FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Kootenai National Forest Considerations for the Management of Old-Growth
INTRODUCTION
The 1987 Forest Plan goal for old growth is, “…to provide the special habitat necessary for old-growth
dependent wildlife…”(FP III-54), “in sufficient quantity and quality to maintain viable populations of old
growth-dependent species.”(FP II-1). The Forest Plan standard for old growth is: “At any time 10% of the
Kootenai National Forest land base below 5,500 feet in elevation will be in an old-growth timber condition,
providing habitat for those wildlife species dependent on old-growth timber for their needs. The old-growth
will be spread evenly through most major drainages, and will represent the major forest types in each
drainage.” (FP II-22). Designating and maintaining old growth has been an issue on the Kootenai National
Forest long before the existing Forest Plan was issued in 1987. Proportions, definition, validation, and
inventory were concerns that surfaced in memos and internal workshops throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
Today old growth is still a concern and still a controversial issue. We have had over 80 years of active fire
suppression, which renders some stands within some Vegetation Response Units (VRU‟s) not sustainable.
The latest internal discussion on old growth has focused on maintaining old growth characteristics and
suitable habitat following proposed harvest activities. Current discussion regarding old growth is focused
on meeting old growth definitions and what those definitions are (Green et al. 1992), and whether those
treated stands provide useable habitat for old growth associated species – and how or when it is
appropriate to protect this resource from unplanned disturbance. This paper is provided for Forest
personnel to achieve consistency in old growth interpretations, definitions, prescriptive recommendations,
and inventory and monitoring protocols.
Recognizing the risk to maintaining forested stands (especially late-succession development) with decades
of fire suppression, no one is advocating a “hands off” policy toward old growth. The goal is to is acquire
the integrated, concerted methodology and expertise that would accomplish an effective restoration
strategy without compromising the structure, composition, and function integrity of vegetation communities
and also, therefore, suitable habitat for species. This must also be accomplished without compromising the
10% (well-distributed) forest-wide standard for old growth (FP II-22). We have a proven track record in
accomplishing restoration strategies in VRU‟s 1, 2, and the drier end of 3. Until we acquire sufficient
expertise in developing restoration strategies in VRU’s 4, 5, 7 and 9, we will need to assess, on a
site-specific basis, which risk is greater – the risk from wildfire or the risk from our restoration
efforts.
BACKGROUND
Appendix 17 in the 1987 Kootenai National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)
enhances forest-wide old growth standards with a set of documented guidelines. These guidelines
describe and define old growth for three vegetative habitat groups (warm-moist, cool-moist, and warm-dry).
Descriptions are based on characteristics of sampled stands ground-verified to be old growth. Appendix 17
guidelines also discuss the value of old growth to wildlife, how to manage old growth, and how to monitor
and track old growth stands.
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
According to Appendix 17 guidelines, “Old growth should be recognized as an important habitat and
managed to ensure its availability and utility to wildlife over time”. Guidelines addressed managing old
growth for 400+ year “rotation lengths” in unregulated MA‟s and for 250+ year rotation lengths on acres
suitable for timber harvest. Even then, regeneration is only appropriate when “[stands] can be replaced by
another old growth stand of equivalent acreage in the same analysis area so that available, legitimate old
growth does not drop below minimum levels”.
The following is Forest-wide direction concerning the management of old growth:
1. When designing projects that propose management actions in old growth (stands fully meeting the
Forest Plan old growth age/structure definition and/or Green et al. (1992) for designated and/or
undesignated) sound scientific support (research, monitoring) for why the action is needed must be
documented before proceeding. Answer the “Why here?” and “Why now?” questions.
2. Projects that include prescriptions designed to maintain all of the attribute characteristics of old
growth (Green et al. 1992) will include a monitoring plan to assure all old growth characteristics are
maintained. The monitoring results are critical to providing supporting information for future
projects in old growth.
3. Environmental analyses should clearly disclose the existing and expected post-treatment old
growth situations. The analyses should disclose project specific (direct, indirect) and forest-wide
(cumulative) impacts. Forest-wide cumulative impacts will be maintained by planning subunit in the
S.O. planning section (contact is Patty Johnson). S.O. planning will create a tracking spreadsheet
based on the data table used for the on-going old growth lawsuit. The scale for tracking will be the
planning sub-unit.
The publication “Old-Growth Forest Types of the Northern Region” (Green et al. 1992) is to be used
as a means to initially define old growth, not as a management or prescriptive guide. The Green et
al., document is not manual or handbook direction and not formally adopted as Regional guidance. It is,
however, the only peer-reviewed document of old growth definitions in the Northern Rockies and
recommended for use within Regional protocols. According to Green et al., old growth “…encompasses
the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in characteristics such as tree
age, tree size, number of large trees per acre and basal area. In addition, attributes such as decadence,
dead trees, the number of canopy layers and canopy gaps are important but more difficult to describe
because of high variability”. In other words, minimum attribute characteristics of trees per acre, DBH, age,
and basal area along with attributes of snags, structural layering, and downed wood minimally define old
growth – not any one attribute or any minimum value of specific attributes.
Pages 11 and 12 of Green et al. state the appropriate use of the document. The following are pertinent
quotes from the document to aid in that interpretation:
1. No set of generated numbers can capture all the variation that may occur at any given age or stage
in forest development.
2. Because of the great variation in old growth stand structures, no set of numbers can be relied upon
to correctly classify every stand.
3. Do not accept or reject a stand as old growth based on the numbers alone; use the numbers as a
guide.
4. The minimum criteria are used to determine if a stand is potentially old growth. Where these
values are clearly exceeded, a stand will usually be old growth. The associated structural
2
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
characteristics may be useful in decision making in marginal cases, or in comparing relative
resource values when making old growth evaluations.
5. The basic concept is that old growth should represent “the late stages of stand development
…distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes.”
6. A stand‟s landscape position may be as important, or more important as any stand old growth
attribute. The landscape is dynamic. We need to do more than draw lines to manage this dynamic
system. Consider the size of old growth blocks (large blocks have special importance), their
juxtaposition and connectivity with other old growth stands, their topographic position, their shapes,
their edge, and their stand structure compared to neighboring stands. Stands are elements in
dynamic landscapes. We need to have representatives of the full range of natural variation, and
manage the landscape mosaic as a whole in order to maintain healthy and diverse systems.
The Green et al. document is an aid intended to define, evaluate, and monitor old growth – not to be
used as a prescriptive, management guide with minimum attribute values as thresholds. This will
not achieve the objective of maintaining old growth.
Another memo from the Forest Supervisor (May 14, 2003) states, “When minimums are used, they are
intended to illustrate the beginning of what could be defined as old growth – or late seral, successional
development for a specific habitat type group within a specific zone – not what is recommended”.
There is much concern regarding managing old growth for protection against potential loss within a wildland
fire. The Fire History Coverage in the Kootenai library is a coarse-scale depiction and record of all major
fires that have occurred on the forest since the late 1800‟s. The Cabinet District was hit hard during the
1880‟s and 1910 fires as the polygons in the fire history coverage indicate (FP Vol. 2, page III-79). Pollen
analysis completed in the area indicates the 1880‟s and 1910 fire years being the most severe in 2500
years (Chatters and Leavell 1994). We contracted an aerial photo interpretation of 1920‟s/1930‟s aerial
photos a few years ago within the Beaver Creek drainage and found at the fine-scale, the 1880‟s/1910 fire
polygon was actually a mosaic of different burn intensities (with some acres not burned at all) and not a
total, all-encompassing, stand-replacing fire as the original polygon suggested. Most important to this
discussion - some of the stands that were not affected by these huge fires were old growth stands in the
heads of drainages and mature, well-spaced ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir on south aspects and at lower
elevations. Many of these remnant, late-succession stands were harvested in the 70‟s and 80‟s.
The two other most intensive fire years the Kootenai has experienced, 1994 and 2000, did result in a loss
of old growth due to fire. Fire year 1994 burned 53,000 acres on the forest. Of these, 2,302 acres burned
at high severity within Management Allocation (MA), MA13. That was 5% of total acres burned and less
than 1% of total old growth acres. Fire year 2000 burned 45,500 acres on the forest. Of these, 1790 acres
burned in old growth (all MA‟s) at fire severity level 2 (20-70% mortality) and 1027 acres burned at fire
severity level 3 (70-100% mortality). Adding both together resulted in 2% of the total acres burned and less
than ½ of 1% of total old growth acres.
This does not indicate a high risk for old growth regarding fire – even during “extreme” fire seasons. It
does, however, call for a renewed emphasis on replacement old growth and the management of
replacement old growth at sufficient proportions to accelerate the development of old growth
characteristics. Accelerated management for replacement old growth is the key to compensate for loss of
designated and undesignated old growth due to fire, disease, blowdown, etc. Replacement old growth can
and should be managed to reduce ladder fuels, understory densities, and increase resistance to insects
3
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
and disease damage in order to ultimately grow into suitable old growth habitat. Even though the Kootenai
is above the minimum standard for old growth with a total of 15.6%, we are still generally outside a range of
variability for old growth, especially for individual VRU‟s. This will be addressed in the plan revision effort
with appropriate standards and guidelines, but in the meantime, maintaining the amount of old growth we
now have and emphasizing increasing quantities and quality of replacement old growth is the most
reasonable strategy. As part of the replacement old growth strategy, the best available old growth should
be managed for old growth when no other suitable or preferred stand is available. There is nothing in the
existing forest plan prohibiting the management of greater than 10% old growth by planning
subunit. Consider the fact that a proportionate representation of 10% old growth is likely outside the
historic range of variability for most VRU‟s. This will be addressed within Forest Plan revision analysis.
In 1987, the conclusion was that given the current level of knowledge, intermediate harvest, salvage sales,
and firewood sales were not compatible with the maintenance of old growth. The future was considered,
however, when the Forest Plan acknowledged that, “Given our current level of knowledge; intermediate
harvest, salvage sales, or firewood sales are not compatible with maintenance of old growth characteristics.
In the future, it may be demonstrated that certain types of logging can occur within old growth stands and
still maintain their value to old growth dependent species, but until that time old growth stands should not
be scheduled or planned for salvage, pulping, or intermediate harvest” (FP, Appendix 17, page 12). Can
we harvest stands of old growth at this time and still maintain their value to old growth dependent species?
Some district specialists believe we do know enough to prescribe management treatments for old growth
and advocate prescriptions that will reduce basal areas of old growth stands in VRU‟s 2, 3, and 7 into what
they consider a historically valid, open grown (40 to 60 square feet of basal area per acre), and single-story
condition. These prescriptions, according to the latest science, some specialists believe, will bring the
stands back into the Historic Range of Variability (HRV), will protect the stands from fire damage, and will
create conditions to perpetuate “emergent larch”. This is not certain for most stands within VRU 7. The
following is a summary of the science acquired after the 1987 Forest Plan was finalized, which may help in
interpretations.
Habeck (1988) said old growth stands of seral ponderosa pine and larch are essentially “fire dependent”.
Arno et al. (1997) addressed the value of ponderosa pine and larch old growth and offered better
information from which to develop restoration strategies that would perpetuate open grown, single story,
seral old growth. His study (Arno et al. 1997) cited a previous study (Arno et al. 1995) that attempted to
obtain history information for a range of open grown, single story pine and larch old growth stands in
western Montana. These types of stands were associated with frequent, low intensity underburning in the
past. The 1995 study reported age and structure information for nine ponderosa pine stands, but only one
was codominated with western larch. The 1997 study added two additional stands with an open grown,
single story western larch component. One of these stands was composed of a mixture of larch and
ponderosa pine on a steep upland slope with the other found in a frost-prone valley bottom at the cold limits
of ponderosa pine. It is important to note that seven of nine stands sampled were in VRU 2 (moderately
warm and dry), one in VRU 3 (moderately warm and moderately dry), and one in VRU 7 (cool and moist).
All stands but the one in VRU 7 historically had frequent, low intensity fires that shaped these stands into
park-like, open grown, single story stand conditions.
The condition and an appropriate restoration/maintenance strategy for VRU 7 are currently being discussed
among specialists on the Forest. There seems to be agreement on strategies for the drier VRU‟s, but not
on the cooler, moist VRU‟s. Have we learned enough since 1987 to manage old growth stands like these
and still maintain their value to old growth dependent species? The VRU 7 stand in Arno‟s study had a
4
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
highly uneven-age structure among the pre-1900 trees. Responding to frequent, low intensity burning,
larch was established in every century starting with the early 1400‟s and throughout the 1500‟s, 1600‟s and
mid-1600‟s. The stand still had an open, park-like appearance, however. Douglas-fir became established
in the early 1800‟s due to a long, fire-free interval (42 years). A fire in 1859 gave rise to the establishment
of lodgepole pine, which, added to the increased basal area of Douglas-fir, are now succumbing to insect
attacks. The stand is currently in danger of mortality effects, and, as a result, increased risk to wildfire.
Something needs to be done. At first glance, the appropriate restoration/maintenance strategy here would
be to return the stand to historic conditions by reducing the understory Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine and
open up the overstory larch to allow for new “emergents”. This would create shelterwood-like conditions
and save the stand – and provide for “emergent larch”.
Is this the strategy we should implement on our old growth in VRU7? Arno continues by addressing this
“most difficult” question for this stand. Arno states this park-like, uneven age larch stand was a product of
American Indian burning. The stand was at the end of the Jocko Trail and was likely the camping area for
native peoples for at least 3500 years – the reason for the frequent, low intensity fire history. He also
states the “…typical condition for this stand was a patchy larch-lodgepole pine stand of 1 to 3 age classes
that are typical of this forest and habitat type” (Antos 1977, Barrett et al. 1991, Davis 1980). Habeck (1994)
also attributes open-grown, even-age, single-storied larch (in the Douglas-fir zone) as a product of frequent,
low intensity burning prior to 1900 resulting from lightning and/or “native American” ignitions. Frequent, low
intensity fire regimes that developed open-grown, single-story, park-like conditions are not typical of the
mid-range HRV for this VRU (unless the stand was used as a campground for 3500 years), but more
typical of an early succession stage. Prescribing this open, single-story condition for old growth will not
maintain value for old growth dependent species within VRU 7. It is an appropriate strategy for VRU‟s 1, 2,
and the drier end of 3. A restoration/maintenance strategy for VRU 7 needs to maintain stand structure,
composition, and function more typical of longer, mixed lethal fire return intervals that result in several age
and size classes of mixed species composition.
Historic fire intervals in VRU 7 and 9 were dominated by mixed severity regimes. These fire regimes
historically produced highly diverse forest communities that contained seral, fire-dependent species (such
as western larch) in multi-aged stands with large, old fire-resistant trees of great importance to wildlife
(McClelland 1979, Arno et al. 2000). These regimes also produced intricate mosaics of even-aged tree
groups and contrasting forest communities at the landscape level (Arno et al. 2000). Mixed fire regimes in
the northern Rocky Mountains have been documented in Arno 1980, Arno et al. 1993, Barrett et al. 1991,
Brown et al. 1994, Murray 1996, and Zack and Morgan 1994.
These fire regimes affected approximately 50% of the Northern Rockies, while non-lethal fire regimes
affected 30%, and lethal fire regimes affected 20% of the land area within national forest lands (Quigley et
al. 1996). Forests dominated by the mixed-severity regime, such as found in VRU‟s 7 and 9 often had
seral, fire-dependent tree species (primarily western larch and scattered lodgepole pine) with a component
of late-succession, shade-tolerant tree species (such as Engelmann spruce and alpine fir). Stands were
often uneven-aged and multi-layered (Arno et al. 2000). Seral shrubs and hardwoods were scattered
throughout that included aspen, serviceberry, chokecherry, and redstem ceanothus (Arno et al. 1985).
Small meadows and grassy openings and a variety of early seral herbaceous plants would have been
abundant. Stands formed a complex and intricate mosaic on the landscape.
Fire exclusion in these VRU‟s tends to create a greater uniformity in ages and composition/structure – with
a declining diversity of undergrowth species (Arno et al. 1993 and Keane et al. 1996). Basal area and trees
5
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
per acre increase dramatically. This results in increased physiological stress and opportunity for higher
than endemic increases in insect- and disease-caused mortality (Arno et al. 1997, Fellin 1980, Biondi
1996). Fire exclusion also results in increased loadings of dead and living (ladder) fuels across the
landscape that can increase the likelihood of severe and extensive wildfires (Barrett et al. 1991,
Barbouletos et al. 1998, Quigley et al. 1996, Morgan et al. 1998).
RESTORATION
Creating seed tree or shelterwood densities is not a preferred restoration strategy for the more moist warm
or cool VRU‟s. A restoration strategy for forest communities historically dominated by mixed-lethal fire
regimes needs to be one that is a careful and cautious reintroduction of prescribed fire with selective, well-
placed thinning from below that reduces basal area and trees per acre while leaving sufficient density of
shade-tolerant and intolerant tree species. Each stand (preferably larger than 40 acres) needs to be a
mosaic of small openings (various sizes) surrounded by areas of varying densities of different age and size
classes of trees (basal area per acre up to 200 square feet). This strategy also applies to VRU 5, which
was also dominated by historic mixed-severity fires.
PROCESS
According to the 1987 Forest Plan, the primary management goal in stands that are managed for old
growth (designated or undesignated) is to provide special, suitable habitat necessary for old-growth
dependent wildlife. This means maintaining all attributes that have defined it as old growth in order to
provide habitat for a set of wildlife species. The attached document, “Suitable Habitat for Wildlife
Associated with Old Growth on the Kootenai National Forest” (Attachment 1) provides guidelines for
determining useable, suitable habitat. All other management objectives (reducing fuel loading, promoting
seral species, etc.) are secondary objectives that will conform to the primary objective first. Alternatives
that do not do this must have a full justification and effects disclosed. Management activities also need to
concentrate on developing and accelerating replacement old growth to take the place of old growth that will
inevitably succumb to fire, wind, or insect and disease mortality.
Modified recommendations based on district comments (2004) as adapted from Forest-Wide
Considerations for the Management of Old Growth apply. These are:
1. Maintain “fire refugia” old growth as untouched reserves. These are stands that historically were
protected from stand replacement fires by their juxtaposition to rivers, springs, stream confluences,
some rocky sites, and in some cases because of their northerly exposure.
2. Restore/maintain Dry Site/Fire Maintained Old Growth Habitats to pre-fire suppression conditions
(within HRV). This old growth type is characterized by frequent, low intensity underburns and
dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (warmer, drier habitats). Restoration treatments
would maintain and promote the fire-resilient component of the stand.
There is not a complete consensus among forest and district specialists with the recommendation to
manage what is termed as “transitional old growth habitat” (especially for VRU 7), unless all attributes of old
growth are maintained post-treatment in undesignated old growth – or unless stands are replacement old
growth to begin with and the specific objective is to accelerate old growth attributes. Additional comments
helpful to the management of old growth follow:
6
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
“Little is known about the full range of interactions of natural wildfire and old growth on the Kootenai
National Forest – much has been written about the need to restore dry site old growth that have developed
fuel loadings outside the range of historic variability. However, in the Northern Rockies, not much has been
written about the complex interactions and species viability of old growth dependent species other than
wildlife. And nothing has been written (in our portion of the Northern Rockies) about species that inhabit
areas of fire refugia (i.e., areas of ecological continuity). The present forest plan made the assumption that
having a “hands off” approach to old growth management would maintain species viability for all species
unique to old growth. This is certainly true for those species that inhabit areas of fire refugia, since these
areas are unique because of the lack of fire disturbance. However, the “hands off” approach has proven to
be a false assumption for species that inhabit fire-maintained sites (frequent, low intensity, dry-site). Now
the pendulum is swinging to where active management of old growth is obviously needed – but this also
makes it critical to develop some guidelines on where active management is appropriate, and where it is
not, what methods are appropriate to maintain viability for all old growth dependent species, and (of course)
how to identify areas where disturbance by wildfire (or other disturbance mechanism) is not characteristic.
There is a complexity in moist-site old growth fire refugia sites that we know literally nothing about. There
are unique species that occur in the interior areas of refugia (Goward 1994, Rose 1976, Tibell 1992, Lesica
et al. 1990)” (Arvidson 2004 – West Troy DEIS).
Fire regime condition class (FRCC) (Schmidt et al. 2002) is another tool that can be used to assess old
growth in relation to the historic range of variability. FRCC depicts the degree of departure from historical
fire regimes, which can possibly result in the loss of key ecosystem components, such as structure stage,
stand age, canopy closure, and fuel loadings. FRCC provides a method to determine how natural
processes have affected the structure, composition, and long-term viability of habitat within stands. One or
more of the following activities can cause departures: fire suppression, timber harvesting, livestock
grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, introduced insects or disease, or other
management activities. FRCC can also provide an indication of how wildfire (burning either within or
outside normal ranges of intensity and frequency) will affect associated species and function within a stand.
The following historic natural fire regimes are used in FRCC:
Code Description
I 0-35 year frequency, low severity
II 0-35 year frequency, stand-replacement severity
III 35-100+ year frequency, mixed severity
IV 35-100+ year frequency, stand-replacement
severity
V 200+ year frequency, stand-replacement severity
These are the definitions for the three Fire Regime Condition Classes:
1. Condition Class 1 Fire regimes are within an historical range, and the risk of losing key
ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition
and structure) are intact and functioning within an historic range.
2. Condition Class 2 Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historic range. The
risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies
7
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
have departed from historical frequencies by one or more of the following:
fire size, intensity and severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation
attributes have been moderately altered from their historic range.
3. Condition Class 3 Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range.
The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies
have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals.
This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire size,
intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have
been significantly altered from their historical range.
Fire regime condition classes are another way to assess in relation to HRV. A stand may meet the Green
et al. definition of old growth (based on trees per acre, basal acre, age, etc.) but may also be in condition
class 2 or 3. Condition class does not define old growth, but aids in the assessment of the degree of
departure from HRV. The further the departure from HRV, the more risk to the potential loss of key
ecosystem components and the harder to maintain structure and composition elements due to possible
loss from disturbance.
8
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
SPECIALIST REPORT/NEPA DOCUMENTATION
The purpose of this section is to assure appropriate documentation of the old growth analysis in
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document. To that end here are a series of
discussion points identified for either Chapters 3 or 4 that should be addressed:
1. How many acres of each old growth type in the decision area, and what is the
proportional representation of each type (by Green et al. and by Kootenai National
Forest vegetation type)? How does this compare to HRV in acres and patch size by
VRU? Note that distribution of older age class stands (150+ years) pre 1900 does not
translate directly to distribution of stands that may have met old growth criteria.
2. The wildlife discussion and the vegetation discussion of effects in old growth should
parallel and complement each other, but avoid both duplication and contradiction.
3. Do treatments in undesignated old growth protect or retain characteristics of old growth?
Harvest treatments in Forest Plan designated old growth stands (MA13) will require a
forest plan amendment.
4. Because Green et al. is not a guide for prescribing treatments in old growth stands, the
analysis will need to show whether or not the Kootenai National Forest Plan criteria for
that type (see Attachment 1 and use all of Green et al., not just the Tables) will be met
after the proposed treatment is completed.
5. If the stand will no longer meet the old growth criteria, what old growth attributes (TPA,
DBH, Basal Area, Snags, Canopy Closure) will be retained or reduced/lost?
6. If the stand will no longer meet the old growth criteria, what is the expected timeframe
for the stand to recover old growth characteristics? A Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS)
run or two may be helpful to demonstrate the recovery period.
7. What is the rationale for treating the stands with old growth character? Different
objectives and rationale may result in different treatments.
8. After implementation of each alternative, how many acres of each old growth type will
there be in the decision area?
9. Alternatives for treating designated or undesignated stands for objectives other than
maintaining old growth characteristics, such as for maintaining emergent larch, or for
fuels treatments, etc., are legitimate objectives. However, these are secondary objectives
to maintaining old growth characteristics and will have to fully disclose rationale,
justification, and effects - both immediate and cumulative.
It is important to keep the old growth section write-up as part of the Vegetation section
narrative because it is only one part of the overall vegetation/succession discussion.
Historical conditions for the successional stages by VRU at the Forest and project scale and
the comparisons made in the vegetation narrative provide the coarse filter description of
wildlife habitat for most wildlife species and constitutes the supporting documentation for
viability. An example of a vegetation narrative with an old growth section attached is
illustrated below (Attachment 5).
In the range of alternatives, there should be an action alternative that retains old growth attributes
in the decision area. In considering consistency with the Forest Plan, discuss the relationship of
this project with the Forest-wide old growth assessment. Suggested wording includes:
9
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
“The most recent Forest-wide analysis of old growth, which is disclosed in the FY 02 monitoring
report, concludes that at least 10% of the Kootenai National Forest below 5500 feet is designated
as old growth as required in the Forest Plan. Activities proposed with this analysis and other
proposed and foreseeable analyses across the Forest will not reduce this designated old growth
below the 10% standard specified in the forest plan.”
The following wording is suggested for cumulative effects for the alternative that maintains all
old growth attributes in treated stands:
“Cumulatively, the proposed activities in undesignated and designated old growth will not
reduce the amount and distribution of old growth below Forest Plan requirements.”
Old Growth Consistency Language for EA’s and EIS’s:
Consistency With The Forest plan And Other Management Direction
Forest-wide analysis of old growth, which is disclosed in the Kootenai’s FY 2002 Monitoring
Report (KNF 2003), concludes that at least 10% of the KNF below 5,500 feet in elevation is
designated as old growth as required in the Forest Plan. Specifically, this report discloses that a
recent inventory of old growth on the KNF has demonstrated that 292,339 acres (15.6%) of total
National Forest acres below 5,500 feet in elevation are in an old growth condition. This
documentation also demonstrates that the KNF has designated 205,784 acres (11%) of total
National Forest acres below 5,500 feet in elevation into old growth management areas.
Activities proposed based on this analysis and other proposed and foreseeable analyses across
the Forest within undesignated and designated old growth will not reduce designated old growth
below the 10% standard specified in the Forest Plan. Project-specific information is on file at
district and supervisor’s offices on the Forest. Cumulatively, the proposed activities in
undesignated and designated old growth will not measurably change the amount and distribution
of old growth across the Forest.
The following example information will be tracked by the Supervisor’s Office and provided to
districts as project file information. Changes will be made to the Forest-wide old growth
coverage on an annual basis and will be reflected in the KNF’s Monitoring and Evaluation
Report.
Project Acres w/in Acres w/in Acres w/in FP
undesignated undesignated Designated OG
effective* replacement
Fortine 645 0
Lower Big
West Troy
White Pine 0 0
Total
*The figures in this chart are taken from the preferred alternative.
**This footnote will ID acres that will not maintain effectiveness post project. Patty will provide these figures.
After district provide the following for the preferred alt only:
10
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
1) Acres Proposed within Undesignated Effective (UEFF)
1a) Acres in UEFF that will maintain effectiveness post project.
2) Acres in Undesignated Replacement (UREP)
2a) Acres in UREP that will maintain replacement characteristics post project.
3) Acres proposed in Forest Plan designated Old Growth (this includes any MA; need to
specify the MA)
3a) Acres that will maintain effectiveness characteristics post-project.
11
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Attachment 1
SUITABLE HABITAT for WILDLIFE ASSOCIATED WITH OLD GROWTH
On the
KOOTENAI NATIONAL FOREST
Wayne J. Johnson
Forest Wildlife Biologist
This paper is to be used by the wildlife biologist as a tool to help determine effects of proposed
actions on selected wildlife species associated with “old growth” forest habitats.
Old growth management direction on the Kootenai National Forest is described in the 1987 Forest Plan
under Management Area 13 (FP p. III-54-57). Forest Plan Appendix 17 provides a description of old growth
by habitat group (warm-dry, cool-moist, warm-moist). Since the release of the Forest Plan new information
on old growth has been documented. Specifically, Pfister et al. (2000) 1 conducted a peer review of
documents that provide old-growth descriptions and attributes. The review determined that Green et al.
(1992) 2 provides the best available source for initial screening and making determinations of old growth.
As a result, the Northern Region and subsequently the Kootenai NF began using Green et al. as the tool to
screen for possible old growth stands. While Green (ibid) included general considerations for wildlife,
habitat suitability for any specific species was not included. Because the Kootenai Forest Plan goal for old
growth is to “provide the special habitat necessary for old-growth dependent wildlife…” (FP p. III-54) “…in
sufficient quantity and quality to maintain viable populations of old-growth dependent species…” (FP p. II-1)
it is essential that the needs of specific wildlife species be considered.
NEPA analysis requires the disclosure of effects to habitat from proposed projects. In order to determine
habitat effects, a description of suitable habitat is needed. Since several species are analyzed during the
NEPA process, a habitat description is required for each species considered. The intent of this paper is to
provide those descriptions in vegetative terms that can be used to show if suitable habitat for the specified
species is being maintained, or not, in the proposed treatment areas.
The Kootenai Forest Plan identified 58 wildlife species that find breeding and/or feeding habitat in old
growth. While these species may not solely depend on old growth, they do require old growth structure for
part of their life cycle. Since it is not possible to analyze all species, the Forest Plan (Appendix 12)
identified the pileated woodpecker as the management indicator species for old growth forest habitat and
all associated wildlife species. Sensitive species are also analyzed in the NEPA process. Sensitive species
for the Kootenai NF (Bosworth 1999) associated with old growth are the flammulated owl, northern
goshawk and fisher.
For the purpose of determining suitable habitat, the minimum level for some characteristics were identified
from research as the “usable” level of the characteristic based on use documented in research (see Table 1
1
Pfister, R.D, W.L. Baker, C.E. Fiedler, J.W. Thomas. 2000. Contract Review of Old-Growth Management on
School Trust Lands: Supplemental Biodiversity Guidance 8/02/2000.
2
Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, and B. Naumann. 1992. Old growth forest types of the northern
region. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, MT. 61 p.
12
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Literature Sources). To the extent possible from research, the useable level was established, based on
vegetation types present on the Kootenai National Forest (see Appendix 1). Research has not fully
identified “useable” levels for all stand characteristics, however, it has indicated that characteristics in
addition to those shown with minimum values in the Table 1 are needed to provide useable habitat (see
other general characteristics column for examples).
Table 1 is a summary of available research on vegetative composition and/or structure that provide
“useable” breeding and/or feeding habitat for those species listed above. Appendix 1 describes how Table
1 values were identified. Vegetative characteristics may vary by vegetative type; the values in Table 1 are
split for two primary types. The split is based on VRU grouping. VRU‟s 1, 2 and the southerly aspects of 3
(3S) are grouped while the northerly aspects of VRU 3 and all other VRU‟s are lumped together. These
groups were used based on available research data and historical range of variation data. When minimum
characteristic levels are listed (Table 1 columns marked with single asterisk) minimum values must be
present to provide “useable” habitat for the species being analyzed. In addition, the other general
characteristics information must be considered. The biologist needs to review current research for this
information. The “minimum” levels in Table 1 are NOT recommended management levels for providing
optimum habitat conditions, nor do they mean “minimum criteria” in the sense of just meeting these two
elements provide suitable habitat. The biologist must also consider the overall stand environment (size,
connectivity, complexity) in relation to the landscape in order to make a final determination on the usability
of the stand for each species analyzed. If the desired objective were to manage a stand for all identified
species then the highest minimums from each characteristic column would be selected. A “preferred
habitat” column is provided as a tool for discussing habitat quality. Based on historic range of variation and
habitat selection (“preferred habitat”), a relatively small percentage of the stands, identified as suitable
habitat, would be managed at the minimum levels of habitat structure.
Table 2 provides a crosswalk from the Kootenai Forest Plan‟s three old growth types and Green et al. eight
old growth types. It also provides a tie to the vegetative response units (VRU‟s). In addition, the Fire
Groups are linked to the old growth types.
The first step in the old growth analysis process is determining if a stand is or is not labeled, or not
identified, as old growth. This is an interdisciplinary process that uses Green et al. (in its entirety, not just
the tables). The second step is for the biologist to determine pre-treatment stand habitat suitability for each
species. The third step (also interdisciplinary) is to determine if the treated stand (post treatment) meets
Green et al. or not and thus either retains the label “old growth” or loses the label. The fourth step is to
analyze the post-treatment stand conditions to determine if the stand is suitable habitat for each individual
species being considered. Table 3 provides a first screen on whether a species uses the various old growth
types. If the species is identified as using the old growth type proposed for treatment then the biologist
should use Table 1 as the first screen in determining pre and post-treatment habitat suitability for the
species being evaluated.
It is important to note that it may be possible for a stand to meet Green et al. and not provide
useable habitat for one or more old growth associated species.
13
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
The final determination of whether a stand is suitable for supporting old growth
associated species lies with the professional wildlife biologist and the use of the best
science available.
This is NOT a determination of whether the stand is labeled old growth!
14
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Table 1: Suitable Habitat Characteristics for Selected Wildlife Species
Species Use Stand Basal Canopy Preferred Preferred Other Important
Area Closure Habitat Tree Species General Characteristics
(sq.ft./ac.) (%) Conditions (examples)
* * **
Pileated Breeding VRU 1,2, VRU 1, 2, 3S: VRU's 1, 2, 3S: Larch, Ponderosa Pine, Nest trees >20” dbh :2/ac.
Woodpecker 3S: 15 BA: >100 Aspen, Black 2 snags and
60 Other VRU's: %CC: >30 Cottonwood 2 replacements/ac >20”
(Old Growth Other VRUs: 30 Other VRU's:
Management 80 BA: >125
Indicator) %CC: >50
(1, 18, 41) (1, 2, 41) (1, 2, 18, 41)
(1, 5, 41) (1, 2, 5, 20)
Feeding VRU 1,2, VRU 1, 2, 3S: VRU's 1, 2, 3S: Larch, Ponderosa pine, Down logs > 10” diameter present
3S: 15 BA: 100 Douglas-fir Snags average 7/acre
50 Other VRU's: %CC: >30 Snags – leave minimum 2/ac.
Other 30 Other VRU's: Feeds in trees/logs > 7” dbh
VRU's: BA: 100
60 %CC: >50 (20, 41) (2, 16, 17, 20)
(1, 2, 41) (1,2, 18, 41)
(1, 18, 41)
Flammulated Breeding VRU 1,2,3S VRU 1,2,3S VRU 1,2,3S Ponderosa Pine, Nest trees > 12” dbh,
Owl nr 25 BA: >100 Douglas-fir > 1 canopy layer
Other Other VRU's %CC: 50% cc)
(Sensitive spp.) VRU's 35 Other VRU's roosting > 33% ground cover
nr BA: > 100 > 20 ac. Usable, > 100 ac. preferred
%CC:>50%
(3, 24, 26, 43) (5, 24, 25, 27, 28, 39)
(3, 38, 42) (3, 4, 5, 24, 25, 26, 38, 40, 42, 44)
Feeding 25 20 BA: 100 Ponderosa Pine, Need small brushy clearings and shrub
%CC: >40 Douglas-fir component for prey base (>33% ground cover
DF important for – shrubs and grasses)
(37, 38)
(51) (38, 51) perching 1 canopy layer
(3, 4, 25, 37,42)
* Characteristic must be met to provide “useable” habitat for the specified species.
** To the extent possible: habitat values presented are the means or averages from research on Forest types that are found on the Kootenai NF (see Appendix 1)
nr – No Research found to use in establishing useable level. When this occurs, values for breeding (if available) are also used for feeding because generally research shows both
occur in breeding habitat.
(#) = Literature source(s)
15
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Note: Basal Area and % Crown Closure may not be directly comparable because values may have come from different studies as some only reported BA and others only % crown
closure. Crown closure % was most commonly used.
16
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Table 1: Suitable Habitat Characteristics for Selected Wildlife Species
Species Use Stand Basal Canopy Preferred Habitat Preferred Other General Characteristics
Area Closure Conditions Tree Species (examples)
(sq.ft./ac.) (%)
* * **
Northern Breeding 110 VRU: 2, 3s VRU: 2, 3S Douglas-fir, larch, Stand size >50 acres (2) Minimum 30 ac.
Goshawk 40 BA: >120 Ponderosa Pine Need trees >15” dbh
Other VRU's: %CC: >60 >1 10” snag/acre present
(Sensitive 50 Other VRU Ave. Stand diameter >8”
spp.) BA: >160 Clumped (3-6 mature trees/clump) leave
(19, 35, 36) %CC: >70 trees with interlocking crowns
(2, 15, 34, 36)
(2, 14, 15, 19, 36,46,47, (2,15,19)
(2, 14, 19, 31, 36)
49)
Feeding 60 VRU: 2, 3S VRU: 2, 3S Mixed conifer Pole stage or larger, also use forest edges and
35 BA: >120 openings within 100 yards of forest cover
Other VRU's %CC: >40 Clumped (3-6 mature trees/clump) leave
40 Other VRU trees with interlocking crowns
(19, 23) BA: >130 Avoid clearcuts, shrub/sapling stages
(2, 14, 19, 23, 30, %CC: >50 (15) 3”dbh
32, 33, 48) (2, 19,23, 30) (2,19,23)
Fisher Winter nr 40 BA: nr Cedar, Mixed Conifer, Den tree >20” dbh
Or %CC: >60 Englemann Spruce Forested riparian habitat
(Sensitive Resting Multi-storied
(6, 8, 9, 29, 45) (6, 8, 29, 45) (6, 9, 10, 11, 29)
spp.) Near water
(5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 29, 45)
Summer nr 40 BA: nr Mixed Conifer, Cedar, Near water
Or %CC: >80 Englemann Spruce, Grand 1-2/ac. large diameter (>20” x 15’) logs for
Hunting fir prey habitat
1/ac. snags >20” dbh
(6, 8,10, 45) (6, 10, 11, 29) 2 or more canopy layers
(6, 8, 9, 21, 22,
29, 45) (6, 7, 8, 13, 29, 45)
* Characteristic must be met to provide “useable” habitat for the specified species.
** To the extent possible: habitat values presented are the means or averages from research on Forest types that are found on the Kootenai NF (see Appendix 1)
nr – No Research found to use in establishing useable level. When this occurs, values for breeding (if available) also used for feeding because generally research
shows both occur in breeding habitat.
(#) = Literature source(s)
Note: Basal Area and % Crown Closure may not be directly comparable because values may have come from different studies as some only reported BA and
others only % crown closure. Crown closure was most commonly used.
17
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Table 1 Literature Source:
1) McClelland, B. Riley. 1977. Relationships between hole-nesting birds, forest snags, and decay in western larch-Douglas-fir forests of the Northern
Rocky Mountains. U. of MT. Missoula, MT. 495 p.
2) Warren, Nancy M. (tech. editor) 1990. Old growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the northern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service
Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 47 p.
3) Hayward, G. D. and J. Verner, tech. Editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, Co: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta. 214 p.
4) Roderick, Elizabeth and Ruth Milner (tech. Editors). 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats and species. Wash.
Dept. of wildlife, Olympia, WA.
5) Thomas, Jack W. (tech. Editor). 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service,
Agr. Handbook No. 553. 512 p.
6) Heinemeyer, K.S. and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management: a literature review and adaptive management strategy. USDA Forest Service
Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 108 p.
7) Heinemeyer, K.S. 1993. Temporal dynamics in the movements, habitat use, activity, and spacing of reintroduced fishers in northwestern Montana. M.
Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT. 154 p.
8) Jones, J.L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in north central Idaho. M. Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow. 147 p.
9) Thomas, Allan (editor). 1995a. Conservation Strategy for Fisher and Marten in Idaho (Draft march 1995). Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Idaho Dept.
Parks and Rec., BLM, Regions 1 and 4 US. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25 p.
10) Roy, Kevin D. 1991. Ecology of reintroduced fishers in the Cabinet Mountains of northwest Montana. M. Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula,
MT. 94 p.
11) Banci, Vivian. 1989. A fisher management strategy for British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-63. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch,
Victoria, B.C. 117 p.
12) Arthur, Stephen M., W. B. Krohn, J.R. Gilbert. 1989. Habitat use and diet of Fishers. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(3):680-688.
13) Freel, Maeton (tech. Editor). 1991. A literature review for management of the marten and fisher on national forests in California. USDA Forest Service
Pacific Southwest Region. 22 p.
14) McGrath, Michael T., S. DeStefano, R.A. Riggs, L.L. Irwin, G. J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in
the interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Monographs. Vo. 67 No. 154. 63 p.
15) Thomas, Allan (editor). 1995b. Northern goshawk habitat conservation assessment and conservation strategy. Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Idaho Dept.
Parks and Rec., BLM, Regions 1 and 4 US. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 35 p.
16) Oregon Department of Wildlife. 1992. Sensitive Vertebrates of Oregon: pileated woodpecker. 2 p.
17) Washington Department of Wildlife. 1991 Management recommendations for priority species: pileated woodpecker. 5 p.
18) Schroeder, R.L. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: pileated woodpecker. USDI Fish Wildlife Service Fort Collins, CO. 15 p.
19) Reynolds, Richard T. et al. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen Tech. Rep. RM-217,
FT. Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta. 90 p.
20) Bull, Evelyn, L.1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific NW Res. Sta.
LaGrande, OR. J. Wildlife Management 57)2):335-345
21) IPNF Furbearer Working Group. 1993. Conservation strategies for lynx, fisher, wolverine, and marten for the Idaho Panhandle national Forests.
USDA Forest Service, Idaho Panhandle NF, Coeur D’Alene, ID. 45 P.
18
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
22) Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Forest Carnivores in Idaho: habitat conservation assessments (HCA’s and conservation strategies (CS’s).
Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Idaho Dept. Parks and Rec., BLM, Regions 1 and 4 US. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 126 p.
23) Bloxton, Thomas D. Jr. 2002. Prey abundance, space use, demography, and foraging habitat of northern goshawks in western Washington. M. Sc.
Thesis, Univ. of Washington. 70 p.
24) Bull, Evelyn, A. L. Wright, M.G. Henjum 1990. Nesting habitat of flammulated owls in Oregon. J. Raptor Res. 24 (3): 52-55
25) Moore, Teresa L. and G. P. Frederick. 1991. Distribution and habitat of flammulated owls (Otus flammeiolus) in west-central Idaho. Wallowa-Witman
NF and IDFG. Boise, ID. 50 p.
26) Howle, R. R. and R. Ritcey. 1992. Distribution, habitat selection and densities of flammulated owls in British Columbia. 6 p.
27) DeGraaf, Richard M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States Natural History and
Habitat Use. USDA Forest Service Agr. Handbook 688. 625 p.
28) Spahr, Robin, L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, M. Rath. 1991. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of the intermountain region. USDA Forest
Service. Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT.
29) Ruggiero, Leonard F., K.B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, W. J. Zielinski. (tech. Eds.) 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores,
American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mtn. For. And Range Exp. Sta. GTR RM-254. Fort Collins, CO. 184 p.
30) Austin, Karen K. 1993. Habitat use and home range size of breeding northern goshawks in the southern cascades. M. of Sc. Thesis Oregon State Univ.
57 p.
31) Snyder, Helen. 1995. Apache goshawk conservation biology in southeast Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Grant-in-aid project
I920065. Final report April 1995. 35 p.
32) Beier, Paul. 1994. Selection of foraging habitat by northern goshawks on the Coconino National Forest. Arizona Game and Fish Department heritage
Grant Project I-94025 Progress report 28 October 1994.9 p.
33) Bright-Smith, Donald J. and R. W. Mannan. 1994. Habitat use by breeding male northern goshawks in northern Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology
No. 16:58-65.
34) Patla, Susan. 1991. Northern goshawk monitoring projects final report. USDA Forest Service Targhee NF, St. Anthony ID 42 p.
35) Hargis, Christina D. 1991. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California. Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah St. Univ. Logan
Utah. 19 p.
36) Clough, Lorraine T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in west-central Montana. M. of Sc. U. of Montana.
Missoula, MT.87 p.
37) Hayward, G. 1995. Telephone conference with G. Haward regarding Boreal and Flammulated Owls. 4 pp.
38) Marcot, Bruce G. 1980. Flammulated owls in northwestern California. Western Birds 11:141-149.
39) Linkhart, Brian D., R.T. Reynolds, R.A. Ryder. 1998. Home range and habitat of breeding flammulated owls in Colorado. Wilson Bull. 110(3) 342-
351.
40) McCallum, D. Archibald. 1994. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus). The birds of North America No. 93. 21 pp.
41) McClelland, B. Riley, and P.T. McClelland. 1999. Pileated woodpecker nest and roost trees in Montana: links with old growth and forest health.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 1999 27(3): 846-857.
42) Goggans, Rebecca. 1985. Habitat use by flammulated owls in northeastern Oregon. MS Thesis. Oregon St. Univ. 54 pp.
43) Arsenault, David P., G.E. Wilson, L Neel. 2002. Flammulated owls in the Spring Mountains Nevada. 11 pp.
44) Maj, M., M. Hillis, J. Ormiston. 1995. Range Permit Reissuance: Flammulated Owl. USDA Forest Service. Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 5 pp.
45) Freel, Maeton. 1991. A literature review for management of the marten and fisher on national forests in California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Region. 22 pp.
19
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
46) Hargis, Christina D, C. McCarthy, R.D. Perlogg. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology
No. 16: 66-74.
47) Bull, Evelyn L. and J.E. Hohmann. 1992. Final Report: Northern Goshawks in Northeastern Oregon. Pacific NW Res. Sta. La Grande, OR. 34 pp.
48) Timossi, Irene C., E. L. Woodard, R.H Barrett. 1995. Habitat suitability models for us with Arc/Info: Northern Goshawk. Dept. Enf. Sci., Policy and
Management, Univ. of CA, Berkeley, CA, CA Dept. Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. CWHR Program. CWHR Tech. Report No. 14. 26 pp.
49) Whitford, Thomas C. 1986. Defining old-growth Douglas-fir forest of central Montana and use of the Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gnetilis) as a
management indicator species. M.S. Thesis, Univ. MT, Missoula, MT. 62 pp.
50) Moore, Kevin R. and C. J. Henny. 1983. Nest-site characteristics of three coexisting accipiter hawks in northeastern Oregon. Raptor Research 17(3):
65-76.
51) Wright, Vita. 1996. Multi-scale analysis of flammulated owl habitat use: owl distribution, habitat management and conservation. MS U. of MT.
Missoula, MT. 91 pp
Important statements from research:
Pileated Woodpecker
McClelland, 1999: “Short term documentation can lead to mistaken inferences because territorial fidelity is strong in most woodpeckers (Lawrence
1967). At 4 of our pileated woodpecker nest trees, the territory was not abandoned until several years after the surrounding old growth was logged.”
Flammulated Owl
Hayward and Verner, 1994: “Some logging may not be detrimental per se, as long as large old trees, open physiognomy, and some dense vegetation for
roosting persist. Clear-cutting, however, apparently renders an area useless for flammulated owls for many decades.”
Goshawk
Crocker-Bedford, 1990: “…goshawks persist 1 to 5 years in their territories following logging, though with little successful reproduction.”
Bright-Smith, 1994: “Use increases with increasing canopy closure.”
Fisher
Jones, 1991: “…fishers did not use non-forested habitats.” “It is crucial that preferred resting habitat patches be linked together by closed-canopy forest
travel corridors.”
Ruggiero et al. 1994: “...physical structure of the forest and prey associated with forest structures are the critical features that explain fisher habitat use,
not specific forest types.
Thomas, 1995: “Most habitats preferred by fishers have been described as structurally complex, with multiple canopy layers and abundant ground-level
structure (in the form of logs, other downed wood, under-story shrubs, etc.). Powell and Zielinski (1994) listed three functions of structural complexity,
which may be important for fishers: high diversity of prey populations, high vulnerability of prey items, and increased availability of dens and rest sites.
Structure also substantially influences snow accumulation and density, which have been shown to be important variables in fisher habitat use (Raine
1983, Leonard 1980, Powell and Zielinski 1994).”
20
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Table 2: Old Growth Crosswalk
Vegetative Grouping
1987 KNF Forest Plan (1) * Green, et al. (2) ** VRU (3) Fire Group (4) Reference
Habitat group 3 (Warm-Dry) 1) USDA Forest Service. 1987. Kootenai National Forest Plan.
“ 1 – PP, DF, L Northern Region USDA Forest Service. Missoula, MT.
“ “ 1 2, 4, 5
“ “ 2S 4 2) Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, and B.
“ “ 2N 6, 7 Naumann. 1992. Old growth forest types of the northern
2, 5 3 6, 11 region. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, MT. 61 pp.
Habitat group 2 (Cool-moist)
“ 3 – LP 3) USDA Forest Service. 1999. Vegetation Response Unit
“ 4 – SAF, DF, GF, C, L characterizations and target landscape prescriptions. Kootenai
“ 4 6 11 National Forest, Libby, MT. 174 pp.
“ 3&4 7S 7
4) Fischer, W.C. and A.F. Bradley. 1987. Fire Ecology of Western
“ 3&4 7N 9, 10
Montana Habitat Types. USDA InterMtn Res. Sta. GTR-INT-
“ 4 8 7, 8, 9
223. 95 pp.
“ 3&5 9 7, 8
Habitat Group 1 (Warm-Moist)
2 – DF, L 3 6, 11
3 – LP
4 – SAF, DF, GF, C, L
“ 4S 11
“ 4N 11
“ 5S 11
“ 5N 6, 11
5 – SAF, DF, GF, L 3
Cold: N/A (Above 5500’)
“ 6 – SAF, WSL
“ 7 – LP
“ “ 10 7, 10
“ 8 – SAF, WSL 11 10
21
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Table 3: Species Use by Vegetative Type
Old Growth Source & Type Species Use (Yes/No) *
Pileated Flammulated Northern Fisher
Woodpecker Owl Goshawk
KNF Forest Plan Appendix 17
Warm-Dry Habitat Group 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cool-Moist Habitat Group 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Warm-Moist Habitat Group 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cold (>5500’ elevation) No No No No
Green, et al.
Old Growth Type 1 Yes Yes Yes No
Old Growth Type 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Old Growth Type 3 Yes No Yes Yes
Old Growth Type 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Old Growth Type 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Old Growth Type 6 Yes No Yes Yes
Old Growth Type 7 No No No No
Old Growth Type 8 No No No No
VRU
1 Yes Yes No No
2S Yes Yes Yes Yes
2N Yes Yes Yes Yes
3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
4S Yes Yes Yes Yes
4N Yes Yes Yes Yes
5S Yes Yes Yes Yes
5N Yes Yes Yes Yes
6 Yes Yes Yes Yes
7S Yes No Yes Yes
7N Yes No Yes Yes
8 Yes No Yes Yes
9 No No Yes No
10 No No No No
11 No No No No
* Note: species use/non-use is NOT absolute as vegetative types occur across a wide range of elevations and
topographic features that create micro sites that may be useable for a given species. If stand specific use
information is available, it should be used in place of this Table.
22
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
APPENDIX: 1
Determining Suitable Old Growth Habitat Characteristics for Selected Wildlife Species
Introduction
Research on habitat use by the four species associated with old growth, which are currently
analyzed in NEPA documents, comes from a wide variety of locations. Extrapolation of
information from research areas outside the Kootenai National Forest must be done with care.
This Appendix documents the assumptions, process, and rationale used to establish “useable”
values for old growth STAND characteristics as they relate to the four old growth associate
species being evaluated on the Kootenai.
Assumptions
Use only data from vegetation types as close as possible to those occurring on the
Kootenai National Forest to establish “useable” habitat values.
When averages or means were provided with a standard deviation the lower use value
was calculated using the mean minus the standard deviation.
Using values from distinctly different vegetation types than those on the Kootenai are
likely to result in determining suitable habitat exists, when there is a high likelihood it
does not.
Do not use extreme ends of values found in research because: 1) extremes may be the
result of changes in habitat conditions that the species may not have responded to at the
time of research (McClelland 1999); and 2) the amount of old growth is currently outside
historic range of variation so a conservative approach is prudent.
Process
Available, peer reviewed, published research literature was reviewed for all four species.
Specifically, each paper was examined for information about old growth stand and structure
characteristics used by the species covered in the paper. Both breeding and feeding habitat data
were reviewed. When it appeared there might be significant differences in suitable habitat
characteristics by vegetation type, to the extent possible, the research data was assigned to a
VRU group (VRU's 1, 2, and the southerly aspects of 3 were grouped and then all other VRU's
were put into a second group).
Rationale
While research papers show use data on old growth stand and structure characteristics that are
lower than the values established for the Kootenai NF, those lower values may be from mistaken
inferences 1 2 or from forest types clearly not present on the Kootenai. The values identified for
the Kootenai reduce the possibility of determining suitable habitats exist, when it may not. This
conservative approach is used because the current amount of old growth remaining on the Forest
is generally below historic range of variability.
1
McClelland (1999) notes (pp. 853-854): “short term documentation can lead to mistaken inferences because territorial fidelity is strong in most
woodpeckers (Lawrence 1967). At 4 of our pileated woodpecker nest trees, the territory was not abandoned until several years after the
surrounding old growth was logged.”
2
Crocker-Bedford, 1990: “…goshawks persist 1 to 5 years in their territories following logging, though with little successful reproduction.”
23
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Attachment 2
Old Growth and VRU Relationships
This Table illustrates a proportional representation of old growth as historically represented
within specific VRU’s. Green et al., KNF Forest Plan old growth types, and Fire Groups are
cross-referenced.
Pre - 1900 distribution Green's O.G KNF Forest Primary Historic Patch
VRU of stands > 150 years types present Plan O.G. Types Fire Size - acres Expected location of O.G.
(1) (1) (2) (3) Groups (4) (1) (Kootenai)
1 40-70% 1 3 (warm-dry) 4 20-200 Throughout VRU
Throughout VRU on PP and WL
2S 20-50% 1 3 (warm-dry) 6 20-200 types
2N 20-50% 1 3 (warm-dry) 6 20-200 Throughout VRU
1,3 (warm-dry,
3 15-40% 2,5 warm-moist) 6,11 20-200 PP and WL types, gentle slopes
Valley bottoms and benches, stands
4S 10-40% 4 1 (warm-moist) 11 20-75 with heavier larch component
Valley bottoms and benches, more
4N 10-40% 4 1 (warm-moist) 11 100-300 mixed species stands
Exposed upper ridges, riparian
5S 25-55% 4 1 (warm-moist) 11 20” dbh class, and snag classes
Age (from cores) of oldest age class in the stand
Estimate of basal area from prism or relaskop plots.
Estimate of canopy cover
Estimate of down logs per acre in 12-20” diameter class
Estimate of down logs per acre in >20” diameter class
Presence and severity of major mortality factors such as bark beetles and presence and
severity of stem decay indicators.
Remarks: Indications of wildlife use, especially of old growth associated species. Stand
history and evidence of past logging. Notes on surrounding stands.
Sketch map of stand
See the attached form. This may be copied and used as is, or modified, as long as the basic
elements remain.
28
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Old Growth Walkthrough Form
Kootenai National Forest
District Stand Number
Aerial Photo No. Date
Personnel
Elevation Aspect
Slope Acres
Slope Position Forest Cover Type
Habitat Type (to Stand Structure
phase) (single story, 2-
story, multistory)
Major tree species
present – each
canopy layer
Live Trees/Acre 17- Live Trees/Acre
20.9” 21”+
Dead Trees/Acre Dead Trees/Acre
12-20” >20”
Snag Structural
Classes (1,2,3)
Age from cores of
oldest age class
Basal Area Estimate Canopy Cover
Estimate
Down Logs/Acre 12- Down Logs/Acre
20” >20”
Major Mortality
Factors and
Severity
Stem Decay
Indicators
Remarks: Wildlife
use, stand history,
notes on
surrounding stands
29
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Old Growth Walkthrough Form
Kootenai National Forest
Sketch Map of Stand
Remarks (continued):
30
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Option 2: Common Stand Exam Method:
The old growth inventory will meet the basic requirements for a Common Stand Exam (CSE)
quick plot exam as defined in the Common Stand Exam Field Guide For Region 1 -- Version 1.5
(R1 Version 2.03.2003). Following are clarifications and additional requirements for the Old
Growth Exams. If an item is not discussed below, record exactly as specified for quick plots in
the above field guide.
These are minimum KNF Old Growth Exam standards. Data collected using the CSE exam has
the benefit of using existing automated processing to build summary tables, and is readily stored
in FSVeg, the official Forest Service database for vegetative information. Data collected in this
format may also be used in the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), used to project changes in
stand conditions over time. If the CSE approach is used, it is important to follow the protocol,
because this data will be stored on the national FSVeg database, and may well be used by other
people than those on the district where it is collected. Additional data may be gathered, but costs
of this additional data must be considered.
SETTING FORM –
Stand Data Form
Field Number Field Name Quick Plot
Number of Plots X
1 Project Name OG Exam
2 Proclaimed Region 1
3 Proclaimed National Forest 14
4 District X
5 Location X
6 Stand Number X
7 Ownership X
8 State X
9 County X
10 Administrative Forest 14
11 Date X
12 Photo ID
13 Examination Level X
14 Exam Purpose SE
15 Stratum X
16 Existing Vegetation Cover Type X
17 Potential Vegetation Reference X
18 Potential Vegetation X
19 Structure X
20 Capable Growing Area X
21 Fuel model
22 Elevation X
23 Aspect X
24 Slope X
25 Slope Position X
26 Acres X
27 Radial Growth Interval
31
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
28 Radial Growth Interval #2
29 Height Growth Interval
30 Fuel Photo Reference
31 Precision Protocol CSEQP
32 Examiner X
33 Stand Remarks X
34 Stand Damage Category X
35 Stand Damage Agent X
36 Stand Damage Severity X
37 Species of Management Interest X
38 Sketch Map and Traverse Notes X
Proclaimed Forest: As per R1 CSE manual, “only the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
will record their actual proclaimed national forest. All other Forests should record their
administrative Forest as defined below:”
Use all required fields in above referenced field guide. Additional specifics listed below:
Field 1: Project Name
OG Exam
Field 13: Examination Level
1000 (indicates quick plot tree form and NO down-woody collected)
1010 (indicates quick plot tree form with down-woody collected)
Field 14: Exam Purpose
SE
Field 31: Precision Protocol
CSEQP
SAMPLE DESIGN FORM –
Form Selection Expansion No. of Sub pop. Selection Sub pop. Sub pop. Sub pop.
Azm
Type Method Factor Plots Filter Criteria # Variable Min. Max.
TREE BAF 40 5 LIVE DBH 5.00 999.99
TREE FRQ 300 5 ALL DBH .10 4.99
5 ALL OR HGT .50 4.49
TREE FRQ 4 5 DEAD DBH 5.00 999.99
DNWDY TRN 80 5 DOWN DIA 3.00 999.99
The following TREE fields on the Sample Design Form shall be edited for each setting:
a. Number of Plots on all forms – Tree, Vegetation Cover, Surface Cover and Down
Woody
b. Expansion Factor for the Tree BAF.
c. Expansion Factor for the Dnwdy- Trn line.
32
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Should be taken from Region 1 sample designs (see below for “Trees Recorded”). Use variable-
radius plot for trees 5”+ DBH, and a 1/300 acre (6.8 ft radius) fixed plot for trees less than 5”
dbh. Live trees less than 0.5’ height, and dead trees less than 5.0” DBH are not tallied. All other
trees are tallied
BAF
Choose a basal area factor appropriate to get a good sample on each plot of 3-4 trees in potential
old growth diameter classes. The trees per acre and diameter class will vary with the old growth
type. Must use the same BAF for all plots in a stand.
Trees Recorded
All live trees greater than 0.5’+ in height are tallied; live trees less than 0.5’ in height are not
tallied. Dead trees 5.0”+ DBH are tallied; dead trees less than 5.0” DBH are not tallied. Trees
less than 5.0” DBH are grouped as described below in Field 6 under Tree Data Form. Trees
5.0”+ are always recorded individually.
-- PLOT DATA FORM --
Use all required fields in above referenced field guide. Additional specifics listed below:
Fields 2 and 3: Plot Latitude and Longitude
Required
Field 12: Plot Potential Vegetation
This is Habitat Type – required to phase.
-- TREE DATA FORM – QUICK PLOT EXAM LEVEL --
In addition to required fields as noted in documentation, the following are also required for Old
Growth Exams:
Field 4: Growth Sample Trees (Growth Sample Tree [GST])
On GST trees, AGE is the only additional field required to be measured for GST trees on old
growth exams.
A GST tree is the first live standing sample tree of each species encountered on each plot in each
of the following diameter classes, moving clockwise from 0 degrees azimuth (condition of the
terminal leader is not a consideration for selecting Old Growth GST trees). In addition, if not
already tallied, the largest tree of each species on each plot is also a GST tree. The following
GST diameter classes will be used:
Diameter Class
5.0 – 14.9”
15.0 – 24.9”
25.0+
33
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
If the side of the tree normally selected for increment boring will involve drilling into extensive
rot, it is permissible to move around the bole of the tree to obtain a breast height core that avoids
the worst of the rot, and thus provides a more accurate age.
If the first GST tree of a given species in a given diameter class obviously has very
extensive rot, and there is another relatively sound tree of that species and diameter class,
that is also within +/- 2” diameter of the rotten GST tree, and appears from its overall form
to be of the same age class, it may be substituted as the GST tree to get a better age
estimate. (However, field crews must be extremely cautious to avoid any bias in their GST
sample. Be aware that sometimes the cause of the rot may be a disturbance, and that the
trees with rot may actually be an older age class. If you suspect this is the case, do not
select an alternate GST Tree, but do the best you can with the first GST tree, and estimate
total age if necessary – as outlined for Field 14 below.)
Field 6: Tree Count
Grouping trees less than 5.0” DBH:
For live trees less than 5.0” DBH (i.e. those that occur on the small-tree plot):
For trees less than 3.0” diameter, group by species and height classes as defined in the
handbook under field 6, tree count: 0.6-4.9’. 5.0-12.9’, 13.0-18.9’ (do not tally trees
less than 0.5’ in height).
o If all of the trees of a species =4.5’, heights on GST’s only. Accuracy standard
for height is +/-10%
Field 14: Age
Required for all GST trees (as defined above). Record actual ring count at breast height.
Estimate age for trees with heart-rot or hollow centers. If estimating age due to rot or hollow
center, record “AE1” in Field 25: Tree Remarks. Follow the AE1 code with the length in inches
of the core for which rings were counted and the actual ring count in that core. To estimate the
total age, use the method for age estimates in Appendix O of the Region 1 Field Instructions.
Use Quick Plot accuracy standard tolerances for recording age:
for trees 300 years old, the tolerance becomes +/- 15%.
Age is an important criterion for determining old growth status. It is critical to keep increment
borers properly sharpened and regularly cleaned. A dull, chipped, or gummed-up increment
borer will not take a useable core. Age estimates are only to be used for rotten or hollow trees,
or trees so large that the center cannot be reached.
Field 15: Crown Ratio
Required. Record by tree or tree group.
Field 16: Crown Class
Required.
Field 19: Log/Snag Decay Class
Required.
35
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Fields 21, 22, & 23: Tree Damage and Damage Severity
If Bark Beetles are present, record the general bark beetle damage code (Damage code 11),
and the appropriate severity code.
If there is evidence of Stem Decays record the general stem decay damage code (Damage Code
22), and appropriate severity code.
If the tree has a Broken Top (Damage Code 99_ 001) or Dead Top (Damage Code 99-002),
record the appropriate specific damage code and severity code.
Other damages do not need to be recorded for Old Growth Exams. For the damages that are
recorded, use the Quick Plot Accuracy Standards and Tolerances. Note that Quick Plots do not
require coding if the damage in these categories is very minor (low severity rating).
Field 25: Tree Remarks
This is where details about tree age estimates are recorded. Record “AE1” and other information
specified under Field 14: Age, as shown in Appendix O. Canopy closure, if taken, will be
recorded as the first item in the field, to the nearest 10%. It will be separated by an underscore by
other remarks in this field. Here is an example of how this field should be filled out: cc60_AE1,
meaning canopy closure for the plot was measured at 60%; age of the first tree was estimated
due to heart rot.
Down Woody Material Form
2.6.1. Record down woody material transect according to the following subtasks and in
accordance with Common Stand Exam Field Guide for R1 (although Brown’s Formula
Protocol is altered in this contract). An X in the table below indicates all required fields.
Field
Field Name Quick Plot Data Source
Number
Header X
1 Plot Number X
2 First Duff X
3 Second Duff X
4 Fuel Depth X
16 Piece Count X
17 Decay Class X
18 Diameter X
19 Piece Length X
2.6.2. First Duff and Second Duff: Record duff in accordance with Common Stand Exam
Field Guide for R1. Take the duff readings along a 90-degree azimuth from plot center (at 1
foot and then 6 feet, respectively from plot center).
2.6.3. Down Woody Material Transect: The length of each transect is calculated by
dividing 400 feet by the number of plots in the stand. The direction is along the azimuth
36
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
when traveling from one plot to the next. Transect for plot 1 begins at plot 1 and continues
along the azimuth to plot 2 for the calculated number of feet. (Note: the transect shall be
offset by 2 chains from the stand boundary, a road or other disturbed site.) The transect may
continue past the plot center along the same azimuth if necessary to complete the distance.
Transect for the last plot shall be at 90 degrees azimuth.
2.6.4. Down Woody Material: Tally all down logs > 3.0 inches. Group logs by diameter to
within + 2 inches, log decay class and piece length to within + 2 feet. For each group, record
piece count, log decay class, the average diameter within the diameter group and the average
piece length. If no down material is present, write "no down material" or "none" for the plot.
Either a planar, transect method (Brown, J.K. 1974), the Photo Series (Fischer, W.C. 1981),
(Maxwell, W.G. and F.R.Ward 1976) or a fixed plot method may be used. If the planar transect
method is used, small end diameter, large end diameter, and total length should be recorded for
all pieces that have an intersect diameter of 3" or larger. This method will eliminate bias in
volume estimates by diameter class (Torgersen and Bate 2003). Also, estimates such as percent
of log cover by size class and logs per acre can be computed.
Unfortunately this change to the common stand exam program (revised Brown’s formula) will
not be available in time for the upcoming field season. This request will probably be included in
the next major patch to CSE.
It is recommended that for the 2004 field season, CSE exams should use the standard Brown’s
model transect if down woody fuel data is collected. Fields 16 (piece count), 17 (decay class), 18
(large end diameter) and 19 (length) should be entered for all pieces larger than 3” in diameter at
the point of intersection. Although tons per acre aren’t volume, there is a very high correlation.
Refer to the Region 1 (R1) CSE field guide Version 1.5, page 1-77 for the planar (Brown’s)
method of down woody fuel sampling. To assure a valid sample, see page 1-77 of the R1 CSE
field guide for guidelines of length of sampling plane per plot.
The problem with collecting fixed plot or strip sample for down wood is that there is no
application that would compile that information, nor is one being planned. The data from the
strip plots could still be entered in FSVeg, but there would be no support for data collection and
analysis. Refer to the R1 CSE field guide; pages 1-84 and 1-85 for the fixed area plot method of
down woody fuel sampling. Tally any log if the point on the upper most surface of the cylinder,
on the large end, is within the fixed area plot.
If possible, if fuels data is being collected, it would be desirable to collect all of the down woody
debris data, so that fuels information could be summarized in the Timber Stand Management
Resource System (TSMRS) and data could be used in fire behavior modeling. There is added
cost of collecting the data on smaller fuels, but calculation and analysis are already supported in
the program.
37
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Attachment 5
Examples of Write-ups for NEPA Documents
The following is an example of a vegetation write-up edited to be more generic and suitable (with site-
specific modifications) for other districts to use. The first portion of this generic write-up is an example of
how a Vegetation Chapter can be written. This is not the complete document, but an example using
highlights for certain VRU's. Remaining VRU's can be addressed in similar manner using this as a
template. The document following this one is an example of an old growth section that was originally
separated from the Vegetation Chapter. However, we recommend the two be part of the same document
and that old growth be addressed as a portion of late successional stage development of vegetation
communities, if even addressed separately.
When putting together effects analyses for vegetation within action alternatives, be sure to address risks
associated with use of ground-based equipment with respect to soil disturbance and weed introduction. An
example is one potential future old growth stand on a district that had not been previously entered. It was
scheduled for a helicopter harvest system and to be excavator-piled post harvest. The district ID Team
ended up with a fairly lengthy list of mitigations to prevent soil damage and weed dispersal within the stand.
This should have been part of the effects analysis/consequence disclosure for alternative comparison
(including the “no action” alternative).
Brief Example of a Recommended Vegetation Write-up Format
Forest Structure
The height, diameter, and crown arrangement of trees as well as the understory plants and downed woody
material are the basic components of forest structure. Structural diversity within the analysis area varies
from large patches of single-storied, uniform stands of lodgepole pine with scattered overstory western
larch and Douglas-fir to non-uniform, multi-storied stands of mixed species and variable patch size.
Existing size classes of conifers range in size and age from seedlings to old growth. Variable stand ages
and sizes are a reflection of its natural and human-influenced disturbance history. The variation in
structural attributes can best be explained with respect to the mosaic of natural disturbance, past harvest,
and the resultant character of the habitat and its components. Many of the multi-storied stands result from
decades of fire suppression, which has enabled further development of the understory trees into the
general forest canopy. Areas that may have formerly been composed of merely grasses, forbs, and shrubs
have also begun to fill in with conifers.
TABLE 3-??. AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON
Existing Conditions
AGE CLASS Historical Reference Conditions*
*** *** Analysis Area
Early Seral (1-40 years) 10-20% 19%
Mid-Seral (41-100 years) 15-35% 17%
Mature (101-150 years) 10-30% 26%
Old Forest (151+ years) 25-55% 35%
*Weighted average by VRU of historic range.
Table 3-?? Displays the existing age class distribution in comparison to the age class distribution that is
thought to have occurred historically. The current distribution of age classes is based on stand data and
38
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
year of origin. The occurrences of non-forested areas are minimal and not displayed here. The distribution
of age classes for the *** *** assessment area is the same as for the *** *** planning sub-unit.
The categories of age class are based on the seral or successional stage of the plant community. Early
seral is a condition in which plants are present soon after a disturbance or at the beginning of a new
successional process (seedling or saplings in a forest). Grass, herbs, or brush are abundant, diversity is
high. A mid-seral stage is characterized in a forest setting that has almost full crown closure in pole to
medium-sized trees. Understory vegetation is less due to tree shading and less overall species diversity. A
late seral stage is a condition with mature trees, often of old forest character, where tree growth is slowed or
culminated and mortality has increased. Stand structure varies from single to multistoried, understory is
sparse of vegetation due to canopy closure, and scattered relic overstory structure is ordinarily present
where it has survived periodic moderate- to high-intensity fires. Wildlife values associated with this stand
condition include breeding, feeding and nesting habitat for small mammals, furbearers, big game, and avian
species. Thermal, hiding, and escape cover for big game animals is high, herbage and browse production is
low, animal diversity is high, and woody debris is low. Due to its relative importance, this stage is broken out
into two categories for this analysis: Mature and Old Forest.
The comparison table above (Table 3.2) evaluates all the ownerships within the assessment area. The
early- and mid-seral age classes are still within historic reference conditions. Early-seral and mid-seral
distributions cover the time period since modern settlement. The mature and old forest distributions are
stands or dominating portions of stands originating prior to modern settlement. Early-seral and mid-seral
stands have been the result primarily of extended post-World War II timber demands that began to diminish
in the 1980s. Over the same period, fire suppression held the average acres of stand replacing burns to a
low level. During this time private, industrial lands were not being entered as frequently due to the
availability of Forest Service timber sales. Private, industrial landowners had a propensity to use selective
harvest systems on their land as their lands tended to be on lower elevations and less steep slopes. The
physiographic conditions, corresponding species diversity, and private ownership facilitated multiple entry
practices. In the late 1970‟s and 1980‟s changes in private timber company policy directions to increased
competitive demands of markets resulted in extended use of clearcutting on private, industrial timber lands.
The focus of regeneration harvest on private industrial timberlands occurred as harvest on Forest Service
lands were beginning to decline. The result is that the early-seral age class distribution was maintained,
though on the high end, within historic ranges and the mid-seral age class remains within or exceeds
estimates of historic levels at this time. Mature age classes are on the high end of historic levels and the old
forest condition is well within the reference levels for most forest types found in the analysis area. Active
vegetation management of the analysis area is largely responsible for maintaining a fairly balanced age
distribution. The trend toward a relatively higher-than-characteristic level in mature stands reflects many
factors including protection of unroaded areas, old growth habitat reserves, fire exclusion, and the
continued ingrowth of „middle-aged‟ trees. The early- and mid-seral age classes will continue to develop
into successive stages and continue to contribute to the advancement of the mature and old forest
condition.
Vegetation Response Units
Utilizing habitat type groups, soils, landtypes, and aspect as a base, the land within the project area was
mapped based on its expected response to disturbances (see Vegetation Response Units, M-8). A
Vegetation Response Unit (VRU) is an aggregation of lands with similar patterns in potential vegetation,
soils, climate, topography, and natural processes (USDA 1997). The use of VRU‟s is an important link to
39
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
understanding the existing condition and the potential for management activity in this area (Gautreaux
1999). These areas typically follow somewhat predictable and repeatable patterns and have similar
capabilities and potentials for management. The relative distribution of the VRU‟s occurring within the
project area is displayed in Table 3-3, along with characterization in the subsequent description. Although
no mechanical treatment areas are proposed in VRU‟s 6, 7, 9, and 11, at this time, it is important to
describe and understand the existing vegetative conditions in these settings. The VRU map, M-7, displays
the location and distribution of all VRU‟s in the analysis area. More details are available in the project file for
the *** *** Landscape in the *** *** Planning Sub-unit Assessment.
TABLE 3-??. VEGETATION RESPONSE UNIT ACRES
% OF PROJECT
VRU ACRES
BIOPHYSICAL SETTING AREA
Moderately Cool and Moist VRU 5 **** **
Cool and Moist VRU 7 **** **
Moderately Warm and Dry VRU 2 **** **
Cool and Moderately Dry VRU 9 **** **
Moderately Warm and Moist VRU 4 **** **
Cool and Wet Riparian VRU 6 **** **
Cold VRU11 **** **
Moderately Warm and Dry Setting (VRU 2)
The land area represented in this VRU is **** acres or about ** percent of the total assessment area.
Occurring primarily on south and westerly slopes (i.e.: lower *** *** Creek area, back drops off *** *** into
*** *** Creek and *** *** Creek and lower *** ***), these dry, lower elevation, open ridges are composed of
mixed Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine in well-stocked and fairly open-grown conditions. Moist, upland sites
and dense draws also include western larch and lodgepole pine, with lesser amounts of ponderosa pine.
Under natural conditions, tree regeneration occurs in patches and is largely absent in the understory due to
frequency of fire. These sites can have low-to-moderate site productivity due to a general lack of soil
moisture and the minimal presence of volcanic ash-influenced soils.
Dominant shrubs within this VRU include: common snowberry, ninebark, dwarf huckleberry, ocean-spray,
Rocky Mountain maple, and common juniper. Wetter microsites may contain redstem ceanothus, western
serviceberry, and Scouler‟s willow. Forbs include shiny-leaf spirea, kinnikinnick, and Oregon-grape. Grass
species include elk sedge and pinegrass. Sensitive plants such as western moonwort, Howell‟s gumweed,
Spalding‟s silene, common Clarkia, and Geyer‟s biscuit-root may occur in unique microsites of this setting.
Prior to intensive fire suppression, fire was an important agent in controlling density and species
composition in this VRU. According to fire history research in western Montana/northern Idaho, low-to-
moderate intensity fires on a frequency of 15 to 45 years were the predominant disturbance, playing a
major role in maintaining the seral community of conifers.
Mixed-lethal, mosaic-type fires typically occurred at mid to upper elevations and northerly aspects, creeping
along the surface and occasionally flaring up, killing trees in patches and aiding in the creation of multiple
age classes.
40
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
On lower elevations, south and westerly aspects, low-intensity fires would burn non-uniformly consuming
the litter and undergrowth. This usually left an open overstory of western larch, ponderosa pine, and
Douglas-fir largely intact and created small canopy gaps. Average stand basal area was 60-100 and
structural diversity remained high under these mosaic conditions.
TABLE 3-??. AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON - VRU 2
HISTORICAL EXISTING
AGE CLASS
AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION
Early Seral (1-40 years) 15-25% 07%
Mid-Seral (41-100 years) 15-35% 22%
Mature (101-150 years) 10-30% 23%
Overmature (151+ years) 20-50% 49%
Departure from Reference Conditions: The low distribution of early-seral is the result of fire suppression,
lengthening the period of non-disturbance allowing stands to reach the older age classes. The stands that
make up the 7 percent of the VRU‟s landscape is in an early-seral age class is the result of regeneration
harvest in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000. Longer periods of non-disturbance in mature and
overmature stands have allowed these age classes to be on the high end of the historical distribution
range. At the same time, older stands that commonly occurred as open grown, dominated by seral western
larch, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir have become multi-storied Douglas-fir dominated stands. Mid-seral
and mature age classes are within historical distribution, but fire suppression results in missed fire intervals,
allowing continued ingrowth of primarily non-seral species raising tree densities higher than historically
maintained.
The 60-plus years of fire suppression has precluded low-intensity underburns from occurring as the more
characteristic disturbance pattern. Stand information shows stand basal areas of 121-150 square feet in 13
percent of the VRU, basal areas of 151-200 in 45 percent of the VRU and basal areas greater than 200
square feet in 19 percent of the VRU. The result is a higher stand density of trees in over 77 percent of this
setting, a general absence of ponderosa pine regeneration, a general change in stand structure, and a
lower-than-characteristic level of young stands. Many of the area stands have a more uniform structure and
a closed canopy. Patch size and pattern are currently more homogenous and there are fewer open, park-
like stands.
Some areas are experiencing greater tree mortality and fuel loading due to continued bark beetle impacts
in lodgepole pine. Winter/snow-damaged trees are more abundant due to higher stand densities. Also, the
uncharacteristically high whitetail deer numbers have put browsing pressure on managed plantations in
winter range areas, making some areas difficult to revegetate. Non-native plants are more common in big
game winter range areas than historically occurred.
Moderately Warm and Moist Setttings (VRU 4)
The land area represented in this VRU is 1,595 acres or about 2 percent of the total assessment area. This
VRU occupies some of the moderately warm and moist sites along lower slopes and valley bottoms such
as along *** *** on the upland ridges from *** ***, *** ***, *** ***, *** ***, and *** *** Creeks. The moderating
effects of an inland maritime climate influence the VRU, from an ecological perspective. However, this
setting contains habitat conditions that are ordinarily drier and cooler than what is suitable for western
hemlock and western redcedar. Stand densities varied but may have ranged from an average of 150-200
41
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
square feet of basal area and could exceed 200 sq. ft. in riparian areas. These midslope sites have
mosaics of seral and climax species due to varying fire regimes. Unlike other VRU‟s that have been
significantly influenced by the effects of fire, species composition in VRU4 is largely the result of longer fire-
free intervals and an inland maritime climate. Tree species such as grand fir, Douglas-fir, western larch,
Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine with western white pine and ponderosa pine occur as scattered
minor seral components. Paper birch is occasional while western redcedar and western hemlock appear as
incidentals. Lower-story vegetation (shrubs) includes: Rocky Mountain maple, redstem ceanothus, western
serviceberry, thimbleberry, ocean-spray, common snowberry, baldhip rose, Utah honeysuckle, blue
huckleberry, and twinflower. Forbs include: arrowleaf groundsel, queen‟s cup beadlily, starry Solomon-
seal, northern bedstraw, western goldthread, Hooker‟s fairybell, trail-plant, and occasionally arrowleaf
balsamroot and lady fern. The grass, Columbia brome, occurs as an associate.
Although moist site conditions and infrequent fires predominate, the occasional periods of summer drought
can create some conditions very conducive to severe fires. There is a wide range of fire free intervals
within this group due to the wide moisture gradient and the influence of surrounding stands. Fire severity
varies from minor ground fire on moist sites to stand replacement fires (Fisher and Bradley 1987). The
historic fire severity was non-uniform, including both mixed severity types on an average of every 30-85
years (VRU 4S) with less frequent lethal fires occurring on an average frequency of 200 years (VRU 4N).
Non-lethal underburns also occurred at varying intervals on the drier exposures, sometime between the
more intense fire events. Forest community succession on these moist sites is less dependent on the
characteristics of a particular fire event and more dependent on the potential seed source, existing species
composition, and time since stand initiation. The time it takes to develop a distinct overstory, is primarily a
function of the rate of tree regeneration following disturbance. Many sites within this response unit are
prime candidates for shrub field development following stand replacement fires or management activities
that do not include site preparation and prompt reforestation.
TABLE 3-??. AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION COMPARISON - VRU 4
HISTORICAL EXISTING
AGE CLASS
AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION
Early Seral (1-40 years) 15-25% 5%
Mid-Seral (41-100 years) 20-40% 27%
Mature (101-150 years) 15-35% 27%
Overmature (151+ years) 10-40% 41%
Departure from Historic Reference Conditions: Over ninety five percent of this VRU is located in
Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA). The IRA designation does not preclude treatment of inclusive stands,
however, it does reduce the range of methods and timing of treatments by access and allocation.
Management with mechanized equipment requires Regional Forester approval, which includes
Forest Supervisor involvement and presentation to the Regional Forester. Independent of
management designations, over 95 percent of the VRU has not had recorded fire in over 58 years. Effects
of fire exclusion can be seen in the low distribution of the early seral age class, since the sites have moved
into an older age class distribution since previous disturbance. Seventy-three of the seventy-eight acres of
the early seral distribution are attributed to regeneration harvest in the 1970s, 1980s, and 2000. Fire
suppression effects on surrounding VRU‟s have created limited opportunities for western white pine and
western larch as seed sources within the VRU and for adjacent stands. White pine is vulnerable to
mortality from white pine blister rust. Lodgepole pine cover types in this VRU are of 1900 origin and are at
high risk to mountain pine beetle where not already affected. Western larch, in fire-secluded stands, is
42
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
prone to dwarf mistletoe. Increased stem densities with continued lack of disturbance increase the
potential of root diseases. Sixty-eight percent of the area has stand densities exceeding 100 square feet.
In stands dominated by Douglas-fir, the likely hood that stands will become vulnerable to Douglas-fir beetle
is high.
Recommended Old Growth Write-up Format
The following old growth write-up should be included within the Vegetation Chapter for NEPA documents.
This write-up has been edited with Notes (in bold and italics) and made to be sufficiently generic to fit most
projects with added modifications. Districts can fill in the blanks (indicated by asterisks), use, or not use
specific paragraphs.
Note: Overall comment – separate vegetation section and wildlife write-ups!
Introduction
Old growth habitat is recognized for its unique ecological characteristics that serve as important habitat for
both wildlife and some species of rare plants on the Kootenai National Forest. The Forest Plan lists 58
species of wildlife that find optimum breeding and/or feeding habitat in old growth. Five of these (barred
owl, great gray owl, pileated woodpecker, boreal redback vole, and brown creeper) have a strong
preference or possible dependence on old growth. Note: (See the Wildlife Section for details on old
growth-associated wildlife species).
Most researchers categorize old growth as mature and overmature stands that provide habitat for many
wildlife species. Forest Plan Appendix 17, pg. A17-2, classifies old growth as a "distinct successional
stage" having specific characteristics. It defines the "classic" old growth stand as one which is physically
imposing with tall, full-crowned trees; large standing dead material; fallen dead material; a dense canopy;
and having moderated temperatures. Note: Should use the Forest Plan standard on pages 11-22.
The pileated woodpecker is an inhabitant of old growth habitat and a management indicator species (MIS)
for old growth habitat on the Kootenai NF. According to Thomas (1979) and others, optimal pileated habitat
can be defined as old growth. These stands provide both the nesting and feeding habitat for the
woodpecker in all seasons. The large diameter snags provide the pileated nesting habitat, while both the
snags and down woody material provide habitat for the woodpecker's primary prey species, the carpenter
ant (Warren 1990). Note: See also the Pileated Woodpecker analysis in the Wildlife Section of this
document. Please refer to the project file for information on stand attributes necessary for a stand
to be considered old growth.
Management activities (timber harvesting, road construction, mining etc.) have the potential to impact the
effectiveness of existing old growth habitat or specific components of old growth. These specific
components include interior habitat and vertical structure.
Criteria used to rate the alternatives for this project by their impacts on old growth and the pileated
woodpecker (Note: or other pertinent species) include:
o Acres treated to maintain old growth attributes characteristic to the site,
o Acres of vertical structure removed,
43
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
o Acres of interior habitat made ineffective,
o Acres of potential snag loss due to firewood cutting, and
o Acres potentially lost from wind events.
Acres treated to maintain old growth attributes characteristic to the site are the acres treated to maintain the
type of old growth structural attributes, successional stages, and vegetation species that would be expected
to occur historically relative to the influence of natural disturbance events, such as wildfire.
Acres of vertical structure removed are the acres of direct harvest.
Acres of interior habitat made ineffective is the length of the area where harvests occur adjacent to old
growth, or Management Area (MA) 13 multiplied by 150 feet and converted to acres. This is also the
method for calculating acres of potential snag loss. Note: this needs a reference citation.
Acreage lost from wind events is also calculated this way, although the canopy removal of the harvested
stands influences whether an increase in wind effect will occur. Generally, partial harvesting does not
result in as great a wind effect as regeneration harvesting does.
Another assumption made is that interior habitat is not ineffective unless the width of a clearing through old
growth is greater than the average tree length. Therefore, fragmentation of old growth would not occur
unless clearings greater than 150 feet or so are created. Note: this needs a reference citation.
Analysis Area
The old growth analysis area is the **** project area. This analysis area includes the following planning sub-
unit(s): *** ***. See Old Growth Map for these locations.
Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines
Forest Plan Appendix 17 specifies that no less than 10 percent of National Forest System (NFS) lands
below 5,500 feet elevation be designated as MA 13, or other non-base management area with old growth
designation, such as MA 21/OG or MA 2/OG, and managed to provide an old growth forest condition (see
Management Areas map for locations of these MAs in the project area and their relation to the proposed
harvest and burning activities). For the analysis area, the minimum allocation to MA 13 is * acres. The
analysis area contains * acres of MA 13 and other old growth MA allocations. Please see Table 3-?? below
for old growth acreages in this area.
Affected Environment
The analysis area contains approximately *** acres in designated old growth management areas (MA 13
and other old growth MAs). This represents approximately ** percent of the forested national forest land
below 5,500 feet. Approximately **** acres (** percent) is effective old growth, and **** acres (** percent) is
replacement old growth. Replacement old growth stands have many old growth characteristics, but not
enough to be considered old growth currently. These stands are expected to become old growth in time.
In addition, there are **** acres of undesignated effective old growth, for a total of **** acres of effective old
growth or ** percent of the project area.
44
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Table 3-?? shows the minimum acres required to be designated to meet forest plan standards, the actual
allocation to old growth MAs, and the total acreage of effective old growth and replacement stands by
compartment. Note: As per Forest Supervisor’s direction, only show values by planning sub-unit.
TABLE 3-??
OLD GROWTH ACRES BY PLANNING SUB-UNIT
Minimum
Forest Service Acreage
Compartment Name Undesignated
Managed Acres Designation Designated Old Growth Acres (%)
(Number) Effective Old
under 5,500 ft. Required by
Growth
elevation Forest Plan
(10%) Total (%) Effective (%) Replacement
*** *** (**) 14,076 1,408 1,642 (11.7%) 1,453 (10.3%) 189 ** 225
*** *** (**) 10,249 1,025 1,378 (13.4%) 1,337 (13%) 41 ** 1,118
*** *** (**) 17,600 1,760 2,361 (13.4%) 2,099 (11.9%)* 262 ** 778
*** *** (**) 9,390 939 1,277 (13.6%) 1,149 (12.2%)* 128 ** 134
*** *** (**) 15,965 1,597 1,410 (8.8%) 1,093 (6.8%) 317*** 0
TOTAL ACRES 67,280 6,729 8,068 (12%) 7,131 (10.6%) 937 2,255
* Additional effective old growth (339 acres in ***, and 210 acres in ***) was designated to provide effective old growth habitat
adjacent to compartment 46, which lacks sufficient effective old growth currently.
** Replacement old growth above the forest plan 10 percent standard was designated to provide connectivity between effective
old growth stands, or to conserve areas with a component of old growth micro-sites and evidence of ecological continuity.
*** Replacement old growth designated to provide old growth in the future, within ***, which lacks sufficient effective old growth
for designation to meet the forest plan 10 percent standard.
Old growth stands in the analysis area are mainly composed of very old western hemlock, western
redcedar, western larch, ponderosa pine, and other conifers. There are several areas of large contiguous
old growth blocks in the analysis area, as well as some isolated and fragmented old growth stands. All the
MA 13 allocations in this area have been verified by field surveys. Stands with the most old growth
character and least fragmentation in the analysis area have been allocated to MA 13 or other old growth
MAs. In other words, the best stands available have been allocated to old growth MAs.
Old growth management area designations within the project area have been delineated to conserve the
best old growth attributes available; and to provide adequate distribution, size, habitat type, and quality.
These old growth areas are composed of old growth stands that are physically connected to other old
growth stands where possible, or are interconnected to adjacent old growth stands with connector stands
composed of 100+ year old age classes. Designated old growth stands in the project area generally
support the habitat conditions described in “Old Growth Forest Types Of The Northern Region” (Green et
al. 1992). Old growth criteria for both western Montana, and northern Idaho have been utilized in describing
the existing condition for the project area.
Block Size
There is a total of *** acres designated into old growth management within blocks of *** to *** acres. This
amounts to ** percent of old growth designations within large blocks for wildlife species that utilize old
growth, and provides adequate interior habitat and connectivity. Also, additional smaller stands have been
designated to protect additional attributes unique to old growth where they exist in the subunit.
Distribution
45
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Note: Recommend this paragraph be placed into a table for a better understanding of the material.
Of the *** acres designated in old growth management areas, the distribution (percentage) within
vegetation response units (VRU's) reflect similar distribution of VRU's found within the subunit.
VRU Old Growth Acres % of Old Growth Acres
2
4
5
6
7
9
These designated old growth stands represent the best distribution of old growth habitat (following forest
plan direction), recognizing that these areas and their boundaries may change due to natural events such
as windstorms, epidemic insect infestations, and stand replacement fires.
Stand Structure, Successional Stages, and Disturbance Regimes
Old growth stands in the project area are composed of a variety of overstory species, and stand structures.
Three structure stages (Green et al. 1992) are useful in describing the old growth attributes of stands within
the project area.
Late Seral, Single-Story -- these stands are still dominated by the tree species and tree canopy layer that
first captured the site after a stand-replacing disturbance. The upper canopy is relatively closed. If
understory trees were present, they are generally small, exhibit little growth, and do not form an apparent
canopy layer. Other understory vegetation may be sparse. Ages and sizes of dominant trees are
significantly beyond what may be found at culmination of mean annual increment of tree stand volume
growth, growth rates are slowing, and tree crowns are showing signs of maturity or old age (flat, wide tops
with slow main leader growth). This stage may have moderate amounts of tree decay, but little mortality,
and few snags or pieces of down woody material. Note: state which VRU exhibits this type of old
growth structural stage.
Late Seral, Multi-Story -- the initial seral trees and canopy layer have lost control of the site. Disturbance
or the natural mortality of age has produced holes in the upper canopy; shade tolerant understory
vegetation and trees are increasing in crown volume; and shade tolerant understory tree species are
growing towards the main canopy, and may have occupied part of it. Two or more canopy layers are
obvious, the canopy may be irregular, and broken tops, bole rot, snags, and large down woody debris may
be common. The stand may have small openings dominated by shrubs or understory forbs. Although
there may be some very large or old individual trees, stand average diameter and age may be either
greater or less than in the previous Late Seral, Single-Story stage. There is often great variation in average
tree diameter.
Near Climax -- this stage is dominated by shade tolerant (possibly climax) tree species that captured the
site after the initial seral stand has been largely replaced. Note: is this true for VRU’s 1 and 2? Or is
the near climax in those VRU’s different? A few remnant shade intolerant, early seral trees may persist,
but they represent a small part of total live canopy. Depending upon overstory structure, there may be
46
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
great variation in understory characteristics and tree diameter distributions. If the shade tolerant tree
species are relatively short lived (such as subalpine fir), or only moderately long lived (such as grand fir),
the canopy will be multi-storied, and contain significant numbers of snags and down woody debris. If the
shade tolerant tree species is very long lived (such as cedar), there may be 1 dominant canopy layer, with
relatively few snags or pieces of down woody debris.
Old seral stands of western larch and ponderosa pine dominate portions of the subunit that have been
historically influenced by wildfires. Very old stands of western hemlock and western redcedar dominate in
portions of the subunit on the north aspect moist sites, and riparian habitats of the upper *** ***, *** ***, and
*** *** creek drainages.
The moist site cedar and hemlock old growth stands have stand structures dominated by the climax
species for these sites as a result of long fire return intervals. These stands have survived surrounding
lethal stand replacing wildfires because of a combination of moist site, physiography, and topography.
These areas have been less frequently affected by disturbance than the surrounding landscape and can be
referred to as disturbance “refugia” (Camp et al., 1995), or “fire refugia” (Camp et al., 1997). It is also
important to note that areas of fire refugia often are protected from late summer lethal wildfires by adjacent
fire maintained habitats. The fire maintained habitat, openings, and rock cliffs surrounding the *** *** Grove
on the *** *** Ranger District is a good example of how adjacent habitats can help protect an area of fire
refugia.
Historically, landscape patterns were created and maintained by natural disturbance regimes. Disturbances
that kill some or all vegetation in a particular location are an intrinsic part of ecosystem development.
Ecosystems and landscapes change over time as a function of vegetation characteristics and disturbance
regimes (Camp et al, 1997).
In their fire history study in north Idaho, Zack and Morgan (1994) report that they found certain topographic
positions that were likely to have trees that survived numerous fire episodes. These topographic positions
were of two sorts. First, there were the more exposed topographies, such as ridgetops, shoulders,
prominent spur ridges, and break-lands. They ascribed the higher probability of finding large residual trees
in these exposed landscape positions to more rapid seasonal drying, which would increase the probability
of understory fires, promoting open stand structures with lower fuels concentrations and large fire resistant
trees. When a big lethal fire swept across the landscape, the large trees on these exposed topographies
had a higher probability of surviving. The other topographic positions more likely to have old residual trees
that survived numerous fire events were the more protected and moist landtypes. These include wider
riparian zones, moist flats, north slope coves and benches, and the lower part of steep north slopes.
Together these two landscape positions, were the areas with the higher likelihood of avoiding lethal fires
long enough to develop significant old growth characteristics. Note also that the composition and structure
of the old growth in these two topographic positions are quite different.
Before timber harvest became prevalent in the northwest, wildfire was the dominant disturbance that
shaped old growth stands. Understanding fire ecology is crucial to understanding the effects it has on the
landscape and landscape processes. Relative to wildfire, development of old growth habitat in the project
area can be categorized into three broad groups:
47
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Dry Site/Fire Maintained Old Growth Habitats - areas maintained by frequent low intensity and mixed
severity underburns; and dominated by mature seral species such as western larch and ponderosa pine.
The *** *** project proposes treatments to maintain this habitat type.
Transitional Old Growth Habitats - areas with a long fire return interval. In these stands, the large old
seral component is a relic of the last stand initiation event, and any maintenance of the seral component is
much more dependent on mixed severity fires. Climax species for the site often develop into the overstory,
fuel loadings become high, and the stands are eventually regenerated by lethal wildfire.
Fire Refugia – areas of ecological continuity (temporally) that rarely, if ever suffered a lethal (stand
replacing) wildfire because of a combination of moist site characteristics, topography, and physiography.
These stands were historically protected from stand replacement fires by their juxtaposition to rivers,
springs, stream confluences, open rocky sites, and moist northerly aspects. Also, many of these fire refugia
sites were also protected from lethal late summer fires because of adjacent fire maintained habitats.
The fire suppression that has occurred in the last 80 years has allowed many stands in the project area to
develop farther along successional pathways than historically, and the line between these three categories
of old growth has become less distinct. Habeck (1988) stated that the onset of modern fire suppression has
equaled the impact of logging in altering the abundance of old growth forests in the Northern Rocky
Mountains. Areas that were historically maintained by fire have developed heavy fuel loadings from shade
tolerant/fire intolerant species, which has increased the risk of regeneration by lethal wildfire, and
transitional old growth habitat has integrated successionally with historic fire refugia. One of the most
notable and consistent differences between moist site transitional old growth, and moist site fire refugia, is
that fire refugia often has a component of unique lichen, bryophyte, and fungal species that only exist on
the landscape within these unique habitats.
Note: state what fire groups were used in the analysis, e.g., “An analysis of the project area has
been completed”, using the fire group definitions in Fire Ecology of Forest Habitat Types of
Northern Idaho (Smith and Fischer 1997) or Fire Ecology of Western Montana Forest Habitat Types
(Fischer and Bradley 1987).
Lesica et al. (1990) found significant differences in lichen and bryophyte communities between old growth,
and managed second growth grand fir forests in the Swan Valley of Montana. They specifically noted
several species that were either more common or only present in old growth stands. Lichen species unique
to undisturbed habitats have been used to identify very old forest habitats that have not been disturbed for
many centuries. Species unique to disturbance refugia are referred to as indicators of long-term ecological
continuity (Goward, 1994; Rose, 1976; Tibell, 1992). Many of the fire refugia sites on the Kootenai NF
have developed into old western hemlock, and ancient western redcedar groves. These are the “classic”
stands that everyone can easily recognize as old growth habitat. Also, some areas of very ancient, or
senescent old growth in fire refugia habitats has become so old that portions of the very old overstory have
fallen out, making these sites difficult to identify as important undisturbed refugia for species that are
important to conserve in the context of old growth habitat. In fire refugia habitats, large old trees are one of
many indicators of ecological continuity, but enough large old trees are not always present. Also, if only the
tree component data in senescent old growth stands is considered, some sites would appear to be more
akin to replacement old growth than effective old growth. The suite of species unique to fire refugia do not
appear any where else on the landscape, therefore, not only are they useful as indicator species of these
unique habitats, these species themselves are important to conserve. Some areas of the project area have
48
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
been designated into old growth management areas as replacement old growth (additional designations
above the forest plan 10 percent standard) to conserve areas of apparent fire refugia, as well as to provide
additional old growth habitat in the future, and provide connectivity for genetic exchange between adjacent
old growth stands. An effort has been made to identify stands in moist habitat groups, and add replacement
and old growth designations in areas where unique species diversity and ancient cedar sites occur within
the stand matrix.
Stands of potential fire refugia would most likely occur within Fire Group * (the regime that characterizes a
very moist western redcedar habitat type). Approximately *** acres or ** percent of this fire group in the
project area below 5,500 ft. elevation has been identified as old growth habitat. Moist forests of Group 9
persist for many centuries without severe fire (Cooper and others 1991). Climax species in the group are
western redcedar and western hemlock. Western redcedar are quite resistant to disease, and often reach
ages of 800 to 1000 years (Minore, 1990). Sharpe (1974) notes that some of the largest cedars on the
Priest Lake Ranger District are over 2,000 years old. Valley bottom stands probably burned less frequently
than upland stands. Zack and Morgan (1994) note that one of the landscape positions more likely to have
old residual trees that survived numerous fire events were the more protected and moist landtypes. The
average lethal fire return intervals in these moist topographic positions were probably significantly longer
than the overall 203 year average for the interior basin – possibly several times as long on the wettest
riparian sites (Zack and Morgan, 1994). Agee (1993) used “episodic” rather than “cyclic” to describe fire
return intervals in western hemlock forests of the Pacific Northwest. He suggested that average fire return
intervals are not particularly meaningful in forests where fire history rarely extends far enough in the past to
record several intervals, and climatic change during that history would have altered the fire regime.
Fire-maintained, seral ponderosa pine and western larch old growth habitats occur within Fire Groups 2, 7,
and 8. However, portions of these groups would contain areas of transitional old growth habitat as well.
Since a portion of these fire groups contain fire-maintained stands of seral species; these groups were
used as a coarse filter for identifying potential habitat for fire maintained ponderosa pine, and western larch
old growth habitat. Within these fire groups, approximately *** acres or ** percent of Fire Group * has been
identified as old growth habitat. Approximately *** acres or ** percent of Fire Group * has been identified as
old growth habitat. And approximately *** acres or ** percent of Fire Group * has been identified as old
growth habitat.
This analysis suggests that effective old growth within areas of potential fire refugia is well represented, as
would be expected. This analysis also suggests that fire maintained seral old growth in the subunit,
especially in Fire Group 2, is a priority to protect and maintain.
Fire Group 2 stands consist of warm habitat types in the Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and grand fir series.
The overstory of mature forests in this group is open, although canopy cover often exceeds 50 percent.
Dense Douglas-fir or grand fir regeneration often develops in the understory. Fire Group 2 stands are most
often found on southeast to southwest facing slopes, although they occur on some north facing slopes.
Prior to the 20th century, many stands in Fire Group 2 were burned frequently by low to mixed severity fire;
occasionally stand-replacing fire occurred as well. Where fires occurred at relatively short intervals (less
than 25 years), they were mostly nonlethal (Smith and Fischer 1997). Long fire free intervals favor Douglas-
fir and grand fir regeneration in Fire Group 2 stands. The cover and density of Douglas-fir and grand fir
have increased for several reasons, including fire exclusion, selective harvesting of ponderosa pine and
western larch, and poor pine regeneration after harvesting. Lack of pruning and duff reduction by fire have
49
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
increased the potential for crown fire and severe underburning in habitat types like those of group two
throughout the Northern Rocky Mountains (Habeck 1990; Mutch and others 1993; Steele and others 1986).
Bonnicksen (2002) states that between 1952 and 1987, ponderosa pine forests in Idaho decreased by 44
percent. Fire suppression in the past century has altered this habitat type. Douglas-fir encroachment has
increased tree density and produced a vertical structure of „ladder fuels‟ that would carry flames up to the
canopies of old growth pines. The potential for low intensity surface fires to occur in these present
conditions is minimal. Consequently, wildfires in these current stands will more likely be of high intensity
and probably crown fires. Such stand replacement fires would kill the old growth pines. Another result of fire
suppression is an increase of mountain pine beetle, western spruce budworm and dwarf mistletoe moving
in with overstocked and stressed forest stands (Habeck, 1990).
Controlled burns and wildfires have affected some of the old growth stands within Fire Group 2 in the lower
portions of the *** *** Creek drainage within the last decade. The results are an open structure
characteristic of old growth in this fire group. However, recent old growth inventories have identified
approximately *** acres of old growth in the lower *** *** drainage that could benefit by fuels treatment
projects to reduce ladder fuels and stand densities to a level characteristic of fire maintained old growth
stands of this type. Such treatments would reduce the risk to mature trees and allow for natural wildfires to
spread through the stands as low-intensity surface fires.
Environmental Consequences
All of the alternatives meet Forest Plan standards regarding management of old growth. Specific effects to
the old growth resource from each alternative are addressed below.
ALTERNATIVE A
NO ACTION
This alternative would have no direct effect on designated old growth or associated species. All old growth
areas would maintain their existing conditions, and continue to provide habitat for those species, which
utilize this habitat over the long-term. However, since this alternative would not treat any of the
encroaching ladder fuels on warm, dry sites, the fire hazard on these sites would continue to increase.
Potential natural disturbance such as wildfire, insect or disease epidemics, or wind may reduce old growth
characteristics or completely remove an area of old growth under extreme conditions. If such events occur,
other mature stands in the project area or adjacent compartments would be evaluated for their potential to
replace those stands that were lost.
ALTERNATIVE B
Direct And Indirect Effects
Under Alternative B, various treatments to reduce fuels and allow for the safe introduction of fire are
proposed in dry site old growth stands. Historically, dry fire-maintained habitat sites would have received
frequent low-intensity underburns, but these sites have not experienced wildfire for many years. Fire
suppression over the past 70 years has altered these old growth stands by allowing shade-tolerant and fire
intolerant species to build up in high densities. This tree component has now developed to the point that
these high-density fire intolerant species compete for resources with the large old trees. The high density
50
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
increases the occurrence of insect and disease infestations, and the risk of very high intensity crown fires
by creating 'ladder fuels" or a conduit to bring fire from the ground up into the older dominant canopy.
Under Alternative B, no harvest would occur in existing MA 13 or other designated old growth stands in the
project area. Intermediate harvest treatments are proposed in *** acres of dry site undesignated effective
old growth stands in Fire Group 2 to remove fuels and allow reintroduction of fire These intermediate
harvest treatments are proposed in units *, *, *, *, *, **, * (below the road), *, *, *, *, and *. Kootenai National
Forest policy allows for harvest treatment in undesignated effective old growth outside of old growth
management areas as long as old growth characteristics are maintained or improved (Castaneda, 2003).
Currently *** or approx. ** percent of the project area is designated effective old growth. The areas
proposed for treatment are portions of stands that were not chosen for old growth designation because
stands with better attributes were available for designation.
Also under Alternative B, harvest treatments are proposed in *** acres of habitat with potential to become
old growth habitat in the near future (undesignated replacement old growth). These stands do not have old
growth attributes currently, however treatments have been designed to preserve all attributes that could
develop old growth character in the future, and treat excess fuels and densities in these dry site habitats.
These treatments are proposed in units *, *, and *.
These proposed harvest treatments in undesignated effective and replacement old growth are designed to
preserve all of the old growth attributes while treating excess fuel accumulations. Treatment of these areas
would preserve the number of large trees and reduce the potential threat of wildfires reaching lethal
intensities within these stands. Note: should include discussion on other old growth stand characteristics
and what is happening to these – i.e., large snags and down logs, canopy closure, canopy layers, etc. Post
treatment, the affected stands would still be available as future candidates for old growth designation if
other stands are lost from natural events such as disease epidemics, blowdown events, and lethal wildfires.
Mechanical Fuels Reduction units ****, and **** would occur within designated old growth stands in Fire
Group 2. The Forest Plan allows for planned ignitions in designated old growth management areas to
maintain old growth characteristics (Forest Plan pg. III-56). Treatment would preserve all existing old
growth attributes and enhance the old growth characteristics unique to fire-maintained habitats. Note:
reference the Fire/Fuels Section.
The purpose of natural fuels burn unit C in designated old growth is to maintain the fire return cycle within
this stand and promote the characteristics of fire maintained old growth in Fire Group 2 habitats. Utilizing
controlled fire in this stand will mimic what a light-to-moderate wildfire event would also accomplish in this
habitat. The advantage of an intentional controlled burn is that it can be implemented in the spring when
burning conditions are favorable for control, and the fuel moisture is still high enough in the larger fuel class
to preserve the large log component. The objectives are to create additional wildlife snag habitat, promote
regeneration of browse species for big game, and to maintain the open under-story characteristics of old
growth ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir forest within the characteristic range of variability. Note: reference the
Wildlife Section.
The treatments in dry site old growth habitats (harvest, mechanical fuels reduction, and natural fuels
burning) would provide connectivity and buffer zones for existing designated old growth. From a wildlife
perspective, these stands would provide connectivity and wildlife corridors for big game and forest birds
(nesting songbirds, raptors and woodpeckers). Reintroduction of fire in these areas would re-establish a
51
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
seral component of forage and cover for big game animals. The big game that would benefit by this
treatment includes black bear, grizzly bear, elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer. Avian species that would
benefit include wild turkey, blue and ruffed grouse, woodpeckers, goshawks and other raptors, owls and
songbirds (both residents and neotropical migrants). See also Chapter *, Wildlife Habitat Analysis.
The flammulated owl, a sensitive species, has been audibly detected in the Three-Mile drainage. The owl is
associated with open ponderosa pine habitats (Reynolds and Linkhart, 1992). Proposed treatments in
these dry site stands would reduce understory fuels and remove ladder fuels, which, if left untreated, could
potentially provide increased fire intensity and provide a conduit for fire into the mature trees during wildfire
events. However, treatments are also designed to maintain small pockets of Douglas-fir and ponderosa
pine regeneration for owl roosting and foraging habitats. Understory management by fire would increase
seral grasses, forbs and shrubs. Insect populations of lepidopterans should increase as nectar sources
become available, and these insects would provide a staple food source for the flammulated owls that
utilize these stands. See also Chapter 3, Wildlife Habitat Analysis.
Harvest units *, *, and * are adjacent to effective old growth stands. This regeneration harvest has the
potential to reduce designated and undesignated effective old growth habitat by *** acres by increasing
light and wind at the edge of the stand (see Table 3-?? for a comparison display of effects to old growth).
Canopy removal is estimated to be 95 percent. The treatment objectives for these units adjacent to old
growth stands are to regenerate early seral species, remove shade tolerant species such as grand fir,
salvage lodgepole pine, and reduce fuels. If this ***-acre reduction were to occur, ** percent designated
effective old growth is still maintained in the project area.
No new roads or temporary roads would be constructed through old growth stands in this or any other
alternative. Existing old growth habitat would not be fragmented.
Portions of Road #4476, which will be opened to access harvest units, runs through effective old growth.
However, this road will remain restricted to public use so no snag loss is expected.
It is also proposed that a portion of Road #***** be permanently opened to vehicles to allow improved
access to the **** Mtn. trailhead. Based on a 150‟ buffer, a total of approximately *** acres of effective old
growth along this road may be affected by potential firewood cutting.
Approximately 1.3 miles of road #***** is proposed for vehicular closure and will be converted to a hiking
trail. This will result in protecting approximately *** acres of snag habitat in effective old growth stands that
are presently accessible to firewood cutting.
Pre-commercial thinning is proposed in *** acres in old regeneration units. This activity is outside of any old
growth stands and would not impact old growth stands. Pre-commercial thinning would increase growth in
the young trees in these units, and create potential habitat for additional arboreal lichen colonization and
development.
ALTERNATIVE C
Direct And Indirect Effects
Alternative C differs from Alternative B in that it drops harvest treatments in undesignated effective old
growth stands (units *, *, *, *, *, *, and *). This will result in an increased risk of adverse impacts if a late
52
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
summer wildfire were to occur in these habitats. The lack of fuels treatments in these stands will not have
an immediate impact to the stands, but will continue an unhealthy trend of increased understory trees and
unnaturally high fuel concentrations that may ultimately result in a decreased stand life from insects and
disease, drought stress, and the potential loss of the stands from lethal wildfire. Alternative C also differs
from Alternative B in that units *, *, *, *, *, are proposed as natural fuels burn units, rather than harvest
treatments. These stands will be burned in the spring. The prescribed burning treatments in these stands
would treat fuels in a similar manner as what would occur naturally, but because these sites have heavy
fuel loads and ladder fuels present, burning would need to occur during a period of heavier moisture
conditions than what could occur following the harvest treatments as proposed in Alternative B. There is
potentially an increased risk of mortality to old growth trees, since pretreatment of the ladder fuels would
not occur under this alternative. Also, the treatment proposed under this alternative may not be as effective
as the treatment proposed under Alternative B since the outcome would become much more dependent on
weather predictions at the time of ignition, and would not be as predictable as the harvest treatments
proposed under Alternative B.
Table 3-?? displays a comparison of effects to old growth habitat by alternative.
TABLE 3-?? EFFECTIVE OLD GROWTH-COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
UNITS OF MEASURE ALT A ALT B ALT C
Acres of harvest treatment designed to maintain old growth attributes characteristic to 0 141 0
the site
Acres of harvest treatment within undesignated replacement stands designed to 0 42 42
preserve all attributes that could develop old growth characteristics in the near future
Acres of mechanical fuels reduction treatment designed to maintain old growth 0 40 0
attributes characteristic to the site.
Acres of natural fuels burning treatment designed to maintain old growth attributes 0 84 127
characteristic to the site.
Acres of vertical structure removed 0 0 0
Acres of interior habitat made ineffective 0 10 10
Acres of potential snag loss due to firewood cutting 0 2 2
Acres potentially lost from wind events 0 7 7
Acres protected from firewood cutting by proposed road closures 0 35 35
Cumulative Effects Common to all Alternatives
Much activity has occurred within the project area in the past. The proximity to the town of *** *** and the
*** *** mining district has resulted in easy access and multiple impacts to many areas that were historically
old growth habitat. The combination of past timber harvest practices and fire exclusion have affected and
modified many old growth stands within the project area.
Some areas of old growth habitat in areas of historic fire refugia were impacted by regeneration harvest
treatments that were implemented in areas where this treatment was uncharacteristic for the site. This
project will not exacerbate these effects, as no harvest will occur within areas of historic fire refugia.
Also, because of the fire suppression that has occurred during the last century, stands historically
maintained by frequent low intensity, and mixed severity fire have developed heavy fuel loadings as well as
ladder fuels that are uncharacteristic for those sites. Old growth stands that would have otherwise survived
wildfire events have been lost, or are presently at risk. Treatments are proposed that will treat fuel densities
on appropriate sites (ie., old growth stands historically maintained by frequent low intensity fire).
53
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Basic road maintenance, pre-commercial thinning, mushroom picking, prescribed burning, timber hauling,
wildlife habitat improvement projects, and various recreational uses are additional activities that have
occurred and will continue to occur within or adjacent to old growth in the project area. Foreseeable
activities include the uncompleted natural fuels burns, and pre-commercial thinning projects analyzed in the
*** *** EA (1999) that will be accomplished in the future. All of these activities are generally not considered
to have adverse impacts on old growth or associated species. These activities may incidentally affect
wildlife use within some areas of old growth on a temporary basis, but are not likely to affect the viability of
any associated species. Adherence to forest plan standards relative to old growth and snag habitat assist
in the avoidance of cumulative effects on old growth and associated species.
Consistency With The Forest Plan and Other Management Direction
All alternatives for this project meet forest plan standards for old growth. Each alternative maintains 12
percent of Forest Service managed acres below 5,500 feet elevation within old growth management areas
in a designated old growth or replacement old growth condition. Also, the action alternatives have been
designed to conserve old growth attributes wherever they exist outside of old growth management areas.
Additionally, a recent inventory of old growth on the Kootenai NF has demonstrated that 292,339 acres or
15.6 percent of total national forest acres below 5500 feet are in an old growth condition. This
documentation also demonstrates that the Kootenai NF has designated 205,784 acres or 11.0 percent of
total national forest acres below 5,500 feet into old growth management areas. These forest-wide
percentages are maintained with this project.
54
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
LITERATURE CITED
Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 493p.
Antos, J. A. 1977. Grand fir (Abies grandis [Dougl.] Forbes) forests of the Swan Valley, Montana. Thesis.
The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.
Arno, S.F. 1980. Forest fire history in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry 78:460-465.
Arno, S.F., D.G. Simmerman, and R.E. Keane. 1985. Forest succession on four habitat types in western
Montana. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-177.
Arno, S.F., D.J. Parsons, and R.E. Keane. 2000. Mixed-severity fire regimes in the northern Rocky
Mountains: Consequences of fire exclusion and options for the future. USDA Forest Service Proceedings,
RMRS-P-15-Vol-5. pp. 225-232
Arno, S.F., E.D. Reinhardt, and J.H. Scott. 1993. Forest structure and landscape patterns in the subalpine
lodgepole pine type: a procedure for quantifying past and present conditions. USDA Forest Service,
General Technical Report INT-294. 17p.
Arno, S.F., H.Y. Smith, and M.A. Krebs. 1997. Old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stand
structures: Influences of pre-1900 fires and fire exclusion. USDA Forest Service. Research Paper INT-495.
20p.
Arno, S.F., J.H. Scott, and M.G. Hartwell. 1995. Age-class structure of old growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-
fir stands and its relationship to fire history. Research Paper INT-481, USDA Forest Service. 25p.
Arsenault, D.P., G.E. Wilson, and L. Neel. 2002. (In Press) Flammulated owls in the Spring Mountains,
Nevada. Great Basin Birds. 11p.
Arthur, S.M., W.B. Krohn, and J.R. Gilbert. 1989. Habitat use and diet of Fishers. J. Wildl. Manage.
53(3):680-688.
Austin, K.K. 1993. Habitat use and home range size of breeding northern goshawks in the sourthern
cascades. M. of Sc. Thesis. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Oregon. 57p.
Barbouletos, C.S., L.Z. Morelan, and F.O. Carroll. 1998. We will not wait: Why prescribed fire must be
implemented on the Boise National Forest. In: T.L. Pruden and L.A. Brennan, editors. Fire in ecosystem
management shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conference
Procedure No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL: 27-30.
Banci, V. 1989. A fisher management strategy for British Columbia. Wildlife Bulletin No. B-63. B.C. Ministry
of Environment, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, B.C. 117p.
Barrett, S.W., S.F. Arno, and C.H. Key. 1991. Fire regimes of western larch-lodgepole pine forests in
Glacier National Park, Montana. Canadian Journal Forestry Research, 21:1711-1720.
55
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Beier, P. 1994. Selection of foraging habitat by northern goshawks on the Coconino National Forest.
Arizona Game and Fish Department heritage Grant Project I-94025 Progress report 28 October 1994. 9p.
Biondi, F. 1996. Decadal-scale dynamics at the Gus Pearson Natural Area: evidence for inverse
(a)symmetrical competition?. Canadian Journal of Forest Research; 26: 1397-1406.
Bloxton, T.D., Jr. 2002. Prey abundance, space use, demography, and foraging habitat of northern
goshawks in western Washington. M. Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Washington. 70p.
Bonnicksen, T. M. 2000. America's ancient forests: from the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery. Wiley, New
York, New York, USA.
Bosworth, D.N. 2000. Letter dated September 26, 2000, from Dale N. Bosworth, Regional Forester, Region
1, U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Montana. 3 pages plus 5 attachments.
Bright-Smith, D.J. and R. W. Mannan. 1994. Habitat use by breeding male northern goshawks in northern
Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology No. 16:58-65.
Brown, J.K. 1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody material. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah, USA. General Technical Report INT-16.
24p.
Brown, J.K., S.F. Arno, S.W. Barrett, and J.P. Menakis. 1994. Comparing the prescribed natural fire
program with presettlement fires in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Int. Journal of Wildland Fire 4:157-
168.
Bull, E.L. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. USDA
Forest Service, Pacific NW Res. Sta. La Grande, OR. J. Wildlife Management 57:2,335-345
Bull, E.L. and J.E. Hohmann. 1992. Final Report: Northern Goshawks in northeastern Oregon. Pacific
Northwest Research Station, La Grande, Oregon. 34p.
Bull, E.L., A. L. Wright, and M.G. Henjum 1990. Nesting habitat of flammulated owls in Oregon. J. Raptor
Res. 24 (3): 52-55.
Clough, L..T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in west-central
Montana. M. of Sc. U. of Montana. Missoula, MT. 87p.
Camp, A.E. 1995. Predicting late-successional fire refugia from physiography and topography. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington. Dissertation. 135 p.
Camp, A.E.; Oliver, Chad; Hessburg, Paul; Everett, Richard. 1997. Predicting late-successional fire refugia
pre-dating European settlement in the Wenatchee Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management. 95: 63-77.
DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of
the United States Natural History and Habitat Use. USDA Forest Service Agr. Handbook 688. 625p.
56
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Davis, K.M., B.D. Clayton, and W.C. Fischer. 1980. Fire ecology of Lolo National Forest habitat types. INT-
79. Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. 77p.
Fellin, D.G. 1980. A review of some relationships of harvesting, residue management, and fire to forest
insects and disease. In: Environmental consequences of timber harvesting in Rocky Mountain coniferous
forests. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, INT-90:335-414.
Fischer, W.C. 1981(a). Photo guide for appraising downed woody fuels in Montana Forests: Grand fir -
Larch - Douglas-fir, Western Redcedar cover types. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-96.
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 53p.
Fischer, W.C. 1981(b). Photo guide for appraising downed woody fuels in Montana forests: Interior
Ponderosa Pine, Ponderosa Pine - Larch - Douglas-fir, Larch -Douglas-fir, and Interior Douglas-fir cover
types. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-97. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Ogden, Utah. 133p.
Fischer, W.C. 1981(c). Photo guide for appraising downed woody fuels in Montana forests: Lodgepole
Pine and Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine fir cover types. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-98.
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah. 143p.
Fischer, W.C. 1981(d). Photo guides for appraising downed woody fuels in Montana forests: How they
were made.
Fischer, W.C. and Bradley, A.F. 1987. Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types”. Gen Tech
Report INT 223. Ogden, Utah: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service.
95p.
Freel, M. (tech. Editor). 1991. A literature review for management of the marten and fisher on national
forests in California. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. 22p.
Goggans, R. 1985. Habitat use by flammulated owls in northeastern Oregon. MS Thesis. Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon. 54p.
Goward, T. 1994. Notes on old growth-dependent epiphytic macrolichens in the humid old growth forests in
inland British Columbia. Canada. Acta Botanica Fennica 150:31-38.
Green, P., J. Joy, D. Sirucek, W. Hann, A. Zack, and B. Naumann. 1992. Old growth forest types of the
northern region. USDA Forest Service. Missoula, MT. 61p.
Habeck, J.R. 1988. Old-growth forests in the northern Rocky Mountains. Natural Areas Journal. 8(3): 202-
211.
Habeck, J.R. 1990. Old-growth ponderosa pine-western larch forests in western Montana: Ecology and
management. Northwest Environmental Journal. 6(2): 271-292.
57
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Habeck, J.R. 1994. Fire history of the Petty Creek Research Natural Area. Unpublished report on file at
USDA Forest Service, Ninemile Ranger District, Frenchtown, Montana, USA.
Hargis, C.D. 1991. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California. Dept. Fisheries
and Wildlife, Utah St. Univ. Logan Utah. 19p.
Hayward, G. 1995. Telephone conference with G. Haward regarding Boreal and Flamulated Owls. 4p.
Hayward, G. D. and J. Verner, tech. Editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal and great gray owls in the United
States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, Co: USDA Forest
Service Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta. 214p.
Heinemeyer, K.S., and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management: a literature review and adaptive
management strategy. USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 108p.
Heinemeyer, K.S. 1993. Temporal dynamics in the movements, habitat use, activity, and spacing of
reintroduced fishers in northwestern Montana. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT. 154p.
Howle, R. R. and R. Ritcey. 1992. Distribution, habitat selection and densities of flammulated owls in British
Columbia. 6p.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Forest Carnivores in Idaho: habitat conservation assessments
(HCA‟s and conservation strategies (CS‟s). Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Idaho Dept. Parks and Rec., BLM,
Regions 1 and 4 US. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 126p.
IPNF Furbearer Working Group. 1993. Conservation strategies for lynx, fisher, wolverine, and marten for
the Idaho Panhandle national Forests. USDA Forest Service, Idaho Panhandle NF, Coeur d‟Alene, ID. 45p.
Jones, J.L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in north central Idaho. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow. 147p.
Keane, R.E, K.C. Ryan, and S.W. Running. 1996. Simulating effects of fire on northern Rocky Mountain
landscapes with the ecological process model FIRE-BGC. Tree Physiology 16:319-331.
Lesica, P., B. McCune, and W.S. Hong. 1991. Differences in lichen and bryophyte communities between
old-growth and managed second-growth forests in the Swan Valley, Montana: Canadian Journal of Botany.
69:1745–1755.
Linkhart, Brian D., R.T. Reynolds, and R.A. Ryder. 1998. Home range and habitat of breeding flammulated
owls in Colorado. Wilson Bull. 110(3) 342-351.
Maj, M., M. Hillis, and J. Ormiston. 1995. Range permit reissuance: Flammulated owl. USDA Forest
Service, Northern Region, Missoula, Montana. 5p.
Marcot, B.G. 1980. Flamulated owls in northwestern California. Western Birds 11:141-149.
58
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Maxwell, W.G. and F.R. Ward. 1976. Photo series for quantifying forest residues in the: Ponderosa Pine
type, Ponderosa Pine and associated species type, Lodgepole pine type. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-52. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 73p.
McCallum, D.A. 1994. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus). The birds of North America No. 93. 21p.
McClelland, B.R. 1977. Relationships between hole-nesting birds, forest snags, and decay in western larch-
Douglas-fir forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains. The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 495p.
McClelland, B.R. 1979. The Pileated Woodpecker: Pp. 283–299 in The role of insectivorous birds in forest
ecosystems (J. G. Dickson, R. N. Conner, R. R. Fleet, J. A. Jackson, and J. C. Kroll, Eds.). Academic
Press, New York.
McClelland, B.R., B. Riley, and P.T. McClelland. 1999. Pileated woodpecker nest and roost trees in
Montana: Links with old growth and forest health. Wildlife Society Bulletin 1999 27(3): 846-857.
McGrath, M.T., S. DeStefano, R.A. Riggs, L.L. Irwin, and G. J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit influences on
northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Monographs. Vo. 67 No. 154.
63p.
Minore, D. 1990. Western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don). In: Silvics of North America, Vol. 1,
Conifers (eds Burns RM, Honkala BH), pp. 590-600. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 654,
Washington, DC.
Moore, T.L. and G. P. Frederick. 1991. Distribution and habitat of flammulated owls (Otus flammeiolus) in
west-central Idaho. Wallowa-Whitman NF and IDFG. Boise, ID. 50p.
Moore, T.L. and C.J. Henny. 1983. Nest-site characteristics of three co-existing accipiter hawks in
northeast Oregon. Raptor Research 17(3): 65-76.
Morgan, P., S.C. Bunting, A.E. Black, T. Merrill, and S. Barrett. 1998. Past and present fire regimes in the
Interior Columbia River Basin. In: Fire management under fire (adapting to change); proc. Of the 1994
Interior West Fire Council Meeting. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, WA: 77-82.
Murray, M.P. 1996. Landscape dynamics of an island range: Interrelationships of fire and whitebark pine
(Pinus albicaulis). Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 121p.
Mutch, R.W., S.F. Arno, S.F., J.K. Brown, C.E. Carlson, R.D. Ottmar, and J.L. Peterson. 1993. Forest
health in the Blue Mountains: a management strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. USDA Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research Station General echnical Report PNW-GTR-310. Portland, Oregon.
Oregon Department of Wildlife. 1992. Sensitive Vertebrates of Oregon: pileated woodpecker. 2 p.
Washington Department of Wildlife. 1991 Management recommendations for priority species: pileated
woodpecker. 5p.
Patla, S. 1991. Northern goshawk monitoring project final report. USDA Forest Service Targhee NF, St.
Anthony ID. 42p.
59
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Pfister, R.D, W.L. Baker, and C.E. Fiedler, J.W. Thomas. 2000. Contract Review of Old-Growth
Management on School Trust Lands: Supplemental Biodiversity Guidance 8/02/2000.
Quigley, T.M., R.W. Haynes, and R.T. Graham, technical editors. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for
ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report,
PNW-382. 303p.
Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Basset, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., R. Smith, and E.L.
Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States.
Gen Tech. Rep. RM-217, Ft. Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Statn.
90p.
Roderick, E. and R. Milner (tech. Editors). 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington‟s priority
habitats and species. Wash. Dept. of wildlife, Olympia, WA.
Rose, F. 1976, Lichenological indicators of age and environmental continuity in woodlands, pp. 279–307: In
D.H. Brown, D.L. Hawkesworth & R.H. Bailey. (eds.), Lichenology: Progress and Problems. Academic
Press, NY.
Roy, K.D. 1991. Ecology of reintroduced fishers in the Cabinet Mountains of northwest Montana. M.Sc.
Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT. 94p.
Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. (tech. Eds.) 1994. The scientific
basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine. USDA Forest Service
Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta. GTR RM-254. Fort Collins, CO. 184p.
Schmidt, K.M., J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, and D.L. Bunell. 2002. Development of coarse-scale
spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 41p.
Schroeder, R.L. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: pileated woodpecker. USDI Fish Wildlife Service
Fort Collins, CO. 15p.
Sharpe, G.W. 1974. Western redcedar. University of Washington Printing Co., Seattle. 144 p.
Smith, J.K. and W.C. Fischer. 1997. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern Idaho.
Tibell, L. 1992. Crustose lichens as indicators of forest continuity in boreal coniferous forests: Nordic
Journal of Botany. 12 427–450.
Snyder, H. 1995. Apache goshawk conservation biology in southeast Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish
Department Heritage Grant-in-aid project I920065. Final report April 1995. 35p.
Spahr, R., L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. 1991. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of
the intermountain region. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT.
60
FINAL Version 1.9b April 26, 2004
Steele, R., S.F. Arno, K., and K. Geier-Hayes. 1986. Wildfire patterns change in central Idaho‟s ponderosa
pine-Douglas-fir forest. Western Journal Applied Forestry 1(1): 16-18.
Thomas, J.W. (tech. Editor). 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon
and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Agr. Handbook No. 553. 512p.
Thomas, A. (editor). 1995a. Conservation Strategy for Fisher and Marten in Idaho (Draft march 1995).
Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Idaho Dept. Parks and Rec., BLM, Regions 1 and 4 US. Forest Service and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 25p.
Thomas, A. (editor). 1995b. Northern goshawk habitat conservation assessment and conservation strategy.
Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Idaho Dept. Parks and Rec., BLM, Regions 1 and 4 US. Forest Service and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 35p.
Timossi, I.C., E.L. Woodard, and R.H. Barrett. 1995.Habitat suitability models for use with Arc/Info:
Northern Goshawk. Dept. Env. Sci, Policy, and Management. Univ. of Calif. At Berkeley, California, Calif.
Dept. Fish and Game. Sacramento, Calif. CWHR Program. CWHR Tech. Report No. 14. 26p.
Torgersen, T.R. and L.J. Bate. 2003. Bias in size-class distributions of down wood resources based on
line-intersect sampling. Unpublished. 14p.
USDA Forest Service. 1984. Old growth habitat characteristics and management guidelines. Kootenai
National Forest, Libby, MT. 21p.
USDA Forest Service. 1987. Kootenai National Forest Plan. Northern Region USDA Forest Service.
Missoula, MT.
USDA Forest Service (Gautreaux). 1999. Vegetation Response Unit characterizations and target landscape
prescriptions. Kootenai National Forest, Libby, MT. 174p.
Warren, N.M. (tech. editor) 1990. Old growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the northern Rocky
Mountains. USDA Forest Service Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 47p.
Whitford, T.C. 1986. Defining old-growth Douglas-fir forests of central Montana and use of the Northern
Goshawk (Accipiter gnetilis) as a management indicator species. M.S. Thesis, The University of Montana,
Missoula, Montana. 62p.
Wright, V. 1996. Multi-scale analysis of flammulated owl habitat use: owl distribution, habitat management
and conservation. MS U. of MT. Missoula, MT. 91p.
Zack, A.C. and P. Morgan. 1994. Fire history on the Idaho Panhandle National Forests. USDA Forest
Service, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Coeur d‟Alene, Idaho. 44p.
61