Starry Goat Northern Region Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2018 Part 2

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Starry Goat Northern Region Final Environmental Impact Statement March 2018 Part 2

Three Rivers Ranger District Kootenai National Forest Lincoln County, Montana

Table of Contents- Part 2 Table of Contents- Part 2 ...... i Chapter 4...... 1 Response to Comments for Starry Goat DEIS ...... 1 Comment Categories ...... 1 2015 Forest Plan Direction ...... 2 Alternatives ...... 3 Aquatics ...... 3 Climate Change ...... 8 Costs of Project ...... 14 Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 14 Fire and Fuels Management ...... 14 Forest Vegetation ...... 18 Forest Vegetation – Old Growth ...... 28 Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 29 NEPA ...... 30 Road Effects ...... 31 Scientific Integrity ...... 31 Soils ...... 32 Timber Suitability ...... 37 Travel Management ...... 38 Water Resources ...... 45 Wildlife – Endangered Species Act ...... 56 Wildlife – Canada Lynx ...... 57 Wildlife – Grizzly Bear ...... 58 Wildlife – Habitat Connectivity ...... 63 Wildlife – Other Species ...... 63 Wildlife – Sensitive Species ...... 66 Wildlife – Wolverine ...... 69 Wildlife and Recreation ...... 70 Literature Cited ...... 71 General Reference ...... 71 Air Quality ...... 71 Aquatic Habitat and Species...... 72 Economics ...... 76 Fire and Fuels ...... 76 Forest Vegetation ...... 79 Invasive Plant Species ...... 87 Inventoried Roadless Areas ...... 88 Minerals ...... 89 PTES Plants ...... 89 Recreation ...... 90 Scenic Resources ...... 90 Soils ...... 91 Transportation...... 96 Water Resources ...... 96 Wildlife ...... 100 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ...... 100 Sensitive Species ...... 107

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 i Other Species of Interest ...... 115 Appendix and Maps ...... 1 Appendix A: Glossary and Acronyms ...... 1 Glossary ...... 1 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 25 Appendix B: Best Management Practices (BMP) ...... 29 Introduction ...... 29 BMP Implementation Process ...... 29 KNF BMP SELECTION AND DESIGN FORM (KNF-BMP-1) ...... 31 Appendix C: Starry Goat Harvest Treatment Summary ...... 46 Alternative 2 – Harvest Treatment Summary ...... 46 Alternative 3 – Harvest Treatment Summary ...... 54 Alternative 4 – Harvest Treatment Summary ...... 61 Appendix D – Starry Goat Access Management Plan Table ...... 71 Appendix D – Starry Goat Access Management Plan Map ...... 74 Appendix E – Past Harvest Activities in the Project Area ...... 75 Appendix F – Starry Goat Monitoring Plan ...... 105 Appendix G – List of Preparers and Recipients ...... 107 List of Recipients ...... 109 Local Government and Elected Officials ...... 109 Federal Agencies ...... 109 Organizations ...... 109 State Agencies ...... 109 Native American Tribes and Organizations ...... 109 Individuals ...... 109 Individuals, cont...... 110 Maps ...... 111 Map M-1: General Vicinity ...... 112 Map M-2 Recreation Improvements...... 113 Map M-3 Starry Goat Management Areas 2 and 3...... 114 Map M-4 Alternative 2 ...... 115 Map M-5 Alternative 3 ...... 116 Map M-6 Alternative 4 ...... 117 Map M-7 Project Area Haul Roads ...... 118 Map M-8 Bull Trout Habitat, Road Storage, Decommissioning, Other Road Work, and Minerals in Alternatives 2 and 4 ...... 119 Map M-9 Road Storage, Decommissioning, Other Road Work, and Minerals in Alternative 3 ...... 120 Map M-10 Roadside Fuel Mitigation ...... 121 Map M-11 Management Areas ...... 122 Map M-12 Grizzly Bear Core Swap ...... 123 Map M-13 Analysis Watersheds ...... 124 Map M-14 Proposed Harvest and Non-harvest Fuels Treatments in Old Growth ...... 125 Map M-15 Bear Management Units ...... 126 Map M-16 Biophysical Settings ...... 127 Map M-17 Bull Trout Habitat in Alternative 2 ...... 128

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 ii Chapter 4.

Response to Comments for Starry Goat DEIS

Comment Categories Eight letters containing comments on the Starry Goat project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement were received during the comment period. These comments were categorized and personnel from the District responded to each comment. The following pages in Chapter 4 provide the comments and responses. The format use is as follows: The letter number and comment number are provided within brackets [letter number, comment number], followed by the comment in italics. The response is provided below the comment.

Comment Categories include:

2015 Forest Plan Direction Inventoried Roadless Areas Wildlife- Canada Lynx

Alternatives NEPA Wildlife - Fisher

Aquatic Habitat and Species Road Effects Wildlife – Grizzly Bear

Aquatic Habitat – Bull Trout Scientific Integrity Wildlife – Habitat Connectivity

Climate Change Soils Wildlife – Other Species

Economics Timber Suitability Wildlife – Sensitive Species

Fire and Fuels Management Travel Management Wildlife - Wolverine

Forest Vegetation Water Resources Wildlife and Recreation

Forest Vegetation – Old Growth Wildlife – Endangered Species Act

Comment Letters Received on the DEIS Letter Number Name of Commenter 1 Jean Public (Barbara Sachau) 2 Idaho Conservation League (ICL) 3 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 4 Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MDFWP) 5 Wildlands Defense & Alliance for Wild Rockies (AWR) (Jeff Juel) 6 WildEarth Guardians (WEG) 7 Kootenai Forest Stakeholders Coalition (KFSC) 8 Yaak Valley Forest Council (YVFC)

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 1 2015 Forest Plan Direction [5,1] Comment: The DEIS does not demonstrate consistency with all the applicable direction in the Forest Plan and omits discussion of much of that direction. Under NFMA, the Forest Service (FS) is required to explicitly demonstrate the project would be consistent with all relevant forest plan direction.

Response: The DEIS does demonstrate consistency with Forest Plan direction. In the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section each resource describes how the proposed activities will meet the appropriate Forest Plan desired conditions, objectives, standards, or guidelines. See the Forest Plan Consistency/ Consistency with the 2015 Forest Plan or Regulatory Consistency or Regulatory Framework Findings section located in each resource analysis.

[5,3] Comment: The DEIS fails to disclose that most monitoring as required by the Forest Plan has not occurred. This failure to monitor leads to inadequate empirical basis for professional judgment or conclusions made regarding project impacts. It is vital that the results of past monitoring be incorporated into this project analysis and planning. We request the following be disclosed:

• A list of all past projects (completed or ongoing) implemented in the analysis area.

• A list of the monitoring commitments made in all previous NEPA documents covering the analysis area.

• The results of all that monitoring.

• A description of any monitoring, specified in those past project NEPA for the analysis area, which has yet to be gathered and/or reported.

• A summary of all monitoring of resources and conditions relevant to the proposal or analysis area as a part of the Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation effort.

• A cumulative effects analysis which includes the results from the monitoring required by the Forest Plan

For example, as the DEIS indicates, the relatively recent Callahan and West Troy projects affected cumulatively probably thousands of acres of forest in this project area, as well as causing many other environmental impacts. Yet the DEIS fails to provide an analysis of how well those and other past FS management projects met the goals, objectives, desired conditions, etc. stated in the corresponding NEPA documents, and how well the projects conformed to forest plan standards and guidelines… .. Roger Sedjo, member of the Committee of Scientists, expresses his concerns in Appendix A of their 1999 Report about the discrepancy between forest plans and Congressional allocations, leading to issues not considered in forest plans.

Response: Forest Plan monitoring is documented in Forest Plan monitoring reports in the project file and on the Kootenai National Forest web page. The link to the Forest plan monitoring reports can be found at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/kootenai/landmanagement/planning. The IDT used monitoring as one of many tools during project development and analysis. The effect of any past projects within the analysis area are included in the affected environment section of each resource. There is no requirement to list the monitoring commitments of all past projects or the results of such monitoring. Again, the affected environment presents the conditions of each resource within the analysis area. The cumulative effects analysis of each resource includes

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 2 expected results from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. All past project monitoring was used to inform the IDT.

The concern expressed by Roger Sedjo is in reference to forest plans and is not relevant to this project-level analysis.

Alternatives [6,15] Comment: Consider a reasonable range of alternatives in terms of proposed road activities. The Forest Service fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives for its proposed road activities.

Response: Road activities were not identified through scoping as a purpose and need for this project and, thus, does not drive alternatives. There is no requirement to build an alternative around road activities for this project. Overall road numbers and proposed use do fluctuate by alternative, in response to management for resources identified in the purpose and need.

[5,150] Comment: We request the FS take a more comprehensive approach to restoring aquatic habitat and watersheds than is included in the proposal. Please design an alternative that results in a road system which is fully affordable to maintain on an annual basis, within all of the watersheds affected by the proposal. Please use expected appropriations as the yardstick to measure “affordable”, based on recent years’ funding levels.

Response: The alternatives address the purpose and need to maintain or improve aquatic habitat and watershed conditions. Also see responses to comment [5,117] [5,120] [5,125] [6,5].

Aquatics [5,25] Comment: The DEIS cites fish surveys from 14 and 15 years ago, but the FS apparently hasn’t conducted thorough surveys in more recent years to determine if management impacts in the meantime have reduced populations. If redd counts are any indication (DEIS at 128-129), populations are going down. The DEIS does not take a hard look at the condition of all streams and water bodies in the affected watersheds, and explain how those conditions contribute to fish population and trends. The DEIS does not disclose populations and population trends of Sensitive and Threatened fish species in all the project area streams, and compare those numbers to minimum viable populations.

Response: Population surveys have been conducted annually from 2003 – 2016 by MFWP (Hensler 2017, Project File). Electrofishing efforts in a permanent section of North Callahan Creek from 2003 to 2016 resulted in annual population estimates (Table 1). Based on these subpopulation estimates, other population and habitat data collected for this project (DEIS 128- 129, 132-137), and analysis of the action alternatives, the determination of project effects to bull trout and critical habitat was fully disclosed as “Likely to Adversely Affect” in the DEIS (p. 150- 151).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 3 Table 1. Population estimates (N), 95 percent confidence intervals (95% C.I.), probability of first pass capture (p) and densities for Age 1+ and older bull trout calculated from electrofishing in the permanent section of North Callahan Creek, 2003 - 2016. Year N 95 % C.I. P Density (#/100m2) 2003 10 +/- 1 0.83 0.7 2004 43 +/- 4 0.82 2.4 2005 35 +/- 4 0.79 2.2 2006 11 +/- 3 0.85 0.6 2007 4 +/- 1 0.80 0.2 2008 Caught 11 bull trout all less than 70 mm (young-of-year) 2009 11 +/- 1 0.92 0.5 2010 40 +/- 2 0.87 1.7 2011 No estimate due to high flows late into year. 2012 12 +/- 1 0.86 0.5 2013 25 +/-2 0.83 1.0 2014 18 +/-1 0.90 0.7 2015 41 +/-3 0.82 2.1 2016 1 0 1.0 0.1

Regarding the “hard look” at streams, the condition of project area fish streams, including RHCA road density, large woody debris, pool frequency, bank stability, temperature, width:depth, index of physical habitat integrity, and effects of past actions on existing condition, can be found in the DEIS on pages 132 – 137. Effects to habitat conditions and to bull trout populations from continued implementation of resource management are disclosed in the INFISH BO (USFWS 1998), which is incorporated within this project via FW-STD-RIP-03. The DEIS reports Riparian Management Objectives (RMO) existing conditions and illustrates that project activities “shall maintain or improve” those conditions (pages 147-150 of the DEIS).

[5,31] Comment: The DEIS also fails to provide a scientifically-supported analysis as to how long it would take habitat conditions in all those management-damaged streams to recover, under any proposed restoration scenario.

Response: See pages 140-141 and Table 40 of the DEIS for a summary of the Pacfish-Infish Biological Opinion (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Program and how it relates to project area waters (i.e. North Callahan). Monitoring at the project level and at the Forest level illustrates improvements in habitat conditions since the implementation of INFISH.

[5,39] Comment: The DEIS states, “Successful incubation of bull trout embryos requires …less than 25 percent of sediments smaller than 6.35 millimeter in diameter (Weaver and White 1985), and high gravel permeability (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).” The Forest Plan/INFISH has no standards for cobble embeddedness or percent fines of sediment. Therefore, as the DEIS

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 4 indicates, the FS feels free to ignore these habitat needs in its discussion of habitat quality. Kappesser, 2002.

Response: The Forest Plan does have a desired condition that addresses this, FW-DC-RIP-02. As stated in the DEIS, the proposed action would maintain or improve stream channel integrity, channel processes, and sediment regimes and contribute to progress toward achieving this desired condition.

Percent fine sediment and diameter of streambed particle is documented in the project Biological Assessment (BA). Percent fine sediment (<6.0 mm) in pool tails in North Callahan Creek in 2004 and 2009 was 0.4% and 2.8%, respectively (PIBO 2017). Diameter of the 50th percentile streambed particle (D50) was reported as 155 mm and 190 mm during those same years (see BA in project file for more information). MFWP evaluated cobble embeddedness and assigned substrate scores using ten equally spaced transects in the juvenile bull trout abundance sections of nine Kootenai River tributaries. Lower scores indicate poorer quality rearing habitat; higher values indicate good conditions. Callahan Creek received the second highest score following the most recent survey (2013) among the nine Kootenai River tributaries surveyed. This indicator was found to be functioning appropriately in Callahan Creek (see BA in project file for more information).

[5,42] Comment: The DEIS doesn’t include an analysis of project area streams’ trends toward or away from meeting Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs).

Response: To be consistent with the Forest Plan proposed actions must either maintain or improve existing RMOs and not retard natural attainment of RMOs. RMOs are discussed on pages 119, 122-125, 132-134, 142, 144-145, 147, and 150 of the DEIS.

[5,43] Comment: The 1998 Bull Trout Biological Opinion (BO) indicates that bull trout are absent when road densities exceed 1.71 mi/mi2, depressed when the road density = 1.36 mi/mi2 and strong when road density equals or is less than .45 mi/mi2 (P. 67.). Most project area watersheds/subwatersheds exceed this road density.

Response: Road densities are discussed on page 132 of the DEIS. Existing RHCA road densities in Callahan, South Callahan, and North Callahan Creeks are 2.58 mi/mi², 1.84 mi/mi², and 0.33mi/mi², respectively, and bull trout are present in each of these drainages. See Table 37 of the DEIS).

[5,44] Comment: The watershed and fisheries analyses fail to provide any comparison to natural, pre-settlement conditions, which is absolutely necessary for conducting an adequate cumulative effects analysis.

Response: Watershed and fisheries data were not collected in pre-settlement times and therefore quantitative comparisons are not possible. Impacts of historical activities on channel morphology and aquatic and riparian habitat are qualitatively discussed in the cumulative effects section (page 145 of DEIS). Historical and pre-settlement conditions and management practices in the project area are discussed in the Water Resources section on pages 454-456, and existing watershed conditions are discussed on pages 456-459. RMOs provide objectives which mirror reference

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 5 watershed conditions and which the Forest aims to attain over time via implementation of RHCAs and restoration work. Knowledge of watersheds and ecosystems is ever changing and as more information is known, management guidelines and emphasis is incorporated into our actions.

[5,45] Comment: The DEIS claims, “sediment production would decrease in the long-term through stream crossing stabilization and implementation of BMP design features. Stream channels and fish habitat would begin to be restored and improved. The long-term benefits of reducing water routing and sediment input to stream channels and restoring fish passage would outweigh the short-term negative effects caused by the roadwork.” The problem with these claims is, it ignores the fact that the improvements have a limited life span. Given that the KNF doesn’t receive enough annual maintenance funding to maintain the KNF system roads, inevitably project area roads will trend more towards generating sediment in excess of natural levels into streams, long after any project benefits might be realized. The DEIS fails to adequately account for those foreseeable long term impacts. The KNF is aware of this fact:

Constructing and improving drainage structures on Forest roads is an ongoing effort to reduce road-related stream sediment delivery. Although BMPs are proven practices that reduce the effects of roads to the watershed, it is not a static condition. Maintaining BMP standards for roads requires ongoing maintenance. Ecological processes, traffic and other factors can degrade features such as ditches, culverts, and surface water deflectors. Continual monitoring and maintenance on open roads reduces risks of sediment delivery to important water resources. (USDA Forest Service, 2010t.)

Response: The DEIS explains in detail how active road storage or decommissioning would alleviate risk of future road failure, eliminate chronic sources of sediment runoff, reconnect redband trout habitat, reduce bedloading, improve water quality and improve overall aquatic and riparian habitat in project area streams (for example, see pages 95, 102-103, 144, 148, 292 of DEIS).

Many of the BMP improvements, such as installation of drivable dips or ditch relief culverts upgrade of stream crossings, are designed for longevity and become included in the Forest’s road maintenance system. These features do require periodic maintenance, features such as drivable dips become part of the permanent road prism and are not easily compromised by traffic. Existing roads in the project area will undergo regular district road maintenance (estimated 3 to 4 miles per year) as funding becomes available on non-haul routes. As discussed in Table 24 of the DEIS, 44.4 miles to 51.5 miles of road in the project area will receive maintenance to meet current BMPs. Also, 40 miles of other road maintenance work will occur.

Across the KNF, the USFS continues to bring roads up to current BMP standards as projects and funding allow and follows BMP guidelines for timber harvest, road building, and road use. Please see responses to comments [5,28] [5,36] [5,45] [5,46] [5,57] and [5,120]. See Appendix B for BMP related information and also response to comments [5,28] and [5,119].

[5,46] Comment: Again, because there will not be enough annual funding, “continual monitoring and maintenance” won’t happen. The DEIS doesn’t present enough data or analysis to demonstrate consistency with FW-STD-RIP-01, FW-STD-RIP-02, FW-STD-RIP-03, RF-2, RF-3, RF-4, RF- 5.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 6 Response: Forestwide, 100% of seasonally open roads are inspected annually for maintenance needs during gate opening and closing (currently the forest has 29% seasonally open OML 2 roads and 8% seasonally open ML 3, 4 and 5 roads.) Another 17% of yearlong open OML 3, 4 and 5 arterial roads are inspected throughout the year for maintenance needs. 100% of OML 3, 4, and 5 roads are inspected over a five year period for real property inventory. Maintenance tasks identified during these inspections are completed to meet maintenance level requirements. The Starry Goat project area doesn’t have any seasonal open/gated roads; they are either open or gated year long.

Additionally, district personnel are trained to routinely check and clean culverts and other drainage features in conjunction with other field duties, as well as to report road maintenance and hydrologic problems for further resolution when necessary. Please also see response to comment [5,120].

[5,47] Comment: The DEIS doesn’t describe the quantity and quality of habitat needed for viability of inland redband and westslope cutthroat trout populations. Viability is not being assured, and given the long term habitat disruptions guaranteed under the FS management regime, with its excessive road density and period pulses of management-elevated sediment, viability is very much at risk.

Response: Viability of aquatic species is discussed in the Forest Plan FEIS aquatics section. The project would occur within that context so effects to individuals and local populations are identified and discussed in this project related NEPA. Pages 118-123 of the DEIS list all regulatory framework pertaining to aquatic sensitive species and habitat. A chief concern of the collective direction is protecting, maintaining, and/or improving aquatic habitat. The regulatory framework lists each KNF Forest Plan component for Riparian, Aquatic Habitat, and Aquatic Species Resources and how the project adheres to this direction. The DEIS illustrates compliance with the Forest Plan and INFISH (DEIS pg. 147-150).

[5,48] Comment: The DEIS doesn’t disclose that monitoring for the aquatic Management Indicator Species as required by the Forest Plan has not occurred.

Response Under the 2015 Forest Plan, Management Indicator Species are replaced by Focal Species. Monitoring of Forest Plan identified Focal Species occurs across the forest rather than at the project level. Current PIBO monitoring data shows that aquatic macroinvertebrate populations reflect reference conditions across the Kootenai NF (Archer and Ojala, 2016, project file, also see next comment). Pages 118-123 of the DEIS list all regulatory framework pertaining to aquatic species and habitat at the project level. See the response to comment [5,3].

[5,49] Comment: The DEIS does not disclose that USFWS consultation for INFISH recognized that upland forest canopy removal raises stream temperatures. The DEIS also fails to analyze the critical link between management-induced shallowing of pools and streams, and the water temperature increases that result. The fact that zero streams in the project area meet the RMO width/depth ratio must be examined in the light of water temperatures also not meeting RMOs. It also appears that the FS has not conducted temperature surveys frequently enough to present an adequate cumulative effects analysis.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 7 Response: The PIBO monitoring of Kootenai NF streams indicate overall index values for managed reaches reflect expected values at reference reaches. Similar overall index values indicate conditions are similar at managed and reference reaches (Archer and Ojala, 2016, project file). The overall index score of stream reaches across the Kootenai NF has shown a statistically significant trend of improvement over time (N=49, P=0.01). Individual habitat parameters such as Observed/Expected macroinvertebrate score, bank stability, percent undercut banks, large wood frequency index, bank angle, percent pool fines <6mm, median substrate index (D50), residual pool depth, pool percent index were also monitored. Of these parameters, all except the percent pools index was shown to either improve or to be maintained over time (Table 2).

Strategy for Bull Trout (Pages 10-11, USDA 2013). Effects to bull trout from continued implementation of resource management are disclosed in the Aquatics Biological Opinion on the Revised Forest Plan (Pages IV37-IV52, USFWS 2013). This project is consistent with the regulatory direction provided within the Forest Plan, which includes INFISH via FW-STD-RIP- 03. Stream temperatures and potential management effects to temperature are discussed on pages 133, 137, 143, 146, 447, 481, and 640 of the DEIS.

Climate Change 5/5] Comment: The DEIS fails to analyze how the proposed management actions would be affected by climate change. The DEIS also fails to disclose how climate change has affected ecological conditions. See the following references:

 Pecl, GT and Verges, A and Popova, E and McDonald, J, Climate-driven species on the move are changing (almost) everything, The Conversation, Conversation Media Group, Melbourne, Australia (2017)

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 8  Funk, J., S. Saunders, T. Sanford, T. Easley, and A. Markham. 2014. Rocky Mountain forests at risk: Confronting climate-driven impacts from insects, wildfires, heat, and drought. Report from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Response: The DEIS recognized and incorporated the effect climate change has had on vegetation and other resources (see DEIS pages 184, 205, 206, 209, 210, 340, 480, 481, 597, and 718). Climate change was recognized as a factor that may have contributed to the current conditions of various resources as documented in the Affected Environment, Existing Condition, or Reference Condition sections of the DEIS. In addition, the DEIS referenced the Climate Change Report completed for the recently revised Forest Plan, which contains additional information on climate change and current conditions on the Forest. The Starry Goat Forest Carbon Cycling and Storage Report referenced in the DEIS provides a description of this project’s effects on carbon cycling and storage and documents the basis for this qualitative analysis.

In developing the environmental consequences for various applicable resources, the DEIS included the effect of climate change on proposed management actions (see DEIS pages 239, 244, 255, 256, 480, and 481). As described above, the DEIS referenced the KIPZ Climate Change Report which includes a discussion of adaptation options that emphasize actions to increase the resiliency of watersheds and forests to the changes in disturbance regimes (e.g., fire, insects, and invasive species) that are likely to affect forest vegetation sooner and more dramatically than incremental changes in temperature and precipitation associated with long-term trends (KIPZ Climate Change Report, page v). Many of these adaptation options are included within the proposed action for this project.

Pecl et al (2017) and Funk et al (2014) suggests there is a shifting of species because of climate change. Review of this literature found that, while both sources discuss potential effects of climates change, they are at a global or regional scale that is not applicable to the project. However, as discussed above, the DEIS and its references recognize the effects of climate change on vegetation, insects, fire, wildlife and watersheds. One of the project’s purpose and need is to increase resiliency of vegetation, which is an adaption option to climate change and is directed in the forest plan.

[5,7] Comment: The DEIS fails to quantify human-caused CO2 emissions for all project activities, including forest management and recreational uses. The DEIS fails to quantify carbon sequestration for each alternative. The DEIS fails to analyze the cumulative effects of Kootenai NF carbon sequestration over time. See the following references:

 Kassar and Spitler, 2008 provide an analysis of the carbon footprint of off-road vehicles in California

 Sylvester, 2014 provides data on the amount of fossil fuel being consumed by snowmobiles in Montana.

Response: As stated in the DEIS on page 231 of the DEIS, the Forest recognizes the role of carbon cycling and storage on the forest. The environmental consequences section on carbon storage (pages 255 – 256) narratively describes the effects of the alternatives on carbon cycling and projected release of carbon. As described on page 255, “The proposed actions being considered here may alter the rates and timing of the carbon flux (as discussed in the Existing Condition section) within the individually affected forest stands. These changes would be

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 9 localized and infinitesimal in relation to the role the world’s forests play in ameliorating climate change and indistinguishable from the effects of not taking the action. Nevertheless, effects of the proposal on carbon cycling and storage are discussed below.” The Starry Goat Forest Carbon Cycling and Storage Report referenced in the DEIS provides a description of this project’s effects on carbon cycling and storage and documents the basis for this qualitative analysis. The cumulative effects of carbon sequestration on the Forest are described on page 257 of the DEIS. In addition, the KIPZ Climate Change Report (referenced in this project) estimates carbon sequestration on the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai National Forests and projects future trends.

Fossil fuel consumption for recreation by off-road vehicles or snowmobiles is not applicable to this project. Review of the references associated with this comment determined they are not relevant because there are no proposed changes to motorized recreation uses under this project.

[5,6],[5,8],[5,9] Comment: The Kootenai NF is an important part of the global carbon cycle. Clear scientific information reinforces the critical need to conserve all existing stores of carbon in forests to keep it out of the atmosphere. Removing wood or any biomass from the forest only worsens the climate change problem. Forests should not be logged. Fuel reduction treatments do not increase forest carbon storage. In addition, changed conditions under climate change will affect management of water resources. See the following references:

Effects of climate change have already been significant….

 Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, T. W. Swetnam; 2006. Warming and Earlier Spring Increases Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science Express, Research Article, July 6, 2006, www.sciencexpress.org.

 Running, Steven W. 2006 Is Global Warming Causing More, Larger Wildfires? Science Express, 6 July 2006 (www.sciencexpress.org )

 Pederson, Gregory T., Lisa J. Graumlich, Daniel B. Fagre, Todd Kipfer, and Clint C. Muhlfeld 2009. A Century of Climate and Ecosystem Change in Western Montana: What do temperature trends portend? Climatic Change DOI 10.1007/s10584-009-9642-y 2009

Effect of climate change on fire disturbance regimes…

 Pacific Northwest Research Station, 2004. Western Forests, Fire Risk, and Climate Change, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Issue 6 January 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw. (author Rapp, Valerie)

Climate change limits forest regeneration…

 Bart RR, Tague CL, Moritz MA (2016). Effect of Tree-to-Shrub Type Conversion in Lower Montane Forests of the Sierra Nevada (USA) on Streamflow. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0161805. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161805

The importance of trees to store carbon and there should be an end to commercial logging …

 Depro, Brooks M., Brian C. Murray, Ralph J. Alig, and Alyssa Shanks. 2008. Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation: quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. Public timberlands. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 1122-1134

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 10  Moomaw, Bill and Janna Smith, 2017. The Great American Stand: US Forests and the Climate Emergency. Why the United States needs an aggressive forest protection agenda focused in its own backyard. March 2017. Dogwood Alliance, PO Box 7645 Asheville, NC 28802. [email protected]

 He, Yujie, Susan E. Trumbore, Margaret S. Torn, Jennifer W. Harden, Lydia J. S. Vaughn, Steven D. Allison, James T. Randerson 2016. Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon uptake by soils during the 21st century. Science 23 Sep 2016: Vol. 353, Issue 6306, pp. 1419- 1424 DOI: 10.1126/science.aad4273

 Law, B. & M.E. Harmon 2011. Forest sector carbon management, measurement and verification, and discussion of policy related to mitigation and adaptation of forests to climate change. Carbon Management 2011 2(1). http://terraweb.forestry.oregonstate.edu/pubs/lawharmon2011.pdf.

 Kutsch, Werner L. Michael Bahn and Andreas Heinemeyer, Editors, 2010. Soil Carbon Dynamics: An Integrated Methodology. Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-86561-6

 Van der Werf, G. R.; D. C. Morton, R. S. DeFries, J. G. J. Olivier, P. S. Kasibhatla, R. B. Jackson, G. J. Collatz and J. T. Randerson; 2009. CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nature Geoscience vol. 2, November 2009.

 Keith, Heather; Brendan G. Mackey and David B. Lindenmayer. 2009. Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world's most carbon-dense forests PNAS July 14, 2009 vol. 106 no. 28 11635-11640

 Hanson, Chad. 2010. The Myth of “Catastrophic” Wildfire: A New Ecological Paradigm of Forest Health. John Muir Project Technical Report 1 • Winter 2010 • www.johnmuirproject.org

 Campbell, John L, Mark E Harmon, and Stephen R Mitchell, 2011. Can fuel-reduction treatments really increase forest carbon storage in the western US by reducing future fire emissions? Front Ecol Environ 2011; doi:10.1890/110057

 Mitchell, Stephen R., Mark E. Harmon, and Kari E. B. O'Connell. 2009. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 19:643–655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/08-0501.1

Climate triggering forest cover loss and changes in species…

 Breshears, David D., Neil S. Cobb, Paul M. Rich, Kevin P. Price, Craig D. Allen, Randy G. Balice, William H. Rommei, Jude H. Kastens, M. Lisa Floyd, Jayne Belnap, Jesse J. Anderson, Orrin B. Myers, and Clifton W. Meyer; 2005. Regional vegetation die-off in response to globalchange-type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, October 10, 2005

 Williams, A. Park, Craig D. Allen, Alison K. Macalady, Daniel Griffin, Connie A.Woodhouse, David M. Meko, Thomas W. Swetnam, Sara A. Rauscher, Richard Seager, Henri D. Grissino- Mayer, Jeffrey S. Dean, Edward R. Cook, Chandana Gangodagamage, Michael Cai and Nate G. McDowell; 2012. Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nature Climate Change, PUBLISHED ONLINE: 30 SEPTEMBER 2012 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1693

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 11  Cohen, Warren B., Zhiqiang Yang, Stephen V. Stehman, Todd A. Schroeder, David M. Bell, Jeffrey G. Masek, Chengquan Huang, Garrett W. Meigs. 2016. Forest disturbance across the conterminous United States from 1985–2012: The emerging dominance of forest decline. Forest Ecology and Management. 360 (2016) 242–252

 Mote et al. 2014. Ch. 21: Northwest. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 487-513. doi:10.7930/J04Q7RWX. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/regions/northwest

Climate change alters decisions regarding land use…

 Vose, James M. David L. Peterson, and Toral Patel-Weynand (Eds.), 2012. Effects of Climatic Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-870, December 2012

Value of old growth forests…

 Stephenson, N. L., A. J. Das, R. Condit, S. E. Russo, P. J. Baker, N. G. Beckman, D. A. Coomes,E. R. Lines, W. K. Morris, N. Ruger, E. Alvarez, C. Blundo, S. Bunyavejchewin, G. Chuyong, S.J. Davies, A. Duque, C. N. Ewango, O. Flores, J. F. Franklin, H. R. Grau, Z. Hao, M. E. Harmon, S. P. Hubbell, D. Kenfack, Y. Lin, J.-R. Makana, A. Malizia, L. R. Malizia, R. J. Pabst, N. Pongpattananurak, S.-H. Su, I-F. Sun, S. Tan, D. Thomas, P. J. van Mantgem, X. Wang, S. K. Wiser & M. A. Zavala; 2014. Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature. 2014

Managing forest lands with concerns for water will be increasingly difficult under new conditions…

 Sun, Ge and James M. Vose. 2016. Forest Management Challenges for Sustaining Water Resources in the Anthropocene. Forests 2016, 7, 68; doi:10.3390/f7030068

 Kormos, Patrick R., Charles H. Luce, Seth J. Wenger, and Wouter R. Berghuijs 2016. Trends and sensitivities of low streamflow extremes to discharge timing and magnitude in Pacific Northwest mountain streams. Water Resources Research. Published online 2 JUL 2016

Effect of heat and temperature on organisims…

 Pörtner, Hans O. and Anthony P. Farrell; 2008. Physiology and Climate Change. Science. 31 OCTOBER 2008

 Malmsheimer Robert W., Patrick Heffernan, Steve Brink, Douglas Crandall, Fred Deneke, Christopher Galik, Edmund Gee, John A. Helms, Nathan McClure, Michael Mortimer, Steve Ruddell, Matthew Smith, and John Stewart 2008. Forest Management Solutions for Mitigating Climate Change in the United States. Journal of Forestry. April/May 2008

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 12 FS Scientist recognize changing situation…

 Johnson, Randy 2016. Looking to the Future and Learning from the Past in our National Forests. USDA Blog. http://blogs.usda.gov/2016/11/01/looking-to-the-future-and- learning-from-the-past- in-our-national-forests

Climate change and community stability and economic sustainability …

 Allen, Craig D., David D. Breshears, Nate G. McDowell 2015. On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene ECOSPHERE ESA Centennial Paper published 7 August 2015

Response: The comment suggests the Forest Service's emphasis should shift to carbon storage and all old growth forest areas and previously unlogged forest areas should be preserved indefinitely for their carbon storage value. Inferred carbon inventory maintenance or gains from deferred harvest can be an illusory claim, particularly applied at stand level practices such as in the Starry Goat project. These implied gains only hold true if harvest does not occur elsewhere in the world to supply the same world demand for timber (Gan and McCarl, 2007; Murray, 2008; Wear and Murray, 2004). The result can be a net carbon impact if the timber is replaced in the marketplace with higher carbon source products such as steel or concrete or is harvested in a manner that does not result in prompt reforestation (Ryan et al., 201 0; Harmon, 2009). However, the “No Action” alternative in the EIS effectively represents the comment’s intent, and the effects of the various alternatives on carbon storage and flux were examined (see pages 255 and 256 of the DEIS).

As described on page 8 of the DEIS, one purpose and need for the project is to promote resiliency of vegetation by managing towards the 2015 Forest Plan desired conditions for landscape-level vegetation patterns, structure, patch size, fuel loading, and species composition. The environmental consequences of the No Action alternative describe the effect of not logging or prescribed burning. The management activities proposed under the action alternatives for the Starry Goat project are consistent with adaptation actions and strategies recommended for managing forests in light of climate change (Millar, et al. 2007; Joyce, et al. 2008; Ryan, et al. 2008).

Some of the literature cited within this comment are referenced within the Starry Goat DEIS (Running 2006, Depro et al 2008, and Mitchell et al 2009). The remaining scientific and other literature provided in the comment has been reviewed by project specialists and found they do not warrant more detailed analysis of climate change in this EIS.

[5,10] Comment: Please conduct an analysis as to how realistic and achievable desired conditions and Forest Plan objectives are in the context of a rapidly changing climate, along an unpredictable but changing trajectory.

Response: As discussed in response to comment [5,5], the DEIS recognized and incorporated the effect climate change has had on vegetation and other resource conditions and future potential effects. The section by resource on consistency with the 2015 Forest Plan discuss the ability to achieve forest plan desired condition, within the context of climate change. In addition, the KIPZ Climate Change Report presents adaptation options for climate change to help achieve forest plan desired conditions. Many of these adaptation options are included within the proposed action for this project

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 13

[8,4] Comment: There is concern with increasing stand resiliency to help with affects from climate change.

Response: The action alternatives presented in the DEIS are consistent with the desire to increase resiliency to help ameliorate the effects of climate change. See DEIS pages 236, 246, 253, and 254.

Costs of Project [5,126] Comment: Please disclose the itemized costs for each of the following: new temporary roads, project-related road maintenance, road decommissioning, all other road-related work, sale preparation and administration, project-related weed treatment, other project mitigation, post- project monitoring, environmental analyses and reports, public meetings and field trips, publicity, consultation with other government agencies, responding to comments.

Response: See Table 46 on page 171 of the DEIS for a list of the activities and costs associated with the project. The cost of temporary roads is included in the expected value of the timber. Environmental analyses are sunk costs and not included in the DEIS. There is no requirement to disclose these kinds of costs.

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers [2,5] Comment: The environmental analysis should describe the specific ORVs for Callahan Creek, South Fork Callahan Creek, and the Kootenai River and explain how the proposed harvest and non-harvest treatments will specifically maintain or restore those values. Similar to Table 112 which details non-harvest fuels treatment, the current conditions, objectives, and treatments should also be displayed for harvest units in MA2.

Response: The ORVs for these eligible wild and scenic rivers are listed in the Forest Plan under MA2 Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers (FP pages 51-52), and described in Errata for the 2013 Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan, Appendix E – Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers (Errata pages 46-47). The Kootenai River ORV’s identified are: scenery, fisheries, recreation, wildlife and history. The Callahan and South Fork Callahan ORV identified is History. The Starry Goat DEIS describes management within MA2 and how the actions are consistent with forest plan direction which provides protection for ORVs. (See pages 367-372 and page 375 of the DEIS) How the proposed treatments will conserve or enhance identified ORV’s has been clarified.

Fire and Fuels Management [5,63] Comment: The DEIS fails to disclose that the most effective way to prevent structure damage is to manage the fuels in the immediate vicinity of those structures, which is within about 100 feet—the home ignition zone.

Response: It is well understood that the immediate area surrounding a home and the characteristics of the building material are potentially the most critical elements in determining its survivability. The Forest Service, other agencies, and the Three Rivers Ranger District encourage homeowners to do their part in making their homes fire safe. There are additional reasons for wildland fuels management outside of the home ignition zone. This includes firefighter and public safety to improve ingress and egress routes, to reduce potential fire behavior thereby reducing spotting distance of lofted firebrands, to increase the effectiveness of suppression efforts

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 14 near homes, and to increase the effectiveness of aerial delivered fire suppressants. In addition to helping protect values at risk, the Starry Goat project proposes fuel reduction treatments within the wildland urban interface for other reasons such as the reintroduction of fire to the landscape, improve wildlife habitat and browse, and move toward 2015 Forest Plan desired conditions.

[5,64] Comment: The DEIS fails to disclose that most wildland fire ignitions are human-caused, and occur near roads.

Response: On page 192 of the DEIS, it is stated that 69% of wildfires on the Three Rivers Ranger District from 1997 through 2014 were caused by lightning.

[5,65] Comment: The DEIS does not analyze or disclose cumulative effects of fire suppression on the project area. From reading the DEIS, general adverse impacts of fire suppression are suggested, but they are not analyzed in the proper spatial and temporal context. None of the regulatory framework for the Fire and Fuels issue was developed in a NEPA process that analyzed the forestwide impacts of fire suppression implicit and explicit using the best available updated science on ecosystems.

Response: The effects of fire suppression were analyzed for approximately the last 125 years, and within the project boundary. The project boundary was used as the spatial boundary due to the fact that the project boundary line follows major topographical changes that encompass areas that wildfires could potentially halt or at least decrease rates of spread and flame lengths. The effects of fire suppression are analyzed on page 182 of the DEIS: "Today, the drier forest types in the analysis area have an accumulation of understory fuels and vegetation, increased ladder fuels, fewer large trees and an increased potential for crown fires (Agee 1993, Arno and Brown 1991) due to the absence of fire." Also on page 182, it shows that only 37% of the project area has a known fire occurrence, and then goes on to show how many potential fire occurrences have been missed.

[5,66] Comment: The DEIS primarily discusses fuel conditions only in the areas proposed for treatment, yet wildland fire operates beyond all ownership or other artificial boundaries...In other words, for any given entity that would apparently have its risk of fire reduced by the proposed project (or affected cumulatively from past, ongoing, or foreseeable actions on land of all ownerships within this “fireshed”)—just how effective would the proposed fuel reduction be? The DEIS fails to include a thorough discussion and detailed disclosure of the current fuel situation within the fireshed within and outside the proposed treatment units, making it impossible to make scientifically supportable and reasonable conclusions about the manner and degree to which fire behavior would be changed by the project.

Response: The areas proposed for treatment are designed to reduce the flame lengths and chances of a crown fire in and immediately adjacent to the treated areas. Page 189 of the DEIS states "Another indirect effect of the proposed treatments is their impact on adjacent non-treated stands. Omni et al. (2006) suggest that fuel treatment effects may extend beyond the treated area." The modeled fire behavior in these treatment areas before and after treatment is shown on page 188 of the DEIS. As stated on page 190 of the DEIS: "Treatments in close proximity to private property would reduce fire behavior adjacent to homes and property. Also, the probability that a wildland fire would escape from the treated areas and burn into private lands in the WUI would decrease.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 15 This would also increase the chances of suppressing an escaped wildfire from private onto Forest Service property in these treatment areas."

[5,67] Comment: The DEIS does not disclose the project impacts on the rate of fire spread.

Response: On page 189 of the DEIS, the potential for increased rates of spread is discussed, as well as the benefits from the treatments with multiple scientific literature and case studies demonstrating fuel treatment effectiveness in reducing fire behavior, the probability of crown fire, and fire severity.

[5,68] Comment: We want the FS and the public to achieve sufficient comfort with unplanned wildland fires under some weather conditions in sensible locations, so that the ecosystem benefits can be realized.

Simply stated, at the time that response to any given fire is contemplated, we want decision makers to have publicly vetted documentation—for that specific area—of the benefits of the process that helps create habitat conditions for wildlife, restores forest composition, recycles soil nutrients, creates large dead logs that fall into streams forming native fish habitat, as well as many others. If the FS is unwilling to perform such an analysis for projects such Starry Goat, then it must undergo programmatic analysis of its fire suppression policies, disclosing the impacts and ecological harm that the agency will subsequently claim must be later addressed by vegetation management and fuel treatment projects across the landscape. Not to mention the enormous financial costs—also never analyzed or disclosed at any planning level.

Response: Under the Forest Plan, FW-DC-FIRE-03: 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 toward the desired conditions while serving other important ecosystem functions. However, when necessary to protect life, property, and key resources many wildfires are still suppressed.

Forest wide objectives under the Forest Plan include: FW-OBJ-FIRE-01: The outcome is the treatment of fuels on approximately 5,000 to 15,000 acres annually on NFS lands, primarily through planned ignitions, mechanical vegetation treatments, and unplanned ignitions. NFS lands within the WUI are the highest priority for fuel treatment activities. FW-OBJ-FIRE-02: Over the life of the Plan, manage natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives on at least 10 percent of the ignitions.

The desired condition under the Forest Plan for the Bull Geographic Area: GA-DC-FIRE-BUL- 01: Threats of wildfire are reduced for the town of Troy, Highways 2 and 56, and outlying communities and structures.

Under the Forest Plan, the use of natural, unplanned ignitions is allowed and is a decision tool that line officers may use depending on location, weather and fuel conditions, values at risk, and safety to the public and firefighters. The decision to use unplanned ignitions are documented and there are protocols that are followed, such as when and where actions will need to be taken.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 16 [5,69] Comment: The DEIS doesn’t analyze or disclose how the fire regime is changing due to climate change.

Response: The existing condition under the fuels management section of Chapter 3 recognizes the affect climate change has had on vegetation. It states "Effects from...climate change has altered the vegetation in stands which would have exhibited low to mixed severity fires. Large landscapes are increasingly homogeneous in their composition and structure, and the regional landscape is set up for severe, large fire and insect disturbance events (Hessburg et al. 2005). Although stands that would have experienced stand replacement severity fires may not have missed a fire return interval, with time they are approaching an increased departure from natural conditions." See page 184 of the DEIS. While the EIS does not explicitly describe the change to fire regimes, it does address and describe the effect on fires from climate change.

[5,70] Comment: The DEIS admits there would be a shorter term risk of slash lying on the ground in piles or across units, and that opening up or thinning the overhead canopy will dry up conditions on forest floor and increasing the risk of more wind and more rapid spread once a fire does start. The DEIS does not reconcile the fuel reduction benefits it touts vs. these elevated risks.

Response: Page 189 of the DEIS states, “One possible effect of the removal of trees in the overstory as proposed with this project, is that this could increase surface winds depending on topography and surrounding trees (Albini and Baughman 1979). The decrease in shading could also cause drying of both live and dead surface fuels (Pollet and Omi 2002). The indirect effect on fire behavior could be an increase in rates of spread of a surface fire, depending on vegetative characteristics, terrain influences, position on slope, and time of day. However, the possible benefits associated with reducing crown fire potential, outweighs the increased winds and drying of surface fuels because the primary concerns are flame lengths and intensity thereby increasing opportunities for safe suppression activities (Estes et al. 2012; Graham et al. 2004). It is also important to recognize that until treatment of the slash created during harvest operations occurs, it is possible that wildfire severity would be temporarily increased until the hazard has been abated (Omi et al. 2006).

Many researchers suggest strong support in the current scientific literature and multiple case studies demonstrating fuel treatment effectiveness in reducing fire behavior, the probability of crown fire, and fire severity (Stephens et al. 2012;Hudak et al. 2011; Bostwick et al. 2011; Mooney 2010; Safford et al. 2009; Graham et al. 2009; Harbert et al. 2007; Omi et al. 2006; Peterson et al. 2005; Raymond and Peterson 2005; Agee and Skinner 2005; Graham et al. 2004; Pollet and Omi 2002; Graham et al. 1999; van Wagtendonk 1996; Weatherspoon 1996). Based on current research, the effectiveness of treatments would remain for 7-30 years or more into the future depending on treatment type and the relative intensity and severity of that treatment.”

[5,71] Comment: A big problem with the fuels and fire analysis is that the DEIS fails to disclose the implications of the areas not treated by the proposal. The no-action alternative is described basically as a disaster waiting to happen, and the action alternative discussions, by contrast, fail to address the significance of elevated fuel levels still remaining after project implementation in untreated areas. This shows a systematic failure to analyze cumulative effects.

Response: Every acre in the project area cannot receive a fuels treatment, nor should it, to mimic natural processes. The natural landscape contains an array of patch sizes and ages. Areas to be

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 17 treated are prioritized based on how much of a critical need there is for a fuels treatment, the location in relation to values at risk (i.e. homes), the purpose and need of the project, as well as increasing the safety for public and firefighters.

[5,72] Comment: The DEIS describes much of the forest in the project area as historically open due to frequent low-severity fire. It implies that mixed-severity or high severity fire was outside the norm, which is not correct.

Response: Page 182 of the DEIS describes the project area as historically having more of pock- marked landscape with an array of patch sizes and ages. A majority of the project area has missed at least one fire in approximately the last 127 years, creating more of a homogeneous area of more dense vegetation and higher fuel loading than naturally would occur. On page 181 of the DEIS, Table 49 shows that 84% of the project area is in fire regime groups III and IV, which are mixed and high severity regimes. The fire return interval is generally higher on the southern aspect slopes with low to mixed severity fires compared to the northern aspect slopes which exhibit higher severity fires at lower return intervals, as discussed on page 182 of the DEIS.

[5,73] Comment: Where may we find an analysis of the Forestwide cumulative effects of your fire management policies, including fire suppression policies? The Forest Plan and its EIS did not include a programmatic analysis of the cumulative effects of fire suppression. Part of the agency’s mantra for more management includes mitigating the impacts of fire suppression. So to comply with NEPA, the FS must conduct a programmatic analysis of the cumulative effects of its fire suppression policies. Until it does so, the FS cannot assure viability of the black-backed woodpecker, a species that depends upon the direct effects of natural wildland fire.

Response: The cumulative effects and existing condition sections for fuels considered past management practices and policies.

Black-backed woodpeckers habitat is abundant across the Northern Region as a result of large, intense wildfires in the past decade (over one million acres from 2010 through 2016). In 2017, a large and widespread pulse of suitable habitat was created from wildfires across Montana and northern Idaho. Existing conditions and environmental consequences for black-backed woodpeckers in the project area is described in detail on pages 626-638 of the DEIS. As stated on page 626, it was determined that this project “may impact individuals or their habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species for the black-backed woodpecker.” Viability of a particular species is a requirement at the Forest Plan level and not at the project level.

Forest Vegetation [2,1] Comment: In our scoping comments, we suggested that the Forest Service consider modifying regeneration harvest units according to the recommendations of Norm Johnson at Oregon State University and Jerry Franklin at the University of Washington. They advocate for a modified regeneration harvest prescription known as “aggregate retention.” The purpose of this prescription is to maintain the biological legacies of the stand structure, mitigate the visual impact of the harvest, and maintain important structural components to wildlife. .... In fact, the IPNF has recently used aggregate retention prescriptions in the Red Beauty, Beaver Creek, and Bottom Canyon Projects... Riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) that extend into harvest units may contribute up to one-third of the 30% aggregate retention target. However, credit for riparian

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 18 buffers must be minimized because RHCAs are spatially concentrated in portions of harvest units, rather than well distributed throughout them... Again, all large trees residing in the interstitial spaces should be retained. Retention of individual trees is intended to provide candidates for snag and course woody debris recruitment and nesting habitat. Following harvest, treated areas should be broadcast burned, and aggregates should remain unburned. Finally, the edges of these units should be treated in a manner that more closely mimics a natural opening. Unit edges should be variably thinned, creating a gradual transition from an open canopy to a closed or nearly closed canopy in the adjacent stand. This recommendation is intended to reduce the “edge effect” created by regeneration harvest, resulting in a more visually appealing opening and lessening the impact on wildlife.

Response: Literature from Johnson and Franklin have been reviewed and some of the elements are incorporated into the silvicultural prescriptions. Page 240 of the DEIS describes some of the forest structure considerations taken. For example, within stands, incorporating existing variation of desired leave trees will result in a variable spatial patterns and encourage clumps and openings which emulate the fire behavior characteristics common to the biophysical setting. Applications of Ziegler et. al. 2016 have been incorporated which emphasize the desire for a matrix of individual trees, clumps, and openings where appropriate leave trees exist. In the warm/moist biophysical setting, mixed severity fire would leave a mosaic of more patches, clumps, and openings. This will be attained either through the implementation marking of the stands or through design features which leave islands for structure. Spatial variation has been incorporated at the landscape level by excluding uncharacteristic patches, hardwood stands, rocky outcrops, extending RHCA boundaries, and past management areas. Within units, a preference for leaving as individuals, the largest trees or trees whose crown morphology suggested open-grown conditions in the past; leaving patches of 2-15 trees with preference for patches that display interlocking crowns and those with uneven sizes of trees; and opening sizes ranging from 1 to 4 tree lengths in diameter (Ziegler et. al 2016) is emphasized where applicable in regeneration units, specifically ones over 40 acres. Also, the DEIS page 241 discusses the desire to improve species composition of healthy, resilient ponderosa pine, western larch, and western white pine. Generally, healthy individuals of these desired species are retained as leave trees—regardless of their spatial distribution. In some stands, these healthy individuals occur in clumps and will be retained as such—creating a mosaic within the unit. The design features also include some unit specific elements which will be included in the prescriptions. DEIS, pages 90-91 states: “1) When existing ground conditions and operational feasibility provide the opportunity in Harvest Units 3, 4, 34, and 36 retain small diameter residual trees (hardwoods or conifers) and/or brushy vegetation within view of roadways to “break up and soften” the view of harvest and fuel treatment activities; 2) Due to homogeneous vegetative conditions, consisting of small diameter shade tolerant tree species, retain one or more leave islands of 1-2 acres in size for structure in Units 5, 21, and 25A; 3) In units 7B (western edge), 7C (western edge), 21 (southwestern edge), and 25A (eastern edge) retain more trees where possible for structural stability.”

Lastly, the IDT and project specialist for visuals considered aesthics when designing the shape and location of harvest and prescribed fire units. See the Scenic Resources Section of the DEIS pages 382-396.

[2,2] Comment: Age Threshold- Retention of large or old leave trees as ecological legacies has conventionally been implemented through the use of diameter limits. However, retention of trees at or beyond a specific age threshold is gaining traction in the scientific literature (e.g. Johnson and Franklin 2009). While no single age or diameter can define these biological legacies, age thresholds and diameter limits can help facilitate the conservation of the most desirable leave

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 19 trees. We suggest retention of all trees (regardless of species) that are 150 years of age or more. This is the age threshold used to define old growth trees in the Northern Idaho Zone (Green et al., 2008). Lodgepole pine is a notable exception (120 years). We do not envision that the age threshold would require the Forest Service to bore every tree. Instead, Johnson and Franklin (2009) offer a method for implementing the age threshold (see pages 26 and 27). Stand exam data collected for timber sale planning can also reveal the average diameter of 150-year old trees by species, stand, or site, which may then be applied to the project. Diameter Limit-If the application of an age threshold is problematic, then we would suggest the use of stratified diameter limits for the retention of large trees. We suggest using the diameters for minimum old growth criteria in Green et al (2008) for the Northern Idaho Zone: Retain all ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, western hemlock, white pine, and larch that are 21 inches dbh or greater; Retain all western red cedar that are 25 inches dbh or greater; Retain all lodgepole pine that are 13 inches dbh or greater; Retain all subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce and mountain hemlock that are 17 inches dbh or greater.

An age threshold or stratified diameter limit should be applied to all silvicultural prescriptions in order to preserve these biological legacies. Trees that otherwise meet age threshold or diameter limit guidelines but show signs of the onset of mortality should still be retained for the purposes of snag recruitment and wildlife benefit. Such trees should only be cut if they pose a risk to logging operators. We support the proposed action to leave felled hazard trees on site to provide course woody debris, which also benefits numerous species of biota.

Response: The 2015 Forest Plan does not contain any diameter cut limits or age thresholds for individual trees. Old growth stands will only be treated if the activities are designed to meet the definition of old growth (FW-GDL-VEG-01). Forest Plan direction states that harvesting systems shall be selected based on their ability to meet desired conditions and not strictly on their ability to provide the greatest dollar return (FW-STD-TBR-05). FW-DC-VEG-01 sets forth the desire that the composition of the forest is within the desired ranges for the dominance groups, and that more of the forest is dominated by western white pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and whitebark pine. Conversely, less of the forest is dominated by grand fir, western hemlock, western redcedar, Douglas-fir, and subalpine fir (see Table 58, p. 216 of the DEIS for a comparison of existing and desired forest types by biophysical setting). The intent of the treatments is to trend the stands towards having a structure, species composition, fuel loadings, and pattern that more closely approximates historical conditions and is also more resistant and resilient towards potential climate change stressors and other disturbances (DEIS, p. 239). Pages 49-50 of the DEIS states that in regeneration treatments large western larch, ponderosa pine, western white pine, and Douglas-fir trees would be left with additional trees species in some places to provide diverse structure. The intent is to create a stand condition somewhat similar to what would occur post-wildfire, with the larger fire tolerant trees remaining and the smaller and non-fire tolerant trees being killed. Table 78 of the DEIS (page 250) shows that about 81% of the proposed harvest is in VRU 5. The highly productive nature of these sites means that tree size is not always an indicator of age. A 21" DBH tree could be 200 years old, or it could be 50 years, depending on the site and species. Because of this, the need exists for site-specific prescriptions that allow a silviculturist the flexibility to make management decisions that will ultimately meet the intent of the project purpose and need as well as meet the Forest Plan direction. Snags and snag replacement trees would be left at 6 to 12 trees per acre with western larch and western redcedar being the desired species for snags and any species with active cavity nests that are stable enough to withstand harvest activities. Leave trees would be left in groups of 4 to 12 trees as well as scattered individuals to mimic natural conditions and to leave the best trees no matter what spacing. Stands with proposed intermediate treatments will be designed to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of the stand (page 53 DEIS). Enough healthy desirable species are

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 20 present to allow for thinning which would increase vigor and growth in the leave trees that would remain and occupy the site for many more years.

[2,3] Comment: Snags-Where dead trees or snags exist, they should be retained for wildlife benefit. In this instance, age thresholds and diameter limits should not be applied. While several sources (Thomas 1979, Raphael and White 1984, Zarnowitz and Manuwal 1985, Morrison and Raphael 1993) provide recommendations for the amount of snags to retain in unburned forests, why not retain all snags unless they pose a safety risk? Dead trees tend to provide little or no economic value. We support leaving snags that are cut for safety reasons on-site to provide course woody debris.

Response: Table 73 shows the recommended number of snags by biophysical setting. This is in accordance with FW-GDL-VEG-04 (DEIS, page 264). These recommendations will be incorporated into the silvicultural prescriptions and design features specify that all snags be left on site where they do not pose a safety hazard in both timber and fuel units. Hazardous/unstable snags that are felled for safety reasons would be left on site for CWD (DEIS, p. 246).

The literature above has been reviewed and is not applicable because Bollenbacher et al. (2009) was used in the 2015 Forest Plan for quantifying and describing the existing snags on the Kootenai National Forest.

[2,4] Comment: Course Woody Debris-The retention of on-site, course woody debris is important for a variety of reasons. There are a number of species of biota that benefit from logs, trees, boles, and another large pieces of wood lying on the ground. Moreover, course wood debris reduces erosion by trapping sediment and ran-off. Course woody debris can also create favorable microclimates for the regeneration of desired trees and vegetation. (See comment letter for table of recommended coarse woody debris to be left onsite).

Response: The importance of coarse woody debris is acknowledged on page 230 of the DEIS. Table 74 on page 247 displays the 2015 Forest Plan desired levels of coarse woody debris to retain after vegetation management activities, which would be incorporated into the silvicultural prescriptions. This is in accordance with FW-GDL-VEG-03 (DEIS, pp. 263-264).

[5,2] Comment: The DEIS defends its use of Historic Range of Variability (HRV) for vegetative conditions as being relevant for project or forest plan Desired Conditions (DCs), but there are so many ways the cumulative effects of the FS’s chosen way of achieving those DCs or the HRV— which is to manipulate the habitat using heavy-handed industrial activities. The DEIS simply does not view ecological damage through the same lens as it does for vegetative conditions HRVs.

Response: The usage of the HRV and desired condition of the forest plan is related to the 2015 Forest Plan, and not specific to the Starry Goat project. Refer to response to comments [5, 79] and [5, 80].

[5,4] Comment: The DEIS fails to provide any sort of detailed analysis of the cumulative effects of the reasonably foreseeable Kootenai National Forest Forest-Wide Young Growth project,

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 21 potentially affecting over 500,000 acres of the Forest, implemented for up to fifteen years—the entire life of the forest plan. The DEIS also doesn’t adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of the proposed “Roadside Fuel Mitigation Work.”

Response: Page 253 of the DEIS discusses the cumulative effects of the Forestwide Young Growth project, FWYG was again considered, reviewed and discussed by the IDT who included additional analysis in the FEIS where applicable. The cumulative impacts of roadside fuel mitigation work were included in the effects section of the EIS where appropriate.

[5,74] Comment: Finally, ecological resilience, which the FS implies they are creating through this project, is not the absence of natural disturbances like wildfire or beetle kill, rather it is the opposite (DellaSala and Hanson, 2015, Chapter 1, pp. 12-13). What the FS is promoting here is the human control of the forest ecosystem through mechanical means in order to maintain unnatural stasis by eliminating, suppressing or altering natural disturbances such as wildfire, to facilitate the extraction of commercial resources for human use. This is the antithesis of ecological resilience and conservation of native biodiversity. Ecological resilience is the ability to ultimately return to predisturbance vegetation types after a natural disturbance, including higher- severity fire. This sort of dynamic equilibrium, where a varied spectrum of succession stages is present across the larger landscape, tends to maintain the full complement of native biodiversity on the landscape. (Thompson et al., 2009).

Response: Page 107 of the 2015 Forest Plan FEIS states, “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.” Pages 200-201 of the Starry Goat DEIS lists the indicators and measures used to evaluate each alternative’s ability to address the purpose and need. These include quantitative measures for promoting resilient vegetation conditions by managing towards historic patch size and pattern, characteristic forest structure, historic fuel loadings, and desired species composition. Table 66 on pages 232-233 displays the total acres for each alternative that address the purpose and need for each measure. The 2015 Forest Plan states that 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 (Forest Plan FEIS page 87). Starry Goat DEIS page 204 explains the methodology used to identify proposed treatment units. It states that forest stand management needs were identified by a silviculturist based on existing vegetation conditions and desired stand conditions. The management needs identified for each stand are the actions that would move the stands from the existing condition toward the desired condition to maintain or promote forest resiliency in the project area in accordance with the 2015 Forest Plan. Stands that had an existing condition that was departed from the desired condition were proposed for treatment. There are 90,791 acres in the project area, and a maximum (Alternative 2) of 11,947 acres were proposed for treatment. Many stands that were examined during field reconnaissance were not considered for treatment because their existing condition was similar to or in line with desired conditions, or were deferred for other resource management concerns. The 2015 Forest Plan acknowledges that natural processes will play a far greater role than active management in movement toward desired conditions overtime, but also that the application of management actions in appropriate circumstances may be a critical contribution to sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity on the KNF to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 22 Della Sala and Hanson 2015 and Thompson et al. 2009 discuss the importance of natural disturbances like wildfire to ecological resilience. We agree with these papers and this is reflected in our 2015 Plan in the following examples of desired conditions and objectives:

 FW-DC-FIRE-03: 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 trend the vegetation toward the desired conditions while serving other important ecosystem functions. However, when necessary to protect life, property and key resources many wildfires are still suppressed.  FW-OBJ-FIRE-02: Over the life of the Plan, manage natural, unplanned ignitions to meet resource objectives on at least 10 percent of the ignitions.  FW-OBJ-WL-03. Landbird assemblage (insectivores). The outcome is the management of planned ignitions on 1,000 to 5,000 acres, annually, to provide habitat for olive-sided flycatchers, hairy woodpeckers, chipping sparrows. And Hammond’s and dusky flycatchers. The Plan recognizes the ecological value of natural disturbances but also recognizes that many wildfires are still suppressed when necessary to protect life, property and key resources. The reality is that there are only a few areas where it is socially responsible to let fires burn naturally. Because the plan recognizes the social reality of the world we live in, as well as the ecological importance of natural disturbances, the Plan mimics these natural disturbance characteristics through vegetation desired conditions of moving toward large size class and a diversity of age and structural stages across the landscape.

In addition, the proposed project includes numerous vegetation and prescribed fire treatments that trend vegetation towards fire resiliency and historic ranges of variability that would allow for the potential increased use of natural, unplanned ignitions for resource benefits because these treatments would reduce the threat of undesired fire effects and the potential impacts to values-at- risk. This allows for greater flexibility in managing natural ignitions when put into the social and ecological context.

[5,75] Comment: The DEIS does not demonstrate that ongoing or foreseeable tree mortality due to insect and disease is out of the ordinary. It also ignores the forest’s capability of operating in a self- regulatory manner.

Response: The DEIS documents the increased incidence of insects and disease across the landscape in several locations, primarily in the Forest Health Section pages 207-210 and in the Starry Goat Forest Health Protection Trip Report (Lockman, 2016). Page 208 of the DEIS discusses the increased abundance of dwarf mistletoes in relation to lack of disturbances, such as wildfire. White pine blister rust (an introduced disease) has caused as much as 90 percent mortality in what were once vigorous, well-stocked stands of white pine (DEIS, page 208). As far as root diseases are concerned, page 209 of the DEIS states, “Management practices, fire suppression, climate change, and the introduction of exotic tree pathogens probably have altered the historic roles of root diseases and, in many cases, exacerbated their effects (Forest Root Diseases Across the United States, USDA May 2016, p. 1).” It is also documented that over 30% of the Starry Goat Analysis Area (over 27,000 acres) has moderate or high root disease hazard. Furthermore, page 210 of the DEIS states that climate-induced changes in disturbance regimes such as fire, insect outbreaks, and non-native invasive species, are likely to affect forest vegetation sooner and more dramatically than incremental changes in temperature and precipitation associated with long-term trends. Disruption of natural fire cycles and the associated

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 23 increase in stand density and reduction of tolerant conifer species has likely contributed to increased incidence of insects and disease across the landscape. Combined with the predicted climate change, this disruption may contribute to an acceleration of insect and disease infestations.

The DEIS acknowledges that insects and disease are part of a natural system, as are dead and dying trees. The amount and extent of these are the challenge. A consideration of forest health emphasizes prevention as opposed to suppression as a management strategy for insects, pathogens and natural disturbances that are considered detrimental to resource production. This emphasis is made with recognition of their beneficial role with regard to resources and ecosystem functions (DEIS, page 207). Additionally, white pine blister rust is an introduced disease which came to North America from Europe in the early 1900s. Fins et al. 2001 states, “we cannot rely on natural regeneration to do the job [restore western white pine to the Inland Northwest Ecosystems] because too little of our native white pine remains to provide a reliable seed source.” Restoration of western white pine on the landscape is an objective of many prescriptions for this project and is the rationale for regeneration harvest in the warm/moist biophysical setting (DEIS, page 238).

[5,76] Comment: Please disclose the scientific evidence demonstrating the insects and tree diseases found in the project area are in any way unusual or uncharacteristic of the forests in this ecosystem.

Response: See response to comment [5,75].

[5,77] Comment: Please provide data and analysis showing if implementation of past projects either alleviated or contributed to the spread of insects and disease.

Response: The references included in the Starry Goat Health Protection Trip Report (Lockman, 2016) include details of management implications to insects and disease. Specific to root disease, Hagle 2006: Armillaria Root Disease; Ecology and Management discusses that the reduction of Douglas-fir and true firs on the landscape will reduce overall root disease impacts. The “other reading” section of Hagle, 2006 also includes more references on this topic. As for larch dwarf mistletoe, Jackson et al. 2016 has been reviewed and added to the Forest Vegetation References and project file. In response to Six, et al. 2014 and Report 14-03 from Forest Health Protection they have been reviewed and added to the Forest Vegetation References and project file. For western white pine, the White Pine blister rust general ecology and management has been reviewed and added to the Forest Vegetation References and project file as well.

[5,78] Comment: The Forest Plan FEIS includes a “Large/Very Large” size class (20”+ dbh). Please disclose how many stands in the project area fall within that Large/Very Large size class, and how many acres of those would be logged. Please estimate how many total trees > 20” dbh would be cut in each unit.

Response: The Forest Plan FEIS includes four size classes (seed/sap, small, medium, and large) (Forest Plan FEIS page 72). There is no “large/very large” size class. Stands in the large size class (greater than 15 inch DBH trees) are generally 100 years old or older. The Starry Goat analysis was done in accordance with the four Forest Plan size classes. Page 218 of the Starry Goat DEIS

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 24 describes the size class distribution of the project area and Table 59 shows that 56% (about 50,843 acres) of the project area is in the large size class. The desired range for the large size class (from the Forest Plan) is 34-67%. This means that the existing distribution of the large size class in the Starry Goat area is well within the desired distribution of the Forest Plan. The Starry Goat DEIS also includes a breakdown of size class distribution compared to the desired distribution from the Forest Plan by biophysical setting in Tables 61, 62, and 63- all of which show that the existing percentage of acreage in the large size class is within the desired percentage. Table 67 of the DEIS shows the effects of harvest activities on size class in the project area. There will be about a 1% reduction of the amount of acres in the large size class for all alternatives (about 720 acres in Alternative 2, about 463 acres in Alternative 3, and about 551 acres in Alternative 4). This change will result in the project area having about 55% in the large size class, which is still well within the 34-67% desired range of the Forest Plan.

While these stands are currently meeting the Forest Plan desire for large trees on the landscape, they are not meeting the other desired conditions of species composition of early seral species (FW-DC-VEG-01), less susceptible tree species to root disease fungi (FW-DC-VEG-06), and more resiliency/resistance to natural and man-caused disturbances and stressors, including climate change (GOAL-VEG-01). In order to estimate the total number of trees >20” DBH would be cut in each unit, volume estimates via cruising are needed and will be done after unit layout and marking is complete. This data is unavailable at this time. However, pages 49-50 of the DEIS states that in regeneration treatments large western larch, ponderosa pine, western white pine, and Douglas-fir trees would be left with additional trees species in some places to provide diverse structure. The intent is to create a stand condition somewhat similar to what would occur, post- wildfire, with the larger fire tolerant trees remaining and the smaller and non-fire tolerant trees being killed. Snags and snag replacement trees would be left at 6 to 12 trees per acre with western larch and western redcedar being the desired species for snags and any species with active cavity nests that are stable enough to withstand harvest activities. Leave trees would be left in groups of 4 to 12 trees as well as scattered individuals to mimic natural conditions and to leave the best trees no matter what spacing. Stands with proposed intermediate treatments will be designed to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of the stand (page 53 DEIS). Enough healthy desirable species are present to allow for thinning which would increase vigor and growth in the leave trees that would remain and occupy the site for many more years.

[5,79] Comment: The DEIS fails to utilize a scientifically defensible index of resilience in comparing the project area to the historic range of variability (HRV) or in comparing alternatives.

Response: The Starry Goat DEIS measures the project’s effects relative to the 2015 Forest Plan’s goals, desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines. There is nothing in the forest plan that implies the need for or requires a quantitative measurement of resilience at the project level, yet the monitoring program (Forest Plan Chapter 5) will help us gauge progress toward desired conditions for resiliency. That being said, the Starry Goat DEIS does provide some measures of the proposed activities. Page 107 of the 2015 Forest Plan FEIS states, “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.” Pages. 200-202 of the DEIS lists the indicators and measures used to evaluate each alternative’s ability to address the purpose and need. These include quantitative measures for promoting resilient vegetation conditions by managing towards historic patch size and pattern, characteristic forest structure, historic fuel loadings, and desired species composition. Table 66 on pages 232-234 displays the total acres for

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 25 each alternative that address the purpose and need for each measure. Also, refer to response to comment [5, 80].

[5,80] Comment: The DEIS justifies proposed project activities in describing differences between existing conditions and “desired conditions.” A plethora of scientific evidence suggest that desired conditions be more properly stated in terms of desired future dynamics, much in line with evolving science…

Response: Species composition, habitat diversity, age class distribution, and stand structure are the direct result of such natural disturbances, and also include human influences such as timber harvest and fire suppression. Since plants and animals adapt to habitat and disturbance conditions that are evolving over time, it is considered desirable to manage towards a range of historic 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 (Forest Plan FEIS pages 50-51). The use of “desired future conditions” is deliberately not used because of our understanding of dynamic ecosystem processes and the recognition that an area may be currently within the desired range of variability. So this is not a future concept, but one that encompasses the dynamic nature of ecosystems through the past, current, and future conditions. The HRV was reviewed in the context of climate change and were found to be consistent with conditions that would improve resistance and resilience under climate change. This resulted in the ranges for vegetation desired conditions by species and size class. These reference conditions were used as the desired condition for the Starry Goat Project Analysis. Comparing desired conditions of a given vegetation biophysical unit to current conditions can provide ecological insight into landscape management (DEIS, page 205).

[5,81] Comment: In describing potential departures from the HRV, the FS omits conducting a spatial analysis that compares true reference conditions to current project area conditions. Since no proper spatial analysis of the landscape pattern’s departure has been completed, the DEIS has no scientifically defensible logging solution. An accurate ecological analysis of the Kootenai NF and project area would reveal too much forest and habitat fragmentation. In describing any landscape departures from the historical range of variability (HRV), please provide a spatial analysis.

Response: Existing conditions for all resource areas are explained in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. Refer to response to comment [5, 80].

[5,82] Comment: Please disclose the data sources the FS relies upon for analysis of current vegetation conditions in the project area.

Response: Information sources are listed in the Methodology Section of the DEIS pages 202-204.

[5,83] Comment: Please disclose an accurate comparison of baseline (pre-management) species composition in the project area vs. present-day project area species composition. Likewise, please disclose an accurate analysis of baseline (pre-management) vs present-day regarding structural diversity, patch size, and age class.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 26 Response: The DEIS contains comparisons of existing conditions to the desired conditions of the Forest Plan. A HRV was developed to determine historic conditions and provide context for building the vegetation desired conditions of the Forest Plan (Forest Plan FEIS, page 50).

Figure 35 on page 215 of the DEIS displays the distribution of forest types within the project area. Table 58, page 216 has a comparison of existing and desired forest types by biophysical setting with numbers highlighted in gray indicating the existing condition is outside of the desired condition. Existing structural diversity is discussed and compared against the desired condition of the Forest Plan in Tables 59, 61, 62, and 63 for size class and age class, starting on page 218. Patch size is discussed by biophysical setting in the “Departures from Desired Conditions” on pages 220, 221, and 222.

[5,108] Comment: The DEIS fails to disclose the cumulative snag loss in areas previously logged or subject to other management-caused snag loss.

Response: In the Contrasting Effects of Past Actions with the Proposed Activities section under Cumulative Effects (DEIS, pages 252-253) it states, “Some of the distant past harvest activities did not leave snags or the current recommendation for down woody debris or riparian area management, nor did it implement current BMP standards in part because these standards had not been developed yet. Some of these past actions resulted in impacts for snag habitat, riparian areas, and loss of large diameter early seral species. The proposed harvest and burning activities would not result in these conditions due to ecosystem management knowledge and research. Emphasis on maintaining snags, down woody debris, riparian habitat management, and promotion of fire tolerant early seral species has become standard practice based on science and experience, as our knowledge of the importance to maintain these features has increased with experience and research.”

[5,109] Comment: The DEIS fails to disclose how much snag loss would be expected because of safety concerns and also from the proposed methods of log removal.

Response: The expected number of snags felled for safety reasons is unknown since each snag is evaluated individually for the hazard it poses given the conditions and exposure risk of the given activity. Table 73 shows the recommended number of snags by biophysical setting. These recommendations will be or have been incorporated into the silvicultural prescriptions and design features that specify that all snags be left on site where they do not pose a safety hazard in both timber and fuel units. Hazardous/unstable snags that are felled for safety reasons would be left on site for coarse woody debris (DEIS, page 246). The marking guides also include the statement "Group snags where possible" to reduce the potential need for them to be felled for safety and to follow FW-GLD-VEG-05.

[8,3] Comment: The YVFC continues to be concerned about the amount of regeneration harvest that is part of the overall prescriptive model for projects on the KNF. We would like to see more acres treated less intensively over time using other prescriptive tools such as uneven age management and group selection.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 27 Response: This is outside the scope of this project. The silviculture treatments are determined for each project on the Forest based on existing conditions, purpose and need, and to implement forest plan direction.

Forest Vegetation – Old Growth [5,110] Comment: How many FIA plots conducted in the project area show the plot is old growth?

Response: See response to comments [5,111], [5,113] and [5,115].

[5,111] Comment: Has the FS compared all stands proposed for logging to old growth criteria? Did the FS considered retaining such stands to be as best-closest to old-growth conditions, recruitment to compensate for deficits compared to the historic range?

Response: Each stand in the project area was reviewed and measured against the Green and others (1992 - errata corrected 12/2011) standards for the appropriate old growth type code. See response to comment [5,112].

[5,112] Comment: Please disclose the natural historic range vs. current conditions regarding patch size, edge effect, and amount of interior forest old growth in the project area and forestwide.

Response: Regarding the historic range of variability of old growth in the analysis area, 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. Refer to the reference conditions section of the vegetation report for a full discussion on how the climate, fire ecology, forest succession, other disturbance agents (i.e. insects and disease, drought, and wind), and human influences (i.e. fire suppression and past harvest) have affected the existing condition (DEIS, page 224).

[5,113] Comment: The DEIS also fails to discuss the fact that FIA data that old becomes less and less reliable over time. Please conduct an analysis of the data, determining its age and reliability.

Response: FIA data was used as the inventory source in some of the analysis for the Forest Plan. FIA data was not used as the inventory source for the Starry Goat Forest Vegetation analysis. A list of information sources is provided on pages 202-204 of the DEIS.

[5,114] Comment: Does the KNF have an inventory of forestwide and project area “recruitment potential old growth?” If so, please display these areas on a map and provide links on the Forest website to the forestwide spreadsheet of stands which are designated or otherwise considered to be “recruitment potential old growth.”

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 28 Response: Yes, page 225 states that there are approximately 2,663 acres (about 3 percent of the project area) that do not meet the minimum old growth criteria at this time, but have many old growth characteristics and are being managed for old growth recruitment.

[5,115] Comment: What is the official decision document designating “recruitment potential old growth” in the KNF? What will be the official decision document designating additional “recruitment potential old growth” in the project area? How does the KNF officially document this (apparently) forestwide old-growth recruitment policy?

Response: The Forest Plan FEIS defines recruitment potential old growth in Chapter 6: Glossary, page 602. An important element of this definition is these stands are being managed with the goal of meeting the old growth definition in the future. This means that they must have the potential to achieve that desired state. Stands that would have a low probability of ever achieving old growth and are not on this trajectory are not considered recruitment potential old growth. 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 (Forest Plan FEIS, page 74). The GIS map layer was used in the Starry Goat analysis.

The Forest’s GIS layer for tracking old growth, along with its database of record, are updated when reviewing the project and recruitment potential old growth identified. Monitoring of the Forest Plan will track forestwide changes to recruitment potential old growth.

Inventoried Roadless Areas [5,149] Comment: Although the Starry Goat DEIS uses the words, “roadless expanse” it does not “consider the effects to the entire roadless expanse.” Instead, the DEIS takes a fragmented, piecemeal approach to unroaded areas as well as to IRAs. The DEIS does not take a hard look at the project impacts on the Roadless Characteristics and Wilderness Attributes of the Roadless Expanse, to determine if the project would cause irreversible and irretrievable impacts on the suitability of the Roadless Expanse (or portions of them) for future consideration under forest planning for Recommended Wilderness or for Wilderness designation.

Response: The DEIS identifies unroaded areas contiguous to both Roberts and Willard-Estelle IRAs on pages 305-310. These unroaded areas were included in the analysis and follows draft guidance by Region One (document titled “Our Approach to Roadless Area Analysis and Analysis of Unroaded Lands Contiguous to Roadless Areas”, 2010). Project impacts to the entire roadless expanse, as it applies to the Wilderness Attributes and Roadless Characteristics Crosswalk, were analyzed. See the DEIS pages 311-326. This section does not indicate any irreversible or irretrievable impacts to the suitability of the Roadless Expanse from this project.

[6,16] Comment: Ensure compliance with National Forest Management Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. National Forest Management Act... The Forest Service should explain how the proposed actions are consistent with those plan components. For example, FW- STD-IRA-01 applies the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule to IRAs. DEIS at 425. The Forest Service states that this project does not propose road construction or active road work in IRAs. Id. We are confused whether the Forest Service is attempting to distinguish between active and passive road work within IRAs; either action would be inconsistent with the forest plan. The

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 29 Forest Service must explain how this project is consistent with FW-STD-WL-01, which applies the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction and FW-STD-WL-02 Grizzly Bear Access Management Direction, as well as the requirement to reinitiate consultation to assess impacts to any designated Canada lynx critical habitat.

Response: The Starry Goat project is not proposing any road work in the IRAs. The word “active” has been dropped from the page referenced by the commenter. The DEIS documents compliance with Forest Plan direction for all resources in the regulatory framework findings section of Chapter 3.

[5,148] Comment: The Starry Goat DEIS does not provide an adequate analysis showing that prescribed burning in the roadless area is responding to any existing ecological need. The DEIS presents no data or sound scientific basis for any claim that the area shows demonstrable deviations from reference conditions in roadless areas. Why spend taxpayer dollars, where natural processes will do the job?

Response: One purpose of the prescribed burning is to lessen the intensity of natural fire occurrences, thus lessoning the probability of large-scale suppression efforts. Another purpose of the prescribed burning is the reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem. Reintroducing fire through the means of prescribed fire provides for multiple resource objectives to be met and timing to avoid a worst-case scenario that could happen during a natural-caused fire that may then require suppression actions. Any prescribed burning affecting ridgelines or areas adjacent to ridgelines would provide fuel breaks, which would serve to slow fire spread, reduce intensities, and create opportunities for firefighters to safely engage wildfires (DEIS, page 190). Fire and fuels management for the Starry Goat project help meet the forest wide desired conditions, objectives, goals, standards, and guidelines (DEIS, pages 194 - 198). Also, MA5a,b,c-DC-FIRE-01 and MA5a,b,c-GDL-FIRE-01 on pages197-198 discuss the use of fire in IRAs. It states that these treatments are designed to meet resource objectives and shift these areas towards achieving the desired conditions. The Forest Vegetation analysis encompasses the entire project area, including the inventoried roadless areas.

On page 182 of the DEIS, it shows that a majority of the project area has missed at least one fire in the last 127 years that would have occurred naturally. This has allowed tree densities and fuel loadings to increase potentially above natural conditions. The use of prescribed fire would allow land managers a greater chance to get these landscape areas closer to natural conditions under more optimal weather and fuel parameters compared to the use of unplanned, natural conditions. This could closely mimic a historic, naturally occurring mixed severity fire rather than a more severe fire that could happen under higher fuel loadings. Costs per unit area are generally less on larger prescribed fire units compared to smaller units, and as Hinckley, J. and Wallace, J. (2012) conclude, there could also be a cost savings for fire suppression from prescribed burning.

NEPA [5,38] Comment: “See the beginning of Chapter 3 for a listing of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area.” The DEIS provides little more than just a listing of such actions, in failing to analyze cumulative effects.

Response: This is just a list. The cumulative effects of these activities are discussed in the cumulative effects section in each specialist report and the reports can be found in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 30

[6,19] Comment: Explain any potential to disproportionately and adversely affect minority or low income populations, consistent with Forest Service environmental justice policy….

Response: This project is in compliance with EO 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” See DEIS page 174.

Road Effects [6,2] Comment: We support the Forest Service’s efforts to create a resilient forest, which should include moving the Kootenai towards an economically and environmentally sustainable minimum road system. Identifying a resilient future road system that is economically and environmentally sustainable is one of the most important endeavors the Forest Service can undertake to restore aquatic systems and wildlife habitat, facilitate adaptation to climate change, ensure reliable recreational access, and operate within budgetary constraints...We encourage the agency to take a closer look at its road system given road failures in the project area that have yet to be addressed, and the resulting damage to the landscape and wildlife that depends on connected habitat and high water quality. We strongly support a thoughtful, strategic approach to improving public access to the forest, reconnecting wildlife habitat, restoring water quality and aquatic habitat, and improving watersheds and forest resiliency by addressing the negative impacts from roads.

Response: Please see response to comment [5,117].

[5,121] Comment: A plethora of scientific information indicate the highly significant nature of departures from historic conditions that are the impacts on forest ecosystems caused by motorized travel routes and infrastructure.

Response: The DEIS addresses effects from roads on resources. Road density on the forest has substantially decreased (DEIS page 493) which benefits the bear and other resources.

Scientific Integrity [5,144] Comment: The DEIS fails to disclose the limitations of all the models the FS relies upon for the DEIS’s analyses.

Response: The DEIS page 107 discusses Assumptions and Limitations in the Air Quality section. The DEIS pages 178-179 discusses Assumptions and Limitations in the Fuels Management section. The DEIS pages 204-205 discusses Assumptions and Limitations in the Forest Vegetation section. The DEIS page 402 discusses Assumption and Limitations in the Soils section. The DEIS pages 427 discusses Assumptions and Limitations in the Transportation section. The DEIS pages 449-452 discusses Methodology, Limitations, and Assumptions of Resource Indicators and Measures in the Water Resource section. The DEIS pages 575, 597, 610, 628, 647, 704, and 717 discusses Assumptions and Limitations for various wildlife species effects analysis.

[5,147] Comment: The DEIS states, concerning Arienti, M. Cecilia, et. al. 2009, “These findings are a hypothesis and are not a proven fact, and this study was done in a different geographical area ...” Stating that a study’s findings are “not a proven fact” reveals the FS’s gross misunderstanding of the scientific process. Also, how many of the references the DEIS are also

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 31 mere “hypotheses” but are represented as supporting the FS’s position? Also, how many of the DEIS’s scientific cites are “done in a different geographic area? Why does the FS selectively apply such filters for science?

Response: We have reviewed this section and the FEIS states that “This science (Arienti,M. Cecilia, et al. 2009) is not applicable to this project area.” As written in the DEIS, page 192, “On the Three Rivers Ranger District during the period 1997 through 2014, 69 percent of the fires were caused by lightning while the remaining 31percent were human caused.”

[5,145 & 146] Comment: Please disclose the statistical reliability of all data the FS relies upon for the DEIS’s analyses...The next level of scientific integrity is the notion of “validity.” So even if FS data input to its models are reliable, a question remains of the models’ validity. In other words, are the models scientifically appropriate for the uses for which the FS is utilizing them?

Response: The validity of models utilized in the DEIS are well established through field verification, monitoring, and continued data collection such as stand exams and surveys. See DEIS page 204 which states, "The most recent stand exam data available for the project area is from 2004 and before. These older stand exams are less reliable than recent exams because the probability of unpredictable damages caused by insects, diseases, and weather increases with increasing time since stand examination. However, these exams are still useful for determining forest cover types and structure classes. By using field data, knowledge of existing condition, and professional resource judgement, the information used was reviewed and deemed to be still valid." As noted in the response to comment 144, above, the DEIS specifically addresses limitations of models.

Soils [3,3] Comment: The proposed project includes several treatment units that, when combined with existing impacts, are predicted to exceed the USPS Region 1 Soil Quality Standard (SQS) of 15% DSD. For example, see Harvest Units 12A, 12B, 12D, 12E, 31, and 45. We recommend that the Final EIS clarify this discussion to explain whether the predicted post-harvest DSD percentages for these units are based on implementing the proposed harvest limitations. If the total post- harvest DSD percentages provided in Table 121 do include the limitations, then we recommend that the Final EIS provide additional discussion on the USFS's rationale for proposing treatments in these harvest units that do not appear to meet the USPS Region 1 SQS. The USPS may need to consider avoiding project activities in these areas.

Response: Table 121 (DEIS pages 412-416) predicted post-harvest DSD percentages do include the logging system and harvest limitations. Please see design features related to Soils on DEIS page 89, which describes actions required for DSD exceeding 15 percent. These are in accordance with the USDA FS 2011 Soil Tech Guide (Region 1 Approach to Soils NEPA Analysis Regarding Detrimental Soil Disturbance in Forested Areas, April 2011) pages 20-21. These criteria are also referred to in the R1 Supplement FSM 2554.03 which supersedes the Soil Tech Guide, which states on page 1 “…in areas where more than 15 percent detrimental soil conditions exist from prior activities, the cumulative detrimental effects from project implementation and restoration should not exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net improvement in soil quality…”.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 32 [5,136] Comment: Please explain how your methodology for determining DSD produces statistically reliable data. This also raises questions of the validity of DSD estimation and other analysis methodology, and therefore compliance with the FS’s proxy for soil productivity. Please explain how the FS arrives at current DSD estimates, and provide sufficient detail to indicate the intensity of soil surveys or monitoring of past projects.

Response: The analysis is adequate because we have addressed how the Kootenai NF is following both the Forest-wide and Region 1 Soil Guidelines. Field sampling procedures used on the Starry Goat EIS are similar to those procedures developed by the Rocky Mountain Research Station to determine what physical soil conditions currently exist as related to soil disturbance and if the proposed activities (measured on a unit by unit basis) may potentially exceed Regional Soil Quality standards. Field surveys of randomly stratified transect/sample point methods contained a confidence level of 80% ± with the majority being 95% ±. As a result, soil surveys on the KNF provide a very accurate quantitative value of what the existing physical conditions are within the proposed management units.

[5,129] Comment: Vegetative conditions are directly related to soil productivity, which has been highly altered on the Forest by past management activities. Is there some research or monitoring on the Kootenai NF which quantified the forestwide change in soil productivity due to past management activities?

Response: The effect of soil disturbance and therefore soil productivity has been addressed by a cooperative study called the North American Long Term Soil Productivity Study (LTSP). The five-year results were published (Page-Dumroese et al. 2006; Flemming er al. 2006; Sanchez et al. 2006). This study follows control and managed sites over a forest rotation. To date, there has been no reduction in tree growth noted because of compaction or organic removal in plots with soils typical of the Analysis Area. Regarding the KNF soil recovery study (2012-2013), early data indicates that fine textured soils (higher sand and silt concentration) are recovering at a slower rate than soils containing a greater content of heavy coarse-grained sediments and gravels (2016 power point presentation titled "Soil Compaction Recovery on the Kootenai National Forest - Findings over a 25+ Year Period”). Such data provides similar results as the Nation-wide "Long Term Soil Productivity Study” where the degree of recovery is related to soil textural class.

[5,130] Comment: The DEIS fails to quantify or analyze project area deficits in amounts of coarse and fine woody debris below amounts recommended by best available science, which is necessary to understand cumulative effects on the soil productivity.

Response: Refer to the Soils Project File for coarse woody debris (CWD) surveys and results. The CWD survey results found Units 3, 7C, 10B, 35, and 43 to be deficit by more than one ton CWD based on field transects conducted during the 2015-2016 field season. Such deficits were addressed in the marking guides to help both maintain recommended levels of CWD (>3 inches diameter) and/or return to adequate levels where found to be lacking during individual timber harvest unit designs.

[5,131] Comment: Please provide an analysis of soil conditions in the analysis area, noting any detrimental soil disturbance and its consequences for diminishing soil and land productivity.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 33 Please disclose the extent of soils in the analysis area that are already hydrologically impacted, and analyze and disclose their watershed impacts.

Response: Refer to the Soil Project File for a full analysis of soil horizons, ash presence or absence, past glacial history, vegetative species found to be present, coarse woody debris concentration, percent detrimental soil disturbance found to be present, and many other factors on a unit-by-unit basis. Regarding hydrologic relationships to soil, soil conditions are site-specific. Loss of soil productivity in one treatment unit will not lead to loss in soil productivity in an adjacent stand or other areas across the project area. Soil productivity can vary from one square foot to the next with each area functioning independently. Thus, the highly variable and independent nature of soil productivity requires site-specific analysis to maintain proper context. Assessment of cumulative effects on soil productivity at scales larger than specific treatment unit boundary (such as watershed scale) also misrepresents the effects of management activities by diluting site-specific effects across a larger area. In contrast, soil processes such as erosion regime and hydrologic functions occur at a watershed scale and have been analyzed as such in the Water Resources section in Chapter 3.

[5,132] Comment: Please disclose soil conditions in the project area that are outside the project treatment units. The cumulative amount of existing soil damage over the entire project area has implications for every other resource including water quality and the development of old-growth forests and even sustained yield of timber. The public deserves to know the scale of total area needing soil restoration in this project area.

Response: All proposed activity areas will remain within Region 1 Soil Quality Standards. As a result, the review of potential impacts from both past harvest and proposed harvest activities is retained to that located in proposed harvest polygons (units) and proposed temporary roads, landings, and firelines associated with those units. Analysis at the watershed level is not consistent with guidance of Region 1 Soil Quality Standards.

[5,133] Comment: Please provide an analysis of the hydrological implications of the cumulative soil damage caused by past management added to timber sale-induced damage in project area watersheds. Kootenai NF hydrologist Johnson, 1995 noted this effect from reading the scientific literature: “Studies by Dennis Harr have consistently pointed out the effects compacted surfaces (roads, skid trails, landings, and firelines) on peak flows.”

Response: Management of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) (DEIS Chapter 2 pages 87-88) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (DEIS Appendix B) are designed to avoid management activities impacting water quality by minimizing sediment-producing disturbance and minimizing the potential for any sediment that is generated to reach a waterbody. The mechanism whereby soil disturbance most affects water quantity is through soil compaction affecting infiltration and runoff patterns. The predominant area this occurs and where sediment carrying runoff has the greatest potential to be delivered to streams is on roads. Roads are addressed in the analysis of water quality and are included in the road storage and road decommissioning section (DEIS Chapter 2 pages 74-83). In addition, measured stream data was presented in DEIS Chapter 3 Water Resources section. Measured data is the best indicator of cumulative watershed conditions that are the result of past and ongoing activities. A Roads Analysis Process has been completed for the Starry Goat Analysis Area (report in project file).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 34

[5,134] Comment: The DEIS states, “Field soil surveys consisted of random stratified transect/sample point methods with confidence intervals at a minimum of 80 percent ± 5 percent with the majority of surveys being 95 percent ± 5 percent.” The DEIS fails to explain the implications for actually complying with the SQS.

Response: All field surveys were completed in accordance with FSM Regional Supplement 2500- 99-1 hearby replaced by R1-2500-2014-1 to determine existing and predicted soil disturbance values in accordance with proposed design criteria (DEIS pages 85 to 96). As a result, the KNF reviews provide a quantitative value of what the existing physical conditions are within proposed management units. Currently, the effects of soil disturbance on soil quality are being studied across North America by a cooperative research project called the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity Study (LTSP). Results of the first decade indicate that there is little evidence of adverse effects of surface organic matter removal or soil compaction on productivity as measured by total biomass production, and the growth and vigor of planted trees (Powers et al. 2004).

[5,135] Comment: Please provide a map showing the locations of all past logging units, including the intensity of the logging activities.

Response: A map in not needed as the soils analysis is adequate because soils were reviewed on a unit-specific basis and not a project-area scale. In doing so, the soils analysis presented in the EIS conforms to requirements of NFMA, NEPA, and R1 soil quality standards.

[5,137] Comment: Has the FS done any research that results in numerical correlations between estimates based upon tile spade shovel tests and actual measurements of soil bulk density?

Response: A correlation between tile spade shovel tests and actual measurements of soil bulk density is not necessary for this analysis. The sampling measures used to determine if soils qualify as light, moderate, or detrimentally impacted are consistent with Region 1 protocol and methodology outlined by Page-Dumroese and others (2009a, b, 2012) for statistical consistency with previous surveys.

[5,138] Comment: DSD is merely a proxy for soil productivity. The FS must disclose the best available science it relies on to validate the SQS methodology for use as a soil productivity proxy.

Response: The long-term effects of soil disturbance on soil quality are currently being studied across North America in a cooperative research study called the “North America Long-Term Soil Productivity Study” (LTSP). The study began in 1990 and is currently ongoing in order to provide the best available science to forest managers. Results from the first decade indicate that there is little evidence of adverse effects of surface matter removal or soil compaction on productivity as measured by total biomass production, and the growth and vigor of planted trees (Powers et al. 2004). Studies on the KNF are consistent with such results.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 35 [5,139] Comment: Please disclose the levels of large woody debris in the project area following past management activities, in addressing your obligations to consider cumulative effects.

Response: Coarse woody debris measurements are calculated on a unit by unit basis rather than the project area as a whole. Silviculture prescriptions as well as timber management design regarding levels of coarse woody debris have been adjusted in the marking guides for units found to be deficient. Prescriptions and project design address not only soil concerns but wildlife concerns as well and ensure adequate amounts of coarse woody debris will be left in all units.

[5,140] Comment: Does the FS maintain an inventory of existing skid trail corridors (mitigation)? This is evidence of significant long term cumulative reductions in soil productivity the FS fails to quantify.

Response: Skid trail placement within the Starry Goat project area will be determined during timber sale lay-out with input from the soil scientist. Some units will require re-using existing skid trails to the greatest extent feasible (see design features). Regarding the impacts of timber harvest equipment, data on the KNF (2012-2013 soil study) is similar to that found by authors evaluating harvest method and number of passes on soil disturbance (Han and others 2009; Gent and Ballard 1984; Froehlich and others 1980; Han and others 2006). In the DSD study on the KNF, unit reviews determined that, where historic skid trails already existed, secondary entry by harvest equipment often showed minor changes to prior values (often less than two percent).

[5,141] Comment: NEPA requires that the FS specify the effectiveness of its mitigations. (40 C.F.R. 1502.16.) The DEIS does not disclose the effectiveness of DSD mitigation. There is no quantitative monitoring data that demonstrates DSD remediation activities have taken an activity area with DSD amounts over the 15% limit to an amount that no longer violates the standard.

Response: Soils restoration speeds the process of vegetation and hydrologic recovery to alleviate detrimental conditions over time. By completing the rehabilitation activities, the detrimental soil conditions are not anticipated to persist nor are they considered to be a permanent loss in soil productivity. Soil restoration would also increase infiltration in compacted soils earlier than without restoration, decreasing overland flow due to compaction; thus, contributing to hydrologic recovery. The Kootenai has had good success with soil restoration, as can be seen in documents “2002 Fireline Rehabilitation Monitoring of the 2000 Fires” and “Monitoring of 1997 Road Decommissioning in the Big Creek Watershed” found in the Soil and Water Project File. For more information related to the effectiveness of soils mitigation please refer to the document “Soil Recovery and Restoration” in the Soil Project File.

[5,142] Comment: Continual and repeated application of the SQS will result in soils maintained at a damaged condition essentially forever.

Response: NFMA requires “that timber will be harvested from NFS lands only where soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged.” The detrimental soil disturbance described in the EIS is not known or expected to result in permanent or irreversible damage. Detrimental soil damage is reversible if the processes (organic matter, moisture, top soil retention, soil organisms) are in place and time is allowed for recovery. Rehabilitation techniques and design features provide building blocks for soil productivity and speed the recovery process.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 36 Refer to DEIS pages 85- 96, 137-138, 197, 295-296, 473, 507, and 549 for the proposed watershed rehabilitation activities which are scheduled to occur. Examples of irreversible soil effects would include system roads and campgrounds. These areas are considered part of the permanent infrastructure on the landscape and not part of the productive land base. Therefore, per R1-2500-2014-1 these areas are not counted toward the 15% Standard.

[5,143] Comment: The DEIS does not disclose the degree to which the productivity of the land and soil has been affected in the project area and forestwide due to noxious weed infestations, and how that situation is expected to change in the coming years and decades. The Kootenai NF’s noxious weed treatment program is mitigation for management activities which exacerbate the spread of noxious weeds. The DEIS does not disclose the effectiveness of this mitigation. The DEIS assumes weed treatment actions will reduce the existing weed populations. For how long? Does monitoring show populations automatically maintain at reduced levels after treatment, or do you just have to keep spraying them over and over again? We assume the latter is true. These long term costs are not accounted for in project economic analyses.

Response: A comprehensive analysis was completed for the KNF Invasive Plant Management DEIS (2006). Refer to DEIS Chapter 2 pages 86-90 for a list of how the District will reduce the spread of weeds in accordance with the 2007 KNF Invasive Plant Management ROD. Noxious weeds are discussed within the Starry Goat DEIS Chapter 3 pages 268-296. Noxious weeds are also considered in the Soils portion under the KNF Invasive Plant Management Record of Decision (2007a) (DEIS page 418). See the document titled "Worksheet for Consideration of Cumulative Effects to Soils Resources" in the Soil Project File as well as individual soil Unit Reviews for potential identification of noxious weeds found to be present at the individual unit level. Note that during alternative development, weed presence was taken into account in development of both alternatives as well as season of operation in zones more likely to have invasive weed concerns.

Timber Suitability [2,6] Comment: The environmental analysis should describe or illustrate the suitability of national forest lands in the project area for commercial timber production. Where treatments are proposed on lands that are not suitable for commercial timber harvest, the analysis should describe why the treatments are a necessary tool to move toward desired future conditions. An estimate should be provided for what portion of the total 24 MMBF production will be counted toward the annual sale quantity.

Response: Timber harvest on lands identified for timber production is discussed in FW-DC-TBR- 02 (DEIS, page 260) and in MA6-DC-TBR-01 and MA6-STD-TBR-01 (DEIS, page 265). Timber harvest on other than suitable lands for timber production is discussed in FW-DC-TBR-03 (DEIS, page 260) and in MA2-DC-VEG-01, MA2-GDL-TBR-02, MA3-DC-VEG-01 (DEIS, pages 264- 265. The estimate for acres contributing to ASQ is in FW-DC-TBR-04 (DEIS, page 261). The estimate of volume contributing to the predicted volume sold (which is from lands suitable for timber production) is 19 MMBF for Alternative 2, 16 MMBF for Alternative 3 and 15 MMBF for Alternative 4 and volume contributed from non-suitable lands is 5 MMBF for Alternative 2, 2 MMBF for Alternative 3 and 4 MMBF for Alternative 4. Alternative 1 would not provide any timber products. The FEIS was updated to include this information on estimated timber volume from lands suitable for timber production and non-suitable lands. All of the proposed treatments for the project are consistent with these desired conditions, standards, and guidelines, as stated on

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 37 DEIS pages. 258-261. See the vegetation section of the FEIS for a discussion of why areas were identified for harvest treatment.

Travel Management [5,117] Comment: The DEIS doesn’t disclose if the project area is being managed in compliance with the Travel Management Regulations at 36 CFR 212 (Subparts, A, B, and C) and the Executive Orders related to Subpart B. Subpart A requires the FS to involve the public in a scientifically based process which designates the Minimum Road System both in the analysis area and forestwide, so that unnecessary or ecologically damaging roads are targeted for decommissioning and the economic liabilities of roads are minimized.

Response: The DEIS does disclose this compliance. Chapter 2, page 73 states: “An analysis of the transportation network within the project area was conducted by the District to inform the immediate travel management decisions included in Starry Goat in accordance with Forest Service policy (FSM 7710.3).” FSM 7710.3 is where manual direction is given in regard to 36 CFR 212. In addition, Chapter 3, page 424 states: “The TAP complies with 36 CFR Part 212 Administration of the Forest Transportation System Final Rule and with the Forest Service (FS) Transportation Administrative Policy FSM Chapter 7700 (2009).” The regulations are intended to help ensure that additions to the NFS road network are those deemed essential for resource management and use; that construction, reconstruction and maintenance of roads minimize adverse environmental impacts; and that unneeded roads are decommissioned and restoration of ecological processes are initiated (36 CFR 212 Subpart A).Transportation regulations and manual direction also require travel analysis for designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use at 36 CFR 212 Subpart B. The Starry Goat Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) completed a TAP for both subparts A and B. The travel management decisions in the Starry Goat Record of Decision would be used in updating the Kootenai NF transportation atlas, including the National Forest System Road inventory’s spatial layer and the database of record. The forestwide and project level travel analysis reports are part of the project record.

[5,118] Comment: Please disclose compliance with motorized route restrictions, and if violations exist, perform an analysis of the resultant harm to wildlife habitat, soil, and water.

Response: Violations to existing restrictions are a matter of law enforcement and are handled on a case by case basis. When violations occur, restriction devices may be modified to avoid recurrence of such violations. The Grizzly Bear Access Amendment requires that violations be shown as open roads for the year that the violation occurred, and are analyzed in annual grizzly bear core analysis. Violations regarding access management are assessed annually and reported at the forest level to the USFWS. If necessary, road status may change for the year. Unauthorized motorized use was not reported in this BMU.

[5,120] Comment: How does the FS propose to afford maintaining the road system in this project area when the funding doesn’t exist, and as a result watershed conditions will continue to deteriorate from naturally increasing erosion?

Response: Funding for road maintenance comes from many different sources and resource damage is prioritized and addressed. As discussed in Table 24 of the DEIS, 44.4 miles to 51.5 miles of road in the project area will receive maintenance to meet BMPs. Also, 40 miles of other road maintenance work will occur. Also see responses to [5,45] and [5,46].

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 38

[5,122] Comment: Please disclose the Road Management Objectives for each project area road, (which would follow from designations under Subpart B.)

Response: All changes to road management objectives are disclosed in the Road Work and Road System Changes- Common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in Chapter 2. See Tables 16 – 22 and pages 73 – 80 of the DEIS. These tables show proposed road storage and decommissioning, and findings on undetermined roads. Appendix D, Access Management Plan shows the proposed action for all road changes in the project area. Roads without changes to current road management objectives are not discussed in this document. Road management objectives will be updated in the database of record upon decision, as per travel management regulations FSM 7711.2; FSM 7714; FSM 7730.3; FSH 7709.59, Chapter 10; and FSH 7709.55, Chapter 10, 15.2 which states in part: “Road management objectives (RMOs) (FSM 7714 and 7731) and trail management objectives (TMOs) (FSM 2353.12) document direction for day-to-day management of an NFS road or an NFS trail based on travel management decisions.”

[5,123] Comment: The DEIS fails to consider the long-term budget shortfalls for road maintenance in the project area, and doesn’t analyze or disclose the ecological impacts of this ongoing situation.

Response: The Transportation Section in Chapter 3 addresses the impacts of the alternatives on road maintenance and reconstruction. The budget for road maintenance has been considered in the development of this project. Refer to response to comment [5,120].

[5,124] Comment: Will management authorized by the Starry Goat decision be consistent with the Travel Management Regulations at 36 CFR § 212?

Response: Yes, as stated in the EIS. Refer to the response to comment [5,117].

[5,125] Comment: We ask the Forest Service disclose the following information concerning the project area:

• The deferred road maintenance backlog

• The annual road maintenance funding needs

• The annual road maintenance budget

• The capital improvement needs for existing roads

• The road density in the project area

• The number of miles of project area roads that fail to meet BMP standards or design standards

Response: The Road Reconstruction and Maintenance in the Transportation section of Chapter 3 addresses the impacts of the alternatives on road maintenance and reconstruction (see pages 432 and 433 of the DEIS).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 39 Regarding road density, several resources discuss road density, including Aquatics (density within RHCAs, page 132 of the DEIS) and Water resource (road density by watershed, page 457 of the DEIS). The Wildlife section also discusses road densities in terms of core, OMRD, and TMRD for grizzly bear (see grizzly bear section starting on page 486 of the DEIS).

This analysis focuses on haul route road improvements and placing those roads selected for storage and decommissioning into a hydrologically stable condition. See response to comment [5,119].

The number of roads that meet BMP standards varies at any point in time. As this commenter notes in other parts of this letter, maintaining BMP standards for roads requires ongoing maintenance. Existing roads in the project area will undergo regular district road maintenance (estimated 3 to 4 miles per year) as funding becomes available on non-haul routes. As discussed in Table 24 of the DEIS, 44.4 miles to 51.5 miles of road in the project area will receive maintenance to meet current BMPs. Also, 40 miles of other road maintenance work will occur.

The district continues to prioritize projects and funds for road improvement work.

[5,127] Comment: The DEIS states, “Any …illegally developed roads, for which the Forest Service already has the authority to eliminate traffic, were not analyzed, or considered as roads.” Then how does the DEIS account for their environmental and fiscal impacts?

Response: This has been clarified in the FEIS. According to our MVUM, travel is not allowed on skid trails or illegally developed roads and, thus, do not contribute to the existing road network. Any resource damage associated with these trails or illegal roads is remedied through annual program management of work and are not associated with this project.

[6,3] Comment: Consider and apply the Kootenai’s forest-wide travel analysis report. Our scoping comments urged the Forest Service to consider the recommendations in its forest-wide travel analysis report to inform the road activities proposed here. See Dec. 7, 2016 Scoping Comment at 1-3. In this analysis, the Forest Service acknowledges and references the forest-wide travel analysis report, but fails to consider its recommendations or assess whether the road activities proposed under this project are consistent with the recommendations from the forestwide report...To allow for meaningful and informed public comment, the Forest Service should provide a copy of the project-level travel analysis report on the project website. The Forest Service states that “high priority opportunities were carried forward” for evaluation in this project. DEIS at 429. What does that mean?

Response: When the IDT conducted the 2016/2017 Starry Goat project level travel analysis, the 2015 forest-wide travel analysis was reviewed and considered as documented in the Starry Goat Travel Analysis Report. The project level analysis documented many more recommendations for this area than the forest-wide analysis and those that fit with the purpose and need of the Starry Goat project that could be done at this time were carried forward in the Starry Goat DEIS. Both the forest-wide and the project level travel analysis reports can be found in the project file.

[6,4] Comment: In Appendix D of the DEIS, the Forest Service lists roads and proposed actions under some of the alternatives. This analysis should a column identifying the recommendations

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 40 from the forest-wide travel analysis report (which assessed the risks and benefits of each road), a column for the forestwide travel analysis report, a column identifying the objective maintenance level for each road segment, and an explanation for any differences between these columns— including an explanation of how the new approach still allows the agency to achieve its substantive duties under subpart A of the Travel Management Rule to work towards a minimum road system (see Scoping Comment and next section)...The agency should also provide an Access Management Plan Map for each of the alternatives; the current Appendix D contains a map only for the preferred Alternative 2.

Response: The intent of Appendix D is not to show details of all roads in the project area nor to show all road related actions proposed by the Starry Goat project, but to show where access changes are proposed, thus the title Access Management Plan. Recommendations for all roads as well as their maintenance levels can be found in both the broad scale travel analysis of the entire forest as well as the Starry Goat project area specific travel analysis, both of which can be found in the project record.

[6,5] Comment: Based on the Kootenai’s travel analysis report and recommendations from the project-level travel analysis report, identify the minimum road system. Our scoping comments urged the Forest Service to identify the minimum road system for the project area, based on the factors defining a minimum road system as set forth in subpart A of the Forest Service’s travel rules and in light of the Kootenai’s forest-wide travel analysis report. See 36 C.F.R. § 212.5(b)(1) (“The minimum road system is the road system determined to be needed to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management plan (36 CFR part 219), to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to reflect long-term funding expectations, to ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance.”). Scoping Comment at 1-4. Here, the Forest Service fails to even mention the minimum road system...As noted in our scoping comments, consistent with its own regulations the Forest Service should identify the minimum road system for the project area by analyzing whether each road segment proposed to be kept in the system meets these minimum road system factors. See Dec. 7, 2016 Scoping Comment, Attachment B – Memorandum from Leslie Weldon to Regional Foresters et al. on Travel Management, Implementation of 36 CFR, Part 212, Subpart A (Mar. 29, 2012) (explaining that “[t]he resulting decision [in a site-specific project] identifies the [minimum road system] and unneeded roads for each subwatershed or larger scale”)...In the very least, if the Forest Service decides not to identify the minimum road system for this project area, it must respond to our scoping comments and this comment to explain why not.

Response: The Kootenai National Forest has complied with 36 CFR 212 Subpart A by completing a Forest-wide travel analysis in 2015. In addition, the Starry Goat project team has completed a project-level travel analysis to look specifically at the project area for road concerns, needs and opportunities. Both documents are in the project file.

FSM 7703.12, FSM 7710.3 and FSM 7712 state to use travel analysis to identify “the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands” per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1).

FSM 7703.12 and FSM 7710.3 says to use travel analysis to inform travel management decisions that determine the need for access to NFS lands, identify the infrastructure required to provide that access, consider and minimize effects of road activities, and provide a road system that facilitates management of the NFS and provides a wide range of motorized and non-motorized

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 41 recreation opportunities. The Starry Goat Travel Analysis Report lists each road that is in the roads atlas within the project area at the time of the analysis, and whether or not it is needed now or in the future and suggested that changes at the time of this project were carried forward into the NEPA process. The Starry Goat DEIS/FEIS considered the effects of the road proposals (construction, reconstruction, road storage and decommissioning and adding roads to the NFS) in individual resource sections of Chapter 3.

In summary, the Starry Goat travel analysis process analyzed the existing road system and identified a system that, at this time, is safe and responsible to public need and desires as well as provides access to manage NFS lands, is affordable and efficiently managed, has minimal negative ecological effects on the land, and is in balance with available funding for needed management actions. This analysis identified the risks and benefits from various resource perspectives regarding roads in the Starry Goat project area and made recommendations for a future road system. This included consideration of future access needs for both vegetation management and fire suppression access, as well as future access needs for recreation use and minerals management. The benefits of keeping roads for future access were weighed against the risks to other resource areas (e.g. wildlife, botany, watershed health and aquatic habitat). The project is in compliance with the regulations. It identifies roads needed for the future as well as those unneeded roads in this project area. The roads are listed in the Travel Analysis Report which is part of the project record and changes to the road system recommended at this time are part of this Starry Goat DEIS.

[6,6] Comment: Prioritize unneeded roads for decommissioning. Guardians’ scoping comments urged the Forest Service to decommission more road miles. Scoping Comment at 4-5. We applaud the Forest Service for modifying its action alternatives to consider decommissioning more miles of system roads than the 10 miles proposed in its scoping notice...This is why we urge a more probing analysis of roads and a revised decision that would decommission more of the roads the forest has identified as unneeded.

Response: As discussed in Chapter 2 of the DEIS, over 15 miles of NFSR are proposed for decommissioning, as well as additional undetermined road decommissioning and some conversion of roads to trails. The DEIS Tables 17, 18, 20, and 21 (pages 74-80) show proposed storage and decommissioning work for the project action alternatives. Please also see response to comments [6,7] and [6,8].

[6,7] and [6,8] Comments: The agency explains that decommissioning includes blocking the entrance, removing culverts, restoring natural stream channels, recontouring unstable fillslopes, waterbarring, ripping, placing slash and seeding. DEIS at 429. The agency should confirm that road decommissioning will do more than simply block an entrance. Blocking an entrance to a forest road often proves ineffective to deterring those who want to access the road, and fails to address the harm to sources that roads pose (see section five, below).

Storage vs. Decommissioning - What’s more, closing roads instead of decommissioning them is inconsistent with Forest Service policy, under which the agency is supposed to prioritize unneeded roads for decommissioning or other uses. Decommissioning more road miles is consistent with the Forest Service’s long-standing policy to “manag[e] access within the capability of the land.” Allowing former ML 1 roads to remain on the landscape despite the paper exercise of removing those roads from the system allows the risk that those roads pose to natural

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 42 resources to remain, and fails to achieve the policy goals of subpart A of the agency’s own rules...The Forest Service should also consider decommissioning more roads to achieve its goal of establishing a resilient future forest. Decommissioned roads, when seeded with native species, can reduce the spread of invasive species and help restore fragmented forestlands.

Response: Forest Service regulations don’t just state to minimize the road system; rather, FSM 7703.12 and FSM 7710.3 state to use travel analysis to identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1). This analysis identified the risks and benefits from all resource perspectives regarding roads in the Starry Goat project area and made recommendations for the future road system. This included consideration of future access needs for both vegetation management and fire suppression access, as well as future access needs for recreation use, weeds management and minerals management. The benefits of keeping roads for future access were weighed against the risks to other resource areas (e.g. wildlife, botany, watershed health and aquatic habitat). Chapter 2 and page 469 of the DEIS, among others, discusses some of the reasons why certain types of storage or decommissioning work were chosen from a watershed perspective; additionally, page 479 discusses compliance with FW-GDL-WTR-02, which ensures hydrologic stability when decommissioning or storing roads.

As described on page 75 of the DEIS, Level 1 decommissioning work is blocking the entrance and restoring vegetation. Care is taken to ensure that the road block is defendable; if a road block is discovered to have been compromised or bypassed, it is documented for repair.

Areas scheduled for Level 1 or 2 road decommissioning are those roads found to no longer be needed and have not had active use by vehicles for numerous years; many of these roads are thickly overgrown with native species and no longer passable by vehicle. These roads are not expected to need maintenance in the future and can be left in the condition they are in. Roads proposed for Level 1 decommissioning are hydrologically stable with no sediment or resource concerns, in almost every case have no culverts, and are often already grown in with vegetation. These roads typically have no invasive species present either due to none being introduced to the road in the past or because other vegetation has out competed invasive species. In these cases, although formal measures are taken to help prevent the spread of invasive species, disturbing or recontouring an otherwise stable road can inadvertently give invasive species a new start in an area or introduce weeds to an area that is currently free of invasive species.

Page 418 of the DEIS notes data sources for road analysis, including road surveys, satellite imagery, landtype maps, and field reviews. The treatment prescription a road receives during the storage or decommissioning process is on a case-by-case basis based on travel analysis and field review; this field review includes a field survey of the road to gather all needed information, which in most cases surveys the road to its end.

Please also see response to comment [5,128].

[6,9] Comment: Do Not Add New Miles to the Road System- Instead of working to reduce the miles of system roads on the landscape, consistent with the agency’s overarching policy, here the Forest Service proposes to add miles to the system. The Forest Service proposes to construct 0.5 miles of a new spur road under all three action alternatives...It states the decommissioning decision was 25 years ago, but fails to provide the reasoning for why the road was decommissioned. Without addressing the basis for the previous decision, the Forest Service simply states it is needed for future management of the land. This is insufficient.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 43 Response: As stated on page 433 of the DEIS under Resource Indicator and Measure 2, all action alternatives result in a net decrease of NFS road miles when considering the decommissioning and road conversion to trail with the new road construction. This contributes to Forest Plan objective FW-OBJ-AR-03 to decommission or place into intermittent stored service 150 to 350 miles of road forestwide over the life of the Plan, as stated on page 437 of the DEIS. Per comment of the 0.5 miles of construction of spur road that was decommissioned over 25 years ago, it states in DEIS page 433 that the road (road 4405) is in the road atlas as decommissioned and describes the treatment done and that the prism still exists. At the time this was done, different processes to change the database and different terminology were used. Funds were given at the time to "obliterate" a certain amount of road miles. These roads had various levels of treatment and some were intended for long term storage rather than removing them from the system completely, the treatment that was completed on this road indicates that the intent for this road was storage. The treatment on road 4405 occurred 25 years ago and through the travel analysis process the IDT has determined there is a need for a 0.5 mile (of the 1.2 mile long road) of new road and this road will be needed for long term management of this area.

[6,10] Comment: The Forest Service should not add unauthorized roads to its system through a process focused on right-sizing an already unaffordable road network. Our scoping comments noted a lack of information about the risks and benefits of roads, including unauthorized roads. See Scoping Comment at 7-8. Forest Service policy directs the agency to carefully consider and document the road management objectives, environmental impacts, and social and economic benefits associated with any proposed addition before adding roads to its system...

Response: The travel analysis process was used to recommend the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1)and includes a risk and benefits analysis. As described in the DEIS Chapter 2, page 74 and Chapter 3, page 429, four short undetermined roads that currently exist on the ground were found to be needed for the future (see travel analysis report in project record) and therefore the IDT proposed to add them to the NFS system; these four roads total 0.62 mile. In addition, one undetermined road, 0.3 mile in length, was found not to be needed. The proposed road actions and their impacts to individual resources, if any, were considered by each resource when working on their effects analysis.

[6,11] Comment: Do Not Add Unauthorized Miles to the Road System- Similarly, the Forest Service proposes to add 1 mile of “undetermined” roads to the road system. It states this undetermined road may have been constructed for previous management activities but was never documented as a system roads, or it may have been illegally created by users. DEIS at 429...The Forest Service points to no previous decisions identifying these roads as part of the Forest Service road system. And here it fails to determine that these unauthorized roads are necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources, as required by its own regulations. Because these roads were not previously documented, and they are not determined to be needed consistent with the agency’s regulations, they are not system roads and should not be documented as such now...What are the natural resource risks, including aquatic risks, posed by these roads? The Forest Service states that adding these roads to they system will allow it to use allocated road maintenance funding to install BMPs and reduce any water quality risks. DEIS at 432...

Response: See response to comment [6,10].

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 44

[6,12] Comment: Assess and disclose direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Our scoping comments urged the Forest Service to consider a broad array of impacts related to forest roads. See Scoping Comment at 7-11. We reiterate those comments here by reference. The Forest Service explains its project-level Starry Goat Travel Analysis Report included a road-by-road assessment in the Project File, but as noted above that information is not publicly available. DEIS at 422. Please provide that information on the project website to allow for meaningful public comment...On cumulative impacts, the Forest Service notes that in 2006 and 2007 excessive rains caused about 75 feet of forest system road 415 (Star Creek) to wash out, and that it has not yet been repaired. DEIS at 428. It states about 37 miles of road has been previously decommissioned or converted to trail in the project area. Id. The Forest Service’s assessment of cumulative impacts from roads is very cursory. It compares the numbers proposed under this project to the total road miles on the forest, and mentions—without identifying the project decisions or number of miles—other ongoing and planned decommissioning work. DEIS at 434.

Response: The effects of roads on resources are discussed in individual resource sections in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. The Transportation Analysis is an analysis that informs the decision maker and therefore is not available for public comment.

The repair of the Star Creek FSR 415 slide is part of the OLY Moly Stewardship (OLY ROD, 10/2016) and is anticipated to be repaired in the next 2 to 4 years.

[6,13] Comment: New designations for motorized use must satisfy the minimization criteria. Our scoping comments urged the Forest Service to demonstrate compliance with the minimization criteria for its new designations of motorized use. See Scoping Comment at 5. In identifying the regulatory framework controlling its motorized use decisions, the Forest Service references its MVUMs consistent with 36 C.F.R. 212, Subpart B, but fails to even mention the minimization criteria. DEIS at 435...The Forest Service must demonstrate how it located these motorized trail designations with the objective of minimizing impacts to natural resources, harassment of wildlife, or conflicts of uses...Please provide a copy of the travel analysis report in the appendix to the FEIS...What is incorrect about the current MVUM designations? What prior decisions designated these routes as motorized, thereby necessitating the need to correct the designations under this decision? We are concerned the Forest Service is inappropriately adding motorized use designations in the project area without any justified need and without proper analysis....

Response: This commenter is misinterpreting CFR. 212.55. The Minimization Criteria in 212.55 (b) apply to ‘designation of trails and areas for motorized use’. There are no trails or areas considered to be designated for motorized use with this decision. Roads 4402 and 4402K were addressed under the general criteria for designation of roads trails and areas according to 36 CFR 212.55 (a).

Water Resources [2,11] Comment: The cumulative effects analysis should describe the equivalent clearcut area (ECA) that would result from each of the action alternatives when combined with previous harvest activities. ECA should generally remain below 20 percent to avoid unacceptable increases in peak flows and run off, which might mobilize landslides or unacceptably high sediment or bed loads.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 45 Response: The ECA analysis, which was performed for each alternative, takes into account past, proposed, current, and reasonably foreseeable activities within the project area as described on page 443 of the DEIS. This includes wildfires and harvest, among other past disturbances. The existing ECA acres discussed on page 451 and shown in Table 126 of the DEIS take these past disturbances into account. The cumulative effect of unforeseen future wildfires in the project area is discussed on page 473 of the DEIS. Please see pages 449-451 of the DEIS for further discussion about 20 percent ECA. Also, please see responses to comments [5,34], [5,35], [5,40], [5,41], and [5,53].

[3,4] Comment: The Draft EIS includes a qualitative discussion of water quality within the project area and notes "none of the streams in the analysis watersheds have been identified as water quality limited segments and are currently supporting their designated beneficial uses." It is unclear how this statement was supported. We recommend that this discussion be updated for the Final EIS to analyze potential impacts to impaired waterbodies both within and downstream of the analysis area, including waterbodies listed on the most recent EPA-approved Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list, which is 2016. If impacts are anticipated, then coordination with Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) will be necessary to avoid causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality standards. Where a Total Maximum Daily Limit (TMDL) exists for impaired waters in the area of potential impacts, pollutant loads should comply with the TMDL allocations for point and nonpoint sources.

Response: Examples of beneficial uses are discussed on page 440 of the DEIS. None of the streams in the analysis watersheds have been identified as water quality limited segments as shown on the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) web site at: http://deq.mt.gov/Water/WQPB/cwaic/reports. The Montana DEQ receives all project information and as a State agency is one of our partners that has the opportunity to provide comment and become further involved. The MT DEQ’s 2016 Integrated Report and 303(d) List (list of impaired waters and maps) can be found in the project file. Please see response to comment [3, 5] for more information on the Kootenai River.

[3,5] Comment: We also recommend that the Final EIS include a map of impaired waterbody segments within, or downstream of, the project area. Such a map is necessary to understand the relative proximity of treatment units, new roads and proposed trails to impaired waters and the likelihood of project activities contributing to or disturbing identified sources. It may be possible to revise Map M-13 to include this information.

Response: The only stream within the project area on the 303(d) list (http://deq.mt.gov/Water/WQPB/cwaic/reports) is the Kootenai River, as stated on page 476 of the DEIS. The segments of the Kootenai River listed as Water Quality Limited Segments are because of flow alterations and water temperature resulting from the upstream impoundment (Libby dam) and the resulting impacts from Hydrostructure Flow Regulation-modification (please see page A-179 of the MT DEQ’s 2016 Integrated Report and 303(d) List (list of impaired waters and maps) in the project file). The management actions proposed with this project would not affect flow alteration on the Kootenai River. The Kootenai River makes up a boundary of the project area, but was not considered to be within the project area, as the majority of its flow is contributed from streams outside the project area, and no activities are proposed that would directly affect the river flow or it’s bed or banks. The Kootenai River is shown on Map M-13.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 46

[3,6] Comment: for streams with a coldwater designation, we recommend consideration of additional measures to reduce impacts to stream temperature (we note that Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas - RHCAs - are already proposed and will help retain canopy cover to prevent temperature increases).

Additional measures may include tree planting or cattle exclosures designed to restore vegetative shade to impacted streams. In particular, the Brush Creek-Kootenai River and Lime Creek- Kootenai River watersheds may benefit from such mitigation given that it appears they contain temperature impaired stream segments along the project boundary (e.g., (1) Kootenai River from the confluence with the Yaak River to the Idaho border and (2) Kootenai River from Libby Dam to the Yaak River)..

Response: The project area has no cattle grazing along streams on Federal land. No impacts to stream temperature are expected and are discussed on pages 142-143 and 447 of the DEIS. Please see response to comment [3,5] regarding the Kootenai River.

[3,7] Comment: Wetlands and Riparian Areas: ...We recommend that the Final EIS include a discussion of the types, functions and acreage of wetlands , riparian areas, and springs in the project area. In addition, we recommend that the Final EIS include a description and assessment of the impacts to wetlands and associated springs that may result from project activities. Such impacts may be broader than direct surface disturbance and may include functional conversion of wetlands (e.g., forested to shrub-scrub) and changes to supporting wetland hydrology (e.g., snow melt patterns, sheet flow, and groundwater hydrology).

Response: The Kootenai NF stream and wetland GIS layer, in addition to field reconnaissance, was used to delineate these waterbodies and to apply INFISH Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). As stated in the DEIS page 88, “RHCAs will be established around any new water features and landslide prone areas that are inadvertently discovered within harvest units during implementation.” All proposed activities (harvest, treatment, and ignition) would apply INFISH RHCAs to all waterbodies, including wetlands and springs, in accordance with FW-STD- RIP-03. Stream buffers have been incorporated into sale layout and unit design. The wet areas and corresponding INFISH RHCAs would be avoided. All proposed activities were designed in accordance with this Forest Plan standard (pages 150, 345, and 350 of the DEIS). Based on these factors, it is determined that all action alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan.

The project would also comply with Executive Order 11990 that requires that Federal agencies protect wetlands. Please see DEIS page 478 for more information. Regarding functional conversion of wetlands (e.g., forested to shrub-scrub), any wet areas that are found pre-harvest would be protected by the incorporation of appropriate design features, BMPs and RHCAs in all action alternatives (pages 85-90 of the DEIS).

Regarding changes to supporting wetland hydrology (e.g., snow melt patterns, sheet flow, and groundwater hydrology), please refer to discussions on equivalent clearcut acres (ECAs), particularly Table 126 (page 465) of the DEIS. The project will yield minimal increases in ECAs, and ultimately peak flows, and will have insignificant impacts to basins of importance to aquatic resources (pages 125, 141, 142, 143, 465 of the DEIS).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 47 [3,8] Comment: while the Draft EIS notes that site-specific data supports a change in default RHCA widths in certain units, the site-specific data is not provided and it is unclear whether revised widths will be larger or smaller (e.g., Harvest Units 8, IOA, l OB, 12A, 48A and 48B). We recommend that the Final EIS clarify this design feature to provide the USFS ' s general rationale for changing default RHCA widths and to identify any modified RHCAs proposed for this project.

Response: Revised RHCAs in these units (8, 10A, 10B, 12A, 48A, and 48B) will be smaller than default RHCA widths based on site-specific ground reconnaissance. Unit-specific RHCA modification rationale will be included in the Project File. Please also see response to comment [5,50].

[3,9] Comment: Roads and Trails: Road and trail stream crossings can cause sedimentation loading and possible pollutant delivery. We recommend that the Final EIS include design features to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts to water resources from road and trail construction. In addition to avoiding or bridging wetlands and sensitive areas wherever possible, the EPA recommends the following measures:

• Minimize road and trail construction and density to reduce adverse impacts to watersheds;

• Locate roads and trails away from difficult to replace resources, such as alpine meadows, streams and riparian areas as much as possible;

• Locate roads and trails away from steep slopes or erosive soils;

• Minimize stream crossings;

• Stabilize cut and fill slopes according to Best Management Practices;

• Provide adequate drainage and control surface erosion with adequate waterbars, crowns, and ditch relief culverts to promote drainage off roads or along roads and trails;

• Consider effects on stream structure and seasonal spawning habitats when determining alignment; and

• Allow for adequate large woody debris recruitment to streams and riparian buffers near streams.

Response: The USFS considered the aforementioned measures and will continue to follow all laws, regulations, and policy regarding construction of roads and trails. The new road construction of approximately 0.5 mile (new road) and 1.0 mile (previously decommissioned FSR 4405, road prism still present) is discussed on page 463 of the DEIS, which includes consideration of nearby topographic and hydrologic features.

[5,26] Comment: The DEIS states, “The roads identified for Level 1 decommissioning have a low risk of future sediment delivery.” How was this low risk determined? Fly, et al. 2011, describes a thorough survey of sediment sources in the Boise National Forest. Please consider this as part of best available science for quantifying management-induced sediment. Please disclose how thorough the FS’s road surveys in the project area have been.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 48 Response: Fly et al (2011) used the Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package (GRAIP) to analyze the stream crossings in the study area, located in the Boise National Forest. Although GRAIP was not used in the Starry Goat FEIS to model sediment, many of the same concerns identified by Fly et al (2011) were also applied to stream crossings in the Starry Goat project area, both for roads proposed for log haul and roads proposed for storage or decommissioning. These concerns were used as part of the Water Quality analysis throughout both the DEIS and FEIS.

Please see response to comments [6,7] and [6,8].

[5,27] Comment: Under each alternative, how many total culverts will be left on decommissioned roads in the project area, assuming no project unfunded work gets done? How many total culverts will be left on intermittent stored roads in the project area, assuming no project unfunded work gets done?

Response: The DEIS analyzes the project activities as a whole to include the full effect of all project activities and anticipates that all project activities would be accomplished. The DEIS Tables 17, 18, 20, and 21 (pages 74-80) show proposed storage and decommissioning work for the project action alternatives; some of this road work would be required to occur as in-kind replacement of Core in Alternatives 2 and 4, as described on pages 75-77 of the DEIS. As discussed on page 95 of the DEIS, funding is not certain for some resource improvement work; this work is anticipated to be accomplished when sufficient funding is available. As funding becomes available, culvert removal will be further refined. The road storage and decommissioning not associated with timber sales is prioritized and completed based on the annual funding available. Please see response to comment [5,128].

[5,28] Comment: Log hauling adds sediment to streams. From an investigation of the Bitterroot Burned Area Recovery Project, hydrologist Rhodes (2002) notes, “On all haul roads evaluated, haul traffic has created a copious amounts of mobile, non-cohesive sediment on the road surfaces that will elevate erosion and consequent sedimentation, during rain and snowmelt events.” USDA Forest Service, 2001a also presents an analysis of increased sedimentation because of log hauling, reporting “Increased traffic over these roads would be expected to increase sediment delivery from a predicted 6.30 tons per year to 7.96 tons per year.” The DEIS includes no quantitative analysis of sediment yield due to road use.

Response: Post-fire salvage logging was the basis of the Rhodes (2002) reference and was very project-specific. This study found that some of the BMP efforts (such as thin veneers of gravel) were ineffective or that little effort was given to improve road drainage, contrary to what was described in the FEIS, which is also very project-specific. The USDA Forest Service 2001a reference is a NEPA document and also refers to post-fire harvest, so a direct application to the Starry Goat project cannot be drawn; this reference used WEPP in the sediment analysis, which the Starry Goat FEIS also uses.

Road BMP work and maintenance are intended to minimize sediment delivery to streams during log haul and in the long term. Due to use of BMPs and riparian buffers, sediment delivery to streams is not expected to occur from non-road related activities. Please see discussions on BMPs and riparian buffers on pages 445-447, 451-452, 456-457, 461-462, 469, and 477-478, of the DEIS. Please also see responses to comments [5,28], [5,36], [5,45], [5,46], [5,57], and [5,120].

The FEIS included additional road-related sediment analysis in the Water Resources section

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 49

[5,29] Comment: The DEIS doesn’t disclose the existing conditions of site specific stream reaches and project effects on water quality, fish and other aquatic resources. The DEIS doesn’t disclose information regarding the existence and effects of bedload and accumulated sediment. The DEIS doesn’t analyze and disclose channel stability for specific stream reaches. The DEIS doesn’t disclose the amount of existing accumulated fine and bedload sediment that remains from the previous logging and road construction.

Response: Existing conditions of site-specific stream reaches in relation to aquatic and riparian habitat, including RHCA road density, large woody debris, pool frequency, bank stability, temperature, width:depth ratio, index of physical habitat integrity, and effects of past actions on existing condition, can be found in the DEIS on pages 132 – 137.

Fine and bedload sediment remaining from the previous logging and road construction cannot be isolated due to time since the disturbance occurred, as well as the sediment/bedload from these sources being mixed with that of the natural movement of material within stream channels. Further surveys of the Goat Creek crossing (NFSR 4554) estimated the amount of bedload and sediment stored upstream of the blocked culvert and is included in the FEIS. The FEIS also includes further discussion of channel stability based on field reviews.

[5,30] and [5,33] Comment: The DEIS states, “Some key factors contributing to the occurrence of slope failures include steep slopes, heavy precipitation and snowmelt, groundwater emergence, natural instability, glacial terrace deposits, inclusions of less stable soil types, convergent topography, and road interactions. Also, “Star Creek has experienced road failures in the past due the combination of high road densities and high levels of annual precipitation.” And “multiple road failures in the Goat Creek watershed have led to debris torrents, which scoured down the slope to the stream channel and scoured down Goat Creek for approximately two miles to Callahan Creek.” Also “The Star Creek watershed most notably contains a high degree of failing or compromised legacy roads on the landscape particularly between Raymond and Star Creeks. Multiple road and bridge failures across Star Creek watershed have occurred in the last 50 years likely detrimentally affecting instream and riparian habitat.” The DEIS fails to explain which BMPs failed to prevent the road failures and road-caused landslides. The DEIS also doesn’t adequately explain how the causative factors in those landslides have been considered to truly minimize risk of causing more slope failures and therefore increase chronic fish habitat damage.

“Currently, the road system along Raymond Creek and upper Star Creek is at risk for failure in multiple locations. The exact number of sites at risk for failure is unknown since field reviews at these locations were limited and preliminary. Further review is required for a complete assessment of the road system in upper Star and Raymond Creeks.” The FS therefore omits important analysis and disclosures needed to provide the public with sufficient opportunities to review this proposal.

Response: The Raymond Creek and upper Star Creek watersheds have characteristically steep slopes, numerous streams and tributaries, and sensitive land types. Historically, road building and timber harvest occurred in these watersheds before RHCAs were required, and roads built during this time period were built to the specifications that existed at the time. Many of these type roads were built and last used before BMPs were required or formally existed and inadvertently incorporated road durability problems such as installation of undersized culverts at stream crossings. Roads then became abandoned with undersized culverts in place and eventually failed

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 50 due to plugging, piping alongside, and eventual road prism failure. Field surveys have documented that although there have been numerous stream crossing failures in these watersheds, many have since revegetated and have either healed or are in the process of healing.

The Starry Goat project proposes Level 3-4 decommissioning of several miles of the NFSR 4554 road network, all of which is within the Goat Creek subwatershed, which will address many of the problems with the road network in this area.

Across the KNF, the USFS continues to bring roads up to current BMP standards as projects and funding allow and follows modern BMP guidelines for timber harvest, road building, and road use. Please see responses to comments [5,28], [5,36], [5,45], [5,46], [5,57], and [5,120].

[5,32] Comment: The DEIS fails to analyze and disclose the risk of new landslides, or estimate the tons of sediment resulting to project area streams.

Response: As discussed in the DEIS, landslide prone areas in the project area were taken into account during project planning. No new landslides are expected, as a result of project activities, so there would be no tons of sediment expected from these events. Please see pages 119, 405, and 420, and 462 of the DEIS. A past landslide located near Unit 30 above Star Creek was identified during unit layout; a field review was conducted and the area will be buffered. The FEIS describes this location in the Water Resources section in the Direct and Indirect Effects on Stream Channel Processes subsection.

[5,34], [5,35], [5,40], [5,41], and [5,53] Comment: The DEIS doesn’t disclose the potential for project Peak flow increases to damage channel morphology and aquatic habitat.

The DEIS doesn’t disclose an analysis of water flow alteration effects on stream bank erosion and channel scouring during spring runoff and/or rain-on-snow (ROS) events. Most segment altering and channel forming events occur during instantaneous flows. Openings accumulate much more snow than in a forested areas that are not as “open,” thus provide a significant contribution to water yield especially during ROS and spring runoff events. The number, mileage and proximity of the roads to the proposed logging units and streams are important because they will also have a significant effect on peak flows and the resultant impact on fish, steam channels and possible flooding

Peak flows can be altered by forest harvest activities after removal of canopy through less interception, which results in more snow accumulation and snowmelt available for runoff (Troendle and King 1985). Please disclose the potential for the project to damage channel morphology and aquatic habitat.

ROS events can be the most channel changing, sediment producing events and can have a significant adverse effect on fish and their habitat (Kappesser, 1991b).

(Also see Kappesser, 1991a.), King, 1994, Ziemer, 1998 observed the same phenomenon in his study on flooding and stormflows. Also, see King, 1989 and USDA Forest Service 1994b.

The DEIS practically dismisses water yield as a factor, with insufficient explanation. The DEIS includes no scientifically sound analysis the resulting water yield effects.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 51 Response: Peak flows and equivalent clearcut areas (ECAs) were not chosen as measurement indicators in the Aquatic Habitat and Species resource section because, as explained in the Water Resources section, the project is expected to yield minimal increases in water yield and will have insignificant impacts to basins of importance to aquatic resources (pages 125, 141, 142, 143, of DEIS). Thus, there is no expected impact to aquatic species or their habitat from predicted increases in water yield.

Water quantity (yield) was discussed in the Water Resources section in terms of ECA, which includes the effects of additional snow accumulation in forest openings. Please see sections related to water quantity in the DEIS under the Water Resources section, such as pages 449-451, which discusses peak flows, storm magnitude, and return interval with respect to harvest.

ECAs are a commonly used indicator of the potential effects to water yield from management and natural disturbances in forested landscapes. The use of ECAs for this project analysis is consistent with the 2015 KNF Forest Plan as ECAs were used for watershed characterization as well (see the FEIS to the Forest Plan, Appendix D page 210). DEIS pages 443 and 449 describe that the ECA model was only used as a part of the water quantity analysis and included field reviews and past research, among other data. The use of ECAs and their limitations are discussed in DEIS on 443- 444, 452-453, and 449-450, and the FEIS includes more watershed and site-specific information within the water quantity analysis. Additionally, as introduced on page 448 of the DEIS, the analysis for this project occurs at the 6th HUC level (cumulative effects area), with the exception of the Lime Creek-Kootenai River and Brush Creek-Kootenai River watersheds (please see response to comment [5,37] for more information on analysis of these specific watersheds).

King (1989 and 1994) does not refer to stream buffers or examine the effectiveness of buffers in the context of major storm events, so a direct application to the Starry Goat project with respect to low order streams could not be established. However, the water quantity analysis within the DEIS does recognize the importance of protecting lower order streams (often referred to as “local” or “subwatersheds” within the Water Resources section of the DEIS), such as first and second order streams, which are usually direct tributaries to larger streams within the project area. For instance, the water quantity analysis in the Water Resources section discussed that proposed harvest units were often distributed between multiple subwatersheds and were often separated from the nearest stream channels by heavily timbered forest and RHCA buffers (for example, see pages 465-467 of the DEIS).

USDA Forest Service 1994b is a NEPA document (Savant Sage Final Environmental Impact Statement) from the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. The time frame for analysis within the Water Resources section is stated on page 448 of the DEIS, which takes the time required for full water yield recovery into account, and further discussion of water yield recovery is discussed on pages 450-451 of the DEIS.

The Forest Service is in agreement with Harr (1987) regarding the potential for oversimplification of complex forest processes. The Water Resources section of the DEIS discusses how complex forest processes can be throughout the analysis sections and states the many different data sources used, such as on pages 448-449. On page 453, the DEIS states that “this analysis uses a variety of tools to help reach an informed conclusion on the potential effect of project activities on water resources”. Also, on page 449, the DEIS discusses that the ECA method values “generated by the method may be used, along with knowledge of the model and its limitations, in concert with other models, data, analysis, experience and judgment, to help make reasonable estimates…”. The Water Resources section discusses these tools and data used for analysis within each analysis section.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 52 The effect of runoff from harvested areas is very site-specific. Runoff patterns are complicated processes, and factors such as topography, aspect, slope, and age and type of vegetation between harvest units and nearby low order streams play a heavy role in the actual resulting runoff pattern and intensity from climatic events. Without discussing each proposed harvest unit and nearby low order stream individually, the local topography within and around the proposed harvest units varies widely; typically, these first and second order tributaries run fairly straight downhill towards the local valley bottom and run parallel to the surrounding hillsides where the proposed harvest units exist. These hillsides typically drain away from or parallel to these low order streams.

Field surveys of stream channels located on steep ground typically revealed stable channels with entrained rocks, boulders, and large woody debris, which tend to dissipate energy associated with higher flows. These stream channels have the ability to carry seasonal high flows without damaging channel morphology or aquatic habitat. More specific information on project area stream channels and field surveys is included in the FEIS.

Harvest units within these subwatersheds are not typically harvesting a high percentage of the local watershed. Due to the combination of factors discussed above, and in conjunction with RHCAs and other BMPs applied to harvest units and roads, additional water yield from harvest units is not expected to be concentrated and directed into the local subwatersheds, nor is local low order stream morphology expected to be impacted. Likewise, due to the temporal and spatial distribution of harvest units within analysis watersheds, use of road BMPs, and presence of forested RHCA buffers, as well as the small amount of harvest proposed in each analysis watershed compared to the watershed size, no adverse effects are expected as a result of project activities from climatic events, such as rain-on-snow events.

With regard to roads and their effect on peak flows, one intention of BMP work (both within harvest units and on roads) is to alleviate the potential for extra water from roads to be routed to streams via road surface or ditch lines. Please see some examples of drainage and flow-related BMPs in Appendix B (BMPs) in Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) 14.02, 14.17, 15.06, and 15.12. Also, please see response to comment [5,37].

[5,36] Comment: “(S)kid trails can affect runoff patterns by intercepting or rerouting water and can add to the consequences of additional runoff caused by vegetation removal.” The DEIS does not include a quantitative analysis of these cumulative impacts at the watershed scale.

Response: This quote from the Water Resources section was referring to examples of project activities that could affect water quantity. During project implementation, skid trails will be treated according to BMP requirements. Please see Soil and Water Conservation Practices (SWCPs) 14.13 and 14.15 on page 35-36 of Appendix B and also the discussion on use and effectiveness of BMPs on page 451 in the DEIS.

[5,37] Comment: The DEIS fails to provide an adequate scientific and statistical analysis for situations where ECAs would exceed threshold amounts. The DEIS also doesn’t properly account for fire-induced ECA increases.

Response: Chapter 2 of the DEIS (page 9) includes the purpose and need for this project to “reduce the potential for high intensity wildfire while promoting desirable fire behavior characteristics and fuel conditions”. The potential for future wildfires in the project area are

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 53 discussed in the Cumulative Effects section on page 472-473 of the DEIS. Also, please see response to comment [2,11] regarding fire-induced ECAs.

Only two analysis watersheds are calculated to exceed the general threshold (see page 450 of the DEIS) of 20 percent post-harvest ECA (in Alternative 2 and Alternative 4), as discussed on pages 465-467 of the DEIS. These watersheds are Brush Creek-Kootenai River (existing ECA of 21 percent) and Ruby Creek (existing ECA of 19 percent).

The DEIS discusses some of the unique features of the Brush Creek-Kootenai River analysis watershed in terms of ECAs and water flow out of the watershed on pages 457 (Table 125), 458- 459, and 465-466. These pages also explain why ECAs cannot be directly used to analyze this watershed and the reasons why other qualitative factors needed to be considered. Additionally, this watershed has only a small amount of harvest proposed and results in less than a 0.5 percent ECA increase (rounded down to 0 percent in Table 126).

Although the Ruby Creek analysis watershed has an existing ECA of 19 percent, it is not expected to have a measurable post-harvest increase in Ruby Creek flow based on factors such as the location of harvest units with respect to stream channels and timber surrounding these harvest units as discussed on pages 466-468 of the DEIS. Ruby Creek is expected to remain stable after harvest as discussed on these pages.

Additionally, pages 450-451 of the DEIS discuss the natural decrease in existing ECAs during the project implementation period as a result of continued forest growth and states that “all proposed activities were analyzed as if they would occur immediately, however, activities would realistically be distributed over the 10 years following the signing of the record of decision” and that this analysis represents a worst-case scenario.

[5,50] Comment: The FS proposes to reduce Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) widths, inconsistent with Forest Plan/INFISH standard TM-1.

Response: The 2015 Forest Plan allows default RHCA widths to be modified (either increased or decreased) where interim widths are not needed to attain Resource Management Objectives or avoid adverse effects, provided that rationale is documented. RHCA widths, if modified, would be kept greater than or equal to the Montana SMZ Law buffer width and would be modified based on site-specific ground review and conditions. Please see 2015 Forest Plan Appendix B page 134-137, page 88 of the DEIS, and the response to comment [3,8].

[5,51] Comment: The DEI’s sediment analysis is nonquantitative, confusing at best, and has no temporal reference. The agency could make it comprehensible by displaying these numbers for streams: annual tons of background (natural) sediment, existing annual tons of sediment over and above natural due to management, and Project-induced tons of sediment at specific times in the future.

Response: The FEIS includes additional road-related sediment analysis in the Water Resources section. The project time frame for analysis is discussed on page 448. Please also see response to comment [5,28].

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 54 [5,52] Comment: The DEIS fails to quantify sediment yield broken down by the contributions attributable to each of the various project activities.

Response: See response to comment [5,28].

[5,54] Comment: The DEIS does not present an analysis of the ongoing adverse impacts of the roads in the project area which will not be maintained or upgraded by the project. It ignores their cumulative impacts.

Response: See response to comment [5,119].

[5,55] Comment: Is likelihood of watershed restoration or remediation actions listed for the action alternatives not being completed in a certain time frame makes the DEIS’s analysis confusing and inaccurate.

Response: As discussed in the DEIS Water Resources section, the analysis is looked at as a whole and on a long-term basis with respect to overall watershed improvement. Please see response to comment [5,119].

[5,56] Comment: Are there watershed restoration or improvement activities authorized by previous decisions that have not been completed in the cumulative effects analysis area watersheds?

Response: All restoration and improvements from previous decisions in the project area are completed.

[5,57] Comment: The DEIS does not explain how the timber sale would comply with the Clean Water Act and all state water quality laws and regulations. Designating BMPs is not sufficient for compliance with CWA and NFMA. What BMP failures have been noted for past projects with similar landtypes?

Response: Compliance will the Clean Water Act will be through means such as implementation of BMPs and RHCAs. The DEIS pages 477-480 disclose compliance with regulatory framework. Past projects contribute to existing conditions, which are described in the DEIS on pages 454- 460.. See Appendix B for BMP related information and also response to comments [5,28] and [5,119].

[5,119] Comment: How much of the project area road system does the DEIS consider for ongoing impacts on soil and water impacts? It seems the DEIS only analyzes roads planned for logging. Please disclose which segments of roads in the watersheds to be affected by this proposal would not meet BMPs following project activities.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 55 Response: As discussed in the Water Resources section of the DEIS, the project area road system as a whole is looked at from a long-term water quality perspective and is expected to improve overall. See page 482 of the DEIS for conclusions and response to comment [5,46].

[5,128] Comment: The DEIS also doesn’t adequately account for the ecological or financial costs of leaving “stored” or “decommissioned” roads in a condition that is not fully restored. “Reduce” the risk is far from the same as eliminate the risks and impacts.

Response: The goal of storage or decommissioning is not to recover ecological or financial costs of the road prism directly.

Roads which are stored are intended to be used in the future and are stored for a variety of reasons discussed throughout the DEIS, so there is no intent to recover an ecological or financial cost of the land associated with the road prism, other than to ensure protection of resources in the storage process. One goal in the storage process is to protect the financial investment in a road needed for future management but not at the present time by leaving it in a stable condition; this would include factors such as removing culverts that would be at risk of washing out, rather than having to potentially replace them years later if they were to deteriorate or wash out over time.

Generally, roads are decommissioned because they are not needed for management. Improvements to resources in the decommissioning process is an added benefit of decommissioning, not the primary reason for decommissioning. The ecological or financial value of a decommissioned road, whether or not work on the ground is determined to be necessary, will be regained over time as vegetation and climatic elements reclaim the road as part of the forest.

The goal of any storage or decommissioning work is not to eliminate risk, as there will always be some level of unforeseen risk no matter what is done or not done to a road prism in that process. However, resource specialists work to ensure protection of resources, such as leaving the road in a hydrologically stable condition capable of passing a 100 year flood event.

Please see response to comments [6,7] and [6,8].

[6,17] Comment: Clean Water Act- Under the Clean Water Act (CWA)... Water bodies that fail to meet water quality standards are deemed “water quality-limited” and placed the CWA’s § 303(d) list... The Forest Service must ensure all activities in this proposal comply with the CWA. In particular, it must ensure its proposal for logging, and the associated road reconstruction, maintenance, and ongoing use, will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards...

Response: The DEIS discusses compliance with the CWA and other regulations on pages 477- 478. Please see response to comment [5,57].

Wildlife – Endangered Species Act [6,18] Comment: Endangered Species Act-Finally, the Forest Service must ensure that its actions comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The project area on the Kootenai National Forest provides habitat for species listed under the ESA. Importantly, we encourage the Forest Service to be transparent about the consultation process and affirmatively post all consultation documents, including any Forest Service Biological Evaluations or Assessments, any

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 56 letters seeking concurrence, and any responses or Biological Opinions from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Response: The DEIS documents compliance with the Endangered Species Act. See the Regulatory Framework Findings sections of the DEIS. The Forest Service works cooperatively with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to protect listed species. Project specific consultation documents are available in the project record and are available to the public upon request.

Wildlife – Canada Lynx [5,58] Comment: The DEIS doesn’t disclose if the FS conducted surveys of all the lynx suitable habitat in the Lynx Analysis Units (LAU). More often than not, when the FS conducts logging projects in LAUs, surveys of stands for lynx habitat result in less suitable habitat than previously assumed. The FS needs to take a few steps backward and consider that its range-wide Canada lynx suitable habitat estimates were too high.

Response: The Forest surveyed potential project units to determine habitat suitability (DEIS page 574). Compliance with the NRLMD standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6 do not require additional surveys outside of proposed treatment units. Details regarding lynx habitat calculations are available in the project record. The Squires literature cited is consistent with literature used in the Starry Goat project. Although Kosterman (2014) presents useful information, the parameters and metrics used in that study do not cross-walk well to the metric standards provided in the NRLMD.

[5,59] Comment: The DEIS does not apply the best available science regarding the Canada lynx. This will result in unauthorized take under Section 9 of the ESA.

Response: The best available science and recent information available was used in the lynx analysis, as indicated by the references included in that section. Compliance with the ESA is ensured through consultation and coordination with USFWS. Project specific consultation documents are available in the project record.

[5,60] Comment: The FS has not completed formal consultation on the NRLMD over its entire extent in light of the more recent Critical Habitat designations, as required by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Response: Consultation regarding the effects of the NRLMD over its entire extent on designated Canada lynx Critical Habitat was finalized with the completion of the USFWS’s Biological Opinion on October 18, 2017. Additionally, the USFWS completed a Biological Opinion on the effects of the Forest Plan on designated Canada lynx Critical Habitat in August 2013.

[5,61] Comment: The DEIS fails to analyze and disclose cumulative impacts of recreational activities on lynx, including snowmobiles.

Response: The DEIS (beginning on page 586) discloses the cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable activities, including snowmobile use (DEIS page 587).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 57 [5,62] Comment: The DEIS also fails to analyze and disclose the cumulative effects on Canada lynx due to trapping or from use of the road and trail networks in the project area.

Response: Trapping of lynx is prohibited (see state regulations in Montana and Idaho). When listed, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2000; 2003) acknowledged that the threat posed by incidental trapping is low, albeit there was no information available as to how frequently such incidents occurred. Furthermore, incidental trapping no doubt occurred historically, yet the lynx population in the lower 48 U.S. has persisted (ibid). Lynx are tolerant to human activity along low speed and low volume forest travel routes (DEIS page 572).

Wildlife – Grizzly Bear [2,7] Comment: The DEIS includes several project modifications as described under the new proposed action, which are intended to address concerns related to grizzly bears. For example, the Kootenai National Forest has coordinated with the Idaho Panhandle National Forests to ensure that this project and the Boulder Creek Project compliment rather than conflict with one another. This was an issue we raised in our scoping comments, and we appreciate the fact that coordination has occurred.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The Forest will continue to coordinate management with adjacent forests.

[2,8] Comment: The prosed action includes roadside fuel mitigation within 100 feet of some open roads, many of which have been buffered to delineate core grizzly bear habitat. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee suggests that grizzly bear habitat security is decreased within 500 meters of open roads. We wonder whether or not roadside fuel treatments within this zone would further reduce grizzly bear security. The removal of vegetation will reduce visual screening and allow sound created by traffic to transmit further from the road. Accordingly, a 500-meter buffer for the purposes of calculating core habitat may be insufficient. The FEIS should describe whether or not the proposed roadside treatments would negatively impact grizzly bear security beyond the standard 500-meter buffer.

Response: Potential disturbance related to roadside fuels mitigation has been assessed in the DEIS (page 547). As indicated, temporary disturbances associated with treatments may occur. However, short-term avoidance of the vicinity is unlikely to result in long-term displacement. Grizzly bears are not as likely to use habitat near open roads (displacement), which is why core habitat is based on a 500-meter buffer around those roads. This is based on the best available information for this ecosystem (Wakkinen and Kasworm 1997). Retention of shrubs and hardwoods in roadside units would reduce potential visual and sound impacts related to treatments. Low-level motorized activity on open roads would not change substantially in the long term. Openings along the open road system already exist, some of which are in an early seral stage that may provide less visual cover than that which would be created by roadside treatments. On the Kootenai NF, vigorous vegetative regrowth will result in quality hiding cover in a short time. Vegetative treatments within the 500-meter buffer would not impact the effectiveness of core areas beyond that buffer. See the DEIS (page 500) for more analysis regarding access management and impacts to core habitat as a result of this project.

[2,9] Comment: Under the preferred alternative, blocks of replacement core habitat have been identified to offset reductions in core habitat elsewhere in the project area. Intuitively, the largest

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 58 block of replacement core habitat (in Goat Creek) would seem to be of greater value to grizzly bears than the habitat that will be lost in Ruby Creek because the replacement core would be consolidated into an area with less human activity. On the other hand, the loss of core associated with the reconstruction of road 4405 is not so favorable to grizzly bears. Under the preferred alternative, this one-mile road would be reconstructed to access a 76-acre harvest unit (unit 32). Replacement core habitat between roads 1055 and 582 is presumably intended to make up for the loss. However, we question the value of the replacement core due to the small size of the block, its proximity to private land, and its isolation from other core areas. Consequently, we recommend that unit 32 and the associated reconstruction of road 4405 be dropped from the final decision. Intuitively, the existing core habitat in that area would be of greater value to grizzly bears as it is currently consolidated as part of a larger block with less human influence

Response: The exchange of core areas maintains or improves this habitat attribute in the individual BMU, but also allows for management of other important, long-term goals. Core area exchange as part of this project is consistent with Forest Plan direction FW- STD-WL-02, specifically item I.D.3 (LRMP page 149). The increase in core between NFSRs 1055 and 582 from 26 to 104 acres is substantial relative to the current condition. Current bear use and habitat quality in that vicinity is moderate and this increase in core offers a more effective area of low disturbance potential. This core block increase is not the only addition because a substantially larger area is added on to the largest existing core block and this area also has greater seasonal use and habitat quality in close proximity. The total core area increase across the BMU is approximately 290 acres (DEIS page 505).

[5,10] Comment: Here in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE), the population size is approximately half of the recovery goal of 100 bears (Kendall et al. 2016), with human-caused mortality being the primary factor keeping the population in peril. The DEIS conclusion that the CYE population is stable or increasing is not based in good science. The precarious status of the population means the FS should genuinely “manage …for grizzly bear habitat maintenance, improvement, and minimization of grizzly-human conflict” in this Management Situation 1 area as the Recovery Plan intends. Instead, the FS prioritizes adverse and otherwise risky habitat modifications which hinder, rather than assist in recovery of this ESA-listed species

Response: You are correct in your statement regarding the estimated population numbers indicated in that reference. The most recent estimate does indicate an increased likelihood of a stable or increasing trend, as indicated in the DEIS (page 491), as reported by the lead USFWS grizzly bear researcher in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem.

[5,11] Comment: AWR’s incorporated November 17, 2016 comments on the Starry Goat Project Proposed Action raise several issues the DEIS ignores. Among other things, AWR identified scientific and legal inadequacies of the Forest Plan/Access Amendments protections for grizzly bears...

Response: The effects of the Forest Plan on grizzly bears and their habitat was addressed in Forest Plan analyses and consultations with USFWS. Forest Plan project records include information regarding how the Forest Plan contribute towards grizzly bear conservation.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 59 [5,12] Comment: We note the arbitrary nature of DEIS determination that adverse project impacts are still consistent with the requirement to prioritize the needs of the grizzly bear in Management Situation 1: “The determination of compatibility is based on the proposed federal action, not on individual components of such action.” (DEIS at 539). How can “may affect, likely to adversely affect” mean the FS is favoring the grizzly bear?

Response: The project analysis (page 539) indicates the consistency with the 2015 Forest Plan (also summarized in the Regulatory Framework Findings section, page 565). The proposed action is designed to minimize impacts to grizzly bears as well as improve habitat quality in the long term and contribute towards recovery of this population of grizzly bears. Project activities may temporarily impact bears and their habitat, as indicated in the analysis (DEIS page 486).

[5,13] Comment: The FS manages most of the habitat in the CYE, but instead of exercising its discretion to increase habitat security via substantial road reductions and minimizing industrial and motorized disturbance, the agency prefers to log, mine, and otherwise manipulate and disrupt the grizzly’s habitat to the limits allowed by its already inadequate regulatory mechanisms...Such actions reveal a practice and pattern of failing to prioritize the needs of the grizzly bear within MS 1. The FS must undertake a full cumulative effects analysis that considers all management activities (public and private) in the CYE.

Response: The cumulative effects analysis (DEIS beginning on page 556) describes the rationale for using the selected cumulative effects analysis spatial and temporal ranges. The effects of the Forest Plan on grizzly bears and their habitat was addressed in those analyses and consultations with USFWS. This included an analysis of cumulative effects within the CYE. Forest Plan project records include information regarding how the Forest Plan contributes towards grizzly bear conservation.

[5,14] Comment: The DEIS fails to adequately analyze and disclose cumulative impacts on land of other ownerships due to their unknown duration, location, and intensity. It also fails to adequately analyze and disclose impacts to grizzly bears in the adjacent IPNF, especially from the proposed Boulder Creek Restoration Project.

Response: The DEIS, beginning on page 556, provides a cumulative effects analysis, and does include adjacent areas on the Idaho Panhandle NF, including the Boulder Creek Restoration project (DEIS page 558).

[5,15] Comment: In moving the grizzly bear core, is the FS relying on “decommissioning” of roads which are impassable yet not included in current core to compensate for decrease of core habitat in other areas? And although gated roads do not provide the same level of habitat security as Forest Plan- barriered roads, in moving the core the FS treats the impacts from open road the same as gated road. Essentially, the grizzly bears get areas already restricted in exchange for loss of existing core. The DEIS did not adequately define the Environmental Baseline to document the cumulative impacts on habitat as required under the ESA regulations at 40 CFR §402.02.

Response: The Forest manages more than grizzly bear habitat resources, and decommissioning roads for other resource concerns addresses those. Adding to the total core area in one location allows us to address other resource issues while continuing to provide important habitat attributes

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 60 for bears. This trade-off was considered in the development of Forest Plan Standard FW-STD- WL-02 and the effects disclosed in that analysis.

The DEIS pages 556 through 564 assesses the cumulative effects of the proposed action when added to the effects of other state and private entity actions. The cumulative effects section states that it addresses past actions as well as further describes ongoing and other reasonably foreseeable activities. This does satisfy the definition of environmental baseline as provided in 50 CFR 402.02

[5,16] Comment: Likewise, the FS’s numbers game management means that increasing disturbance from mountain biking under the Boulder Creek proposal is considered a benefit to grizzly bears: “Boulder Creek’s proposal to convert a gated road to a non-motorized mountain bike trail would result in the creation of approximately 190 acres of Core…”

Response: Removal of a motorized route from the system does decrease the route density, as reflected in the analysis. Additionally, the analysis does disclose the effects on grizzly bear from the proposed mountain bike trail. We do not state that a potential increase of non-motorized use is a benefit to bears. However, we do consider a decrease in motorized route density a benefit and contribution to recovery. In the Boulder Creek Restoration Project EA (page 53), it was determined that mountain bike use would not be high-intensity as defined by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.

[5,17] Comment: The FS is also apparently not including some barriered roads in its total road density calculations, in violation of the Forest Plan. The FS also does fishy math when it claims: “Because both the barriered and new roads are located in areas that already have a high level of total road density due to the close proximity of other gated and open roads, the use of these roads does not result in a change in TMRD percent.”

Response: The road density calculations include routes that have been identified in the forest's roads database.

The comment pertains to the discussion on page 522 of the DEIS for Alternative 3. The calculation for total motorized route density (TMRD) is a geographic information systems analysis that includes all motorized routes in a bear management unit. In areas where there is already a high density of roads, a minor increase or decrease in total road length may not result in a substantive change in route density. Definitions of core, open motorized route density (OMRD), and total motorized route density (TMRD) are provided in the DEIS (pages 494-495). Core measures the area within the BMU that is 500 meters or greater from an open road. OMRD includes in its calculation all open and gated roads, while TMRD includes open, gated, barriered, and impassable roads in the transportation database. The geographical information systems process for assessing the BMU standards is called a moving windows analysis and is the accepted protocol (Wakkinen and Kasworm 1997). Details of this method are available in the project record.

[5,18] Comment: The DEIS doesn’t fully analyze and disclose the impacts of late-season snowmobile use on grizzly bear spring range.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 61 Response: Late-season over the snow travel was analyzed and impacts disclosed. See DEIS page 495 and 525-526. As stated on pages 525-526, “Currently there are no groomed routes within the Starry Goat project area and there are no proposals to allow for grooming on potential routes. Therefore, Starry Goat’s proposed actions would meet the 2015 Forest Plan standard FW-STD- WL-05 which does not allow for grooming of snowmobile routes in grizzly bear Core habitat in the spring after April 1 of each year.”

With respect to vegetation management during the spring emergence period (FW-GDL-WL-01), the project was designed with scheduled timing restriction in spring use areas (DEIS pages 536- 537). The regulatory framework findings section (DEIS pages 565-569) summarize how the project design is consistent with the guideline.

[5,19] Comment: The FS’s failure to make and document positive gains across the CYE toward or consistent with its inadequate BMU core, OMRD, and TMRD standards is consistent with its industrial priorities. There is no deadline. And allowing activities that move core and raise road densities even if “temporary,” is also part of this pattern and practice.

Response: Management requirements for grizzly bear habitat within the CYE is directed by the Forest Plan and the Access Amendment. This project meets the requirements of this direction. Annual review of core, OMRD, and TMRD do reflect movement toward standards in the forest plan.

[5,20] Comment: The DEIS assumes that the proposed vegetation manipulation actions are needed to help grizzly bears by increasing huckleberry production, without any rational basis for such a need in the BMU, or proof that the specific treatment units will respond as the FS expects.

Response: Vegetation management, in particular the use of fire, can strongly influence huckleberry production, as described in the DEIS throughout the grizzly bear section and particularly beginning on DEIS pages 526 and 535. The analysis for the Forest Plan disclosed how movement towards desired conditions for vegetation would impact grizzly bear habitat.

[5,21] Comment: The FS still has not explained why an isolated small core habitat pieces are considered just as useful to grizzly bears as an acre in a 10,000-acre block of core.

Response: A rationale for retaining core in blocks of any size is provided on page 148 of the forest plan (FW-STD-WL-02), specifically item I.B.1.d. This section of the plan states that discounting small core blocks is “not prudent at this time”. Therefore, smaller core blocks are retained and are considered important to grizzly bear recovery.

[5,22] Comment: Disturbance of core habitat by helicopter is not consistent with forest plan direction

Response: Helicopter use would not affect the core area measure. Proposed helicopter use would be consistent with other recommendations designed to minimize adverse impacts, as indicated in the analysis (DEIS pages 545-546). The project would minimize helicopter use impacts to grizzly bears by managing for minimal flights necessary to conduct burning operations (GOAL-WL-02; FW-DC-WL-02; FW-DC-WL-04).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 62

[5,23] Comment: In regards to the ill-informed proposal to encourage mountain biking in grizzly bear habitat, the 36 CFR 261.15 prohibitions against the use of vehicles off roads has been modified over the years to apply to more than just motor vehicles. Under its definitions, the term “vehicle” may include motor vehicles but more broadly “means any device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported.

Response: The project would establish a trail allowing mountain bike use, and does not propose off-road use of any vehicle, motorized or not. Therefore the proposal is consistent with the Code of Federal regulations cited.

[5,24] Comment: Because the FS fails to use the best available science and for the reasons stated above, the FS is unable to demonstrate it is managing consistent with Forest Plan standards FW- STD-WL-02 and FW-STD-WL-03, guidelines FW-GDL-WL-01 and FW-GDL-WL-15, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act.

Response: The Forest has used best available science and compliance with the direction cited in the comment and it is documented on DEIS pages 565 – 570. FW-STD-WL-03 applies to the NCDE; this project is not in this ecosystem. As to the other two standards, the project is consistent with the plan and demonstrates so in the analysis and summarized in the regulatory framework finding (DEIS pages 565-569). FW-GDL-WL-01 pertains to avoiding or minimizing disturbance near denning habitat, which is addressed through seasonal operating period design features and as indicated in the DEIS (Design Features, page 92). Consistency with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines is addressed in the DEIS (pages 538-539) and thus meets the direction in FW-GDL-WL-15.

Wildlife – Habitat Connectivity [5,84] Comment: The DEIS does not present an analysis of the quality of habitat in linkage zones.

Response: Where an analysis of habitat within "linkage zones" is warranted, for example in the grizzly bear analysis, such an assessment is provided.

Wildlife – Other Species [5,90] Comment: Please disclose the FS’s strategy and best available science for insuring viable populations of the pine marten, a species whose habitat is significantly altered by thinning and other active forest management (Moriarity et al., 2016; Bull and Blumton, 1999; Hargis et al., 1999 and Wasserman et al., 2012).

Response: The pine marten is not a federally listed or regionally listed sensitive species. Marten are present on the forest in suitable habitats (forest and state natural heritage databases). Marten are also widespread and abundant across their North American range. Ecosystem Research Group 2012 analyzed the effects of managing for the desired conditions for vegetation in the Forest Plan and disclosed that marten viability on the Forest is not likely at risk (p. 96). Additionally, p. 212- 214 in the Forest Plan FEIS (2013) discusses the effects on marten from managing habitat under the Forest Plan. The Starry Goat analysis discloses how the project is consistent with the Forest Plan direction for vegetation (DEIS pages 199-267, and consistency with Forest Plan direction on pages 257-266).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 63 Moriarity et al. (2016) addresses simplification of stands through thinning, which is a minor component of the Starry Goat project. Thinning is proposed in limited dense stands for silviculture and in important low elevation fuels treatment stands. Potential effects to marten would be minimized because first, little of the abundant suitable marten habitat would be impacted, and second, thinned stands would have a reduced habitat quality for a short period of time, and would recover in approximately one decade.

Similar results were found by Bull and Blumton (1999), and again, the treatments are not proposed in high quality marten habitat and are focused spatially along access roads, as well as on only 400 acres of pre-commercial thinning. The precommercial thinning units are not high quality marten habitat and potential impacts would be minimal. Abundant and widespread suitable habitat would not be impacted.

Hargis et al. (1999) address fragmentation of suitable marten habitat. However, their study area was in much more open country in Utah and their results may not translate well to the dense forests found here on the Kootenai NF. Dense forest cover is abundant and well-connected on the Kootenai National Forest, unlike the aforementioned study area. In the supporting analysis for the Forest Plan revision, marten habitat is expected to remain within the historic range of variability; marten populations are not at risk (Ecosystem Research Group 2012).

Wasserman et al. (2012) publications are not related to forest vegetation management, but instead address climate-related changes and impacts on marten habitat.

[5,91] Comment: Please disclose the FS’s strategy and best available science for insuring viable populations of the northern goshawk, a species whose habitat is significantly altered by logging and other active forest management.

Response: Forest plan guideline, FW-GDL-WL-16, addresses management at known active raptor nests using the best available information. Ecosystem Research Group 2012 analyzed the effects of managing for the desired conditions for vegetation in the Forest Plan and disclosed that goshawk densities are determined by the distribution of habitat on the Forest more so than the total habitat availability (p. 97). This is due to the territoriality of the species. Additionally, p. 212-214 in the Forest Plan FEIS (2013) discusses the effects on goshawk from managing habitat under the Forest Plan. The Starry Goat analysis discloses how the project is consistent with the Forest Plan direction for vegetation, see DEIS pages 257-266.

[5,92] Comment: The DEIS fails to show goshawk monitoring in the project area is anywhere near sufficient to meet scientific standards for finding goshawks.

Response: There is no monitoring requirement for northern goshawks on the Kootenai NF. Known nests within proposed project areas are revisited to determine occupancy, and any new nests discovered during project layout/design/implementation would be protected according to FW-GDL-WL-16. For example, the project incorporated a design feature specifically for an identified northern goshawk nest (DEIS page 92).

[5,94] Comment: Please disclose the FS’s strategy and best available science for insuring viable populations of the great gray owl.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 64 Response: The great gray owl is not a federally listed or proposed species or a regional sensitive species. There is no Forest Plan direction that specifically mentions great gray owls. However, there are general pieces of direction that are applicable (e.g. FW-GDL-WL-16) and contribute to a fine filter approach to providing viability for raptors. Viability for the great gray owl would also be ensured using the “coarse filter” for viability as described on p. 207-209 in the Forest Plan FEIS (2013).

[5,95] Comment: Please disclose the FS’s strategy and best available science for insuring viable populations of the pileated woodpecker.

Response: The pileated woodpecker is not a federally listed or proposed endangered species or a regional sensitive species. Ecosystem Research Group 2012 analyzed the effects of managing for the desired conditions for vegetation in the Forest Plan and disclosed that pileated habitat is currently within the historic range of variability on the Forest (p. 99). Additionally, p. 212-214 in the Forest Plan FEIS (2013) discusses the effects on pileated woodpeckers from managing habitat under the Forest Plan. The Starry Goat analysis discloses how the project is consistent with the Forest Plan direction for vegetation, see DEIS pages 257-266.

[5,101] Comment: The DEIS does not explain why, given the elk population not meeting state hunting objectives, the Is Elk Management Unit is not a candidate for high emphasis.

Response: Elk security was analyzed as part of the project. See pages 709-715 of the DEIS. The elk security emphasis (high, medium, low) was set early in the Forest Plan revision process in coordination with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Security emphases may be updated during the life of the plan based upon continuing coordination with MFWP (p. 329 in USDA 2013). Furthermore, while the elk planning subunit has a medium emphasis, it in fact currently provides a security measure greater than that desired for the high emphasis subunits (DEIS page 710).

[5,107] Comment: Snags and cavity nesting/denning wildlife - Lorenz et al., 2015 state: Our findings suggest that higher densities of snags and other nest substrates should be provided for PCEs (primary cavity excavators) than generally recommended…This means only the PCEs themselves have the ability to decide if a tree is suitable for excavating. The means managers know little about how many snags per acre are needed to sustain populations of cavity nesting species. This must be considered best available science to replace forest plan direction for snag retention.

Response: This project used the best available science and followed forest plan direction for management of snags. The snag direction in the Forest Plan is based on historic conditions under natural disturbance processes. This fits into the coarse/fine filter approach to providing viability for native species by providing the habitat types, components, and pattern on the landscape that species evolved with here on the Forest. See p. 207-209 in the Forest Plan FEIS (2013) for additional discussion on the coarse filter/fine filter approach to providing for species viability. The literature cited in the comment (Lorenz et al. 2015) provides new insight to snag habitats. However, the article is not applicable to this project because we are not proposing harvest of any snags, but rather retention of snags where they are found, as per Forest Plan direction FW-DC- VEG-07 and FW-GDL-VEG-04, and as found in the DEIS vegetation section findings (pages 259 and 264).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 65

[5,116] Comment: Please disclose the wildlife species the Kootenai NF considers to be strongly associated with old growth, which must be a meaningful relationship given this project proposal “third objective.”

Response: Please see the revised forest plan analysis which describes some species that have some association with, but not dependence upon, attributes often found in older forests. We are unsure what is meant by the "third objective." However, Table 25 in the DEIS, includes a Comparison of Purpose and Need Objectives by Alternative. The third item in this table relates to big game winter range conditions, forage opportunities, and maintaining secure habitat. No mention of old growth is made.

Wildlife – Sensitive Species [2,86] Comment: Please disclose the FS’s strategy and best available science for insuring viable populations of the fisher. Please conduct a scientifically-based analysis on the spatial and structural requirements for fisher survival and successful reproduction. There is no sound, scientifically-based analysis for the Forest Plan or entire Kootenai NF comparing forestwide conditions with habitat metrics required to insure fisher viability. The analyses for other wildlife must address these same flaws. The DEIS’s fisher analysis mentions a lot of scientific research (p. 644) yet it fails to disclose the management implications of most of what it cites. The same is true for the black-backed woodpecker.

Response: The fisher analysis is available in the DEIS (starting on page 644). Fisher distribution in the northern Rocky Mountains is thought to be similar to the historical range (DEIS page 644). Structural requirements are reported on page 650 and spatial distribution on page 651. Estimates of fisher habitat on the forest are reported (DEIS page 648) as well as queried habitat in the project area (DEIS page 649). The management implications are disclosed in the effects analysis for each alternative, beginning on page 651. For the black-backed woodpecker, see responses to comments [5,99] and [5,100] Ecosystem Research Group 2012 analyzed the effects of managing for the desired conditions for vegetation in the Forest Plan and disclosed that fisher habitat is currently above the historic range of variability on the Forest (p. 84-85). There is no risk to fisher viability on the Forest (p. 85 in Ecosystem Research Group 2012). Additionally, p. 285-290 in the Forest Plan FEIS (2013) discusses the effects on fisher from managing habitat under the Forest Plan. The Starry Goat analysis discloses how the project is consistent with the Forest Plan direction for vegetation, see DEIS pages 257-266.

[5,87] Comment: In the absence of meaningful thresholds of habitat loss and no monitoring of fisher populations at the Forest level, projects will continue to degrade fisher habitat across the Kootenai NF over time. (Also see also Schultz 2012, who identified these problems in analyses for many wildlife species.)

Response: As indicated in the fisher background and life history section (DEIS pages 644 - 651), fisher habitat is found where expected in the project area. The analysis concludes that the project may impact fisher habitat, but would not lead to a trend toward federal listing. Furthermore, the USFWS (2017) recently concluded that the Northern Rocky Mountains distinct population segment of the fisher was not warranted for listing; factors determined not a threat included, among others, forestry and fire. Projects are designed to be consistent with the forest plan and move toward the desired and historical range of conditions for vegetation, which may provide some suitable fisher habitat. Also, see the response to comment [2,86] above.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 66 Schultz, 2012 discusses cumulative effects processes with examples from the IPNF. The Starry Goat Project is following agency process and legal requirements with regards to cumulative effects. Fisher habitat is well distributed and would remain within the natural range of variability for the decades analyzed under the Forest Plan revision (Ecosystem Research Group 2012).

[5,89] Comment: The DEIS fails to describe the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to sustain the viability of the fisher.

Response: The project’s fisher analysis begins on DEIS page 644. Page 646 introduces the indicators and measures used for impacts. Within the project area, an estimate of potential habitat is provided (page 647). The forest plan analysis (incorporated by reference) indicated fisher habitat is well distributed and would remain within the natural range of variability under the analysis period. Also, see the response to comment [2,86] above.

[5,85] Comment: Please disclose the FS’s strategy and best available science for insuring viable populations of the boreal toad.

Response: Sensitive species are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and are administratively designated by the Regional Forester (FSM 2670.5). 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 NFMA directs the Forest Service 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.” [16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)]. Providing ecological conditions to support diversity of native plant and animal species in the planning area satisfies the statutory requirements. The Forest Service’s focus for meeting the requirements of NFMA and its implementing regulations is on assessing habitat to provide for diversity of species.

Viability of aquatic species is a requirement at the Forest Plan level and not at the project level. That said, efforts are incorporated at the project level (RMOs, BMPs, INFISH buffers, road storage and decommissioning) which aid in maintaining or improving aquatic habitat conditions. Pages 118-123 of the DEIS list all regulatory framework pertaining to aquatic sensitive species (species of concern). A chief concern of the collective direction is protecting, maintaining, and/or improving aquatic habitat. Pages 147-150 of the DEIS go on to address each KNF Forest Plan component for Riparian, Aquatic Habitat, and Aquatic Species Resources and how the project is in compliance with this direction. Existing conditions and environmental consequences for western toad is described in detail on pages 694 – 700 of the DEIS. This section includes the science, data and methodology used in making the determination of effects. It also describes compliance with the 2015 Forest Plan direction.

[5,93] Comment: Please disclose the FS’s strategy and best available science for insuring viable populations of the flammulated owl.

Response: The analysis for the revised forest plan (incorporated by reference) assessed flammulated owl habitat on the forest and in the Northern Region, and concluded that across the Region there is ample habitat to sustain a viable population of flammulated owls (Forest Plan EIS page 292). The Starry Goat DEIS at pages 668 – 674 describe the existing conditions and environmental consequences for flammulated owl. This section includes the science, data and

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 67 methodology used in making the determination of effects. It also describes compliance with the 2015 Forest Plan direction. Ecosystem Research Group 2012 analyzed the effects of managing for the desired conditions for vegetation in the Forest Plan on flammulated owl habitat. Additionally, p. 290-299 in the Forest Plan FEIS (2013) discusses the effects on flammulated owl from managing habitat under the Forest Plan.

[5,99 & 100] Comment: Please disclose the FS’s strategy and best available science for insuring viable populations of the black-backed woodpecker… The DEIS fails to describe the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to sustain the viability of the black-backed woodpecker.

Response: See response to comment [5,73]. Ecosystem Research Group 2012 analyzed the effects of managing for the desired conditions for vegetation in the Forest Plan on black-backed woodpeckers. Additionally, p. 273-281 in the Forest Plan FEIS (2013) discusses the effects on black-backed woodpecker from managing habitat under the Forest Plan.

[5,102] Comment: Please disclose statistically robust estimates of population trends of each Sensitive species. Please disclose the intensity of surveys for Sensitive species that have been conducted in the project area. Please provide a sound scientifically-based explanation for any species’ apparent absence from the project area.

Response: Each Sensitive species analysis includes trend estimates, if available; assessing population trends at the project scale is not appropriate. In the Forest Plan revision analysis, the process for determining species viability across the planning area was addressed, and this information is incorporated by reference into the project analysis. Also, the Forest Plan revision wildlife analysis includes population and trend estimates. This information is also incorporated by reference.

The project area in general and units in particular were assessed for potential habitat suitability; where suitable habitats existed and might be impacted such that there would be an adverse effect on a species population, units were dismissed or potential actions modified in such a way as to minimize or remove the impact..

If a species is absent from the project area, a rationale is included and is most often related to habitat conditions; not all areas of the forest provide suitable habitat for every species. See DEIS pages 604 – 700.

[5,103] Comment: The DEIS fails to disclose the best available science it is relying to assure population viability of MIS and Sensitive species. The analyses must assure that sufficient quantity and quality of available, well-distributed habitat for each species is provided, based upon the best available science.

Response: Each species' analysis does include the best available and reliable science to assess impacts to individuals at the project scale and how the project is consistent with the Forest Plan. Focal species are assessed and monitored at the forest level (the Forest transitioned from MIS to Focal Species). Population viability is assessed at the forest plan level. The effects at the Forest scale of managing under the Forest Plan were disclosed in the Forest Plan FEIS (2013).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 68 [5,104] Comment: The DEIS does not present an analysis comparing the current habitat conditions with the HRV for MIS and Sensitive species. The DEIS does not disclose how past management activities have affected habitat conditions including amounts and distribution as compared to the HRV.

Response: The revised forest plan, incorporated by reference, includes assessments of current conditions and a desired range of variability based on historic and expected future conditions. Focal species are an analysis tool at the forest level.

[5,105] Comment: There is an overall lack of a genuine cumulative effects analyses for these species. There is no comparison of baseline (pre-management) conditions with current conditions.

Response: Cumulative impacts are assessed in each species' section. Life history descriptions include historical estimates of range and populations, where available. Ecosystem Research Group 2012 disclosed the historic range of variability for a variety of species on the Forest, and that document has been reviewed and included in the Starry Goat analysis.

[5,106] Comment: Please provide an analysis for the Forest Plan MIS “Landbird Assemblage.” Please disclose the specific habitat needs of all of these bird species, and analyze cumulative impacts.

Response: The landbird assemblage MIS on the Forest was transitioned to Focal Species in 2016 and based on the 2012 Planning Rule. As a focal species, the assemblage will be used to indicate the integrity of terrestrial vegetation structure and function across the Forest. Movement towards the desired conditions for vegetation are monitored at the Forest Plan level, as are populations of the landbird assemblage.

The Forest Plan has management direction that addresses migratory birds specifically or indirectly (FW-DC-WL-09; FW-OBJ-WL-03). Four species of the five in the landbird assemblage are migratory. These Forest Plan items, as well as others applicable to migratory birds, are addressed in the migratory bird section (DEIS pages 716-732). Regulatory direction findings are found in the DEIS (pages 729-731). Forest Plan objective FW-OBJ-WL-03 applies to the landbird assemblage, and the DEIS regulatory findings section (pages 731-732) states how the project meets that direction specific to this assemblage.

Also, as indicated above, as the Kootenai NF moves toward the vegetation desired conditions, it is expected there would be beneficial results for members of this assemblage. Whether through active vegetation management or fire management, the expected result is maintenance or improvements in the pattern of this assemblage’s habitat. Because the Starry Goat project is consistent with vegetation management direction (DEIS pages 257-266), including early seral vegetation and snags, movement toward the desired conditions for avian insectivores is also achieved.

See also response to comment [5, 107] above for addressing snags and cavity nesters.

Wildlife – Wolverine [5,96] Comment: Please disclose the FS’s strategy and best available science for insuring viable populations of the wolverine.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 69 Response: Please see the wolverine analysis beginning on page 595 of the DEIS. Pages 595-599 discuss wolverine population biology, ecology, habitat both regionally and on the forest. A habitat feature important to wolverines is late persistent snow, which would not be impacted by the project. Also, see the wolverine section in the Forest Plan FEIS (p. 257-261 in USDA 2013) where it discloses the effects at the Forest Plan scale. The Starry Goat project is consistent with the Regional Programmatic Biological Assessment for wolverine (2014). Documentation is found in the project record.

[5,97] Comment: The Forest Plan includes no coherent viability strategy for wolverine protection. The Forest Plan/FEIS fail to describe the quantity and quality of habitat that is necessary to sustain the viability of the wolverine.

Response: See response to comment [5,96].

Wildlife and Recreation [4,1] Comment: I see one important omission: Signage for the proposed McConnell Mountain Snowshoe trail. The McConnell Mountain and surrounding area includes known moose habitat – including moose winter range on the north face of McConnell Mountain. Like the signage that is proposed for the Three Mile Bike Trail to warn visitors of grizzly bear use, design parameters for the McConnell Mountain area should include signage to remind winter users of the likelihood of running into moose and how to stay safe in the McConnell Mountain area. Signage for the McConnell Mountain trail would be a wise addition to this proposal, to address the likelihood of a human-moose encounter before it happens.

[4,2] Comment: Regarding the proposed mountain biking trail, Three Mile Trail, I have concerns with the development of specific-use, high-speed recreation trails (i.e., mountain biking trails) in grizzly bear country. Trails designed for high-speed use in bear country should be in designed for high visibility and designed to prevent cyclists from obtaining high-speeds. Trails will need appropriate signage to help prevent conflicts between bears and mountain bikers. In addition, bear country education for this specific user group will need to be available, as well as extending the efficacy of bear spray to users on mountain bicycles.

Response: The recreation staff and wildlife biologist on the District will continue to work with Montana FWP, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. A sign was created through an Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee grant that addresses mountain bike/grizzly bear conflict. This sign will be installed at this trailhead.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 70

Literature Cited

General Reference U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plan, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, MT. 654 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. Appendices: Final Environmental Impact Statement (Including 2015 Errata) For the Revised Land Management Plan, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, MT. 586 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan, 2015 Revision. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. 179 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Forest Plan Map. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. 1 p U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Forest Plan Timber Suitability Map. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. 1 p U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Final Record of Decision For the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. 56 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Monitoring Guide 2015 Revision Monitoring Plan Kootenai National Forest, Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. 127 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Technical report: Analysis of the management situation for revision of the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Forest Plans, March 2003. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Montana. 149 p U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010b. KIPZ climate change report. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Region 1. 236 p.

Air Quality Barrows, Sandberg, and Hart, 1977. Lightning fires in northern Rocky Mountain Forest. USDA: Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station and the Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, Colorado State University. 1977 p.31 Carlin, James 2008. Libby, Montana, PM-2.5 Annual Standard 2005 PM-2.5 Emission Inventory. Montana DEQ report, Helena, MT. http://deq.mt.gov/search.mcpx?cx=013380590290877010950%3Aktunnrc3e7a&cof=FO RID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=libby+emissions Accessed 1/7/14. Hall, J. A. 1972. Forest Fuels, Prescribed Fire, and Air Quality. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. Kootenai National Forest Forest Plan, II-26 Leenhouts, B. 1998. Assessment of biomass burning in the counterminous United States. Conservation Ecology, [online] 2(1): 1. URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss1/art1/ Ward, T.J., Rinehart, L.R., and Lange, T 2006. The 2003/2004 Libby, Montana PM 2.5 Source Apportionment Research Study. Aerosol Science and Technology. Vol. 40: 166-177. 2006.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 71

Ward, D. E. and C.C. Hardy 1991. “Smoke Emissions From Wildland Fires.” Environmental International, Vol17, p117-134. Ward, D. E., C.K. McMahon, and R.W. Johanson 1976. An Update on Particulate Emissions from Forest Fires. Paper 67-2.2, Portland, OR 15 pp.

Aquatic Habitat and Species Archer, E. and J.V. Ojala. Stream habitat condition for sites in the Kootenai N.F. 2016. InFish Biological Opinion (PIBO) Monitoring Program. USDA Forest Service, Logan, UT. Baxter, J.S. and J.D. McPhail. 1996. Bull trout spawning and rearing habitat requirements: summary of the literature. Fisheries Technical Circular No. 98. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks: Fisheries Branch. Baxter, C.V., and F.R. Hauer. 2000. Geomorphology, hyporheic exchange, and selection of spawning habitat by bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:1470-1481. Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. Am. Fish. Soc. Monograph No. 6. 275 pp. Belt G.H., J. O'Laughlin and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for the protection of water quality: Analysis of scientific literature. Idaho Forest Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, Report No.8, Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho. Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-138 in W. R. Meehan ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fish and their habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83-138, 1991. Donald, D.B., and D.J. Alger. 1993. Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:238-247. Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 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. Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Lee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 297-323. Griffith, J. S. 1988. Review of competition between cutthroat trout and other salmonids. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4:134-140. Hanson, B. 2014. Personal communication regarding non-native species within the project area. Hensler, M. 2014. Personal communication regarding hybridization rates between interior redband and westslope cutthroat trout. Hensler, M. 2017. Personal communication regarding bull trout redd counts in the Callahan Creek watershed. Hickenbottom, J.A. 2000. A comparative analysis of surface erosion and water runoff from existing and recontoured Forest Service roads: O’Brien Creek Watershed Lolo National Forest, Montana. M.S. thesis. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 178p.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 72

Hillman, T. W., J. S. Griffith & W. S. Platts, 1987. Summer and winter habitat selection by juvenile chinook salmon in a highly sedimented Idaho stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116: 185–195. Homel, K., and P. Budy. 2008. Temporal and spatial variability in the migration patterns of juvenile and subadult bull trout in northeastern Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137:869-880. Knowles, N., M.D. Dettinger, D.R. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall in the western United States. Journal of Climate 19:4545-4559. Knudsen, K.L., C.C. Muhlfeld, G.K. Sage, & R.F. Leary. 2002. Genetic structure of Columbia River redband trout populations in the Kootenai River drainage, Montana, revealed by microsatellite and allozyme loci. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:1093-1105. Leary, R., F. Allendorf, & S. Forbes. 1993. Conservation genetics of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath river drainages. Conservation Biology 7:856-865. Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thurow, and J. E. Williams. 1997. Broad scale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Vol. 3, Chap. 4. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. Liknes, G.A. and P.J. Graham. 1988. Westslope cutthroat trout in Montana: life history, status, and management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4:53:60. Marnell, L.F. 1988. Status of the cutthroat trout in Glacier National Park, Montana. American Fisheries Society Symposium, Bethesda, Maryland. McIntyre, J.D. and B.E. Rieman. 1995. Westslope cutthroat trout. In: Young, M.K., technical editor. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. General Technical Report RM- 256. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. McMahon, T.E., A.V. Zale, F.T. Barrows, J.H. Selong, R.J. Danehy. 2007. Temperature and competition between bull trout and brook trout: a test of the elevation refuge hypothesis. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1313–1326. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP). 2016. Fisheries Information System (MRIS). http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/mFish/. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP). 2006. Environmental assessment for the rehabilitation of Kilbrennan Lake and Kilbrennan and Feeder Creeks for the purpose of removing eastern brook trout, nonnative rainbow trout, yellow perch, and black bullheads, and restocking with native redband trout. Libby, MT. Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2017. White Sturgeon — Acipenser transmontanus. Montana Field Guide. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Retrieved on June 2, 2017, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCAA01050. Muhlfeld, C.C. and B. Marotz. 2005. Seasonal movement and habitat use by subadult bull trout in the upper Flathead River system, Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:797-810.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 73

Muhlfeld, C.C., S.E. Albeke, S.L. Gunckel, B.J. Writer, B.B. Shepard, & B.E. May. 2015. Status and conservation of interior redband trout in the Western United States. North America Journal of Fisheries Management 35:31-53. Murphy, M.L., and W.R. Meehan. 1991. Stream ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 17-46. National Forest Management Act of 1976 Polacek, M.C., and P.W. James. 2003. Diel microhabitat use of age-0 bull trout in Indian Creek, Washington. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 12:81-86. Rahel, F.J., B. Bierwagen, and Y. Taniguchi. 2008. Managing aquatic species of conservation concern in the face of climate change and invasive species. Conservation Biology, 22, 3:551–561. Rieman, B.E. and K.A. Apperson. 1989. Status and analysis of salmonid fisheries: westslope cutthroat trout synopsis and analysis of fishery information Idaho Department of fish and Game. Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. General Technical Report INT-302, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, and R.F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status, and likely future trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River basins. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:895–909. Rieman, B.E., D. Issak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C. Luce, D. Myers. 2007. Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the interior Columbia River Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:1552–1565. Schmetterling, D.A. 2003. Reconnecting a fragmented river: movements of westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout after transport upstream of Milltown Dam, Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:721-731. Shepard B. S., S. Leathe, T. Weaver, and M. Enk. 1984. Monitoring levels of fine sediment within tributaries to Flathead Lake and impacts of fine sediment on bull trout Recruitment. IN: Proceedings of the Wild Trout III Symposium. Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Sept. 24-25, 1984. Shepard B. S., B.E. May, and W. Urie. 2005. Status and conservation of westslope cutthroat trout within the Western United States. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1426–1440. Stagliano, D.M. 2010. Freshwater mussels in Montana: comprehensive results from 3 years of SWG funded surveys. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 75 pp. Stagliano, D.M. 2015. Re-evaluation and trend analysis of Western Pearlshell Mussel (SWG Tier 1) populations across watersheds of western Montana. Report of State Wildlife Grant (SWG) FY2015 Activities to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. FWP Agreement #150027. 14pp + appendices Stewart, I.T, D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2004. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in western North America under "business as usual climate change scenarios." Climate Change 62:217-232.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 74

Sylvester, R. 2016. Personal communication regarding presence of white sturgeon in Lower Kootenai River tributaries. Taylor, J.N., W.R. Courtenay, Jr., and J.A. McCann. 1984. Known impacts of exotic fishes in the continental United States. Pages 322-373 in W.R. Courtenay, Jr, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr., editors. Distribution, Biology, and Management of Exotic Fishes. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1995. Environmental Assessment: Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Interim Strategies for managing fish- producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana and portions of Nevada. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for West Troy Project, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2013. Programmatic biological assessment for activities that are not likely to adversely affect listed terrestrial species or designated critical habitat. Libby, Montana. 66 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2006. Aquatic Ecological Unit Inventory (AEUI): Inventory and Monitoring of Aquatic Biota in Wadeable Streams Protocol Project.[Unpublished report]. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Impact Statement for Invasive Plant Management, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2011. Aquatic sensitive species list, Forest Service Region 1, Missoula, Montana. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2013. Conservation Strategy for Bull Trout on USFS lands in Western Montana, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 604 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2016. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Lower Yaak, O’Brien, Sheep (OLY) Project, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Biological Opinion for the effects to bull trout from continued implementation of land and resource management plans and resource management plans as amended by the interim strategy for managing fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada (INFISH), and the Interim Strategy for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH). 112 pp. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Biological Opinion on the Revised Forest Plan for the Kootenai National Forest. Helena, MT and Spokane Valley, WA. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States. Federal Register Vol. No. 75, 2010, pp.63897- 64070. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/10/18/2010-25028 . USFWS. 2011. Biological Opinion on the Effects to Listed Species from U.S. Forest Service Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on National Forest System Lands.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 75

USFWS. 2015. Biological Opinion on the Effects to Bull Trout and Bull Trout Critical Habitat From the Implementation of Proposed Actions Associated with Road-related Activities that May Affect Bull Trout and Bull Trout Critical Habitat in Western Montana. Walters, J. P. 2004. Kootenai River fisheries investigations: rainbow and bull trout recruitment. Annual progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, April 1, 2003-March 31, 2004. Project 1988-06500. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. Weaver, T.M., and R.G. White. 1985. Coal Creek fisheries monitoring study number III. Contract No. 53-0385-3-2685. U.S. Forest Service Flathead National Forest, Kalispell, Mont. Wegner, S. 1999. Monitoring results of watershed restoration activities: Quartz Creek - Middle Kootenai bull trout recovery area. American Water Resources Association Conference Proceedings, Bozeman, Montana. Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J. D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D. E. McAllister, and J. E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Fisheries 14(6):2–20. Williams, J.E., A.L. Haak, H.M. Neville, and W. T. Colyer. 2009. Potential consequences of climate change to persistence of cutthroat trout populations. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:533–548.

Economics EPS. 2017. Economic profile system. Headwaters Economics, USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Retrieved from http://www.headwaterseconomics.org. IMPLAN. 2015. IMpacts for PLANning. IMPLAN, Inc. Version 3. Copyright 2015. Additional information available at www.implan.com. U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program. 2016. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PADUS) version 1.4. Retrieved April 5, 2017 from http://www.headwaterseconomics.org. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2015. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, Washington, D.C. Retrieved April 5, 2017 from http://www.headwaterseconomics.org. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2016. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, Washington, D.C. Retrieved April 5, 2017 from http://www.headwaterseconomics.org. U.S. Department of Labor. 2016. Retrieved April 5, 2017 from http://www.headwaterseconomics.org. Sorenson, C.B., Keegan, C.E., Morgan, T.A., McIver, C.P., Niccolucci, M.J. 2016. Employment and Wage Impacts of Timber Harvesting and Processing in the United States. J. For. 114(4):474–482.

Fire and Fuels Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. 493 p. Agee, J.K. and C. N. Skinner 2005. “Basic Principles of Forest Fuel Reduction Treatments”. Forest Ecology and Management 211: 83-96

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 76

Albini, F. and R.G. Baughman. 1979. Estimating windspeeds for predicting wildland fire behavior. Res. Pap. INT-221. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 92 p. Andrews, Patricia L. 2007. BehavePlus fire modeling system: Past, present, and future. In: Proceedings of 7th Symposium on Fire and Forest Meteorology; 23-25 October 2007, Bar Harbor, Maine. Boston, MA: American Meteorological Society. 13 p. Andrews, Patricia L. 2014. Current Status and Future Needs of the BehavePlus Fire Modeling System. International Journal of Wildland Fire 23: 21-33. Arienti, Cecilia M., Cumming, Steven G., Krawchuk, Meg A., and Boutin, Stan. 2009. Road network density correlated with increased lightning fire incidence in the Canadian western boreal forest. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18, 970-982 Arno, S.F., Allison-Bunnell, S. 2002. Flames in our forest: Disaster or renewal? Washington, DC: Island Press. 227 p. Estes, B.L., E.E. Knapp, C.N. Skinner, and F.C.C. Uzoh. 2012. “Seasonal Variation in Surface Fuel Moisture Between Graham, R. T., T. B. Jain, M. Loseke. 2009. Fuel Treatments, Fire Suppression, and Their Interactions with Wildfire and its Effects: The Warm Lake Experience During the Cascade Complex of Wildfires in Central Idaho, 2007. USDA, RMRS-GTR-229. 44 pgs. Graham, R. T., S. McCaffrey, T.B. Jain. 2004. Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. 43 p. Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, T.B. Jain, and J.R. Tonn. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stands treatments on fire behavior in western forests. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-463: Portland, OR. 36 pgs. Harbert, S., H. Hudak, L. Mayer, T. Rich, and S. Robertson. 2007. “An Assessment of Fuel Treatments on Three Large 2007 Pacific Northwest Fires.” A report to Fire Directors Ken Snell and Carl Gossard USDA Forest Service. 51 pgs. Heinsch, Faith Ann; Andrews, Patricia L. 2010. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 5.0: Design and Features. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-249. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 111 p. Hessburg, P.F., J.K. Agee and J.F. Franklin 2005. Dry Forests and Wildland Fires of the Inland Northwest USA: Contrasting the Landscape Ecology of the Pre-settlement and Modern Eras. Forest Ecology and Management 211: 117-139. Hessburg, Paul F., Salter, R. Brion, and James, Kevin M. 2007. Re-examining fire severity relations in pre-management era mixed conifer forests: inferences from landscape patterns of forest structure. Landscape Ecology, 22:5-24. Hinckley, Jennifer. Wallace, Jon. 2012. Fuels Treatments Reduce Wildfire Suppression Cost. Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. 20 pgs. Hudak, A. T., I. Rickert, P. Morgan, E. Strand, S. A. Lewis, P. R. Robichaud, C. Hoffman, and Z.A. Holden. 2011. Review of Fuel Treatment Effectiveness in Forests and Rangelands and a Case Study From the 2007 Megafires in Central Idaho USA. USDA, RMRS-GTR- 252. 65 pgs.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 77

Lincoln County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2013 Mooney, C. 2010. Fuelbreak Effectiveness in Canada’s Boreal Forests: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge. Nowicki, B. 2002. The Community Protection Zone: Defending Houses and Communities from the Threat of Forest Fire. Center for Biological Diversity. 8 pg. NWCG.1994. Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide. NWCG publication, Nation al Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. 59 pg. Omi, Philip N., Martinson, Erik J., Chong, Geneva W. 2006. Effectiveness of Pre-Fire Fuel Treatments. JFSP Project 01-2-1-07. Final report submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 29 p. Peterson, David L.; Johnson, Morris C.; Agee, James K.; Jain, Theresa B.; McKenzie, Donald; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D. 2005. Forest structure and fire hazard in dry forests of the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-628. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30 p. Pollet, J. and P.N. Omi. 2002. Effect of Thinning and Prescribed Burning on Crown Fire Severity in Ponderosa Pine Forests. Int. J. Wildland Fire 11:1-10 Raymond, C. L. and D. L. Peterson 2005. Fuel Treatments Alter the Effects of Wildfire in a Mixed-Evergreen Forest, Oregon, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 35: 2981-2995. Rothermel, R. C. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-143. 161 p. Rothermel, Richard C. 1991. Predicting Behavior and Size of Crown Fires in the Northern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station Research Paper INT- 438. 52 pgs. Safford, H. D., D. A. Schmidt, C. H. Carlson 2009. Effects of Fuel Treatments on fire severity in an area of wildland-urban interface, Angora Lake, Tahoe Basin, California. Forest Ecology and Management 258; p773-787. Scott, J.H. and Burgan, R.E. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. 80 pgs. Scott, J. H., & Reinhardt, E. D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior (Research Paper RMRS-RP-29). Retrieved from Fort Collins, CO: Stephens, S. L., J. D. McIver, R. E. J. Boerner, C. J Fettig, J. B. Fontaine, B. R. Hartsough, P. L. Kennedy, and D. W. Schwilk 2012. The Effects of Forest Fuel-Reduction Treatments in the United States. Bioscience 62:6. Pgs 549-560. USDA and USDI 2015. Healthy Forest Restoration Act. 2003 Updated 2015 https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/overview/hfra-implementation12- 2004.shtml Accessed 6/8/17 USDA and USDI. 2001. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/7-19-en.pdf Accessed 6/78/17

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 78

USDA and USDI. 2000 National Fire Plan http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/ Accessed 6/8/17 Van Wagtendonk, J. W. 1996. Use of a Deterministic Fire Growth Model to Test Fuel Treatments. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis For Management Options. Davis:University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996. 12 pgs. Weatherspoon, C. P. 1996. Fire-Silviculture Relationships in Sierra Forests. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis For Management Options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996. 11 pgs.

Forest Vegetation Abella, S.R., Covington, W.W., Fulé, P.Z., Lentile, L.B., Sánchez Meador, A.J., & 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., & Skinner, C.N. (2005). Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211:83-96. Alexander, M.E.; and Hawksworth, F.G. 1975 "Wildland Fires and Dwarf Mistletoes; a literature review of ecology and prescribed burning”. Gen. Tech. Report RM-14. Fort Collins, CO. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p. Allen, C.D. 2007. Interactions across spatial scales among forest dieback, fire, and erosion in northern New Mexico. Ecosystems 10: 797-808. Arno, Stephen F. 1976. The Historical Role of Fire on the Bitterroot National Forest. INT-187, December. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest Fire History in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry, 78 (8), 460-465. Arno, Stephen F. and Davis, D.F. 1980. “Fire History of Western Redcedar and Hemlock Forest in Northern Idaho”. In Proceedings of the Fire History Workshop: General Technical Report RM-81. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. Arno, S.F., Smith, H., & Krebs, M. (1997). Old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stand structures: Influences of pre-1900 fire exclusion. Res. Pap. INT-RP-495. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 23 p. Barrett James W. 1982. Twenty-year growth of ponderosa pine saplings thinned to five spacings in central Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-301. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 p Barton, A. M. 2002. Intense wildfire in southeastern Arizona: transformation of a Madrean oak- pine forest to oak woodland. Forest Ecology and Management 165: 205-212. Binkley, D., T. Sisk, C. Chambers, J. Springer, and W. Block. 2007. The role of old-growth forests in frequent-fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12(2): 18. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art18/ Boisvenue, C. and S.W. Running. 2010. Simulations show decreasing carbon stocks and potential for carbon emissions in Rocky Mountain forests over the next century. Ecological Applications 20(5): 13-2-1319.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 79

Bollenbacher, B., R. Bush, and R. Lundberd. 2009. Estimates of snag densities for western Montana MT forests in the Northern Region. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 53 p. Breashears, D.D., and C.D. Allen. 2002. The importance of rapid, disturbance-induced losses in carbon management and sequestration. Global Ecology and Biogeography 11:1-5. Brewer, L., B. Kennedy, S. Slaughter, B. Erickson, C. Partyka, D. Wrobleski. 2008. Effects of silvicultural treatments on old growth characteristics and associated wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lolo National Forest, Missoula, Montana, 130 p. Brown, J.K. 1974. Handbook for inventorying down woody material. General Technical Report INT 16. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 24 p. Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 p. Brown, J. K. 1995. “Fire Regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management.” In Proceedings of Society of American Bull, E., C. Parks, and T. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-391. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p. Conant, R.T., K. Paustian, F. García-Oliva, H.H. Janzen, V.J. Jaramillo, D.E. Johnson, S.N. Kulshreshtha. 2007. Chapter 10 Agricultural and Grazing Lands. In: CCSP, 2007. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [King, A.W., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M. Fairman, R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, A.Z. Rose, and T.J. Wilbanks (eds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA, 242 p. http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/saps/sap2-2 Churchill, D. 2011. Colville National Forest: Mesic Forest Ecology and Management. University of Washington. 14p. Dale, V.H, L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. BioScience 51:723–734. Depro, B.M., B.C. Murray, R.J. Alig, and A. Shanks. 2008. Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation: Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008) 1122–1134. Egan, D. (2007). Conserving and restoring old growth in frequent-fire forests: cycles of disruption and recovery. Ecology and Society 12:23. Egan, J. M., Kegley, S., Blackford, D., & Jorgensen, C. L., Eds. (2014). Effectiveness of direct and indirect mountain pine beetle control treatments as implemented by the USDA Forest Service (Report # 14-03). Retrieved from Missoula, MT:

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 80

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. 26 p. Erickson, B. J. Burwasser, K. Gibson. 2006. Reducing Mountain Pine Beetle-Caused Mortality in Ponderosa Pine Plantations: A Risk-Rating System for Western Montana. Forest Health Protection 06-10, Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, 13p. 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. 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. pp. 147- 151. Fiedler, C.E., Friederici, P., Petruncio, M., Denton, C., & Hacker, W.D. (2007a). Managing for old growth in frequent-fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12:20. Fiedler, C.E., Friederici, P., & Petruncio, M. (2007b). Monitoring old growth in frequent-fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12:22. Finkral, A.J. and A.M. Evans. 2008. Effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 2743-2750. Fins, Lauren; Byler, James; Ferguson, Dennis; Harvey, Al; Mahalovich, Mary Francis; McDonald, Geral I.; Miller, Dan; Schwandt, John; Zack, Art. 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, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station. 21 p. Fischer, W. and A. Bradley. 1987. “Fire Ecology of Western Montana Forest Habitat Types”. General Technical Report INT-223, Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. pp. 95. Frissell, C.A. & Bayles, D. 1996. Ecosystem Management and the Conservation of Aquatic Biodiversity and Ecological Integrity. Water Resources Bulletin, 32(2). Fulé, Peter Z., Crouse, Joseph E., Roccaforte, John Paul, Kalies, Elizabeth 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 (2012 Apr.). Galik, C.S. and R.B. Jackson. 2009. Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 2209–2216. Gan, J. and B.A. McCarl. 2007. Measuring transnational leakage of forest conservation, Ecological Economics 64 (2007), pp. 423–432. Gautreaux, R. 1999. “Vegetation Response Unit Characterizations and Target Landscape Prescriptions”. USDA Forest Service. NFMA Report. Kootenai National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgensen, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. “Recommendations for managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 81

Mountains”, INT-RP-477. Ogden, UT; USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.13 p. Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, B. Naumann. 1992 (errata corrected 10/2008). Old-Growth Forest Types of the Northern Rockies. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 70 p. Habeck-Mutch. 1973. Fire Dependent Forests in the Rocky Mountains Quaternay Research. 3: 408-424. Harmon, Mark E. 2009. Testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands of the Committee of Natural Resources for an oversight hearing on “The Role of Federal Lands in Combating Climate Change”, March 3, 2009. Includes attachments. Harrington, Mick. 2007. Benefits of treating old-growth stands. In: Eco-Report. Missoula, MT: Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project: 8. Harvey Alan E., Byler, J., McDonald, G., Neuenschwander, L., Tonn, J. 2008 Death of an Ecosystem: Perspectives on Western White Pine Ecosystems of North America at the End of the Twentieth Century. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-208. Fort Collins,CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 16 p. Hawe, A., & Delong, D. 1997. Partial cutting and controlled fire to restore old-growth forest conditions in the East Kootenay Trench report. pp 29-36. Heath, L.S., J.E. Smith, C.W. Woodall, D.L. Azuma, and K.L. Waddell. 2011. Carbon stocks on forestland of the United States, with emphasis on USDA Forest Service ownership. Ecosphere 2(1):art6 doi:10.1890/ES10-00126. Hessburg, P.F., Salter, R.B., & James, K.M. 2007. Re-examining fire severity relations in pre- management era mixed conifer forests: Inferences from landscape patterns of forest structure. Landscape Ecology (22), 5-24. Hicke, Jeffery A., Craig D. Allen, Ankur R. Desai, Michael C. Dietze, Ronald J. Hall, Edward H (Ted) Hogg, Daniel M. Kashiam, David Moore, Kenneth F. Raffa, Rona N. Sturrock, and James Vogelmann. 2012. Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the United States and Canada. Global Change Biology (2012) 18, 7-34, doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2496.2011.02543x Hines, Sarah; Klopfenstein, Ned; Richardson, Bryce; Warwell, Marcus; Kim, Mee-Sook. 2013. Return of the king: Western white pine conservation and restoration in a changing climate. Science You Can Use Bulletin, Issue 4. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station. 10 p. Houghton, R.A. 2005. Aboveground forest biomass and the global carbon balance. Global Change Biology 11: 945-958. Jackson, Marcus B., et al. "Effects of Thinning and Overstory Removal on Western Larch and Western Larch Dwarf Mistletoe." Forest Science 62.2 (2016): 190-199. Johnson, N.K., & 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. 6 p Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.C. Moser, R.P. Neilson, K. O’Halloran, and D.L. Peterson. 2008. National Forests. In: Preliminary review of

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 82

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 [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3-1 to 3-127. Available online at: http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap4-4/sap4-4-final-report-Ch3-Forests.pdf Keane, Robert E., Hessburg, Paul F., Landres, Peter B., Swanson, Fred J. (2009). The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in landscape management. In Elsevier Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 1025–1037. Pg 1034. 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. Kurz, W.A., C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, E.T. Neilson, A.L. Carroll, T. Ebata, and L. Safranyik. 2008a. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452: 987-990. Kurz, W.A., G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, C.C. Dymond, and E.T. Neilson. 2008b. Risk of natural disturbances makes future contributions of Canada’s forest to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 1551-1555 Littell, J.S., D. McKenzie, D.L. Peterson, and A.L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications 19: 1003-1021. 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. Lockman, I. Blakey; Kearns, Holly S.J., eds. 2016. Forest Root Diseases Across the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-342. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 55p. Lockman, Blakey. 2016. Starry Goat Forest Health Protection Trip Report, Three Rivers RD, Kootenai NF. Report MFO-TR-16-39. June 8, 2016. p. 26. Logan, J., J. Regniere, and J.A. Powell. 2003. Assessing the Impacts of Global Warming on Forest Pest Dynamics. Ecology Environment, 1(3): 130-137. Lowensky, J. 1994. Historical Vegetation Types of the Interior Columbia River Basin. Prepared under Contract INT-94951-RJVA for Systems for Environmental Management. 108 p. Maser, C., R. Tarrant, J. Trappe, and J. Franklin (Tech. Eds.). 1988. From the forest to the sea: A story of fallen trees. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-229. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 153 p. Maser, C., and J. Trappe (Tech. Eds.). 1984. The seen and unseen world of the fallen tree. General Technical Report, PNW-164. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Range and Experiment Station. 56 p. McKinley, D.C., M.G. Ryan, R.A. Birdsey, C.P. Giardina, M.E. Harmon, L.S. Heath, R.A. Houghton, R.B. Jackson, J.F. Morrison, B.C. Murray, D.E. Pataki, and K.E. Skog. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. In press. Ecological Applications.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 83

Metlen, K.L. & 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, Constance I., Nathan L. Stephenson, and Scott L. Stephens. 2007. Climate Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications: Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 2145-2151. Mitchell , S.R., M.E. Harmon, and K.E.B. O’Connell. 2009. Forest fuel reduction alters fire severity and long-term carbon storage in three Pacific Northwest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 19: 643-655. Morrison, M., and M. Raphael. 1993. “Modeling the dynamics of snags.” Ecological Applications 3(2): 322-330. NABCI. 2011. The state of the birds 2011: Report on public lands and waters. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington DC. 48 p. Murray, B.C. 2008. Leakage from an avoided deforestation compensation policy: Concepts, empirical evidence, and corrective policy options. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, NC. 32p. North, M., M. Hurteau, and J. Innes. 2009. Fire suppression and fuels treatment effects on mixed- conifer carbon stocks and emissions. Ecological Applications, 19(6), 2009, pp. 1385– 1396. Noss, R., Franklin, J.F., Baker, W., Schoennagel, T., & 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. pp 12. Pfister, Robert D.; Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Arno, Stephen F.; Presby, Richard C. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station. 174 p. Pregitzer, K.S. and E.S. Euskirchen. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10: 2052-2077. Available online at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118805398/PDFSTART Quesnel, H. & 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. 58 p. Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W; Graham, Russell T. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 310 p Reinhardt, E. and L. Holsinger. 2010. Effects of fuel treatments on carbon-disturbance relationships in forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecol. Manage. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.015. Rippy, Raini C.; Stewart, Jane E.; Zambino, Paul J.; Klopfenstein, Ned B.; Tirocke, Joanne M.; Kim, Mee-Sook; Thies, Walter G. 2005. Root diseases in coniferous forests of the Inland West: potential implications of fuels treatments. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-141. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 32 p.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 84

Ritchie, M.W., Wing, B.M., & Hamilton, T.A. (2008). Stability of the large tree component in treated and untreated late-seral interior ponderosa pine stands. Canadian Journal of Forestry Resources 38:919-923. Running, S.W. 2006. Is global warming causing more, larger wildfires? Science 313: 927-928. Russell, R., V. Saab, J. Dudley, and J. Rotella. 2006. “Snag longevity in relation to wildfire and postfire salvage logging.” Forest Ecology and Management 232: 179-187. Ryan, M.G., S.R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T. Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, and W. Schlesinger. 2008b. Land Resources. In: The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington, DC., USA. 362 p. Available online at: http://www.sap43.ucar.edu/documents/SAP_4.3_6.18.pdf Ryan M.G., M.E. Harmon, R.A. Birdsey, C.P. Giardina, L.S. Heath, R.A. Houghton, R.B. Jackson, D.C. McKinley, J.F. Morrison, B.C. Murray, D.E. Pataki, and K.E. Skog. 2010. A Synthesis of the Science on Forests and Carbon for U.S. Forests. Issues in Ecology, Report Number 13. 17 p. Sala, A., & 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. 29 p. 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. Savage, M. and J.N. Mast. 2005. How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after crown fires? Can. J. For. Res. 35: 967–977. Scott, Donald W., Craig L. Schmitt, and Lia H. Spiegel. 2002. Factors Affecting Survival of Fire Injured Trees: A Rating System for Determining Relative Probability of Conifers in the Blue and Wallowa Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center, BMPMSC-03-01, November 25, 2002. Schmidt, W.C.; Shearer, R.C. 1995. Larix occidentalis: a pioneer of the North American west. In: Ecology and management of Larix forests: a look ahead, Symposium Proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-319. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. pp. 33-38. Schwandt, J., H. Kearns, and J. Byler. "White pine blister rust general ecology and management." Insect and disease management series. Forest Health Protection and State Forestry Organizations. USDA Forest Service 14 (2013). Smith, J. and W. Fischer. 1997. “Fire Ecology of the Forest Habitat Types of Northern Idaho”. General Technical Report INT-GTR-363. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station . pp. 142 Spies, Thomas A., Hemstrom, Miles A., Youngblood, Andrew, Hummel, Susan. (2006). Conserving old-growth forest diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation Biology. 20(2): 351-362.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 85

Steeger, C., & J. Quesnel, (2003). Impacts of partial cutting on old growth forests in the Rocky Mountain Trench, British Columbia. Enhanced Forest Management Pilot Project (EFMPP) Report 17. Stephens, S.L., & 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. Strom, B.A. and P.Z. Fulé. 2007. Pre-wildfire fuel treatments affect long-term ponderosa pine forest dynamics. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16: 128-138. US EPA 2013. Chapter 7. Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry, in Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2011. The entire report is available online at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Diseases and Insect Pests of Northern and Central Rocky Mountains Report R1-89-54. Missoula, MT. pp 106. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. “Analysis of the Management Situation for Forest Plan Revision, Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle National Forests”, 2004. Chapter 1. pp. 30. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009A. Montana Forest Insect and Disease Conditions and Program Highlights – 2009. Report R1-10-1. Missoula, MT. pp 55. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. “Comprehensive Evaluation Report for Forest Plan Revision of the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle National Forests”. 2009. Ch 2 Vegetation, pp. 14. And Appendix I Vegetation Treatments and Timber Harvest Tools, pp. 15 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010b. KIPZ climate change report. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service, Region 1. 236 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. Effectiveness of Direct and Indirect Mountain Pine Beetle Control Treatments as Implemented by the USDA Forest Service. Report 14-03. Missoula, MT 13p U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2016. Montana Forest Insect and Disease Conditions and Program Highlights- 2015. Report R1-16-17. Missoula, MT. pp 71. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan, 2015 Revision. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. 179 pp. Wear, D.N. and B.C. Murray. 2004. Federal timber restrictions, interregional spillovers, and the impact on US softwood markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Volume 47, Issue 2, March 2004, Pages 307-330. Westerling, A.L. and B.P. Bryant. 2008. Climate change and wildfire in California. Climatic Change: 87(Suppl. 1): S231-S249. Youngblood A., Metlen, K.L., & 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. Zhang, J.M., Ritchie, W., & 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.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 86

Ziegler, Justin Paul; Hoffman, Chad; Battaglia, Mike; Mell, William. 2017. Spatially explicit measurements of forest structure and fire behavior following restoration treatments in dry forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 386: 1-12.

Invasive Plant Species Bais, Harsh P., Ramarao Vepachedu, Simon Gilroy, Ragan M. Callaway, Jorge M. Vivanco. 2003. Allelopathy and Exotic Plant Invasion: from molecules and genes to species interactions. Science Vol. 301, 5 September, 2003, pages 1377-1380. Duncan, Celestine; Jim Story; Roger Sheley. 2001. Montana Knapweeds: Identification, Biology, and Management. MSU Extension Service. 20 pages. Keane, Ryan M.; Michael J. Crawley. 2002. Exotic plant invasions and the enemy release hypothesis. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 17 No. 4 April 2002. Available online 12/14/2011 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534702024990 (Accessed May 2017) Kootenai National Forest. 2007. Kootenai National Forest Invasive Plant Management. Record of Decision. April 2007. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT 31p. Kuennen L. 2007. Thirty-five Years of Studying, Learning About, and Interpreting Soil on the Kootenai National Forest. Unpublished. 19 pp. Lacey, John R.; Clayton B. Marlow. 1990. Effects of Spotted Knapweed on Soil Erosion. TechLine. January 1990 Loomis, Eli S.; and Lila Fishman. 2009. A Continent-Wide Clone: Population Genetic Variation of the Invasive Plant Hieracium aurantiacum (Orange Hawkweed; Asteraceae) In North America. Int. J. Plant Sci. 170(6):759-765. 2009. Makepeace, W., A. T. Dobson. 1985. Interference phenomena due to mouse-ear and king devil hawkweed. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 1985, Vol. 23: 79-90. McDougall, Keith; Michael Michelmore. 2009. Hawkweed a looming new curse in the Alps. Agriculture Today February 2009. 3 pages. Meurisse, Robert T. 1996. Soil Quality and Health – Some applications to forest ecosystems. Pages 65-76. IN National Cooperative Soil Survey, Western Regional Soil Survey Conference Proceedings; Bozeman, Montana, June 2-7, 1996. MT State Department of Agriculture. 2011. Montana Local County Weed Act. MT State Department of Agriculture. 2010. Montana Noxious Weed List is Restructured. MT State Department of Agriculture. 2010. Montana Noxious Weed List. Muller H., D. Schroeder, and A. Gassmann. 1988. Agapeta zoegana (L.) (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae), a suitable prospect for biological control of spotted and diffuse knapweed, Centaurea maculosa Monnet de la Marck and Centaurea diffusa Monnet de la Mark (Compositae) in North America. Can. Ent. 120: 109-124(1988). 16 pages. Murphy, Stephen D.; Lonnie W. Aarssen. 1995. In Vitro Allelopathic Effects of Pollen from Three Hieracium Species (Asteraceae) and Pollen Transfer to Sympatric Fabaceae. American Rees, Norman F.; Paul C. Quimby, Jr.; Gary L. Piper; Eric M. Coombs; Charles E. Turner; Neal R. Spencer; Lloyd V. Knutson. 1996. Biological Control of Weeds in the West. Western

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 87

Society of Weed Science in cooperation with USDA Agricultural Research Service, Montana Department of Agriculture, Montana State University. Pages unnumbered; referenced spotted knapweed, Agapeta zoegana, Cyphocleonus achates, Larinus minutus, Urophora affinis, Urophora quadrifaciata, Canada thistle, Ceutorhynchus litura, and Urophora cardui. Sheley, R. and Janet Petroff. 1999. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press. Pages 238-248, 282-289, 350-361, 372-381. Taylor, Kimberly; Lisa J. Rew. 2011. Weed Seed Dispersal by Vehicles, Montana State University Extension MontGuide, June 2011. 4 pages. Tisdale, E. W., M. Hironaka, and W. L. Pringle. 1959. Observations on the Autecology of Hypericum perforatum. Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Ecology, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Jan. 1959), pp. 54-62. Trunkle, Phil; Pete Fay. 2010. Transportation of Spotted Knapweed Seeds by Vehicles. Montana State University Department of Plant and Soil Science. One page. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2080 (USDA 2001) has been replaced by FSM 2900 (USDA 2011) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Kootenai National Forest. Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report Fiscal Year 2002; September 2003. 64 pages. USDA PLANTS Database, 2011. Available online 12/14/2011 http://plants.usda.gov/java (accessed May 2017) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Manual 2900. Whitson, T.D., L.C. Burrill, S.A. Dewey, D.W. Cudney, B.E. Nelson, R.D. Lee, and R. Parker. 1996. Weeds of the West. Wes. Soc. Weed Sci. Newark, CA. 630 pp. Wilson, Linda, and Carol Bell Randall. 2005. Biology and Biological Control of Knapweed; third edition. USDA Forest Service-Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. 110 pages. Winston, Rachel, Carol Bell Randall, Rosemarie De Clerck-Floate, Alec McClay, Jennifer Andreas, and Mark Schwarzlander. 2014. Field Guide for the Biological Control of Weeds in the Northwest. USDA Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team and University of Idaho Extension. FHTET-2014-08. 333 pages

Inventoried Roadless Areas U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. R1 Guidance; Our Approach (R1) – Roadless Area Analysis and Analysis of Unroaded Lands Contiguous to Roadless Areas (12/2010). From http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/em/nepa_web/roadless_unroaded.html (accessed 11/10/15) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. November 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation. Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 – Maps of Inventoried Roadless Areas. Washington, D.C. 237 p. Roadless Area Conservation. Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 66, No.9, March 13, 2001, p.3243- 3273. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/12/01-726/special-areas- roadless-area-conservation U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plan. Kootenai National Forest, Libby, MT. 654 p.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 88

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan, 2015 Revision. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. 179 pp. USDA-Forest Service-2008; Roadless Area Conservation; to the National Forests in Idaho FEIS . Appendix C-Idaho Roadless Areas. Volume 3. Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; Applicability to the National Forests in Idaho. Federal Register Vol. 73, October 16, 2008, pp.61455-61496. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/10/16/E8-24285

Minerals 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-open- files/MBMG395_Kootenai.pdf. (27 September 2011). Perry, W., Rice, D., Maughan, E. (1983). Petroleum Potential of Wilderness Lands in Montana. Geological Survey Circular 902-G. United States Geological Survey. Retrieved from: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir902G (12 April 2017).

PTES Plants Cooper, Stephen V.: Neiman; Steele, Robert; Roberts, David W. 1991. Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: a second approximation. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-236. Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 135p. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Pinus albicaulis as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat. Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 138, July 19, 2011, pp.42631-42654. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/07/19/2011-17943 . Gautreaux, R. 1999. Vegetation Response Unit Characterizations and Target Landscape Prescriptions. USDA Forest Service. NFMA Report. Kootenai National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. Libby, Montana. Keane, R.E. and S.F. Arno. 1993. Rapid decline of whitebark pine in Western Montana: Evidence from 20-year remeasurements. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 8:44–47. Keane, R. E. and R. A. Parsons. 2010. Restoring Whitebark Pine Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Ecological Restoration 28:1. Keane, Robert E.; Tomback, D.F.; Aubry, C.A.; Bower, A.D.; Campbell, E.M.; Cripps, 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. Leavell, D. 1993. Conservation Assessment for Thelypteris Phegopteris, Kootenai National Forest. USDA Forest Service. P. 6-7. Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2013. On-line Rare Plant Field Guide. http://nris.state.mt.us/mtnhp/plants/index

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 89

Shotzberger, D. 2013. Draft Whitebark Pine Restoration Strategy for the Kootenai National Forest. USDA Forest Service. P. 7. Smith, Jane Kapler; Fischer, William C. 1997. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-363. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 142 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Kootenai National Forest Sensitive Plant Field Guide. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Updated Northern Region Sensitive Species List. http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/wildlife/wwfrp/TESnew.htm Vanderhorst, J. 1997. Conservation assessment of sensitive moonworts (Botrychium subg. Botrychium) on the Kootenai National Forest. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. P. 1-82.

Recreation International Mountain Bicycling Association, Flow Trails. https://www.imba.com/model- trails/flow-trails, (accessed March 15, 2017). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. ROS Primer and Field Guide. R6-REC- 021-90 [Online]. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5335339.pdf (Accessed June 2015) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012. National Visitor Use Monitoring, Visitor Use Monitoring. Northern Region, Kootenai National Forest. http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nfs/nrm/nvum/results/A01014.aspx/Round2 (accessed 12/08/2015) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Forest Service Manual 2300, Chapter 2350 – Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities. USDA Forest Service, National Headquarters, Washington Office, Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan, 2015 Revision. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. 179 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, FSH 1909.12 Land Management Planning Handbook, Chapter 80-Wild and Scenic River Evaluation, 2005.

Scenic Resources U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. ROS Primer and Field Guide. R6-REC- 021-90 [Online]. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5335339.pdf (Accessed June 2015) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics - A Handbook for Scenery Management, USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook Number 701. Washington DC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Forest Service Manual 2300, Chapter 2380 – Landscape Management. National Headquarters, Washington Office, Washington, DC.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 90

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan, 2015 Revision. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. 179 pp.

Soils Adams, P.W. 1998. Soil compaction on woodland properties. Corvallis (OR): Oregon State University Extensive Service. Woodland Workbook EC 1109. 8p. Adams, P.W. and H.A. Froehlich 1984. Compaction of forest soils. A Pacific Northwest Extension Publication, PNW 217, 8p. Amaranthus, M. P., J. M. Trappe and R. J. Molina. 1989. Long-term forest productivity and the living soil. In: Maintaining the long-term productivity of Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems. D. A. Perry, ed. pp. 36 and 48. Archuleta, J.G., and E.S. Baxter, 2008. Subsoiling promotes native plant establishment on compacted forest sites, Native Plants Journal 9(2): 117-122. Arno, Stephen F. 1996. The Concept: Restoring Ecological Structure and Process in Ponderosa Pine Forests. In: The Use of fire in Forest Restoration. Hardy, C.C., and S.F. Arno. 1996. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, UT. INT-GTR-341. Barnett, D. 1989. Fire effects on coast range soils of Oregon and Washington and management implementation: a state-of-knowledge review. R6 Soils Tech. Rep., 66 p. Borcher, J., and D. Perry, 1990. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Soil Organisms. In Walstad, J.D., et al. (eds.) Natural and Prescribed Fire in the Pacific Northwest Forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Univ. Press: 1990. 317 p. Bissett, J., and D. Parkinson. 1980. Long-Term Effects of Fire on the Composition and Activity of the Soil Microflora of a Subalpine, Coniferous Forest. Ca. Bot. 58:1704-1721. Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 2002. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Thirteenth Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. pp 928-929. Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody debris: managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-105, July, 16 pp. Bulmer, C., J.A. Archuleta, and M. Curran. 2007. Restoring and Enhancing Productivity of Degraded Tephra-Derived Soils, USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-44, PP 121- 135. Certini, G., 2005. Effects of Fire on Properties of Forest Soils: A Review. Oecologis. 143: 1-10 Choromanska, U., and T. H. DeLuca. 2001. Prescribed Fire Alters the Impact of Wildfire on Soil Biochemical Properties in a Ponderosa Pine Forest. Published in Soil Sci. Soc. AM. J. 65:232-238. DeBano L.F. 2000. The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland environments: a review. Journal of Hydrology. 231-232: 195-206. DeBano, L.F. 1991. The effect of fire on soil properties. In: Proceedings- -Management and Productivity of Western Montane Forest Soils. Harvey, A and L. Neuenschwander, compilers. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Pp. 151-155. DeBano, L.F., Neary, D., and P. Ffolliott, 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 333p.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 91

DeBano, L.F. 1981. Water repellant soils: a state-of-the-art. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-46, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA. 21 pp. Dykstra P. and M. Curran. 2002. Skid road recontouring in British Columbia: 7-year tree growth results. Res. Br. B.C. Min. For. Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 001. Dyrness, C.T. 1976. Effect of wildfire on soil wettability in the high Cascades of Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW-202. 18 pp. Frandsen, W.H., and K.C. Ryan. 1986. Soil moisture reduces belowground heat flux and soil temperatures under a burning fuel pile. Can. J. For. Res. 16:244-248. Froehlich H.A., D.W.R. Miles, and R.W. Robbins. 1985. Soil bulk density recovery on compacted skid trails in Central Idaho. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:1015-1017. Froehlich, H.A., and D.H. McNabb. 1983. Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific Northwest forests. In E.L. Stne (Ed.) Forest Soils and Treatm. Impacts, Proc. of 6th North Am. For. Soils Conf., U of TN Conf., 2016 Lake Ave. Knoxville, TN, June, pp. 159-192. Froehlich, H.A. and D.W.R. Miles, 1984. Winged subsoiler tills compacted forest soils. For. Industries, Feb: 42-43. Froehlich, H.A., R.W. Robbins, D.W.R. Miles, and J.K Lyons. 1983. Soil Monitoring project report on Payette National Forest and Boise Cascade lands. Payette NF, McCall, ID. 58 pp. Monitoring recovery of compacted skid trails in central Idaho. Froehlich H.A., J. Azevedo, P. Cafferata, and D. Lysne, 1980. Predicting soil compaction on forested land; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Engineering Department, Oregon State University, Final Project Report under Cooperative Agreement Number 228; 5P. Gent, J.A. and R. Ballard 1984. Impact of intensive forest management practices on the bulk density of lower Coastal Plain and Piedmont soils. South J. Appl. For. 9: 44-48. Gier, J.M., K. Kindle, Page-Dumroese, D.S., and L.J. Kuennen. 2017. Soil compaction recovery on the Kootenai National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Unpublished. Gier, J.M. 2016. Soil compaction recovery on the Kootenai National Forest: Findings over a 25+ year period, Presentation at Society of Ecological Restoration, Portland, OR, April, 2016, 32 slides Gier, J.M. and J.L. Galloway. 2014. Units randomly re-sampled to determine change in DSD from initial post-harvest sample to combined 2012-2013 resample (01232014). xlsx spreadsheet tables. Gier, J.M., K. Kindle, A. Abbott, D.S. Page-Dumroese, and L.J. Kuennen. 2013. Determining Soil Recovery Curves Following Timber Management Activities on the Kootenai National Forest, Abstract for presentation at the 2013 North American Forest Soils Conference, 2P. White Paper Graham, R. T., A. E. Harvey, M. F. Jurgenson, T. B. Jain, J. R. Tonn and D. S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. Research paper INT-RP-477.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 92

Gomez, A., R.F. Powers, M.J. Singer, and W.R. Horwath. 2002. Soil compaction effects on growth of young ponderosa pine following litter removal in California’s Sierra Nevada. Soil Soc. Am. J. 66:1334-1343 (2002). Goodwin, K.M., and R.L. Sheley, 2001. What To Do When Fires Fuel Weeds, A step-by-step guide for managing invasive plants after a wildfire, Rangelands 23(6) pp15-21. Han, H.-S., Page-Dumroese, D., Han, S.-K., and Tirocke, J. 2006. Effects of slash, machine passes, and soil moisture on penetration resistance in a cut-to-length harvesting. Int. J. For. Eng. 17(2): 11-24. Hart, S., T. H., G. S. Newman, M. D. MacKenzie, and S. I. Boyle. 2005. Post-fire Vegetation Dynamics for Microbial Community Structure and Function in Forest Soils. Forest Ecology and Management. 220: 166-184. Hartford, R.A., and W.H. Frandsen 1992. When it’s hot, it’s hot… or maybe it’s not! (Surface flaming may not portrend extensive soil heating) USDA FS, Intermountain Research Station, International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2(3): 139-144. Harvey, A.E., R.T. Meurisse,, J.M. Geist, M.F. Jurgensen, G.I. McDonald, R.T. Graham, and N. Stark. 1989. Managing Productivity Processes in the inland Northwest-Mixed Conifers and Pines. Timber Press, Inc., Portland, OR. 21p. Hazard J.W. and J.M. Geist. 1984. Sampling forest soil conditions to assess impacts of management activities. In: Forest soils and treatment impacts, E.L. Stone ed., Proc. Of the 6th NA forest soils conf., June, Univ. of TN, p. 421-429. Howes, S.W., J.W. Hazard, and J.M. Geist. 1983. Guidelines for sampling some physical conditions of surface soils. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region. R6-RWM- 146-1983. July 1983. Huffmann, E.L., L.H. MacDonald, and J.D. Stednick. 2001. Strength and persistence of fire- induced soil hydrophobicity under ponderosa and lodgepole pine, Colorado Front Range. Hydrol. Process. 15: 2877-2892. Hungerford, R.D., M.G. Harrington, W.H. Frandsen, K.C. Ryan, and G.J. Niehoff. 1991. Influence of fire on factors that affect site productivity. In: Proceedings – Mgtmt. And productivity of western montane forest soils. USDA FS Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. p. 32- 50. Johnson, L.R., D. Page-Dumroese, and H.S. Han, 2007. Effects of machine traffic on physical properties of ash-cap soils, In: Volcanic-Ash-Derived Forest Soils of the Inland Northwest: Properties and Implications for Management and Restoration; Proceedings RMRS-P-44, 2007, p.69-82. Joplin, M. 2009. Grayback Thinning KV Project, Road Rehabilitation and Sediment Control, 6 slides. Kean R.E., K.C. Ryan, T.T. Veblen, C.D. Allen, J. Logan, and B. Hawkes. 2002. Cascading Effects of Fire Exclusion in Rocky Mountain Ecosystems: A Literature Review., United States Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Report RMRS-GTR-91, May 2002. Kuennen, L., Edson, G., & Tolle, T. V. 1979. Soil compaction due to timber harvest activities. Retrieved from Missoula, MT:

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 93

Kuennen, L.J. 2006a. Average disturbance by activity for years 1988-2005, Appendix C, USDA- FS, Kootenai National Forest. White Paper. 2pp. Kuennen, L.J. 2006b. Thirty-Five Years of Studying, Learning about, and Interpreting Soil on the Kootenai National Forest. USDA-FS, Kootenai National Forest. White Paper. 19 pp. Kuennen, L.J. 2006c. Soils of Special Concern, Appendix E, Kootenai National Forest, White Paper. 2pp. Kuennen, L.J. 2006d. On-Going Soil Monitoring regarding harvest activities and related soil disturbance values (2000-2005) on the Kootenai National Forest, Appendix I USDA-FS, Kootenai National Forest. Kuennen, L.J. 2006e. Soil disturbance and documentation methodology, Appendix A, USDA-FS, Kootenai National Forest. White Paper. 2pp. Kuennen, L.J. 2003. Monitoring Averages/Recommendations. Internal Document. Kootenai National Forest. White Paper. Kuennen, L.J. 2000. Fires effects on soils. Appendix E in: Forest Assessment of 2000 Major Fires. Kootenai National Forest. White Paper. Kuennen, L.J. and Gier, J.M. 2013. Appendix I in: USDA FS-Kootenai National Forest, Soil Monitoring Results, 1988-2013, Libby, MT. Kuennen, L.J., and M.L Nielsen-Gerhardt. 1995. Soil Survey of the Kootenai National Forest Area, Montana and Idaho. USDA Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station. Libby, MT. Kuennen, L.J., and M.L. Nielsen-Gerhardt. 1984. Kootenai National Forest Land System Inventory. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. Lee D.C., J.R. Sedell, G.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, and J.E. Williams. 1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Vol. 3. Chap. 4, USFS General Technical Report and PNW-GTR-405, pp. 1100-1109 and 1193-1200. Lenhard, R.J. 1986. Changes in void distribution during compaction of forest soil. Soil Soc. Am. J. 50-462-464. MacKenzie, M.D., T.H. DeLuca, and A.Sala. 2006. Fire exclusion and Nitrogen mineralization in low elevation forests of Western Montana. In: Soil Biology and Biochemistry, (38) p. 952-961. McNabb, D.H., and K. Cromack, Jr. 1990. Effects of prescribed fire on nutrients and soil productivity. In: Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Walstad, J. D. et al., Corvallis, OR, OR State Univ. Press, p. 125-142. Megahan, W.F. 1990. Erosion and site productivity in western-Montana forest ecosystems. In: Proceedings, Management and Productivity of Western-Montana Forest Soils. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. pp. 146-150. Monk, B. 2009. Multipurpose subsoiling excavator attachments; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Technology and Development Program; 2400-Forest Management 0424 1804-SDTDC, 15P.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 94

Neal, J.L., E.W. Wright, and W.B. Bollen. 1965. Burning Douglas-fir Slash: Physical and Chemical, and Microbial Effects in the Soil. For. Res. Lab. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. p. 1, 32p. Niehoff, G.L. 1985. Effects of Clearcutting and Varying Severity of Prescribed Burning on Levels of Organic Matter and the Mineralization of Ammonium Nitrogen in the Surface Layer of Forest Soils. M.S. Thesis, Moscow, ID: Univ. of Idaho. Nielson-Gerhardt, M. 1986. Effects of Logging and Mechanical Site Preparation on Levels of Mineralizable Nitrogen and Organic Matter in Forest Soils. M.S. Thesis, Moscow, ID: Univ. of Idaho. Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1993. Susceptibility of volcanic ash-influenced soil in Northern Idaho to mechanical compaction. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Research Note, INT-409 Feb. 1993, 5p. Page-Dumroese, D.S., A.M. Abbott, and T.M. Rice, 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol: Volume I: Rapid assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Report. WO-GTR-82a. Washington, D.C. 31p. Page-Dumroese, D.S., Jurgensen, M.J., Tiarks, A.E., Ponder, F.J, Sanchez, F.G., Fleming, R.L., Kranabetter, M.J., Powers, R.F., Stone, D.M., Eliof, J.D., Scott, D.A., 2006, Soil physical property changes at the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compaction, Can. J. For. Res. 36:551-564. Page-Dumroese, D.S., M.F. Jurgensen, W.Elliott, T.Rice, J.Nesser, T.Collins, and R.Meurisse. 2000. Soil quality standards and guidelines for forest sustainability in northwestern North America. Forest Ecology and Management 138 (2000) 445-462. Parsons, A., P.R. Robichaud, S.A. Lewis, C. Napper, and J.T. Clark. 2010. Field Guide for Mapping Post-Fire Soil Burn Severity, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA F.S., General Tech. Rpt., RMRS-GTR-243, 49p. Powers, R. F. 1990. Are we maintaining the productivity of Forest lands? Establishing guidelines through a network of long-term studies. In: Harvey, A. E. and L. F. Neuenschwander (Eds.). Proceedings-Management Productivity of Western Montane Soils. USDA, Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. pp. 70-81. Powers, R.F., Scott, D.A., Sanchez, F.G., Voldseth, R.A., Page-Dumroese, D., Elioff, J.D., and D.M. Stone. 2005. The North American Long Term Soil Productivity experiment findings from the first decade of research. Forest Ecology and Management. 220:31-50. Powers, R. F., F.G. Sanchez, D.A. Scott, and D.S. Page-Dumroese 2004. The North American long-term soil productivity experiment: coast-to-coast findings from the first decade. USDA, Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. P-34, pp. 191-206. Raisen, R.J. 1979. Modification of Soil Environment by Vegetation Fires, with Particular Reference to Nitrogen Transformations: A Review. Plant and Soil 51:73-108. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2015c. Soil monitoring report F-4, Kootenai National Forest, 9p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2014. R-1 Supplement 2500-2014-1, Chap 2550 – Soil Management; United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, effective March 28, 2014 8p. supersedes 2500-99-1 (11/12/1999).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 95

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2011. Region 1 Approach to Soils NEPA analysis regarding detrimental soil disturbance in forested areas, A Technical Guide, 36pp. . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2003. Kootenai National Forest, 2002 Forest Plan Monitoring Report. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. Item F4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1995a. FSH 2509.13 – Burned-Area Emergency Rehabilitation Handbook, WO Amendment 2509.13-95-3, Effective 1/12/95, 6p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1995b. Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest Regions, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Region 1 Soil Quality Standards. 2554.03- R1 Suppl. 2500-99-1. 6p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1998. Kootenai National Forest, 1997 Forest Plan Monitoring Report. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. Item F4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1960. National Forest Multiple-Sustained Use Yield Act of 1960, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Wallbrink, P.J., Roddy, B.P., Olley, J.M., 2002. A tracer budget quantifying soil redistribution on hill slopes after forest harvesting. Catena 47, 179-201. Wells, C.G., R.E. Campbell, L.F. DeBano, C.E. Lewis, R.L. Fredriksen, E.C. Franklin, R.C. Froehlich and D.H. Dunn. 1979. Effects of Fire on Soil: A State of the Knowledge Review. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-7. p.26. Zdanowicz, C.M., G.A. Zielinski, and M.S. Germani. 1999. Mount Mazama eruption: Calendrical age verified and atmospheric impact assessed. Geology 1999; 27; p.621-624.

Transportation U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Final Travel Analysis Report for Kootenai National Forest. September 30, 2015. USDA Forest Service. Kootenai National Forest. 68 pages.

Water Resources Bartholow, J.M. 2005. Recent Water Temperature Trends in the Lower Klamath River, California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 25, 152-162. Benda, Lee E., Daniel J. Miller, Thomas Dunne, Gordon H. Reeves, and James K. Agee. 1998. Dynamic Landscape Systems. Chapter 11 in River Ecology and Management. R. J. Naiman and R. E. Bilby (eds.). Springer Verlag. Birkel, C., Soulsby, C., and Tetzlaff, D., 2012. Modelling the impacts of land-cover change on streamflow dynamics of a tropical rainforest headwater catchment. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 57 (8), 1543–1561. Black, Tom, Charles Luce, Richard Cissel, Nathan nelson, John Thornton. 2012. Inventory and Modeling the Hydro-geomorphic Impacts of Forest Roads on the Middle Fork of the Payette River, Idaho. Columbia Mountains Institute of Applied Ecology Conference, Cranbrook, BC, 2012.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 96

Brooks, Kenneth N., Ffolliott, P., Gregersen, H., DeBano, L. 2003. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. Iowa State Press. Ames, IA. Pp 88-89. Brooks, K.N., Ffolliott, P., Gregersen, H., DeBano, L. 1997. Hydrology and the Management of Watersheds. Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA. Pp 211-212, 338-339. Caissie, D. 2006. The Thermal Regime of Rivers: A Review. Freshwater Biology, 51, 1389-1406. Casola, J. H., J. E. Kay, A. K. Snover, R. A. Norheim, L. C. Whitely Binder and the Climate Impacts Group. 2005. 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). Cobb, Jill. 1988. Influences of shade on controlling maximum stream temperatures. Humboldt State University. Masters Thesis. Croke, Jacky, Hairsine, P., Fogarty, P. 1999. Sediment transport, redistribution and storage on logged forest hillslopes in south-eastern Australia. Hydrological Processes, 13: 2705- 2720. 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. 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. Elliot, W. J., Hall, D. E., and Scheele, D. L. 1999. WEPP:Road (Draft 12/1999) WEPP interface for predicting forest road runoff, erosion and sediment delivery. Technical documentation, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.html Foltz, R., Yanosek, K., Brown, T. 2007. Sediment concentrations and turbidity changes during culvert removals. Journal of Environmental Management (2007). Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road Construction and Maintenance. Chapter 8 in Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Meehan, W. R., (ed.). AFS Special Publication. 19: 297-323. Garcia, Edenise and Richard Carignan. 1999. Impact of wildfire and clear-cutting in the boreal forest on methyl mercury in zooplankton. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science, Vol. 56, pages 339-345. Grant, Gordon E., Sarah L. Lewis, Frederick J. Swanson, John H. Cissel, and Jeffrey J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-760. Portland, OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p. Gravelle, J.A. and T.E. Link. 2007. Influence of timber harvesting on headwater peak stream temperatures of a northern Idaho watershed. Forest Science 53(2). Gravelle, J.A., G. Ice, T.E. Link, and D.L. cook. 2009. Nutrient concentration dynamics in an inland Pacific Northwest watershed before and after timber harvest. Forest Ecology Management 257:1663-1675.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 97

Gucinski, Hermann, Michael J. Furniss, Robert R. Ziemer, and Martha H. Brookes. 2001. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR. USDA, Forest Service. Hauer, F. Richard and Craig N. Spencer. 1998. Phosphorus and Nitrogen Dynamics in Streams Associated with Wildfire: A Study of Immediate and Longterm Effects. International Journal of Wildland Fire, Vol. 9 No. 4, Pages 183-198, 1998. Hoffman, J. A., 1993. Hydro-Climatic Analysis of Peak Flows in Northwest Montana and Northeast Idaho. MS Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO. Pp 5 & 17. 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. 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. King, John G. 1989. Streamflow Responses to Road Building and Harvesting: a Comparison with the Equivalent Clearcut Area Procedure. Research Paper INT-401. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13 pp. King, John G., and Larry C. Tennyson. 1984. Alteration of Streamflow Characteristics Following Road Construction in North Central Idaho. Water Resources Research. Vol. 20, No. 8, Pp 1159-1163. Krauskopf, P., Rex, J., Maloney, D., & Tschaplinski, P. (2010). Water Temperature and Shade Response to Salvage Harvesting in Mountain Pine Beetle Affected Small Streams in the Central Interior of British Columbia. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin, 13(2), 17-24. Litschert, S. E., L. H. MacDonald. 2009. Frequency and Characteristics of Sediment Delivery Pathways from Forest Harvest Units to Streams. Accepted in Forest Ecology and Management. Luce, Charles H., and Thomas A. Black. 1999. Sediment Production from Forest Roads in Western Oregon. Water Resources Research, Vol. 35, No. 8, Pp 2561-2570. Luce, C.H., and B.C. Wemple. 2001. Introduction to special issue on hydrologic and geomorphic effects of forest roads. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 26: 111-113. Luce, Charles H. 2002. Hydrologic Processes and Pathways Affected by Forest Roads: What do We Still Need to Learn? Hydrological Processes 16, 2901-2904 (2002). Wiley InterScience. Madej, M.A. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery following removal of forest roads. U.S. Geological Survey Western Ecological Research Center, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521. 24 p. MacDonald and Hoffman. 1995. Causes of Peak Flows in Northwest Montana and Northeastern Idaho. Water Resources Bulletin. American Water Resources Association. VOL. 31, NO. 1. Feb 1995.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 98

MacDonald, L. H., Wohl, E. E., and Madsen, S. W. 1997. Validation of water yield thresholds on the Kootenai National Forest. Department of Earth Resources, Colorado State University. pp 45-46. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 2016. Forestry Best Management Practice (BMP) 2016 Monitoring Report - executive summary. 7p. http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/forestry/forestry-assistance/forest-practices/best- management-practices-bmp-2 Montana State University Agriculture Experiment Station Analytical Laboratory. 2008. Heidi Hickes, Laboratory Director. McCall Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717. 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. 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. Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research, 20(11): 1753-1761. Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO. Printed Media Companies. Minneapolis, MN. Schnackenberg, E.S. and L.H. MacDonald. 1998. Detecting cumulative effects on headwater streams in the Routt National Forest, CO. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34(5): 1163- 1177. Spencer, Craig N. and F. Richard Hauer. 1991. Phosphorus and nitrogen dynamics in streams during wildfire. Journal of North American Bentholigical Society, 10 (1), pp 24-30. Spencer, Craig N., Kristin Odney Gable, F. Richard Hauer. 2003. Wildfire effects on stream food webs and nutrient dynamics in Glacier national Park, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol 178 (2003), Pages 141-153. Switalski, T. A., Bissonette, J. A., DeLuca, T. H., Luce, C. H., and Madej, M. A. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2 (1), Pages 21- 28. Troendle, C.A., L.H. MacDonald, C.H. Luce, I.J. Larsen. 2010. Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service RMRS-GTR- 231. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. Forest hydrology, Part II, hydrologic effects of vegetation manipulation. Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. Section 1 – pp. 1-16, Section 2b – pp 22, 39-40, Section 2d – pp 49. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Kootenai National Forest BMP Tracking Documentation, 1991-2011. Kootenai National Forest. Libby, MT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. April 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. FS-990a. 177 p.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 99

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2016. Effectiveness of Best Management Practices that Have Application to Forest Roads: A Literature Synthesis. Pamela J. Edwards, Frederica Wood, and Robin L. Quinlivan. Newton Square, PA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [No date]. Forest Service Handbook 2509.22, Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. USDA Forest Service Headquarters, Washington DC U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Off-highway vehicle record of decision for Montana, North Dakota and portions of South Dakota. Missoula, MT. Wallbrink, P.J., and J. Croke. 2002. A combined rainfall simulator and tracer approach to assess the role of Best Management Practices in minimizing sediment redistribution and loss in forests after harvesting. Forest Ecology and Management 170:217-232. Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Bethesda, MD. Wegner, Steve. 1996. Using ecosystem management principles to describe watershed effects of salvage logging. White Paper. USDA Forest Service, Libby, MT.

Wildlife

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species

Grizzly Bear Allen, L., B. Lyndacker, and G. Harris. 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 report. USDA Forest Service, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. 32 p. Ament, R., P. McGowen, M. McClure, A. Rutherford, C. Ellis, and J. Grebenc. 2014. Highway mitigation for wildlife in Northwest Montana. Sonoran Institute, Northern Rockies Office, Bozeman, MT. 84 p. Anderson, J. 2014. KNF Forest Plan Revision, Wildlife Specialist Report. 475 p. Annis, K. (bear management specialist). 2012. Montana, Fish, Wildlife & Parks spring update for IGBC-CYE Subcommittee. Unpublished report. 2 p. Annis, K. (bear management specialist). 2011. Personal Communication to M. Rockwell, wildlife biologist, Three Rivers Ranger District, Troy, Montana. April 13, 2011. Barney. D. 1999. Growing western huckleberries. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 28 p. Christensen, G., and M. Madel. 1982. Cumulative effects analysis process: Grizzly bear habitat component mapping. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, MT. 38 p. Coltrane, J., and R. Sinnott. 2015. “Brown bear and human recreational use of trails in Anchorage, Alaska.” Human-Wildlife Interactions 9(1): 132-147. Fortin, J., K. Rode, G. Hilderbrand, J. Wilder, S. Farley, C. Jorgensen, and B. Marcot. 2016. “Impacts of human recreation on brown bears (Ursus arctos): A review and new management tool.” PLoS One 11(1): e0141983.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 100

Herrero, S., and S. Fleck. 1989. “Injury to people inflicted by black, grizzly or polar bears: Recent trends and new insights.” Bears: Their Biology and Management 8: 25-32. Herrero, S., and A. Higgins. 2003. “Human injuries inflicted by bears in Alberta: 1960-1998.” Ursus 14(1): 44-54. Herrero, S., and A. Higgins. 1999. “Human injuries inflicted by bears in British Columbia: 1960- 1997.” Ursus 11: 209-218. IGBC. 2013. Meeting notes from December 3, 2013 Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee meeting. Trout Creek, Montana, 3 p. IGBC 1998. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Taskforce Report. Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management. 8 p. IGBC. 1994. Grizzly bear/motorized access management task force report. Unpublished report. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Missoula, Montana. 8 p. IGBC. 1990. CEM – A model for assessing effects on grizzly bears. Unpublished report. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Missoula, Montana. 24 p. IGBC. 1986. Interagency grizzly bear guidelines. Unpublished report. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Missoula, Montana. 100 p. Johnson, W. 2002. Historical access management in a small population of grizzly bear. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana. 2 p. Kasworm, W. (Bear Researcher). 2017. Personal Communication to M. Rockwell, wildlife biologist, Three Rivers Ranger District, Troy, Montana. January 9, 2017. Kasworm, W. (Bear Researcher). 2016. Personal Communication with K. Aceituno, USFWS consultation biologist, and M. Rockwell, wildlife biologist, Three Rivers Ranger District, Troy, Montana. December 1, 2016. Kasworm, W., H. Carriles, and T. Radandt. 2004. Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2003 research and monitoring progress report. Unpublished report. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 62 p. Kasworm, W., H. Carriles, and T. Radandt. 2003. Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2002 research and monitoring progress report. Unpublished report. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 53 p. Kasworm, W., H. Carriles, and T. Radandt. 2000. Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 1999 research and monitoring progress report. Unpublished report. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 48 p. Kasworm, W., H. Carriles, T. Radandt, J. Teisberg, M. Proctor, and C. Servheen. 2012. Cabinet- Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2011 research and monitoring progress report. Unpublished report. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 90 p. Kasworm, W., H. Carriles, T. Radandt, M. Proctor, and C. Servheen. 2007. Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2006 research and monitoring progress report. Unpublished report. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 69 pp. Kasworm, W., and T. Manley. 1990. “Road and trail influences on grizzly bears and black bears in northwest Montana.” In: Bears: Their biology and management. (Victoria, British

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 101

Columbia, Canada: International Association for Bear Research and Management), 79- 84. Kasworm, W., and T. Manley. 1988. Grizzly bear and black bear ecology in the Cabinet Mountains of northwest Montana. Unpublished report. Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks, Helena, Montana. 122 p. Kasworm, W., T. Radandt, J. Teisberg, M. Proctor, and C. Servheen. 2014. Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2013 research and monitoring progress report. Unpublished report, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 110 p. Kasworm, W., T. Radandt, J. Teisberg, M. Proctor, and C. Servheen. 2013. Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2012 research and monitoring progress report. Unpublished report, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana 98 p. Kasworm, W., T. Radandt, J. Teisberg, A. Welander, M. Proctor, and C. Servheen. 2016. Cabinet- Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2015 research and monitoring progress report. Unpublished report, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 102 p. Kasworm, W., T. Radandt, J. Teisberg, A. Welander, M. Proctor, and C. Servheen. 2015. Cabinet- Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2014 research and monitoring progress report. Unpublished report, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 96 p. Kendall, K., A. Macleod, K. Boyd, J. Boulanger, J. Royle, W. Kasworm, D. Paetkau, M. Proctor, K. Annis, and T. Graves. 2015. Density, Distribution, and Genetic Structure of Grizzly Bears in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 80(2): 2016. Pp. 314-331. Mace, R., and J. Waller. 1997. Final report: Grizzly bear ecology in the Swan Mountains, Montana. Unpublished report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana. 191 p. Mace, R., J. Waller, T. Manley, L. Lyon, and H. Zuuring. 1996. “Relationships among grizzly bears, roads, and habitat in the Swan Mountains, Montana.” Journal of Applied Ecology 33: 1395-1404. McLellan, B. 1990. “Relationships between human industrial activity and grizzly bears.” International Conference on Bear Research and Management 8: 57-64. McLellan, B., and D. Shackleton. 1989. “Grizzly bears and resource-extraction industries: Habitat displacement in response to seismic exploration, timber harvesting, and road maintenance.” Journal of Applied Ecology 26: 371-380. McMaster, K. 1995. Amended biological opinion on the Kootenai Forest Plan to include an incidental take statement. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana. 15 p. MDFWP. 2011. Montana connectivity project: A statewide analysis. Final Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana. 295 p. Proctor, M., S. Nielson, W. Kasworm, C. Servheen, T. Radandt, G. Machutchon, and M. Boyce. 2015. “Grizzly Bear Connectivity Mapping in the Canada–United States Trans-Border Region.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 79(4): 544-558. Proctor, M., D. Paetkau, B. McLellan, G. Stenhouse, K. Kendall, R. Mace, W. Kasworm, C. Servheen, C. Lausen, M. Gibeau, W. Wakkinen, M. Haroldson, G. Mowat, C. Apps, L. Ciarniello, R. Barclay, M. Boyce, C. Schwartz, and C. Strobeck. 2012. “Population fragmentation and inter-ecosystem movements of grizzly bears in Western Canada and the Northern United States.” Wildlife Monographs 180: 1-46.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 102

Proctor, M., C. Servheen, W. Kasworm, and T. Radandt. 2008. Grizzly bear linkage enhancement plan for the Highway 3 corridor in the south Purcell Mountains of British Columbia. Birchdale Ecological, Ltd, Kaslo, BC, Canada. 34 p. Servheen, C., T. Manley, D. Mucklow Starling, A. Jacobs, and J. Waller. 2017a. Board of Review Report: The death of Mr. Brad Treat due to a grizzly bear attack June 29, 2016 on the Flathead National Forest. 19 p. Servheen, C., T. Manley, D. Mucklow Starling, A. Jacobs, and J. Waller. 2017b. Board of Review Recommendations: Recommendations related to mountain bike safety in bear habitat based on the fatality of Mr. Brad Treat on June 29, 2016. 5 p. Schmor, M. 1999. An exploration into bear deterrents, as related to mountain biking, and the design of an ultrasonic bear warning device. A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Environmental Design (Industrial Design). University of Calgary. 172 p. Summerfield, B., W. Johnson, and D. Roberts. 2004. “Trends in road development and access management in the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones.” Ursus 15(1) Workshop Supplement: 115-122. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2017. Environmental Analysis for Boulder Creek. Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Coeur D’Alene, ID. 131 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014a. Forest Plan Monitoring Evaluation Report 2013. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana. 66 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plan. Kootenai National Forest, Libby, MT. 654 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement, Forest Plan amendments for motorized access management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Lincoln, Sanders, Bonner, Boundary, and Pend Oreille Counties), Montana, Idaho, and Washington. USDA Forest Service. 447 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011b. Record of decision, Forest Plan amendments for motorized access management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Lincoln, Sanders, Bonner, Boundary, and Pend Oreille Counties), Montana, Idaho, and Washington. USDA Forest Service. 68 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011c. Food storage and sanitation special order. Forest Supervisor Order F14-083-L-11. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana. 5 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009a. Montana/Northern Idaho Level 1 Terrestrial Biologists Team. Level 1 meeting notes: Bears Outside Recover Zone (BORZ) Review. August 20, 2009. Libby, Montana. 3 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Technical report: Analysis of the management situation for revision of the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Forest Plans, March 2003. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Montana. 149 p.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 103

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and USFWS. 2009. Guide to effects analysis of helicopter use in grizzly bear habitat – Final version September 17, 2009. Unpublished Report. Montana/Northern Idaho Level 1 Terrestrial Biologists Team. 19 p. USFWS. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, MT. 181 p. USFWS and NMFS. 1998. Endangered species consultation handbook: Procedures for conduction consultation and conference activities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esalibrary/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf WGA. 2008. Wildlife corridors initiative: June 2008 report. Western Governors’ Association. Denver, CO142 p. Available online at: http://www.westgov.org/reports/311-wildlife. Wielgus, R., and P. Vernier. 2003. “Grizzly bear selection of managed and unmanaged forests in the Selkirk Mountains.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 822-829. Wielgus, R., P. Vernier, and T. Schivatcheva. 2002. “Grizzly bear use of open, closed, and restricted forestry roads.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 1597-1606. Wilson, R. M. 2011a. Biological opinion, Forest Plan amendments for motorized access management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Lincoln, Sanders, Bonner, Boundary, and Pend Oreille Counties), Montana, Idaho, and Washington. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana. 227 p. Wilson, R. M. 2011b. Errata to the biological opinion, Forest Plan amendments for motorized access management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests (Lincoln, Sanders, Bonner, Boundary, and Pend Oreille Counties), Montana, Idaho, and Washington. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana. 4 p. Wilson 2006. Biological Opinion Revett Silver Company’s Rock Creek Copper/Silver Mine Project. 622 p.

Canada Lynx Bertram, T., and J. Claar. 2008. Horizontal cover: Interim guidance for assessing multi-storied stands within lynx habitat. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 3 p. Ecosystem Research Group (ERG). 2012. Wildlife habitat assessment for the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Plan Revision. Unpublished report on file with the US Forest Service, Libby, Montana. Interagency Lynx Biology Team (ILBT). 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, Montana, 128 p. Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehay, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 104

Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, Montana. 142 p. Ruggiero, L., K. Aubry, S.Buskirk, G. Koehler, C. Krebs, K. McKelvey, and J. Squires. 1999. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS- GTR-30WWW. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 474 p. plus appendix. Squires, J., N. Decesare, J. Kolbe, and L. Ruggiero. 2010. “Seasonal resource selection of Canada lynx in managed forests of the Northern Rockies.” Journal of Wildlife Management 74(8): 1648-1660 Squires, J., L. Ruggiero, J. Kolbe, and N. Decesare. 2006. Lynx ecology in the Intermountain West – Research program summary. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana. 51 p. Squires, J. (lynx researcher, USDA FS). 2012. Personal Communication to J. Anderson, wildlife biologist, Kootenai National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Libby, Montana. September 6, 2012. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2007a. Final environmental impact statement, northern Rockies lynx management direction. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 534 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2007b. Record of decision, Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 52 p. plus attachment. Determination of Threatened Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related Rule. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 58, March 24, 2000, pp.16051-16086. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/03/24/00-7145 Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx. .Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 36, February 25, 2009, pp. 8615-8702. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/02/25/E9-3512 .

Canada Lynx Critical Habitat Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Revised Distinct Population Segment Boundary; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 177, September 12, 2014, pp. 54781-54846. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/09/12/2014-21013.

North American Wolverine Banci, V. 1994. “Wolverine.” In: The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain, Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 pp. Chilton-Radandt, T. (wildlife biologist, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2014. Personal Communication to M. Rockwell, wildlife biologist, Three Rivers Ranger District, Troy, Montana. November 14, 2014. Copeland, J. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. Master’s thesis. University of Idaho. 154 pages.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 105

Copeland, J. K. McKelvey, K. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R. Inman, J. Krebs, E. Lofroth, H. Golden, J. Squires, A. Magoun, M. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C. Copeland, R. Yates, I. Kojola, and R. May. 2010. “The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): Do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution?” Canadian Journal of Zoology, 88: 233-246. Copeland, J., and R. Yates. 2008. Wolverine population assessment in Glacier National Park: Comprehensive summary update. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 16 p. Copeland, J., J. Peek, C. Groves, W. Melquist, K. McKelvey, G. McDaniel, C. Long, and C. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7): 2201-2212. COSEWIC. 2003. Assessment and Update Status Report on the Wolverine, Gulo gulo, Eastern population/western population in Canada. Committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. 41 pp. Heinemeyer, K. 2012. Central Idaho wolverine and winter recreation research study – project update. Unpublished Report. Project Updates at www.forestcarnivores.org Heinemeyer, K., and J. Squires. 2012. Idaho wolverine – winter recreation research project: investigating the interactions between wolverines and winter recreation – 2011-2012 progress report. Unpublished Report. Report available at www.forestcarnivores.org Hornocker, M., and H. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine and northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59: 1286-1301. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Id. Available: http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/CDC/cwcs.cfm Inman, R. M., A. J. Magoun, J. Persson, and J. Mattisson. 2012a. The wolverine’s niche: linking reproductive chronology, caching, competition, and climate. Journal of Mammalogy, v. 93(3): 634‐644. Inman, R. M., M. L. Packila, K. H. Inman, A. J. McCue, G. C. White, J. Persson, B. C. Aber, M. L. Orme, K. L. Alt, S. L. Cain, J. A. Fredrick, B. J. Oakleaf, and S. S. Sartorius. 2012b. Spatial ecology of wolverines at the southern periphery of distribution. The Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 76(4): 778‐792. Inman, R. M., B. L. Brock, K. H. Inman, S. S. Sartorius, B. C. Aber, B. Giddings, S. L. Cain, M. L. Orme, J. A. Fredrick, B. J. Oakleaf, K. L. Alt, E. Odell, G. Chapron. 2013. “Developing priorities for metapopulation conservation at the landscape scale: Wolverines in the western United States.” Biological Conservation 166: 276-286.Zone (KIPZ). Unpublished Report. Ecosystem Research Group. 134 p. plus appendix. Johnson, W. 2004. Wolverine and Fisher Hierarchical Approach to Conservation on the Kootenai National Forest. Unpublished report on file with the US Forest Service, Libby, Montana. Kucera, T. E., and W. J. Zielinski. 1995. The case of forest carnivores: small packages, big worries. Endangered Species UPDATE, Vol. 12, No. 3. Lucid, M., L. Robinson, and S. Ehlers. 2016. Multi-species Baseline Initiative Project Report: 2010-2014. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. 462 pages. Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, W. J. Zielinski tech. eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 106

Wolverine. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. GTR‐RM‐ 254. 184 pp. Schwartz, M., J. Copeland, N. Anderson, J. Squires, R. Inman, K. McKelvey, K. Pilgrim, L. Waits, and S. Cushman. 2009. “Wolverine gene flow across a narrow climatic niche.” Ecology 90(11): 3222-3232. Squires, J., J. Copeland, T. Ulizio, M. Schwartz, and L. Ruggiero. 2007. Sources and Patterns of Wolverine Mortality in Western Montana. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(7). 8 pages. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2014. Programmatic biological assessment for North American wolverine. Unpublished report on file with the US Forest Service Northern Region (R1). Missoula, Montana. 12 pp. 90-day Finding for a Petition To List as Endangered or Threatened Wolverine in the Contiguous United States Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 203, October 21, 2003. pp. 60112-60115. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/10/21/03-26453. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States. A Proposed rule to list. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 23, February 4, 2013, pp. 7863-7892. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/02/04/2013-01478. Witmer, G. W., S. K. Martin, and R. D. Sayler. 1998. Forest carnivore conservation and management in the interior Columbia basin: issues and environmental correlates. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW‐GTR‐420. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p. (Quigley, T. M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Sensitive Species

Bald Eagle DuBois, K. 2010. 2009 bald eagle nesting season summary. Unpublished report. Montana, Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Missoula, Montana. 19 p. MBEWG. 2010. Montana bald eagle management guidelines: An addendum to Montana bald eagle management plan, 1994. Unpublished report. Montana Bald Eagle Working Group, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana. 13 p. MBEWG. 1994. Montana bald eagle management plan. Montana Bald Eagle Working Group, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana. 51 p. plus appendices. MBEWG. 1991. Habitat management guide for bald eagles in northwestern Montana. Montana Bald Eagle Working Group, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana. 29 p. MNHP. 2015. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) conservation status review for Montana. March 24, 2012. Accessed September 11, 2015. Available online at: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=ABNKC10010 NEC. 2017. Eagle Nesting and Young. Access from https://www.nationaleaglecenter.org/eagle- nesting-young/ on May 12, 2017. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plan. Kootenai National Forest, Libby, MT. 654 p.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 107

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011d. Regional Forester’s sensitive species list. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 5 p. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation reports fiscal year 2007. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana. Pp. 36-38. U.S. Department of Interior, FWS. 2015. Summary of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Accessed September 10, 2015. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/EaglePermits/bagepa.html USFWS. 2007a. National bald eagle management guidelines. Unpublished report. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 24 p. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 130, July 9, 2007. pp. 37345-37372. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/07/09/07-4302. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 128, July 6, 1999. pp. 36454-36464. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1999/07/06/99-16924 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to Reclassify the Bald Eagle From Endangered to Threatened in All of the Lower 48 States. Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 133, July 12, 1995. pp. 36000-36010. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-07- 12/html/95-16981.htm

Black-backed Woodpecker Bonn, J., B. Dixon, E. Kenney, and D. Pengeroth. 2007. Black-backed woodpecker Northern Region overview: Key findings and project considerations. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana. 41 p. Caton, E. 1996. Effects of fire and salvage-logging on a cavity-nesting bird community in northwestern Montana. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 115 p. Cherry, M. 1997. The black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers: Life history, habitat use, and monitoring plan. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT. 22 p. Dixon, R., and V. Saab. 2000. “Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus).” In: The Birds of North America Online. (Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology), Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/509 ERG. 2012. Wildlife habitat assessment for the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Plan Revision Zone (KIPZ). Unpublished Report. Ecosystem Research Group. 134 p. plus appendix. Hoyt, J., and S. Hannon. 2002. “Habitat associations of black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers in the boreal forest of Alberta.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32: 1881-1888. Hutto, R. 1995. “The composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain conifer forests.” Conservation Biology 9: 1041-1058.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 108

Johnson, W. (Ed.). 2004. A conservation plan based on the 1987 Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan as amended. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana. 17 p. plus appendices. Murphy, E., and W. Lehnhausen. 1998. “Density and foraging ecology of woodpeckers following a stand replacement fire.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4): 1359-1372. O’Connor, T., and M. Hillis. 2001. Conservation of post-fire habitat, black-backed woodpeckers, and other woodpecker species on the Lolo National Forest. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 23 p. Powell, H. 2000. The influence of prey density on post-fire habitat use of the black-backed woodpecker. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. 99 p. Samson, F. 2006. Habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten, and fisher. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 24 p. Samson, F. 2006a. A conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 135 p.

Coeur d’Alene Salamander Cassierer, E. F., C. R. Groves, and D. L. Genter. 1994. Coeur d’Alene salamander conservation assessment. U.S D.A. Forest Service, Region 1, Missoula, MT. 54 pp. Johnson, W. J. (editor). 2004 (unpublished). A Conservation Plan Based on the 1987 Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan as Amended. KNF WFB Steering Group Kootenai National Forest, Libby, MT. 17 pp plus Appendices. 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. A Report (#43-0343-0-0224) to Northern Regional Office, USDA Forest Service, 200 East Broadway, Missoula Mt, 59807. Maxell, B. A., J.K. Werner, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2003. Herpeology in Montana: A history, status summary, checklists, dichotomous keys, accounts for native, potentially native and exotic species, and indexed bibliography. Northwest Fauna 5. Soc. Northwestern Vetebrate Biology. Olyimpia, WA. 15 pp. Maxell, B.A., P. Hendricks, M.T. Gates, and S. Lenard. 2009. Montana amphibian and reptile status assessment, literature review, and conservation plan. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT and Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and Wildlife Biology program, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 642 pp. Werner, J. K., B. A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. L. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana, western toad. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, MT. 3 pp.

Fisher Aubry, K., S. Wiseley, C. Raley, and S. Buskirk. 2004. “Zoogeography, Spacing Patterns, and Dispersal in Fishers: Insights Gained from Combining Field and Genetic Data.” In:

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 109

Martens and Fishers (Martes) in Human-Altered Environments: An International Perspective. (New York, New York: Spring Science+Business Media, Inc.), 201-220. Bollenbacher, B., R. Bush, and R. Lundberd. 2009. Estimates of snag densities for western Montana MT forests in the Northern Region. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 53 p. ERG. 2012. Wildlife habitat assessment for the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Plan Revision Zone (KIPZ). Unpublished Report. Ecosystem Research Group. 13 p. plus appendix. IDFG. 2016. 2016-2017 Furbearer Trapping Brochure. Accessed June 28, 2017 from https://idfg.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/seasons-rules-upland-furbearer-2016-2017.pdf Jones 1991. Habitat use of fisher in North-central Idaho. A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science with a Major in Wildlife Resources in the College of Graduate Studies. University of Idaho. 152 p. Jones, J., and E. Garton. 1994. “Selection of successional stages by fishers in North-Central Idaho.” In: Martens, sables, and fishers: Biology and Conservation. (Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press), 377-387. Johnson, W. (Ed.). 2004. A conservation plan based on the 1987 Kootenai National Forest Land Management Plan as amended. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, Libby, Montana. 17 p. plus appendices. Lofroth, E., C. Raley, J. Higley, R. Truex, J. Yaeger, J. Lewis, P. Happe, L. Finley, R. Naney, L. Hale, A. Krause, S. Livingston, A. Myers, and R. Brown. 2010. Conservation of fishers (Martes pennanti) in South-Central British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California–Volume I. Conservation Assessment. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA. NatureServe. 2012. Fisher ecology. Accessed from http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_report. wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehensi ve.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=103714&paging=home&save=true &startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=103714&offPage SelectedElType=species&offPageYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutto n&selectedIndexes=103714&selectedIndexes=101770&selectedIndexes=143329 on December 6, 2012. 5 p. Olson, L., J. Sauder, N. Albrecht, R. Vinkey, S. Cushman, and M. Schwartz. 2014. “Modeling the effects of dispersal and patch size on predicted fisher (Pekania [Martes] pennanti) distribution in the U.S. Rocky Mountains.” Biological Conservation 169: 89-98. Powell, R., and W. Zielinski. 1994. “Fisher.” In: The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Pp. 38-73. Raley, C., E. Lofroth, R. Truex, J. Yaeger, and J. Higley. 2012. “Habitat ecology of fishers in western North America: a new synthesis.” In: Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis. (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press), 231- 254.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 110

Ruediger, B. 1994. Wolverine, lynx, and fisher habitat and distribution maps, draft hierarchical approach and draft conservation strategies. Unpublished letter. USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 5 p. plus attachments. Sauder, J., and J. Rachlow. 2015. “Forest heterogeneity influences habitat selection by fishers (Pekania pennanti) within home ranges.” Forest Ecology and Management 347: 49-56. Sauder, J., and J. Rachlow. 2014. “Both forest composition and configuration influence landscape-scale habitat selection by fishers (Pekania pennanti) in mixed coniferous forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains.” Forest Ecology and Management 314: 75-84. Schwartz, M., N. DeCesare, B. Jimenez, J. Copeland, and W. Melquist. 2013. “Stand- and landscape-scale selection of large trees by fishers in the Rocky Mountains of Montana and Idaho.” Forest Ecology and Management 305: 103-111. Schwartz, M. K., T. Ulizio, and B. Jimenez. 2006. U. S. Rocky Mountain Fisher Survey Protocol. USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 13 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012. Fisher monitoring report for the Northern U. S. Rocky Mountains/Region One USFS. Unpublished Report. Missoula, Montana. 3 p. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List a Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat. Federal Register Vol.76, No. 126, June 30, 2011. pp. 38503-38532. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/06/30/2011-16349 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day findings on 17 Petitions. Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 7, January 12, 2016. pp. 1368-1375. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/01/12/2016-00157 Vinkey, R. 2003. An evaluation of fisher (Martes pennanti): Introductions in Montana. M.S. Thesis, University of MT, Missoula, Montana. 97 p.

Flammulated Owl Aubry, K. B., and C. M. Raley. 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. 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. ERG Ecosystem Research Group. 2012. Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Plan Revision Zone (KIPZ). Unpublished report prepared for the USDA Forest Service by ERG, Missoula, MT. December 19, 2012. 134 pp and Appendix. Groves, C., T. Frederick, G. Frederick, E. Atkinson, M. Atkinson, J. Shepherd, and G. Servheen. 1997. Density, distribution, and habitat of flammulated owls in Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist, 57(2): 116-123. Hayward, G. D., and J. Verner, tech. editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. For

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 111

Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 214 p. 3 maps. Linkhart, Brian D. and D. Archibald McCallum. 2013. Flammulated Owl (Psiloscops flammeolus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.93 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. Missoula, MT. Samson, F. B. 2006b. Habitat assessment for maintaining viable populations of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten and fisher. USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report on file, Missoula, MT. Smucker and Cilimburg 2008. Surveying for Flammulated Owls in Montana via Citizen Scientists and Technicians. Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Vol. 2-In: Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and Management Implications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Gray Wolf Boyd,D., J. Gude, B. Inman, N. Lance, A. Messer, A. Nelson, T. Parks, M. Ross, T. Smucker, J. Steuber, and J. Vore. 2017. Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2016 Annual Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Helena, Montana. 71 pages. Coltrane, J., J. Gude, B. Inman, N. Lance, K. Laudon, A. Messer, A. Nelson, T. Parks, M. Ross, T. Smucker, J. Steuber, and J. Vore. 2015. Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2015 Annual Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Helena, Montana. 74pp. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2017. Animal Field Guide. http://fieldguide.mt.gov/default.aspx NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Confederated Colville Tribes, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2016. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2015 Interagency Annual Report. M.D. Jimenez and S.A. Becker, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 112

Townsend’s Big Eared Bat Christy, R. E. and S. D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNWGTR-308. Portland, Or. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 pp. (Huff et al., tech. Coords. Biology and Management of old-growth forests). Hendricks, P., K.A. Jurist, D.L. Genter, and J.D. Reichel. 1996. Bats of the Kootenai National Forest, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 99 pp. Hendricks, P. and B.A. Maxell. 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. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2005. Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 2005. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2017. Animal Field Guide. http://fieldguide.mt.gov/default.aspx NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Perkins, J. and S. Cross. 1988. Differential use of some coniferous forest habitats by hoary and silver-haired bats in Oregon. The Murrelet. Vol. 69, No. 1. Pages 21-24. Pierson, E., M. Wachenhut, J. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D. Genter, C. Harris, B. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce,K. Navo, J. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat. Idaho Conservation Effort, Boise, Idaho. 35 p. Schwab, N.A. and K. DuBois. 2006. Bat conservation plan and strategy for Montana (Draft). Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; University of Montana; and the Montana Bat Working Group. Thiel, Richard P., Samuel Merrill, and L. David Mech. 1998. Tolerance by denning Wolves, Canis lupus, to human disturbance. Canadian Field‐Naturalist 122(2): 340‐342. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/wolftol/wolftol.htm (Version 04AUG2000). 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 S. D. West. 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-GTR-285. Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Vol. 2-In: Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and Management Implications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 113

Wunder, L. and A.B. Carey. 1996. Use of the Forest Canopy by Bats. Northwest Science. 70, Special Issue: 79-85.

Western Toad Bury, R. B., D. J. Major, and D. Pilliod. 2000. Responses of amphibians to fire disturbance in Pacific Northwest forests: a review. Pages 34-42 In The Role of Fire in Nongame Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions Proceedings of a Special Workshop, Editors W. M. Ford, K. R. Russell, C. E. Moorman. USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. GTR-NE-288. Corn, P., P. Hendricks, T. Koch, B. Maxell, C. Peterson, and K. Werner. 1998. Unpublished letter to USFS Region 1 Species at Risk Task Group: subject – Boreal toad (Bufo Boreas boreas) listing as a sensitive species for all Region 1 Forests. 8 pp. DeMaynadier, P. G., and M. L. Hunter, Jr. 1998. Effects of silvicultural edges on the distribution and abundance of amphibians in Maine. Conservation Biology, Vol. 12, No. 2, pages 340- 352. Graham, R., A. Harvey, M. Jurgensen, T. Jain, J. Tonn, and D. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Research Paper INT-RP-477. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 12 p. Hannon, S.J., Paszkowski, C.A., Boutin, S., DeGroot, J., MacDonald, S.E., Wheatley, M. and Eaton, B.R. 2002. Abundance and species composition of amphibians, small mammals, and songbirds in riparian forest buffers strips of varying widths in the boreal mixed wood of Alberta. Can. J. For. Res. 32, 1784–1800. Johnson, W. J. 1999 (unpublished). Sensitive Species Status Summary: Kootenai National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Libby, MT. 36 pp. Loeffler, C. (ed.). 2001. 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 and Technical Advisory Group. 77 pp. Lyon, L. J., J.K. Brown, M.H. Huff, J.K. Smith. 2000. Introduction to Fire and Fauna. Pages 1-8 In: Smith, J. Kapler, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT.: U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 pp. 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. A Report (#43-0343-0-0224) to Northern Regional Office, USDA Forest Service, 200 East Broadway, Missoula Mt, 59807. Maxell, B. A., J.K. Werner, P. Hendricks, and D. Flath. 2003. Herpeology in Montana: A history, status summary, checklists, dichotomous keys, accounts for native, potentially native and exotic species, and indexed bibliography. Northwest Fauna 5. Soc. Northwestern Vetebrate Biology. Olyimpia, WA. 15pp. Maxell, B.A., P. Hendricks, M.T. Gates, and S. Lenard. 2009. Montana amphibian and reptile status assessment, literature review, and conservation plan. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT and Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit and Wildlife Biology program, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 642p.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 114

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP). 2015. Western toad Montana Field Guide. http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AAABB01030 (accessed 12/10/2015). Pilliod, D.S., E.L. Bull, J.L. Hayes, and B.C. Wales. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel reduction treatments in dry coniferous forests of the Western United States: a synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-173. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 pp. Reichel, J. and D. Flath. 1995. Identification guide to the amphibians and reptiles of Montana. Montana Outdoors 26(3):15-34. Russell, K. R., D. H. Van Lear, and D. C. Guynn, Jr. 1999. Prescribed fire effects on herpetofauna: review and management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27 (2):374-384. Semlitsch, R. D. 2000. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. J. Wildl. Manage. 64 (3):615-631. Semlitsch R.D and JR Bodie. 2003 Biological Criteria for Buffer Zones around Wetlands and Riparian Habitats for Amphibians and Reptiles. Conservation Biology. Vol. 17(5) pp. 1219-1228. Werner, J. K., and J.D. Reichel. 1994. Amphibian and reptile surveys of the Kootenai National Forest, 1994. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena MT. 104 pp. Werner, J.K. and J.D. Reichel. 1996. Amphibian and reptile monitoring/survey of the Kootenai National Forest: 1995. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program. 115 p. Werner, J. K., B. A. Maxell, P. Hendricks, and D. L. Flath. 2004. Amphibians and reptiles of Montana, western toad. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, MT. 3 pp.

Other Species of Interest

Big Game, Elk, Migratory Birds Aubry, K. B., and C. M. Raley. 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. D. Boyd, J. Gude, B. Inman, N. Lance, A. Messer, A. Nelson, T. Parks, M. Ross, T. Smucker, J. Steuber, and J. Vore. 2017. Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2016 Annual Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Helena, Montana. 71 pages. Cassirer, E.F., J.D. Reichel, R.L. Wallen, and E. Atkinson. 1996. Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) habitat conservation assessment and conservation strategy for the U.S. Rocky Mountains. Unpublished technical report, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Lewiston, ID. 53 pp. plus appendices. 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.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 115

Christy, R. E. and S. D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNWGTR-308. Portland, Or. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 pp. (Huff et al., tech. Coords. Biology and Management of old-growth forests). Coltrane, J., J. Gude, B. Inman, N. Lance, K. Laudon, A. Messer, A. Nelson, T. Parks, M. Ross, T. Smucker, J. Steuber, and J. Vore. 2015. Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 2015 Annual Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Helena, Montana. 74pp. 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. ERG Ecosystem Research Group. 2012. Wildlife Habitat Assessment for the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle Plan Revision Zone (KIPZ). Unpublished report prepared for the USDA Forest Service by ERG, Missoula, MT. December 19, 2012. 134 pp and Appendix. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 11, January17, 2001, pp. 3853‐3856. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/01/17/01-1387/responsibilities-of- federal-agencies-to-protect-migratory-birds Groves, C., T. Frederick, G. Frederick, E. Atkinson, M. Atkinson, J. Shepherd, and G. Servheen. 1997. Density, distribution, and habitat of flammulated owls in Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist, 57(2): 116-123. Hayward, G. D., and J. Verner, 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. Hendricks, P., K.A. Jurist, D.L. Genter, and J.D. Reichel. 1995. Bat survey of the Kootenai National Forest, Montana. 1994. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 48 pp. Hendricks, P., K.A. Jurist, D.L. Genter, and J.D. Reichel. 1996. Bats of the Kootenai National Forest, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 99 pp. Hendricks, P. and B.A. Maxell. 2005. Bat surveys on USFS Northern Region lands in Montana: 2005. Report to the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 12 pp. plus appendices. Hendricks, P. and J.D. Reichel. 1998. Harlequin duck research and monitoring in Montana: 1997. Montana Natural Heritage Program. Helena, MT. 28 pp. Hillis, J., M. Thompson, J. Canfield, L. Lyon, C. Marcum, P. Dolan, and D. McCleery. 1991. “Defining elk security: The Hillis Paradigm.” In: Proceeding of a symposium on elk vulnerability. (Bozeman, Montana: Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society), 38-43. 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 Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2004. Statewide elk management plan for Montana. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, Montana.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 116

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2005. Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy. 2005. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2016. 2015 Statewide elk trend estimates. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Helena, Montana. Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 2017. Animal Field Guide. http://fieldguide.mt.gov/default.aspx NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2016. The State of North America’s Birds 2016. Environment and Climate Change Canada: Ottawa, Ontario. 8 pages. www.stateofthebirds.org Perkins, J. and S. Cross. 1988. Differential use of some coniferous forest habitats by hoary and silver-haired bats in Oregon. The Murrelet. Vol. 69, No. 1. Pages 21-24. Pierson, E., M. Wachenhut, J. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D. Genter, C. Harris, B. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce,K. Navo, J. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat. Idaho Conservation Effort, Boise, Idaho. 35 p. PIF (Partners in Flight). 2000. Draft bird conservation plan: Montana. Version 1.0. 288 p. http://www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/pl_id_10.pdf Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Rosenberg, K.V., J. A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R. P. Ford, D. Reynolds, J.D. Alexander, C. J. Beardmore, P. J. Blancher, R. E. Bogart, G. S. Butcher, A. F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D. W. Demarest, W. E. Easton, J.J. Giocomo, R.H. Keller, A. E. Mini, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, T. D. Rich, J. M. Ruth, H. Stabins, J. Stanton, T. Will. 2016. Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States. Partners in Flight Science Committee. 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. Missoula, MT. Samson, F. B. 2006b. Habitat assessment for maintaining viable populations of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten and fisher. USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report on file, Missoula, MT. Schwab, N.A. and K. DuBois. 2006. Bat conservation plan and strategy for Montana (Draft). Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; University of Montana; and the Montana Bat Working Group. Smucker and Cilimburg 2008. Surveying for Flammulated Owls in Montana via Citizen Scientists and Technicians.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 117

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 S. D. West. 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-GTR-285. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan. USDA Forest Service. Washington, D.C. 24 pages. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and USFWS. 2001. Memorandum of Understanding Between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. FS Agreement #08‐MU‐1113‐2400‐264. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and USFWS. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding Between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. FS Agreement #08‐MU‐1113‐2400‐264. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and USFWS. 2016. Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. FS Agreement #08‐MU‐1113‐2400‐264. 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. Federal Register Vol. 63 No. 88; May 7, 1998, pp. 21577-21578. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1998/05/07/98-12171. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 85 pp. (online version available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds. 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 Vol. 74 No. 62 April 2, 2009, pp. 15123-15188. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/04/02/E9-5991. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Blackfeet Nation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Wind River Tribes, Confederated Colville Tribes, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2016. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Program 2015 Interagency Annual Report. M.D. Jimenez and S.A. Becker, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601. Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Vol. 2-In: Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 118

trends and Management Implications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). Wunder, L. and A.B. Carey. 1996. Use of the Forest Canopy by Bats. Northwest Science. 70, Special Issue: 79-85.

Additional References added due to Public Comments Kasworm, W. 2003. Review of Merrill Report. USFWS, Libby Montana. 6 pages. Merrill, T. 2003. Additional Analysis of Grizzly Bear and Road Density Relationships in the Cabinet-Yaak Recovery Zone. Report submitted to the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service by EarthJustice. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Biological Opinion on the Revised Forest Plan for the Kootenai National Forest. USDI FWS Montana and Northern Idaho Field Offices. 411 pages. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2017. Biological Assessment for Canada Lynx Critical Habitat. Unpublished document on file at the USDA Forest Service Northern Region. Missoula, Montana. 60 pages. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2017. Clarification Letter for the Biological Assessment for Canada Lynx Critical Habitat. Unpublished document on file at the USDA Forest Service Northern Region. Missoula, Montana. 1 page. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2016. Letter to M. Garrity in Response to Kosterman thesis. Unpublished document on file at the Northern Region. Missoula, Montana. 2 pages. Wakkinen, W. and W. Kasworm. 1997. Grizzly Bear and Road Density Relationships in The Selkirk And Cabinet - Yaak Recovery Zones. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction on Designated Critical Habitat for Canada Lynx. USFWS Montana Ecological Services Office. Helena, Montana. 47 pages.

Starry Goat FEIS - Part 2 119

Appendix and Maps

Appendix A: Glossary and Acronyms

Glossary A

ACTIVITY AREA: Area within the project area where activities are proposed.

ACTIVITY FUELS: See Slash

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT: The natural, physical, and human-related environment that is sensitive to changes due to proposed actions.

AGE CLASSES: A distinct group of trees, or portion of growing stock recognized on the basis of age (i.e., seedling, pole, mature.)

AGGRADATION: When more sediment enters a reach than leaves it, there is a buildup of sediment. This is called aggradation.

AIR QUALITY: Refers to standards for various classes of land as designated by the Clean Air Act, P.L. 88-206: Jan. 1978

AIRSHED: A geographical area that, because of topography, meteorology, and climate, shares the same air.

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 mix of management prescriptions applied to specific land areas to achieve a set of goals and objectives. Each alternative represents a different way of achieving a set of similar management objectives. Sometimes the term "action alternative" is used when it is desirable to recognize that there is a "no action" alternative under which the proposed activity would not take place.

ANALYSIS AREA: The geographic area defining the scope of analysis for a particular resource. This area may be larger than the project area when effects have potential to extend beyond the boundaries of the proposed action.

APPEAL: A request by any party dissatisfied with a decision of a forest officer to have that decision reviewed at a higher organizational level within the Forest Service and, where appropriate, by the Secretary.

BANKFULL: The level water reaches in the stream that is at or near the lowest terrace.

BEAR ANALYSIS AREA (BAA): Management subunits of a BMU approximately 5,000 to 15,000 acres in size.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 1

BEAR MANAGEMENT UNIT (BMU): A geographic subdivision of grizzly bear habitat, which approximates the home range size of a reproductive, female grizzly bear (about 100 square miles in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem).

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: A set of practices in the Forest Plan which, when applied during implementation of a project, ensures that water related beneficial uses are protected and that State water quality standards are met.

BIG GAME: Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting resource.

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: Information (document) prepared by or under the direction of the Federal agency concerning listed and proposed threatened and endangered species and proposed critical habitat that may be present in the action area and the evaluation of potential effects of the action on such species and habitats.

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION: A documented Forest Service review of programs or activities in sufficient detail to determine how an action or proposed action may affect any sensitive species.

BLIND DRAIN: A drainage structure installed in the subgrade of a road which intercepts, collects, and redirects subsurface water.

BLOWDOWN: See windthrow.

BOARD FOOT (BF): A unit of measurement equal to an unfinished board one foot square by one inch thick. Timber volumes are often expressed in terms of thousands of board feet (mbf).

BOGS: Perennially saturated areas that usually have wetland and riparian plants surrounding them.

BOLE: The trunk or main stem of the above ground part of a tree.

BROADCAST BURN: See prescribed burning.

CANOPY: The more or less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by the crowns of adjacent trees and other woody growth. Layers of canopy may be called stories.

CANOPY CLOSURE: The progressive reduction of space between tree crowns as they spread laterally; a measure of the percent of potential open space occupied by the collective tree crowns in a stand.

CAVE: A natural underground chamber that is open to the surface.

CAVITY: The hollow, excavated in snags by birds; used for roosting and reproduction by many birds and mammals.

CAVITY HABITAT: Snags, broken-topped live trees and down logs used by wildlife species that excavate and/or occupy cavities in these trees.

CAVITY NESTERS: Wildlife species that nest in cavities.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 2

CLEARCUT HARVEST: A regeneration method under which the entire mature stand is cut. Some snags and potential snags may be left to benefit snag-dependent wildlife species.

CLEARCUT WITH RESERVES: A variation of the clearcutting method where reserve trees are left for all or part of a stand rotation and serve a specific function that is consistent with management objectives.

CLOSED CANOPY: The condition that exists when the canopy created by trees or shrubs or both is dense enough to exclude most of the direct sunlight from the forest floor.

CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR): The official, legal tabulation or regulations directing Federal Government activities.

COLLABORATION OR COLLABORATIVE PROCESS: A structured manner in which a collection of people with diverse interests share knowledge, ideas, and resources while working together in an inclusive and cooperative manner toward a common purpose.

COMMUNITY: A group of one or more populations of plants and animals in a common spatial arrangement; an ecological term used in a broad sense to include groups of various sizes and degrees of integration.

COMPARTMENTS: A geographic area delineated by a watershed drainage for management planning purposes.

CONIFER: Any of a group of needle and cone bearing evergreen trees.

CONNECTORS. Strips or patches of vegetation used by wildlife to move between habitats.

CORE or CORE AREA: An area of secure habitat within a BMU 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 BMU.

CORE SAMPLE: Stream bed material removed from the stream for analysis.

CORRIDORS: Areas of vegetation (may be linear or patch-like) available to wildlife to facilitate movement between habitats. Corridors may vary in size by species need. For big-game, forested areas of at least 600 feet in width is generally acceptable.

COVER: Vegetation used by wildlife for protection from predators, breeding and rearing of young (hiding cover), or to ameliorate conditions of weather (thermal cover).

COVER/FORAGE RATIO: The ratio, in percent, of the amount of area in cover conditions to that in forage conditions.

COVER TYPE: See forest cover type

CROWN FIRE: A fire burning into the crowns of the vegetation, generally associated with an intense understory fire.

CULTURAL RESOURCES: The physical remains of human activity (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc.) having scientific, prehistoric, or social values.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 3

CUMULATIVE EFFECT: The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other actions. Cumulative impacts can also result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time

CWD: Course woody debris is defined as material greater than 3 inches in diameter at the small end.

DEADFALL: Previously dead trees that have fallen.

DEBRIS: The scattered remains of some things broken or destroyed; ruins; rubble; fragments.

DECADENT: Deteriorating; when used in reference to stand condition there are inferences of the loss of trees from the overstory and of the presence of disease, or indications of loss of vigor in dominant trees so that the mean annual increment is negative.

DECISION AREA: The geographic area defining the scope of this document and the alternatives proposed by it.

DEGRADATION: This occurs when a stream has excess energy and more sediment leaves a reach than enters it. This is associated with channel scouring.

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. Portions of an asset or component may remain if they do not cause problems nor require maintenance. (Financial Health – Common Definitions for Maintenance and Construction Terms, July 22, 1998.):

DENNING SITE: A place of shelter for an animal; also where an animal gives birth and raises young.

DETRIMENTAL SOIL DISTURBANCE: The condition where established threshold values for soil properties exceed and result in significant change. (FSH 2509.18, section 2.05, 9).

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION: A portrayal of the land or resource conditions which are expected to result if goals and objectives are fully achieved.

DISPERSED RECREATION: Outdoor recreation in which visitors are diffused over relatively large areas. Where facilities or developments are provided, they are more for access and protection of the environment than for the comfort or convenience of the people.

DISPLACEMENT AREA: An area of suitable habitat reserved for use by a local population of a wildlife species while that population is displaced from, or caused to vacate, its former habitat by disturbance from human activities.

DISTURBANCE: Any event which affects the successional development of a plant community (examples: fire, insect attack, windthrow, timber harvest).

DIVERSITY: The relative distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species within an area.

DOWN WOODY COMPONENT: A component of forest habitats used by wildlife for feeding, denning, and shelter. (See Old Growth Habitat.)

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 4

DRAINAGE EFFICIENCY: The net runoff for a given amount of precipitation in a drainage.

DUFF: An organic surface soil layer, below the litter layer, in which the original form of plant and animal matter cannot be identified with the unaided eye.

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY: The capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive, community of organisms having species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitats of the region.

ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY: The maintenance or restoration of the composition, strucutre, and processes of ecosystems including the diversity of plant and animal communities and the productive capacity of ecological systems. Ecological integrity, historical range of variability, and vegetation response units are means of measuring ecological sustainability.

ECOSYSTEM: The complete system formed by the interaction of a group of organisms and their environment. In this context of activities on National Forest lands, humans are considered a part of the ecosystem.

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT: A management practice and philosopy aimed at selecting, maintaining, and/or enhancing the ecological integrity of an ecosystem in order to ensure continued ecosystem health while providing resources, products, or non-consumptive values for humans.

ECOSYSTEM PRESCRIBED BURNING: Utilizes prescribed fire as a management tool to achieve vegetation desired conditions in non-harvest areas. It is the controlled application of fire to the landscape under specific environmental conditions to emulate a mixed fire severity.

ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES: Ecological functions such as photosynthesis, energy flow, nutrient cycling, water movement, disturbance, and succession.

EFFECTS (or impacts): Environmental consequences (the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives) as a result of a proposed action. Effects may be either direct, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, or indirect, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable, or cumulative.

ENDANGERED SPECIES: Any plant or animal species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. (Endangered Species Act of 1973).

ENDEMIC: Plant or animal species occurring only in a restricted geographic area.

ENVIRONMENT: The aggregate of physical, biological, economic, and social factors affecting organisms in an area.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable environmental effects, including physical, biological, economic, and social consequences and their interactions; short- and long-term effects; direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA): A concise public document which serves to: (a) Briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a Finding of No Significant Impact; (b) Aid an agency's compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary; (c) Facilitate preparation of an EIS when necessary.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS): A detailed statement prepared by the responsible official in which a major Federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human environment is described, alternatives to the proposed action provided, and effects analyzed.

EPHEMERAL STREAMS: Streams that flow only as a direct response to rainfall or snowmelt events. They have no baseflow.

EPIDEMIC: The populations of plants, animals, and diseases that buildup, often rapidly, to highly abnormal and generally injurious levels.

EQUIVALENT CLEARCUT AREA (ECA): Equivalent Clearcut Area is an indicator of basin condition and is calculated from the total amount of crown removal that has occurred from harvesting, road building, and other activities based on the current state of vegetative recovery.

ERG: Ecosystem Research Group

EROSION: Detachment or movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or gravity. Accelerated erosion is much more rapid than normal, natural, or geologic erosion, primarily as a result of the influence of activities of people animals, or natural catastrophes.

EVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT: Deliberate planned actions that result in stands of trees of essentially the same age, growing together. Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed tree cutting methods produce even-aged stands.

EXCAVATOR PILE: Waste woody material piled using an excavator or backhoe for later burning. These machines are preferred for piling because they cause less soil compaction than other machines and have the ability to create clean, well made piles, pull materials to be piled from between remaining trees and sort materials to leave residual Down Woody Debris.

EXTIRPATION: Complete loss.

FEDERAL REGISTER: A daily publication which reports Presidential and Federal Agency documents.

FLOODPLAIN: The lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including, at a minimum, that area subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.

FIRE PERIMETER: The outer edge limits of a fire-burned area.

FIRE REGIME: The combination of fire frequency characteristics, predictability, intensity, seasonality and extent in an ecosystem.

Class 1 Fire regimes are within the natural (historical) range, and the risk of losing key; ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition, structure, and pattern) are intact and functioning within the natural (historical) range.

Class 2 Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their natural (historical) range. Risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by one or more return intervals (either

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 6

increased or decreased). This result in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity and severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation and fuel attributes have been moderately altered from their natural (historical range).

Class 3 Fire regimes have been substantially altered form their natural (historical) range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by multiple return intervals. Dramatic changes occur to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been substantially altered from their natural (historical) range.

FIRE INTENSITY: A measure of the rate of heat released for a fire at a specific point in time, usually expressed in BTUs/second/foot. It includes both radiant and convectional heat.

FIRE SEVERITY: A qualitative assessment of the heat pulse directed toward the ground during a fire. Burn severity relates to soil heating, large fuel, and duff consumption, consumption of the litter and organic layer beneath trees and isolated shrubs, and mortality of buried plant parts.

FIRE TOLERANT: A plant which has properties or characteristics which enable it to survive fire.

FORAGE: Vegetation used for food by wildlife, particularly big game wildlife and domestic livestock.

FORAGE AREAS: Vegetated areas with less than 60 percent combined canopy closure of tree and tall shrub (greater than 7 feet in height).

FOREST COVER TYPE: A descriptive classification of forestland based on the present vegetative species composition and/or locality (i.e.: lodgepole pine, mixed conifer). Most stands are given a classification (stratum label), based on aerial photo interpretation, that includes the forest cover type, the size class, density class, and stand development phase. For example: a stand with the stratum label of LP2W would be considered a lodgepole pine cover type (LP) that is of a pole/small sawtimber size class (2) and is well stocked with coniferous trees (W).

FOREST DEVELOPMENT ROAD: A forest road under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. (PL 95-599), section 106 and FSM 7705. Also see 36 CFR 2161.2). These roads are not public roads. (FSM 7700)

FOREST HEALTH: An ecological perspective that looks at the resiliency of an ecosystem and its ability to be sustainable.

FOREST LAND: Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees or formerly having had such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest use.

FROST HEAVING: Occurs when moist or saturated soils are frozen, causing seedlings which are not yet deeply rooted to be ejected from the soil. This occurs mostly in low elevation areas that have frost before there is a cover of snow.

FUELS: Combustible materials present in the forest which potentially contribute a significant fire hazard.

FUEL LOADING: The amount of available fuels, usually expressed in tons per acre.

FUELBED: The arrangement of available fuels, continuity and amount.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 7

FUELS MANAGEMENT: Manipulation or reduction of fuels to meet Forest protection and management objectives while preserving and enhancing environmental quality.

GAP: An opening in the stand or canopy caused by some disturbance.

GENETIC INTROGRESSION: The entry or introduction of genetic material from one gene complex to another.

GRADIENT: The rise or fall of a ground surface expressed in degrees of slope.

HABITAT: The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place occupied by a wildlife species or a population of such species.

HABITAT COMPONENT: A simple part, or a relatively complex entity regarded as a part, or an area or type of environment in which an organism or biological population normally lives or occurs.

HABITAT DIVERSITY: The variation in types, sizes, and shapes of landscape elements or vegetation types.

HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS: The ability of an area to support a species (individual or population) based on a potential of 100 percent.

HABITAT TYPE: An aggregation of all land areas potentially capable of producing similar plant communities at climax. Within the analysis area the following habitat types are present: western redcedar/queencup beadlily (531), western hemlock/queencup beadlily (571), western hemlock/menziesia (579), subalpine fir/queencup beadlily (620), subalpine fir/menziesia (670), subalpine fir/beargrass (690), subalpine fir/beargrass, grouse whortleberry (692), subalpine fir/grouse whortleberry, pinegrass (731), subalpine fir/alder (740).

HABITAT TYPE GROUP: A category of habitat types with similar ecological amplitudes and environmental conditions. Combined with information on stand conditions, habitat type groups can be used to develop silvicultural stand treatment priorities during the IDT process.

HAND PILE: Waste woody material piled by; hand for later burning.

HARDWOODS: A conventional term for the wood of broadleaf trees. In the decision area these trees are generally confined to areas near water.

HIDING COVER: Vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult deer or elk at 200 feet or less. Includes some shrub stands and all forested stand conditions with adequate tree stem density or shrub layer to hide animals. In some cases, topographic features also can provide hiding cover.

HIGH RISK: Individual or groups of trees that are live (green) but have the physical characteristics favorable to insect infestation. Trees in this category are subject to mortality and loss of economic value.

HOST TREE: A tree in which other organisms, parasites, or insects live for part of their life cycle.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 8

IMPROVEMENT CUT: An intermediate treatment made in a stand, pole-sized or larger, primarily to improve composition and quality by removing less desirable trees of any species.

INDICATOR SPECIES: See management indicator species.

INDIRECT EFFECTS: Secondary effects which occur in locations other than the initial action or significantly later in time.

INFISH: (Inland Native Fish Strategy) On July 31, 1995, the Decision Notice for Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment (INFISH) was signed. This strategy was developed to provide interim (approximately 18 months) direction to protect habitat and populations of native resident fish and supersedes the Kootenai Riparian Guidelines previously used.

INSTREAM FLOWS: The minimum water volume (cubic feet/second) in each stream necessary to meet seasonal streamflow requirements for maintaining aquatic ecosystems, visual quality, recreational opportunities and other uses.

INTERAGENCY GUIDELINES: A document which was originally developed in the Yellowstone grizzly bear ecosystem and later applied to all grizzly habitat through congressional mandate. Previously known as the "Yellowstone Guidelines", it identifies important, specific management measures regarding the conduct of multiple use activities in grizzly bear habitat and parameters for identifying the sensitivity of grizzly bear habitat to human activities.

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM (IDT): A group of resource professionals with different expertise that collaborate to develop and evaluate resource management decisions.

INTERMEDIATE HARVEST: A collective term for 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: Closed to traffic. The road is in a condition that there is little resource risk if maintenance is not performed (self-maintaining). (FSH 5409.17-94-2).

INTERMITTENT STREAM: A stream which flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs or from some surface source such as melting snow.

INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA: Roadless areas studied for wilderness designation. Forest Plan, Appendix C.

IRREVERSIBLE: A term that describes the loss of future options. Applies primarily to the effects of use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors, such as soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods of time.

IRRETRIEVABLE: A term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably while an area is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber production.

LADDER FUELS: Small trees and understory shrubs that allow fire to burn up into the canopy of larger trees.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 9

LANDING PILE: Mechanically piled waste woody materials located at the landing, where the loggers process, sort and load logs for transport to the mill. Landing piles are later burned.

LANDSCAPE: The aspect of the land that is characteristic of a particular region or area.

LANDTYPE: A unit of land with similar designated soil, vegetation, geology, topography, climate and drainage. The basis for mapping units in the land systems inventory.

LARGE WOODY MATERIAL: (Also large woody debris; LWD)- Branches and/or tree trunks located within a stream channel, originating from trees growing in or near the channel. Such material is considered "large" if it is of sufficient size that it remains at least partially submerged during all but major flood events. These materials are important in stream systems because they serve a variety of functions related to channel hydraulics and morphology. Functions would include flow energy reduction due to friction and turbulence on downstream side of debris, and sediment storage on upstream side of materials. LWD is delivered to stream channels by decay and/or windfall of trees in close proximity to stream channels.

LETHAL FIRES: A descriptor of fire response and effect in forested ecosystems of high- severity or sever fire that burns through the overstory and understory which consumes large woody surface fuels and may consume entire duff layer. Stand is essentially destroyed and will be replaced as stand is set back to initiation stage.

LIBERATION HARVEST: An intermediate harvest treatment made in a stand with an established understory but it is not past the sapling stage, in order to free the favored trees from competition of older, overtopping trees.

LIMITING FACTOR: The environmental influence through which the toleration limit of an organism is first reached, which acts, therefore, as the immediate restriction in one or more of its functions or activities or in its geographic distribution.

LODGEPOLE PINE: See explanation under timber type.

MACHINE PILE: Waste woody material mechanically piled by any machine including excavator, backhoe, cat, skidder, etc. For later burning.

MAINTENANCE LEVEL. Defines the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. (FSH 7709.58, Sec 12.3 – Transportation System Maintenance Handbook.)

MAINTENANCE LEVEL 1: Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resource at an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate”. Roads receiving Level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for non- motorized uses.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 10

MAINTENANCE LEVEL 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log haul may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) accept or discourage high clearance vehicles.

MAINTENANCE LEVEL 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or “accept.” “Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users.

MAINTENANCE LEVEL 4: Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced. However, some roads may be single lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.” However, the “prohibit” strategy may apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

MAINTENANCE LEVEL 5: Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Normally, roads are double-lane, paved facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is “encourage.”

MANAGEMENT AREA: Geographic areas, not necessarily contiguous, which have common management direction, consistent with the Forest Plan allocations.

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION: A statement of multiple use and other goals and objectives, along with the associated management prescriptions and standards and guidelines to direct resource management.

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS): A species of wildlife, fish, or plant whose health and vigor are believed to accurately reflect the health and vigor of other species having similar habitat and protection needs to those of the selected indicator species.

MANAGEMENT SITUATIONS: The following classes identify management situations which are used to stratify grizzly bear habitat consistent with definitions in the Interagency Grizzly Bear guidelines:

SITUATION 1: (Grizzly Bear Management Situation 1.) Habitat contains grizzly population centers and habitat components needed for the survival and recovery of the species. Management decisions will favor the needs of the grizzly. Habitat maintenance and improvement and grizzly/human conflict minimization will receive the highest management priority.

SITUATION 3: (Grizzly Bear Management Situation 3.) Areas where grizzly presence is possible but infrequent. Developments such as campgrounds, resorts, or other high human use associated facilities, and human presence result in conditions which make grizzly presence untenable for humans and/or grizzlies. Grizzly habitat maintenance and improvement are not management considerations in these areas. Grizzly/human conflict minimization is a high priority management consideration.

MASS EROSION (also called mass wasting): Downslope movement of a unit of soil. Mass erosion includes landslides, debris flows, debris avalanches, debris torrents, slumps and soil creeping.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 11

MATURE: On lands allocated for timber harvest, mature is defined as trees or stands that have reached rotation age, generally around 100 years. In the context of wildlife - Mature forest habitat with characteristics needed to provide habitat for species such as pine marten and pileated woodpecker (generally occurs around age 100).

MID-SERAL: A middle transitory stage in forest succession.

MITIGATION: Actions to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, replace, or rectify the impact of a management practice.

MIXED CONIFER: See explanation under timber type.

MIXED LETHAL FIRES: A descriptor of fire response and effect in forested ecosystems of moderate fire, burns in surface fuels but may involve a tree understory. It consumes litter, upper duff, understory plants and foliage on understory trees. Individual and groups of overstory trees may torch out if fuel ladders exist. Enough of the stand's overstory survives to provide for the major portion of the regeneration that results.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION: The evaluation, on a sample basis, of Forest Plan management practices to determine how well objectives are being met, as well as the effects of those management practices on the land and environment.

MONOCULTURE: A pure stand of a single species.

MOSAIC: The intermingling of plant communities and their successional stages in such a manner as to give the impression of an interwoven design.

MOTOR VEHICLE: Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than:

 A vehicle operated on rails; and  Any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, that is designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area. (36 CFR 212.1.) MOTOR VEHICLE USE MAP: A map reflecting designated road, trails, and arias on an administrative unit or a Ranger District of the National Forest System. (36 CFR 212.1.)

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE: The common name for the bark beetle (Dendroctonous ponderosae, Hopkins) which is an insect pest that has caused more tree mortality in the intermountain west than any other

MULTI-STORY: A forest stand or plant community having more than two main canopy layers or "stories".

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROAD: A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority. (36 CFR 212.1.)

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM TRAIL: A forest trail other than a trail which has been authorized by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority. (36 CFR 212.1)

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 12

NEPA PROCESS: An interdisciplinary process, mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act, which concentrates decision making around issues, concerns, alternatives and the effects of alternatives on the environment.

NRLMD: Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: The No Action alternative is required by regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1502.14). The no action alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives. Where a project activity is being evaluated, the no action alternative is defined as one where no action or activity would take place.

NONGAME SPECIES: All wild animals not subject to sport hunting, trapping or fishing regulations.

NON-LETHAL FIRES: A descriptor of fire response and effect in forested ecosystems of low- severity or cool fire. Has minimal impact on the site. It burns in surface fuels consuming only the litter, herbaceous fuels, and foliage and small twigs on woody undergrowth. Little heat travels downward through the duff. None of the large (commercial size) trees are killed.

NONSTOCKED: A stand of trees or aggregation of stands that have a stocking level below the minimum specified for meeting the prescribed management objectives.

NOXIOUS WEEDS: Rapidly spreading plants which can cause a variety of major ecological impacts to both agricultural and wild lands.

NUTRIENT: An element found in the soil that is needed for plant growth.

OBLITERATION: The reclamation and/or restoration of land to resource production from that of a transportation facility. This may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following: ripping, seeding, pulling culverts, or recontouring.

OLD GROWTH HABITAT: Old growth is a distinct successional stage in the development of a timber stand that has special significance for wildlife, generally characterized by: (1) large diameter trees (often exceeding 20-inch DBH) with a relatively dense, often multilayer canopy. (2) the presence of large, standing dead or dying trees. (3) down and dead trees, (4) stand decadence associated with the presence of various fungi and heartrots, (5) and an average age often in excess of 200 years.

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.

OLD GROWTH (Recruitment Potential): 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.

ONGOING ACTIONS: Actions initiated in the past which continue to take place.

OPEN ROAD DENSITY: A measure of the amount of open roads per area of land, usually expressed as miles per square mile

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 13

OUTBREAK: Sudden occurrence of a disease or insect pest.

OUTSLOPE: When the slope from inside of shoulder to outside of shoulder exceeds the alignment grade.

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.

OVERMATURE: The condition that exists after an even-aged stand reaches maturity and decline in vigor, health and soundness.

OVERSTOCKED: Stands exceeding a prescribed standard or expected number of trees or basal area per acre.

OVERSTORY: The portion of trees in a forest which forms the uppermost layer of foliage.

PATCH: An area of vegetation that is relatively homogeneous internally with respect to composition and successional stage and that differs from what surrounds it.

PATHOGEN: An organism which causes disease in another organism.

PAYMENTS TO STATES (or Payments to Counties): The portion of receipts derived from Forest Service resource management that is distributed to State and county governments as the Forest Service 25 percent fund payments.

PCE: Primary Constituent Element

PEAK FLOW: The greatest flow attained during the melting of the winter snowpack.

PERENNIAL STREAMS: Streams that flow continuously throughout the year.

PHYSIOGRAPHIC AREA (PA): Large areas of associated landtypes used in the mid-scale analysis of ecosystems. These areas typically have similar features in geology, soil types, fire occurrence and vegetative communities.

PLANT ASSOCIATION: A potential natural plant community of definite floristic composition and uniform appearance.

PLANTATIONS: Areas in the forest where trees have been planted.

POPULATION: In statistics, the aggregate of all units forming the subject of study; otherwise, a community of individuals that share a common gene pool.

PRE-COMMERCIAL THINNING: A felling made in an immature stand in order primarily to accelerate diameter increment but also, by suitable selection, to improve the average form of the trees that remain. Usually occurs in crowded (by crown competition or stems per acre) stands to give remaining trees (a prescribed desired number of trees) a competitive advantage for full development.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: The agency's preferred alternative, one or more, that is identified in the impact statement (40 CFR 1502.14).

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 14

PRESCRIBED BURNING: The intentional application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or modified state under such conditions as to allow the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and at the same time to produce the intensity of heat and rate of spread required to further certain planned objectives (i.e.: silviculture, wildlife management, reduction of fuel hazard, etc.).

PRESCRIBED FIRE: A wildland fire burning under preplanned specified conditions to accomplish specific planned objectives. It may result from either a planned or unplanned ignition.

PRESCRIPTION: Management practices selected and scheduled for application on a designated area to attain specific goals and objectives.

PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS: Elements required to in analyzing critical bull trout habitat.

PROGRAMMATIC EIS: An environmental impact statement that establishes a broad management direction for an area by establishing a goal, objective, standard, management prescription and monitoring and evaluation requirement for different types of activities which are permitted. It also can establish what activities are not permitted within the specific area(s). This document does not mandate or authorize the permitted activities to proceed.

PROJECT AREA: The geographic area defining the scope of this document and the alternatives proposed by it.

PROJECT FILE: An assemblage of documents that contains all the information developed or used during an environmental analysis. This information may be summarized in an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement. The project file becomes part of the administrative record for judicial review in case of legal action.

RANGER DISTRICT: An administrative subdivision of the Forest, supervised by a District Ranger who reports to the Forest Supervisor.

RANGE OF VARIABILITY: The spectrum of conditions possible in ecosystem composition, structure, and function considering both temporal and spatial factors.

REBURN: Re-ignition and burning on incompletely burned fuels.

RECONDITIONING: This work consists of cleaning ditches and culverts, including inlets and outlets; removing slide material; scarifying turnouts, and approach road connections.

RECONTOUR: A form of obliteration where the road prism is eliminated by pulling back fill material to re-establish the natural sideslope.

RECORD OF DECISION: A concise public document disclosing the decision made following preparation of an EIS and the rationale used by the deciding officer to reach that decision.

RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS): A range of possible combinations or recreation activities, settings, and experience opportunities, from Primitive to Urban, arranged along a continuum. Classes used herein are:

Primitive (PRIM): Area is characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other area users in minimal. The

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 15

area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of man-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is not permitted.

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM): Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate-to-large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is not permitted.

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM): Area is characterized by a predominately natural or natural- appearing environment of moderate-large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other area users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is permitted.

Roaded Natural Appearing (RNA): Area is characterized by predominantly natural appearing environment with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in the construction standards and design facilities.

Rural (R): Area is characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource modification and utilization practices are primarily to enhance specific recreation activities and to maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of man are readily evident, and the interaction between users if often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided for special activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites. Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are available.

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.

REFORESTATION: The natural or artificial restocking of an area with forest trees. It may include tree planting and seeding measures to obtain natural regeneration.

REGENERATION: This term may refer to the crop (seedlings, saplings) itself.

REGENERATION CUT: The renewal of a tree crop, whether by natural or artificial means. It is a cutting procedure by which a new age class is created. The major methods are clearcutting, seed-tree, shelterwood, selection, and coppice. Regeneration methods are grouped into four categories: coppice, even-aged, two-aged, and uneven-aged.

REGENERATION HARVEST: Used in reference to clearcut, seedtree and shelterwood harvest methods which remove an existing stand to prepare a site for regeneration.

REHABILITATION: Returning of land to farm use or to productivity in conformity with a prior land use plan, including a stable ecological state that does not contribute substantially to environmental deterioration and is consistent with surrounding aesthetic values.

RELIC: A tree that has survived several stand replacing events.

RESERVE TREE: Trees retained after the regeneration period (pole sized or larger) under the clearcutting, seed tree, or shelterwood methods.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 16

RESIDUAL TREE: Trees remaining after any harvest.

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS: Those actions which are proposed to take place or are imminent.

RESTOCKING: The process of adding additional trees by planting or seeding to bring the stocking up to prescribed conditions.

RESTORATION: The act of returning to historic site conditions or ecological processes that existed before the disruption or interruption of these processes.

RESTRICTED ROAD: A National Forest road or segment which is restricted from a certain type of use or all uses during certain seasons of the year or yearlong. The use being restricted and the time period must be specified. The closure is legal when the Forest Supervisor has issued an Order and posted that Order in accordance with 36 CFR 261.

RHIZOME: A rootlike stem under or on top of the ground, ordinarily in a horizontal position, which usually sends out roots from its lower surface and leafy shoots from its upper surface.

RIFFLE STABILITY INDEX (RSI): A system of measure that predicts channel substrate stability.

RIPARIAN AREAS/HABITATS: Land areas where the vegetation and microclimate are influenced by perennial and/or intermittent water.

RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES (RMOs): Quantifiable measures of stream and streamside conditions that define good fish habitat and serve as indicators against which attainment or progress toward attainment of goals will be measured.

RIPARIAN HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS (RHCAs): Portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines. RHCAs include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent headwater streams, and other areas where proper ecological functioning is crucial to maintenance of the stream's water, sediment, woody debris, and nutrient delivery systems.

RIPPING: A form of soil decompaction; a method of aerating the surface and subsurface material of a road, landing, and/or skid trail to allow water infiltration by tilling the soil with a piece of machinery equipped with ripper bars.

ROAD: A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a trail (36 CFR 212).

ROAD CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION: Supervising, inspecting, actual building, and incurrence of all costs incidental to the construction or reconstruction of a road (36 CFR 212).

ROAD DECOMMISSIONING: Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state. (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7705 – Transportation System.). Removal of a road from the National Forest Road System after an interdisciplinary travel analysis identifies it as being not needed for long-term resource management. Levels of decommissioning are described as follows*:  Level 1: Blocking the entrance and restoring vegetation. Culverts, if existing, remain in place.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 17

 Level 2: Blocking the entrance, restoring vegetation, scarifying, installing waterbars. Culverts, if existing, remain in place.  Level 3: Reestablishing drainage-ways, installing waterbars, shallow ripping, removing unstable fills, pulling back road shoulders, scattering slash on roadbed. Culverts removed.  Level 4: Reestablishing drainage-ways, installing waterbars, deep ripping, removing unstable fills, pulling back road shoulders, scattering slash on roadbed, partial recontouring. Culverts removed.  Level 5: Completely eliminating the roadbed by restoring natural condition and slopes. Culverts removed. *Not all the activities may occur for each level. For example, under Level 2, waterbars would not be installed if not needed.

Active Decommissioning: Physical work is done on the ground to place the road in a hydrologically stable condition. This work includes, but is not limited to, removing culverts, restoring natural stream channels, recontouring unstable fillslopes, waterbarring, ripping, placing slash and duff on the treated road surface, and seeding in some places.

Passive Decommissioning: The road prism has been determined to be hydrologically stable and is allowed to naturalize without ground disturbing activities. The natural vegetation renders the road impassable to motorized vehicles.

ROAD MAINTENANCE: The upkeep of the entire Forest Development Transportation Facility including surface and shoulders, parking and side areas, structures, and such traffic- control devices as are necessary for its safe and efficient utilization.

ROAD MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: Defines the intended purpose of an individual road based on management area direction and access management objectives. Road management objectives contain design criteria, operation criteria, and maintenance criteria. (FSM 7721.31 and FSH 7790.55--33).

ROADLESS: Area characterized by its lack of roads; i.e.: unroaded.

ROOT CROWNS: The point at or just below the surface of the ground where the stem and root join.

ROOT DISEASE: A fungal organism which lives in organic matter i the soil and invades the living roots systems of trees.

ROSGEN CHANNEL CLASSIFICATION: A system of measure that utilizes various channel features to rate a stream or river into reproducible classes.

ROTATION: The planned number of years required to establish (including the regeneration period) and grow timber crops to a specified condition or maturity for regeneration harvest.

SALMONIDS: Members of the family of elongate soft-finned fishes Salmonidae - the trout and salmon family.

SALVAGE HARVEST: The cutting of trees that are dead, dying, or deteriorating before they lose commercial value as sawtimber. The removed trees are generally overmature, damaged by fire, wind, insects, fungi or other injurious agencies.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 18

SCOPING: The procedures by which the Forest Service determines the extent of analysis necessary for a proposed action, i.e., the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be addressed, identification of significant issues related to a proposed action, and establishing the depth of environmental analysis, data, and task assignments needed.

SCREE: Refers to slopes covered with loose rock fragments, including the accumulation of rock at a cliff or slope base (talus) as well as loose, unstable material lying on slopes without cliffs.

SEDIMENT: Any material carried in suspension by water, which will ultimately settle to the bottom. Sediment has two main sources: from the channel area itself and from disturbed sites.

SEDIMENT TRAP: Any natural or man-made feature in a stream that traps sediment.

SEED TREE: A tree selected as a natural seed source within a shelterwood or seedtree harvest cut; sometimes also reserved for seed collection.

SEEDTREE HARVEST: A regeneration method under an even-aged silvicultural system. A portion of the mature stand, usually 10-15 trees/acre, is retained as a source of seed for regeneration of the stand. The seed trees are intended for removal after regeneration is considered to be established. Note: where there is no intention of removing the seed trees once the stand is regenerated, a seedtree seed cut with reserves is the appropriate silvicultural system.

SEEDLINGS AND SAPLINGS: Non-commercial-size young trees, generally occurring in plantations.

SENSITIVE LANDTYPE: The landtypes most vulnerable to slumping and associated erosion, particularly when subject to natural or management related disturbance.

SENSITIVE SPECIES: Those species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in (a) population numbers or density, or (b) habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution.

SENSITIVITY LEVEL: A particular degree or measure of viewer interest in the scenic qualities of the landscape.

SERAL STAGE: A transitory or developmental stage of a biotic community in an ecological succession (does not include climax successional stage or pioneer stage).

SEROTINOUS: Late in developing; particularly applied to plants that flower or fruit late in the season and to fruit and cones that remain closed for a year or more after the seeds mature, but also to bud opening, leaf shedding, etc. Applies to the nature of lodgepole pine cones, as a positive adaptive trait for fire dependent ecosystems.

SHELTERWOOD HARVEST: A regeneration method under an even-aged silvicultural system. A portion of the mature stand is retained as a source of seed and site protection during the regeneration period.

SHRUB: A plant with persistent woody stems and relatively low growth form; usually produces several basal shoots as opposed to a single bole; differs from a tree by its low stature and nonarborescent form.

SIGNIFICANT: As used in NEPA, requires consideration of both context and intensity. Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 19

whole, and the affected region, interests, and locality. Intensity refers to the severity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27).

SILVICULTURE: The art and science of growing and tending forest vegetation, i.e., controlling the establishment, composition, and growth of forests, for specific management goals.

SILVICULTURAL DIAGNOSIS: The process of comparing existing stand conditions to a desired condition or "target stand", and determining a need for treatment to bring the stand to the desired condition.

SILVICULTURAL SYSTEM: A management process whereby forests are tended, harvested, and replaced, resulting in a forest of distinctive form. Systems are classified according to the method of carrying out the cuttings that remove the mature crop and provide for regeneration, and according to the type of forest thereby produced.

SITE PREPARATION: A general term for a variety of activities that remove or treat competing vegetation, slash, and other debris that may inhibit the establishment of regeneration.

SIZE CLASS: A classification of forest stands based on live trees in the stand. The classification uses a four letter acronym based on descriptive adjectives. For example, a stand that is designated as a size class MLRS is a mature stand (M) that is considered low risk to damaging insects or disease (LR) and is stocked with sawtimber sized trees of a specified diameter and stocking level (S).

SLASH: The residue left on the ground after felling and other silvicultural operations and/or accumulating there as a result of storm, fire, girdling, or poisoning of trees.

SLASHING: Includes cutting down sub-merchantable conifers left after harvest activities to treat the fuels left in the unit. It can occur in non-harvest units as well to create fuel to help carry a prescribed fire within the unit.

SLASH BURNING: The treatment or burning of slash so as to reduce fire or insect hazards.

SNAG: A standing dead tree usually without merchantable value for timber products, but may have characteristics of benefit to some cavity nesting wildlife species.

SNAG DEPENDENT WILDLIFE: Wildlife species that are dependent on snags for nesting or roosting habitat or for food.

SPECIAL USE PERMIT: A permit issued under established laws and regulations to an individual, organization, or company for occupancy or use of National Forest land for some special purpose.

SPECIES: A unit of classification of plants and animals consisting of the largest and most inclusive array of sexually reproducing and cross-fertilizing individuals which share a common gene pool.

SPECIFIED ROAD: A Forest System Road, including related transportation facilities and appurtenances, shown on a Timber Sale Area Map and listed in Table A9 of the Timber Sale Contract.

STAGNATION: Refers to stand growth, implying that there is a failure to express dominance due to poor site conditions, competition of other trees that limit development of the crowns which

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 20

suppresses individual tree growth and over all stand development. Usually diameter growth is severely limited and height growth still occurs but slowly.

STAND: A community of trees or other vegetation uniform in composition, constitution, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities.

STAND COMPOSITION: The representation of tree species in a forest stand, expressed by some measure of dominance (i.e.: percent volume, number, basal area).

STAND DENSITY: A measure of the degree of crowding of trees within stocked areas, commonly expressed by various growing-space ratios such as crown length to tree height, crown diameter to diameter at breast height, crown diameter to tree height, or of stem spacing to tree height.

STAND REPLACING FIRE: A fire that kills most or all of a stand, and causes a new stand to be started.

STAND STRUCTURE: The horizontal and vertical arrangement of the vegetation in a stand.

STANDARD: A particular action, level of performance, or threshold specified by the Forest Plan for resource protection or accomplishment of management objectives. Unlike "guidelines" which are optional, standards specified in the Forest Plan are mandatory.

STOCKED: Stands falling within a prescribed standard or expected number of trees or basal area per acre.

STOCKING: The degree to which trees occupy the land, measured by basal area and/or number of trees by size and spacing, compared with a stocking standard; that is, the basal area and/or number of trees required to fully utilize the land's growth potential.

STREAM CHANNEL STABILITY: A classification system that utilizes ocular estimates of various channel, bank, and riparian area features to evaluate channel health.

STREAM ORDER: It is often convenient to classify streams within a drainage basin by systematically defining the network of branches. Each nonbranching channel segment (smallest size) is designated a first-order stream. A stream which receives only first-order segments is termed a second-order stream, and so on. The order of a particular drainage basin is determined by the order of the principle or largest segment.

STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY: The variation in sizes and shapes of landscape elements, as well as diversity of pattern (i.e.: heterogeneity).

SUCCESSION: The changes in vegetation and in animal life that take place as the plant community evolves from bare ground to climax.

SUCCESSIONAL STAGE: A stage or recognizable condition of a plant community which occurs during its development from bare ground to climax.

SUMMER RANGE: A range, usually at higher elevation, used by deer and elk during the summer; a summer range is usually much more extensive than a winter range.

SUITABLE FOREST LAND: Forest land (as defined in CFR 219.3, 219.14) for which technology is available that will insure timber production without irreversible resource damage to soils, productivity, or watershed conditions; for which there is reasonable assurance that such

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 21

lands can be adequately restocked (as provided in CFR 219.4); and for which there is management direction that indicates that timber production is an appropriate use of that area.

SUPPRESSED: Refers to individual trees, very slowly growing trees with crowns entirely below the general level of the crown cover, receiving no direct light either from above or from the sides, common in stands that are considered overstocked.

SURFACE EROSION: Downslope movement of individual particles of soil by water transport. Surface erosion includes sheet erosion, riling and gullying.

TEMPORARY ROADS: Any short-lived road not intended to be a part of the forest development transportation system and not necessary for future resource management. (FSM 7705. Also see Timber Sale Contract 2400-6T).

THERMAL COVER: Vegetation used by animals to modify the adverse effects of weather. A forest stand that is at least 40 feet in height with tree canopy cover of at least 70 percent provides thermal cover. These stand conditions are achieved in closed sapling-pole stands and by all older stands unless the canopy cover is reduced below 70 percent. Deciduous stands may serve as thermal cover in summer, but not in winter.

THINNING: A cutting made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality.

THREATENED SPECIES: Any species of plant or animal which is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

TIERING: The use of a previously written environmental document with a broad scope to cover discussion of issues common to both.

TIMBER TYPES: A descriptive classification of forestland based on present occupancy of an area by tree species (i.e.: lodgepole, mixed conifer). More appropriately called forest cover types, this category is further defined by the composition of its vegetation and/or environmental factors that influence its locality. See Appendix A (Silvicultural Prescriptions) for more information.

TRAMPLING: A method of treating fuels by knocking down by walking over or through small trees with a piece of machinery.

TURBIDITY: An optical measure of how fine sediment inhibits the transmission light in a given water sample due to scattering and absorption by suspended particles.

TWO-STORIED: A forest stand or plant community having two main canopy layers or "stories".

UNAUTHORIZED ROAD OR TRAIL: A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 215). Sometimes referred to as Undetermined as defined in the Infra Travel Routes Database Data Dictionary.

UNDERBURN: Understory fuels treatment.

UNDERSTORY: Vegetation (trees or shrubs) growing under the canopy formed by taller trees.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 22

UNDETERMINED ROADS: Roads on National Forest System lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travel ways, and off- road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization. (Infra data dictionary.)

UNSUITABLE FOREST LAND: Lands not selected for timber production in Step II and III of the suitability analysis during the development of the Forest Plan due to: (1) the multiple-use objectives for the alternative preclude timber production, (2) other management objectives for the alternative limit timber production activities to the point where management requirements cannot be met, and (3) the lands are not cost-efficient over the planning horizon in meeting forest objectives that include timber production. Land not appropriate for timber production shall be designated as unsuitable in the Forest Plan.

VEGETATION RESPONSE UNIT: An aggregation of lands with similar patterns in potential natural communities, soils, hydrologic function, landform and topography, climate, air quality, and natural processes (i.e.: nutrient and biomass cycling, succession, productivity, and fire regimes). Each VRU has an associated description of its ecological structure, composition, and function. VRUs provide a means to describe and define the components of ecosystems

VERTICAL DIVERSITY: The diversity in an area that results from the complexity of the above ground structure of the vegetation; the more tiers of vegetation or the more diverse the species makeup is, the higher the degree of vertical diversity

VIABLE POPULATION: A wildlife population of sufficient size to maintain its existence over time in spite of normal fluctuations in population levels.

VIEWSHED: Sub-units of the landscape where the visitor's view is contained by topography similar to a watershed.

VISUAL QUALITY OBJECTIVE (VQO): A system of indicating the potential expectations of the visual resource by considering the frequency an area is viewed and the type of landscape.

Maximum Modification: A Visual Quality Objective meaning man's activity may dominate the characteristic landscape but should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as background.

Modification: A Visual Quality Objective meaning man's activity may dominate the characteristic landscape but must, at the same time, utilize naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in foreground or middleground.

Partial Retention: A Visual Quality Objective which in general means man's activities may be evident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

Preservation: A Visual Quality Objective that provides for ecological change only.

Retention: A Visual Quality Objective which in general means man's activities are not evident to the casual forest visitor.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 23

Sensitivity Level: A particular degree or measure of viewer interest in the scenic qualities of the landscape.

Variety Class: Diversity of landscape character

VARIETY CLASS: A particular level of visual variety or diversity of landscape character.

VISUAL RESOURCE: The composite of landforms, water features, vegetative patterns and cultural features which create the visual environment.

WATER ROUTING: Spring snowmelt and storm runoff intercepted and redirected by roads, ditches, and trails.

WATER YIELD: The measured output of the Forest's streams.

WILDERNESS: All lands included in the National Wilderness Preservation System by public law; generally defined as undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation.

WILDFIRE: Any fire not designated and managed as a prescribed fire with an approved prescription.

WINDTHROW: The action of wind uprooting trees.

WINTER RANGE: A range, usually at lower elevation, used by migratory deer and elk during the winter months; usually better defined and smaller than summer ranges.

YARDING: A method of bringing logs in to a roadside area or landing, for truck transport. Methods may include forms of skyline cable logging systems, ground-based skidding, balloon, helicopter, etc.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 24

Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym Description AEUI Aquatic Ecological Unit Inventory

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

ALT Alternative

BA Biological Assessment

BAA Bear Analysis Area

BCR Bird Conservation Regions

BE Biological Evaluation

BFW Bank Full Width

BMP Best Management Practices

BMU Bear Management Unit

BO Biological Opinion

CCF Hundred Cubic Feet

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulation

CFS Cubic Feet Per Second

CWA Clean Water Act

CWD Coarse Woody Debris

CYE Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem

DBH Diameter Breast Height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DF Douglas-fir

EA Environmental Assessment

ECA Equivalent Clearcut Acres

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMU Elk Management Unit

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 25

ESA Endangered Species Act

FDR Forest Development Road

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FP Forest Plan

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

GIS Global Information Systems

HE Habitat Effectiveness

HFRA Healthy Forest Restoration Act

HRV Historical Range of Variability

IDT Interdisciplinary Team

IGBC Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee

IGBG Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines

INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

KNF Kootenai National Forest

KV Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1924

LAU Lynx Analysis Unit

MA Management Area

MIS Management Indicator Species

MBF Thousand Board Feet

MBTSG Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality

MDFWP Montana Deptartment Fish Wildlife and Parks

MMBF Million Board Feet

MFWP Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks

MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 26

MS Management Situation

NCDE Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NFSR National Forest System Road

NFST National Forest System Trail

NRIS Natural Resource Information System

NRLMD Norther Rockies Lynx Management Direction

NRM National Resource Manager

OG Old Growth

OMRD Open Motorized Road Density

ORD Open Road Density

PA Physiographic Area

PCE Primary Constituent Elements

PCT Pre-commercial Thin(ning)

PFA Post-Fledgling Area

PFI Peak Flow Increase

PL Public Law

PM Particulate Matter

PNV Present Net Value

PP Ponderosa Pine

PPI Potential Population Increase

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PTES Proposed, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants

RARE I & II Roadless Area Review and Evaluation I & II

RHCA Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

RMO Road Management Objective

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 27

ROG Replacement Old Growth

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

RSI Riffle Stability Index

SCS Stream Channel Stability

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIP State Implementation Plan

SWCP Soil and Water Conservation Practices

TES Threatened and Endangered Species

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TMRD Total Motorized Access Route Density

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USGS United States Geological Survey

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service

VQO Visual Quality Objectives

VRU Vegetation Response Unit

VMS Visual Management system

WL Western larch

WQLS Water quality Limited Segments

WUI Wildland Urban Interface

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 28

Appendix B: Best Management Practices (BMP)

Introduction Federal agency compliance with pollution control is addressed through Section 313 of the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 12580 (January 23, 1987), National Nonpoint Source Policy (December 12, 1984), USDA Nonpoint Source Water Quality Policy (December 5, 1986) and the Environmental Protection Agency in their guidance "Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards" (August 19, 1987). In order to comply with State and local non-point pollution controls the Forest Service will apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) to all possible non-point sources which may result from management activities proposed in this FEIS. These BMPs are the Soil and Water Conservation Practices described in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22.

BMPs are the primary mechanism for achievement of water quality standards (EPA, 1987). This appendix describes the Forest Service's BMP process in detail, and lists the key Soil and Water Conservation Practices that have been selected to be used in the action alternatives analyzed in this FEIS.

BMPs include, but are not limited to, structural, and non-structural controls, operations, and maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during, or after pollution-producing activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into the receiving watershed (40 CFR 130.2, EPA Water Quality Standards Regulation). BMPs are usually applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. They are selected on the basis of site-specific conditions that reflect natural background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical feasibility.

The 2015 Forest Plan states that Best Management Practices will be incorporated into all land use project plans as a principal mechanism for controlling non-point pollution sources, meeting soil and water quality goals, and protecting beneficial uses. To the extent practicable, ditch and surface runoff should be disconnected from streams and other water bodies. Activities found not to comply with the BMPs or State standards will be brought into compliance, modified, or stopped. Montana State Water Quality Standards require the use of reasonable land, soil, and water conservation practices (analogous to BMPs) as the controlling mechanism for non-point pollution. The use of BMPs is also required in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the State of Montana as part of the agency's responsibility as the designated water quality management agency on National Forest System lands.

BMP Implementation Process In cooperation with the State, the Forest Service's primary strategy for the control of non-point sources of pollution is based on the implementation of preventive practices (i.e., BMPs). The BMPs have been designed and selected to protect the identified beneficial uses of the watershed.

The Forest Service non-point source management system consists of the following steps:

1. BMP Selection and Design - Water quality goals are identified in the Forest Plan. These goals meet or exceed applicable legal requirements including State water quality regulations, the Clean Water Act, and the National Forest Management Act. Environmental assessments for projects are tiered to Forest Plans using the National Environmental Policy Act process. The appropriate BMPs are selected for each project by an interdisciplinary team. In each new location, there is flexibility to design different BMPs depending on local conditions and values and downstream beneficial uses of water. The BMP selection and design are dictated by the proposed activity, water quality objectives, soils, topography, geology, vegetation, and climate. Environmental impacts and water quality protection options are evaluated, and alternative mixes of practices are considered. A final collection of practices are

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 29

selected that not only protect water quality but meet other resource needs. These final selected practices constitute the BMPs for the project. 2. BMP Application - The BMPs are translated into contract provisions, special use permit requirements, project plan specifications, and so forth. This ensures that the operator or person responsible for applying the BMPs actually is required to do so. Site-specific BMP prescriptions are taken from plan- to-ground by a combination of project layout and resource specialists (hydrology, fisheries, soils, etc.). This is when final adjustments to fit BMP prescriptions to the site are made. 3. BMP Monitoring - When the resource activity begins (e.g., timber harvest or road building), timber sale administrators, engineering representatives, resource specialists, and others ensure the BMPs are implemented according to plan. BMP implementation monitoring is done before, during, and after resource activity implementation. This monitoring answers the question: Did we do what we said we were going to do? Once BMPs have been implemented, further monitoring is done to evaluate if the BMPs are effective in meeting management objectives and protecting beneficial uses. If monitoring indicates that water quality standards are not being met or beneficial uses are not being protected, corrective action will consider the following: Is the BMP technically sound? Is it really best or is there a better practice that is technically sound and feasible to implement?

Was the BMP applied entirely as designated? Was it only partially implemented? Were personnel, equipment, funds, or training lacking which resulted in inadequate or incomplete implementation?

Do the parameters and criteria that constitute water quality standards adequately reflect human-induced changes to water quality and beneficial uses?

4. Feedback - Feedback on the results of BMP evaluation is both short- and long-term in nature. Where corrective action is needed, immediate response will be undertaken. This action may include: modification of the BMP, modification of the activity, ceasing the activity, or possibly modification of the State water quality standard. Cumulative effects over the long-term may also lead to the need for possible corrective actions.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 30

KNF BMP SELECTION AND DESIGN FORM (KNF-BMP-1) (Revised 3/08 for D-4) SITE-SPECIFIC BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Description of the soil and water conservation practices from the Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22) will be applied in all alternatives. The location where the practices will be applied is specified in the table below. For a more detailed description of a specific BMP, refer to the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook.

COR – Contracting Officer’s Representative

ER - Engineering Representative

FP - Kootenai Forest Plan

IDT - Interdisciplinary Team

INFISH - Inland Native Fish Strategy

KNF - Kootenai National Forest

PSF - Pre-sale Forester

RHCA - Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

SAM - Sale Area Map

SMZ - Streamside Management Zone

SPS – Special Project Specification

SWCP - Soil and Water Conservation Practice

TSA - Timber Sale Administrator

TSC - Timber Sale Contract

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 31

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 14.01 TIMBER SALE 94% 1. Unit design, mitigation, and effects IDT has evaluated watershed IDT; PSF N/A PLANNING - To analysis was done by IDT. characteristics and estimated response incorporate soil and water 2. TSC will be prepared by PSF that to proposed activities. EIS identifies resource considerations into includes Design Criteria from the design criteria to protect soil and water Timber Sale Planning decision. resources. Timber sale contracts will include provisions to meet water 3. Use standard RHCA widths unless quality, soils, and other resource modified (requires documentation of requirements as directed by the rationale). Decision. 4. Use existing skid trails where feasible. 14.02 TIMBER HARVEST UNIT 95% 1. Cumulative effects analysis and unit Proposed activities were evaluated to IDT; PSF N/A DESIGN - To ensure that design were performed by IDT. estimate the potential watershed timber harvest unit design 2. The prescriptions and unit design are response. Prescriptions will be will secure favorable consistent with direction outlined in the designed to assure an acceptable level conditions of water flow, considerations for Best Management of protection for soil and water maintain water quality and Practices. resources. Management will protect soil productivity, and reduce soil/water values by avoiding sensitive soil erosion and 3. Use standard RHCA widths unless areas, adjusting unit boundaries, adding sedimentation. modified (requires documentation of specific BMPs to meet specific rationale). SWCPs, applying mitigation, and 4. Use existing skid trails where applying implementation/effectiveness feasible. monitoring to trend toward desired 5. Suitable logging system used for conditions. topography, soil type, and season of operation. 14.03 USE OF SALE AREA 93% 1. Water courses identified and The IDT will identify water courses to IDT; PSF; B(T)1.1 MAPS (SAMs) FOR protected using RHCA/SMZ buffers as be protected, unit boundaries, and other TSA B(T)6.5 DESIGNATING SOIL a minimum. features required by other means such C(T)6.50# AND WATER 2. Skidding on dry, frozen, or snow- as "C" provisions. Ground verification PROTECTION NEEDS - covered soil conditions. and preparation of SAMs to be To delineate the location of included in TSC will be done by PSF. protected areas and 3. Designated skid trails in units with TSA reviews areas of concern with available water sources and previous harvest. purchaser before operations. ensure their recognition, 4. Use standard RHCA widths unless proper consideration, and modified (requires documentation of protection on the ground. rationale).

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 32

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 14.04 LIMITING THE 99% 1. Units located on soils sensitive to If limited operating periods are IDT; PSF; B(T)6.31 OPERATION PERIOD OF compaction and/or displacement have identified and recommended during the TSA B(T)6.311 TIMBER SALE been identified. analysis by the IDT, the PSF will B(T)6.6 ACTIVITIES - To 2. Designate units needing harvest on prepare a contract that includes minimize soil erosion, frozen or snow covered ground. provision C(T)6.316 and/or C(T)6.4#. C(T)6.6 sedimentation, and a loss in C(T)6.316# soil productivity by insuring 3. All other ground disturbing activities C(T)6.4# that the purchaser conducts will occur during dry, frozen, or snow- his/her operations in a covered conditions to minimize soil timely manner. compaction and displacement. 14.05 PROTECTION OF 96% 1. Unstable landtypes will be identified If the NEPA analysis concluded that IDT; PSF; C(T)6.4# UNSTABLE AREAS - To during the planning process. soils/geology in the area were unstable, TSA protect unstable areas and 2. Units found to need further then BMPs are designed to prevent avoid triggering mass protection will use alternative yarding irreversible soil and water damage. movements of the soil techniques, seasonal restrictions, and/or mantle and resultant erosion unit boundary adjustments. and sedimentation. 14.06 RIPARIAN AREA 90% 1. Identify areas with or adjacent to wet All activities near streams and wetlands IDT; PSF; B(T)1.1 DESIGNATION - To areas. in the decision area will comply with TSA B(T)6.5, minimize the adverse the 2015 KNF Forest Plan and the 2. Default RHCA widths will be C(T)6.4# effects on riparian areas adhered to unless modified (requires SMZ law (HB-731). These widths will with prescriptions that documentation of rationale). be included on the sale area map and C(T)6.41# manage nearby logging and marked on the ground. C(T)6.50# related land disturbance 3. SMZ widths will be used as a activities. minimum if modification is proposed. 4. Areas found during sale layout will be reported to the Hydrologist and afforded the same protections as those identified during the planning process. 14.07 DETERMINING 97% 1. Avoid tractor logging on unstable IDT (in conjunction with personnel IDT; PSF C(T)6.4# TRACTOR-LOGGABLE slopes and sustained slopes greater than from timber operations) identified SAM GROUND - To protect 40% (small areas of the unit may have tractor-loggable ground during water quality from slopes > 40%). transportation and timber sale planning. degradation caused by 2. Areas unsuitable for tractor logging The results have been used to tractor logging ground were designated as cable, forwarder, or determine intensity of and restrictions disturbance. winter harvest units; or were dropped for land disturbance activities. PSF will from the unit. prepare a TSC that includes provisions stating areas and conditions under which tractors may operate.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 33

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 14.08 TRACTOR SKIDDING 97% 1. Identify units with designated or IDT has identified sensitive areas IDT; PSF; B(T)6.422 DESIGN - To minimize dispersed skid trails. during the planning process. The TSA TSA C(T)6.4# erosion and sedimentation 2. TSA and purchaser agree on will execute the plan on the ground by and protect soil productivity proposed locations before operation. locating the skid trails with the timber by designing skidding purchaser or by agreeing to the patterns to best fit the 3. Skidding operation minimizes soil purchaser's proposed locations prior to terrain. displacement and compaction. operation. 14.09 SUSPENDED LOG 95%. 1. Units that have slopes that are IDT recognizes the hazards associated IDT; PSF B(T)6.42 YARDING IN TIMBER unsuitable for or sensitive to ground with operating on steep and/or rocky C(T)6.4# HARVESTING - To protect base skidding will be identified during slopes. Areas found to be of concern the soil from excessive analysis and listed in the Design will use appropriate harvest systems C(T)6.50# disturbance and accelerated Criteria. that provide for a safe work erosion and maintain the 2. Units with sustained slopes >40% environment and protect natural integrity of the riparian will be designated cable harvest units. resources. areas and other sensitive areas. 14.10 LOG LANDING 99% 1. TSA and purchaser agree on landing TSA must agree to landing locations PSF; TSA B(T)6.422 LOCATION AND DESIGN locations before operation. proposed by the purchaser. Approved C(T)6.422 - To locate in such a way as 2. Use suitable number, size, and landing locations will meet the criteria to avoid soil erosion and location of landings. of: minimal size, least excavation water quality degradation. needed, minimum skid roads 3. Use least excavation needed. necessary, no side-cast of material into 4. Do not side-cast material into sensitive areas, and have proper sensitive areas or waterways. drainage. 5. Install proper drainage. 14.11 LOG LANDING EROSION 98% 1. Proper drainage will be installed and PSF and TSA assess what is necessary PSF; TSA C(T)6.6 PREVENTION AND maintained during operation. to prevent erosion from landing and to BT6.64 CONTROL- To reduce 2. Landings will be scarified, seeded, ensure stabilization. It is up to the TSA erosion and subsequent to request technical assistance as B(T)6.6 and fertilized upon completion of C(T)6.633# sedimentation from log harvest activities. needed. landing through the use of mitigating measures. 3. TSA will assess conditions and take necessary steps to ensure soil and water protection.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 34

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 14.12 EROSION PREVENTION 91% 1. Designate units with seasonal PSF and TSA sets purchaser's PSF; TSA A13 AND CONTROL restrictions. responsibility to prevent soil/water B(T)6.6 MEASURES DURING resource damage in TSC. TSA ensures 2. Do not operate during wet periods B(T)6.64 THE TIMBER SALE including spring-snowmelt and/or that erosion control is kept current and OPERATION - To ensure intense or long-duration rain storms. prevents operation when excessive C(T)6.6 that the purchaser's impacts are possible. C(T)6.601# operations shall be 3. TSA ensures that erosion control is C(T)6.633# conducted reasonably to kept current and prevents operation minimize soil erosion. when excessive impacts are possible. 14.13 SPECIAL EROSION 93% 1. Use waterbars, KNF approved seed IDT identifies locations needing IDT; PSF; C(T)6.601# PREVENTION and fertilizer, and placed woody debris special stabilization measures. If any TSA C(T)6.32# MEASURES ON AREAS to stabilize soils on skid trails, such areas are identified, BMPs may be DISTURBED BY landings. adjusted by the TSA to meet C(T)6.633# HARVEST ACTIVITIES - 2. Scarify or recontour excavated skid operational requirements. To prevent erosion and trails, temporary roads and compacted sedimentation on disturbed landings constructed for the project. areas. Place slash and duff on disturbed areas. 3. Scarify previously existing excavated skid trails, temporary roads and compacted landings used for the project. 4. BMPs may be adjusted by the TSA to meet operational requirements. 14.14 REVEGETATION OF 95% 1. Seed and fertilize areas of exposed The KNF has established seed and IDT; TSA C(T)6.01# AREAS DISTURBED BY soil with KNF approved seed and fertilizer mix to be used in the project C(T)6.633# HARVEST ACTIVITIES - fertilizer mix. area with outlines on the extent to To establish a vegetative 2. Cover disturbed areas with slash which it should be used. TSA is cover on disturbed areas to and/or mulch as necessary. responsible for seeing that revegetation prevent erosion and work required by purchaser is done sedimentation. correctly and in a timely manner. The purchaser will be responsible for revegetation immediately after the completion of harvest. Funds will be collected for the District to do follow- up seeding/fertilizing in years two and three after harvest.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 35

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 14.15 EROSION CONTROL ON 89% 1. Ensure proper skid trail location. Erosion control measures may be TSA C(T)6.6 SKID TRAILS - To protect 2. Ensure proper drainage on skid recommended by the IDT, but site- C(T)6.633# water quality by minimizing trails; avoid concentrating runoff. specifically adjusted by the TSA. TSA B(T)6.6 erosion and sedimentation will ensure erosion control measures derived from skid trails. 3. Recontour, seed, and place woody are applied prior to expected B(T)6.65 debris on constructed skid trails and hydrologic events (spring runoff, high- B(T)6.66 temporary roads. intensity storms, etc.). Maintenance of 4. Ensure maintenance of erosion erosion control structures by the control structures by purchaser. purchaser may be necessary and 5. Ensure adequate erosion control on requested by the TSA. temporary roads, skid trails, and harvest-disturbed areas within the unit. 14.16 WET MEADOW 87% 1. Units with, or adjacent to, wet IDT has identified areas needing IDT; PSF; B(T)1.1 PROTECTION DURING meadows, wetlands, and/or ponds will special protection. PSF will verify the TSA B(T)5.1 TIMBER HARVESTING - have buffers clearly identified in the areas needing protection and prepare To avoid damage to the sale map and on the ground. the contract to prevent damage to B(T)6.422 ground cover, soil, and 2. Units with unmapped wet areas will meadows. The TSA will be responsible B(T)6.61 water in meadows. be reported to a Hydrologist and for on-the-ground protection of C(T)6.4# meadows. If meadows are found by the afforded the same protection as those C(T)6.62# identified during the planning process. TSA during operations, it is their responsibility to either afford them the 3. Standard RHCA widths will be proper protection or pursue a contract adhered to unless modification is in modification. place. 4. The SMZ law will be met or exceeded. 14.17 STREAM CHANNEL 92% 1. Use standard RHCA widths unless IDT has identified the location of IDT; PSF; B(T)1.1 PROTECTION modified (requires documentation of channels in the decision area. PSF will TSA B(T)6.5 (IMPLEMENTATION rationale). prepare a SAM locating the channels B(T)6.6 AND ENFORCEMENT) - 2. SMZ widths will be met or exceeded needing protection. Layout crew marks Protect natural stream regardless of RHCA modification. boundaries and trees according to HB- C(T)6.50# flows; provide unobstructed 731. TSA will see that TSC items are C(T)6.6 passage of flows; reduce carried out on the ground. Technical sediment input; and restore assistance will be consulted as needed. flow if diverted by timber sale activity.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 36

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 14.18 EROSION CONTROL 92% 1. During the period of the TSC, the If work is needed beyond the period of IDT; PSF; B(T)6.66 STRUCTURE purchaser is responsible for the TSC, the District will pursue other TSA B(T)6.67 MAINTENANCE - To maintaining their erosion control sources of funding. ensure that constructed features. erosion control structures are stabilized and working effectively. 14.19 ACCEPTANCE OF 97% 1. TSA reviews erosion prevention A careful review of erosion prevention TSA B(T)6.36 TIMBER SALE EROSION work before each harvest unit is work will be made by the TSA before CONTROL MEASURES considered complete. each harvest unit is considered BEFORE SALE CLOSURE 2. The inspection will determine if the complete. The inspection will - To assure the adequacy of work is acceptable and will meet the determine if the work is acceptable and required erosion control objective of the erosion control feature. will meet the objective of the erosion work on timber sales. control feature. A feature is considered not acceptable if it does not meet standards or is not expected to protect soil/water resources. Technical assistance will be used as necessary. 14.20 SLASH TREATMENT IN 93% 1. Where harvest is proposed within All activities will comply with the TSA; FMO B(T)6.5 SENSITIVE AREAS - To riparian areas, slash should be removed 2015 KNF forest plan. C(T)6.50# protect water quality by with the tree or scattered and not protecting sensitive treated. B(T)6.7 tributary areas from 2. Limit mechanical fuels treatment to C(T)6.7 degradation that would slopes < 40%. C(T)6.71 result from using C(T)6.753 mechanized equipment for 3. Mechanical slash piling should not slash disposal. excessively disturb soil surface. 4. Scarification is limited to extent necessary to meet management objectives. 14.22 MODIFICATION OF THE 100% 1. Environmental modification If TSC is not adequate to protect soil TSA B(T)8.33 TSC - To modify the TSC if procedure. and water resources, the TSA and new circumstances or Contracting Officer are responsible for conditions indicate the recommending modification of the timber sale will cause TSC. irreversible damage to soil, water, or watershed values.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 37

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 15.01 GENERAL GUIDELINES 100% 1. Complete a roads analysis. A roads Analysis has been completed. IDT; ER N/A FOR TRANSPORTATION 2. Transportation plans include proper The IDT has evaluated watershed PLANNING - To introduce drainage installation and maintenance. characteristics and estimated the soil and water resource response of soil and water resources to considerations into proposed transportation alternatives transportation planning. and activities. 15.02 GENERAL GUIDELINES 95% 1. Follow the 2015 KNF forest plan. The IDT has ensured that the location IDT; ER N/A FOR THE LOCATION 2. Avoid sensitive landtypes, riparian and design of roads and trails are based AND DESIGN OF ROADS areas, and wetlands during planning. on multiple resource objectives. AND TRAILS - To locate Mitigation measures have been and design roads and trails 3. Use the minimum amount of roads designed to protect the soil and water with minimal soil and water and trails necessary to accomplish resources identified in the NEPA impact while considering all work. process. Contract provisions will be design criteria. 4. Design roads for drainage efficiency. prepared by the ER that meets the soil 5. Route road drainage through and water resource protection adequate filtration before entering requirements. streams. 6. Ensure proper size of stream crossings structures. New or replacement structures should pass the 100 year flow event. 7. Ensure culverts conform to natural streambed and slope. 8. Ensure ditch relief culverts have stable catch basins, inflow end protected from plugging, and appropriate skew.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 38

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 15.03 ROAD AND TRAIL 96% 1. Seed and fertilize disturbed areas. IDT has established soil/water IDT; ER B(T)6.31 EROSION CONTROL 2. Install proper ditching and road conservation objectives and mitigation B(T)6.6 PLAN - To prevent, limit, slope. measures. ER will prepare a contract and mitigate erosion, that reflects the objectives. ER will see B(T)6.312 sedimentation, and resulting 3. Install proper drainage. that erosion control measures are water quality degradation 4. Incorporate road grade breaks. approved and completed in a timely prior to the initiation of 5. Use minimum road or trail manner. IDT reviews projects to check construction by timely length/width necessary. effectiveness of erosion control implementation of erosion features. 6. Avoid wet areas or areas of sensitive control practices. soil types. 7. Slash filter windrows used where needed and feasible. 15.04 TIMING OF 98% 1. Avoid construction during wet If limited operating periods are IDT; ER B(T)6.31 CONSTRUCTION periods. identified and recommended during the B(T)6.312 ACTIVITIES - To analysis by the IDT, the ER will put 2. Follow timing restrictions for B(T)6.6 minimize erosion by aquatic species if applicable. these measures into contract conducting operations provisions. Compliance is assured by SPS 204 during minimal runoff Contracting Officer or ER. periods. 15.05 SLOPE STABILIZATION 99% Avoid construction across unstable Road and trail construction in IDT; ER N/A AND PREVENTION OF areas. mountainous terrain requires cutting MASS FAILURES - To Construct embankments following and loading natural slopes which may reduce sedimentation by approved engineering practices. lead to landslides and/or embankment minimizing the chances for failures. In areas with intrinsic slope road-related mass failures, 3. Use minimum road or trail stability problems, appropriate including landslides and length/width necessary. technical resource personnel must be embankment slumps. 4. Do not incorporate woody debris involved in an interdisciplinary incorporated into road-fill. approach to route location.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 39

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 15.06 MITIGATION OF 95% 1. Seed and fertilize cut and fill slopes. If the IDT has outlined erosion control IDT; ER SURFACE EROSION 2. Install proper ditching and road measures outside the normal BMPs SPS 203, AND STABILIZATION slope. they will be outlined in the Design 204, 206A OF SLOPES - To minimize Criteria section of the NEPA 3. Install proper drainage. 210, 412 619, soil erosion from road document. Stabilization techniques are 625, 626 630 cutslopes, fill slopes, and 4. Incorporate road grade breaks. included in contract provisions. B(T)5.3, travel ways. 5. Install ditch relief culverts Compliance is assured by Contracting Officer or ER. B(T)6.31 before/after stream crossings. B(T)6.6, 6. Cut and fill slopes at stable angles. B(T)6.62 B(T)6.66 B(T)6.312, C(T)6.6 C(T)6.601# 15.07 CONTROL OF 94% 1. Avoid long sustained steep grades. If the IDT has outlined erosion control ER B(T)5.3 PERMANENT ROAD 2. Install/maintain adequate surface measures outside the normal BMPs C(T)5.31# DRAINAGE - To minimize they will be outlined in the Design drainage and ditch relief culverts (inlet B(T)6.311 the erosive effects of clean, skewed). Criteria section of the NEPA concentrated water and document. Compliance will be assured B(T)6.6 3. Prevent erosion of culvert and bridge degradation of water quality by the ER/Contracting Officer. C(T)6.6 by proper design and fills. construction of road 4. Maintain ditches. drainage systems and 5. New roads/temp roads should be drainage control structures. constructed outside SMZs/RHCAs. 6. Energy dissipaters place at structure outlets. 15.08 PIONEER ROAD 100% 1. Ensure stable slopes during ER/Contracting Officer will be ER B(T)6.6 CONSTRUCTION - To construction. responsible for enforcing contract B(T)5.23 minimize sediment 2. Seed and fertilize exposed soil. specifications. The purchaser is production and mass responsible for submitting an operating B(T)6.31 wasting associated with 3. Avoid construction during wet plan that includes erosion control B(T)6.312 periods. pioneer road construction. measures. B(T)6.311 4. Use slash filter windrows. SPS 204

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 40

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 15.09 TIMELY EROSION 96% 1. Avoid construction during wet IDT has identified project location and IDT; TSA B(T)6.31 CONTROL MEASURES periods. mitigation measures in NEPA process. B(T)6.6 ON INCOMPLETE Protective measures will be kept 2. Use slash filter windrows or silt B(T)5.23 ROADS AND STREAM fence. current on all areas of disturbed, CROSSING PROJECTS - erosion-prone areas. TSA ensures B(T)6.66 3. Seed and fertilize disturbed areas. To minimize erosion of and contract compliance. C(T)6.6 sedimentation from disturbed ground on incomplete projects. 15.10 CONTROL OF ROAD 96% 1. Do not side-cast into waterways or IDT has identified project location and IDT; TSA B(T)5.3 CONSTRUCTION, sensitive areas. mitigation measures in NEPA process. C(T)5.31# EXCAVATION, AND Protective measures will be kept 2. Waste material from activities not SPS 203 SIDE-CAST MATERIAL - place in a problem location. current on all areas of disturbed, To reduce sedimentation erosion-prone areas. TSA ensures SPS 204 from unconsolidated 3. Use slash-filter windrows or silt contract compliance. excavated and side-cast fence. material caused by road construction, reconstruction, or maintenance. 15.11 SERVICING AND 99% 1. Ensure proper fuel storage and ER/TSA/Contracting Officer will ER; TSA B(T)6.222 REFUELING transportation. designate the location, size, and uses of B(T)6.34 EQUIPMENT - To prevent service refueling areas. All projects 2. Keep fuel, shop debris, and waste oil B(T)6.341 contamination of waters from streams, wetlands, ponds, and will adhere to the KNF Hazardous from accidental spills of lakes. Substance Spill Plan in case of fuels, lubricants, asphalt, or accidents. other harmful materials. 15.12 CONTROL OF 98% 1. Follow the 2015 KNF Forest Plan Proposed new and temporary roads will ER; TSA B(T)6.5 CONSTRUCTION IN for construction within riparian areas. adhere to guidelines in the Montana B(T)6.62 RIPARIAN AREAS - To Streamside Management Zone Law 2. Use slash filter windrows or silt C(T)6.50# minimize the adverse fence. (HB-731). All road activities will effects on riparian areas follow 2015 KNF Forest Plan. All SPS 206 from roads. 3. Install/maintain adequate surface required permits would be obtained. drainage and ditch relief culverts. SPS 206A 4. Number of stream crossings minimized on new and temp road construction.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 41

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 15.13 CONTROLLING IN- 96% 1. Use silt fence to minimize BMP improvements at stream ER; TSA B(T)6.5 CHANNEL introduced sediment. crossings would adhere to the SPS 204 EXCAVATION - To 2. Use minimum amount of road. guidelines in Montana Streamside minimize stream channel Management Zone Law (HB-731) and SPS 206 disturbances and related 3. Construct minimum number of the 2015 KNF Forest Plan. All required 206A sediment production. crossings. permits would be obtained. 4. Stream channel disturbance minimized, on-site erosion prevented, and sedimentation prevented. 15.14 DIVERSION OF FLOWS 93% 1. Divert stream flow around All required permits would be HYD; FB; B(T)6.5 AROUND construction. obtained. Compliance with contract ER B(T)6.31 CONSTRUCTION SITES - provisions would be done by the ER. 2. Use silt fence to minimize C(T)6.50# To minimize downstream introduced sediment. sedimentation by insuring C(T)6.6 all stream diversions are 3. Construct during low-flow. carefully planned. 15.15 STREAM CROSSINGS 97% 1. Consult Watershed Personnel on The IDT identifies areas in need of a PSF; TSA N/A ON TEMPORARY placement. temporary road during the NEPA ROADS - To keep 2. Use minimum number of stream process. Proposed stream crossings temporary roads from crossings. would adhere to the guidelines in unduly damaging streams, Montana Streamside Management disturbing channels, or 3. Construct during low-flow. Zone Law (HB-731). All required obstructing fish passage. 4. Follow the 2015 KNF Forest Plan permits would be obtained. guidelines for construction within riparian areas. 5. Stream crossings are installed at right angles, if practical. 6. Ensure temporary stream crossings are adequately removed and channel cross-section is restored. 15.16 BRIDGE AND CULVERT 97% 1. Install during periods of low flow. IDT has identified project location and IDT; TSA; C(T)6.5# INSTALLATION - To 2. Use instream sediment retention mitigation measures in NEPA process. ER minimize sedimentation and devices throughout implementation. Protective measures will be kept turbidity resulting from current on all areas of disturbed, excavation for in-channel erosion-prone areas. TSA ensures structures. contract compliance. All required permits would be obtained.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 42

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 15.17 REGULATION OF 98% Permit sand and gravel removal in Construct and operate borrow pits, ER B(T)6.5 BORROW PITS, GRAVEL RHCAs only if no alternative exists gravel sources, and quarries in a C(T)6.50# SOURCES, AND and adverse effects to water resources manner that minimizes effects to soil QUARRIES - To minimize are minimized or avoided. and water resources. sediment production from Borrow and gravel pits located and left borrow pits, gravel sources, in a condition to prevent sediment and quarries and limit delivery. channel disturbance in those gravel sources suitable for Limit the area of operation to a development in floodplains. minimum while providing sufficient area for material processing and stockpiling. Phase development where practicable. 15.18 DISPOSAL OF RIGHT- 98% 1. Debris and slash generated during Proposed road construction will adhere ER Std Spec 201 OF-WAY AND road construction should not be side- to the guidelines in the Montana SPS 201 ROADSIDE DEBRIS - To cast into streams. Streamside Management Zone Law ensure that debris generated (HB-731). during road construction is kept out of streams and prevent slash and debris from subsequently obstructing channels. 15.19 STREAM BANK 98% 1. Take precautions to minimize or IDT has identified project location and IDT; ER; Std Spec 619 PROTECTION – To eliminate disturbance to stream banks. mitigation measures during NEPA TSA minimize sediment 2. Maintain instream structures. process. Protective measures will be production from stream kept current on all areas of disturbed banks and structural soils. TSA and ER ensure contract abutments in natural compliance. waterways. 15.20 WATER SOURCE 93% 1. Clean equipment before drafting and Conduct water drafting at suitable ER; FMO Std Spec 207 DEVELOPMENT when changing between water sources locations and in a manner that avoids CONSISTENT WITH to prevent the spread of aquatic or minimizes adverse effects to water WATER QUALITY invasive species. quality, fisheries, and other aquatic PROTECTION - To supply 2. When drafting water, pumps should organisms. water for road construction be screened to prevent entrainment of and maintenance and fire fish or other aquatic organisms. protection while maintaining water quality.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 43

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 15.21 MAINTENANCE OF 96% 1. Road grading sufficient to maintain Road maintenance associated with a ER; TSA B(T)5.12 ROADS - To maintain all road surface where necessary. timber sale is the responsibility of B(T)5.3 roads in a manner that purchaser. The ER/SA will ensure that 2. Erosion control features maintained B(T)6.6 provides for soil and water in an operational condition. the purchaser maintains roads protection by minimizing according to the appropriate C(T)6.6 3. Road grading avoids cutting toe of rutting, failures, side-cast, maintenance level. C(T)5.31# and blockage of drainage cut-slope. C(T)5.32# facilities. 4. Road and/or culvert maintenance did not side-cast sediment into or near a B(T)6.31 water body. 15.22 ROAD SURFACE 98% 1. Maintenance of road surface should Protective measures will be kept IDT; ER B(T)5.3 TREATMENT TO include proper blading and/or dust current on all areas of disturbed, C(T)5.31# PREVENT LOSS OF abatement. erosion-prone areas. ER ensures C(T)5.314# MATERIALS - To 2. Use crush-gravel where necessary. contract compliance. minimize the erosion of road surface materials and, consequently, reduce the likelihood of sediment production. 15.23 TRAFFIC CONTROL 97% 1. Road use avoided during wet Road restrictions and traffic control ER; TSA B(T)6.6 DURING WET PERIODS - periods. measures will be implemented on all C(T)6.6 To reduce the potential for haul roads when damage would occur road surface disturbance during spring break up or considerably C(T5).316# during wet weather and wet periods. The decision to restrict a C(T)5.41# reduce sedimentation. road is made by the ER. Hauling restrictions would be controlled by the TSA. 15.24 SNOW REMOVAL 97% 1. Be careful not to leave snow berm at Snow removal will be kept current on IDT; TSA C(T)5.316# CONTROLS - To minimize edge of road where possible. all roads associated with winter logging Std Spec the impact of snow melt on 2. Where a berm cannot be avoided, operations. The TSA ensures 203.09 road surfaces and ensure proper drainage by opening compliance with contract provisions. embankments and reduce sections of berm to allow water to the probability of sediment leave road surface. production resulting from snow removal operations.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 44

SWCP SWCP Objective Percent Recommended Best Management Considerations for Best Person(s) Contract Effective Practices by IDT/TSA Management Practices Responsibl Provisions e 15.25 OBLITERATION OF 97% 1. Re-contour road fully where This work will be done on all new TSA B(T)6.63 TEMPORARY ROADS - feasible. temporary roads in the decision area. C(T)6.6 To reduce sediment 2. Seed and fertilize exposed soil. The work will be done by the purchaser generated from temporary with compliance by the TSA. Roads C(T)6.632# roads by obliterating them 3. Pull slash and woody debris back will be left in a condition to provide C(T)6.633# at the completion of their onto rehabilitated road. adequate drainage without further intended use. maintenance. 18.03 PROTECTION OF SOIL 100% 1. Follow 2015 KNF Forest Plan Broadcast burning adjacent to riparian FMO N/A AND WATER FROM Riparian Guidelines for burning in areas will adhere to guidelines in the PRESCRIBED BURNING RHCAs. Montana Streamside Management EFFECTS - To maintain 2. Adhere to SMZ Law. Zone Law (HB-731). Prescribed burn soil productivity, minimize plans identify the conditions necessary erosion, and prevent ash, 3. Where harvest within riparian areas to prevent soil damage and meet site sediment, nutrients, and is proposed, either the slash should be preparation objectives. debris from entering surface removed with the tree or scattered and water. not treated. 4. Limit soil and water quality impact of prescribed fire. 5. Adequate erosion protection on fire lines, sufficient until stabilized by vegetation.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 45

Appendix C: Starry Goat Harvest Treatment Summary

Alternative 2 – Harvest Treatment Summary Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 1 6 75 75 - Mixed conifer DF dominated with Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead PP, WL, WP, LP, GF with tractor leaving WL, PP, WP, and and dying trees, reduce fuel load, scattered open areas. Low vigor in some DF. Slash and underburn. promote desired species PP and WL due to dense Natural regen. composition of early seral species, understory/ladder fuels. In WUI. and promote forage. 3 6 32 32 - Varied with WL, DF, GF, LP, C. Regenerate-Seedtree cut via tractor Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead Patchy areas with dwarf mistletoe above road above road and skyline and dying trees, reduce fuel load, in the WL. High stand densities. In below leaving WL, WP, DF, C. and promote forage. WUI. Slash and underburn. Interplant WP 4 6 79 79 - Mixed conifer WL, DF, C, WP, Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration to improve LP, WH, few PP. Patches of WL tractor leaving WL, DF, and PP overall health and vigor, reduce with dwarf mistletoe. Dense (where not too wet). Slash and fuel load, and provide forage. understory/ladder fuels in places. underburn. Natural regen, In WUI. interplant WP 5 6 27 27 - Mixed conifer C, WH, DF, ES, Regenerate-Clearcut with Reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead very few WL. Low vigor due to via tractor. Slash and excavator and dying trees, reduce fuel load, high density. In WUI. pile. Plant WL/WP mix. increase productivity by fully stocking stand, promote WL and WP. 7A 6 59 59 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate- clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage large PP and WL. DF dominated via tractor leaving PP, WL, and declining trees. Start stand over to with scattered WL, PP. Some DF. Slash and excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and pockets of GF, C, WH. A lot of PP, WL, mix. less root disease prone species root rot in DF and GF, especially composition. Promote forage and along edges. In WUI. reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 7B 6 22 22 - PP, DF, WL dominated stand with Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions for mistletoe in the WL. Fire overstory canopy via tractor leave trees and reduce stand suppression has increased DF leaving PP,WL,DF. Slash and densities. understory and caused high underburn, densities and fuel loads. In WUI.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 46

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 7C 6 31 31 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate- clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage large PP and WL. DF dominated via tractor leaving PP, WL, and declining trees. Start stand over to with scattered WL, PP. Some DF. Slash and underburn. Plant PP, improve overall health, vigor, and pockets of GF, C, WH. A lot of WL, WP mix. less root disease prone species root rot in DF and GF. In WUI. composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 8 6 43 43 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage large PP and WL. DF dominated Reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to with scattered WL, PP, LP. Some DF. Slash and underburn. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and pockets of GF, C, WH. A lot of PP/WL/WP mix less root disease prone species root rot in DF and GF. In WUI. composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 9 6 77 77 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions for large PP and WL. DF dominated overstory canopy via tractor. Yard leave trees and reduce stand with scattered WL, PP, LP, C. In tops and maintenance underburn. densities. Mimic natural patch size WUI. and shape. 10A 6 18 18 - Previous mgmt removed dominant Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage WL and C. Now dominated by GF, Reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to C with some WL, WP, LP, PP. PP, DF. Slash and excavator pile. improve overall health, vigor, and Some pockets of root rot in DF/GF. Plant PP/WL/WP mix less root disease prone species In WUI. composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 10B 6 41 41 - Previous mgmt removed dominant Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage WL and C. Now dominated by GF, Reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to C with some WL, WP, LP, PP. PP, DF. Slash and underburn. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and Some pockets of root rot in DF/GF. PP/WL/WP mix less root disease prone species In WUI. composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 11 6 46 46 - Previous mgmt removed many Regenerate - Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve dominant WL, WP, C. Now Reserves via skyline leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- dominated by WH, GF, C, and DF, C, WP. Slash and underburn. establish WP, WL. Promote forage. some WL, LP, WP, DF. Very few Plant WL/WP mix Mimic natural patch size and WP – most likely WPBR mortality. shape. Very few and declining health and

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 47

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres mortality in WP, LP (due to MPB). In WUI.

12A 6 43 43 - Unit was planted in 1968 with off- Regenerate- Shelterwood via Initiate regeneration to improve site PP and WP. The stand is more tractor leaving WL, and some overall health and vigor, and re- appropriate for WL/WP and there healthy PP/WP. Slash and establish WP, WL that is suited to is a decline in vigor with some excavator pile. Plant WL/WP mix the site. Promote forage. Mimic mortality in PP/WP. In WUI. natural patch size and shape 12B 2, 6 42 42 - Unit was planted in 1968 with off- Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve site PP and WP. The stand is more Reserves via tractor leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- appropriate for WL/WP and there and some healthy PP/WP. Slash establish WP, WL that is suited to is a decline in vigor with some and excavator pile. Plant WL/WP the site. Promote forage. Mimic mortality in PP/WP. In WUI. mix natural patch size and shape 13 6 16 16 - Dominated by WH, GF, C, and Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve some WL, LP, WP, DF. Many Reserves via tractor leaving some overall health and vigor, and re- dead WP and GF. Some dwarf WL, WP, C, DF. Slash and establish WP, WL. Promote forage. mistletoe in WL. Root disease and excavator pile. Plant WL/WP mix Indian paint in DF/GF. In WUI. 14 2,3, 21 21 - Varied with WL, DF, GF, LP, C. Regenerate - Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead 6 LP dominated near the bottom w/ tractor and skyline swing leaving and dying trees, reduce fuel load, WP in the understory. High stand WL, DF, WP. Slash and underburn. increase productivity by fully densities. In WUI. Interplant WP. stocking stand, and promote WL and WP. 15 6 4 4 - Dense mixed conifer- WL, C, GF, Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions for LP, DF, ES. High stand densities overstory canopy via tractor leave trees and reduce stand and nice WL scattered throughout. leaving WL, DF, C. Slash and densities. In WUI. excavator pile. 16 6 9 9 - DF dominated with mix of WL, C, Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead GF, LP, WH. LP mortality from tractor leaving WL, DF, C. Slash and dying trees, reduce fuel load, MPB. High stand densities. In and excavator pile. Natural regen, reduce fuel load, and promote WUI. interplant WP/WL WL/WP and forage. 19 6 19 19 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate - Shelterwood cut via Initiate regeneration to improve large PP and WL. DF dominated tractor leaving WL, DF, PP. Slash overall health and vigor, and re- with scattered WL, PP, LP. and underburn. Interplant WL, PP, establish WP, WL, and PP. Scattered pockets of GF, C, WH. In WP (in mesic areas). Promote forage. Mimic natural WUI. patch size and shape.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 48

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 20 6 32 32 - LP dominated stand with MPB Regenerate - Clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration to improve caused mortality. Mix of DF, C, via tractor leaving WL, DF. Slash overall health and vigor, and re- WH, WL. Some rocky areas and a and excavator pile. Plant PP/WL establish WP, WL, and PP. unique leave island on the south Promote forage. Mimic natural end. In WUI. patch size and shape. 21 6 43 - - Mixed conifer dominated by C, Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve GF, WH- very dense. Very few reserves via tractor leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- healthy WP and DF – other species DF, WP. Slash and excavator pile. establish WP, WL. Promote forage. in decline. Very heavy down fuel Plant WL/WP. Mimic natural patch size and from dead. shape. 22 6 42 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate - Clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with patches of LP via tractor. Slash and underburn. declining trees. Start stand over to dominated with MPB mortality. Plant PP/WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and Root disease is evident throughout less root disease prone species the stand. Past mgmt. removed composition. Promote forage and large portion of big PP, DF, and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural some WL. patch size and shape. 23 6 66 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to patches of LP with MPB mortality. DF, WP. Slash and underburn. improve overall health, vigor, and WL mortality high due to Plant WL/WP. desired species composition. suppression and dwarf mistletoe. Promote forage and reduce fuel High densities causing poor crowns load. Mimic natural patch size and and a lot of dead and dying trees. shape. 24 6 59 - - Fairly dense mixed conifer with Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and nice WL, C, WP, ES scattered stem densities and favor large tree health for leave trees and reduce throughout. Some large diameter retention via tractor. leaving WL, stand densities. trees live and dead to retain for WP, C, ES. Yard tops. snag and CWD recruitment. 25A 6 161 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate – Seedtree via tractor Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with patches of LP leaving WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and declining trees. Start stand over to dominated with MPB mortality. excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and Root disease is evident throughout desired species composition. the stand in DF/GF. High incidence Promote forage and reduce fuel of dwarf mistletoe in WL. load. Mimic natural patch size and shape.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 49

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 25B 6 66 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate – Seedtree via skyline Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with pockets of WL. leaving WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and declining trees. Start stand over to Root disease is evident throughout underburn. Plant WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and the stand in DF/GF. High incidence desired species composition. of dwarf mistletoe in WL. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 25C 6 15 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate – Seedtree via tractor Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with patches of LP leaving WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and declining trees. Start stand over to dominated with MPB mortality. excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and Root disease is evident throughout desired species composition. the stand in DF/GF. High incidence Promote forage and reduce fuel of dwarf mistletoe in WL. load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 26 6 37 - - Old DF plantation planted in the Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage 1940s w/ scattered nice WL. High reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to incidence of root rot in planted DF WP, and aspen. Slash and improve overall health, vigor, and which is starting to unravel. Aspen excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. desired species composition. scattered throughout and some Promote aspen and huckleberry. huckleberry. Reduce fuel load. 28 6 29 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to scattered WL with poor height to WP. Slash and excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and crown ratios and dwarf mistletoe. WL/WP. desired species composition. High densities causing poor crowns Promote forage and reduce fuel and high fuel load. load. 29 6 19 - - Fairly dense mixed conifer with Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and nice WL scattered throughout overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce (some with dwarf mistletoe). Some leaving WL, C, DF. Yard tops. stand densities. large diameter trees live and dead to retain for snag and CWD recruitment. 30 6 20 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to scattered WL with poor height to WP. Slash, excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and crown ratios and dwarf mistletoe. WL/WP. desired species composition. High densities causing poor crowns Promote forage and reduce fuel and high fuel load. load.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 50

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 31 6 14 - - Fairly dense mixed smaller Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and diameter conifer with nice WL overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce scattered throughout (some with leaving WL,C,DF. Yard tops. stand densities. dwarf mistletoe). Armillaria root disease in DF/GF. Some aspen in the bottom of the unit. 32 6 76 - - Dense mixed conifer-DF, GF, C Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage with nice WL, WP, PP scattered reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to throughout. Some large diameter WP, PP. Slash and excavator pile. improve overall health, vigor, and trees live and dead to retain for Plant PP/WL/WP. desired species composition. snag and CWD recruitment. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 33 6 21 18 - Old post and poles unit that needs Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage cleaned up. Dense mixed conifer- reserves via tractor leaving mix of declining trees. Start stand over to DF, C, WH with some LP, AF, ES. healthy conifers. Slash and improve overall health, vigor, and High fuel loading. In WUI. excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 34 2,6 79 - - Previous mgmt removed many Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominant WL, WP, C. Now reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to dominated by dense, smaller WP, PP. Slash and excavator pile. improve overall health, vigor, and diameter WH, GF, C, and some Plant PP/WL/WP. desired species composition. WL, LP, WP, DF. Poor crowns and Promote forage and reduce fuel high density causing steady load. Mimic natural patch size and decline. High fuel loading. shape. 35 2,6 12 - - Fairly dense mixed smaller Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and diameter C, WH, DF, LP with nice stand densities via tractor leaving health for leave trees and reduce WL scattered throughout and a few WL, C. Yard tops. stand densities. WP. High density shade tolerant species causing unfavorable conditions for WL. 36 6 10 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- scattered WL/WP. High densities WP. Slash and excavator pile. Plant establish WP, WL. Promote forage causing poor crowns and high fuel WL/WP. and aspen. load. Some aspen patches along the sides and top.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 51

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 42A 2,6 9 9 - District Compound- mix of DF, PP, Intermediate cut via single tree Improve growing conditions and C, WL, ES, GF. Root rot in large selection to reduce improve stand health for leave trees. Remove DF posing hazard near buildings. health. Whole tree yard. hazard trees. 43 6 19 19 - Mixed conifer-DF, GF, C, LP with Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage scattered WL. High densities reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to causing suppression and some WP. Slash and excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and mortality. In WUI. WL/WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 44 2,3, 27 27 - Dry site stand with PP,DF,WL. Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and 6 Fire suppression has increased DF overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce understory and caused high leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops. stand densities. Mimic low densities and fuel loads. In WUI. intensity fire. 45 3,2 10 10 - Dry site old growth stand with Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and PP,DF,WL. Fire suppression has overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce increased DF understory and leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops. stand densities. caused high densities and fuel loads. In WUI. 46 6 10 10 - Mixed conifer-WL, WH, RC, DF Regenerate - Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage with scattered WP. High densities tractor leaving WL, DF, WP, RC. declining trees. Start stand over to causing suppression and some Slash and excavator pile. Interplant improve overall health, vigor, and mortality. In WUI. WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 48A 6 26 26 1940s WP plantation that was Regenerate- Seedtree cut via Reduce mtn pine beetle hazard thinned in the 1960s favoring WP tractor leaving WP/WL/C Slash rating and lower densities to and WL. WP/WL and some and excavator pile. improve overall stand health. scattered RC, DF, PP. In WUI. Improve chances that WP and WL will persist into the future. 48B 6 6 6 - 1940s WP plantation that was Regenerate- Seedtree cut via Reduce mtn pine beetle hazard thinned in the 1960s favoring WP tractor leaving WP/WL/C Slash rating and lower densities to and WL. WP/WL and some and excavator pile. improve overall stand health. scattered RC, DF, PP. In WUI. Improve chances that WP and WL will persist into the future. 49 6 53 53 - Mixed conifer DF dominated with Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and PP, WL, GF with scattered open overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce areas. Small area of dry site old stand densities.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 52

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres growth. Low vigor in PP and WL leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops and due to dense understory/ladder maintenance underburn. fuels. In WUI. 50 6 45 45 - Dry site stand with PP,DF,WL. Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and Fire suppression has increased DF overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce understory and caused high leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops and stand densities. densities and fuel loads. In WUI. maintenance underburn. 51 6 34 34 - Mixed conifer-WL, WH, RC, DF Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage with scattered WP. High densities reserves via skyline leaving PP, declining trees. Start stand over to causing suppression and some root WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and improve overall health, vigor, and disease. In WUI. underburn. Plant PP/WL/WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 52 6 20 20 - Dry site stand with PP,DF,WL. Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and Fire suppression has increased DF overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce understory and caused high leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops and stand densities. densities and fuel loads. In WUI. maintenance underburn. 53A 6 49 - - Mixed conifer-WL, WH, RC, DF Thin via commercial thin to reduce Improve growing conditions and with scattered WP. High densities overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce causing suppression and some root leaving WL, C, and diversity of stand densities. disease. species mix. Yard tops. 53B 6 21 - - Mixed conifer-WL, WH, RC, DF Thin via commercial thin to reduce Improve growing conditions and with scattered WP. High densities overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce causing suppression and some root leaving WL, C, and diversity of stand densities. disease. species mix. Yard tops.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 53

Alternative 3 – Harvest Treatment Summary Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 1 6 75 75 - Mixed conifer DF dominated with Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead PP, WL, WP, LP, GF with tractor leaving WL, PP, WP, and and dying trees, reduce fuel load, scattered open areas. Low vigor in some DF. Slash and underburn. promote desired species PP and WL due to dense Natural regen. composition of early seral species, understory/ladder fuels. In WUI. and promote forage. 3 6 32 32 - Varied with WL, DF, GF, LP, C. Regenerate-Seedtree cut via tractor Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead Patchy areas with dwarf mistletoe above road above road and skyline and dying trees, reduce fuel load, in the WL. High stand densities. In below leaving WL, WP, DF, C. and promote forage. WUI. Slash and underburn. Interplant WP 4 6 79 79 - Mixed conifer WL, DF, C, WP, Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration to improve LP, WH, few PP. Patches of WL tractor leaving WL, DF, and PP overall health and vigor, reduce with dwarf mistletoe. Dense (where not too wet). Slash and fuel load, and provide forage. understory/ladder fuels in places. underburn. Natural regen, In WUI. interplant WP 5 6 27 27 - Mixed conifer C, WH, DF, ES, Regenerate-Clearcut with Reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead very few WL. Low vigor due to via tractor. Slash and excavator and dying trees, reduce fuel load, high density. In WUI. pile. Plant WL/WP mix. increase productivity by fully stocking stand, promote WL and WP. 7A 6 59 59 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate- clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage large PP and WL. DF dominated via tractor leaving PP, WL, and declining trees. Start stand over to with scattered WL, PP. Some DF. Slash and excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and pockets of GF, C, WH. A lot of PP, WL, mix. less root disease prone species root rot in DF and GF, especially composition. Promote forage and along edges. In WUI. reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 7B 6 22 22 - PP, DF, WL dominated stand with Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions for mistletoe in the WL. Fire overstory canopy via tractor leave trees and reduce stand suppression has increased DF leaving PP,WL,DF. Slash and densities. understory and caused high underburn, densities and fuel loads. In WUI.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 54

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 55

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 11 6 46 46 - Previous mgmt removed many Regenerate - Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve dominant WL, WP, C. Now Reserves via skyline leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- dominated by WH, GF, C, and DF, C, WP. Slash and underburn. establish WP, WL. Promote forage. some WL, LP, WP, DF. Very few Plant WL/WP mix Mimic natural patch size and WP – most likely WPBR mortality. shape. Very few and declining health and mortality in WP, LP (due to MPB). In WUI. 12A 6 43 43 - Unit was planted in 1968 with off- Regenerate- Shelterwood via Initiate regeneration to improve site PP and WP. The stand is more tractor leaving WL, and some overall health and vigor, and re- appropriate for WL/WP and there healthy PP/WP. Slash and establish WP, WL that is suited to is a decline in vigor with some excavator pile. Plant WL/WP mix the site. Promote forage. Mimic mortality in PP/WP. In WUI. natural patch size and shape 12B 2, 6 42 42 - Unit was planted in 1968 with off- Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve site PP and WP. The stand is more Reserves via tractor leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- appropriate for WL/WP and there and some healthy PP/WP. Slash establish WP, WL that is suited to is a decline in vigor with some and excavator pile. Plant WL/WP the site. Promote forage. Mimic mortality in PP/WP. In WUI. mix natural patch size and shape 13 6 16 16 - Dominated by WH, GF, C, and Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve some WL, LP, WP, DF. Many Reserves via tractor leaving some overall health and vigor, and re- dead WP and GF. Some dwarf WL, WP, C, DF. Slash and establish WP, WL. Promote forage. mistletoe in WL. Root disease and excavator pile. Plant WL/WP mix Indian paint in DF/GF. In WUI. 14 2,3, 21 21 - Varied with WL, DF, GF, LP, C. Regenerate - Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead 6 LP dominated near the bottom w/ tractor and skyline swing leaving and dying trees, reduce fuel load, WP in the understory. High stand WL, DF, WP. Slash and underburn. increase productivity by fully densities. In WUI. Interplant WP. stocking stand, and promote WL and WP. 15 6 4 4 - Dense mixed conifer- WL, C, GF, Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions for LP, DF, ES. High stand densities overstory canopy via tractor leave trees and reduce stand and nice WL scattered throughout. leaving WL, DF, C. Slash and densities. In WUI. excavator pile. 16 6 9 9 - DF dominated with mix of WL, C, Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead GF, LP, WH. LP mortality from tractor leaving WL, DF, C. Slash and dying trees, reduce fuel load, MPB. High stand densities. In and excavator pile. Natural regen, reduce fuel load, and promote WUI. interplant WP/WL WL/WP and forage.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 56

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 19 6 19 19 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate - Shelterwood cut via Initiate regeneration to improve large PP and WL. DF dominated tractor leaving WL, DF, PP. Slash overall health and vigor, and re- with scattered WL, PP, LP. and underburn. Interplant WL, PP, establish WP, WL, and PP. Scattered pockets of GF, C, WH. In WP (in mesic areas). Promote forage. Mimic natural WUI. patch size and shape. 20 6 32 32 - LP dominated stand with MPB Regenerate - Clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration to improve caused mortality. Mix of DF, C, via tractor leaving WL, DF. Slash overall health and vigor, and re- WH, WL. Some rocky areas and a and excavator pile. Plant PP/WL establish WP, WL, and PP. unique leave island on the south Promote forage. Mimic natural end. In WUI. patch size and shape. 21 6 43 - - Mixed conifer dominated by C, Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve GF, WH- very dense. Very few reserves via tractor leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- healthy WP and DF – other species DF, WP. Slash and excavator pile. establish WP, WL. Promote forage. in decline. Very heavy down fuel Plant WL/WP. Mimic natural patch size and from dead. shape. 22 6 42 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate - Clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with patches of LP via tractor. Slash and underburn. declining trees. Start stand over to dominated with MPB mortality. Plant PP/WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and Root disease is evident throughout less root disease prone species the stand. Past mgmt. removed composition. Promote forage and large portion of big PP, DF, and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural some WL. patch size and shape. 24 6 59 - - Fairly dense mixed conifer with Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and nice WL, C, WP, ES scattered stem densities and favor large tree health for leave trees and reduce throughout. Some large diameter retention via tractor. leaving WL, stand densities. trees live and dead to retain for WP, C, ES. Yard tops. snag and CWD recruitment. 26 6 37 - - Old DF plantation planted in the Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage 1940s w/ scattered nice WL. High reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to incidence of root rot in planted DF WP, and aspen. Slash and improve overall health, vigor, and which is starting to unravel. Aspen excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. desired species composition. scattered throughout and some Promote aspen and huckleberry. huckleberry. Reduce fuel load.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 57

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 28 6 29 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to scattered WL with poor height to WP. Slash and excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and crown ratios and dwarf mistletoe. WL/WP. desired species composition. High densities causing poor crowns Promote forage and reduce fuel and high fuel load. load. 29 6 19 - - Fairly dense mixed conifer with Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and nice WL scattered throughout overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce (some with dwarf mistletoe). Some leaving WL, C, DF. Yard tops. stand densities. large diameter trees live and dead to retain for snag and CWD recruitment. 30 6 20 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to scattered WL with poor height to WP. Slash, excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and crown ratios and dwarf mistletoe. WL/WP. desired species composition. High densities causing poor crowns Promote forage and reduce fuel and high fuel load. load. 31 6 14 - - Fairly dense mixed smaller Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and diameter conifer with nice WL overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce scattered throughout (some with leaving WL,C,DF. Yard tops. stand densities. dwarf mistletoe). Armillaria root disease in DF/GF. Some aspen in the bottom of the unit. 33 6 21 18 - Old post and poles unit that needs Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage cleaned up. Dense mixed conifer- reserves via tractor leaving mix of declining trees. Start stand over to DF, C, WH with some LP, AF, ES. healthy conifers. Slash and improve overall health, vigor, and High fuel loading. In WUI. excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 34 2,6 79 - - Previous mgmt removed many Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominant WL, WP, C. Now reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to dominated by dense, smaller WP, PP. Slash and excavator pile. improve overall health, vigor, and diameter WH, GF, C, and some Plant PP/WL/WP. desired species composition. WL, LP, WP, DF. Poor crowns and Promote forage and reduce fuel high density causing steady load. Mimic natural patch size and decline. High fuel loading. shape.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 58

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 35 2,6 12 - - Fairly dense mixed smaller Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and diameter C, WH, DF, LP with nice stand densities via tractor leaving health for leave trees and reduce WL scattered throughout and a few WL, C. Yard tops. stand densities. WP. High density shade tolerant species causing unfavorable conditions for WL. 36 6 10 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- scattered WL/WP. High densities WP. Slash and excavator pile. Plant establish WP, WL. Promote forage causing poor crowns and high fuel WL/WP. and aspen. load. Some aspen patches along the sides and top. 42A 2,6 9 9 - District Compound- mix of DF, PP, Intermediate cut via single tree Improve growing conditions and C, WL, ES, GF. Root rot in large selection to reduce improve stand health for leave trees. Remove DF posing hazard near buildings. health. Whole tree yard. hazard trees. 43 6 19 19 - Mixed conifer-DF, GF, C, LP with Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage scattered WL. High densities reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to causing suppression and some WP. Slash and excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and mortality. In WUI. WL/WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 44 2,3, 27 27 - Dry site stand with PP,DF,WL. Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and 6 Fire suppression has increased DF overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce understory and caused high leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops. stand densities. Mimic low densities and fuel loads. In WUI. intensity fire. 45 3,2 10 10 - Dry site old growth stand with Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and PP,DF,WL. Fire suppression has overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce increased DF understory and leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops. stand densities. caused high densities and fuel loads. In WUI. 46 6 10 10 - Mixed conifer-WL, WH, RC, DF Regenerate - Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage with scattered WP. High densities tractor leaving WL, DF, WP, RC. declining trees. Start stand over to causing suppression and some Slash and excavator pile. Interplant improve overall health, vigor, and mortality. In WUI. WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 59

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 48A 6 26 26 1940s WP plantation that was Regenerate- Seedtree cut via Reduce mtn pine beetle hazard thinned in the 1960s favoring WP tractor leaving WP/WL/C Slash rating and lower densities to and WL. WP/WL and some and excavator pile. improve overall stand health. scattered RC, DF, PP. In WUI. Improve chances that WP and WL will persist into the future. 48B 6 6 6 - 1940s WP plantation that was Regenerate- Seedtree cut via Reduce mtn pine beetle hazard thinned in the 1960s favoring WP tractor leaving WP/WL/C Slash rating and lower densities to and WL. WP/WL and some and excavator pile. improve overall stand health. scattered RC, DF, PP. In WUI. Improve chances that WP and WL will persist into the future. 49 6 53 53 - Mixed conifer DF dominated with Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and PP, WL, GF with scattered open overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce areas. Small area of dry site old leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops and stand densities. growth. Low vigor in PP and WL maintenance underburn. due to dense understory/ladder fuels. In WUI. 50 6 45 45 - Dry site stand with PP,DF,WL. Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and Fire suppression has increased DF overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce understory and caused high leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops and stand densities. densities and fuel loads. In WUI. maintenance underburn. 51 6 34 34 - Mixed conifer-WL, WH, RC, DF Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage with scattered WP. High densities reserves via skyline leaving PP, declining trees. Start stand over to causing suppression and some root WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and improve overall health, vigor, and disease. In WUI. underburn. Plant PP/WL/WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 52 6 20 20 - Dry site stand with PP,DF,WL. Thin - improvement cut to reduce Improve growing conditions and Fire suppression has increased DF overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce understory and caused high leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops and stand densities. densities and fuel loads. In WUI. maintenance underburn.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 60

Alternative 4 – Harvest Treatment Summary Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 1D 6 21 21 - Mixed conifer DF dominated with Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead PP, WL, WP, LP, GF with tractor leaving WL, PP, WP, and and dying trees, reduce fuel load, scattered open areas. Low vigor in some DF. Slash and underburn. promote desired species PP and WL due to dense Natural regen. composition of early seral species, understory/ladder fuels. In WUI. and promote forage. 1E 6 31 31 - Mixed conifer DF dominated with Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead PP, WL, WP, LP, GF with tractor leaving WL, PP, WP, and and dying trees, reduce fuel load, scattered open areas. Low vigor in some DF. Slash and underburn. promote desired species PP and WL due to dense Natural regen. composition of early seral species, understory/ladder fuels. In WUI. and promote forage. 3 6 32 32 - Varied with WL, DF, GF, LP, C. Regenerate-Seedtree cut via tractor Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead Patchy areas with dwarf mistletoe above road above road and skyline and dying trees, reduce fuel load, in the WL. High stand densities. In below leaving WL, WP, DF, C. and promote forage. WUI. Slash and underburn. Interplant WP 4D 6 25 25 - Mixed conifer WL, DF, C, WP, Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration to improve LP, WH, few PP. Patches of WL tractor leaving WL, DF, and PP overall health and vigor, reduce with dwarf mistletoe. Dense (where not too wet). Slash and fuel load, and provide forage. understory/ladder fuels in places. underburn. Natural regen, In WUI. interplant WP 4E 6 36 36 - Mixed conifer WL, DF, C, WP, Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration to improve LP, WH, few PP. Patches of WL tractor leaving WL, DF, and PP overall health and vigor, reduce with dwarf mistletoe. Dense (where not too wet). Slash and fuel load, and provide forage. understory/ladder fuels in places. underburn. Natural regen, In WUI. interplant WP 5D 6 11 11 - Mixed conifer C, WH, DF, ES, Regenerate-Clearcut with Reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead very few WL. Low vigor due to via tractor. Slash and excavator and dying trees, reduce fuel load, high density. In WUI. pile. Plant WL/WP mix. increase productivity by fully stocking stand, promote WL and WP.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 61

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 7B 6 22 22 - PP, DF, WL dominated stand with Thin via improvement cut to Improve growing conditions for mistletoe in the WL. Fire reduce overstory canopy via tractor leave trees and reduce stand suppression has increased DF leaving PP,WL,DF. Slash and densities. understory and caused high underburn, densities and fuel loads. In WUI. 7C 6 31 31 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate- clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage large PP and WL. DF dominated via tractor leaving PP, WL, and declining trees. Start stand over to with scattered WL, PP. Some DF. Slash and underburn. Plant PP, improve overall health, vigor, and pockets of GF, C, WH. A lot of WL, WP mix. less root disease prone species root rot in DF and GF. In WUI. composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 7D 6 13 13 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate- clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage large PP and WL. DF dominated via tractor leaving PP, WL, and declining trees. Start stand over to with scattered WL, PP. Some DF. Slash and excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and pockets of GF, C, WH. A lot of PP, WL, mix. less root disease prone species root rot in DF and GF, especially composition. Promote forage and along edges. In WUI. reduce fuel load. 7E 6 28 28 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate- clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage large PP and WL. DF dominated via tractor leaving PP, WL, and declining trees. Start stand over to with scattered WL, PP. Some DF. Slash and excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and pockets of GF, C, WH. A lot of PP, WL, mix. less root disease prone species root rot in DF and GF, especially composition. Promote forage and along edges. In WUI. reduce fuel load. 8D 6 29 29 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage large PP and WL. DF dominated Reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to with scattered WL, PP, LP. Some DF. Slash and underburn. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and pockets of GF, C, WH. A lot of PP/WL/WP mix less root disease prone species root rot in DF and GF. In WUI. composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 9 6 77 77 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Thin via Improvement cut to Improve growing conditions for large PP and WL. DF dominated reduce overstory canopy via leave trees and reduce stand with scattered WL, PP, LP, C. In tractor. Yard tops and maintenance densities. WUI. underburn.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 62

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 10D 6 14 14 - Previous mgmt removed dominant Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage WL and C. Now dominated by GF, Reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to C with some WL, WP, LP, PP. PP, DF. Slash and excavator pile. improve overall health, vigor, and Some pockets of root rot in DF/GF. Plant PP/WL/WP mix less root disease prone species In WUI. composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 10E 6 34 34 - Previous mgmt removed dominant Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage WL and C. Now dominated by GF, Reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to C with some WL, WP, LP, PP. PP, DF. Slash and underburn. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and Some pockets of root rot in DF/GF. PP/WL/WP mix less root disease prone species In WUI. composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 11D 6 17 17 - Previous mgmt removed many Regenerate - Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve dominant WL, WP, C. Now Reserves via skyline leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- dominated by WH, GF, C, and DF, C, WP. Slash and underburn. establish WP, WL. Promote forage. some WL, LP, WP, DF. Very few Plant WL/WP mix WP – most likely WPBR mortality. Very few and declining health and mortality in WP, LP (due to MPB). In WUI. 12D 6 40 40 - Unit was planted in 1968 with off- Regenerate- Shelterwood via Initiate regeneration to improve site PP and WP. The stand is more tractor leaving WL, and some overall health and vigor, and re- appropriate for WL/WP and there healthy PP/WP. Slash and establish WP, WL that is suited to is a decline in vigor with some excavator pile. Plant WL/WP mix the site. Promote forage. mortality in PP/WP. In WUI. 12E 2, 6 23 23 - Unit was planted in 1968 with off- Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve site PP and WP. The stand is more Reserves via tractor leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- appropriate for WL/WP and there and some healthy PP/WP. Slash establish WP, WL that is suited to is a decline in vigor with some and excavator pile. Plant WL/WP the site. Promote forage. mortality in PP/WP. In WUI. mix 13 6 16 16 - Dominated by WH, GF, C, and Regenerate- Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve some WL, LP, WP, DF. Many Reserves via tractor leaving some overall health and vigor, and re- dead WP and GF. Some dwarf WL, WP, C, DF. Slash and establish WP, WL. Promote forage. mistletoe in WL. Root disease and excavator pile. Plant WL/WP mix Indian paint in DF/GF. In WUI.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 63

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 14 2,3, 21 21 - Varied with WL, DF, GF, LP, C. Regenerate - Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead 6 LP dominated near the bottom w/ tractor and skyline swing leaving and dying trees, reduce fuel load, WP in the understory. High stand WL, DF, WP. Slash and underburn. increase productivity by fully densities. In WUI. Interplant WP. stocking stand, and promote WL and WP. 15 6 4 4 - Dense mixed conifer- WL, C, GF, Thin via improvement cut to Improve growing conditions for LP, DF, ES. High stand densities reduce overstory canopy via tractor leave trees and reduce stand and nice WL scattered throughout. leaving WL, DF, C. Slash and densities. In WUI. excavator pile. 16 6 9 9 - DF dominated with mix of WL, C, Regenerate – Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage dead GF, LP, WH. LP mortality from tractor leaving WL, DF, C. Slash and dying trees, reduce fuel load, MPB. High stand densities. In and excavator pile. Natural regen, reduce fuel load, and promote WUI. interplant WP/WL WL/WP and forage. 19 6 19 19 - Evidence that past mgmt removed Regenerate - Shelterwood cut via Initiate regeneration to improve large PP and WL. DF dominated tractor leaving WL, DF, PP. Slash overall health and vigor, and re- with scattered WL, PP, LP. and underburn. Interplant WL, PP, establish WP, WL, and PP. Scattered pockets of GF, C, WH. In WP (in mesic areas). Promote forage. Mimic natural WUI. patch size and shape. 20 6 32 32 - LP dominated stand with MPB Regenerate - Clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration to improve caused mortality. Mix of DF, C, via tractor leaving WL, DF. Slash overall health and vigor, and re- WH, WL. Some rocky areas and a and excavator pile. Plant PP/WL establish WP, WL, and PP. unique leave island on the south Promote forage. Mimic natural end. In WUI. patch size and shape. 21D 6 25 - - Mixed conifer dominated by C, Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve GF, WH- very dense. Very few reserves via tractor leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- healthy WP and DF – other species DF, WP. Slash and excavator pile. establish WP, WL. Promote forage. in decline. Very heavy down fuel Plant WL/WP. from dead. 21E 6 26 - - Mixed conifer dominated by C, Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve GF, WH- very dense. Very few reserves via tractor leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- healthy WP and DF – other species DF, WP. Slash and excavator pile. establish WP, WL. Promote forage. in decline. Very heavy down fuel Plant WL/WP. from dead.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 64

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 22D 6 17 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate - Clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with patches of LP via tractor. Slash and underburn. declining trees. Start stand over to dominated with MPB mortality. Plant PP/WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and Root disease is evident throughout less root disease prone species the stand. Past mgmt. removed composition. Promote forage and large portion of big PP, DF, and reduce fuel load. some WL. 22E 6 14 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate - Clearcut with reserves Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with patches of LP via tractor. Slash and underburn. declining trees. Start stand over to dominated with MPB mortality. Plant PP/WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and Root disease is evident throughout less root disease prone species the stand. Past mgmt. removed composition. Promote forage and large portion of big PP, DF, and reduce fuel load. some WL. 23D 6 34 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to patches of LP with MPB mortality. DF, WP. Slash and underburn. improve overall health, vigor, and WL mortality high due to Plant WL/WP. desired species composition. suppression and dwarf mistletoe. Promote forage and reduce fuel High densities causing poor crowns load. and a lot of dead and dying trees. 23E 6 15 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to patches of LP with MPB mortality. DF, WP. Slash and underburn. improve overall health, vigor, and WL mortality high due to Plant WL/WP. desired species composition. suppression and dwarf mistletoe. Promote forage and reduce fuel High densities causing poor crowns load. and a lot of dead and dying trees. 24 6 59 - - Fairly dense mixed conifer with Thin via improvement cut to Improve growing conditions and nice WL, C, WP, ES scattered reduce stem densities and favor health for leave trees and reduce throughout. Some large diameter large tree retention via tractor. stand densities. trees live and dead to retain for leaving WL, WP, C, ES. Yard tops. snag and CWD recruitment.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 65

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 25C 6 15 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate – Seedtree via tractor Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with patches of LP leaving WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and declining trees. Start stand over to dominated with MPB mortality. excavator pile. Plant WL/WP improve overall health, vigor, and Root disease is evident throughout desired species composition. the stand in DF/GF. High incidence Promote forage and reduce fuel of dwarf mistletoe in WL. load. 25D 6 33 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate – Seedtree via tractor Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with patches of LP leaving WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and declining trees. Start stand over to dominated with MPB mortality. excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and Root disease is evident throughout desired species composition. the stand in DF/GF. High incidence Promote forage and reduce fuel of dwarf mistletoe in WL. load. 25E 6 29 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate – Seedtree via tractor Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with patches of LP leaving WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and declining trees. Start stand over to dominated with MPB mortality. excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and Root disease is evident throughout desired species composition. the stand in DF/GF. High incidence Promote forage and reduce fuel of dwarf mistletoe in WL. load. 25F 6 40 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate – Seedtree via tractor Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with patches of LP leaving WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and declining trees. Start stand over to dominated with MPB mortality. excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and Root disease is evident throughout desired species composition. the stand in DF/GF. High incidence Promote forage and reduce fuel of dwarf mistletoe in WL. load. 25G 6 31 - - Dense mixed conifer dominated by Regenerate – Seedtree via skyline Initiate regeneration. Salvage GF, C, WH with pockets of WL. leaving WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and declining trees. Start stand over to Root disease is evident throughout underburn. Plant WL/WP. improve overall health, vigor, and the stand in DF/GF. High incidence desired species composition. of dwarf mistletoe in WL. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 26 6 37 - - Old DF plantation planted in the Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage 1940s w/ scattered nice WL. High reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to incidence of root rot in planted DF WP, and aspen. Slash and improve overall health, vigor, and which is starting to unravel. Aspen excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. desired species composition. scattered throughout and some Promote aspen and huckleberry. huckleberry. Reduce fuel load.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 66

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 28 6 29 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to scattered WL with poor height to WP. Slash and excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and crown ratios and dwarf mistletoe. WL/WP. desired species composition. High densities causing poor crowns Promote forage and reduce fuel and high fuel load. load. 29 6 19 - - Fairly dense mixed conifer with Thin via improvement cut to Improve growing conditions and nice WL scattered throughout reduce overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce (some with dwarf mistletoe). Some leaving WL, C, DF. Yard tops. stand densities. large diameter trees live and dead to retain for snag and CWD recruitment. 30 6 20 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to scattered WL with poor height to WP. Slash, excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and crown ratios and dwarf mistletoe. WL/WP. desired species composition. High densities causing poor crowns Promote forage and reduce fuel and high fuel load. load. 31 6 14 - - Fairly dense mixed smaller Thin via improvement cut to Improve growing conditions and diameter conifer with nice WL reduce overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce scattered throughout (some with leaving WL,C,DF. Yard tops. stand densities. dwarf mistletoe). Armillaria root disease in DF/GF. Some aspen in the bottom of the unit. 32D 6 33 - - Dense mixed conifer-DF, GF, C Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage with nice WL, WP, PP scattered reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to throughout. Some large diameter WP, PP. Slash and excavator pile. improve overall health, vigor, and trees live and dead to retain for Plant PP/WL/WP. desired species composition. snag and CWD recruitment. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 32E 6 24 - - Dense mixed conifer-DF, GF, C Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage with nice WL, WP, PP scattered reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to throughout. Some large diameter WP, PP. Slash and excavator pile. improve overall health, vigor, and trees live and dead to retain for Plant PP/WL/WP. desired species composition. snag and CWD recruitment. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 67

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 33 6 21 18 - Old post and poles unit that needs Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage cleaned up. Dense mixed conifer- reserves via tractor leaving mix of declining trees. Start stand over to DF, C, WH with some LP, AF, ES. healthy conifers. Slash and improve overall health, vigor, and High fuel loading. In WUI. excavator pile. Plant WL/WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 34D 2,6 30 - - Previous mgmt removed many Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominant WL, WP, C. Now reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to dominated by dense, smaller WP, PP. Slash and excavator pile. improve overall health, vigor, and diameter WH, GF, C, and some Plant PP/WL/WP. desired species composition. WL, LP, WP, DF. Poor crowns and Promote forage and reduce fuel high density causing steady load. Mimic natural patch size and decline. High fuel loading. shape. 34E 2,6 26 - - Previous mgmt removed many Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage dominant WL, WP, C. Now reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to dominated by dense, smaller WP, PP. Slash and excavator pile. improve overall health, vigor, and diameter WH, GF, C, and some Plant PP/WL/WP. desired species composition. WL, LP, WP, DF. Poor crowns and Promote forage and reduce fuel high density causing steady load. Mimic natural patch size and decline. High fuel loading. shape. 35 2,6 12 - - Fairly dense mixed smaller Thin via Improvement cut to Improve growing conditions and diameter C, WH, DF, LP with nice reduce stand densities via tractor health for leave trees and reduce WL scattered throughout and a few leaving WL, C. Yard tops. stand densities. WP. High density shade tolerant species causing unfavorable conditions for WL. 36 6 10 - - Very Dense mixed conifer Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration to improve dominated by GF, C, WH, DF with reserves via tractor leaving WL, overall health and vigor, and re- scattered WL/WP. High densities WP. Slash and excavator pile. Plant establish WP, WL. Promote forage causing poor crowns and high fuel WL/WP. and aspen. load. Some aspen patches along the sides and top. 42A 2,6 9 9 - District Compound- mix of DF, PP, Intermediate cut via single tree Improve growing conditions and C, WL, ES, GF. Root rot in large selection to reduce improve stand health for leave trees. Remove DF posing hazard near buildings. health. Whole tree yard. hazard trees.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 68

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 43 6 19 19 - Mixed conifer-DF, GF, C, LP with Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage scattered WL. High densities reserves via tractor leaving WL, declining trees. Start stand over to causing suppression and some WP. Slash and excavator pile. Plant improve overall health, vigor, and mortality. In WUI. WL/WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 44 2,3, 27 27 - Dry site stand with PP,DF,WL. Thin via improvement cut to Improve growing conditions and 6 Fire suppression has increased DF reduce overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce understory and caused high leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops. stand densities. Mimic low densities and fuel loads. In WUI. intensity fire. 45 3,2 10 10 - Dry site old growth stand with Thin via improvement cut to Improve growing conditions and PP,DF,WL. Fire suppression has reduce overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce increased DF understory and leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops. stand densities. caused high densities and fuel loads. In WUI. 46 6 10 10 - Mixed conifer-WL, WH, RC, DF Regenerate - Seedtree cut via Initiate regeneration. Salvage with scattered WP. High densities tractor leaving WL, DF, WP, RC. declining trees. Start stand over to causing suppression and some Slash and excavator pile. Interplant improve overall health, vigor, and mortality. In WUI. WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. 48A 6 26 26 1940s WP plantation that was Regenerate- Seedtree cut via Reduce mtn pine beetle hazard thinned in the 1960s favoring WP tractor leaving WP/WL/C Slash rating and lower densities to and WL. WP/WL and some and excavator pile. improve overall stand health. scattered RC, DF, PP. In WUI. Improve chances that WP and WL will persist into the future. 48B 6 6 6 - 1940s WP plantation that was Regenerate- Seedtree cut via Reduce mtn pine beetle hazard thinned in the 1960s favoring WP tractor leaving WP/WL/C Slash rating and lower densities to and WL. WP/WL and some and excavator pile. improve overall stand health. scattered RC, DF, PP. In WUI. Improve chances that WP and WL will persist into the future. 49 6 53 53 - Mixed conifer DF dominated with Thin via improvement cut to Improve growing conditions and PP, WL, GF with scattered open reduce overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce areas. Small area of dry site old leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops and stand densities. growth. Low vigor in PP and WL maintenance underburn. due to dense understory/ladder fuels. In WUI.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 69

Unit MA Acres WUI IRA Current Condition Proposed Treatment Objectives Acres Acres 50 6 45 45 - Dry site stand with PP,DF,WL. Thin via improvement cut to Improve growing conditions and Fire suppression has increased DF reduce overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce understory and caused high leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops and stand densities. densities and fuel loads. In WUI. maintenance underburn. 51 6 34 34 - Mixed conifer-WL, WH, RC, DF Regenerate – Clearcut with Initiate regeneration. Salvage with scattered WP. High densities reserves via skyline leaving PP, declining trees. Start stand over to causing suppression and some root WL, DF, WP, C. Slash and improve overall health, vigor, and disease. In WUI. underburn. Plant PP/WL/WP. desired species composition. Promote forage and reduce fuel load. Mimic natural patch size and shape. 52 6 20 20 - Dry site stand with PP,DF,WL. Thin via improvement cut to Improve growing conditions and Fire suppression has increased DF reduce overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce understory and caused high leaving PP,WL,DF. Yard tops and stand densities. densities and fuel loads. In WUI. maintenance underburn. 53A 6 49 - - Mixed conifer-WL, WH, RC, DF Thin via commercial thin to reduce Improve growing conditions and with scattered WP. High densities overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce causing suppression and some root leaving WL, C, and diversity of stand densities. disease. species mix. Yard tops. 53B 6 21 - - Mixed conifer-WL, WH, RC, DF Thin via commercial thin to reduce Improve growing conditions and with scattered WP. High densities overstory canopy via tractor health for leave trees and reduce causing suppression and some root leaving WL, C, and diversity of stand densities. disease. species mix. Yard tops.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 70

Appendix D – Starry Goat Access Management Plan Table MAP ROAD LOCATION PROPOSED ACTION TIMING REASON FOR WHO ALTERNATIVE INDEX Milepost ACTION (MP)

1 4401 MP 1.1 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Reconstruction and Security Harvest Activities 2 4405 MP 0 New Permanent Construction During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 4 Construction 2 4405 MP 0 Install Gate During Road Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 4 Construction Security 2 4405 MP 0 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Harvest Activities Security 3 4418D MP 0 Remove Vegetation Barrier and During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 3, 4 Install Gate Reconstruction 3 4418D MP 0 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Harvest Activities Security 4 4418C MP 0 Remove Vegetation Barrier During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 3, 4 Reconstruction 4 4418C MP 0 Public motorized use restricted via During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 gate on 4418 (index item 5) Harvest Activities Security 5 4418 MP 0 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Harvest Activities Security 6 4455 MP 0 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Harvest Activities Security 7 4455B MP 0.15 Remove Vegetation Barrier During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 4 Reconstruction 7 4455B MP 0.15 Public motorized use restricted via During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 4 gate on 4455, MP 0 (index item 6) Harvest Activities Security 8 14373 MP 1.2 Remove Gate, Install Barrier Prior to All Harvest Wildlife Habitat USFS 2, 4 Activities Security

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 71

MAP ROAD LOCATION PROPOSED ACTION TIMING REASON FOR WHO ALTERNATIVE INDEX Milepost ACTION (MP)

9 14339 MP 0 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Reconstruction and Security Harvest Activities 10 14376 MP 0 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Reconstruction and Security Harvest Activities 11 1055 MP 3.2 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Harvest Activities Security 12 1055F MP 0 Remove Vegetation Barrier During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 4 Reconstruction 12 1055F MP 0 Public motorized use restricted via During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 4 gate on 1055 (index item 11) Harvest Activities Security 13 14377 MP 0 Remove Vegetation Barrier During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 4 Reconstruction 13 14377 MP 0 Public motorized use restricted via During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 4 gate on 1055 (index item 11) Harvest Activities Security 14 582 MP 12.0 Remove Vegetation Barrier During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 4 Reconstruction

14 582 MP 12.0 Public motorized use restricted via During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 4 gate on 1055 (index item 11) Harvest Activities Security 15 582G MP 0 Remove Vegetation Barrier During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 4 Reconstruction

15 582G MP 0 Public motorized use restricted via During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 4 gate on 1055 (index item 11) Harvest Activities Security 16 582D MP 0 Remove Vegetation Barrier During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 4 Reconstruction

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 72

MAP ROAD LOCATION PROPOSED ACTION TIMING REASON FOR WHO ALTERNATIVE INDEX Milepost ACTION (MP)

16 582D MP 0 Public motorized use restricted via During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 4 gate on 1055 (index item 11) as Harvest Activities Security well as Stimson gate on 582 at MP 7.7 17 4476 MP 0 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Reconstruction and Security Harvest Activities 18 4476D MP 0 New Permanent Construction During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 3, 4 Construction 18 4476D MP 0 Public motorized use restricted via During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 gate on 4476 (index item 17) Harvest Activities Security 19 4479 MP 0 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 3, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Reconstruction and Security Harvest Activities 20 414B MP 0 Remove Vegetation Barrier During Road Harvest Access Purchaser 2, 4 Reconstruction 20 414B MP 0 Install Gate During Road Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 4 Construction Security 20 414B MP 0 Public motorized use restricted; During Road Work and Wildlife Habitat Purchaser 2, 4 lock gate nights and weekends Harvest Activities Security 21 4556 MP 0 Remove Gate, Install Barrier Following completion Wildlife Habitat USFS 2, 4 of watershed Security improvement work; all to occur prior to road work and harvest activities on gated portion of NFSR 1055

22 4556 MP 5.7 Remove Gate, Install Barrier Prior to All Harvest Wildlife Habitat USFS 2, 4 Activities Security

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 73

Appendix D – Starry Goat Access Management Plan Map

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 74

Appendix E – Past Harvest Activities in the Project Area FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A450200157 18 Permanent Land Clearing YAHK RR SIDING 1930 A460300152 33 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1943 A460300182 47 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1943 A460300209 23 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1943 A460100293 26 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1946 A460100294 42 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) 1946 (EA/RH/FH) A460300183 23 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1946 A460200170 36 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1947 A460200208 6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1947 A460300151 40 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1947 A460300166 18 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1947 A460300177 76 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1947 A460300179 25 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1947 A460300182 44 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1947 A460300210 9 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1947 A450100149 46 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1956 A450100158 117 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1956 A450100178 35 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1956 A460400154 66 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1959 A460300141 47 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1960 A460400147 55 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1960 A460400149 21 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1960 A460400165 17 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1960 A430300105 31 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1961

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 75

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A430300116 24 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1961 A430300128 38 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1961 A430300133 26 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1961 A460400153 48 Liberation Cut 1963 A460400164 18 Liberation Cut 1963 A460500114 56 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1963 A460500305 22 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1963 A460500321 28 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1963 A460500316 20 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) 1963 (EA/RH/FH) A460100214 11 Seed-tree Seed Cut (with and without 1963 leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) A460100237 9 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and 1963 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460500109 63 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1964 A460500322 20 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1964 A460500324 35 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) 1964 (EA/RH/FH) A460400158 12 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and 1964 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460400162 10 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1964 A460400189 33 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1965 A460400242 153 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1965 A460400302 28 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1965 A460400202 116 Improvement Cut 1966 A430300167 74 Liberation Cut 1966 A430300173 12 Liberation Cut 1966 A430300174 22 Liberation Cut 1966

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 76

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A440400210 7 Liberation Cut 1966 A440400211 5 Liberation Cut 1966 A460400157 20 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1966 not regeneration) A460400243 5 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1966 not regeneration) A430300124 12 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A440400123 66 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A440400131 29 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A440400145 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A440400147 32 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A450100188 22 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A450100189 216 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A460400161 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A460400204 40 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A460400211 75 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A460400205 26 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) 1966 (EA/RH/FH) A430400160 19 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A430400162 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1966 A430300119 5 Liberation Cut 1967 A430300134 16 Liberation Cut 1967 A430300162 23 Liberation Cut 1967 A430300190 4 Liberation Cut 1967 A440400148 3 Liberation Cut 1967 A430400175 197 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1967 A430400177 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1967

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 77

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460500306 109 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1967 A450100152 35 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1967 A450100153 44 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1967 A450100154 25 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1967 A450100183 39 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1967 A430400173 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1967 A460100261 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1967 A460200200 7 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1967 A430400168 18 Liberation Cut 1968 A420100127 21 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A420100132 4 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A420700101 32 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A420700141 20 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A430300175 3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A430400167 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A430500118 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A430500125 30 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A430500126 60 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A430500134 91 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A430600160 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A440400142 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A460100214 51 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A460200167 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A460200173 22 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A460300165 24 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968 A460400245 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1968

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 78

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A420600201 331 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1969 A420700143 16 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1969 A420700144 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1969 A420700146 277 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1969 A420700154 52 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1969 A430400150 27 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1969 A430400127 58 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1969 A430400130 67 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1969 A430400140 86 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1969 A430400152 132 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1969 A450200160 17 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1969 not regeneration) A450200132 30 Commercial Thin 1970 A450200171 11 Commercial Thin 1970 A440100278 11 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1970 A440100287 5 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1970 A440100277 11 Liberation Cut 1970 A440600109 30 Liberation Cut 1970 A440600110 32 Liberation Cut 1970 A440600111 57 Liberation Cut 1970 A440600112 20 Liberation Cut 1970 A440600118 21 Liberation Cut 1970 A450200133 6 Liberation Cut 1970 A440100276 50 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1970 A440600117 30 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1970 A430300139 5 Liberation Cut 1970 A430300151 12 Liberation Cut 1970

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 79

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A430300155 30 Liberation Cut 1970 A430300174 11 Liberation Cut 1970 A430300177 5 Liberation Cut 1970 A430300179 5 Liberation Cut 1970 A430300180 5 Liberation Cut 1970 A430300181 5 Liberation Cut 1970 A430300182 2 Liberation Cut 1970 A440200102 17 Liberation Cut 1970 A440400211 5 Liberation Cut 1970 A450200133 6 Permanent Land Clearing 1970 A430300144 21 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1970 A460500105 130 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1970 A460500308 3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1970 A460500106 93 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) 1970 (EA/RH/FH) A460500110 94 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) 1970 (EA/RH/FH) A440100259 19 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1971 A440100261 62 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1971 A440100301 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1971 A440200137 12 Liberation Cut 1972 A420700145 48 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1972 not regeneration) A450100108 3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460100222 45 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460100290 62 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460100291 30 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 80

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460100297 38 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460100298 4 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460100301 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460100302 88 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460200147 17 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460300117 35 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460300118 69 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460300127 37 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460300138 54 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460300139 43 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A460400138 6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1972 A420300170 16 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1974 A450300115 122 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1974 A420300120 41 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1974 A420300119 17 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1974 A450300122 86 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1974 A450300147 13 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1974 A450300149 39 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1974 A450300150 47 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1974 A450400110 25 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1974 A460100292 27 Group Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) 1975 A460100278 28 Liberation Cut 1975 A460100317 8 Liberation Cut 1975 A460100318 14 Liberation Cut 1975 A450300125 5 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1975 not regeneration) A460100298 95 Seed-tree Final Cut (EA/NRH/FH) 1975

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 81

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A450100103 1 56 Liberation Cut NORTH FORK RUBY 1976 A450300144 14 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1976 not regeneration) A420400144 11 Commercial Thin JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1977 A420500138 7 Commercial Thin JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1977 A420400132 4 Liberation Cut JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1977 A420400133 24 Liberation Cut JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1977 A420400134 41 Liberation Cut JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1977 A420400141 15 Liberation Cut JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1977 A420400145 12 Liberation Cut JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1977 A420500146 5 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1977 not regeneration) A420400147 30 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1977 A420400156 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1977 A450100133 4 30 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) NORTH FORK RUBY 1977 A450100102 6 20 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) NORTH FORK RUBY 1977 A450100127 2 53 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) NORTH FORK RUBY 1977 A450100141 5 55 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) NORTH FORK RUBY 1977 A460100125 5 104 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1977 A460100152 6 117 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1977 A460100156 6 31 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1977 A450100131 3 64 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, NORTH FORK RUBY 1978 not regeneration) A460300162 4 41 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1978 A460300164 4 114 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1978 A460200166 4 12 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) IDAMONT 1978 (EA/RH/FH)

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 82

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460100174 83 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460100175 56 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460100176 7 Commercial Thin 1978 A460100177 3 Commercial Thin 1978 A460200142 17 Commercial Thin 1978 A460200143 19 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200144 49 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200153 18 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200197 25 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200206 2 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200209 81 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200211 1 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200212 8 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200216 20 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200217 11 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200193 18 Liberation Cut LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A460200199 20 Liberation Cut LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL)

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 83

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460200204 13 Liberation Cut LOGAN CK 1978 (ORIGINAL) A440100236 27 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1978 not regeneration) A440100257 5 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1978 not regeneration) A440100258 44 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1978 not regeneration) A440100274 18 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1978 not regeneration) A440100278 11 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1978 not regeneration) A440100279 120 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1978 not regeneration) A450100104 37 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1978 not regeneration) A450100132 4 49 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, NORTH FORK RUBY 1978 not regeneration) A450400165 90 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1978 not regeneration) A460100179 10 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and 1978 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460200146 7 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and 1978 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A450200124 28 Commercial Thin 1979 A450200126 14 Commercial Thin 1979 A460100182 16 Commercial Thin 1979 A460100183 101 Commercial Thin LOGAN CK 1979 (ORIGINAL) A420500156 77 Liberation Cut JULY CREEK (ORIG) 1979 A440100282 29 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1979 not regeneration)

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 84

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A440600116 161 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1979 A440600149 7 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1979 A450200120 20 Commercial Thin 1979 A450200121 23 Commercial Thin LOWER RUBY CR 1979 LOOP A450200169 25 Commercial Thin LOWER RUBY CR 1979 LOOP A420300118 8 8 Liberation Cut THREE MILE 1979 A440100247 3 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1979 not regeneration) A440600113 125 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1979 not regeneration) A460100143 12 7 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1979 A460200128 11 18 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1979 A420300148 13 10 Liberation Cut THREE MILE 1979 A420300132 10 11 Liberation Cut THREE MILE 1980 A440600153 37 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) 1980 A420300146 16 Commercial Thin THREE MILE 1980 A460100156 6 9 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, IDAMONT 1980 not regeneration) A430200157 41 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SMITH MTN SALV- 1981 not regeneration) HELIO A430300140 72 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SMITH MTN SALV- 1981 not regeneration) HELIO A460200166 10 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, IDAMONT BLOCK 4 1981 not regeneration) A420600185 34 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GOAT CR FIRE SALV 1981 A420600201 2 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) GOAT CR FIRE SALV 1981 (EA/RH/FH) A460300180 22 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) CABIN CREEK PULP 1981

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 85

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460300185 18 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) CABIN CREEK PULP 1981 A460300187 1 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) CABIN CREEK PULP 1981 A460300188 4 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) CABIN CREEK PULP 1981 A430300167 1 1 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, CALLAHANS DOWN 1982 not regeneration) A440400210 1 7 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, CALLAHANS DOWN 1982 not regeneration) A450300135 55 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, BURNT TICK CEDAR 1982 not regeneration) A420100193 2 Commercial Thin GORDON CK COM 1982 THIN A460200162 1 3 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, IDAMONT FIRE SLVG 1982 not regeneration) A430300154 14 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, CALLAHAN FLATS 1982 not regeneration) A450300135 55 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, BRUSHY SPUR 1982 not regeneration) A420400132 4 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) JULY CK CLEANUP 1982 A420400133 24 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) JULY CK CLEANUP 1982 A420400141 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) JULY CK CLEANUP 1982 A420400144 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) JULY CK CLEANUP 1982 A420400145 81 12 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) JULY CK CLEANUP 1982 A420300146 44 16 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and THREE MILE REHAB 1982 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A430500117 55 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GLAD CK AREA SALV 1983 not regeneration) A430500118 11 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GLAD CK AREA SALV 1983 not regeneration) A430500125 30 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GLAD CK AREA SALV 1983 not regeneration)

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 86

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A430500126 60 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GLAD CK AREA SALV 1983 not regeneration) A430500222 7 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GLAD CK AREA SALV 1983 not regeneration) A430500223 5 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GLAD CK AREA SALV 1983 not regeneration) A430600160 8 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GLAD CK AREA SALV 1983 not regeneration) A430600161 6 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GLAD CK AREA SALV 1983 not regeneration) A440100222 2 6 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, N CALLAHAN HELI 1983 not regeneration) A440100224 2 85 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, N CALLAHAN HELI 1983 not regeneration) A440100235 2 21 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, N CALLAHAN HELI 1983 not regeneration) A440100283 2 60 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, N CALLAHAN HELI 1983 not regeneration) A440100286 1 63 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, N CALLAHAN HELI 1983 not regeneration) A440200103 1 51 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, N CALLAHAN HELI 1983 not regeneration) A460300140 14 4 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1983 A450300119 4 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, C-B CEDAR 1983 not regeneration) A460100164 5 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, HANDSHAKE CEDAR 1983 not regeneration) A450100170 4 13 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1983 A450100193 4 119 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1983 A450100195 4X 40 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1983 A450100247 4 26 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1983

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 87

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A450100151 5 40 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY CREEK 1983 A430300139 90 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SMITH MTN HELIO II 1983 not regeneration) A430300177 26 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SMITH MTN HELIO II 1983 not regeneration) A430300179 7 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SMITH MTN HELIO II 1983 not regeneration) A430300180 20 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SMITH MTN HELIO II 1983 not regeneration) A430300181 59 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SMITH MTN HELIO II 1983 not regeneration) A430300182 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SMITH MTN HELIO II 1983 not regeneration) A450100185 9 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, 1983 not regeneration) A450300144 20 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, THREE MILE SLVG 1983 not regeneration) A430400178 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, BAKED GOAT CEDAR 1983 not regeneration) A460200147 3 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, HANDSHAKE CEDAR 1983 not regeneration) A420100193 3 Commercial Thin GORDON CK 1984 WILDLIFE A450100170 4 13 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1984 A450100187 6 63 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1984 A450100193 4 11 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1984 A450100247 4 26 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1984 A420100192 7 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GORDON CK 1984 not regeneration) WILDLIFE A430300129 3 6 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 88

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A430300136 4 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430300136 6 6 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430300178 4 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430300178 6 6 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430300183 6 6 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430300183 4 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430300185 4 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430300185 6 6 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430300186 6 6 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430300186 4 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A420100195 3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GORDON CK 1984 WILDLIFE A420100197 3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GORDON CK 1984 WILDLIFE A420100200 2 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GORDON CK 1984 WILDLIFE A460400131 3 10 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment IDAMONT 1984 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A430300123 19 Improvement Cut CHRI-SMITH XMAS 1984 TREE A430300104 11 Improvement Cut CHRI-SMITH XMAS 1984 TREE

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 89

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A430400174 11 4 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430400194 11 4 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A460100108 32 25 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1984 A460100121 37 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1984 A460100106 33 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1984 A460100115 30 7 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1984 A460100117 39 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1984 A430300174 1 22 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) CALLAHAN FORKS 1984 (EA/RH/FH) PULP A440400210 1 7 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) CALLAHAN FORKS 1984 (EA/RH/FH) PULP A440400211 1 5 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) CALLAHAN FORKS 1984 (EA/RH/FH) PULP A430300118 1 2 Liberation Cut LONG MTN 1984 SANITATION A450100156 2 4 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1984 A450100157 2 63 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1984 A450100228 2 19 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1984 A450300117 125 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GARAGE SALE 1984 not regeneration) CEDAR A450300156 12 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, GARAGE SALE 1984 not regeneration) CEDAR A450100242 2 53 Shelterwood Staged Removal Cut RUBY CREEK 1984 (EA/NRH/NFH) A430300121 1A 1 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LONG MTN 1984 SANITATION A430400154 12 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 90

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A430400154 10 20 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A450100172 3 157 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1984 A450100190 3 7 Liberation Cut RUBY CREEK 1984 A430400161 8 3 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430400161 7 5 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A430400175 9 6 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1984 not regeneration) SANITATION A460400128 2A 13 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1984 A430300125 2 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1985 not regeneration) SANITATION A440400147 5 6 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, LONG MTN 1985 not regeneration) SANITATION A460400194 1 66 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1985 A450300125 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) BRUSH CR 1985 MISTLETOE A460400123 2H 6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1985 A460400127 2G 14 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1985 A420400138 8 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IRON GOAT 1985 A420500144 15 4 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) HAYSTACK BUTTE 1985 A420500149 8A 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IRON GOAT 1985 A430300157 254 32 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) SOUTH CALLAHAN 1985 SLVG A460400121 2 52 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1985 A440200131 15 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, N FK CALLAHAN 1985 not regeneration) CEDAR A440200132 1 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) N FK CALLAHAN 1985 CEDAR

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 91

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A440600146 77 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PURDY RIDGE 1985 A440600160 1 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) N FK CALLAHAN 1985 CEDAR A460300133 9B 12 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1985 A460300135 9A 39 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1985 A460300156 7 44 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IDAMONT 1985 A430300159 3 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SOUTH CALLAHAN 1986 not regeneration) SLVG A430300167 1 9 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SOUTH CALLAHAN 1986 not regeneration) SLVG A440400210 1 7 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, SOUTH CALLAHAN 1986 not regeneration) SLVG A420500141 9 21 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IRON GOAT 1986 A450100115 14 1 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1986 A460100289 14 21 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1986 A460100105 2 4 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, BOWLEDER OVER 1986 not regeneration) A460100105 1 4 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, BOWLEDER OVER 1986 not regeneration) A460100111 3 7 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, BOWLEDER OVER 1986 not regeneration) A460100118 8 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, BOWLEDER OVER 1986 not regeneration) A460100321 8 2 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, BOWLEDER OVER 1986 not regeneration) A460400153 2 10 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, RAYMOND CK SLVG 1986 not regeneration) A420500139 12 12 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IRON GOAT 1986 A460100109 4 2 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) BOWLEDER OVER 1986 A460100110 7 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) BOWLEDER OVER 1986

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 92

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460400246 1 24 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RAYMOND CK SLVG 1986 A420400153 16 7 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, HAYSTACK BUTTE 1986 not regeneration) A420400155 16 3 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, HAYSTACK BUTTE 1986 not regeneration) A450100133 1 30 Harvest Without Restocking RUBY RIDGE 1986 A450100138 7 10 Harvest Without Restocking RUBY RIDGE 1986 A450100138 3 19 Harvest Without Restocking RUBY RIDGE 1986 A420400158 1 33 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) HAYSTACK BUTTE 1986 A450100146 4 32 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY RIDGE 1986 A450200107 5 30 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1986 A450200102 9 4 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, RUBY STAR 1987 not regeneration) A420300107 2 47 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE MILE 1987 A420400154 2 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) HAYSTACK BUTTE 1987 A420400154 4 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) HAYSTACK BUTTE 1987 A450100139 35 1 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A450200101 35 19 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A450200114 7 9 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A420300104 19 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, THREE MILE 1987 not regeneration) SALVAGE A420400151 17 4 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, HAYSTACK BUTTE 1987 not regeneration) A450100112 4 1 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A450100109 4 1 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A450100113 4 1 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A450100114 3 17 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A450200113 8 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 93

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A420200102 11 19 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment THREE MILE 1987 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A450100117 1 48 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A420500115 17 25 Commercial Thin IRON GOAT 1987 A420300121 1 54 Commercial Thin THREE MILE 1987 A450400167 1 8 Commercial Thin THREE MILE 1987 A420400151 3 27 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) HAYSTACK BUTTE 1987 A450100111 30 9 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A450300120 5 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE MILE 1987 A450300138 7 48 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1987 A450300146 7 14 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE MILE 1987 A420200104 44 14 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment THREE MILE 1987 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A450300154 11 30 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment THREE MILE 1987 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100272 15 4 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, RUBY STAR 1987 not regeneration) A460100319 15 9 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, RUBY STAR 1987 not regeneration) A450200123 10 35 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A460100284 32 16 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY STAR 1987 A440600150 2 16 Harvest Without Restocking PURDY DEAD 1988 A440600155 3 5 Harvest Without Restocking PURDY DEAD 1988 A420200103 4 19 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE MILE 1988 A420300102 3 40 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE MILE 1988 A420300140 2 10 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A420300112 34A 2 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450300141 10 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 94

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A420300142 23 4 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment PREACHER MTN. 1988 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A450400138 11 34 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment PREACHER MTN. 1988 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A420300129 24 13 Single-tree Selection Cut (UA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A420300118 8 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE MILE 1988 A450300153 15 3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450400101 3 19 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450400118 29 4 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450400149 4 18 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450400153 21 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450400156 5 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A420200139 19 17 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and PREACHER MTN. 1988 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A420300116 30 17 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and PREACHER MTN. 1988 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A420200136 35 16 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment PREACHER MTN. 1988 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A420300127 33 8 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment PREACHER MTN. 1988 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A420300130 22 4 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment PREACHER MTN. 1988 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A450400117 27 9 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment PREACHER MTN. 1988 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A450400102 16 18 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment PREACHER MTN. 1988 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A450400144 33 3 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment PREACHER MTN. 1988 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A450400163 2 15 Harvest Without Restocking AIRPORT 1988 A420300109 33 33 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE MILE 1988

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 95

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A420300114 31 18 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450400125 1 14 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A420300169 25 18 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and PREACHER MTN. 1988 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A450400142 25 2 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and PREACHER MTN. 1988 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A450400169 25 4 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and PREACHER MTN. 1988 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A450400165 1 90 Permanent Land Clearing AIRPORT 1988 A450300124 12 35 Harvest Without Restocking PREACHER MTN. 1988 A420300138 18 37 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450300128 6 10 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450300128 32 13 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450300131 8 10 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A450300131 9 10 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A420300113 34 2 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A420200116 17 16 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A420500127 7 27 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) IRON GOAT 1988 A450300106 13 39 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) PREACHER MTN. 1988 A430600166 8 13 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GLAD CREEK 1989 A430100205 9 6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GLAD CREEK 1989 A430100207 9A 18 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GLAD CREEK 1989 A430100206 10 13 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GLAD CREEK 1989 A430600173 10 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GLAD CREEK 1989 A430600163 7 27 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GLAD CREEK 1989 A430600172 1 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GLAD CREEK 1990 A460200182 14 37 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1990 RESALE

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 96

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460100161 31 6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1990 RESALE A460100163 34 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1990 RESALE A460200180 4 16 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1990 RESALE A460200190 12 21 Liberation Cut LOGAN RIDGE 1990 RESALE A460100165 26 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1990 RESALE A460100229 10 9 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1990 RESALE A460200174 6 18 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1990 RESALE A460300179 3 25 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RAPINE 1990 A430300171 12 43 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) GLAD CREEK 1990 A460300210 2 9 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RAPINE 1991 A460300208 1 12 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RAPINE 1991 A460300209 1 23 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RAPINE 1991 A450300122 1 1 Improvement Cut BRUSH CREEK XMAS 1991 TRE A460200160 28 21 Permanent Land Clearing LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460100124 25 3 Liberation Cut LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460100119 38 12 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460100178 18 3 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460200210 18 2 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 97

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460200202 2 9 Liberation Cut LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460200149 8 14 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A440100168 3 2 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) UPPER RAY 1991 A460400183 3 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) UPPER RAY 1991 A460400253 1 10 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) UPPER RAY 1991 A420300157 1 16 Seed-tree Preparatory Cut 3 MILE MISC II 1991 (EA/NRH/NFH) A460200158 11 8 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with LOGAN RIDGE 1991 or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH) RESALE A460200157 24 9 Shelterwood Preparatory Cut LOGAN RIDGE 1991 (EA/NRH/NFH) RESALE A460200158 11 8 Shelterwood Removal Cut LOGAN RIDGE 1991 (EA/NRH/FH) RESALE A460100227 9 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460200159 22 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460100116 36 10 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460100144 21 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460100304 21A 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460200135 21 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460200155 21 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A460200171 13 19 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 98

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460200205 21A 11 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1991 RESALE A450100239 5 34 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY REVISITED 1991 A450100240 6 37 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY REVISITED 1991 A460400254 2 13 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) UPPER RAY 1991 A450100238 4 9 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY REVISITED 1991 A460300207 4 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY REVISITED 1991 A450100236 2 42 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY REVISITED 1992 A450100237 3 40 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY REVISITED 1992 A460100220 7 12 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1992 RESALE A460100232 1 14 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1992 RESALE A450100235 1 27 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) RUBY REVISITED 1992 A460100129 35 6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1992 RESALE A460100154 16 5 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1992 RESALE A460200138 16 18 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) LOGAN RIDGE 1992 RESALE A450300122 1 14 Improvement Cut BRUSH CREEK XMAS 1992 TRE A460100127 29 47 Liberation Cut LOGAN RIDGE 1992 RESALE A430400180 14 26 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1992 A420700155 1 29 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1992 A420700156 1A 17 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1992 A420700163 10 35 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1992 A420700162 6A 8 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1993

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 99

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A430300141 17 42 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1993 A430400153 8 24 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1993 A430400179 13 18 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1993 A430400182 15 33 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment THREE GOATS 1993 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A420700159 3 18 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1993 A420700160 4 41 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1993 A420700157 2 15 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1993 A420700158 2A 6 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1993 A420700161 6 20 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) THREE GOATS 1993 A460300182 1 41 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, STAR SEARCH 1994 not regeneration) SALVAGE A430200140 15 Natural Changes (excludes fire) SMITH MTN. BURN 1994 A450400115 1 10 Salvage Cut (intermediate treatment, BACKYARD 1997 not regeneration) SALVAGE A460200216 112 20 Stand Clearcut (EA/RH/FH) CALLAHAN 2000 A420300172 63 1 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) CALLAHAN 2000 (EA/RH/FH) A450400172 63 6 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) CALLAHAN 2000 (EA/RH/FH) A420400170 58C 23 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2000 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A450400171 58C 7 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2000 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100328 92 21 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2000 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100320 13A 14 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2001 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460200217 29D 11 Shelterwood Establishment Cut (with CALLAHAN 2001 or without leave trees) (EA/RH/NFH)

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 100

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460100319 109 36 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2001 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100324 29D 10 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment CALLAHAN 2001 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100316 1 18 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2001 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100330 1A 6 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2001 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100122 16B 15 Improvement Cut CALLAHAN 2001 A460100321 15 20 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2001 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100325 3 19 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2001 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460200218 3 7 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2001 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100323 25 14 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2001 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100322 21 26 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2002 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A450200120 39B 4 Improvement Cut CALLAHAN 2002 A450200121 39B 3 Improvement Cut CALLAHAN 2002 A450200168 10A 5 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) CALLAHAN 2002 (EA/RH/FH) A460100317 10A 8 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) CALLAHAN 2002 (EA/RH/FH) A460100326 32 12 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) CALLAHAN 2002 (EA/RH/FH) A450200169 39A 25 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2002 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100318 10B 14 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2002 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH)

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 101

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460100329 103 8 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2002 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460100327 33 23 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment CALLAHAN 2002 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A450200132 42 7 Improvement Cut CALLAHAN 2002 A450200132 43 7 Improvement Cut CALLAHAN 2002 A450200136 43 2 Improvement Cut CALLAHAN 2002 A450200171 42 11 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and CALLAHAN 2002 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A450200170 41 13 Two-aged Shelterwood Establishment CALLAHAN 2002 and Removal Cut (w/ res) (2A/RH/FH) A450400170 2 7 Improvement Cut SEVEN CATS SSTS 2003 A420400102 1 2 Sanitation Cut SEVEN CATS SSTS 2003 A420400103 1 1 Sanitation Cut SEVEN CATS SSTS 2003 A420400104 1 1 Sanitation Cut SEVEN CATS SSTS 2003 A420400170 1 23 Sanitation Cut SEVEN CATS SSTS 2003 A450400171 1 7 Sanitation Cut SEVEN CATS SSTS 2003 A420300163 3 2 Sanitation Cut SEVEN CATS SSTS 2003 A450400141 3 1 Harvest Without Restocking SEVEN CATS SSTS 2003 A460100230 5 4 Improvement Cut WILD, WILD WEST 2006 A460100235 7 7 Improvement Cut WILD, WILD WEST 2006 A460100235 6 5 Improvement Cut WILD, WILD WEST 2006 A460100257 7 5 Improvement Cut WILD, WILD WEST 2006 A460200197 5 6 Improvement Cut WILD, WILD WEST 2006 A460200198 5 1 Improvement Cut WILD, WILD WEST 2006 A460200199 5 1 Improvement Cut WILD, WILD WEST 2006 A460100225 6A 9 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) WILD, WILD WEST 2006 (EA/RH/FH)

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 102

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A460100234 7A 4 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) WILD, WILD WEST 2006 (EA/RH/FH) A460100224 4 11 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and WILD, WILD WEST 2006 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A460200206 4 2 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and WILD, WILD WEST 2006 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A420100223 69B 10 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) WEST TROY 2014 (EA/RH/FH) A420100224 70A 7 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A420100225 70B 56 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A420200159 60 21 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A420100227 72 8 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) WEST TROY 2014 (EA/RH/FH) A420100226 71 1 Two-aged Seed-tree Seed and WEST TROY 2014 Removal Cut (w/res) (2A/RH/FH) A420200160 60E 3 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A420100222 69A 5 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) WEST TROY 2014 (EA/RH/FH) A420200158 56E 23 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A420200161 55 4 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A420200162 56 5 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A420300176 33 13 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A420300177 34 2 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A420400171 40 4 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A450400175 25 13 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014 A420200157 50 9 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) WEST TROY 2014 (EA/RH/FH) A420300175 32 7 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) WEST TROY 2014 (EA/RH/FH)

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 103

FACTS ID Unit ID Unit Acres Type of Harvest Activity Timber Sale Name Completion Year A450400174 24 4 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) WEST TROY 2014 (EA/RH/FH) A450400176 27 19 Stand Clearcut (w/ leave trees) WEST TROY 2014 (EA/RH/FH) A420300174 51 2 Improvement Cut WEST TROY 2014

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 104

Appendix F – Starry Goat Monitoring Plan Item Resource Objective Timing Methodology Responsible # Official 1 Watershed Monitor During and Review a Sale Admin/ implementation post project representative sample Engineering and effectiveness activities of timber sale units, Representative/IDT/ of Best road reconstruction, District Staff Management road storage and road Practices (BMPs) decommissioning and used for project complete BMP activities (includes monitoring reports. monitoring RHCAs) 2 Soils Monitor Post Randomly sample Soil Scientist detrimental soil Treatment timber sale units using disturbance approved methodology (soil transect measurements). 3 Soils Monitor the Post Review a Soil Scientist effectiveness of Treatment representative sample project specific of timber sale units, design features and associated temporary roads, skid trails, and landings and complete BMP monitoring reports. 4 Soils/ Monitor coarse Post Measure tons per acre Soil Scientist/ Silviculture woody debris Treatment of CWD within a Silviculturist (CWD) to see if representative sample recommended of both burned and amounts were piled units. retained 5 Silviculture/ Determine whether Post Review selected Fuels Specialist/ Fuels/ fuels treatment Treatment treatment areas. Silviculturist/IDT Wildlife objectives were Evaluate silvicultural accomplished objectives and prescribed burn objectives. 6 Silviculture Track insect and Post Annual insect and R-1 Forest Health diseases Treatment disease mortality Protection surveys; ongoing program accomplished by Forest Health Protection (FHP). 7 Silviculture/ Monitor old growth Pre and Walk through transects Botany Botany characteristics and Post or old growth plots effectiveness of Treatment harvest and fuels treatments 8 Silviculture Assure Post Reforestation surveys Silviculture regeneration Treatment the 1st, 3rd and 5th harvest units are year after planting. stocked with trees in 5 years

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 105

Item Resource Objective Timing Methodology Responsible # Official 9 Wildlife Verify maintenance Post Representative sample Wildlife Biologist and retention of Treatment of units taken to cavity habitat determine retention of cavity habitat. 10 Noxious Monitor noxious Pre Monitor project area to District Weed Weeds weed infestations Treatment determine effectiveness Specialist and of weed spraying. following timber sale activities 11 Wildlife Determine 1-3 years Survey selected Wildlife Biologist/ effectiveness of after underburn treatments Fuels Specialist burning to increase burning to determine the browse. species of browse and to what extend burning has stimulated browse. 12 Wildlife Monitor the status 1-2 times District employees will District Access and effectiveness per year monitor the status of Management of closure devices closure devices and Program/ Law – gates, earthen their effectiveness Enforcement barriers, signing through their daily field work and once a year through the Adopt—Road program. 14 Cultural Ensure Pre and Pedestrian survey will Kootenai NF Resources effectiveness of Post Fuels be conducted over Heritage personnel historic properties Treatment newly disturbed or and/or Tribal liaison protection exposed surfaces (where applicable) measures and within specified units. survey for newly Fire line construction exposed cultural will be actively resources monitored in specified units. 13 Botany Monitor Lomatium Pre and Walk through TESP Botany geyeri population Post EO surveys characteristics and Treatment effectiveness of fuels treatments

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 106

Appendix G – List of Preparers and Recipients The following interdisciplinary team members contributed to the development of the Starry Goat project and this Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Preparer Position Experience Contribution Alberts, Sara Supervisory Forester 16 Project team leading, advice on timber harvest and Operations design. Anderson, Shelly Transportation Planner 27 Prepared travel analysis report and access management plan. Arvidson, Michael Botanist/ GIS 31 Prepared reports for PTES plants, maintained GIS coverage, prepared project maps, and assisted in data queries and modeling. Bienkowski, Silviculturist 15 Silvicultural prescriptions Matthew Erickson, Josh Hydrology Technician 10 Hydrology field work Fable, John Forestry Technician 3 Various field work Farwell, Sam Hydrology Technician 4 Hydrology field work Farmer, Cory District Fuels 8 Updated Fuels analysis report. Specialist Friend, Miles NEPA IDT Leader 31 Project co-team leader, writer/editor, project documentation, public involvement and collaboration, and provided NEPA advice. Gier, John Soil Scientist 26 Prepared soil reports and analysis and contributed to project design. Hill, Dustin Archeologist 7 Cultural Resources analysis and American Indian Consultation. Hopkinson, Cass Forestry Technician 5 Various field work Hopkinson, Julie Minerals, field 5 Helped with minerals work and field work technician Hubbell, Linda District FMO (retired) 28 Advice on prescribed burning and fuels treatments. Jungst, Laura Hydrologist, District 15 Helped prepared the water resources and Resource Staff analysis and provided NEPA advice. Macy, Nicole Silviculturist trainee 8 Diagnosis of stand treatment needs, vegetation effects, silvicultural prescriptions, and fire ecology. Miller, Katie Geologist Prepared Minerals report Moschelle, Justin Forest Archeologist Cultural Resources analysis and American Indian Consultation Naples, Brendan Fish Biologist 8 Prepared fisheries analysis. Hegler, Ben Hydrologist 2 Prepared water resources and analysis, and contributed to project design. Osborn, Lisa NEPA Coordinator / 21 Writer/editor, provided NEPA advice, public writer-editor notification, document preparation and project file documentation.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 107

Preparer Position Experience Contribution Pickar, Justin Civil Engineer 8 Design of road reconstruction and maintenance activities. Rockwell, Mandy Wildlife Biologist 12 Wildlife habitat analysis and project design. Sedler, Ed Timber Sale 12 Timber Harvest design, project development. Preparation Sorenson, Colin Regional Economist Economic Analysis Stephens, Vicki Fuels Planner 15 Prepared Fire/Fuels and Air Quality analysis. Thorstenson, Dave Recreation Planner 16 Prepared recreation, scenery, and inventoried roadless area analysis.

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 108

List of Recipients The following is a list of recipients to whom this Draft EIS or notice of availability has been sent. Additional copies of this Draft EIS are available upon request from the Three Rivers Ranger District in Troy, Montana

Local Government and Elected Troy Investments, LLC Officials Stimson Lumber Company Vaagen Brothers Lincoln County Commissioners Yaak Valley Forest Council Boundary County Commissioners Wild Earth Guardians Wildwest Institute Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation State Agencies Chief of Naval Operations (N45) Montana Department of Environmental Quality Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Mtn. Montana Department of State Lands Federal Highway Administration, MT Div. Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Northwest Power Planning Council Idaho Department of Fish and Game US Army Corps of Engineers - Northwest Idaho Senator Crapo Division Idaho Senator Risch US Coast Guard, Office of Env. Mgmt. US Department of Energy, Dir. of NEPA Policy Native American Tribes and & Compliance Organizations US Department of Homeland Security - Border Patrol Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe USDA - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Service Kootenai Salish Tribal Liaison USDA - Natural Resource Conservation Service USDA - National Agricultural Library Individuals USDI – Fish and Wildlife Service Asbridge, Donna USDI – NOAA Office of Policy & Strategic Benson, Mitchell Planning Boelke, Galen US Environmental Protection Agency - Region 8 Boswell, Jr., Tyler Campbell, Floyd Organizations Cole, Kurt Alliance for the Wild Rockies Collogan, Joseph Associated Logging Contractors, Inc. Coryell, Larry Avista Corporation Deleo, Benjamin & Vivian Blue Sky Broadcasting Deleo, Timothy & Shellie Flying BS LLC Dupius, Dennis Fodge Pulp Edwards, William & Linda Kootenai Environmental Alliance Evans, Bradley Kootenai Forest Stakeholder Coalition Fossen, Michael Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative Hall, Richard Idaho Forest Group Hanson, Michael Idaho Conservation League Higgins, Ronald The Lands Council Hudlow, Patricia Montana Wilderness Association Johnson, Kyle Ponderay Valley Fibre Juel, Jeff

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 109

Individuals, cont. Knoepke, Larry Moen, Virginia Osterberg, Travis & Kathleen Pattie, Donald Pattie, William Ray, Robert Scarabosio, Dario & MaryAnn Shupe, Opal Smith, Gayl Smith, Craig & Regina Smith, Melvin Steiger, Julie Steiner, Paul Turner, William and Karen Wayland-Smith, Virginia Welch, Robert Welch, Robert & Joyce Welch, James Williams, Bill & Rebecca Williams, Everett Williams, Noel Wynsma, Barry

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 110

Maps

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 111

Map M-1: General Vicinity

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 112

Map M-2 Recreation Improvements

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 113

Map M-3 Starry Goat Management Areas 2 and 3

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 114

Map M-4 Alternative 2

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 115

Map M-5 Alternative 3

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 116

Map M-6 Alternative 4

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 117

Map M-7 Project Area Haul Roads

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 118

Map M-8 Bull Trout Habitat, Road Storage, Decommissioning, Other Road Work, and Minerals in Alternatives 2 and 4

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 119

Map M-9 Road Storage, Decommissioning, Other Road Work, and Minerals in Alternative 3

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 120

Map M-10 Roadside Fuel Mitigation

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 121

Map M-11 Management Areas

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 122

Map M-12 Grizzly Bear Core Swap

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 123

Map M-13 Analysis Watersheds

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 124

Map M-14 Proposed Harvest and Non-harvest Fuels Treatments in Old Growth

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 125

Map M-15 Bear Management Units

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 126

Map M-16 Biophysical Settings

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 127

Map M-17 Bull Trout Habitat in Alternative 2

Starry Goat FEIS – Part 2 Appendix 128