzly bear habitat improvement projects on the South and Middle Fork 

Flathead River. p. 190-194 In USDA Forest Service, Proceedings: Grizzly Bear Habitat 

Symposium, GTR-INT-207. 255 pp.

Holling, C.S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology & 

Systematics, 41-23.

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

Holtrop, J. D. (2011). August 19, 2011. Letter to Regional Foresters regarding Bighorn Sheep 

Analysis for NEPA Documents. USDA Forest Service.

Hornocker, M.G. and Hash, H. S. (1981). Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology. 59:1286-1301. 

Huston, M.A. (1994). Biological diversity: The coexistence of species and changing landscapes. 

London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hutto, R. L. (1995). Composition of bird communities following stand replacement fires in 

Northern Rocky Mountain conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9:1041-1058.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

630 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

Idaho Department of Fish and Game [IDFG]. (2005). Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 

Boise, Id

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 Conservation Strategy Team [ICST]. (2007). Final Conservation Strategy for the 

Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area. March 2007. 88 pp.

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]. (1994, updated 1998). IGBC Committee Task 

Force Report on Motorized Access/Grizzly Bear Management.

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, 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. S. (2002). Kootenai National Forest Watershed Condition Evaluation Factors. Kootenai 

National Forest, Libby, MT, unpublished.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 631

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.

Johnson, W. (2004). (unpublished). A conservation plan based on the 1987 Kootenai National 

Forest land management plan as amended. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, 

Libby, Mt. 17 pp. plus appendices

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.

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, and W. Johnson. (2008, July 1). Personal Communication/phone call record. 

Grizzly bear movements between recovery zones.

Kasworm, W. F. and Manley, T. L. (1989). Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black 

bears in northwest Montana. Pp. 79-84 in Bears: Their Biology and Management, v. 8, A 

Selection of Papers from the Eith International Conference on Bear Research and Management, 

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, February 1989 (1990).

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

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

632 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p.

Kendall, K. C., Stetz, J. B., Boulanger, J., MacLeod, A. C., Paetkau, D. and White, G. C. (2009). 

Demography and genetic structure of a recovering grizzly bear population. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 73(1):3-17

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

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., 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 National Forest Lynx Task Force.(1997). Lynx Conservation Strategy. Kootenai 

National Forest

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 633

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_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3

gjAwhwtDDw9_AI8zPyhQoY6BdkOyoCAGixyPg!/?navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=stel

prdb5200882&navid=130000000000000&pnavid=null&ss=110114&position=Welcome.Html&tt

ype=detail&pname=Kootenai%20National%20Forest-%20Land>. (27 September 2011).

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.

Landres, P. B., J. Verner, and J. W. Thomas. (1988). Ecological uses of vertebrate indicator 

species: a critique. Conservation Biology, v2 (4): 316-328.

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.

Laws, M. (2012). June 20, 2012 Personal communication with Jeremy Anderson regarding the 

use of pack goats by recreationists on the KNF.

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. See CD #18.

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

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

634 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

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., Carney, D. W, Chilton-Radandt, T., Courville, S. A., Haroldson ̧ M. A., Harris, R. 

B., Jonkel, J., McLellan, B., Madel, M., Manley, T. L., Schwarts, C.C., Servheen, C., Stenhouse, 

G., Waller, J. S., and Wenum, E. (2012). Grizzly bear population vital rates and trend in the 

Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(1): 

119-128

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

Manning, C. (1983). An Ethnohistory of the Kootenai Indians. (Master’s thesis). University of 

Montana, Missoula, Montana.

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. (2000). Management of Montana’s amphibians: A review of factors that may 

present a risk to population viability and accounts on the identification, distribution, taxonomy, 

habitat use, natural history, and the status and conservation of individual species. Report to USFS 

Region 1, Order Number 43.

Maxell, B., K. J. Werner, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. (2003). Herpetology in Montana: a history, 

status summary, checklists, dichotomous keys, accounts for native, potentially native, and exotic 

species, and indexed bibliography. Olympia, WA: Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology. 

Northwest Fauna 5:1–138.

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 635

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

McCool, S., F. & Harris, J. (1994). The Montana Trail Users Study. Institute for Tourism and 

Recreation Research, School of Forestry. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 35 p.

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.

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.

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. 1(989). Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears. Pp. 

57-64 in Bears: Their Biology and Management, v. 8, A Selection of Papers from the International 

Conference on Bear Research and Management, Victoria British Columbia, Canada, February 

1989 (1990)

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.

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.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

636 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

Miss, C., Boswell, S., Hudson, L., & Renk, N. (1994, May 16). Volume 1: Historic overview of 

the Kootenai National Forest. Seattle, WA: Northwest Archaeological Associates, 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 Bald Eagle Working Group [MBEWG]. (2010). Montana Bald Eagle Management 

Guidelines: An Addendum to the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan, 1994, Montana Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks, Helena, Montana. 13 pp

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. (2010). Montana Final Water Quality Integrated 

303(d)/305(b) Report. 486 pp.

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation [MT DNRC]. (2010). Montana 

statewide forest resource strategy. 34 p. Missoula, MT. Retrieved from: 

http://dnrc.mt.gov/forestry/Assistance/Documents/SAResponseStrategy2010.pdf. (27 September 

2011).

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service [MT DNRC and USFWS]. (2010). Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation, Forested State Trust Lands, Habitat Conservation Plan, Final EIS. Volume II. 

Appendices A through C. 527 pp

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. (2011). Bald Eagle —

Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved on July 26, 2011, 

from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_ABNKC10010.aspx.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks [Montana FWP]. (2004). Montana statewide elk management 

plan. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Wildlife Division.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks [Montana FWP]. (2005). Montana’s comprehensive fish and 

wildlife conservation strategy. Helena, MT. 658 p.

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks [Montana FWP]. (2010, January). Montana bighorn sheep 

conservation strategy. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Wildlife Division. 322 p.

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation. (2011). Montana Connectivity Project: A Statewide Analysis. 294pp

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 and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks [MNHP and MFWP]. 

(2005a). Northern Leopard Frog — Rana pipiens. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved for reference 

document on January 9, 2012, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AAABH01170.aspx.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 637

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks [MNHP and MFWP]

.(2005b). 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 and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks [MNHP and 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 and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks [MNHP and MFWP]. 

(2011). Animal Field Guide. http://fieldguide.mt.gov/default.aspx

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks[MNHP and MFWP]. 

(2011b). Western Pearlshell — Margaritifera falcata. Montana Field Guide. Retrieved for 

reference document on January 17, 2012, 

from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_IMBIV27020.aspx.

Montana Wolf Management Advisory Council. (2003). Montana gray wolf conservation and 

management plan. Final environmental impact statement C. Sime, ed. Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks, Helena. 420 pp.

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.

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.

Murray, D. L. and Boutin, S. (1991). The influence of snow on lynx and coyote movements: does 

morphology affect behavior? Oecologia. 88:463-469.

Murray, D. L, Boutin, S., O'Donoghue, M., and Nams, V. O. (1995). Hunting behavior of 

sympatric felid and canid in relation to vegetative cover. Animal Behavior. 50:1203-1210.

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).
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

638 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

NatureServe. (2011b). NatureServe.org. Distribution of western toad available from: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (20 October 2011).

NatureServe. (2011c). NatureServe.org. Distribution of Northern Leopard Frog available from: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (20 October 2011).

Naylor, L. M., Wisdom, M. J., and Anthony, R. G. (2009). Behavioral responses of North 

American elk to recreational activity. Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 73(3): 328-338.

Nelson, R.R. (1978).Genetics of horizontal resistance to plant diseases. Annual Review of 

Phytopathology 16: 359-378

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.

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.

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
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 639

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.

Papouchis, C. M., Singer, F. J., and Sloan, W. B. (2001). Responses of desert bighorn sheep to 

increased human recreation. The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 65(3): 573-582

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, J., Wulfhorst, J.D., & Kamm, J. (2002). Social assessment for the Idaho Panhandle 

National Forests. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 159 p.

Parmesan, C. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. 

Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37:637-69. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100.

Partners in Flight [PIF]. (2000). Draft bird conservation plan: Montana. (version 1.0). Kalispell, 

MT: American Bird Conservancy; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Montana Partners in Flight. 

288 p. Retrieved from: http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/pl_mt_10.pdf. (21 September 

2011).

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.

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

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

640 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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., Servheen, C., Kaswrom, W., and Radandt, T. (2008). Grizzly bear linkage 

enhancement plan for the Highway 3 corridor in the south Purcell Mountains of British 

Columbia. The Trans-border Grizzly Bear Project. Unpublished report. 34 pp

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.

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. See CD #18.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 641

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. 86 p.

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.

Reichel, J.D. & Genter, G.L. (1995). Harlequin duck surveys in western Montana: 1994. Helena, 

MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. Vii + 57 p.

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.. 

(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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

642 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

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.

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.

Roy, K.D. (1991). Ecology of reintroduced fishers in the Cabinet Mountains of northwestern 

Montana. (Master’s thesis). University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 643

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

Ruggiero, L.; McKelvey, K., Squires, J., and Block, W.. (2008). Wildlife and Climate Change. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/wildlife/wildlife-climate-change.shtml. Accessed on 8/21/2012

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.

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.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

644 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 assessment 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. 50pp.

Schmitz, O. J., Post, E., Burns, C. E., and Johnston, K. M. (2003). Ecosystem responses to global 

climate change: moving beyond color mapping. BioScience, 53(12):1199-1205.

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.

Schwab, N.A. & DuBois, K. (2006). Bat conservation plan and strategy for Montana: Draft. 

Missoula, MT: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; University of Montana; and 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.

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., 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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 645

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., & 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.

Shotzberger, D. (2012). June 20, 2012. Personal communication with Jeremy L. Anderson 

regarding the use of domestic goats for weed control on the KNF/

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.

Skaar. D. (1990). Montana common loon management plan. Unpublished report prepared for the 

U.S. Forest Service, Region 1. 61 pp

Slone. (2007). Sloan, 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.

Sorenson, C.B., McIver, S.P., Keegan, C.E., Gale, C., Morgan, T.A. (2012). Capacity and 

capability of mills in the Kootenai National Forest impact zone. Missoula, MT: Bureau of 

Business and Economic Research, the University of Montana.

Spahr, R.L, Armstrong, D., & Rath, M. (1991). Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of 

the Intermountain region. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

646 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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. (2012). September 6, 2012. Personal Communication from Squires (RMRS) to J. L. 

Anderson (KNF) regarding lynx and lynx habitat on the KNF.

Squires, J.R., DeCesare, N.J., Kolbe, J.A., & Ruggiero, L.F. (2003). Movements of Canada lynx 

in northwest Montana relative to transportation corridors and other landscape features: 2003 

progress report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 31 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.

Stebbins, R., S. (1985). Western Reptiles and Amphibians. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton 

Mifflin & Company.

Stebbins, R., S. & Cohen, N., W. (1995). A Natural History of Amphibians. Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 647

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).

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., 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.

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.

Sumner, J., & Rogers, R. (2006). Montana peregrine falcon survey. Helena, MT: Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks. 51 p.

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

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.

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
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

648 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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, 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.

Tomasik, E. (2011). "Some Information Accompanying the Addition of Bighorns to the R1 

Sensitive Species List". Unpublished. 3/17/11. 6 pp

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.

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.

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 Health and Human Services. (2001). Toxicological Profile for Asbestos 

(update). Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Summary Report, Exposure to AsbestosContaining Vermiculite from Libby, Montana, at 28 Processing Sites in the United States. Agency 

for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Health Assessment and Consultation.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 649

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. (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. (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. (2003a). Aquatic response units: Draft. Libby, MT: USDA Forest Service, 

Kootenai National Forest. 127 p.

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. See CD #6.

USDA Forest Service. (2003). 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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

650 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

USDA Forest Service. (2005). Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor 

Vehicle Use. Federal Register, November 9, 2005, v 70 (216): 68264-68291.

USDA Forest Service. (2007b). Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Kootenai National 

Forest Invasive Plant Management. Kootenai National Forest Lincoln, Sanders, and Flathead 

Counties, Montana Bonner and Boundary Counties, Idaho. pp. 3-7.

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. (2008). R1 soil quality monitoring protocol: Draft. 56 p.

USDA Forest Service (2008a) R1 Wilderness Air Quality Monitoring Plan. 37 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. (2009). Informed Choices Regarding Libby Amphibole (Asbestos) On the 

Forest. Libby Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Mt 59923.

USDA Forest Service. (2009, January). National Visitor Use Monitoring Results. Kootenai 

National Forest, data collected FY 2007. 54 p.

USDA Forest Service. (2010, September). Executive Summary Status and Conservation of 

Whitebark Pine. USDA Forest Service Region 1. 30p.

USDA Forest Service. (2010b). KIPZ climate change report. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest 

Service, Region 1. 236 p.

USDA Forest Service. (2010, December 2). Visitor use report: Kootenai. Libby, MT: USDA 

Forest Service, Region 1, Kootenai National Forest, National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. 51 

p.

USDA Forest Service. (2011a). Kootenai National Forests forest plan monitoring and evaluation 

report: Fiscal Year 2010. Libby, MT: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Kootenai National 

Forest.

USDA Forest Service. (2011b, February). Region 1, Regional Forester’s sensitive species list 

(wildlife). Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 5 p.

USDA Forest Service. (2011, November). 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. 2011. 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
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 651

USDA Forest Service. 2013. KIPZ Management Indicator Species Selection Documentation. 

Unpublished report. 10 pp.

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 and USDI Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. (2012). 

2/29/2012. Map of Montana Bighorn Sheep Occupied Habitat and Domestic Sheep Grazing 

Allotments. 1 p

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.

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.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. (2006). Final Statewide Programmatic Grizzly Bear (Ursus 

arctos). Biological Assessment, USDI BLM Wyoming State Office, Updated June 29, 2006. 

210pp.

USDI Bureau of Land Management & USDA Forest Service (January, 2001). Off-highway 

vehicle environmental impact statement and proposed plan amendment for Montana, North 

Dakota and portions of South Dakota. pp. 40.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1993). Grizzly bear recovery plan. Missoula, MT 181 pp.

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]. (1998, June). 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.

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]. (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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

652 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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 [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).

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. (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. (2007c). Final Environmental Assessment. Definition of 

“Disturb” as applied under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act. USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Washington, D.C. 16 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007d). Draft post-delisting monitoring plan for the bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Bald Eagle Monitoring Team. 

Washington, D.C. 64 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007e). Draft Environmental Assessment. Proposal to permit 

take provided under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, VA. 148 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2007f). 50 CFR part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and plants: Removing the Bald Eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. Final Rule. Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 130/ Monday, July 9, 2007. pp. 

37345-37372.

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

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 653

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (2008, March 11). Twelve month finding on a 

petition to list the North American wolverine as endangered or threatened. Federal Register, Vol. 

73, No. 48, pp. 12929-12941.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service [USDI FWS]. (2008c, July 25). Bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) 5-year review. Portland, OR: USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 53 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009). 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. (2009). 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]. (2010, July 9). 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. (2010). [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. (2011b). 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. (2011c). 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. (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 

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 
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

654 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

Vilsack, T. (2010, May 28). Secretary’s memorandum 1042-155: Authority to approve road 

construction and timber harvesting in certain lands administered by the Forest Service. 

Washington, DC: USDA Office of the Secretary. 3 p.

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.

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).

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.

Ward T, Spear T, Hart J.F., et al. (2006). Trees as reservoirs for amphibole fibers in Libby, 

Montana. Sci Total Environ: 367:460-5.

Ward, T.J., J. F. Hart, T.M. Spear, B. J. Meyer and J. S. Webber. (2009). Fate of Libby Amphibole 

Fibers When Burning Contaminated Firewood. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009 April 15:43(8): 2878-

2883.

Ward, T. J., T. M. Spear, J.F. Hart, J.S. Webber, and M. I. Elashheb. (2012). Amphibole Asbestos 

in Tree Bark- A review of Findings for This Inhalational Exposure Source in Libby, Montana, 

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:6, 387-397.

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.
Chapter 7. Literature Cited

Kootenai National Forest - EIS 655

Weaver, J. L. (2011). Conservation Value of Roadless Areas for Vulnerable Fish and Wildlife 

Species in the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem, Montana. Wildlife Conservation Society 

Working Paper No. 40, April 2011. 171 pp

Weilgas, R. B., Bunnell, F. L., Wakkinen, W. L., and Zager, P. E. (1994). Population dynamics of 

Selkirk Mountain grizzly bears. Journal of Wildlife Management. 58:266-272.

Weldon, L. A. C. (2012). June 11, 2012. Letter to Regional Foresters regarding Bighorn Sheep 

Analysis for NEPA Documents. USDA Forest Service.

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.

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 
Chapter 7. Literature Cited 

656 Kootenai National Forest - EIS

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.

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.

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.

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