united states department revised...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

March 2010

Revised

Environmental Assessment

CHR Motorized Route and Area Designation Project (CHR Project)

Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts, Flathead National Forest Flathead County, Montana

CHR MOTORIZED ROUTE AND AREA

DESIGNATION PROJECT

Revised Environmental Assessment

Flathead National Forest

Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts

Flathead County, Montana

March 2010

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Jimmy DeHerrera, District Ranger

For Further Information, Please Contact: Michele Draggoo, Planning Team Leader (406-387-3827)

or Paula Peterson, Recreation and Lands Specialist (406-387-3818)

Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts

Flathead National Forest

10 Hungry Horse Drive (P.O. Box 190340)

Hungry Horse, MT 59901

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

activities based on race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,

sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director,

Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

CHR MOTORIZED ROUTE AND AREA

DESIGNATION PROJECT

REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction……… …………………………………………………....……... 1

Background …………………………………………………………………… 2

Scope ……………………………………………………………………….... 4

Purpose and Need for Action …………………………………….......……… 4

Public Involvement …………………………………………………………... 5

Alternatives …………………………………………………………………… 9

Comparison of Alternatives………………………………………………….. 16

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

Recreation, Inventoried Roadless, Wild and Scenic River, and

Scenic Values …………………………………………………………. 18

Threatened, Endangered, and Regionally Sensitive Plants ……….. 32

Noxious Weeds ……………………………………………………….. 37

Hydrology and Soils …………………………………………………. 43

Fisheries ………………………………………………………………. 50

Wildlife ……………………………………………………………….. 55

Heritage Resources …………………………………………………... 71

Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………. 72

Planning Team Members ……………………………………………………. 73

Organizations, Government Agencies, and Individuals Consulted about

this Project ……………………………………………………………………. 74

Appendix A (Maps)

Map 1: Glacier View Ranger District Vicinity

Map 2: Hungry Horse Ranger District Vicinity

Map 3: Border River Access (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 3A: Border River Access (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative

2 & 3

Map 4: Wurtz (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 4A: Wurtz (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 5: Sondreson (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 5A: Sondreson (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 6: Ford (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 6A: Ford (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 7: Polebridge River Access Site (North Fork Flathead River) –

Alternative 1

Map 7A: Polebridge River Access Site (North Fork Flathead River) –

Alternative 2 & 3

Map 8: Coal Creek (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 8A: Coal Creek (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 9: Road # 10923 (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 9A: Road # 10923 (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 10: Camas (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 10A: Camas (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 11: Big Creek (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 11A: Big Creek (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 12: Huckleberry (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 12A: Huckleberry (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 13: Glacier Rim (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 13A: Glacier Rim (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 14: Essex (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 14A: Essex (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 15: Paola River Access (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 15A: Paola River Access (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative

2 & 3

Map 16: West Glacier River Access (Middle Fork Flathead River) –

Alternative 1

Map 16A: West Glacier River Access (Middle Fork Flathead River) –

Alternative 2 & 3

Map 17: Blankenship (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 17A: Blankenship (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 18: South Fork River Access (South Fork Flathead River) –

Alternative 1

Map 18A: South Fork River Access (South Fork Flathead River) –

Alternative 2 & 3

Map 19: Pioneer (Flathead River) – Alternative 1

Map 19A: Pioneer (Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 20: Abbot (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1

Map 20A: Abbot (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 21: Riverside (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1

Map 21A: Riverside (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 22: Logan Creek (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1

Map 22A: Logan Creek (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 23: Lost Johnny Point Boat Ramp (Hungry Horse Reservoir) –

Alternative 1

Map 23A: Lost Johnny Point Boat Ramp (Hungry Horse Reservoir) –

Alternative 2 & 3

Map 24: Lid Creek (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1

Map 24A: Lid Creek (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 25: Flossy Bay (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1

Map 25A: Flossy Bay (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 26: Canyon Boat (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1

Map 26A: Canyon Boat (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 27: Devil’s Corkscrew (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1

Map 27A: Devil’s Corkscrew (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 &

3

Map 28: Hungry Horse Track Area – Alternative 1

Map 28A: Hungry Horse Track Area – Alternative 2 & 3

Map 29: Cedar Flats – Alternative 1

Map 29A: Cedar Flats – Alternative 2

Map 29B: Cedar Flats – Alternative 3

Map 30: FK&L (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1

Map 30A: FK&L (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3

CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment

1

INTRODUCTION

The Forest Service (FS) has prepared this revised Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws

and regulations. The CHR Project will be conducted under the guidance of the Flathead National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan or Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1985). The

abbreviation - CHR - is a way to reference the specific geographical areas in this project

including, Cedar Flats, Hungry Horse Reservoir, Hungry Horse Track, and the Wild and Scenic

River Corridor on the Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts, Flathead National

Forest.

This EA discloses the project’s foreseeable environmental effects for consideration in

determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The reports cited in

this EA and additional project documentation are available in the CHR Project File located at the

Hungry Horse Ranger Station, Hungry Horse, Montana.

The CHR Project proposes to designate motorized use in Cedar Flats, Hungry Horse Track,

Hungry Horse Reservoir, the Wild and Scenic River Corridors of the North Fork Flathead River

and Middle Fork Flathead River, and locations on the South Fork and main stem of the Flathead

River (see Maps 1 and 2 in Appendix A).

The original EA was distributed for comment in early July 2009. Appendix B, which provides a

summary of comments raised by the public and the responses by the Interdisciplinary Team, has

been added to this revised EA.

Based on this public comment, it was evident that the public did not have a clear understanding

of the no action alternative. We have clarified this alternative and its effects in this revised EA.

To help clarify this, new maps of the no action have been added to Appendix A. We have also

added more information about the current regulations and processes that are providing direction

for travel management. Public comments received on the original EA were also used to help

clarify other sections of this revised EA – our responses to these comments in Appendix A

indicate where in this revised EA we have added or clarified information.

The Flathead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) establishes

management direction for the Flathead National Forest. Project implementation consistent with

this direction is the process by which desired conditions described by the Forest Plan are

achieved. Brief descriptions of the management areas (MA) involved in the CHR Project are

included below.

MA 7 This MA consists of timberlands in areas of high scenic value. Manage the timber

resource with roads in a manner that compliments and protects high scenic values. Maintain

or create natural-appearing, diverse patterns of vegetation using various silvicultural systems.

Designated as suitable for timber management and timber harvest will be scheduled.


2

MA 10 This MA consists of lands designated as Administrative Sites. Provide for the

continued use of existing facilities at Administrative sites through a periodic planned

preventative maintenance program of sanitary, water, and solid waste systems, buildings, and

other structures.

MA 15 This MA consists of timberlands where timber management with roads is

economical and feasible. A major goal is to emphasize cost-efficient production of timber

while protecting the productive capacity of the land and timber resource.

MA 16 This MA consists of timberlands where timber management is feasible using aerial

logging systems. The lands are generally steep breaklands where road building may be

economically prohibitive or environmentally unsound. A major goal is to emphasize cost-

efficient production of timber while protecting the productive capacity of the land and timber

resource. Roadless logging methods will be used, unless site-specific analysis determines

that a roaded system is economically and environmentally prudent.

MA 18 National Forest System lands designated for wild, scenic, and recreation river

management under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Manage each segment of the Flathead

Wild and Scenic River unit in a manner consistent with the classification assigned to it.

Maintain the scenic, ecological, and recreational integrity of the resource through responsible

management. Emphasize visitor contact and education.

BACKGROUND

The current travel management efforts occurring on many National Forests has a history

beginning with Executive Orders 11644 (1972) and Executive Order 11989 (1977) directing

public agencies to manage off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on public lands. Current management

of motorized travel on the Flathead National Forest falls under Forest orders pursuant to 36 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) 261.54 prohibiting motorized use on specific National Forest

System (NFS) roads, trails and areas.

2001 OHV ROD

Cross-country motor vehicle use is prohibited in Montana under the January 2001 Off-Highway

Vehicle (OHV) Record of Decision and Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and

Portions of South Dakota (2001 OHV ROD). In January 2001, the Forest Service and Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) issued a joint decision to prohibit cross-country motor vehicle use on

all National Forest System (NFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public lands in a

three state area except within 300 feet of roads and trails for access to a campsite. The decision

amended nine forest plans, including the Flathead Forest Plan. It also directed all National

Forests to set up a schedule for completing site-specific planning that would designate

appropriate uses on all system and non-system roads and trails. This project helps meet the

follow-up site-specific analysis directed by the 2001 OHV ROD.


3

Subsequent to this ROD, the Flathead National Forest implemented a special order in 2001

(#F10-024-L-01) to prohibit cross-country motorized travel. Specifically, this order stated that

possessing or using motorized vehicles on NFS lands within the boundaries of the Flathead

National Forest are prohibited when there is no visible, clearly evident, two track or single track

routes that are present. The width of the motorized vehicle must also fit the size of the road or

trail profile. The order also indicates that cross-country travel up to 300 feet from a road or trail

to reach a dispersed campsite is permissible.

2005 Travel Management Rule

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations in the

Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp 68264-68291). This final Travel

Management Rule requires designation of those roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor

vehicle use on National Forests. Under the rule only roads that are part of a National

Forest transportation system may be designated for motorized use. The final rule prohibits the

use of motor vehicles off designated NFS roads, trails and areas, as well as use of motor vehicles

on roads and trails that are not specifically designated for public use. This final rule was issued

because the older regulations allowed, restricted, or prohibited motor vehicle travel when those

uses were less widely available, less powerful, and less capable of cross-country travel than

today’s models. The growing popularity and capabilities of OHVs requires new regulations so

that the Forest Service can continue to provide these opportunities while sustaining the health of

the NFS lands and resources.

District(s) Motor Vehicle Use Map

In accordance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, following a decision on this project, a

Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) will be published identifying all roads, trails and areas that

are designated for motor vehicle use on both the Glacier View and Hungry Horse Ranger

Districts. The MVUM will specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year

for which use is designated. A MVUM is required to be printed every year and should reflect

access management decisions made over the year, if any. Local review of designations will be

conducted as needed over time. Additional routes not included in this project are not precluded

from future consideration for inclusion in a MVUM.

2009 Travel Analysis Directives

The CHR Project was initiated in March 2008 following the direction of the 2005 Travel

Management Rule. Subsequently, the FS has issued travel management directives (December 9,

2008). These final directives consolidate direction for travel planning for both NFS roads and

NFS trails in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7710 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55.

The final directives rename roads analysis ‘‘travel analysis’’ and streamline some of its

procedural requirements.


4

FSM 7712 paragraph 1 clarified that travel analysis is not required to inform decisions related to

the designation of roads, trails, and areas for those administrative units and ranger districts that

have issued a proposed action as of January 8, 2009.

Due to the anticipated and limited scope of the decision to be made (designating motorized use to

site-specific roads, trails, and areas in Cedar Flats, Hungry Horse Reservoir, Wild and Scenic

River Corridor, Hungry Horse Track, and Pioneer and South Fork River Access Sites), the scope

of the CHR Project was limited to part “1b” of Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55 Chapter

20.02. – “conduct travel analysis to inform decisions related to designation or roads, trails and

areas for motor vehicle use.” The Responsible Official has the discretion to determine the

amount of detail that is appropriate and practicable for travel analysis (FSM 7712.1).

SCOPE

The Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts have gone through numerous planning

efforts that have resulted in motorized access decisions. These access decisions will be carried

forward for display on the MVUM as the existing open motorized transportation system. This

MVUM will be published following a decision on this site-specific project. The CHR Project is

limited to the specific areas described below in the purpose and need because these areas were

identified through a collaborative process as needing specific changes to the existing motorized

system.

The CHR Project was not intending to revisit recent motorized access decisions and it was

limited in the consideration of new wheeled motorized use because of current Flathead Forest

Plan grizzly bear standards (Amendment 19). These standards impose limitations to increases in

motorized access routes. Finally, this project was not considering over-snow motorized vehicle

use since this use is guided by the Flathead’s Amendment 24 Winter Motorized Recreation Plan.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of this site-specific project is to restrict and designate a system of motorized roads,

trails and areas that continue to provide access to the Wild and Scenic River Corridor (North

Fork Flathead and Middle Fork Flathead Rivers) and Hungry Horse Reservoir. The project also

aims to manage motorized use within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area adjacent to the

cities of Columbia Falls and Hungry Horse. The formal designation of wheeled motorized travel

is a requirement of the 2005 Travel Management Rule.


5

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Summary of Public Involvement Process

In January 2008, the CHR Project was listed in the Flathead National Forest’s Schedule of

Proposed Actions (SOPA). This listing informed the public of our plan to identify the need for

change in designating wheeled motorized vehicle routes and areas in order to implement the

2005 Travel Management Rule. The CHR Project has appeared quarterly in the SOPA since the

first listing. The SOPA list is displayed nationally on the Forest Service’s Washington Office

website, and locally on the Flathead National Forest website.

In addition to the project being identified on the SOPA, a letter was sent on January 10, 2008 to

approximately 220 individuals, government agencies, organizations, and groups. This letter

announced that the Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger (HH/GV) Districts were beginning

the process of evaluating roads, trails, and areas available for motorized vehicle use as directed

in the 2005 Travel Management Rule. The letter also invited the public to an open house at the

(HH/GV) District Office, to learn about, discuss, and provide feedback for the Forest Service to

consider in relation to the 2005 Travel Management Rule. The open house was also advertised

in two local newspapers, the Hungry Horse News and the Flathead Beacon. The open house was

held on January 24, 2008, and approximately 50 people attended. Maps were posted at the open

house that identified the initial need for change areas and Forest Service staff was available to

explain the travel planning process, provide information, answer questions, and receive feedback

from those in attendance. This same information was also included on the Flathead National

Forest’s internet website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/flathead/nepa/trav_mngmt.shtml. In addition

to the comments received at the open house, we received about 35 letters, emails, other

correspondence, phone calls, and visits that provided us with initial feedback.

Subsequent to the initial open house, the Forest Service reviewed the comments and feedback

from the public and began refining a site-specific proposed action. On March 3, 2008, a scoping

letter was sent to approximately 256 individuals, government agencies, organizations, and groups

requesting public input on the CHR Project. The letter explained the travel planning process and

identified specific desired changes to the existing motorized system. Changes were identified

based on Forest Service knowledge and experience in the areas identified, past and ongoing

discussions with users of these areas, and comments received. The proposed changes were also

reflective of the collaborative efforts and discussions which occurred at the January 24th

, 2008

open house. As a result of the scoping letter, we received letters, emails, other correspondence,

phone calls, and office visits from approximately 65 individuals, groups, and organizations

providing feedback and comments on our proposed action.

In addition to the two letters sent out by the Forest Service and the open house, the CHR Project

was publicized in the Daily Inter Lake, the Hungry Horse News, and the Flathead Beacon

newspapers, each of which published information and stories concerning the CHR Project

between January and March 2008.


6

The EA was distributed to the public in early July 2009. Over 60 EAs were mailed to those

people who provided comments during the scoping process. The remaining people on the

mailing list identified above were sent a letter mentioning the availability of the EA along with a

link to the Flathead National Forest internet website where the EA could be viewed

electronically. Comments were invited for a 30-day period after a legal notice notifying the

availability of the EA was published in the Daily Inter Lake. About 50 people sent in comments

on the EA. Responses to those comments will be included in an appendix to the Decision Notice.

Summary of Scoping Comments

Access: Comments concerned road maintenance, closing the Lost Johnny Road, and prohibiting

motorized use on various trails/roads. The ongoing and extensive closure of motorized

roads/trails upset many people, while others wanted more roads/trails closed to motorized use.

Botany: Comments centered on the spread and control of weeds.

Climate: Comments focused on increased emissions concerns and the desire to ban motorized

use.

Economics: Commenters requested budget analysis, questioned how routes would be

maintained, or stated that roads/trails must not be closed without a full economic analysis.

Fish/Hydrology: The effects, including cumulative effects, of roads and road density on riparian

areas and fish were of concern. Sedimentation, runoff, water quality, and erosion were also

commented on.

Fire/Fuels: Commenters felt that designating the Cedar Flats area would lead to more use and a

higher probability of fire. Some felt it was unfair to reduce fuels in the WUI just to designate the

area.

Policies/Plans/Regulations: There was dissatisfaction with what was considered as an

unreasonably short comment period. Some felt only user created routes should be considered

while others felt these routes should not be considered. Many wanted the project to have a

broader scope and some wanted a full analysis of the entire road system documented in an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Several commenters felt the travel management process

must begin with a clearly established and inventoried baseline of existing roads and trails, and

some wanted the cumulative effects analysis to consider all motorized closures over the past 30

years. Other comments wanted more monitoring, adequate rule enforcement (particularly for

illegal off-road use), and to meet Forest Plan Amendment Amendment 19. Several people

wanted more complete maps, rationale for why access in these areas would be changed, and

some advocated a 50/50 sharing between motorized and non-motorized use.


7

Recreation: General: Considerations should include access for people with disabilities and the impact of

noise on non-motorized users. We heard concerns for and against the 300 feet dispersed

camping designations and about the effect of motorized use on natural resources. Many

commenters felt that the Forest Service should stop closing roads/trails, favor the re-opening of

closed roads/trails, and some questioned the 50 inches rule which restricts the size of permissible

motorized vehicles in particular areas. Many questioned the imbalance between the number of

miles or trails open to motorized use versus non-motorized use and some felt the needs and rights

of motorized users are not being given as much consideration as those of non-motorized users.

Cedar Flats: Many felt this area should be designated as non-motorized and some questioned if

the Forest Service could adequately monitor the area. Others were worried about the effects of

dust and noise on the neighbors. Specific roads and areas for closure were mentioned; some

wanted a designated speed limit, a curfew, and a ban on fires and shooting in the area. Other

comments mentioned heavy littering, parking, and noxious weeds as current problems. Many

commenters felt that designating this area would make all of these problems worse. Bonneville

Power Authority (BPA) set forth conditions for use near the powerline.

On the other hand, many comments favored the inclusion of Cedar Flats as motorized, and

wanted the MVUM to designate additional off-highway vehicles (OHV) areas as they felt many

trails/roads currently not designated are well suited to OHV use. Others wanted an OHV park

constructed and many felt that since OHV use is so limited on the rest of the forest, that use

should prevail in areas where it is legal.

Hungry Horse Reservoir: Some comments did not want to allow access below the high-water

mark in the reservoir and to limit dispersed camping in this area. Conversely, others wanted

more access and dispersed camping allowed without restriction.

Hungry Horse Track: Some commenters wanted the entire track area open for motorized use,

the designation of an OHV park in the area, and the construction of loop trails with no restriction

on the dates of use.

Swan Crest: Many people were unhappy about the proposed seasonal restrictions and the

previous loss of trails under the West Side Reservoir decision. Others felt that motorcycle use on

the Swan Crest trails causes unacceptable resource damage and displaces hikers and horses.

Wild & Scenic River Corridor: Some advocated unrestricted motorized and camping access

below the high-water mark. Others wanted more restrictions because poorly controlled access

could destroy habitat and reduce the natural character of the corridor.

Silviculture: Commenters noted that open roads lead to more firewood cutting and more

damage to natural systems, e.g. old-growth, snags, etc.

Soils: Comments indicated concerns that motorized use results in soil compaction and erosion.


8

Wildlife: Commenters pointed out that open roads expose game animals to heavy hunting

pressure and that threatened and endangered species (TES) must be protected. Others addressed

concerns that higher road densities affect wildlife and that landscape linkages must be

maintained. For the Cedar Flats area, commenters on both sides of the issue indicated specific

routes that should or should not be opened.

Issue Development Process

The Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) reviewed all comments received in response to the

scoping and collaboration letters to identify issues, determine appropriate analysis procedures,

and identify alternatives to the proposed action. Some comments were consistent with the

purpose and need for the project. Others were beyond the scope of this project, the Forest Plan or

other regulatory framework addressed some, some were beyond the geographical influence of

this project, and some did not pertain to this specific proposal. Comments and concerns that fell

into these latter categories were considered irrelevant to this project-specific assessment and

were not addressed.

The remaining comments were examined to determine how they could best be addressed in the

Environmental Assessment (EA). A few comments were best addressed by developing an

alternative to the proposed action. These concerns became the issues that are described below.

Other comments were best addressed by disclosing the effects of implementing the proposed

action and its alternatives, or by developing design features common to all action alternatives.

Some comments and further refinement of the proposed action resulted in identifying and adding

the South Fork Flathead River Access and Pioneer River Access to the alternatives. In addition,

after scoping was completed, it was brought to the ID Team’s attention that the proposed

seasonal restrictions for the Swan Crest Motorized Trails were not consistent with the sideboards

developed for this project. The sideboard was to honor access management decisions made in

previous projects. Since the West Side Reservoir Post-Fire Project decision indicated these trails

were open, access management for these trails will not be changed in this project. This aspect of

the proposal is no longer being carried forward in this EA.

The project file contains further information on the comments received during scoping, including

how the ID Team accounted for them during the analysis process.

Issues Used for Alternative Development

The following issue was identified from the scoping comments and used to develop an

alternative to the proposed action.

1. Motorized access should be restricted south of the Bonneville Power Administration

power line in the Cedar Flats area and should be moved away from private land in the

northeast area of Cedar Flats. Designated trails should consider and improve safety

conditions in the area. Together, these changes would reduce noise, traffic, and dust

problems, while increasing safety for riders and neighbors.


9

Issue Indicators:

• Miles of open motorized routes south of the powerline

• Motorized routes present near private land

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

This EA considered the proposed action (Alternative 2) and two other alternatives in detail.

Alternative 1 is the no-action alternative, under which the project area would have no change in

existing motorized vehicle use as described below. Alternative 3 represents a way to satisfy the

purpose and need of the project that is different from the proposed action and it responds with a

different emphasis to the Cedar Flats issue discussed earlier. Maps of the alternatives are

provided in Appendix B.

Alternative 1 (No-Action)

This alternative represents the existing condition against which the other alternatives are

compared. Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.14d) require that a no-

action alternative is analyzed.

Under this alternative, in the specific areas described below, existing motorized routes and areas

are considered open unless otherwise specifically restricted or prohibited. The user-created

routes within the areas described below existed prior to the 2001 OHV Forest Plan Amendment

and consequently are considered open to motorized travel. This management is consistent with

the direction found in the OHV Record of Decision and Plan Amendment for Montana, North

Dakota and portions of South Dakota (2001) as well as Flathead National Forest Special Order

#F10024L01. The existing condition also allows motorized wheeled cross-country travel to a

dispersed campsite within 300 feet of roads or trails, unless it is otherwise prohibited.

Cedar Flats

The Cedar Flats area located just north of Columbia Falls includes approximately 10 miles of

open yearlong roads and 14 miles of undesignated or user-created routes. User-created routes

are available for motorized vehicles that fit the width of the existing track (refer to Map 29 in

Appendix A). Some of the undesignated trails lead to private lands.

Hungry Horse Track Area

The moto-cross track area located adjacent to the Hungry Horse Ranger Station Administrative

Site includes an adjacent 2 miles of undesignated or user-created routes with several open

yearlong roads also adjacent to the track. This area is also located between private lands, Canyon

Elementary School, Hungry Horse Water District, and the Bureau of Reclamation Dam facilities.

An existing restriction (# D06-100-L-07) in the track area limits use to motorized vehicles 50

inches or less. The area adjacent to the track that is accessed from Road #11080 is available for


10

day use. There are approximately 1.5 miles of open yearlong road adjacent to the track in which

only street legal vehicles are permitted (refer to Map 28 in Appendix A).

Wild and Scenic River Corridors

Designated open roads access a number of recreation sites (both developed and dispersed) within

the Wild and Scenic River Corridor. At the following developed recreation sites within the Wild

and Scenic River Corridor - Border, Polebridge, Big Creek, Glacier Rim, Paola, and West

Glacier River Access Sites - motorized users travel below the high-water line to recreate and

access the river Blankenship (refer to Maps 3, 7, 11, 13, 15, and 16 in Appendix A). In addition,

motorized users travel within the following dispersed areas: Wurtz, Ford, Sondreson, Coal

Creek, Road #10923, Camas, Huckleberry, Essex and Blankenship (refer to Maps 4, 6, 5, 8, 9,

10, 12, 14, and 17 in Appendix A).

Hungry Horse Reservoir Areas

Motorized users travel from designated open roads to the following areas: Flossy Bay, Abbot

Boat Launch, FK&L, Riverside, Canyon, Logan, Lost Johnny Point, Lid Creek, and Devil’s

Corkscrew. During the early summer months when the reservoir is low these areas are typically

below the high water line (refer to Maps 25, 20, 30, 21, 26, 22, 23, 24, and 27 in Appendix A).

The FK&L area is a dispersed area used for camping adjacent to Emery Bay Campground along

the east side of Hungry Horse Reservoir. There is approximately 0.2 miles of undesignated user

created route that have been used by motorized vehicles to access a camping area or scenic point

above the reservoir.

Pioneer and South Fork River Access

Motorized users travel from an open road to a dispersed boat launch area along the lower South

Fork Flathead River, below Hungry Horse Dam, and at the Pioneer river access area (Graham’s

Bar) along the Flathead River. The Pioneer area accesses a gravel bar and then continues onto a

hardened channel. The forest prohibits overnight use in both of these areas (#D06-100-L-07 and

#D07-085-L-10), thus cross-country travel for dispersed camping is prohibited (refer to Maps 18

and 19 in Appendix A).

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Alternative 2 would designate and restrict motorized use as described below and be displayed on

the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for the Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts.


11

Cedar Flats

Alternative 2 would designate approximately 9 miles of existing undesignated or user created

motorized routes in the Cedar Flats area, including the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)

utility corridor, open to vehicles ≤50 inches wide from June 1 through November 30. Two short

segments would be constructed to connect existing trails, creating loop riding opportunities

between the roads, trails, and the utility corridor. The trails in the Cedar Flats area would receive

regular maintenance and if needed, erosion control devices such as rolling dips, water bars, and

turnpikes (refer to Map 29A in Appendix A).

Of the 10 miles of open yearlong road within this area, 2.0 miles of Road #10815 would be open

seasonally to wheeled motorized vehicles from June 1 through November 30 (currently it is open

yearlong). Gates would be installed and used to control access, and the remainder of the road

would remain open yearlong.

Designating the same season for both the road, trails, which include the BPA utility corridor,

would allow for resource protection during the spring months and during the winter when

freezing and thawing create soft roadbed conditions that can lead to resource damage.

Prohibiting wheeled motor vehicle use during the winter provides snowmobiles and skiers safer

recreational opportunities in the Cedar Flats area. The proposed routes avoid private lands and

trails leading to dead ends.

A prohibition against overnight use, target (recreational) shooting, and campfires would also be

included in this alternative which would eliminate the exemption of 300 feet of motorized travel

for the purposes of dispersed camping.

Hungry Horse Track Area

Alternative 2 would designate approximately 2 miles of existing routes as trails open to vehicles

≤50 inches from April 1 through November 30. The Hungry Horse Track would also be open to

motorized vehicles April 1 through November 30. There are three road segments, each 0.5 miles

long, which currently provide a total of 1.5 miles of yearlong open roads adjacent to the track.

One segment would be available for highway legal vehicles; another segment would be

designated for vehicles ≤50 inches; and on the third segment wheeled motorized use would be

prohibited. The two segments designated for motorized use would be open from April 1 through

November 30 (refer to Map 28A in Appendix A). The current prohibition for overnight camping

is maintained in this alternative; therefore, the 300 foot motorized allowance for dispersed

camping does not apply.


The designated open roads that access a number of recreation sites (both developed and

dispersed) within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor would remain the same under this

alternative. However, the 300 feet cross-country motorized allowance from designated roads to a

dispersed campsite would be prohibited.


12

Several cross-country travel areas would be designated for motorized use. At Polebridge, Paola,

and West Glacier River Access Sites, users would be able to travel below the high-water line.

Motorized users would also be able to travel within the cross-country travel areas of Wurtz,

Ford, Sondreson, Coal Creek, Road #10923, Camas, Huckleberry, Essex and Blankenship. The

300 feet cross-country motorized allowance from these areas to a dispersed campsite would be

prohibited.

Motorized use below the high-water line at Big Creek and Glacier Rim would be restricted to the

developed boat launches. Motorized use below the high-water line that is not directly related to

launching and retrieving boats would be prohibited.

Motorized use below the high-water line onto the gravel or sand bars at the Border River Access

Site would be prohibited (refer to Maps 3A through 17A in Appendix A).


The designated open roads that access the Hungry Horse Reservoir would remain the same under

this alternative. This alternative would delineate and designate the areas of Lost Johnny Point

Boat Launch, Flossy, Abbot Boat Launch, FK&L, Riverside, Canyon Creek, Logan, Lid Creek

CG, and Devil’s Corkscrew for cross-country travel below the high-water line. Traveling 300

feet from the designated cross-country areas to a dispersed campsite would be prohibited.

Alternative 2 would designate approximately 0.2 miles of existing routes as yearlong trails for

vehicles ≤50 inches. These trails are adjacent to the dispersed area known as FK&L on the east

side of Hungry Horse Reservoir (refer to Maps 20A through 27A in Appendix A).


The open roads that access the Pioneer and South Fork River Access Areas would remain the

same. This alternative would delineate and designate these two areas as depicted in Map 19A and

18A in Appendix A). The delineated cross-country area at Pioneer would be reduced from its

current size by eliminating motorized travel down the hardened channel but continuing

motorized access to the gravel bar. The Forest would continue to enforce the forest order that

prohibits overnight use in both of these areas.

Alternative 3

All proposed areas under Alternative 3 are identical to those in Alternative 2, with the exception

of the Cedar Flats area.

Cedar Flats

Alternative 3’s description for Cedar Flats is similar as Alternative 2 except that 7 miles of

undesignated or user-created routes would be designated as trails open for vehicles ≤50 inches


13

wide from June 1 through November 30. Three short segments of new trail would be

constructed to connect existing trail segments (refer to Map 29B in Appendix A). Alternative 3

was designed to respond to issues related to noise and safety in the Cedar Flats area as raised in

public comment letters. Motorized access would be prohibited on user created motorized routes

found south of the power line and near private land in the northeast area of Cedar Flats. A

prohibition against overnight use, target (recreational) shooting, and campfires would also be

included in this alternative which would eliminate the exemption of 300 feet of motorized travel

for the purposes of dispersed camping.

Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3

• In areas that allow for dispersed camping 300 feet from open roads, trails, and areas,

campsite selection must be completed by non-motorized means, and then accessed by the

most direct route (no more than 300 feet) without causing resource damage. Resource

damage would include rutting, or crossing of wet soils/meadows. Cutting, clearing, or

damaging of trees or vegetation is not allowed to access dispersed camping spots.

• Access management monitoring would be conducted to ensure soil and water protection,

as well as provide habitat security. If monitoring shows new damage in an area allowing

300 feet of cross-country motor vehicle use for the purpose of dispersed camping, a

variety of tools may be used to enforce the MVUM – i.e. through our public outreach and

education efforts, signage on the ground, physical barriers, emergency closures, and

monitoring by our staff and law enforcement officers. Permanently closing areas to

motorized use may also be an option. Emergency closures (i.e. restricting certain uses)

can also be made at any time when unacceptable resource damage is occurring.

• Upon publishing the Motor Vehicle Use Map for the selected alternative, the 2005

Motorized Travel Rule regulations would become enforceable on the District (36 CFR

261.13). The Motor Vehicle Use Map would display those routes designated for

motorized travel by the public by the class of vehicles and seasons of use. These actions

are expected to greatly enhance the ability to enforce access management decisions. The

regulatory requirements for posting prohibitions would no longer be applicable, and the

problems associated with implementing and maintaining extensive prohibition posting

would be eliminated. Hard-copy and electronic versions of the Motor Vehicle Use Map

would be available to Forest users and would identify those roads, trails, and areas

available for motorized use by the public. With the publication of this map, agency Law

Enforcement Officers and Forest Protection Officers would have clear authority for

issuing citations for violations of access management decisions.


14

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

• Consider an alternative that does not include undesignated areas, or non-system roads and

trails.

This proposal was discussed at length during alternative development with the conclusion that

eliminating all of these areas and undesignated routes (or user-created routes) in the site-specific

areas associated with this project was inappropriate for a number of reasons. It would have

considerable impacts to the ongoing recreation uses that have been historically occurring for

decades. These uses have not caused significant adverse environmental or social effects; when

impacts have become a concern then special orders have been put in place to either eliminate or

change uses or behaviors. In the Cedar Flats area, we have heard concerns from the neighboring

landowners about noise, shooting, garbage, and campfires associated with motorized use – the

proposed special order in Alternative 2 and 3 to prohibit target shooting, overnight camping, and

campfires should help curb these behaviors. Additionally, Alternative 3 does not designate

motorized trails south of the BPA power line corridor where many of the neighboring

landowners live. The 2001 OHV Amendment allows these user created routes existing at the

time of the decision (2001) to remain open for motorized use. In the absence of demonstrated

significant negative effects from this use it is appropriate to honor past access management

decisions which have been providing valuable public recreation opportunities. Therefore,

analyzing an alternative in detail that eliminated all user created routes was not necessary to

respond to the purpose and need of this project.

• Consider an alternative that only allows motor vehicles below the high water line for the

purposes of launching and retrieving a boat.

The intention behind allowing access below the high water line is to maintain the public’s

motorized access to water as long as adverse resource damage is not being caused. This

motorized use is primarily identified for launching/retrieving boats, but would also include other

water based activities such as fishing and camping. The above suggestion is being partially

addressed in Alternatives 2 and 3 where some of the existing areas (Glacier Rim and Big Creek)

would only allow motorized use below the high water line for the purposes of

launching/retrieving a boat. It was not considered necessary to restrict motorized use in the other

below high water line areas as there has not been resource/social conflicts associated with this

use. If resource conflicts became a concern, and there is unacceptable resource damage

occurring, these areas can be closed to motorized use or other means could be used to mitigate

the impacts. Finally, the suggestion to limit or restrict motorized access below the high-water

line would not be consistent with the purpose and need for the project which was to continue to

provide access to areas such as Hungry Horse Reservoir and the Middle and North Forks of the

Flathead River.

• An alternative that does not construct connector trails in the Cedar Flats area.

This suggested alternative was not considered in detailed study because the connector trails are

designed to reduce the potential for new user routes to be created. Loop trails generally provide a


15

more desirable experience for all users (e.g. equestrians, mountain bikers, hikers, and motorized

riders) and can help with reducing congestion. The no action alternative analyzed in the

recreation section provides information with respect to the effects of short non-connecting trails

that currently occur in the area.

• The suggestion to restrict all-terrain vehicles (ATV) to roads near Columbia Falls and

Hungry Horse.

In the action alternatives, motorized use adjacent to the two towns would be concentrated on a

designated system of roads, trails and areas. Since motorized use of trails in those two areas

have been providing recreational opportunities for several decades without significant negative

environmental effects (as detailed in the original and revised EAs) restricting ATVs to roads near

Columbia Falls and Hungry Horse was not evaluated in a fully detailed alternative. In order to

respond to the concerns of noise, dust, shooting, garbage, and campfires which are often

associated with motorized use in the Cedar Flats area, the proposed action alternatives

(Alternatives 2 and 3) include a special order that would prohibit these types of uses.

Resource specific analyses displayed in the EAs demonstrated that resource and land owner

concerns could be addressed without eliminating and/or reducing all motorized use of trails. If

motorized us of these areas had demonstrated an ongoing significant environmental or social

effect then this suggestion would have been considered in detail, but since there was no evidence

of this occurring, the suggestion was not brought forward in detail. The EAs displayed the effects

of the existing trails in the two areas of concern (no action alternative) and also the effects of

designating a portion of the existing trails to motorized use (Alternative 3 proposes less miles of

motorized trail designation than Alternative 2 to address landowner concerns brought forward in

public comments).

The effects of authorizing the motorized use of the trails and areas have been displayed in the

revised EA and are expected to maintain and/or enhance the existing natural environment and

recreation experience. Therefore, analyzing an alternative in detail that eliminated motorized use

on trails was not appropriate.

• Future motorized demands require that more access be available instead of less.

In our January 2008 letter and in the open house we provided to the public, we described how we

intended to evaluate roads, trails, and areas available for motor vehicle use as directed in the

2005 National Forest Service Travel Management Rule. We described our constraints or

sideboards for this process – these were provided because of the limited time period we had to

get this process completed and because the majority of the area covered by the two ranger

districts have been incorporated in recent planning projects that have included travel

management decisions (e.g. Westside Reservoir Post-Fire Project (2005), Robert-Wedge Post-

Fire Project (2004), Moose Post-Fire Project (2002), Paint Emery Ecosystem Management

Project (1999), Firefighter Project (2009)).


16

Additionally, our current Forest Plan grizzly bear standards limit the areas of consideration for

designating new wheeled motorized use. These same standards do not allow for an increase in

motorized density. Adding another alternative that increases the number of roads and trails

available for motorized use would not meet these Forest Plan standards.

• An alternative is needed to establish a season of use for the Swan Crest Motorized Trails

as first proposed. The need for resource protection during the wet spring and fall seasons

has not been addressed, and even though there was a previous informal agreement not to

restrict motorized recreation along these trails, the Forest Service should recognize the

need for adaptive management, especially in light of ongoing resource damage.

Page 8 of the revised EA explains why this proposal was dropped from being further assessed in

the EA. The “previous informal agreement” the commenter alludes to is more than just that – it

was a sideboard or criteria that helped to define and focus the project. This sideboard included

not re-evaluating recent planning decisions related to roads and trails.

The trails identified in the scoping letter that occurred in the Swan Crest were recently included

and evaluated in a planning project known as the Westside Reservoir Post-Fire Project - this

project was authorized in 2005 – with some of the road management actions still being

implemented. Adding a seasonal restriction to these trails did not meet our sideboard we

established very early on with this project, which is why we dropped them from being further

evaluated. Additionally, in the event of resource damage that may be caused by motorized

vehicles or by stock, bicycles, and by foot traffic, special orders can be implemented at any time

to restrict these uses from occurring during particularly wet seasons.

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

To define the issues and provide a clear comparison of alternatives, the following table provides

a summary of some of the CHR Project features by alternative.

Table 1. Comparison of Features of the Alternatives

Feature Alternative 1

(No-Action Alternative)

Alternative 2

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3

Cedar Flats Area

Miles of Undesignated or User

Created Motorized Routes ~14 miles ~9 miles ~7 miles

Miles of User Created Motorized

Routes South of the Powerline ~1.6 miles ~0.8 miles 0.0 miles

Segments of new trail construction 0 2 3

Seasonal Restrictions None Yes

(6/1-11/30)

Yes

(6/1-11/30)


17

Feature Alternative 1

(No-Action Alternative)

Alternative 2

(Proposed Action) Alternative 3

Hungry Horse Track

Miles of Roads & Trails Open to

Vehicles ≤50” (Hungry Horse Track

would stay open in all alternatives)

2.0 miles 2.0 miles

Miles of Roads Open To Street Legal

Vehicles ~1.5 miles ~0.5 miles

Seasonal Restrictions None Yes

(4/1-11/30)

Yes

(4/1-11/30)

Wild & Scenic River Corridor

Motorized Travel Designations

Motorized travel is

allowed within 15 cross-

country travel areas.

Motorized cross-country

travel up to 300 feet to a

dispersed campsite is

permissible.

Motorized travel is designated within 14

cross-country travel areas

Motorized cross-country travel up to

300 feet to a dispersed campsite is

prohibited.

Motorized travel below the high-water

line at Glacier Rim and Big Creek are

restricted to designated boat launches.

Motorized travel below the high-water

line at the Border River Access Site is

prohibited.

Hungry Horse Reservoir

Motorized Travel Designations

Motorized travel is

allowed within Flossy

Bay, Lost Johnny Point,

Lid Creek, Abbot Boat

Launch, FK&L, Riverside,

Canyon, Logan, and

Devil’s Corkscrew areas

that have had historic use.

Motorized travel is designated within

Flossy Bay, Lost Johnny Point, Lid

Creek, Abbot Boat Launch, FK&L,

Riverside, Canyon, Logan, and Devil’s

Corkscrew areas that have had historic

use.

Traveling 300 feet from the designated

cross-country areas to a dispersed

campsite would be prohibited.

FK&L Area

Miles of Routes Open to Highway

Legal Vehicles ~0.2 miles 0 miles

Miles of Routes Open to Vehicles

≤50″ 0 miles ~0.2 miles


Would the Pioneer Access and the

Boat Launch on Lower South Fork

River be Open to Motorized Use?

Yes Yes


18

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

This section provides a brief summary of the existing resource conditions and a discussion of the

potential impacts of the alternatives. The environmental effects analysis provides the necessary

information to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Recreation and Wild and Scenic River

Affected Environment

Introduction

Information for this analysis was based upon observations made during routine visits,

maintenance and surveys of trails, roads, and recreation facilities. Road and trail mileages

reported were obtained from the Flathead National Forest Geographic Information Systems

(GIS) database.

The State of Montana governs the operation of off-highway vehicles (OHV) with respect to

operation, registration, licensing, noise, and spark arresters. Off-highway vehicles operating on

public land for recreational purposes must be registered and display a decal placed in a

conspicuous location on the machine. Off-highway vehicles operating on public roads including

National Forest System roads must display a license plate, be operated by a licensed rider (16

years of age and older), and the machine must be outfitted with the required safety, noise, and

emission equipment. The State of Montana requires a noise limit of 96 decibels for OHV as well

as proper spark arresters when on public land.

Motorized access for dispersed camping on the HH/GV Ranger Districts is managed under the

existing Flathead National Forest Special Order #F10024L01 which states possessing or using

motorized vehicles off National Forest System Roads when no visible, clearly evident, two track

or single track routes are present is prohibited. Cross-country motorized travel up to 300 feet

from a road or trail to reach a dispersed campsite is permissible.

Wild and Scenic River Corridor

The North and Lower Middle Forks of the Flathead were congressionally designated as a Wild

and Scenic River in 1978. The designation means each segment would be managed in a manner

consistent with the classification assigned to it (Wild, Scenic, or Recreation). The scenic,

ecological, and recreational integrity of the river and corridor resources will be maintained

through responsible management. The North and Middle Forks of the Flathead River share

natural environment features and recreation experiences for the user. The existing management

of the corridor provides for mitigations to protect the natural environment and recreation


19

experience. These mitigations include seasonal road closures, camping restrictions, human waste

containment requirements, food storage regulations, and restrictions on motorized use for both

river segments. The recreation program uses a limits of acceptable change (LAC) process which

is outlined in the River Recreation Direction and River Management Plan. This plan describes a

process and monitoring indicators to guide in the identification of changed conditions within the

corridor. As an example, the river rangers monitor the incidence of litter along the shoreline,

numbers of encounters with other float parties, and evidence of human use (fire rings/human

waste).

The North Fork River corridor, which falls within the analysis area of the CHR Project, was

designated as scenic from the Canadian border south to the Camas Bridge and recreational

downstream to the confluence with the Middle Fork. A scenic designation is characterized by

accessibility by roads or trails, minimal timber harvests while taking visual integrity into

consideration, minimal visibility of structures from the river, and manage fire so it has the least

possible impact on the river corridor. A recreational designation is characterized by accessibility

by roads and available to motorized travel, timber harvest is acceptable, but visual integrity on

the landscape from the corridor is very important, and structures are common but managed for

visual integrity. Scenic and recreational designations allow for motorized access to the river.

Motorized river use is limited to 10 horse power engines below the Camas Bridge.

The Lower Middle Fork from the confluence with Bear Creek to the confluence with the Lower

South Fork, is designated as recreational within the analysis area. However, the portion of the

river from Bear Creek to Essex is administratively managed as wild. The Lower Middle Fork is

available for motorized river travel restricted to 10 horse power engines or less.

The lands within the wild and scenic designated corridor for both the North Fork and Lower

Middle Forks are shared between the Flathead National Forest and Glacier National Park. On

the North Fork, the land from the center of the deepest active channel to the west (or river right)

is Flathead National Forest. Conversely, the land from the center of the deepest active channel

to the east (or river left) is Glacier National Park is. On the Lower Middle Fork, the land south

of the mean high-water line (or river right bank) is Flathead National Forest and the land north of

the mean high-water line is Glacier National Park. Congressionally, the Forest Service has the

administrative jurisdiction for both forks; however, both agencies coordinate annually on patrols,

monitoring, and enforcement.

New Wild and Scenic River Resource Regulations were put in place during the summer of 2008

(# D07-079-L-08, #D06-108-L-08, #D07-080-L-08). These regulations require overnight users

within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor on the North and Middle Forks of the Flathead River

who are not using a site with a permanent toilet to contain and pack out their solid human waste.

The regulations also set stay limits, and in some cases prohibit camping and campfires at several

developed sites. The regulations were implemented to provide for health and safety.

In both the North Fork and the Lower Middle Fork, existing roads provide users access into the

designated river corridor for a myriad of uses including launching/retrieving rafts, fishing, and

kayaking. At some sites, users have historically traveled onto the gravel bar to reach the water’s


20

edge to launch and retrieve rafts, boats, and kayaks. In general, there is a greater proportion of

travel below the high-water line out onto a given gravel bar on the Lower Middle Fork than there

is on the North Fork.

Wild and Scenic River Developed Sites

Border, Ford, Polebridge, Big Creek, Great Northern, and Glacier Rim are the six developed

river access sites on the North Fork of the Flathead River. Big Creek Campground is the only

developed campground on the North Fork and Ford; Schnaus, and Rover Cabins are three rental

sites along the river.

Bear Creek, Paola, Cascadilla, Moccasin, and West Glacier are the five developed river access

sites on the Lower Middle Fork. Flathead County manages a sixth site at Blankenship Bridge.

These developed sites provide river corridor users developed parking, toilets, and in some cases

hardened launch ramps.

River users often drive motorized vehicles below the high-water line onto hardened gravel bars

at these river access sites to launch/retrieve watercraft, reach dispersed camping sites, fish, and

other general recreation activities. This type of use occurs at Border, Polebridge, Glacier Rim,

Big Creek Campground, Paola, and West Glacier river access sites.

Wild and Scenic River Dispersed Camping

The North Fork area is a wide river valley which has opportunities for dispersed recreation such

as camping, floating, angling, picnicking, hiking, or enjoying the scenery. The North Fork’s

dispersed areas are mainly used by vehicle-supported recreationists for day and overnight trips

alike. Wurtz, Kintla, Sondreson, Ford, and Coal Creek are some of the main dispersed areas

where users choose to recreate.

Roads throughout the North and Middle Fork Flathead River Corridor are used to access many

areas utilized for motorized use. Wurtz, Ford, Sondreson, Coal Creek, Road #10923, Camas,

Huckleberry, Blankenship, and Essex are hardened dispersed sites accessed by motorized

vehicles and used for camping, angling, and other day use activities. Motorized users travel

below the high water line of the river at Wurtz, Huckleberry and Blankenship at these dispersed

locations.

The general characteristics of the Lower Middle Fork include deep plunge pools, rock walls, and

steep banks. Nyack Flats with its braided channels is an exception. In general, dispersed

recreation on the Lower Middle Fork is characterized by day use activities originating from

developed river access sites.

There are ten known dispersed camping areas that are accessed by motorized vehicles in the

North Fork River corridor and four on the Lower Middle Fork River corridor. Based on the

direction provided in the 2001 OHV ROD and the current Forest-wide order (#F10-024-L-01)


21

mentioned on page 2, there is a potential for additional two-tracks to be created that lead to new

campsites Within the river corridor.


The reservoir was completed in 1953 and impounds approximately 34 miles of water. The East-

side Reservoir Road #38 and West-side Reservoir Road #895 surround the reservoir and create a

popular scenic loop drive. The high-water of the reservoir experiences fluctuations of

approximately 80 feet each year. This fluctuation creates areas void of vegetation between the

high-water mark and the actual water level, known as “below high-water line” (BHWL). The

areas of Devil’s Corkscrew, Logan, Canyon, Riverside, FK&L, Abbot Boat Launch, Flossy, Lost

Johnny Point Boat Launch, and Lid Creek Campground have historically provided access

BHWL. The users access the BHWL for numerous recreational purposes including launching

boats, fishing, or camping. Users travel off the end of the established roads onto the BHWL

areas. Other portions of the reservoirs’ shoreline are too steep or do not have an open road

leading to the shoreline.

FK&L was a log landing used when the area was logged back in the 1960s. Today, it is a

dispersed area used for camping adjacent to Emery Bay Campground along the east side of

Hungry Horse Reservoir. Approximately 0.2 miles of undesignated road/trail travel uphill from

the FK&L dispersed area to a knob overlooking the reservoir.

Cedar Flats

The Cedar Flats area is located north of Columbia Falls, south of Cedar Lake, west of the North

Fork county road, and east of Meadow Lake Resort. The most prominent feature of the area is

the Bonneville Power Authority powerline that transects the area. The main Cedar Flats Road

#10815 is bisected with several trails used by OHV to connect to the powerline corridor.

The primary users of this area are the neighboring residents as well as people living in the greater

Columbia Falls area. Due to close proximity to Columbia Falls, Cedar Flats receives varied use

including OHV, stock, hiking, mountain biking, skiing, and other winter recreational use.

Over the last few years, the Forest Service has mapped routes used by OHV in the Cedar Flats

area and identified approximately 14 miles of existing routes. There is approximately 3.5 miles

on Road #10815 and Road #5285 that are open yearlong.

There are undesirable activities occurring throughout the Cedar Flats area (project file exhibit E-

13). Dumping of household debris, vandalism of the BPA powerline (shooting out the

transformers), abandoned fires, and under-aged parties are some of the examples of undesirable

activities reported from the Cedar Flats area. Recreational shooting or target practicing along the

powerline and on the trails occurs on a regular basis.


22

Hungry Horse Track

The Hungry Horse Track is currently available yearlong for motorized vehicles ≤50 inches wide.

Hungry Horse Track encompasses a total area of approximately 4.5 acres. Over the last few

years, the Forest Service has mapped approximately 2 miles of routes existing in the area. There

is an existing forest order restricting the track to vehicles 50 inches or less and the immediate

surrounding area of the track accessed from Road #11080 is available for day use only with no

fires or camping allowed. There are approximately 1.5 miles of open road adjacent to Hungry

Horse Track.


A dispersed location known as Pioneer is located on the lower portion of the main Flathead

River. This area includes a Flathead County easement that leads to a parcel of Flathead National

Forest and access to the river. There is also a dispersed river access site on the Lower South Fork

below Hungry Horse Dam. These areas provide access for anglers, boaters, and general

recreationists. There is an existing forest order that prohibits overnight use in both of these

areas, which in turn prohibits cross-country travel for dispersed camping.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Wild and Scenic River

At Border, Polebridge, Big Creek, Glacier Rim, Paola, and West Glacier River Access Sites,

users would continue to travel below the high-water line onto the gravel bars, to access the river.

Users would continue to have access to launch and retrieve their boats, as well as other

recreational activities. At the Border River Access Site, motorized use below the high-water line

is down a steep river bank to gain access to the gravel bar during low flows. This motorized

access has caused rutting and erosion down the steep bank. At Big Creek River Access Site, on

an occasion, users drive out onto the gravel bar towards the outlet of Big Creek which sometimes

causes congestion and safety issues at this popular site. At Glacier Rim River Access site, users

park below the boat ramp causing congestion for launching and retrieving boats. Other users

drive downstream along a sandy shoreline to reach a back eddy. Under the no-action alternative,

these activities would continue.

Motorized access to the Middle and North Fork Flathead Rivers has been reduced by previous

decisions to gate or berm roads or limit access via rocks and fences. Roads leading to the North

Fork are open both yearlong and seasonally. Both scenic and recreational designations are


23

characterized by motorized access within the corridor. In the no-action alternative, access within

the Wild and Scenic River Corridor would be managed as it is currently under Special Order

#F10024L01. This order states that possessing or using motorized vehicles off National Forest

System Roads when no visible, clearly evident, two track or single track routes are present is

prohibited. However, motorized wheeled cross-country travel to a campsite within 300 feet of a

road or trail is legal. The no-action alternative would continue to allow wheeled motorized use

at the existing areas within the corridor including Wurtz, Ford, Sondreson, Coal Creek, Road

#10923, Camas, Huckleberry, Essex, and Blankenship. These areas are hardened and used for

camping, angling, and other recreational activities.

Currently, motorized users may travel up to 300 feet cross-country from an open existing road or

trail to access a dispersed campsite within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor. The no-action

alternative would continue allowing motorized users to travel cross-country up to 300 feet for the

purposes of dispersed camping.

The North Fork River Corridor’s topography offers the potential for additional dispersed

campsites to be created. An undefined number of dispersed sites could be created resulting in an

increase in the number of vehicle tracks. Many users camp, picnic, or fish in these areas. Fire

rings and campsites are created and some users have a tendency to leave garbage at these

dispersed sites. Under Alternative 1, it is reasonable to believe the debris at these sites would

continue. The Middle Fork’s topography does not lend itself to much motorized access for

dispersed camping.

There is interspersed private land throughout the river corridor and some private landowners use

motorized vehicles on their own land. The private landowners must be aware of the motorized

travel restrictions on the NFS lands adjacent to their property.

Alternative 1 should continue to protect the existing natural environment and recreational

experience. However, there is the potential to diminish the quality of the natural environment

and the recreation experience of the wild and scenic river corridor if the undesirable activities

discussed above associated with motorized use expands beyond the current condition.


Under the no-action alternative, motorized use below the high water line locations of Lost

Johnny Point Boat Launch, Lid Creek Campground, Flossy Bay, Abbot Boat Launch, FK&L,

Riverside, Canyon, Logan, and Devil’s Corkscrew would continue. The topography or other

attributes of the remaining shoreline does not lend itself to motorized travel and historically

motorized use has not occurred. Many users camp, picnic, or fish from these historic access

areas. Motorized cross-country travel of up to 300 feet from a designated road to reach a

dispersed campsite would be permitted under Alternative 1. Fire rings and campsites are created

and some users leave garbage at these dispersed sites. Under this alternative, it is reasonable to

believe that garbage left at these sites would continue. The ability to manage the variety of

recreation experiences (dispersed camping, picnicking, fishing, nature watching) in the Hungry

Horse Reservoir area is affected by the seasonal fluctuations of the reservoir.


24

In the FK&L area, there is a 0.2 mile route to the top of the knob above the reservoir. The route

barely accommodates full size vehicles but under Alternative 1, the routes would be considered

open. This loop is used to access dispersed campsites, and some users have a tendency to leave

garbage at these dispersed sites. Under the no-action alternative, it is reasonable to believe that

garbage left at these sites would continue.

Hungry Horse Track

The track would remain available for vehicles 50 inches and under, including approximately 2

miles of trail on the track and several open roads adjacent to the track. Currently, there are three

legal access points to the track area, and all three of these would be maintained under the no-

action alternative. The existing regulations at the track area are difficult to enforce with the

multiple access points. These difficulties are expected to continue under the no-action

alternative.

Cedar Flats

Within this area, approximately 14 miles of multiple use routes would continue to be available in

Alternative 1. Trails would be available for motorized vehicles on the clearly visible tracks, both

double and single tracks. Several trails are short, lead to private lands, and are dead ends. Those

trails leading to private lands have the potential for trespass on private property. Additionally, the

short distance of the trails can lead to crowding and reduce the variety for the user. Due to the

width of most of the existing tracks, and the requirement that the motorized unit must fit the

profile of the trail, motorized use would mostly be available to OHV 50 inches and under. The

trails would continue to be managed for multiple uses (e.g. stock, pedestrian, motor vehicles)

which puts the responsibility on user groups to respect each other when travelling on a trail.

These multiple use trails have not posed safety issues between motorized and non-motorized user

groups. However, the undesirable activities such as shooting, uncontained and poorly located

campfires, trash dumping, and underage partying that are often associated with full-sized

motorized vehicles may continue to pose safety issues.

The utility corridor is maintained under a special use permit to Bonneville Power Administration

(BPA) for the occupancy and maintenance of the power line. Bonneville Power Administration

is authorized to drive needed equipment within their permit area including vehicles over 50

inches, construction equipment etc. Since the width of the BPA access route accommodates full

size vehicles, this route would continue to be available to highway legal vehicles.

Several other routes travel through sensitive soils and ephemeral drainages under this alternative.

Road #5285 and Road #10815 would remain open year round; however, spring break up

conditions would be assessed and seasonal closures would continue where necessary.

Traveling cross-country 300 feet from an open road or trail to a dispersed campsite would

continue under this alternative.


25


Pioneer is located on the main stem of the Flathead River and the access area on the South Fork

of the Flathead River provides access for anglers, boaters, and general recreationists. There is an

existing forest order that prohibits overnight use in both of these areas, which in turn prohibits

cross-country travel for dispersed camping.

Motorized users at the Pioneer area travel the two-track across the County easement to reach a

gravel bar, which accesses the main Flathead River. Some motorized use continues past the first

gravel bar down a hardened side channel, which leads to a large wetland area. There has been

motorized use into this wetland area; law enforcement responds to these complaints and issues

notices of violation when appropriate.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)


Wild and Scenic River (developed and dispersed sites)

In Polebridge, Paola, and West Glacier River Access Sites, users would be authorized to take

motorized vehicles below the high-water line onto the gravel bars to launch/retrieve boats as well

as other recreational activities. These areas would be designated as cross-country areas and

displayed on the MVUM. However, motorized access below the high-water line onto the gravel

or sand bars at the Border, Big Creek, and Glacier Rim river access sites would be prohibited.

This motorized restriction at the Border River Access would result in floaters having to launch

their watercraft into the side channel (if the flow accommodates), walking the craft down the side

channel or carrying it out onto the gravel bar to reach the main channel. Restricting motorized

access below the high water line at Big Creek except to launch and retrieve a boat is not expected

to change existing use since the topography does not generally lend itself to motorized access.

As for Glacier Rim, prohibiting motorized access downstream below the launch ramp onto the

sand bar would result in users parking in the designated parking area and carrying their supplies

for the day to the river. This would displace some users who have been used to driving

downstream on the sand bar. They may choose to use another site, which allows motorized

access below the high-water line. This would reduce congestion on the launch ramp, reduce

damage to riparian vegetation and allow shore parties to have more options along the sand bar.

In Alternative 2, motorized access within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor would be allowed

within the designated cross-country areas of Wurtz, Ford, Sondreson, Coal Creek, Road #10923,

Camas, Huckleberry, Essex and Blankenship as well as on the existing designated system roads .

The cross-country areas are already hardened and the traditional uses (camping, angling, etc)

would continue. These areas would be shown as cross-country travel areas on a MVUM. No

other wheeled motorized travel would be authorized within the river corridor.


26

This alternative would prohibit the 300 feet motorized access to a dispersed campsite for

motorized cross-country travel within the Wild and Scenic River corridor. Users may disperse

camp throughout the corridor, but all motorized travel would be restricted to the existing open

roads and the above-mentioned cross-country areas. The effects of prohibiting the 300-feet of

motorized cross-country travel for dispersed camping would limit the opportunities for new

dispersed campsites accessed by motorized vehicles. Overall, dispersed camping in the Wild and

Scenic River Corridor is not being restricted. There would be a limited number of vehicle-

accessible campsites in the corridor, which may cause these campsites to reach capacity sooner

on any given weekend.

There is interspersed private land throughout the river corridor and some private landowners use

motorized vehicles on their own land. The Forest Service has no jurisdiction over private lands;

however, once the private landowner crosses onto National Forest, the travel restrictions would

apply.

The natural environment and recreational experience would be protected and enhanced with the

limitation of motorized use within the river corridor. Human impacts such as fire rings, trash,

and compacted sites should be reduced since motorized access would be designated to specific

areas and roads.

Hungry Horse Reservoir Cross-Country Areas

Under Alternative 2, the areas of Lost Johnny Point Boat Launch, Lid Creek Campground,

Flossy Bay, Abbot Boat Launch, FK&L, Riverside, Canyon, Logan, and Devil’s Corkscrew

would be designated on the MVUM as cross-country travel areas. Since the topography or other

attributes of the remaining shoreline does not lend itself to motorized travel, the remaining

shoreline is generally not available for motorized use. Reservoir users often camp, picnic, or

fish in these historic access areas. Motorized cross-country travel up to 300 feet to a dispersed

campsite from open roads would be maintained under this alternative. However, motorized

cross-country travel to a dispersed campsite from the border of the designated cross-country

areas would be prohibited. Fire rings and campsites are created and some users have a tendency

to leave garbage at these dispersed sites. Under this alternative it is reasonable to believe that

garbage left within the cross-country areas would be reduced due to limitations on motorized

access.

This alternative would also designate the 0.2 mile loop around the knob at FK&L for OHV 50

inches or less. The route is narrow and does not fit well into the engineering standards for

vehicles over 50 inches due to steep and narrow terrain. This loop is used to access dispersed

campsites and some users have a tendency to leave garbage at these dispersed sites. The knob

would still be available for dispersed camping, but users will only be able to access it by vehicles

50 inches or less. By restricting access to this area, the net effect may be reduced debris,

dispersed camping, fire rings, and human waste issues.


27

Hungry Horse Track

The track would remain available for motorized vehicles 50 inches and under. Alternative 2

would designate 2 miles of trail for vehicles 50 inches and under. Under Alternative 2, Road

#11090 and Road #11080P would be closed to all motorized use along with a portion of Road

#11080T. These roads allow multiple access points to the track and are hard to monitor. This

alternative would restrict motorized use on Roads #11080T, #11090A, #11080U and #11080 to

vehicles 50 inches and under and set a season of use to April 1 through November 30 for the

open roads, and track area.

Limiting the remaining roads and trails to vehicles 50 inches or less provides registered riders an

area to recreate without the requirement of being 16 years old or riding highway legal machines.

Designating the trails for motorized use for 50 inches and under is consistent with the existing

use on the track itself. The track area is one of the few locations on the HH/GV Ranger Districts

where younger, non-licensed riders can legally operate an OHV. If we allow the continued use

of the adjacent segments of open road by highway legal vehicles, then the younger registered

operators would continue to be prohibited from riding on those particular system roads. These

limitations are proposed for safety reasons as described in Forest Service Manual 7715.5 Travel

Planning and adhering to Montana State Statutes (see project file exhibit E-1).

Limiting entry access to one point ensures all users pass by the posted regulations for the area.

The track area has historically experienced a wide variety of inappropriate uses such as

campfires, shooting, dumping, trash and parties. All these activities are prohibited by order and

posted. By funneling users past the regulations it allows the Forest Service to provide notice of

the regulatory requirements that users are expected to follow while recreating in the area.

The seasonal designations would reduce conflicts with the winter season use. The area is open to

snowmobiling and is used frequently when the snowpack accommodates. By Montana State

Law, snowmobiles are not allowed to operate on plowed roads or roads accessible by

conventional vehicles.

Cedar Flats

Alternative 2 would designate 9 miles of trails for OHV 50 inches or less from June 1 through

November 30. The trails proposed for designation avoid dead ends, do not lead to private lands,

and have minimal resource issues. This alternative includes constructing 2 short sections of trail

to connect existing routes to create loops. The proposed 9 miles of trails fall north and south of

Road #10815 and include the BPA access route. Full size vehicles would be prohibited on this

trail system, eliminating safety issues between the different classes of vehicles.

It is very difficult to ride these trails without using a Forest Service Road especially if the user

wants to create a loop. However, a rider could choose to offload their non-highway legal

machine in the Cedar Flats area (or come from private property) and ride portions of the user-

created routes. If the rider chose to use the system roads the motorized vehicle machine must be

licensed as a highway legal vehicle and ridden by a licensed person. Road #10815 would


28

become seasonally open from June 1 through November 30. Designating a season would protect

the trail and road treads during the spring break up season when tread damage and erosion can

occur due to soft soils from the motorized use. Non-motorized users would not be restricted to a

season, so trail damage may still occur due to hiker, mountain bike, and stock use. The tread

impacts would be expected to reduce from the current condition. The trails would be maintained

according to the Forest Service Handbook 2309.18 for motorized trails and if needed, erosion

control devices such as rolling dips, climbing turns, turnpikes, would be used. The new trail

segments would avoid sensitive plants and soils. If the route should cross wet areas, turnpikes

would be constructed to minimize impacts to the habitat.

The existing trails that lead directly to private lands are not proposed for designation under the

Alternative 2. By not designating these trails, the level of trespass from the Flathead National

Forest onto private property should be reduced. Several other routes travel through sensitive

soils and ephemeral drainages and would not be considered for motorized designation due to

their potential for resource damage under this alternative. However, non-motorized users may

continue to use the non-designated routes which would continue the potential for some resource

damage. However, continued use of these routes would be discouraged.

The undesirable activities in the Cedar Flats area such as shooting, uncontained and poorly

located campfires, trash/dumping, and underage partying should diminish under this alternative

with the proposed prohibition against overnight use, target shooting and campfires. The

restriction to OHV 50 inches or less would reduce where full size vehicles have been traveling

and, in general, the damage and vandalism has mostly been associated with the full size vehicles

rather than OHV.

Pioneer

In this alternative, motorized use would be limited to the initial gravel bar, which provides access

to the main stem of the Flathead River. Prohibiting motorized use down the side channel would

eliminate the resource damage caused by motorized vehicles in the wetland areas.

Alternative 3


The direct and indirect effects mentioned under Alternative 2 are the same in Alternative 3

except for the Cedar Flats area. The following are the effects of the changes relative to the Cedar

Flats area specific to the design of Alternative 3.

Cedar Flats

This alternative would designate approximately 7 miles of trail for OHV 50 inches or less

including the BPA access route. A season would be enforced for both trails and Road #10815

from June 1 through November 30. A prohibition against overnight use, target shooting, and


29

campfires would be put in place under this alternative. The trails proposed for designation avoid

dead ends, do not lead to private lands, and have minimal resource issues.

This alternative modifies Alternative 2 by altering two aspects: it does not designated trails south

of the BPA line for motorized use, and it has 3 new connections to existing routes at the

northeast portion of the trail system. The trails would be maintained according to the Forest

Service Handbook 2309.19 for motorized trails including rolling dips, climbing turns, turnpikes,

and other drainage structures to address erosion control on the trails. The new trail segments

would avoid sensitive plants and soils. If the route crossed wet areas, turnpikes would be

constructed to minimize impacts to the habitat.

Making the above mentioned changes would reduce the noise, dust and trespass impacts that

OHVs are having on adjacent private lands and eliminate the need to construct structures across

an ephemeral stream. Non-motorized users may continue to use the non-designated routes which

would increase the potential for some resource damage

Cumulative Effects

General

Motorized wheeled cross-country travel to a dispersed campsite within 300 feet of the identified

roads, trails, or areas are reduced under the action alternatives. This feature in combination with

other motorized access reduction actions across the Forest may be perceived as an additional

reduction of motorized access opportunities. However, the physical terrain of the areas analyzed

in this project limits the ability to use a motorized vehicle in the 300 foot buffer areas as well as

the areas identified as currently being used are being designated for continued use so the actual

effects to the recreationist would be minimal.

In addition to the cumulative effects discussed above, Alternative 2 includes additional miles of

reduction in motorized opportunities, and seasonal restrictions to address issues associated with

motorized activities. This alternative contributes to a minimal cumulative loss of motorized

recreation to the motorized users and a minimal increase in non-motorized use to the non-

motorized users. Alternative 3 includes 2 additional miles of reduction in motorized

opportunities to address issues associated with motorized activities adjacent to private land. This

alternative contributes to a minimal cumulative loss of motorized recreation to the motorized

users and a minimal increase in non-motorized use to the non-motorized users.

Under the no action alternative, there are no cumulative effects to the motorized user as their

opportunities are not being reduced or affected. However, there could be cumulative effects to

other values and resources as a result of the potential for expanding dispersed motorized

opportunities.


30

Wild and Scenic River

By limiting motorized travel within the river corridors, competition for vehicle supported

campsites may increase so river recreationists may change their use patterns from vehicle-

supported camping to a more traditional float party (e.g. launching from one location and being

self-contained without vehicle support, camping along the river and finally taking out at a

predetermined location down river). This traditional float party would have more options for

camping since they could access miles of shoreline without vehicle access and not be in

competition with the vehicle-supported floaters. Additional floater camps along the motorized

vehicle inaccessible portions of shoreline may increase litter, campfires, and other undesirable

impacts. However, overall, through the designation of cross-country motorized areas and the

prohibition of the 300 foot motorized allowance for dispersed camping, the undersireable

impacts mentioned above should be reduced.

The Wild and Scenic River Corridor would continue to be monitored for the indicator standards

and the results will help managers identify appropriate management responses. Limiting the

motorized access to the Wild and Scenic River Corridor to designated areas may cause river

users to reduce their visitation on weekends and recreate on weekdays using these locations.

This may cause less congestion during the weekends at both the access points and along the

river.

Cumulatively, it is expected that the natural environment and recreational experience in the wild

and scenic river corridor would be protected and enhanced with the proposed limitation of

motorized use along with the human waste containment regulations currently in place.

Hungry Horse Reservoir Cross-Country Areas

The cross-country areas will continue to be used by those wanting to gain motorized access to

the reservoir. If recreation use grows, these cross-country areas may reach capacity especially on

weekends. Use patterns may shift to weekday use for those recreationists with the flexibility. At

some point, each of these areas may reach capacity with no opportunity for expansion.

Hungry Horse Track

Private land is being developed around Hungry Horse and the track is no longer secluded. The

track is a part of the Hungry Horse neighborhood. OHV use produces noise, dust, and increases

traffic on Colorado Drive. This alternative is designed to mitigate the impacts to private land

owners from the motorized recreation taking place at the track area by funneling the access to

one location, setting a season of use, and limiting the vehicles to 50 inches or less.

Cedar Flats

Motorized use opportunities would be reduced in the Cedar Flats area under Alternative 2 and 3.

Since the OHV opportunities on the Flathead National Forest are limited, riders may find

themselves using the same trails. As motorized use grows in popularity, designated trails and


31

areas may see increased use and resource impacts such as trail damage, rutting, and erosion

issues. The Forest Service would respond with additional trail maintenance and seek

partnerships with local riding groups to attend to the trail conditions.

The vandalism, damage, dumping, shooting, and other undesirable activities should reduce with

the restriction of full size vehicles from the trails and BPA access road as well as the prohibition

on overnight use, target shooting and campfires. The overall effect should be a safer and more

enjoyable environment for the users and surrounding landowners of the area.

It is reasonable to conclude OHV traffic will continue on the adjacent county road from the

adjoining neighborhoods throughout Columbia Falls and along the North Fork Road. OHV and

full size vehicles traveling on Road #5285 and Road #10815 would continue to generate dust

during low moisture times of the season. Speed limits across private lands may mitigate some of

the impacts; however, the Flathead National Forest does not impose speed limits on National

Forest System Roads but rather suggests safe and prudent travel on them.

The recent Cedar Spool fuels treatment created several skid routes throughout the Cedar Flats

Area. There was a concern OHV users would begin using these skid routes; however, through

diligent work by the sale administrator and contractor the routes were closed so OHV are not

using them.

Regulatory Framework and Consistency

The action alternatives described in the CHR Project EA would meet the direction of the Forest

Service Manual 2300 (Recreation) as well as Forest Service Manual 7710 (Travel Planning) and

are consistent with the Forest Plan direction related to recreation and wild and scenic river

direction. The action alternatives restrict and designate a system of motorized use that is

compatible with the resource objectives of the identified areas.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 as amended in 1976 with the passing of Public Law 94-

486 designated the 219 miles of the Flathead River (North Fork, Middle Fork, and South Fork).

The CHR Project meets the Declaration of Policy for Wild and Scenic Rivers defined as a three-

fold purpose: free flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. The

segments of the Flathead River included in the CHR Project have already been classified into the

appropriate categories of scenic and recreation and this project maintains those classifications.

Additionally, the river is managed through the River Management Plan and River Recreation

Direction which sets objectives and standards to maintain, protect and enhance the natural

environment and recreation experience. The CHR Project meets these objectives and standards.


32

Threatened, Endangered and Regionally Sensitive Plants


Occurrences of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants

Water howellia

On the Flathead National Forest, water howellia is known only to occur in the Swan Valley,

approximately 65 miles to the south of the project area. There are no known occurrences or

potential habitat within the project area or on the HH/GV Ranger Districts. Aerial photo

interpretation locating ponds, old oxbows, and other wet areas of potential habitat have been

determined to be unsuitable habitat and/or past surveys did not locate occurrences. Water

howellia is excluded from further discussion in this document due to the lack of occurrences and

potential habitat within or near the project area.

Spalding’s Catchfly

Based on the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) database and the Flathead National

Forest sensitive plants database, there are no known occurrences of Spalding’s catchfly within

the project area, on the HH/GV Ranger Districts, or within the Flathead National Forest.

Spalding’s catchfly is excluded from further discussion in this document due to the lack of

occurrences and potential habitat within or near the project area.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plants

Botanical surveys that may have detected sensitive plants in the project area and on the HH/GV

Ranger Districts were not initiated in the area until the onset of the Forest’s Botany Program in

1991. The impacts of the original construction of existing roads and trails to sensitive plants and

sensitive plant habitat is unknown because construction occurred prior to the Forest’s Botany

program, which would have required surveys prior to disturbance.

Surveys for various other projects (e.g., vegetation management, road maintenance, sensitive

plant surveys) within and near the project area have occurred through the years (1991-2007).

Based on the information sources listed above, there are 18 sensitive plant species located within

or near the project area (refer to Table 2).


33

Table 2. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plants within Five Miles of Project Boundary

Species EO#

Habitat Guilds

AV

F

W

R

MC

T

MC

MM

C

GO

MS

CR

S

S

A

D

Botrychium ascendens 2, 7, 11,

18 X X X X X X

Botrychium

crenulatum 8, 9 X X X X X X

Botrychium hesperium 2, 6, 9,

11, 19 X X X X X

Botrychium

paradoxum 20 X X X

Corydalis sempervirens 9, 10, 14,

17, 18 X X X

Drosera anglica 1, 4 X

Dryopteris cristata 16 X X X

Epipactis gigantea 12, 21, 24 X X X X

Eriophorum gracile 4, 18,

TBD X

Lathyrus bijugatus 1 X X

Kalmia polifolia 4 X X X

Meesia triquetra 7, 15 X

Ophioglossum

pusillum 13 X X

Petasites frigidus

var. nivalis 5, TBD X X X X

Scheuchzeria palustris

3, 12, 13,

15, 21,

TBD

X X

Schoenoplectus

subterminalis 14 X

Scorpidium scorpoides 12 X

Trichophorum

caespitosum 11, 21, 29 X

EO# = Element Occurrence number in the Montana Natural Heritage Program database

AV=Aquatic and vernal pools; F=Fens and fen margins; W=Marshes, seeps, springs, and wet meadows; R=Riparian; MCT=

Vernally moist cliffs or mossy talus; MC= Mid-elevation moist coniferous forests; MMC=Margins of moist coniferous forests;

GO=Dry grasslands & openings in ponderosa pine and dry Douglas-fir forests; MS=Mid-montane/Subalpine grass/forb;

CRS=Canyon walls, crevices, rock outcrops and slides S=Subalpine forests; A=Alpine; D= Disturbed areas

Species Account of Known Occurrence within the Action Area

Giant helleborine, (Epipactis gigantean), occurs in the Cedar Flats area. The Cedar Flats

population (element occurrence 24) is comprised of approximately 12 individuals, and was last

visited in 2003. The plant is found in shaded, moist, seeps with high organic matter content.


34

Potential Occurrences

Based on the information sources listed above, the project area potentially contains habitat types

for sensitive plants associated with all 13 habitat guilds listed above.




The no-action alternative would not change the existing access conditions. Alternative 1 may

increase the potential for establishment and spread of new noxious weed occurrences due to

continued and potentially increased motorized travel to a dispersed camp site within 300 feet of

an open road. Use of areas not appropriate for motorized travel may damage potential habitat or

Regional Forester’s Sensitive plants due to compaction and introduction of noxious weeds.

Activities associated with motorized use may disturb forest habitats and favor the spread and

introduction of noxious weeds that could impact sensitive plant populations. Weed

establishment and spread facilitated by ground disturbance and vehicle traffic in and out of the

project area, would continue to occur with Alternative 1. In addition, the potential for weed

invasion and competition for nutrients and light with sensitive plant populations and native

vegetation would continue to occur.

There would be no ground disturbance associated with this activity, as there would be no project

activities under this alternative; therefore, there would be no direct effects to Regional Forester’s

sensitive plants.

Disturbance regime sensitive plants such as Howell’s gumweed (Grindelia howellii) and some

moonworts (Botrychium spp.) occasionally establish along roadsides. These species can be

opportunistic along roadside habitats. Alternative 1 may create roadside habitat for this

opportunistic establishment. Roadside occurrences are not considered representative of the

natural disturbance habitats such as grasslands or rocky outcrops that these sensitive plants more

commonly occupy. Preservation of these roadside sensitive plant occurrences are secondary to

those occurring in natural habitats.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and foreseeable actions within the project area (Federal, state, and private) that

may have affected or may affect sensitive plants include reservoir building, timber harvesting,

road construction, maintenance, and reclamation, recreation and forest product gathering,

noxious weed control, special use permits, trail construction and maintenance, wildland fire and

fire suppression. These actions may have historically affected sensitive plant populations and

habitat and may continue to have effects.


35

Alternatives 2 and 3


Cedar Flats

Alternative 2 proposes to reduce the miles of motorized trail from 14 miles to 9 miles, and

Alternative 3 proposes to reduce that even further to 7 miles. This would decrease the potential

for weeds to become established and would reduce potential effects to sensitive plant habitat and

occurrences. One of the new trail segments proposed in Alternative 2 is located near a

population and habitat of Epipactis gigantean; however, this trail segment would be constructed

to avoid impacting this population. Alternative 3 proposes an alternative route that is not located

near this population.

Hungry Horse Track

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to prohibit motorized use on portions of open roads and limit use to

OHV 50 inches or less. The reduced area would decrease the potential for damage to habitat or

potential occurrences of Regional Forester’s Sensitive plants from compaction and the

introduction of noxious weeds. Seasonal restrictions would reduce impacts to soils, which would

reduce the potential for weed establishment.


The total acres of access for motorized vehicles would be reduced under these alternatives by

designating cross-country motorized travel areas and rescinding the ability to travel 300 feet to a

dispersed campsite. The reduced motorized use would decrease the potential for damage to

habitat or potential occurrences of Regional Forester’s Sensitive plants.

Hungry Horse Reservoir Cross Country Areas

There are nine historic areas which currently receive motorized vehicle use below the high-water

line. Traveling 300 feet to a dispersed campsite is allowed. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to

designate specific areas for access to the reservoir below the high-water line from an open road.

Limiting use would reduce potential damage to habitat and any potential occurrence of Regional

Forester’s Sensitive plants.

Pioneer and South Fork Flathead River Access

These two areas currently receive motorized vehicle use. Dispersed camping in these areas is

prohibited by a special order. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to designate these specific areas for

access. These alternatives would reduce the potential for the spread of noxious weeds and their

impacts to sensitive plants by restricting motorized use outside of the designated areas.


36

Cumulative Effects

Many past, present, and foreseeable actions have had, and would continue to have effects to

potential sensitive plant populations and habitat in the project area. The proposed project may

reduce the potential effects to habitat and potential threatened and sensitive plant populations due

to the closure of selected unauthorized use and seasonal restrictions.

Spread of noxious weeds has the greatest potential for indirect and cumulative effects on

occurring or potentially occurring sensitive plant populations within the project boundary.

Roads and trails may act as corridors for establishment into adjacent undisturbed native habitats,

especially where susceptible conditions exist. Weed invasion and expansion has been observed

along road corridors and into adjacent undisturbed habitats. Noxious weeds may alter organic

matter distribution and nutrient flux such as spotted knapweed’s greater ability to uptake

phosphorus over some native species in grasslands (Thorpe, et. al., 2006). In addition, noxious

weeds may influence species richness and displace of resident species by reducing native

seedling establishment (Yurkonis et. al., 2005).


Alternatives 2 and 3 described in the CHR Motorized Route and Area Designation Project EA

would meet the direction of Forest Service Manual 2670.3 (sensitive plant species) and are

consistent with the Forest Plan direction for sensitive plants. In addition, all activities are in

compliance with ESA and Flathead National Forest LRMP Amendments 20 and 21.

The activities associated with Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 may affect individuals, but are not likely to

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for potentially occurring Regional

Forester’s sensitive plant species and proposed plant species listed in Project File Exhibit G-2.

This is based on the following conditions: 1) presence of suitable habitat for potentially

occurring sensitive plants within the project area; 2) the potential for indirect effects of noxious

weed competition; and 3) the delineation of new occurrences located prior to project

implementation.


37

Noxious Weeds


In the project area, there is a concern that invasive plants may continue to spread along existing

road corridors and into new proposed trail segments. Roads may act as corridors for

establishment into adjacent undisturbed native habitats, especially where susceptible conditions

exist. Weed invasion and expansion has been observed along road corridors and into adjacent

undisturbed habitats. Noxious weeds may alter organic matter distribution and nutrient flux such

as spotted knapweed’s greater ability to uptake phosphorus over some native species in

grasslands (Thorpe, et. al., 2006). In addition, noxious weeds may influence species richness and

displace of resident species by reducing native seedling establishment (Yurkonis, et. al., 2005).

Invasive species considered for this analysis are those listed as noxious by the State of Montana,

as well as other exotic species determined to be highly invasive. They are displayed below in

Table 3. Of the 1,062 vascular plant species known to occur on the Flathead National Forest,

about 110 are classified as exotic; of these, over 42 species are classified as invasive. Within the

project and adjacent areas, 12 noxious weed species and 4 undesirable weed species of concern

have been observed within or near the proposed project sites as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Noxious Weed Species of Concern

Scientific Namea Common Name In Project Area Potential Invader

Category 1 – Widespread Establishedb

Acroptilon repens (C. repens) Russian knapweed X

Cardaria draba hoary cress X

Centaurea biebersteinii (C. maculosa) spotted knapweed X

Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed X

Cirsium arvense Canadian thistle X

Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed X

Cynoglossum officinale hound’s-tongue X

Euphorbia esula leafy spurge X

Hypericum perforatum St. John’s-wort X

Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy X

Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax X

Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax X

Potentilla recta sulphur cinquefoil X

Tanacetum vulgare common tansy X

Category 2 – Recently Established, Rapidly Spreadingb

Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed X

Hieracium caespitosum, H. floribundum, H.

piloselloides, H. pretense yellow hawkweed complex X


38

Scientific Namea Common Name In Project Area Potential Invader

Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed X

Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife X

Lythrum virgatum wandlike loosestrife X

Ranunculus acris tall buttercup X

Senecio jacobaea tansy ragwort X

Tamarix spp. salt cedar or tamarisk X

Category 3 – Not Yet Detected or Small Occurrenceb

Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle X

Chondrilla juncea rush skeletonweed X

Crupina vulgaris common crupina X

Iris pseudacorus yellowflag iris X

Isatis tinctoria dyer’s woad X

Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water milfoil X

Additional Invasives of Concern for the Flathead National Forest

Achillea nobilis noble yarrow X

Artemisia absinthium absinthium X

Bromus tectorum cheatgrass X

Campanula rapunculoides (undesirable) creeping bellflower X

Carduus nutans musk thistle X

Chorispora tenella purple mustard X

Cirsium vulgare bull thistle X

Elymus repens quackgrass X

Euphorbia species (cautionary) spurge (all) X

Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass X

Potentilla argentea silvery cinquefoil X

Sonchus spp. perennial sowthistle X

Tragopogon dubius goat’s bear/salsify X

Tripleurospermum perforata (Matricaria

inodora, M. perforata) (undesirable) scentless chamomile X

Veronica officinalis common speedwell X a Nomenclature follows the USDA Plants Database: USDA, NRCS 1999. The PLANTS database (http://plants.usda.gov/plants). National Plant

Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. b Montana Department of Agriculture Noxious weed categories:

Category 1 Noxious weeds currently established in the State and generally widespread in many counties of the state. Management criteria

include awareness and education, containment and suppression of existing infestations and prevention of new infestations. These

weeds are capable of rapid spread and render land unfit or greatly limit beneficial uses.

Category 2 Noxious weeds that have recently been introduced into the state or are rapidly spreading from their current infestation sites. These

weeds are capable of rapid spread and invasion of lands, rendering lands unfit for beneficial uses. Management criteria include

awareness and education, monitoring and containment of known infestations and eradication where possible.

Category 3 Noxious weeds that have not been detected in the state or may be found only in small, scattered, localized infestations. Management

criteria include awareness and education, early detection and immediate action to eradicate infestations. These weeds are known pests

in nearby states, are capable of rapid spread, and render land unfit for beneficial uses.


39

Surveys

Inventories for various other projects (e.g., vegetation management, road maintenance, sensitive

plant surveys) within and near the project area have occurred from 2003 – 2007. The most

abundant and widely-distributed noxious weed species in the project area are spotted knapweed

(Centaurea biebersteinii), St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), Canadian thistle (Cirsium

arvense), orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), and oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum

vulgare).

Spotted knapweed, sulphur cinquefoil, common tansy, and ox-eye daisy are roadside species that

generally have not invaded into understory-forested habitats. However, these species do have

potential for expansion into open canopies and natural occurring forest openings (grasslands,

open rock outcrops), and other open areas created by recreational uses (campsites, vehicle turn-

around). Canadian thistle is a generalist and can invade almost any habitat from dry to wet

disturbed areas with canopy openings (personal observation). Orange and yellow hawkweed

(state-listed Category 2 noxious weeds species) are of greatest concern in the area. Hawkweed

has been recently established (last 5 to 10 years), and is rapidly expanding from established

areas.

The amount and distribution of the above invasive plants is highly variable within the project

area, ranging from scattered, isolated individuals to small, dense groups. These species occur

along portions of many of the roads, gravel pits, and other disturbed sites. Invader weed species

tend to be shade-intolerant, with the exception of orange and yellow hawkweed (personal

observation). Invasive plants establish in disturbed areas where other plants are slow to establish

and recover. These areas are mostly associated with road right-of-ways, landing sites for timber

harvesting, gravel pits, mechanically piled slash burn piles, skid roads, mechanical site

preparation treatment on well-drained or shallow soils, power line corridors, and mines. Most of

the area outside of these more heavily disturbed sites has experienced limited invasive plant

establishment.

The Flathead National Forest has been treating portions of some Hungry Horse Reservoir roads

with chemical spray. In addition, spot treatments at river access points have also occurred for

several years. Portions of the Cedar Flats areas have been treated as part of other projects.

Within the last three years, Bonneville Power Administration has entered into a challenge cost

share agreement with the FNF to fund the treatment of noxious weeds along their permitted

utility corridors. The BPA line within Cedar Flats has been treated as a part of this agreement

and a marked reduction of spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), St. John’s wort

(Hypericum perforatum), Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvense), orange hawkweed (Hieracium

aurantiacum), and oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) has been observed.


40




Alternative 1 would provide more opportunity for creating weed habitat in the Wild and Scenic

River corridor, because the 300 feet allowance to travel to a dispersed campsite would be

maintained within this alternative. The existing use would continue in areas and greater

opportunities for new ground disturbance exist under this alternative. Invasive species currently

known in the project area would have potential for expansion into the newly created routes

leading to dispersed campsites. Vehicles have the potential to create new disturbed soils and to

transport weed seeds. Soil disturbance provides optimum conditions for noxious weed invasion.

Cumulative Effects

Past ground disturbing activities such as timber harvest, road construction, trail construction, and

road maintenance have contributed to the establishment and spread of noxious weeds and

invasive plants in the project area. Recreational and other land uses like logging, firewood

gathering, have also promoted the spread of weed seeds, because users and their vehicles become

vectors for weed seed spread. It is likely that wildlife have contributed to weed spread in the

past by transporting weed seeds across the landscape.

Noxious weed treatments have occurred on the HH/GV Ranger Districts. Future weeds

treatments will be prioritized for this area based on criteria described in Flathead National Forest

Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Decision Notice (May 2001) and EA (March 2001). Past

and future road closures, and noxious weed treatments have and will likely continue to decrease

the potential spread of weeds.

The no-action alternative would potentially create more new ground disturbed areas for potential

new weed establishment and spread. The amount of weed-infested acres would be expected to

increase if the existing uses and conditions continue under this alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3


Cedar Flats

The reduced miles would decrease the potential for weeds to become established on the routes

not designated for motorized use. The prohibition of overnight use would eliminate the

exemption of the 300 feet of travel to a dispersed campsite which would reduce the potential

spread of weeds. The new trail segments would create new exposed soils for potential weed

establishment. However, seasonal restrictions would reduce soil disturbance, and thus reduce the

potential for weed establishment.


41

Hungry Horse Track

Designating motorized travel on the existing routes and prohibiting motorized travel on

approximately 1 mile of road would decrease the potential for weeds to expand from these areas.

In addition, seasonal restrictions would reduce impacts to soils, which would also reduce the

potential for weed establishment.


Removing the 300 feet of motorized travel off a designated road within the corridor, as well as

designating cross-country travel areas, would decrease the potential for weeds to become

established in these closed areas.


Currently, motor vehicles use the area below the reservoir’s high-water line in distinct locations

which area accessed from open roads. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to designate specific areas

for reservoir access; dispersed camping within 300 ft of these areas would be prohibited. The

reduced use area would decrease the potential for weeds to become established in these closed

areas.

Pioneer and South Fork Flathead River Access

These areas currently receives motorized vehicle use. Dispersed camping in these areas is

prohibited. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to designate these specific areas for motorized access.

These alternatives would reduce the potential for the spread of noxious weeds by restricting

motorized use outside of the designated areas.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and foreseeable actions within the project area (Federal, state, and private) that

may have affected or may affect noxious weeds include reservoir building, timber harvesting,

road construction, road maintenance, road reclamation, recreation, forest product gathering,

noxious weed control, special use permits, trail maintenance, wildland fire, and fire suppression.

These actions may have historically affected noxious weed populations and may continue to

have effects.

People, vehicles, domestic animals, wildlife, and wind are all vectors contributing to the

transport of weeds within the project area. Once seeds are dispersed to a new site, habitat type

and disturbance patterns influence the establishment potential of invasive plant species. The

potential for each species to establish is also dependent on life history, morphology, phenology,

ecology, and reproductive biology of the individual weed species. Activities that create ground

disturbance provide a substrate for colonization of noxious weeds when propagules are present.

In general, past, present, and future activities with the greatest amount of ground disturbance


42

accompanied by a vector source of noxious weed seeds have the greatest potential for noxious

weed establishment and spread.

Many past, present, and foreseeable actions have and would continue to contribute to weed risk

and weed spread in the project area. The proposed project may potentially reduce the risk of new

weed introduction and expansion due to the closure of selected areas and seasonal restrictions.


Management direction for noxious and invasive weed control on the FNF is set at the national

and forest levels. Forest Service policies were developed in response to Federal laws guiding

implementation of noxious weed control actions. These policies are set forth in Amendment

2000-95-5 of the FSM, Chapter 2080, Noxious Weed Management. Treatment and monitoring

of known weed populations in the project area would be implemented under the authority and

guidance of the Flathead National Forest Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Decision Notice

(May 2001) and EA (March 2001). These were designed to meet legal requirements and Forest

Service policies for noxious weed control. The proposed project incorporates and is consistent

with the Flathead National Forest Weed Control Decision.


43

Hydrology and Soils

Introduction

Changes to water quantity (water yield increase or decrease) and water quality (sediment yield

increase, nutrient yield increase, and/or chemical pollutant increase) are the primary

characteristics of the water resource typically analyzed to describe the effects of a proposed

action. Significant changes to any of the characteristics can potentially affect the beneficial uses

of water resource. These four characteristics (water yield, sediment yield, nutrient yield,

chemical pollution) are the effects indicators for this project.

The primary soil characteristics analyzed to describe the effects of proposed action on soils are

changes in soil productivity due to soil compaction and/or displacement, and soil erosion.

Therefore, the effects indicators for soils are soil productivity and soil erosion.

Alternative 1 (No-action Alternative)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Water Quantity and Water Yield Effects

The Hungry Horse Track area comprises a small portion of a very large watershed, and there

would be very little removal of live vegetation canopy in these areas. Consequently, the

potential for increased water yield is essentially zero; current water yield models indicate that

water yield increase due to OHV trails would be immeasurable, even in the highest use areas.

Therefore, continuing the recreational use of motorized routes and designated recreational use

areas would not have any measurable effect to the water quantity of the streams and rivers

flowing on the HH/GV Ranger Districts. There would be no effect on water quantity due to

continuing motorized use areas in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor or at Hungry Horse

Reservoir recreation sites. Because there is no potential water yield increase or decrease due to

the exiting situation, there is no potential for stream channel modification due to the existing

direction.

Water Quality

Nutrient Yield Effects

Off-highway vehicle use in the watersheds of the FNF could potentially have an effect on the

nutrient levels in the streams from two different scenarios. The first scenario is when gasoline is

burned there is some amount of ammonia, nitrogen, and sulfur compounds produced as

emissions, which can be deposited by precipitation onto the land or water surface. The second

scenario is when ATV use causes soil erosion that is deposited as sediment in a stream then

nutrients attached to soil particles (e.g. phosphorus) are transported downstream. This second

scenario is addressed later in this section.


44

Ammonia and nitrogen ions are among the nutrients readily absorbed by soils with high cation

exchange capacity. The volcanic ash topsoil present on virtually all of the soils on the FNF has a

high cation exchange capacity (USDA Forest Service 1982). Because of the generally low

amounts of nitrogen and sulfur present in the forest soils of this area, and the significant plant

biomass competing for these available nutrients, there are typically only very small amounts of

nitrogen leached beyond the root zone in these soils.

Under the existing condition, there is the potential for small inputs of chemicals from the

emissions of OHV into the atmosphere. The emission standards for a off-highway motorcycle

set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 was 2.0 grams per kilometer of

hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen; along with 25 grams of carbon monoxide. The emission

standards for ATVs were established by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 as 1.5

grams per kilometer of hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen and 35 grams of carbon monoxide.

These levels of emission, or slightly less, can be expected with each kilometer of riding by an

OHV at the Cedar Flats area, or the Hungry Horse Track, Hungry Horse Reservoir, and Wild and

Scenic River Corridor.

The number of kilometers/miles of OHV use that occurs at these areas on an annual basis is

unknown, although there is use occurring at all of these sites throughout the riding season. The

direct effect of this activity is the addition into the atmosphere of several gases and/or vapors.

Some of these gases and/or vapors precipitate out of the atmosphere on dust particles or during

precipitation events; and some of the precipitates are deposited in streams, lakes, or reservoirs.

According to Stanford et al. (1997), the wet deposition from airborne sources of nitrogen into

Flathead Lake was approximately 7% of the total nitrogen load going into the lake. The sources

for the atmospheric nutrient deposition are both natural and anthropogenic. Natural sources

include wind-blown dust, animals, and wildfires; manmade sources include internal combustion

emissions and agricultural activities. The amount of these precipitated compounds within the

waters of the HH/GV Ranger Districts that could be directly attributable to the OHV would be

immeasurable with the current technology. However, the emissions from these vehicles add to

the global “carbon footprint” due to internal combustion engines.

Chemical Pollution Effects

Motorboats and personal watercraft with less than 10 horsepower ratings are currently allowed

on the Middle Fork from the confluence with the South Fork to Bear Creek, and on the North

Fork from the confluence with the Middle Fork to Camas. The State of Montana, not the Forest

Service, has jurisdiction of the surface water management of Hungry Horse Reservoir. There

may be motorboats and personal watercraft refueled with gasoline or gasoline/oil mixes at the

developed boat launch facilities along the Hungry Horse Reservoir, and in some cases this may

occur when the water level is below the full pool elevation of the Reservoir. There are several

river access sites along the North Fork and the Middle Fork where boats with >10 hp motors

could potentially be refueled. Motor vehicles may also drive below the high-water mark to

launch boats when the water level declines; some vehicles may leak small amounts of oil during

this activity. Therefore, the potential exists for gasoline/oil to be spilled directly into the water

and/or onto the shoreline of these water bodies during launching or refueling activities. The


45

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks did not address the subject of refueling on

waterbodies or shorelines in their 2008 Montana Boating Laws publication.

There is no information available as to how often this type of incident may occur or how much

spilled gasoline/oil may enter these waters. Under the existing rules of recreational management,

this activity may occur, so there is the potential for an unknown amount of gasoline/oil to enter

the waters of the HH/GV Ranger Districts. Because this has not been identified as a resource

problem by the recreational resource managers, and because of a lack of listings on the Montana

State Hazardous Spill Database, these incidents are likely rare and are expected to have

immeasurable effects to the water quality of the waters of the HH/GV Ranger Districts.

Soil Quality-Soil Erosion, and Water Quality-Sediment Yield Effects

River/Reservoir Access Sites

At the water access sites (river sites and Hungry Horse Reservoir sites), shoreline materials are

primarily composed of naturally packed cobbles, gravels, and coarse sands. When a boat or raft

is launched, there is a very small potential to cause soil erosion and create suspended sediment.

If this were to occur in small amounts with medium or fine sand particles, the particles would

rapidly settle out of the water column and would not cause any measurable change to the

sediment yield input into the rivers and/or reservoir. The motorized vehicle use patterns at the

River and Reservoir Access Sites do not appear to have contributed sufficient sediment yields to

warrant water quality concerns and are not expected to contribute sufficient sediment yields to

warrant concern if use is restricted to existing river and reservoir access sites.

Motorized Trails and Areas

The second situation is the OHV use at the identified OHV areas (Cedar Flats, and Hungry Horse

Track). An OHV would tend to rut a motorized trail in areas of wetter soil conditions, or on

some of the steeper segments with loose soil conditions. The ruts tend to channel water and

increase soil erosion from the trail tread. The WEPP soil erosion model was used to estimate the

existing potential soil erosion on the track areas and the motorized trail segments.

The OHV use areas were reviewed for the topography and soil type of the track, as well as the

track distance to perennial water body. This was done to develop input into the WEPP model to

generate a general estimate of the annual soil erosion occurring from the exposed soils on the

track surface. In all cases, the tracks or trails are surrounded by growing vegetation (grasses,

forbs, shrubs, and trees) that act as a sediment filter, trapping soil erosion before it travels very

far from the site. The minimum buffer width was used in the WEPP model to estimate eroded

soil that would leave a buffer and become potential sediment. Because of the existing vegetation

in several of the ephemeral draws, this results in overestimating the amount of potential

sediment. Note: soil weight is approximately 110 pounds/cubic foot (depending on the

percentage of stones/gravels), or 2,970 pounds/cubic yard. One wheelbarrow full of soil weighs

approximately 660 pounds.


46

The estimated annual soil erosion from the Hungry Horse Track area is approximately 2,122

pounds of soil erosion per year (3.2 wheelbarrows). There is no sediment (eroded soil delivered

to a stream channel) leaving the vegetation buffer zones in this area. The estimated annual soil

erosion from the FK&L area is approximately 2,050 pounds per year (3.1 wheelbarrows). There

is approximately 87 pounds of sediment (1 large bucket) leaving the vegetation buffer zones in

this area, some of which may be deposited in the Hungry Horse Reservoir. The estimated annual

soil erosion from the Cedar Flats area is approximately 2,217 pounds per year (3.4

wheelbarrows). There is approximately 639 pounds of sediment leaving the vegetation buffer

zones and being deposited in three ephemeral draws in this area.

The Cedar Flats track area is currently transporting potential sediments (639 pound/year) into

three ephemeral stream channel riparian buffer zones. During high stream flow periods, this

sediment could be transported into the perennial stream system, which would slightly increase

sediment yield and nutrient yield downstream from this area. The amounts of soil erosion and

sedimentation resulting from the existing uses at the Hungry Horse Track and Cedar Flats is very

small and is likely having no measurable effect when compared to the natural sediment yield

levels for the streams and rivers on the HH/GV Ranger Districts. In all cases except Cedar Flats,

the motorized routes are located away from perennial streams and/or there is enough riparian

buffer zone between the water and the motorized routes, that any soil erosion from the track area

would be trapped in the buffer area before it can enter water (stream or reservoir) and become

suspended sediment. Since there is no potential for measurable sediment yield increases, there is

no potential for any measurable levels of nutrients yield increase due to a sediment increase.

A small area of wheeled vehicle access is located near the confluence of Coal Creek and the

North Fork Flathead River. This motorized area does not occur in the stream channel but rather

in a terrace above the high water line (GIS mapping layers do not match up well in this area).

This area also ends near a native materials launch approach to the North Fork of the Flathead

River rather than Coal Creek.

The continuation of this existing access at the mouth of Coal Creek would not be in conflict with

the intent of the ongoing Coal Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (developed because Coal Creek

is listed as an impaired stream on the Montana Department of Environmental 303(d) Report).

This is because the intent of the watershed restoration plan was dealing with sediment sources

several miles upstream from the mouth of Coal Creek. As described earlier there is very little

potential for soil erosion to occur on these cobbly, loamy sandy soils. If any erosion were to

occur it would immediately settle out of the water column.

Soil Quality – Long-Term Productivity Effects

The existing soil quality conditions have been reviewed and are not considered to be exceeding

soil quality standards. The R-1 Soil Quality Standard of less than 15% aerial detrimental soil

disturbance was assessed for each of the cross-country travel areas. Soil quality standards do not

apply to intensively developed areas such as developed recreation sites, administrative sites, or

rock quarries. They also do not apply to designated system roads/trails, or in areas where there

are geologic materials not having soil pedogenic processes occurring (e.g. geologic materials


47

within stream channels). Based upon this review none of the cross-country travel areas were

reported to have detrimental soil disturbance in excess of 10% on the portions of the polygons

that qualify for the soil quality standards to be applied. The maps of cross-country travel areas,

estimated soil disturbance, assumptions, and pass monitoring transects used in the assessment are

in the project record. Additionally, none of the user created routes used by motorized vehicles in

the areas associated with this project would exceed 15% R-1 Soil Quality Standard.

Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action)


Water Yield Effects and Nutrient Yield Effects

There would be no effects; see direct/indirect effects for Alternative 1.


There would be no measurable effects, the same as described for Alternative 1. The potential risk

of a gasoline spill remains the same from Alternative 1.

Soil Quality-Soil Erosion and Water Quality-Sediment Yield Effects

Alternative 2 would implement the placement of best management practices (BMP) water

drainage structures (e.g. drive–thru-dips) on the ATV trails at the Cedar Flats and FK&L sites.

This would reduce the estimated soil erosion to 1.5 tons/year, and the potential sediment yield to

approximately six pounds per year. Therefore, there would be no measurable effect to the

sediment yield to any of the streams in the areas of the OHV tracks, motorized trail segments, or

designated recreational areas on the river corridors or Hungry Horse Reservoir. A short segment

of existing trail that crosses near a wetland area is proposed for designation under Alternative 2;

this segment would go around this area and therefore not degrade the wetland site.


There would be a reduction in potential soil compaction, rutting, and erosion under Alternative 2

due to the reduced mileage of user created OHV trails now in use. The trails not in use would re-

vegetate and the detrimental soil disturbance would reduce over time. The estimated detrimental

soil disturbance at the cross-country travel areas proposed under Alternative 2 would be the same

as reported for Alternative1.


48

Alternative 3


Water Yield Effects and Nutrient Yield Effects




Soil Quality-Soil Erosion and Water Quality-Sediment Yield Effects

Proposed activities under Alternative 3 would implement the placement of BMP water drainage

structures (e.g. drive–thru-dips) on the motorized trails at Cedar Flats and FK&L. This would

reduce the estimated soil erosion to one ton/year, and the estimated sediment potential to

approximately 4 pounds per year. Therefore, there would be no measurable effect to the

sediment yield to any of the streams in the areas of the OHV, motorized trail segments, or

designated recreational areas on the river corridors or Hungry Horse Reservoir.


There would be a reduction in potential soil compaction, rutting, and erosion under Alternative 3

due to the reduced of mileage of user-created OHV routesnow in use. The routes not in use

would revegetate and the detrimental soil disturbance would reduce over time. The estimated

detrimental soil disturbance at the cross-country travel areas proposed under Alternative 3 would

be the same as reported for Alternative1; however, there would be slightly less detrimental soil

disturbance in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 because of the smaller number of motorized user-

created routes.


Table 4. Summary of Effects for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3

Effects Indicators Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 & 3

Water Effects

Potential Water Yield Increase No measurable effect No measurable effect

Potential Water Nutrient Yield

Increase No measurable effect No measurable effect

Potential Chemical Pollution

Increase No measurable effect

No measurable effect

(potential for decreased risk due to

public information efforts)


49

Effects Indicators Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 & 3

Potential Soil Erosion - Sediment

Yield Increase

OHV areas: Estimated soil

erosion of 3.2 tons/year.

Cedar Flats & FKL: Estimated

726 pounds/year potential

sediment yield.

OHV areas: Decrease in existing

soil erosion due to BMP

implementation (down to 1.5

tons/year in Alt. 2 and 1.0 tons/year

in Alt. 3).

Cedar Flats: Estimated 4-6

pounds/year potential sediment yield

with no measurable effect to

sediment yield.

FK&L: No sediment yield.

Soils Effects

Potential Change in Soil

Productivity (soil compaction, soil

displacement) and Soil Erosion.

Less than 10% Detrimental Soil

Disturbances at Cross Country

Travel Areas

Reduced Detrimental Soil

Disturbance

Alternatives 2 & 3

Cumulative Effects (Water and Soils)

The project cumulative effects area for considerations of water quantity, water quality, and soil

quality effects are all the watersheds on the HH/GV Ranger Districts.

As described in the direct effects analysis, there are no measurable impacts to the water quantity,

water quality, and soil quality from either Alternative 2 or 3. In fact, there is a decrease in

potential impacts to the water and soil resources from the existing condition with the

implementation of Alternative 2 or 3. The Cedar Flats area would continue to deliver a small

amount of sediment (4-6 pounds per year), but it would be so small as to be virtually

immeasurable, and would be much less than is currently being delivered under the existing

condition. Because there would be no measurable direct effects, there would be no cumulative

effects from any of the alternatives.


The proposed action meets the Clean Water Act, Montana State Water Quality Standards,

Montana Streamside Management Zone Law, and Forest Plan Water Standards.


50

Fisheries


The project area includes watersheds in the North, South and Middle Forks Flathead River.

The North Fork Flathead River (North Fork) originates in British Columbia, Canada, and flows

south for 50 miles to the international boundary. It then flows another 58 miles south before

joining the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. South of the border, all eastern tributaries

originate in Glacier National Park, and do not support bull trout populations with the exception

of disjunct populations in lakes that move from the lake into the inlets to spawn. The reason for

this is believed to be the geology of the area and most likely thermal restrictions originating from

lakes.

There are five major tributaries to the North Fork on the Flathead National Forest that support

bull trout spawning (Trail, Whale, Red Meadow, Coal, and Big Creeks). In addition, six

tributaries in Canada (Howell, Cabin, Couldrey, Sage, Starvation, and Kishenehn) are known to

support bull trout. Redds have also been found in the main stem in Canada. Fifty-eight miles of

the North Fork are under the Wild & Scenic River Act designation. The North Fork is

considered a wild, sparsely populated area, which for the most part supports an intact functioning

ecosystem.

The Middle Fork Flathead River originates in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, and flows south to

Highway 2 and Bear Creek. Ninety-two miles of the Middle Fork are under Wild & Scenic

River Act designation. Bull trout primarily use the Middle Fork as a migration corridor to spawn

in wilderness streams and Bear Creek which parallels Highway 2.

Species Description:

Two basic life history forms of bull trout are known to occur: resident and migratory. Resident

bull trout spend their entire lives in their natal streams, while migratory bull trout travel

downstream as juveniles to rear in larger rivers (fluvial types) or lakes (adfluvial types). Bull

trout populations in the Flathead basin are believed to be predominantly an adfluvial migratory

group, with juveniles typically moving down to a lake at age 2-3, and returning at about age 6 to

spawn. Bull trout spawning occurs in the fall, and the eggs incubate in the stream gravel until

hatching in January (Fraley and Shepard 1989). The alevins remain in the gravel for several

more months and emerge as fry in early spring. Unlike many anadromous salmonids, which

spawn once and die, bull trout are capable of multi-year spawning (Fraley and Shepard 1989).

Several factors have contributed to the regional decline of bull trout, including the Flathead Lake

population. Habitat degradation, interaction with exotic species, over-harvest, and fragmentation

of habitat by dams and diversions have all been implicated (Rieman and McIntyre 1995).

Substrate size and quality, the availability of cover, and stream channel stability are other habitat


51

requirements linked to bull trout abundance (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Bull trout embryo

and fry survival decreases with increasing fine sediment levels in spawning gravels (Fraley and

Shepard 1989). Juvenile bull trout are especially dependant upon stable cobble and boulder

substrate for daytime cover and over-winter survival (Thurow 1997). Adult bull trout utilize

pool habitats and under-cut stream banks, often in conjunction with large woody debris cover

(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Where bull trout are sympatric with non-native eastern brook

trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) hybridization between the species has resulted in displacement of

bull trout (Leary et al. 1993). Bull trout are believed to be the most thermally sensitive salmonid

native to western Montana, with a marked preference for streams with cold water temperatures

(Fraley and Shepard 1989). Specifically, bull trout are seldom found in streams in which

summer maximum temperatures exceed 16 º C, and virtually never found in streams that exceed

20 º C (Dunham et al. 2003; Gamett 2002).

A change in the species composition of Flathead Lake is perhaps the single factor most

responsible for the decline of the Flathead Lake bull trout subpopulation (McIntyre 1998).

Flathead Lake has gone through a major change over the last two decades. Opossum shrimp

(Mysis relicta) first showed up in Flathead Lake in 1981 after being stocked into three upstream

lakes between 1968 and 1975. Mysis numbers in Flathead Lake peaked in 1986. Two non-native

species, lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis)

expanded as juveniles benefited from the addition of Mysis to the prey base. The expansion of

these species has contributed to the decline of bull trout (McIntyre 1998). The mechanisms for

the decline are not well understood since only a few bull trout have shown up in lake trout

stomachs, so competition appears likely. This conclusion is substantiated by the fact that bull

trout populations remain healthy in Swan Lake and Hungry Horse Reservoir where lake trout are

absent. Bull trout in the Flathead Lake population have declined equally in wilderness and

managed areas, suggesting that habitat degradation may not be the primary factor in their

decline.

Westslope Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisii) have a similar life history and habitat

requirements as bull trout and likewise have been impacted from food web changes in Flathead

Lake although not to the extent of bull trout.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed Critical Habitat for bull trout on January 14, 2010.

The proposal includes the North, South, and Middle Fork Flathead Rivers along with Hungry

Horse Reservoir within the project area. In addition, tributaries where bull trout spawn have also

been proposed for designation.


52




Currently, forest users may use a motorized vehicle to travel up to 300 feet to a dispersed camp

from a designated road/trail on HH/GV Ranger Districts. In a few places, this 300 feet of

motorized access from roads/trails within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor has caused riparian

vegetation to become compacted as trails are formed from the old floodplain terraces down to the

river. Erosion is limited due to the large gravel and cobble that is deposited on gravel bars as the

river recedes from high spring flows. Impacts are more aesthetic and there is no impact to fish or

fish habitat from these trails.

Motorized access to dispersed sites also occurs along Hungry Horse Reservoir. Damage to

riparian vegetation is less than in the Wild and Scenic River corridor because most motorized

recreation occurs below the full pool elevation of 3,560 feet when the reservoir is drawn down.

Vegetation is less established in these sites due to the annual fluctuation in water levels. Once

again, the impacts are aesthetic due to the tracks and occasional ruts; however, the motorized

activities do not impact fish or fish habitat. As the reservoir fills, the loose unconsolidated fines

would be suspended temporarily and settle back out to the bottom.

In addition, the potential exists for engine leaks or damaged crankcases to contaminate the

rivers/reservoir, though it is likely rare (see hydrology section). These leaks would lead to a

reduction in water quality, but would not impact fish or fish habitat because the minimal amount

of contaminants expected would be diluted by the volume of water in the rivers/reservoir.

These leaks would lead to a reduction in water quality, but would not impact fish or fish habitat

because the amount would be so minimal which would become diluted with the volume of water

in the rivers/reservoir.

The existing motorized vehicle use patterns at the River and Reservoir Access Sites have not

resulted in significant effects to fish populations nor are they expected to pose a significant risk

to fish populations because the areas are used as migration corridors or in the case of the

reservoir as rearing habitat. Sediment would need to increase in spawning areas in order to have

an impact on fish or rearing areas such as pools in streams would need to be filled excessively so

that overwintering habitat is reduced or interstitial areas between substrates are filled and insect

production is reduced, thereby impacting a food source. The existing condition as well as the

location of the sites, i.e. along large water bodies do not lend themselves to significant impacts.

The remaining sites, Cedar Flats and Hungry Horse Track, would not affect fisheries or water

quality because there are no streams nearby where sediment or contaminants can be routed.


53

Alternatives 2 & 3


There would be no effects to fisheries or water quality associated with Cedar Flats, Hungry

Horse Track, because there are no streams nearby where sediment or contaminants can be routed.

Riparian conditions along the river sites and Hungry Horse Reservoir would improve under both

alternatives because motorized vehicle use would be more restricted. Vehicles would no longer

have unlimited access below the full pool along the Reservoir, and would be limited to

delineated areas along the rivers as shown on the MVUM map. Limiting access to a certain

number of designated sites along the rivers and reservoir would result in fewer vehicle tracks or

ruts that would have the potential to route sediment to these waterbodies. Lastly, since areas are

delineated for use, vehicles would no longer be allowed to drive up and down along gravel bars

from the designated areas, which would reduce the likelihood of fuel leaks or punctured

crankcases and thus reduce the potential routing of contaminants to waterbodies. Gas or fuel

storage would also be limited to the designated sites.

Overall, while there would be an improvement in riparian conditions; the improvement would

not be of sufficient magnitude to improve fish populations in these areas. Therefore, alternatives

2 and 3 would have “no effect” on bull trout or westslope cutthroat trout populations. In addition

there would be “no impact” on proposed critical habitat for bull trout. Migration corridors along

the rivers or rearing habitat in Hungry Horse Reservoir will not be impacted or compromised

because of the limited nature of the activity. Riparian conditions should improve but fish

populations will not increase as a result of riparian improvements. At best, more terrestrial

insects would be available as food items.

Cumulative Effects

There would be an improvement in riparian conditions, potentially including a reduction in

noxious weeds over the long term. In the long term, if weeds were reduced due to fewer dispersal

mechanisms (i.e. vehicles), then there would be less spraying in riparian area. Other than this

improvement, there would be no cumulative effects associated with this project.


The Forest Plan is the primary document that codifies management standards and guidelines

governing activity on national forest lands. Management standards for and related to fisheries

habitat are contained in the Flathead Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1985), pages II-21 - II-

22, and II-26 – II-35. In addition, a separate management area (MA 12) was established for

riparian areas where specific standards and guides apply (III-52-60). Originally adopted in 1986,

the Flathead Forest Plan was amended in 1990 (Amendment #3) to better define the standards for

protection of fish populations.


54

The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA Forest Service 1995) amended the Flathead

Forest Plan on August 30, 1995. INFISH is an aquatic conservation strategy developed by the

Forest Service to protect habitat and populations of all native fish (USDA Forest Service 1995).

This interim strategy was designed to provide additional protection for existing populations of

native fish, outside the range of anadromous fish, on 22 National Forests in the Pacific

Northwest, Northern, and Intermountain Regions.

INFISH designated Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) around all bodies of water on

forest-administered lands. The RHCAs are areas where specific management activities are

subject to standards and guidelines in INFISH in addition to existing standards and guidelines in

the Flathead Forest Plan. The RHCAs are defined for four categories of stream or water body

dependent on flow conditions and presence of fish.

INFISH Guideline RA-4 prohibits storage of fuels or refueling within RHCAs. This guideline is

to intended to provide direction for timber management and fire suppression activities rather than

recreational boating activities.

Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with the LRMP and INFISH and should improve riparian

conditions.


55

Wildlife

Introduction

The CHR Project proposes to designate specific areas and/or routes where motorized use occurs.

For wildlife species affected by motorized vehicle use, the primary documented responses have

included mortality, disturbance, avoidance, and displacement. However, when motorized use

occurs in high quality habitats, some species of wildlife may become habituated to human

presence and/or disturbance and fail to exhibit expected and often biologically advantageous

avoidance behavioral responses. At the lower-end of effects, motorized use adjacent to wildlife

habitat may include minor short-term disturbances, whereas at the higher-end of effects,

motorized use may include habituation, reduced habitat availability, and increased mortality risk.

It is likely that the primary potential effects to wildlife from the proposed CHR Project are

changes in disturbance and displacement related to changes in levels and types of motorized use.

Data used for the analysis were from existing resource information sources, research literature,

aerial photography and field visits and knowledge of the proposed areas. Arcview geographical

information system was used for quantification of various habitat characteristics. Habitat quality

adjacent to proposed designated areas were considered during effects analysis.

Analysis Area

The proposed action is spread throughout the North, Middle and South Forks of the Flathead

River drainage on the Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts. Fourteen grizzly bear

subunits were used for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis. The grizzly bear section

defines subunits and lists the fourteen subunits used for this analysis. This common analysis area

is larger than needed for most species but would encompass all anticipated effects to wildlife for

the proposed CHR Project. Analysis areas for individual species are described in later sections

only if they differed from that described here, such as for Canada lynx.

Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species

Individual species or groups of species analyzed may experience unique effects from the

alternatives of this proposal, but a majority of the potential effects of this project are of a general,

common, and largely unquantifiable nature. The following sections summarize unique potential

impacts to threatened, endangered, sensitive, management indicator, and other species, pursuant

to regulatory guidelines and current management direction described in later sections.

The effects indicator for wildlife in this analysis was whether Alternatives 2 and 3 would have

additional disturbance/displacement impacts as compared to the existing situation. Alternatives

2 and 3 are nearly identical except for a reduction in designated route mileage in the Cedar Flats

area. Based on this relatively minor difference between the two action alternatives, this analysis

assumed that both alternatives would have similar effects to wildlife.


56



Under this alternative, motorized access would remain the same on the affected roads, trails and

areas. Cross-country travel below the high-water line along the Hungry Horse Reservoir and

within the Wild and Scenic River corridor would continue to be allowed, and the current

direction allowing motorized access within 300 feet of an existing route for dispersed camping

would remain in place, including in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor.

If current amounts of allowed uses persist, the baseline condition for wildlife would be

maintained. The physical baseline condition at these sites, as it pertains to most wildlife species,

can be generally characterized as hardened surface areas such as: 1) areas used for recreating

below the high water mark of the Hungry Horse Reservoir; 2) historical use sites in areas such as

Wurtz or Ford and Sondreson Meadows; and 3) user created routes such as at Cedar Flats or the

Hungry Horse track. The baseline also includes disturbance and displacement for multiple

species associated with motorized vehicle use, as well as risk of food conditioning where

attractants are not properly stored and habituation where animals become accustomed to human

presence. Travel routes and corridors, particularly for large mammals, are likely disrupted in

some areas where cross-country travel is permitted. Travel below high-water line has the

potential to displace animals using or traveling through the area.

If levels and/or extent of use, particularly motorized use, increases over time, negative effects

described above would be expected to also increase. In particular, increases in allowable

motorized use within 300’ of open routes for dispersed camping would be likely to increase

negative impacts to wildlife, especially in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor, as described

above. The likelihood of this occurring cannot be precisely anticipated as the number of sites

that have been established in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor or reservoir shoreline is not

known. Future user-created sites are generally limited by terrain, topography, and access points.

Overall, current and potentially increasing future disturbance and displacement of wildlife due to

motorized vehicle use in the project area are expected to represent negative (but not significantly

adverse) impacts to wildlife. This is due to a combination of factors for various portions of the

project area, as discussed further in individual species sections where applicable. The primary

factors leading to this conclusion are a) the proximity of most of the project area to other

motorized routes, b) the proximity of the motorized use areas to private land, homes, and other

human use areas, and c) limitations to future user created sites discussed earlier. Due to the

proximity to other human disturbance and/or development, motorized use is not expected to

significantly decrease connectivity or habitat value in these areas.

Cumulative Effects

The HH/GV Ranger Districts have been involved with the implementation of Amendment 19

motorized access objectives (USDA Forest Service 1994, 2005) since 1995, and this has resulted


57

in a reduction of routes open to wheeled-motorized uses between April and December (grizzly

bear non-denning season) within the project area. This has resulted in improved habitat security

for numerous wildlife species, particularly large mammals. Forest Plan Amendment 19 is

discussed in further detail in the grizzly bear section of the Biological Assessment (BA). By

reducing motorized routes open during the non-denning season, Amendment 19 has significantly

changed the forest landscape within and beyond the project area, and wildlife security has been

increasing as legal, motorized routes have been decreasing.

Private land development generally means a decrease of potential habitat for wildlife. However,

how land is developed makes a difference in terms of whether wildlife continues using habitats

near/adjacent to the land development. In general, private land development is not considered

beneficial to wildlife.

Sightseeing, hiking, walking, camping, boating and floating, hunting, biking, cross-country

skiing, fishing, snowmobiling, wheeled motorized vehicle use, and cabin rentals are activities

that can affected wildlife security and have produced displacement/disturbance of wildlife

adjacent to where these activities have occurred. These types of human activities have been

occurring for decades in the analysis area and are considered part of the existing condition.

The analysis area for the CHR Project overlaps several recent and on-going Forest Service

projects including: Red Whale Project in 2008, Belton Fuels Reduction Project in 2008,

Blankenship Fuels Reduction Project in 2006, Robert Wedge Post-Fire Project in 2004, Westside

Reservoir Post Fire Project in 2004, Cedar Spoon Fuels Reduction Project in 2004, Moose Post-

fire Project in 2002, Paint Emery Resource Management Project in 1999, and the Middle Fork

Fuels Reduction Project. These projects altered vegetation in ways that benefited wildlife by

increasing food availability and stand condition diversity. In some cases, they can reduce short

or longer term habitat value for wildlife (such as through disturbance during implementation,

removal of cover, and removal of/reductions in beneficial stand conditions for some species

habitat needs). Net reductions in motorized access, primarily pursuant to meeting Amendment

19 objectives, occurred on multiple projects as well. The influences of past forest management

activities that is most likely to interact with CHR Project are the changes each made in access

density.

Current motorized activities cause displacement and disturbance cumulative to the effects of the

diverse on-going activities discussed above; the cumulative influences of motorized activities

under the no-action alternative would increase if current allowable use increases over time.

Alternatives 2 & 3


All of the roads, trails and areas proposed for designation have had historical use and are

currently being used by motorized vehicles. Only in the Cedar Flats area would the proposal

actually result in vegetation being altered as a result of the construction of relatively short route

segments. The discussions below compare changes in use that occur as a result of Alternatives 2


58

and 3 with changes that would not occur under the no-action alternative. In other words, while

evaluating effects to wildlife, it should be noted that potential increases in use levels at the

specific sites could occur over time under all alternatives.

Cedar Flats

Miles of designated motorized trail are reduced in both alternatives; from more than 15 miles to

9 miles in Alternative 2, and to 7 miles in Alternative 3. The area of disturbance would decrease

in either alternative. There is and will continue to be, a relatively high level of human impacts in

the Cedar Flats area from the adjacent residences, open roads (small private, Forest Service and

county), and heavy motorized uses.

The two segments of new motorized trail proposed in Alternative 2 and three segments in

Alternative 3 (and/or additional minor re-routes for resource protection) would include ground

disturbance, but since this would occur within the existing motorized trail system, this would

expect to have very little impact on most wildlife species. A benefit to wildlife would be

expected if this segment helps keep motorized vehicle use within allowed areas.

Seasonal closure (December 30 to May 31) of 1.5 miles of a portion of the open-yearlong Road

#10815 along with changes listed above, would be expected to reduce disturbance in the area,

increasing habitat quality and relative security.

Hungry Horse Track

Alternatives 2 and 3 would restrict motorized access to some currently open roads, would

designate motorized use on the existing trail system and designate a season for the roads, trails,

and track of April 1 to November 30. This area lies between open roads, and due to the trails,

does not currently reflect secure habitat for wildlife which typically requires a distance of

hundreds of feet, depending on the species, from an open road. The ability of large mammals to

pass through the area would be increased.


The proposal for this area is the same under all alternatives. Vehicle use below the high-water

line is currently unrestricted; however, the shoreline creates topographical barriers, so that

historic motorized areas have stayed consistent for approximately the last decade. All

alternatives would designate these historic motorized areas to maintain access to the reservoir.

Designating use areas would increase availability of riparian habitats of seasonal and/or year

round importance to many species. As with the Wild and Scenic River Corridor, the general

ability of wildlife to travel below the high-water line would be improved. Disturbance and

displacement would be decreased.

In the FK&L area, motorized use would be restricted to motorized vehicles 50 inches or less.

Since the resulting change in use levels is difficult to anticipate, it is difficult to discern whether

changes in disturbance, displacement, or relative wildlife security would be expected to occur.


59

However, it is likely that fewer campers will choose to use the end of the route for camping,

which may result in somewhat lesser disturbance to wildlife.

Wild and Scenic River Corridor

Since the area where motorized access is allowed would be reduced, habitat availability and

relative security would be expected to increase and disturbance and displacement would be

expected to decrease. These corridors are important, particularly to wide ranging mammals and

several bird species. They provide for seasonal and year round foraging, and for secure travel

which ensures crucial habitat connectivity in many areas affected by this proposal. It is within

the Wild and Scenic River Corridors that wildlife mortality risk is most likely to be reduced by

Alternatives 2 and 3. Decreased motorized use and protection from potential future increased

use in these areas would be considered beneficial to wildlife.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 is similar for Alternatives 2 and 3;

however, the two action alternatives represent a further reduction of motorized use in the

analysis area. These reductions would be positively cumulative to the far reaching beneficial

effects to wildlife security from the ongoing implementation of Amendment 19, (discussed in the

cumulative effects section for the no-action alternative). Therefore, considering the

environmental baseline (existing condition) and the existing potential effects to wildlife from

ongoing human activities (see no-action cumulative effects), it does not appear that the selection

of either Alternative 2 or 3 would adversely cumulatively impact wildlife, but would rather offer

cumulative benefit.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Grizzly Bear (Threatened)

Analysis Area

A grizzly bear subunit is an area that approximates the size of a female home range (~30-50 mi2)

and is commonly used to analyze the status of habitat security for grizzly bears. Subunits on the

Flathead National Forest were delineated to include seasonal and elevational habitat distribution,

as recommended by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC 1994). Twenty-five

subunits were used for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis (for bears and for wildlife

in general, unless stated otherwise for individual species). The twenty-five subunits include

Coram Lake Five, Peters Ridge, Riverside Paint, Stanton Paola, Dickey Java, Canyon McGinnis,

Cedar Teakettle, Lower Big Creek, Logan dry Park, Hay Creek, Lower Whale, Red Meadow

Moose, and State Coal Cyclone, Moccasin Crystal, Emery Firefighter, Doris Lost Johnny, Jewel

Basin Graves, Wheeler Quintonkon, Kah Soldier, Lower Win, Jungle Addition, Bunker Creek,

Harrison Mid, and Ketchikan. Further detail regarding subunits is available in the BA.


60


In addition to general disturbance effects discussed that would be common to wildlife, the

primary effects indicator for grizzly bear in this analysis was whether the proposed CHR Project

would result in a numeric change in Amendment 19 standards within any of the subunits.



The designation of existing allowable motorized use as proposed in the no-action alternative

would not result in any changes to motorized route densities as calculated under A-19. If

current amounts of allowed use persist, the baseline condition for bears would be maintained in

terms of: 1) wide dispersion of sites, 2) proposed sites are already established and currently have

motorized use, 3) use of the site would slightly decrease in size and/or be precluded from

increase in others, 4) none of the proposed sites would produce a change in the percentages for

A-19 standards within any of the potential affected sub-units.

As described earlier in the Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section,

potential increased motorized use for dispersed camping could increase the potential for effects

listed above.

Cumulative Effects

The common cumulative effects in terms of on-going human activities discussed earlier under

the no-action alternative are applicable to grizzly bears. The influences discussed pertaining to

motorized access are particularly true for grizzly bears, since multiple negative impacts specific

to bears have been documented associated with motorized use (including but not limited to

reduced habitat availability, reduced habitat security, and increased mortality). As was stated for

wildlife in general, it is also true for bears that this alternative would make no cumulative

difference in terms of the ongoing implementation of motorized access restrictions as guided by

Amendment 19.

Habitat security/effectiveness for grizzly bears has also been improving in the analysis area as a

result of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Food Storage Order. Beginning in

1998 and revised in 2000, this special order requires people while on National Forest System

land to store bear attractants in a bear resistant manner. There probably will never be 100%

adherence to this order; however, it has undoubtedly reduced the amount of bear-human conflicts

related to improperly stored bear attractants.


61

As for wildlife in general, on-going disturbance associated with these motorized use areas would

remain cumulative to the on-going human influences discussed here and discussed earlier as

common to wildlife.

Alternatives 2 & 3


See Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section; the effects described for

each site are applicable to grizzly bears. However, several factors suggest that the CHR Project,

as proposed, would have relatively minor effects on grizzly bear habitat suitability: 1) the sites

and/or routes are widely dispersed within the North, South and Middle Forks of the Flathead

River drainages; 2) with the exception of the Cedar Flats area, the proposed routes and/or

motorized use areas in the CHR are generally short/small; 3) motorized use historically has and

continues to occur at all of the proposed sites; and 4) none of the proposed sites would produce a

change in the percentages for A19 standards within any of the potentially affected subunits.

The effects to bears described above under the no-action alternative as part of the baseline for

bears would be reduced to varying extents at each site. The most important beneficial reduction

for bears is likely the rescinding of 300’ foot motorized use allowance for dispersed camping in

WSRC, as this could reduce the potential for future disturbance in spring and increase future

availability of important spring habitats for bears. Additionally, reducing the number of riparian

areas where motorized access is allowed will help reduce grizzly bear mortality risk and help

reduce the risk of food rewards.

Cumulative Effects

The common cumulative effects in terms of on-going human activities discussed earlier under

the action alternatives also relate strongly to grizzly bears; particularly the strong cumulative

influence of Amendment 19, but also the context of other on-going activities. The food storage

order, as mentioned above in cumulative effects for bears of the no-action alternative, would be

an important element of cumulative effects to bears. The action alternatives would not

cumulatively adversely impact bears, but rather would offer some amount of cumulative benefit

as compared to the no-action alternative through reduced disturbance and additional limitations

to future increases in motorized access areas in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor.


62

Canada Lynx (Threatened)

Analysis Area

The changes proposed by the CHR Project would occur within 33 Lynx Analysis Units (LAU)

which together formed the analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The thirty-

three LAU are: Moose, Red Meadow, Lower Coal, Lower Big, Canyon, Teakettle, North Trail,

South Trail, Hay, Moccasin Nyack, Paola Ridge, Stanton Grant, Lake Five, Essex Java, Paola

Ridge, Coram Abbot, Murray Canyon, Wildcat Mtn, Felix Logan, Doris Creek, Clayton Anna,

Graves Forest, Wheeler, Quitonkon, Kah Soldier, Stony Jungle, Bunker Creek, Lost Jack Mid,

Spotted Bear Mountain, Peters Crossover, South Firefighter, Hungry Horse Creek, Sullivan


Negative effects to Canada lynx would be expected if: 1) the CHR Project fails to fully meet any

of the goals, objectives, standards or guidelines contained in the Northern Rockies Lynx

Management Direction (NRLMD) within any of the affected LAU, 2) existing lynx habitat is

reduced; 3) negative impacts or reductions to critical habitat or its primary constituent element

(PCE) occur. These constitute the effects indicators for lynx.



See Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section; the general disturbance

effects discussed that would be common to wildlife are broadly applicable to lynx as well. The

baseline for lynx is influenced in general by motorized access density, the overall amount of

human use/disturbance, and the number of developed sites (including existing motorized use

areas). Lynx have not been documented to avoid roads to as great an extent as other forest

carnivores have been, although general disturbance associated with motorized use of these areas

likely causes some amount of lynx avoidance. Associated hardening of surfaces and reductions

in brush have already occurred, which has reduced lynx habitat and potentially some amount of

snowshoe hare habitat (a component of the lynx critical habitat PCE, further discussed in the

BA).

Several of the sites identified in the CHR Project are surrounded by mapped lynx habitat and/or

critical habitat. However, the sites themselves are specifically identified as sites where

motorized use has been ongoing (considered “developed sites” from a lynx analysis perspective,

in terms of existing physical condition); they do not contain lynx habitat components and are not

considered critical habitat (the BA contains further discussion of lynx critical habitat). The Wild

and Scenic River Corridor contains critical habitat for lynx.


63

The no-action alternative complies with the NRLMD. Under current use and considering

existing motorized use areas, no reductions in lynx habitat or critical habitat would occur.

Maintaining the 300 feet allowance for dispersed camping in Wild and Scenic River Corridor

could allow future incursions into currently suitable lynx habitats and/or could impede travel

through affected riparian habitat, as discussed for wildlife in general. These increases in

motorized use in Wild and Scenic River Corridor are currently allowed and would remain

allowable under this alternative. Cross-country travel below the high-water line along the

reservoir does not occur within lynx habitat. Therefore, the risk of increased motorized use in

the Wild and Scenic River Corridor is the potential negative impact to lynx with the highest

likelihood of occurrence.

Cumulative Effects

See Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section; the general cumulative

influences discussed are broadly applicable to lynx as well. Lynx, however, may not be as

influenced by human presence as other carnivores, so that general disturbance may have a lesser

impact to lynx. However, since continued private land development and human disturbance are

expected, some amount of displacement is expected as well. As public and private habitats/sites

are developed, displacement or increased displacement under the no-action would be cumulative

to displacement occurring due to on-going human activities described for common cumulative

effects.

Past vegetation management practices such as timber harvesting of older-aged, multi-storied

coniferous forests and thinning of regenerating sapling-sized stands have been more detrimental

than beneficial for lynx while favorable stand conditions regenerated/were re-established. Over

longer time frames and on broader spatial scales, the same practices may also have contributed to

diversity in stand conditions and seral stages, offering benefits to lynx over longer time frames.

Maintaining the 300 feet allowance for dispersed camping in Wild and Scenic River Corridor

would be considered additive to habitat reduction and general displacement of lynx associated

with on-going activities described earlier.

Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) & 3


See Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section for general direct and

indirect effects at each site or area. Only minute portions of each LAU would be affected by

proposed changes in the CHR Project. Where designations reduce motorized use and limit future

motorized use, vegetation may regenerate over time in previously disturbed areas and future

losses of lynx habitat would be prevented. This is particularly true in the Wild and Scenic River

Corridor, where total acreage of area available (which includes mapped lynx habitat and

designated critical habitat) for dispersed camping within 300 feet of open routes is reduced (see

BA for greater detail). Existing sites and routes are not currently considered lynx habitat or

critical habitat, as discussed earlier (and further discussed in the BA). Changes in the Cedar

Flats area include creation of small route connectors within existing trail systems.


64

Human use projects such as special use permits, recreation management, roads, highways, and

mineral/energy development have the potential to affect lynx. However, the CHR Project was

found to be compliant with the NRLMD’s six objectives and 12 guidelines related to human

uses. Similarly, linkage area objectives and guidelines would be met.

Cumulative Effects

See Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section and cumulative effects

discussion for the no-action alternative. Since these alternatives would limit new motorized use

in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor (limiting designation to 9 existing locations), these

alternatives would each offer cumulative benefit to lynx by reducing the potential for future

reductions in habitat. Similarly, all other reductions (through site designations or by reducing

cross-country travel) could potentially cumulatively benefit lynx. The effect to habitat

connectivity ranges from no effect to beneficial (assuming that the number of use areas could

have increased without implementation of the proposed action).

The CHR Project would not be negatively additive to past land management activities. Nothing

in the analysis indicated that that CHR Project would adversely affect Canada lynx. Particularly

by limiting future motorized use in Wild and Scenic River Corridor, the CHR Project could be

cumulatively positive for lynx and cumulatively beneficial in terms of critical habitat protection.

Sensitive Wildlife Species

In accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2673.42, determinations have been made as to

the degree of impact the proposed activities may have on sensitive species (Table 5). These

determination statements are for the segment of the population using the analysis area. A larger

scale analysis document (available in the project record) provides viability/diversity evaluations

for these species at larger spatial scales including that of the Flathead National Forest. These

statements are based on the available information on the distribution, presence/absence from the

project area, habitat requirements, and management strategies for these species, as well as the

project design and location. General direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for all alternatives

are discussed above in the “Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species” section;

earlier effects discussions in combination with species-specific considerations in the table below

summarize the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for

sensitive species.


65

Table 5. Potential Species-Specific Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife from the Proposed CHR Project (in addition to common

potential affects discussed earlier)

Species

Alt. 1 No

Action

Alt.2/3 Prop.

Action & Alt.

RATIONALE

Gray Wolf MIIH BI The gray wolf is a wide-ranging carnivore recently taken off the Endangered

Species list (5/4/09). No substantial change in the baseline for wolves would be

expected to occur under any of the three alternatives; wolves are likely to already

be avoiding the human-influenced areas within which most of these areas occur.

Prey species may be more likely to be affected by motorized use of these areas

than wolves. Under all alternatives, no activities/changes will occur near key

habitat features (dens, rendezvous sites); no expected change to

availability/abundance of prey. Proposed activities meet Forest Plan direction for

wolves. As for other carnivores, rescinding of the 300 foot allowance for

dispersed camping in Wild and Scenic River Corridor under the action alternatives

would be considered beneficial, as would overall reductions in motorized

areas/routes as compared to no action alternative.

Bald Eagle MIIH BI The bald eagle is a wide-ranging bird of prey that was recently removed from the

Endangered Species list (6/28/07). Post de-listing, National Bald Eagle

Management Guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007) recommend that no

potentially disruptive human activities occur within nesting areas during the

breeding season, from courtship to fledging of nestlings. None of the proposed

designated areas/routes for motorized use would be within any known nesting

territory on the Hungry Horse-Glacier View Ranger Districts. Rescinding of the

300’ allowance for dispersed camping in Wild and Scenic River Corridor under the

action alternatives would be considered beneficial for eagles, as it may protect

foraging habitat in the future.

Peregrine

Falcon

NI NI This bird of prey was removed from the Endangered Species list on (8/25/99). A

reduction of environmental contaminants was a primary factor in the recovery of


66

Species

Alt. 1 No

Action

Alt.2/3 Prop.

Action & Alt.

RATIONALE

the peregrine. A post-delisting monitoring plan was developed; monitoring

parameters include occupancy, nest success, and productivity (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 2003). The only known active peregrine nest on the HH/GV

Ranger District occurs in an area that will not be affected by any of the

alternatives. Known potential habitat would be unaffected.

Flammulated

Owl

NI NI No change to potential habitat under all alternatives. Flammulated owls occupy

mature forest types consisting of Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir.

Harlequin Duck MIIH BI Harlequins breed in clean, relatively remote, fast moving mountain streams; all 3

Wild and Scenic River Corridor areas have tributaries where current breeding is

known to occur and hens with broods (who move down to rivers in late summer)

are reported on the North, South, and Middle Forks of the Flathead River annually.

Accessibility of shorelines, measured in terms of proximity to roads, trails, or

recreation sites, is thought to be important to hens with broods (especially on

breeding streams). The no action alternative could bring increased disturbance to

hens with broods if the current 300 foot allowance for dispersed camping is

maintained in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor, whereas rescinding the 300 foot

allowance for dispersed camping under the action alternatives could lead to

reduced risk of additional disturbance in the future.

Common Loon NI NI Common loons breed in lower elevation lakes at least 10-13 acres in size. No

change to known or potential habitat.

Townsend’s Big

Eared Bat

NI NI Uses caves primarily for roosts and nurseries; occasionally uses tree cavities at all

elevations; insectivorous; forages nocturnally, mostly in openings. Big-eared bats

are very sensitive at/near roosting areas, especially during winter hibernation. No

change to potential habitat.


67

Species

Alt. 1 No

Action

Alt.2/3 Prop.

Action & Alt.

RATIONALE

Black-backed

Woodpecker

NI NI Associated with subalpine fir, spruce and lodgepole pine forests; somewhat

nomadic; populations tend to erupt after stand replacement fires. Feed on wood

boring and bark beetles. Black-backed woodpeckers are generally associated with

post-fire forest environments; historic and recent burn areas are dispersed

throughout the project area. Recent burns are in closes proximity to Wild and

Scenic River Corridor to the largest extent along the North Fork. Snag habitat has

been removed and will continue to be removed by campers and firewood cutters

throughout the project area, and deadwood has been removed in association with

the dispersed sites that will be designated in all proposals. No changes are

proposed to rules regarding camping or dead wood removal. Rescinding the 300

foot allowance for dispersed camping in Wild and Scenic River Corridor (under

the action alternatives) and designating only existing use areas (under all

alternatives) could incidentally reduce loss of snags, but camping and firewood

cutting will continue to lead to allowable removal of dead trees in these areas, so

that the difference under all alternatives, if any, would not be measurable.

Wolverine MIIH BI The wolverine is a very wide-ranging, medium-sized carnivore that spends most of

its time in higher elevation habitats. However, because the wolverine does roam

widely, it occasionally gets to lower elevation habitats where the potential exists to

travel and/or forage in or near proposed designated areas/routes. Therefore

displacement could occur under all alternatives. As for other carnivores,

rescinding the 300 foot allowance for dispersed camping under the action

alternatives could lead to reduced risk of additional disturbance in the future, as

compared to the no-action alternative.

Fisher MIIH BI The fisher is a forest-dwelling, medium-sized carnivore that makes a living in

closed-canopied, lower elevation forests. Trapped heavily in the past, the fisher is

considered relatively rare in northwest Montana. It prefers forests near streams and

has a relatively large home range. Since this species is considered to be strongly

associated with riparian corridors, rescinding the 300 foot allowance for dispersed

camping under the action alternatives could lead to at least somewhat reduced risk

of additional disturbance in the future, as compared to the no-action alternative.


68

Species

Alt. 1 No

Action

Alt.2/3 Prop.

Action & Alt.

RATIONALE

Northern

Leopard Frog

NI NI This amphibian is typically found in and adjacent to permanent slow-moving or

standing water, with growth of cattails or other aquatic vegetation (Werner and

Reichel 1996, Reichel and Flath 1995). The leopard frog has not been documented

in the project area in recent decades and there would be no expected change to

potential habitat.

Boreal Toad MIIH BI Boreal toads inhabit both wetland/riparian and upland sites; ponds and riparian

landtypes are present within the project area. The potential for individual toad

mortality as a result of motorized use in many of the areas to be designated would

be at least somewhat reduced in the action alternatives as compared to the no-

action alternative.

Northern Bog

Lemming NI

NI

The bog lemming is typically found in, or very near, thick mats of sphagnum moss

in bogs, fens, or other wet areas (Reichel and Beckstrom 1993). None of the

proposed areas or routes is adjacent to these kinds of habitats; no potential habitat

would be affected. NI = “No Impact”; MIIH = “May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population or

species”; BI= “Beneficial Impact.”


69

Other Wildlife Species

General direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for all alternatives are discussed above in the

Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section; earlier effects discussions in

combination with considerations for MIS and other species in the table below summarize the

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for MIS species (and

additional). As for sensitive species, a larger scale analysis document (available in the project

record) provides viability/diversity evaluations for these species at larger spatial scales including

that of the Flathead National Forest.

Table 6. Potential Impacts to Management Indicator Species and Other Wildlife (in addition to

common potential affects discussed earlier)

Species

Additional Potential Impacts

Elk (MIS), Mule

Deer(MIS), and

White-tailed

Deer

Generally, wild ungulates (deer, elk, moose) that are not habituated to human presence tend to

avoid roads that allow motorized use. Since all of the proposed areas/routes for designated

motorized use have had historical use, ungulates have already made either 1) an avoidance-type

behavioral adjustment or 2) have become habituated and use habitats adjacent to areas/routes

motorized with no obvious level of concern. All three alternatives will continue to cause

ungulate displacement and avoidance behaviors. Old Growth,

Snag, and

Deadwood

Habitat-

Associated

Species

Potential effects in terms of snag reductions or protections are discussed above in the Black-

backed woodpecker section of Table 3-7. The Proposed Action would have no effect s on old-

growth species because: 1) there would be no vegetation management actions; and 2) for the

most part, all proposed areas/routes have already had motorized uses and any impacts to old-

growth habitat integrity, such as snag/firewood cutting have probably already occurred.

Therefore, it is unlikely that any of the alternatives would have any discernable impacts on old-

growth habitat/wildlife species. Northern

Goshawk (MIS)

Alterations to nesting habitat would not be expected given existing human use of these areas.

Alterations to foraging habitat, if any would be expected to be negligible, and would be

associated with potential for additional disturbance (by maintaining the 300’ allowance for

dispersed camping in WSRC; see earlier discussions) under the no action alternative. This

species is not riparian associated, so that the potential for effects to this species, positive or

negative, appear to be extremely remote.

Neotropical

Migratory Birds

For many migratory birds, the most notable potential for impact would most likely be in

WSRC, associated with potential increased habitat alteration and/or disturbance under the no-

action alternative versus decreased potential disturbance/alteration under the action alternatives

(see earlier discussions regarding the 300’ allowance). Little to no change would be expected

associated with other portions of the project area, other than the general common potential

impacts discussed earlier.


The Endangered Species Act, recovery plans for threatened and endangered species, and

Flathead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) standards provide

habitat management direction for threatened and endangered species.


70

Multiple subunits in the analysis area do not currently meet Forest Plan Amendment 19 standards

(as further discussed in the BA), but A 19 related access densities will not change as a result of

the Proposed Action. In some areas, motorized routes and/or cross-country travel areas would

decrease and rescinding of the 300 foot motorized use allowance for dispersed camping in

WSRC could reduce the potential for future disturbance in spring and increase future availability

of important spring habitats for bears. In these ways, and through general restrictions and

reductions to disturbance in MS1 (as further described in the BA), management decisions and

design criteria for this project favor, and make this project compatible with, the needs of the

grizzly bear. Thus the effects of the Proposed Action would be consistent with Forest Plan

Standards, and Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines (1987).

Potential lynx habitat and designated lynx critical habitat both occur within the analysis area.

The project meets FNF Forest Plan management direction and standards, as established in the

NRLMD. As further discussed in the BA, the project would not result in the destruction or

adverse modification of lynx critical habitat nor any of the physical/biological elements of the

PCE.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976, Forest Service Manual 2670, and the Forest Plan

(and Amendment 21) provide habitat management direction for Northern Region Sensitive

Species. The Forest Plan provides habitat management direction for other Management

Indicator Species (e.g. deer and elk). The proposed project is consistent with the regulatory

framework and the proposed Forest Service action would not contribute to the loss of viability of

native species because of the beneficial effects to wildlife from implementing the action

alternatives.


71

Heritage Resources

The proposed areas were inventoried by a records search and an on-the-ground survey; which did

not result in the discovery of any historical or cultural sites. There are some historical and

prehistoric sites within the project area that would not be affected by any of the proposed

activities (refer to the historical documents in the Heritage section of the Project File for more

information). Any unknown sites found during project implementation would be protected.

Thus, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to heritage/cultural resources and

this project complies with the National Historic Preservation Act.


72

LITERATURE CITED Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Plant species of concern, June 2006. MNTHP, Helena, MT. 48 pp.

Reichel, J. D. and S. G. Beckstrom. 1993. Northern bog lemming survey: 1992. Montana Natural Heritage

Program, Helena, MT. 64 pp.

Reichel, J., and D. Flath. 1995. Identification of Montana’s amphibians and reptiles. Montana Outdoors 26(3):15-

34.

Stanford, J.A., Ellis, B.K., Craft, J. A., and G.C. Poole. 1997. Water quality data and analysis to aid in the

development of revised water quality targets for Flathead Lake, Montana; Phase I of a cooperative study to

determine total maximum daily loads of nitrogen and phosphorous. Open File Report 142-97. Flathead

Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, MT. 154 pp.

Thorpe, Andrea S, Vince Archer, and Thomas H. DeLuca. 2006. The invasive forb, Centaurea maculosa,

increases phosphorus availability in Montana grasslands. Applied Soil Ecology 32: 118–122.

USDA Forest Service (D. Sirucek). 1982. Summary of the soil chemical and physical analysis data. Flathead

National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Flathead National Forest land and resource management plan. Kalispell, MT.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Decision Notice. Flathead land and resource management plan Amendment #19 -

allowable sale quantity and standards for grizzly bear habitat management. Flathead National Forest,

Kalispell, MT. 30 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Environmental Assessment for the interim strategies for managing fish-producing

watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana and portions of Nevada. USDA

Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Flathead National Forest noxious and invasive weed control Environmental

Assessment (March 2001). Flathead National Forest. Kalispell, MT. 171 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Flathead National Forest noxious and invasive weed control Decision Notice and

Finding of No Significant Impact (May 2001). Flathead National Forest. Kalispell, MT. 10 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Monitoring plan for the American peregrine falcon, a species recovered

under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Divisions of Endangered Species and

Migratory Birds and State Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 53 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines.

http://fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf. 23 pp.


73

PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS

Preparer Contribution Title

Angela Daenzer Wildlife Wildlife Biologist

Jimmy DeHerrera Line Officer Lead District Ranger

Linda Donner Writing, Editing Writer/Editor

Michele Draggoo Project Leader Planning Team Leader

Tim Light Heritage Resources Forest Archaeologist

Paula Peterson Project Leader, Recreation Resource Assistant

Henry Rivera Wildlife Wildlife Biologist

Dean Sirucek Hydrology/Soils Hydrologist

Pat Van Eimeren Fisheries Fisheries Biologist

Rebecca Whithed TES Plants/Noxious Weeds Botanist

Dave Yarger GIS, Maps Resource Information Manager


74

ORGANIZATIONS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND INDIVIDUALS

CONSULTED ABOUT THIS PROJECT

(List below also includes those groups/individuals

who received the EA or notice of its availability)

Organizations

Alliance for the Wild Rockies

American Wildlands

Backcountry Horsemen

BlueRibbon Coalition

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad

Capital Trails Vehicle Association

Center for Biodiversity

CenturyTel of Montana

Columbia Falls Aluminum Co.

Croft Petroleum

Extreme Power Products

Families for Outdoor Recreation

Fastoys

The First Best Place

Flathead Electric Cooperative

Flathead Lutheran Bible Camp

Flathead Snowmobile Association

Friends of the Wild Swan

Glacier Electric

Glacier Institute

Glacier National Park

Glacier Raft Company

Glacier Wilderness Resort

Great Bear Foundation

Great Northern Whitewater, Inc.

Headwaters Montana

Hungry Horse News

J & L Rentals

Kurt's Polaris

The Lands Council

Leland Honda

Meadow Lake Estates Real Estate Inc.

Montana Native Plant Society

Montanans for Multiple Use

Montana Raft Company

Montana Snowmobile Association.

Montana Wilderness Association

Mocko Family Living Trust

NorthWestern Energy

Penco Power Products

Ravenwood Natural Science Center

Recreational Aviation Foundation

Rocky Mountain ORV Club

Sierra Club

South Fork Outfitters

S.T. Outfitters

Stoltze Land & Lumber Co.

Swan View Coalition

Western Montana Trail Riders

Wild River Adventures, Inc.

Wilderness River Outfitters

The Wilderness Society

Wildlands CPR

WildWest Institute

Government Agencies

Bonneville Power Administration

City of Columbia Falls

Hungry Horse Dam, Bureau of Reclamation

Montana Depart. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks

Montana DNRC

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Flathead County Commissioners

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes


75

Individuals

Fred Adkins

Dave Amnotte

Tom Anderson

Ken & Phyllis Ausk

Deanna & Michael Babb

Shawn Baker

Julie Bates

Bill Baum

Jason & Cheryl Bechard

Bob Beck

Mark & Selena Beckwith

Stefan Belman

Robert Bender

Wayne Bengston

Richard Bergmann

Claireen Bidstrup

Richard Birdsell

Edd & Janet Blackler

D.L. Blank

Andrew Blazer

Denise Boggs

Conservation Congress

Jack & Sandy Bradford

Greg Brauch

Elton O. Brendsel

Dee & Steven Brown

Bill Browne

Stephen Bruan

Kevin Brubaker

Stanley Bruner

David & Mary Brushwood

Mark & Signe Brust

Billie Bryan

Ron Buentemeier

June Burgau

Steven Burglund

Donnie Burns

Kerrie Byrne

Kirby Campbell-Rierson

Sen. Max Baucus

Jeanette Cheney

Loyal Chubb

Bubba & Leta Chustz

Pat Clanton

Brent Clark

Samuel Clark III

Samuel & Jodi Clark IV

Rodney & Suzanne Cogliati

Daniel & Maria Commins

Barry Conger

William Cooper

Wilma Corneliuson Trust

Lisa Crane

Philip Crissman

Ed Cumming

Lori & Walt Curtis

Linda de Kort

Doug Deaton

Rick Deniger

Jim Dettman

Sean Dillon

Lisa Discoe

Bill Dodge

Jenny Draband

Dennis Drayna

Bill Droskoski

George Everett, House District #5

Glinda & Joseph Fagen

Beau Fast

Gideon Fauth

Kevin Feist

Jim Fiddler

Edwin Fields

Sara Finch-Steward

Dannie D. Fischer

Donald & Dawna Fleming

Richard Funk

Steve Funke

Anna Gallus

Marvin Galts

Matthew & Meredith Gargasz

Don Gee

Kirk Gentry

Josh Giffin


76

Bernard Gnam

Jennifer Golan

Chris Gotschalk

Charles Grant

Walter Grimes

Leona Hajost

James & Cynthia Hajost

Carolyn Hajost

Gary & Rita Hall

Mike Hall

William Hamilton

Larry Hamilton

Robert Hammer

Wayne Hammer

Daniel & Mary Hawe

Melvin Hedgpeth

Mark Hensley

Carl Hensley

Cesar Hernandez

John & Nancy Hewitt

Wilson Higgs

Jennifer Hintz

Don Holman

Brett Holmquist

Ann Holst

Ralph & Keni Hopkins

Kenneth & Lawanda Hotz

Charlie Jantzen

Howard Johnson

Frank & Katherine Johnson

Bruce Jungnitsch

Carolyn & Loren Kauffman

Liz Kehr

Bob Keith

Randy Kenyon

Sandy Kindt

Chris Kingston

Mark Kirk

Chuck Klefner

John & Jeannette Klein

Rachel Klempel

Jeremy Kolden

Allen Kolodejchuk

Dave Konopatzke

Linda Kopitzke

Loren Kreck

Richard Kuhl

Joe Kuzmic

Mike Lakes

Scott Landon

James & Katherine Langston

Kevin Larson

Greg Larson & Bill Bangsten

John Ledyard

Chris Leever

Bert Lindler

Leroy List

Ivan Lorentzen

Bob Love

James & Deloris Matson

Lloyd & Vera McClanahan

Mark McCoy

Scott McGuffie

Paul McKenzie

Wayne McMichael

Lucas Meyer

Terry Meyers

Russ Miller

Kimberly Mitchell

Michelle Nasrallah

Laura Negin

Scott Nolan

Gary Noland

Calvin Novacek

Jerry O'Neil

Joe & Laurie O'Rourke

Glenn & Sandy Ott

Bill Oursland

Brian M. Parks

Randy Parrish

Rachel Potter

Edwin Prach

Timothy Ravndal

Linda & Jim Regnier

Rep. Dennis Rehberg

David Ricards

Chuck Roady

Charlie Rogers

Steve Rolfing

Christine Rupp


77

Clarice Ryan

Jim Sadler

Chuck Samuelson

William & Diana Sandalack

Lynn Sandefer

Joan Sandefer

Gary & Karen Saurey

Jamie Schaefer

Hilde Scharn

Greg and Deborah Schatz

Franklin E. Schroeter

Steve Settle

Dona Shehan

Roger Sherman

Susan Sherman

Bret Sickmann

Jillenne & Kurt Sigler

Dave Skinner

Dave Slack

Senator Jon Tester

James Smith

Richard Spotts

Robert Steffes

Richard Steiner

Gary Stephens

JB Stone

Carrie Stringer

Betty Stuart

Ron Stuber

Patrick & Wendy Sullivan

Clarence Taber

Jeanne Tallman

Joe Tamburelli

Janis Taylor

Steven Thompson

Lloyd Thorsrud

Jim Thramer

Brandon Tice

Peter Tracey

Underdahl Family Trust

James Valentine

Joel Vignere

Jim Voeller

Jim & Marsha Wailser

Susan Waldron

Stephen Warren

Cathy Weeks

Jeff Wentzel

John Wierschem

Matthew & Dianne Williams

Pamela Willison

Steve Windbigler

George Wirt

Jeff & Pam Wolfe

Glen Wysel

CHR Project Appendix A - Maps

78

Appendix A

Maps

united states department revised...

Documents