United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
March 2010
Revised
Environmental Assessment
CHR Motorized Route and Area Designation Project (CHR Project)
Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts, Flathead National Forest Flathead County, Montana
CHR MOTORIZED ROUTE AND AREA
DESIGNATION PROJECT
Revised Environmental Assessment
Flathead National Forest
Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts
Flathead County, Montana
March 2010
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service
Responsible Official: Jimmy DeHerrera, District Ranger
For Further Information, Please Contact: Michele Draggoo, Planning Team Leader (406-387-3827)
or Paula Peterson, Recreation and Lands Specialist (406-387-3818)
Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts
Flathead National Forest
10 Hungry Horse Drive (P.O. Box 190340)
Hungry Horse, MT 59901
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and
activities based on race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,
sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program
information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director,
Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal
opportunity provider and employer.
CHR MOTORIZED ROUTE AND AREA
DESIGNATION PROJECT
REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction……… …………………………………………………....……... 1
Background …………………………………………………………………… 2
Scope ……………………………………………………………………….... 4
Purpose and Need for Action …………………………………….......……… 4
Public Involvement …………………………………………………………... 5
Alternatives …………………………………………………………………… 9
Comparison of Alternatives………………………………………………….. 16
Affected Environment and Environmental Effects
Recreation, Inventoried Roadless, Wild and Scenic River, and
Scenic Values …………………………………………………………. 18
Threatened, Endangered, and Regionally Sensitive Plants ……….. 32
Noxious Weeds ……………………………………………………….. 37
Hydrology and Soils …………………………………………………. 43
Fisheries ………………………………………………………………. 50
Wildlife ……………………………………………………………….. 55
Heritage Resources …………………………………………………... 71
Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………. 72
Planning Team Members ……………………………………………………. 73
Organizations, Government Agencies, and Individuals Consulted about
this Project ……………………………………………………………………. 74
Appendix A (Maps)
Map 1: Glacier View Ranger District Vicinity
Map 2: Hungry Horse Ranger District Vicinity
Map 3: Border River Access (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 3A: Border River Access (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative
2 & 3
Map 4: Wurtz (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 4A: Wurtz (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 5: Sondreson (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 5A: Sondreson (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 6: Ford (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 6A: Ford (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 7: Polebridge River Access Site (North Fork Flathead River) –
Alternative 1
Map 7A: Polebridge River Access Site (North Fork Flathead River) –
Alternative 2 & 3
Map 8: Coal Creek (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 8A: Coal Creek (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 9: Road # 10923 (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 9A: Road # 10923 (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 10: Camas (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 10A: Camas (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 11: Big Creek (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 11A: Big Creek (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 12: Huckleberry (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 12A: Huckleberry (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 13: Glacier Rim (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 13A: Glacier Rim (North Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 14: Essex (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 14A: Essex (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 15: Paola River Access (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 15A: Paola River Access (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative
2 & 3
Map 16: West Glacier River Access (Middle Fork Flathead River) –
Alternative 1
Map 16A: West Glacier River Access (Middle Fork Flathead River) –
Alternative 2 & 3
Map 17: Blankenship (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 17A: Blankenship (Middle Fork Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 18: South Fork River Access (South Fork Flathead River) –
Alternative 1
Map 18A: South Fork River Access (South Fork Flathead River) –
Alternative 2 & 3
Map 19: Pioneer (Flathead River) – Alternative 1
Map 19A: Pioneer (Flathead River) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 20: Abbot (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1
Map 20A: Abbot (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 21: Riverside (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1
Map 21A: Riverside (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 22: Logan Creek (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1
Map 22A: Logan Creek (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 23: Lost Johnny Point Boat Ramp (Hungry Horse Reservoir) –
Alternative 1
Map 23A: Lost Johnny Point Boat Ramp (Hungry Horse Reservoir) –
Alternative 2 & 3
Map 24: Lid Creek (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1
Map 24A: Lid Creek (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 25: Flossy Bay (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1
Map 25A: Flossy Bay (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 26: Canyon Boat (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1
Map 26A: Canyon Boat (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 27: Devil’s Corkscrew (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1
Map 27A: Devil’s Corkscrew (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 &
3
Map 28: Hungry Horse Track Area – Alternative 1
Map 28A: Hungry Horse Track Area – Alternative 2 & 3
Map 29: Cedar Flats – Alternative 1
Map 29A: Cedar Flats – Alternative 2
Map 29B: Cedar Flats – Alternative 3
Map 30: FK&L (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 1
Map 30A: FK&L (Hungry Horse Reservoir) – Alternative 2 & 3
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
1
INTRODUCTION
The Forest Service (FS) has prepared this revised Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws
and regulations. The CHR Project will be conducted under the guidance of the Flathead National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan or Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1985). The
abbreviation - CHR - is a way to reference the specific geographical areas in this project
including, Cedar Flats, Hungry Horse Reservoir, Hungry Horse Track, and the Wild and Scenic
River Corridor on the Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts, Flathead National
Forest.
This EA discloses the project’s foreseeable environmental effects for consideration in
determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The reports cited in
this EA and additional project documentation are available in the CHR Project File located at the
Hungry Horse Ranger Station, Hungry Horse, Montana.
The CHR Project proposes to designate motorized use in Cedar Flats, Hungry Horse Track,
Hungry Horse Reservoir, the Wild and Scenic River Corridors of the North Fork Flathead River
and Middle Fork Flathead River, and locations on the South Fork and main stem of the Flathead
River (see Maps 1 and 2 in Appendix A).
The original EA was distributed for comment in early July 2009. Appendix B, which provides a
summary of comments raised by the public and the responses by the Interdisciplinary Team, has
been added to this revised EA.
Based on this public comment, it was evident that the public did not have a clear understanding
of the no action alternative. We have clarified this alternative and its effects in this revised EA.
To help clarify this, new maps of the no action have been added to Appendix A. We have also
added more information about the current regulations and processes that are providing direction
for travel management. Public comments received on the original EA were also used to help
clarify other sections of this revised EA – our responses to these comments in Appendix A
indicate where in this revised EA we have added or clarified information.
The Flathead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) establishes
management direction for the Flathead National Forest. Project implementation consistent with
this direction is the process by which desired conditions described by the Forest Plan are
achieved. Brief descriptions of the management areas (MA) involved in the CHR Project are
included below.
MA 7 This MA consists of timberlands in areas of high scenic value. Manage the timber
resource with roads in a manner that compliments and protects high scenic values. Maintain
or create natural-appearing, diverse patterns of vegetation using various silvicultural systems.
Designated as suitable for timber management and timber harvest will be scheduled.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
2
MA 10 This MA consists of lands designated as Administrative Sites. Provide for the
continued use of existing facilities at Administrative sites through a periodic planned
preventative maintenance program of sanitary, water, and solid waste systems, buildings, and
other structures.
MA 15 This MA consists of timberlands where timber management with roads is
economical and feasible. A major goal is to emphasize cost-efficient production of timber
while protecting the productive capacity of the land and timber resource.
MA 16 This MA consists of timberlands where timber management is feasible using aerial
logging systems. The lands are generally steep breaklands where road building may be
economically prohibitive or environmentally unsound. A major goal is to emphasize cost-
efficient production of timber while protecting the productive capacity of the land and timber
resource. Roadless logging methods will be used, unless site-specific analysis determines
that a roaded system is economically and environmentally prudent.
MA 18 National Forest System lands designated for wild, scenic, and recreation river
management under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Manage each segment of the Flathead
Wild and Scenic River unit in a manner consistent with the classification assigned to it.
Maintain the scenic, ecological, and recreational integrity of the resource through responsible
management. Emphasize visitor contact and education.
BACKGROUND
The current travel management efforts occurring on many National Forests has a history
beginning with Executive Orders 11644 (1972) and Executive Order 11989 (1977) directing
public agencies to manage off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on public lands. Current management
of motorized travel on the Flathead National Forest falls under Forest orders pursuant to 36 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) 261.54 prohibiting motorized use on specific National Forest
System (NFS) roads, trails and areas.
2001 OHV ROD
Cross-country motor vehicle use is prohibited in Montana under the January 2001 Off-Highway
Vehicle (OHV) Record of Decision and Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and
Portions of South Dakota (2001 OHV ROD). In January 2001, the Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) issued a joint decision to prohibit cross-country motor vehicle use on
all National Forest System (NFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public lands in a
three state area except within 300 feet of roads and trails for access to a campsite. The decision
amended nine forest plans, including the Flathead Forest Plan. It also directed all National
Forests to set up a schedule for completing site-specific planning that would designate
appropriate uses on all system and non-system roads and trails. This project helps meet the
follow-up site-specific analysis directed by the 2001 OHV ROD.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
3
Subsequent to this ROD, the Flathead National Forest implemented a special order in 2001
(#F10-024-L-01) to prohibit cross-country motorized travel. Specifically, this order stated that
possessing or using motorized vehicles on NFS lands within the boundaries of the Flathead
National Forest are prohibited when there is no visible, clearly evident, two track or single track
routes that are present. The width of the motorized vehicle must also fit the size of the road or
trail profile. The order also indicates that cross-country travel up to 300 feet from a road or trail
to reach a dispersed campsite is permissible.
2005 Travel Management Rule
On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final travel management regulations in the
Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp 68264-68291). This final Travel
Management Rule requires designation of those roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor
vehicle use on National Forests. Under the rule only roads that are part of a National
Forest transportation system may be designated for motorized use. The final rule prohibits the
use of motor vehicles off designated NFS roads, trails and areas, as well as use of motor vehicles
on roads and trails that are not specifically designated for public use. This final rule was issued
because the older regulations allowed, restricted, or prohibited motor vehicle travel when those
uses were less widely available, less powerful, and less capable of cross-country travel than
today’s models. The growing popularity and capabilities of OHVs requires new regulations so
that the Forest Service can continue to provide these opportunities while sustaining the health of
the NFS lands and resources.
District(s) Motor Vehicle Use Map
In accordance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule, following a decision on this project, a
Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) will be published identifying all roads, trails and areas that
are designated for motor vehicle use on both the Glacier View and Hungry Horse Ranger
Districts. The MVUM will specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year
for which use is designated. A MVUM is required to be printed every year and should reflect
access management decisions made over the year, if any. Local review of designations will be
conducted as needed over time. Additional routes not included in this project are not precluded
from future consideration for inclusion in a MVUM.
2009 Travel Analysis Directives
The CHR Project was initiated in March 2008 following the direction of the 2005 Travel
Management Rule. Subsequently, the FS has issued travel management directives (December 9,
2008). These final directives consolidate direction for travel planning for both NFS roads and
NFS trails in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7710 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55.
The final directives rename roads analysis ‘‘travel analysis’’ and streamline some of its
procedural requirements.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
4
FSM 7712 paragraph 1 clarified that travel analysis is not required to inform decisions related to
the designation of roads, trails, and areas for those administrative units and ranger districts that
have issued a proposed action as of January 8, 2009.
Due to the anticipated and limited scope of the decision to be made (designating motorized use to
site-specific roads, trails, and areas in Cedar Flats, Hungry Horse Reservoir, Wild and Scenic
River Corridor, Hungry Horse Track, and Pioneer and South Fork River Access Sites), the scope
of the CHR Project was limited to part “1b” of Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55 Chapter
20.02. – “conduct travel analysis to inform decisions related to designation or roads, trails and
areas for motor vehicle use.” The Responsible Official has the discretion to determine the
amount of detail that is appropriate and practicable for travel analysis (FSM 7712.1).
SCOPE
The Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts have gone through numerous planning
efforts that have resulted in motorized access decisions. These access decisions will be carried
forward for display on the MVUM as the existing open motorized transportation system. This
MVUM will be published following a decision on this site-specific project. The CHR Project is
limited to the specific areas described below in the purpose and need because these areas were
identified through a collaborative process as needing specific changes to the existing motorized
system.
The CHR Project was not intending to revisit recent motorized access decisions and it was
limited in the consideration of new wheeled motorized use because of current Flathead Forest
Plan grizzly bear standards (Amendment 19). These standards impose limitations to increases in
motorized access routes. Finally, this project was not considering over-snow motorized vehicle
use since this use is guided by the Flathead’s Amendment 24 Winter Motorized Recreation Plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of this site-specific project is to restrict and designate a system of motorized roads,
trails and areas that continue to provide access to the Wild and Scenic River Corridor (North
Fork Flathead and Middle Fork Flathead Rivers) and Hungry Horse Reservoir. The project also
aims to manage motorized use within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area adjacent to the
cities of Columbia Falls and Hungry Horse. The formal designation of wheeled motorized travel
is a requirement of the 2005 Travel Management Rule.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
5
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Summary of Public Involvement Process
In January 2008, the CHR Project was listed in the Flathead National Forest’s Schedule of
Proposed Actions (SOPA). This listing informed the public of our plan to identify the need for
change in designating wheeled motorized vehicle routes and areas in order to implement the
2005 Travel Management Rule. The CHR Project has appeared quarterly in the SOPA since the
first listing. The SOPA list is displayed nationally on the Forest Service’s Washington Office
website, and locally on the Flathead National Forest website.
In addition to the project being identified on the SOPA, a letter was sent on January 10, 2008 to
approximately 220 individuals, government agencies, organizations, and groups. This letter
announced that the Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger (HH/GV) Districts were beginning
the process of evaluating roads, trails, and areas available for motorized vehicle use as directed
in the 2005 Travel Management Rule. The letter also invited the public to an open house at the
(HH/GV) District Office, to learn about, discuss, and provide feedback for the Forest Service to
consider in relation to the 2005 Travel Management Rule. The open house was also advertised
in two local newspapers, the Hungry Horse News and the Flathead Beacon. The open house was
held on January 24, 2008, and approximately 50 people attended. Maps were posted at the open
house that identified the initial need for change areas and Forest Service staff was available to
explain the travel planning process, provide information, answer questions, and receive feedback
from those in attendance. This same information was also included on the Flathead National
Forest’s internet website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/flathead/nepa/trav_mngmt.shtml. In addition
to the comments received at the open house, we received about 35 letters, emails, other
correspondence, phone calls, and visits that provided us with initial feedback.
Subsequent to the initial open house, the Forest Service reviewed the comments and feedback
from the public and began refining a site-specific proposed action. On March 3, 2008, a scoping
letter was sent to approximately 256 individuals, government agencies, organizations, and groups
requesting public input on the CHR Project. The letter explained the travel planning process and
identified specific desired changes to the existing motorized system. Changes were identified
based on Forest Service knowledge and experience in the areas identified, past and ongoing
discussions with users of these areas, and comments received. The proposed changes were also
reflective of the collaborative efforts and discussions which occurred at the January 24th
, 2008
open house. As a result of the scoping letter, we received letters, emails, other correspondence,
phone calls, and office visits from approximately 65 individuals, groups, and organizations
providing feedback and comments on our proposed action.
In addition to the two letters sent out by the Forest Service and the open house, the CHR Project
was publicized in the Daily Inter Lake, the Hungry Horse News, and the Flathead Beacon
newspapers, each of which published information and stories concerning the CHR Project
between January and March 2008.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
6
The EA was distributed to the public in early July 2009. Over 60 EAs were mailed to those
people who provided comments during the scoping process. The remaining people on the
mailing list identified above were sent a letter mentioning the availability of the EA along with a
link to the Flathead National Forest internet website where the EA could be viewed
electronically. Comments were invited for a 30-day period after a legal notice notifying the
availability of the EA was published in the Daily Inter Lake. About 50 people sent in comments
on the EA. Responses to those comments will be included in an appendix to the Decision Notice.
Summary of Scoping Comments
Access: Comments concerned road maintenance, closing the Lost Johnny Road, and prohibiting
motorized use on various trails/roads. The ongoing and extensive closure of motorized
roads/trails upset many people, while others wanted more roads/trails closed to motorized use.
Botany: Comments centered on the spread and control of weeds.
Climate: Comments focused on increased emissions concerns and the desire to ban motorized
use.
Economics: Commenters requested budget analysis, questioned how routes would be
maintained, or stated that roads/trails must not be closed without a full economic analysis.
Fish/Hydrology: The effects, including cumulative effects, of roads and road density on riparian
areas and fish were of concern. Sedimentation, runoff, water quality, and erosion were also
commented on.
Fire/Fuels: Commenters felt that designating the Cedar Flats area would lead to more use and a
higher probability of fire. Some felt it was unfair to reduce fuels in the WUI just to designate the
area.
Policies/Plans/Regulations: There was dissatisfaction with what was considered as an
unreasonably short comment period. Some felt only user created routes should be considered
while others felt these routes should not be considered. Many wanted the project to have a
broader scope and some wanted a full analysis of the entire road system documented in an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Several commenters felt the travel management process
must begin with a clearly established and inventoried baseline of existing roads and trails, and
some wanted the cumulative effects analysis to consider all motorized closures over the past 30
years. Other comments wanted more monitoring, adequate rule enforcement (particularly for
illegal off-road use), and to meet Forest Plan Amendment Amendment 19. Several people
wanted more complete maps, rationale for why access in these areas would be changed, and
some advocated a 50/50 sharing between motorized and non-motorized use.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
7
Recreation: General: Considerations should include access for people with disabilities and the impact of
noise on non-motorized users. We heard concerns for and against the 300 feet dispersed
camping designations and about the effect of motorized use on natural resources. Many
commenters felt that the Forest Service should stop closing roads/trails, favor the re-opening of
closed roads/trails, and some questioned the 50 inches rule which restricts the size of permissible
motorized vehicles in particular areas. Many questioned the imbalance between the number of
miles or trails open to motorized use versus non-motorized use and some felt the needs and rights
of motorized users are not being given as much consideration as those of non-motorized users.
Cedar Flats: Many felt this area should be designated as non-motorized and some questioned if
the Forest Service could adequately monitor the area. Others were worried about the effects of
dust and noise on the neighbors. Specific roads and areas for closure were mentioned; some
wanted a designated speed limit, a curfew, and a ban on fires and shooting in the area. Other
comments mentioned heavy littering, parking, and noxious weeds as current problems. Many
commenters felt that designating this area would make all of these problems worse. Bonneville
Power Authority (BPA) set forth conditions for use near the powerline.
On the other hand, many comments favored the inclusion of Cedar Flats as motorized, and
wanted the MVUM to designate additional off-highway vehicles (OHV) areas as they felt many
trails/roads currently not designated are well suited to OHV use. Others wanted an OHV park
constructed and many felt that since OHV use is so limited on the rest of the forest, that use
should prevail in areas where it is legal.
Hungry Horse Reservoir: Some comments did not want to allow access below the high-water
mark in the reservoir and to limit dispersed camping in this area. Conversely, others wanted
more access and dispersed camping allowed without restriction.
Hungry Horse Track: Some commenters wanted the entire track area open for motorized use,
the designation of an OHV park in the area, and the construction of loop trails with no restriction
on the dates of use.
Swan Crest: Many people were unhappy about the proposed seasonal restrictions and the
previous loss of trails under the West Side Reservoir decision. Others felt that motorcycle use on
the Swan Crest trails causes unacceptable resource damage and displaces hikers and horses.
Wild & Scenic River Corridor: Some advocated unrestricted motorized and camping access
below the high-water mark. Others wanted more restrictions because poorly controlled access
could destroy habitat and reduce the natural character of the corridor.
Silviculture: Commenters noted that open roads lead to more firewood cutting and more
damage to natural systems, e.g. old-growth, snags, etc.
Soils: Comments indicated concerns that motorized use results in soil compaction and erosion.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
8
Wildlife: Commenters pointed out that open roads expose game animals to heavy hunting
pressure and that threatened and endangered species (TES) must be protected. Others addressed
concerns that higher road densities affect wildlife and that landscape linkages must be
maintained. For the Cedar Flats area, commenters on both sides of the issue indicated specific
routes that should or should not be opened.
Issue Development Process
The Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) reviewed all comments received in response to the
scoping and collaboration letters to identify issues, determine appropriate analysis procedures,
and identify alternatives to the proposed action. Some comments were consistent with the
purpose and need for the project. Others were beyond the scope of this project, the Forest Plan or
other regulatory framework addressed some, some were beyond the geographical influence of
this project, and some did not pertain to this specific proposal. Comments and concerns that fell
into these latter categories were considered irrelevant to this project-specific assessment and
were not addressed.
The remaining comments were examined to determine how they could best be addressed in the
Environmental Assessment (EA). A few comments were best addressed by developing an
alternative to the proposed action. These concerns became the issues that are described below.
Other comments were best addressed by disclosing the effects of implementing the proposed
action and its alternatives, or by developing design features common to all action alternatives.
Some comments and further refinement of the proposed action resulted in identifying and adding
the South Fork Flathead River Access and Pioneer River Access to the alternatives. In addition,
after scoping was completed, it was brought to the ID Team’s attention that the proposed
seasonal restrictions for the Swan Crest Motorized Trails were not consistent with the sideboards
developed for this project. The sideboard was to honor access management decisions made in
previous projects. Since the West Side Reservoir Post-Fire Project decision indicated these trails
were open, access management for these trails will not be changed in this project. This aspect of
the proposal is no longer being carried forward in this EA.
The project file contains further information on the comments received during scoping, including
how the ID Team accounted for them during the analysis process.
Issues Used for Alternative Development
The following issue was identified from the scoping comments and used to develop an
alternative to the proposed action.
1. Motorized access should be restricted south of the Bonneville Power Administration
power line in the Cedar Flats area and should be moved away from private land in the
northeast area of Cedar Flats. Designated trails should consider and improve safety
conditions in the area. Together, these changes would reduce noise, traffic, and dust
problems, while increasing safety for riders and neighbors.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
9
Issue Indicators:
• Miles of open motorized routes south of the powerline
• Motorized routes present near private land
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
This EA considered the proposed action (Alternative 2) and two other alternatives in detail.
Alternative 1 is the no-action alternative, under which the project area would have no change in
existing motorized vehicle use as described below. Alternative 3 represents a way to satisfy the
purpose and need of the project that is different from the proposed action and it responds with a
different emphasis to the Cedar Flats issue discussed earlier. Maps of the alternatives are
provided in Appendix B.
Alternative 1 (No-Action)
This alternative represents the existing condition against which the other alternatives are
compared. Council of Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.14d) require that a no-
action alternative is analyzed.
Under this alternative, in the specific areas described below, existing motorized routes and areas
are considered open unless otherwise specifically restricted or prohibited. The user-created
routes within the areas described below existed prior to the 2001 OHV Forest Plan Amendment
and consequently are considered open to motorized travel. This management is consistent with
the direction found in the OHV Record of Decision and Plan Amendment for Montana, North
Dakota and portions of South Dakota (2001) as well as Flathead National Forest Special Order
#F10024L01. The existing condition also allows motorized wheeled cross-country travel to a
dispersed campsite within 300 feet of roads or trails, unless it is otherwise prohibited.
Cedar Flats
The Cedar Flats area located just north of Columbia Falls includes approximately 10 miles of
open yearlong roads and 14 miles of undesignated or user-created routes. User-created routes
are available for motorized vehicles that fit the width of the existing track (refer to Map 29 in
Appendix A). Some of the undesignated trails lead to private lands.
Hungry Horse Track Area
The moto-cross track area located adjacent to the Hungry Horse Ranger Station Administrative
Site includes an adjacent 2 miles of undesignated or user-created routes with several open
yearlong roads also adjacent to the track. This area is also located between private lands, Canyon
Elementary School, Hungry Horse Water District, and the Bureau of Reclamation Dam facilities.
An existing restriction (# D06-100-L-07) in the track area limits use to motorized vehicles 50
inches or less. The area adjacent to the track that is accessed from Road #11080 is available for
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
10
day use. There are approximately 1.5 miles of open yearlong road adjacent to the track in which
only street legal vehicles are permitted (refer to Map 28 in Appendix A).
Wild and Scenic River Corridors
Designated open roads access a number of recreation sites (both developed and dispersed) within
the Wild and Scenic River Corridor. At the following developed recreation sites within the Wild
and Scenic River Corridor - Border, Polebridge, Big Creek, Glacier Rim, Paola, and West
Glacier River Access Sites - motorized users travel below the high-water line to recreate and
access the river Blankenship (refer to Maps 3, 7, 11, 13, 15, and 16 in Appendix A). In addition,
motorized users travel within the following dispersed areas: Wurtz, Ford, Sondreson, Coal
Creek, Road #10923, Camas, Huckleberry, Essex and Blankenship (refer to Maps 4, 6, 5, 8, 9,
10, 12, 14, and 17 in Appendix A).
Hungry Horse Reservoir Areas
Motorized users travel from designated open roads to the following areas: Flossy Bay, Abbot
Boat Launch, FK&L, Riverside, Canyon, Logan, Lost Johnny Point, Lid Creek, and Devil’s
Corkscrew. During the early summer months when the reservoir is low these areas are typically
below the high water line (refer to Maps 25, 20, 30, 21, 26, 22, 23, 24, and 27 in Appendix A).
The FK&L area is a dispersed area used for camping adjacent to Emery Bay Campground along
the east side of Hungry Horse Reservoir. There is approximately 0.2 miles of undesignated user
created route that have been used by motorized vehicles to access a camping area or scenic point
above the reservoir.
Pioneer and South Fork River Access
Motorized users travel from an open road to a dispersed boat launch area along the lower South
Fork Flathead River, below Hungry Horse Dam, and at the Pioneer river access area (Graham’s
Bar) along the Flathead River. The Pioneer area accesses a gravel bar and then continues onto a
hardened channel. The forest prohibits overnight use in both of these areas (#D06-100-L-07 and
#D07-085-L-10), thus cross-country travel for dispersed camping is prohibited (refer to Maps 18
and 19 in Appendix A).
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Alternative 2 would designate and restrict motorized use as described below and be displayed on
the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for the Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
11
Cedar Flats
Alternative 2 would designate approximately 9 miles of existing undesignated or user created
motorized routes in the Cedar Flats area, including the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
utility corridor, open to vehicles ≤50 inches wide from June 1 through November 30. Two short
segments would be constructed to connect existing trails, creating loop riding opportunities
between the roads, trails, and the utility corridor. The trails in the Cedar Flats area would receive
regular maintenance and if needed, erosion control devices such as rolling dips, water bars, and
turnpikes (refer to Map 29A in Appendix A).
Of the 10 miles of open yearlong road within this area, 2.0 miles of Road #10815 would be open
seasonally to wheeled motorized vehicles from June 1 through November 30 (currently it is open
yearlong). Gates would be installed and used to control access, and the remainder of the road
would remain open yearlong.
Designating the same season for both the road, trails, which include the BPA utility corridor,
would allow for resource protection during the spring months and during the winter when
freezing and thawing create soft roadbed conditions that can lead to resource damage.
Prohibiting wheeled motor vehicle use during the winter provides snowmobiles and skiers safer
recreational opportunities in the Cedar Flats area. The proposed routes avoid private lands and
trails leading to dead ends.
A prohibition against overnight use, target (recreational) shooting, and campfires would also be
included in this alternative which would eliminate the exemption of 300 feet of motorized travel
for the purposes of dispersed camping.
Hungry Horse Track Area
Alternative 2 would designate approximately 2 miles of existing routes as trails open to vehicles
≤50 inches from April 1 through November 30. The Hungry Horse Track would also be open to
motorized vehicles April 1 through November 30. There are three road segments, each 0.5 miles
long, which currently provide a total of 1.5 miles of yearlong open roads adjacent to the track.
One segment would be available for highway legal vehicles; another segment would be
designated for vehicles ≤50 inches; and on the third segment wheeled motorized use would be
prohibited. The two segments designated for motorized use would be open from April 1 through
November 30 (refer to Map 28A in Appendix A). The current prohibition for overnight camping
is maintained in this alternative; therefore, the 300 foot motorized allowance for dispersed
camping does not apply.
Wild and Scenic River Corridors
The designated open roads that access a number of recreation sites (both developed and
dispersed) within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor would remain the same under this
alternative. However, the 300 feet cross-country motorized allowance from designated roads to a
dispersed campsite would be prohibited.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
12
Several cross-country travel areas would be designated for motorized use. At Polebridge, Paola,
and West Glacier River Access Sites, users would be able to travel below the high-water line.
Motorized users would also be able to travel within the cross-country travel areas of Wurtz,
Ford, Sondreson, Coal Creek, Road #10923, Camas, Huckleberry, Essex and Blankenship. The
300 feet cross-country motorized allowance from these areas to a dispersed campsite would be
prohibited.
Motorized use below the high-water line at Big Creek and Glacier Rim would be restricted to the
developed boat launches. Motorized use below the high-water line that is not directly related to
launching and retrieving boats would be prohibited.
Motorized use below the high-water line onto the gravel or sand bars at the Border River Access
Site would be prohibited (refer to Maps 3A through 17A in Appendix A).
Hungry Horse Reservoir Areas
The designated open roads that access the Hungry Horse Reservoir would remain the same under
this alternative. This alternative would delineate and designate the areas of Lost Johnny Point
Boat Launch, Flossy, Abbot Boat Launch, FK&L, Riverside, Canyon Creek, Logan, Lid Creek
CG, and Devil’s Corkscrew for cross-country travel below the high-water line. Traveling 300
feet from the designated cross-country areas to a dispersed campsite would be prohibited.
Alternative 2 would designate approximately 0.2 miles of existing routes as yearlong trails for
vehicles ≤50 inches. These trails are adjacent to the dispersed area known as FK&L on the east
side of Hungry Horse Reservoir (refer to Maps 20A through 27A in Appendix A).
Pioneer and South Fork River Access
The open roads that access the Pioneer and South Fork River Access Areas would remain the
same. This alternative would delineate and designate these two areas as depicted in Map 19A and
18A in Appendix A). The delineated cross-country area at Pioneer would be reduced from its
current size by eliminating motorized travel down the hardened channel but continuing
motorized access to the gravel bar. The Forest would continue to enforce the forest order that
prohibits overnight use in both of these areas.
Alternative 3
All proposed areas under Alternative 3 are identical to those in Alternative 2, with the exception
of the Cedar Flats area.
Cedar Flats
Alternative 3’s description for Cedar Flats is similar as Alternative 2 except that 7 miles of
undesignated or user-created routes would be designated as trails open for vehicles ≤50 inches
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
13
wide from June 1 through November 30. Three short segments of new trail would be
constructed to connect existing trail segments (refer to Map 29B in Appendix A). Alternative 3
was designed to respond to issues related to noise and safety in the Cedar Flats area as raised in
public comment letters. Motorized access would be prohibited on user created motorized routes
found south of the power line and near private land in the northeast area of Cedar Flats. A
prohibition against overnight use, target (recreational) shooting, and campfires would also be
included in this alternative which would eliminate the exemption of 300 feet of motorized travel
for the purposes of dispersed camping.
Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3
• In areas that allow for dispersed camping 300 feet from open roads, trails, and areas,
campsite selection must be completed by non-motorized means, and then accessed by the
most direct route (no more than 300 feet) without causing resource damage. Resource
damage would include rutting, or crossing of wet soils/meadows. Cutting, clearing, or
damaging of trees or vegetation is not allowed to access dispersed camping spots.
• Access management monitoring would be conducted to ensure soil and water protection,
as well as provide habitat security. If monitoring shows new damage in an area allowing
300 feet of cross-country motor vehicle use for the purpose of dispersed camping, a
variety of tools may be used to enforce the MVUM – i.e. through our public outreach and
education efforts, signage on the ground, physical barriers, emergency closures, and
monitoring by our staff and law enforcement officers. Permanently closing areas to
motorized use may also be an option. Emergency closures (i.e. restricting certain uses)
can also be made at any time when unacceptable resource damage is occurring.
• Upon publishing the Motor Vehicle Use Map for the selected alternative, the 2005
Motorized Travel Rule regulations would become enforceable on the District (36 CFR
261.13). The Motor Vehicle Use Map would display those routes designated for
motorized travel by the public by the class of vehicles and seasons of use. These actions
are expected to greatly enhance the ability to enforce access management decisions. The
regulatory requirements for posting prohibitions would no longer be applicable, and the
problems associated with implementing and maintaining extensive prohibition posting
would be eliminated. Hard-copy and electronic versions of the Motor Vehicle Use Map
would be available to Forest users and would identify those roads, trails, and areas
available for motorized use by the public. With the publication of this map, agency Law
Enforcement Officers and Forest Protection Officers would have clear authority for
issuing citations for violations of access management decisions.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
14
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study
• Consider an alternative that does not include undesignated areas, or non-system roads and
trails.
This proposal was discussed at length during alternative development with the conclusion that
eliminating all of these areas and undesignated routes (or user-created routes) in the site-specific
areas associated with this project was inappropriate for a number of reasons. It would have
considerable impacts to the ongoing recreation uses that have been historically occurring for
decades. These uses have not caused significant adverse environmental or social effects; when
impacts have become a concern then special orders have been put in place to either eliminate or
change uses or behaviors. In the Cedar Flats area, we have heard concerns from the neighboring
landowners about noise, shooting, garbage, and campfires associated with motorized use – the
proposed special order in Alternative 2 and 3 to prohibit target shooting, overnight camping, and
campfires should help curb these behaviors. Additionally, Alternative 3 does not designate
motorized trails south of the BPA power line corridor where many of the neighboring
landowners live. The 2001 OHV Amendment allows these user created routes existing at the
time of the decision (2001) to remain open for motorized use. In the absence of demonstrated
significant negative effects from this use it is appropriate to honor past access management
decisions which have been providing valuable public recreation opportunities. Therefore,
analyzing an alternative in detail that eliminated all user created routes was not necessary to
respond to the purpose and need of this project.
• Consider an alternative that only allows motor vehicles below the high water line for the
purposes of launching and retrieving a boat.
The intention behind allowing access below the high water line is to maintain the public’s
motorized access to water as long as adverse resource damage is not being caused. This
motorized use is primarily identified for launching/retrieving boats, but would also include other
water based activities such as fishing and camping. The above suggestion is being partially
addressed in Alternatives 2 and 3 where some of the existing areas (Glacier Rim and Big Creek)
would only allow motorized use below the high water line for the purposes of
launching/retrieving a boat. It was not considered necessary to restrict motorized use in the other
below high water line areas as there has not been resource/social conflicts associated with this
use. If resource conflicts became a concern, and there is unacceptable resource damage
occurring, these areas can be closed to motorized use or other means could be used to mitigate
the impacts. Finally, the suggestion to limit or restrict motorized access below the high-water
line would not be consistent with the purpose and need for the project which was to continue to
provide access to areas such as Hungry Horse Reservoir and the Middle and North Forks of the
Flathead River.
• An alternative that does not construct connector trails in the Cedar Flats area.
This suggested alternative was not considered in detailed study because the connector trails are
designed to reduce the potential for new user routes to be created. Loop trails generally provide a
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
15
more desirable experience for all users (e.g. equestrians, mountain bikers, hikers, and motorized
riders) and can help with reducing congestion. The no action alternative analyzed in the
recreation section provides information with respect to the effects of short non-connecting trails
that currently occur in the area.
• The suggestion to restrict all-terrain vehicles (ATV) to roads near Columbia Falls and
Hungry Horse.
In the action alternatives, motorized use adjacent to the two towns would be concentrated on a
designated system of roads, trails and areas. Since motorized use of trails in those two areas
have been providing recreational opportunities for several decades without significant negative
environmental effects (as detailed in the original and revised EAs) restricting ATVs to roads near
Columbia Falls and Hungry Horse was not evaluated in a fully detailed alternative. In order to
respond to the concerns of noise, dust, shooting, garbage, and campfires which are often
associated with motorized use in the Cedar Flats area, the proposed action alternatives
(Alternatives 2 and 3) include a special order that would prohibit these types of uses.
Resource specific analyses displayed in the EAs demonstrated that resource and land owner
concerns could be addressed without eliminating and/or reducing all motorized use of trails. If
motorized us of these areas had demonstrated an ongoing significant environmental or social
effect then this suggestion would have been considered in detail, but since there was no evidence
of this occurring, the suggestion was not brought forward in detail. The EAs displayed the effects
of the existing trails in the two areas of concern (no action alternative) and also the effects of
designating a portion of the existing trails to motorized use (Alternative 3 proposes less miles of
motorized trail designation than Alternative 2 to address landowner concerns brought forward in
public comments).
The effects of authorizing the motorized use of the trails and areas have been displayed in the
revised EA and are expected to maintain and/or enhance the existing natural environment and
recreation experience. Therefore, analyzing an alternative in detail that eliminated motorized use
on trails was not appropriate.
• Future motorized demands require that more access be available instead of less.
In our January 2008 letter and in the open house we provided to the public, we described how we
intended to evaluate roads, trails, and areas available for motor vehicle use as directed in the
2005 National Forest Service Travel Management Rule. We described our constraints or
sideboards for this process – these were provided because of the limited time period we had to
get this process completed and because the majority of the area covered by the two ranger
districts have been incorporated in recent planning projects that have included travel
management decisions (e.g. Westside Reservoir Post-Fire Project (2005), Robert-Wedge Post-
Fire Project (2004), Moose Post-Fire Project (2002), Paint Emery Ecosystem Management
Project (1999), Firefighter Project (2009)).
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
16
Additionally, our current Forest Plan grizzly bear standards limit the areas of consideration for
designating new wheeled motorized use. These same standards do not allow for an increase in
motorized density. Adding another alternative that increases the number of roads and trails
available for motorized use would not meet these Forest Plan standards.
• An alternative is needed to establish a season of use for the Swan Crest Motorized Trails
as first proposed. The need for resource protection during the wet spring and fall seasons
has not been addressed, and even though there was a previous informal agreement not to
restrict motorized recreation along these trails, the Forest Service should recognize the
need for adaptive management, especially in light of ongoing resource damage.
Page 8 of the revised EA explains why this proposal was dropped from being further assessed in
the EA. The “previous informal agreement” the commenter alludes to is more than just that – it
was a sideboard or criteria that helped to define and focus the project. This sideboard included
not re-evaluating recent planning decisions related to roads and trails.
The trails identified in the scoping letter that occurred in the Swan Crest were recently included
and evaluated in a planning project known as the Westside Reservoir Post-Fire Project - this
project was authorized in 2005 – with some of the road management actions still being
implemented. Adding a seasonal restriction to these trails did not meet our sideboard we
established very early on with this project, which is why we dropped them from being further
evaluated. Additionally, in the event of resource damage that may be caused by motorized
vehicles or by stock, bicycles, and by foot traffic, special orders can be implemented at any time
to restrict these uses from occurring during particularly wet seasons.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
To define the issues and provide a clear comparison of alternatives, the following table provides
a summary of some of the CHR Project features by alternative.
Table 1. Comparison of Features of the Alternatives
Feature Alternative 1
(No-Action Alternative)
Alternative 2
(Proposed Action) Alternative 3
Cedar Flats Area
Miles of Undesignated or User
Created Motorized Routes ~14 miles ~9 miles ~7 miles
Miles of User Created Motorized
Routes South of the Powerline ~1.6 miles ~0.8 miles 0.0 miles
Segments of new trail construction 0 2 3
Seasonal Restrictions None Yes
(6/1-11/30)
Yes
(6/1-11/30)
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
17
Feature Alternative 1
(No-Action Alternative)
Alternative 2
(Proposed Action) Alternative 3
Hungry Horse Track
Miles of Roads & Trails Open to
Vehicles ≤50” (Hungry Horse Track
would stay open in all alternatives)
2.0 miles 2.0 miles
Miles of Roads Open To Street Legal
Vehicles ~1.5 miles ~0.5 miles
Seasonal Restrictions None Yes
(4/1-11/30)
Yes
(4/1-11/30)
Wild & Scenic River Corridor
Motorized Travel Designations
Motorized travel is
allowed within 15 cross-
country travel areas.
Motorized cross-country
travel up to 300 feet to a
dispersed campsite is
permissible.
Motorized travel is designated within 14
cross-country travel areas
Motorized cross-country travel up to
300 feet to a dispersed campsite is
prohibited.
Motorized travel below the high-water
line at Glacier Rim and Big Creek are
restricted to designated boat launches.
Motorized travel below the high-water
line at the Border River Access Site is
prohibited.
Hungry Horse Reservoir
Motorized Travel Designations
Motorized travel is
allowed within Flossy
Bay, Lost Johnny Point,
Lid Creek, Abbot Boat
Launch, FK&L, Riverside,
Canyon, Logan, and
Devil’s Corkscrew areas
that have had historic use.
Motorized travel is designated within
Flossy Bay, Lost Johnny Point, Lid
Creek, Abbot Boat Launch, FK&L,
Riverside, Canyon, Logan, and Devil’s
Corkscrew areas that have had historic
use.
Traveling 300 feet from the designated
cross-country areas to a dispersed
campsite would be prohibited.
FK&L Area
Miles of Routes Open to Highway
Legal Vehicles ~0.2 miles 0 miles
Miles of Routes Open to Vehicles
≤50″ 0 miles ~0.2 miles
Pioneer and South Fork River Access
Would the Pioneer Access and the
Boat Launch on Lower South Fork
River be Open to Motorized Use?
Yes Yes
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
18
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This section provides a brief summary of the existing resource conditions and a discussion of the
potential impacts of the alternatives. The environmental effects analysis provides the necessary
information to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Recreation and Wild and Scenic River
Affected Environment
Introduction
Information for this analysis was based upon observations made during routine visits,
maintenance and surveys of trails, roads, and recreation facilities. Road and trail mileages
reported were obtained from the Flathead National Forest Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) database.
The State of Montana governs the operation of off-highway vehicles (OHV) with respect to
operation, registration, licensing, noise, and spark arresters. Off-highway vehicles operating on
public land for recreational purposes must be registered and display a decal placed in a
conspicuous location on the machine. Off-highway vehicles operating on public roads including
National Forest System roads must display a license plate, be operated by a licensed rider (16
years of age and older), and the machine must be outfitted with the required safety, noise, and
emission equipment. The State of Montana requires a noise limit of 96 decibels for OHV as well
as proper spark arresters when on public land.
Motorized access for dispersed camping on the HH/GV Ranger Districts is managed under the
existing Flathead National Forest Special Order #F10024L01 which states possessing or using
motorized vehicles off National Forest System Roads when no visible, clearly evident, two track
or single track routes are present is prohibited. Cross-country motorized travel up to 300 feet
from a road or trail to reach a dispersed campsite is permissible.
Wild and Scenic River Corridor
The North and Lower Middle Forks of the Flathead were congressionally designated as a Wild
and Scenic River in 1978. The designation means each segment would be managed in a manner
consistent with the classification assigned to it (Wild, Scenic, or Recreation). The scenic,
ecological, and recreational integrity of the river and corridor resources will be maintained
through responsible management. The North and Middle Forks of the Flathead River share
natural environment features and recreation experiences for the user. The existing management
of the corridor provides for mitigations to protect the natural environment and recreation
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
19
experience. These mitigations include seasonal road closures, camping restrictions, human waste
containment requirements, food storage regulations, and restrictions on motorized use for both
river segments. The recreation program uses a limits of acceptable change (LAC) process which
is outlined in the River Recreation Direction and River Management Plan. This plan describes a
process and monitoring indicators to guide in the identification of changed conditions within the
corridor. As an example, the river rangers monitor the incidence of litter along the shoreline,
numbers of encounters with other float parties, and evidence of human use (fire rings/human
waste).
The North Fork River corridor, which falls within the analysis area of the CHR Project, was
designated as scenic from the Canadian border south to the Camas Bridge and recreational
downstream to the confluence with the Middle Fork. A scenic designation is characterized by
accessibility by roads or trails, minimal timber harvests while taking visual integrity into
consideration, minimal visibility of structures from the river, and manage fire so it has the least
possible impact on the river corridor. A recreational designation is characterized by accessibility
by roads and available to motorized travel, timber harvest is acceptable, but visual integrity on
the landscape from the corridor is very important, and structures are common but managed for
visual integrity. Scenic and recreational designations allow for motorized access to the river.
Motorized river use is limited to 10 horse power engines below the Camas Bridge.
The Lower Middle Fork from the confluence with Bear Creek to the confluence with the Lower
South Fork, is designated as recreational within the analysis area. However, the portion of the
river from Bear Creek to Essex is administratively managed as wild. The Lower Middle Fork is
available for motorized river travel restricted to 10 horse power engines or less.
The lands within the wild and scenic designated corridor for both the North Fork and Lower
Middle Forks are shared between the Flathead National Forest and Glacier National Park. On
the North Fork, the land from the center of the deepest active channel to the west (or river right)
is Flathead National Forest. Conversely, the land from the center of the deepest active channel
to the east (or river left) is Glacier National Park is. On the Lower Middle Fork, the land south
of the mean high-water line (or river right bank) is Flathead National Forest and the land north of
the mean high-water line is Glacier National Park. Congressionally, the Forest Service has the
administrative jurisdiction for both forks; however, both agencies coordinate annually on patrols,
monitoring, and enforcement.
New Wild and Scenic River Resource Regulations were put in place during the summer of 2008
(# D07-079-L-08, #D06-108-L-08, #D07-080-L-08). These regulations require overnight users
within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor on the North and Middle Forks of the Flathead River
who are not using a site with a permanent toilet to contain and pack out their solid human waste.
The regulations also set stay limits, and in some cases prohibit camping and campfires at several
developed sites. The regulations were implemented to provide for health and safety.
In both the North Fork and the Lower Middle Fork, existing roads provide users access into the
designated river corridor for a myriad of uses including launching/retrieving rafts, fishing, and
kayaking. At some sites, users have historically traveled onto the gravel bar to reach the water’s
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
20
edge to launch and retrieve rafts, boats, and kayaks. In general, there is a greater proportion of
travel below the high-water line out onto a given gravel bar on the Lower Middle Fork than there
is on the North Fork.
Wild and Scenic River Developed Sites
Border, Ford, Polebridge, Big Creek, Great Northern, and Glacier Rim are the six developed
river access sites on the North Fork of the Flathead River. Big Creek Campground is the only
developed campground on the North Fork and Ford; Schnaus, and Rover Cabins are three rental
sites along the river.
Bear Creek, Paola, Cascadilla, Moccasin, and West Glacier are the five developed river access
sites on the Lower Middle Fork. Flathead County manages a sixth site at Blankenship Bridge.
These developed sites provide river corridor users developed parking, toilets, and in some cases
hardened launch ramps.
River users often drive motorized vehicles below the high-water line onto hardened gravel bars
at these river access sites to launch/retrieve watercraft, reach dispersed camping sites, fish, and
other general recreation activities. This type of use occurs at Border, Polebridge, Glacier Rim,
Big Creek Campground, Paola, and West Glacier river access sites.
Wild and Scenic River Dispersed Camping
The North Fork area is a wide river valley which has opportunities for dispersed recreation such
as camping, floating, angling, picnicking, hiking, or enjoying the scenery. The North Fork’s
dispersed areas are mainly used by vehicle-supported recreationists for day and overnight trips
alike. Wurtz, Kintla, Sondreson, Ford, and Coal Creek are some of the main dispersed areas
where users choose to recreate.
Roads throughout the North and Middle Fork Flathead River Corridor are used to access many
areas utilized for motorized use. Wurtz, Ford, Sondreson, Coal Creek, Road #10923, Camas,
Huckleberry, Blankenship, and Essex are hardened dispersed sites accessed by motorized
vehicles and used for camping, angling, and other day use activities. Motorized users travel
below the high water line of the river at Wurtz, Huckleberry and Blankenship at these dispersed
locations.
The general characteristics of the Lower Middle Fork include deep plunge pools, rock walls, and
steep banks. Nyack Flats with its braided channels is an exception. In general, dispersed
recreation on the Lower Middle Fork is characterized by day use activities originating from
developed river access sites.
There are ten known dispersed camping areas that are accessed by motorized vehicles in the
North Fork River corridor and four on the Lower Middle Fork River corridor. Based on the
direction provided in the 2001 OHV ROD and the current Forest-wide order (#F10-024-L-01)
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
21
mentioned on page 2, there is a potential for additional two-tracks to be created that lead to new
campsites Within the river corridor.
Hungry Horse Reservoir Areas
The reservoir was completed in 1953 and impounds approximately 34 miles of water. The East-
side Reservoir Road #38 and West-side Reservoir Road #895 surround the reservoir and create a
popular scenic loop drive. The high-water of the reservoir experiences fluctuations of
approximately 80 feet each year. This fluctuation creates areas void of vegetation between the
high-water mark and the actual water level, known as “below high-water line” (BHWL). The
areas of Devil’s Corkscrew, Logan, Canyon, Riverside, FK&L, Abbot Boat Launch, Flossy, Lost
Johnny Point Boat Launch, and Lid Creek Campground have historically provided access
BHWL. The users access the BHWL for numerous recreational purposes including launching
boats, fishing, or camping. Users travel off the end of the established roads onto the BHWL
areas. Other portions of the reservoirs’ shoreline are too steep or do not have an open road
leading to the shoreline.
FK&L was a log landing used when the area was logged back in the 1960s. Today, it is a
dispersed area used for camping adjacent to Emery Bay Campground along the east side of
Hungry Horse Reservoir. Approximately 0.2 miles of undesignated road/trail travel uphill from
the FK&L dispersed area to a knob overlooking the reservoir.
Cedar Flats
The Cedar Flats area is located north of Columbia Falls, south of Cedar Lake, west of the North
Fork county road, and east of Meadow Lake Resort. The most prominent feature of the area is
the Bonneville Power Authority powerline that transects the area. The main Cedar Flats Road
#10815 is bisected with several trails used by OHV to connect to the powerline corridor.
The primary users of this area are the neighboring residents as well as people living in the greater
Columbia Falls area. Due to close proximity to Columbia Falls, Cedar Flats receives varied use
including OHV, stock, hiking, mountain biking, skiing, and other winter recreational use.
Over the last few years, the Forest Service has mapped routes used by OHV in the Cedar Flats
area and identified approximately 14 miles of existing routes. There is approximately 3.5 miles
on Road #10815 and Road #5285 that are open yearlong.
There are undesirable activities occurring throughout the Cedar Flats area (project file exhibit E-
13). Dumping of household debris, vandalism of the BPA powerline (shooting out the
transformers), abandoned fires, and under-aged parties are some of the examples of undesirable
activities reported from the Cedar Flats area. Recreational shooting or target practicing along the
powerline and on the trails occurs on a regular basis.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
22
Hungry Horse Track
The Hungry Horse Track is currently available yearlong for motorized vehicles ≤50 inches wide.
Hungry Horse Track encompasses a total area of approximately 4.5 acres. Over the last few
years, the Forest Service has mapped approximately 2 miles of routes existing in the area. There
is an existing forest order restricting the track to vehicles 50 inches or less and the immediate
surrounding area of the track accessed from Road #11080 is available for day use only with no
fires or camping allowed. There are approximately 1.5 miles of open road adjacent to Hungry
Horse Track.
Pioneer and South Fork River Access
A dispersed location known as Pioneer is located on the lower portion of the main Flathead
River. This area includes a Flathead County easement that leads to a parcel of Flathead National
Forest and access to the river. There is also a dispersed river access site on the Lower South Fork
below Hungry Horse Dam. These areas provide access for anglers, boaters, and general
recreationists. There is an existing forest order that prohibits overnight use in both of these
areas, which in turn prohibits cross-country travel for dispersed camping.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Wild and Scenic River
At Border, Polebridge, Big Creek, Glacier Rim, Paola, and West Glacier River Access Sites,
users would continue to travel below the high-water line onto the gravel bars, to access the river.
Users would continue to have access to launch and retrieve their boats, as well as other
recreational activities. At the Border River Access Site, motorized use below the high-water line
is down a steep river bank to gain access to the gravel bar during low flows. This motorized
access has caused rutting and erosion down the steep bank. At Big Creek River Access Site, on
an occasion, users drive out onto the gravel bar towards the outlet of Big Creek which sometimes
causes congestion and safety issues at this popular site. At Glacier Rim River Access site, users
park below the boat ramp causing congestion for launching and retrieving boats. Other users
drive downstream along a sandy shoreline to reach a back eddy. Under the no-action alternative,
these activities would continue.
Motorized access to the Middle and North Fork Flathead Rivers has been reduced by previous
decisions to gate or berm roads or limit access via rocks and fences. Roads leading to the North
Fork are open both yearlong and seasonally. Both scenic and recreational designations are
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
23
characterized by motorized access within the corridor. In the no-action alternative, access within
the Wild and Scenic River Corridor would be managed as it is currently under Special Order
#F10024L01. This order states that possessing or using motorized vehicles off National Forest
System Roads when no visible, clearly evident, two track or single track routes are present is
prohibited. However, motorized wheeled cross-country travel to a campsite within 300 feet of a
road or trail is legal. The no-action alternative would continue to allow wheeled motorized use
at the existing areas within the corridor including Wurtz, Ford, Sondreson, Coal Creek, Road
#10923, Camas, Huckleberry, Essex, and Blankenship. These areas are hardened and used for
camping, angling, and other recreational activities.
Currently, motorized users may travel up to 300 feet cross-country from an open existing road or
trail to access a dispersed campsite within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor. The no-action
alternative would continue allowing motorized users to travel cross-country up to 300 feet for the
purposes of dispersed camping.
The North Fork River Corridor’s topography offers the potential for additional dispersed
campsites to be created. An undefined number of dispersed sites could be created resulting in an
increase in the number of vehicle tracks. Many users camp, picnic, or fish in these areas. Fire
rings and campsites are created and some users have a tendency to leave garbage at these
dispersed sites. Under Alternative 1, it is reasonable to believe the debris at these sites would
continue. The Middle Fork’s topography does not lend itself to much motorized access for
dispersed camping.
There is interspersed private land throughout the river corridor and some private landowners use
motorized vehicles on their own land. The private landowners must be aware of the motorized
travel restrictions on the NFS lands adjacent to their property.
Alternative 1 should continue to protect the existing natural environment and recreational
experience. However, there is the potential to diminish the quality of the natural environment
and the recreation experience of the wild and scenic river corridor if the undesirable activities
discussed above associated with motorized use expands beyond the current condition.
Hungry Horse Reservoir Areas
Under the no-action alternative, motorized use below the high water line locations of Lost
Johnny Point Boat Launch, Lid Creek Campground, Flossy Bay, Abbot Boat Launch, FK&L,
Riverside, Canyon, Logan, and Devil’s Corkscrew would continue. The topography or other
attributes of the remaining shoreline does not lend itself to motorized travel and historically
motorized use has not occurred. Many users camp, picnic, or fish from these historic access
areas. Motorized cross-country travel of up to 300 feet from a designated road to reach a
dispersed campsite would be permitted under Alternative 1. Fire rings and campsites are created
and some users leave garbage at these dispersed sites. Under this alternative, it is reasonable to
believe that garbage left at these sites would continue. The ability to manage the variety of
recreation experiences (dispersed camping, picnicking, fishing, nature watching) in the Hungry
Horse Reservoir area is affected by the seasonal fluctuations of the reservoir.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
24
In the FK&L area, there is a 0.2 mile route to the top of the knob above the reservoir. The route
barely accommodates full size vehicles but under Alternative 1, the routes would be considered
open. This loop is used to access dispersed campsites, and some users have a tendency to leave
garbage at these dispersed sites. Under the no-action alternative, it is reasonable to believe that
garbage left at these sites would continue.
Hungry Horse Track
The track would remain available for vehicles 50 inches and under, including approximately 2
miles of trail on the track and several open roads adjacent to the track. Currently, there are three
legal access points to the track area, and all three of these would be maintained under the no-
action alternative. The existing regulations at the track area are difficult to enforce with the
multiple access points. These difficulties are expected to continue under the no-action
alternative.
Cedar Flats
Within this area, approximately 14 miles of multiple use routes would continue to be available in
Alternative 1. Trails would be available for motorized vehicles on the clearly visible tracks, both
double and single tracks. Several trails are short, lead to private lands, and are dead ends. Those
trails leading to private lands have the potential for trespass on private property. Additionally, the
short distance of the trails can lead to crowding and reduce the variety for the user. Due to the
width of most of the existing tracks, and the requirement that the motorized unit must fit the
profile of the trail, motorized use would mostly be available to OHV 50 inches and under. The
trails would continue to be managed for multiple uses (e.g. stock, pedestrian, motor vehicles)
which puts the responsibility on user groups to respect each other when travelling on a trail.
These multiple use trails have not posed safety issues between motorized and non-motorized user
groups. However, the undesirable activities such as shooting, uncontained and poorly located
campfires, trash dumping, and underage partying that are often associated with full-sized
motorized vehicles may continue to pose safety issues.
The utility corridor is maintained under a special use permit to Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) for the occupancy and maintenance of the power line. Bonneville Power Administration
is authorized to drive needed equipment within their permit area including vehicles over 50
inches, construction equipment etc. Since the width of the BPA access route accommodates full
size vehicles, this route would continue to be available to highway legal vehicles.
Several other routes travel through sensitive soils and ephemeral drainages under this alternative.
Road #5285 and Road #10815 would remain open year round; however, spring break up
conditions would be assessed and seasonal closures would continue where necessary.
Traveling cross-country 300 feet from an open road or trail to a dispersed campsite would
continue under this alternative.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
25
Pioneer and South Fork River Access
Pioneer is located on the main stem of the Flathead River and the access area on the South Fork
of the Flathead River provides access for anglers, boaters, and general recreationists. There is an
existing forest order that prohibits overnight use in both of these areas, which in turn prohibits
cross-country travel for dispersed camping.
Motorized users at the Pioneer area travel the two-track across the County easement to reach a
gravel bar, which accesses the main Flathead River. Some motorized use continues past the first
gravel bar down a hardened side channel, which leads to a large wetland area. There has been
motorized use into this wetland area; law enforcement responds to these complaints and issues
notices of violation when appropriate.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Wild and Scenic River (developed and dispersed sites)
In Polebridge, Paola, and West Glacier River Access Sites, users would be authorized to take
motorized vehicles below the high-water line onto the gravel bars to launch/retrieve boats as well
as other recreational activities. These areas would be designated as cross-country areas and
displayed on the MVUM. However, motorized access below the high-water line onto the gravel
or sand bars at the Border, Big Creek, and Glacier Rim river access sites would be prohibited.
This motorized restriction at the Border River Access would result in floaters having to launch
their watercraft into the side channel (if the flow accommodates), walking the craft down the side
channel or carrying it out onto the gravel bar to reach the main channel. Restricting motorized
access below the high water line at Big Creek except to launch and retrieve a boat is not expected
to change existing use since the topography does not generally lend itself to motorized access.
As for Glacier Rim, prohibiting motorized access downstream below the launch ramp onto the
sand bar would result in users parking in the designated parking area and carrying their supplies
for the day to the river. This would displace some users who have been used to driving
downstream on the sand bar. They may choose to use another site, which allows motorized
access below the high-water line. This would reduce congestion on the launch ramp, reduce
damage to riparian vegetation and allow shore parties to have more options along the sand bar.
In Alternative 2, motorized access within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor would be allowed
within the designated cross-country areas of Wurtz, Ford, Sondreson, Coal Creek, Road #10923,
Camas, Huckleberry, Essex and Blankenship as well as on the existing designated system roads .
The cross-country areas are already hardened and the traditional uses (camping, angling, etc)
would continue. These areas would be shown as cross-country travel areas on a MVUM. No
other wheeled motorized travel would be authorized within the river corridor.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
26
This alternative would prohibit the 300 feet motorized access to a dispersed campsite for
motorized cross-country travel within the Wild and Scenic River corridor. Users may disperse
camp throughout the corridor, but all motorized travel would be restricted to the existing open
roads and the above-mentioned cross-country areas. The effects of prohibiting the 300-feet of
motorized cross-country travel for dispersed camping would limit the opportunities for new
dispersed campsites accessed by motorized vehicles. Overall, dispersed camping in the Wild and
Scenic River Corridor is not being restricted. There would be a limited number of vehicle-
accessible campsites in the corridor, which may cause these campsites to reach capacity sooner
on any given weekend.
There is interspersed private land throughout the river corridor and some private landowners use
motorized vehicles on their own land. The Forest Service has no jurisdiction over private lands;
however, once the private landowner crosses onto National Forest, the travel restrictions would
apply.
The natural environment and recreational experience would be protected and enhanced with the
limitation of motorized use within the river corridor. Human impacts such as fire rings, trash,
and compacted sites should be reduced since motorized access would be designated to specific
areas and roads.
Hungry Horse Reservoir Cross-Country Areas
Under Alternative 2, the areas of Lost Johnny Point Boat Launch, Lid Creek Campground,
Flossy Bay, Abbot Boat Launch, FK&L, Riverside, Canyon, Logan, and Devil’s Corkscrew
would be designated on the MVUM as cross-country travel areas. Since the topography or other
attributes of the remaining shoreline does not lend itself to motorized travel, the remaining
shoreline is generally not available for motorized use. Reservoir users often camp, picnic, or
fish in these historic access areas. Motorized cross-country travel up to 300 feet to a dispersed
campsite from open roads would be maintained under this alternative. However, motorized
cross-country travel to a dispersed campsite from the border of the designated cross-country
areas would be prohibited. Fire rings and campsites are created and some users have a tendency
to leave garbage at these dispersed sites. Under this alternative it is reasonable to believe that
garbage left within the cross-country areas would be reduced due to limitations on motorized
access.
This alternative would also designate the 0.2 mile loop around the knob at FK&L for OHV 50
inches or less. The route is narrow and does not fit well into the engineering standards for
vehicles over 50 inches due to steep and narrow terrain. This loop is used to access dispersed
campsites and some users have a tendency to leave garbage at these dispersed sites. The knob
would still be available for dispersed camping, but users will only be able to access it by vehicles
50 inches or less. By restricting access to this area, the net effect may be reduced debris,
dispersed camping, fire rings, and human waste issues.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
27
Hungry Horse Track
The track would remain available for motorized vehicles 50 inches and under. Alternative 2
would designate 2 miles of trail for vehicles 50 inches and under. Under Alternative 2, Road
#11090 and Road #11080P would be closed to all motorized use along with a portion of Road
#11080T. These roads allow multiple access points to the track and are hard to monitor. This
alternative would restrict motorized use on Roads #11080T, #11090A, #11080U and #11080 to
vehicles 50 inches and under and set a season of use to April 1 through November 30 for the
open roads, and track area.
Limiting the remaining roads and trails to vehicles 50 inches or less provides registered riders an
area to recreate without the requirement of being 16 years old or riding highway legal machines.
Designating the trails for motorized use for 50 inches and under is consistent with the existing
use on the track itself. The track area is one of the few locations on the HH/GV Ranger Districts
where younger, non-licensed riders can legally operate an OHV. If we allow the continued use
of the adjacent segments of open road by highway legal vehicles, then the younger registered
operators would continue to be prohibited from riding on those particular system roads. These
limitations are proposed for safety reasons as described in Forest Service Manual 7715.5 Travel
Planning and adhering to Montana State Statutes (see project file exhibit E-1).
Limiting entry access to one point ensures all users pass by the posted regulations for the area.
The track area has historically experienced a wide variety of inappropriate uses such as
campfires, shooting, dumping, trash and parties. All these activities are prohibited by order and
posted. By funneling users past the regulations it allows the Forest Service to provide notice of
the regulatory requirements that users are expected to follow while recreating in the area.
The seasonal designations would reduce conflicts with the winter season use. The area is open to
snowmobiling and is used frequently when the snowpack accommodates. By Montana State
Law, snowmobiles are not allowed to operate on plowed roads or roads accessible by
conventional vehicles.
Cedar Flats
Alternative 2 would designate 9 miles of trails for OHV 50 inches or less from June 1 through
November 30. The trails proposed for designation avoid dead ends, do not lead to private lands,
and have minimal resource issues. This alternative includes constructing 2 short sections of trail
to connect existing routes to create loops. The proposed 9 miles of trails fall north and south of
Road #10815 and include the BPA access route. Full size vehicles would be prohibited on this
trail system, eliminating safety issues between the different classes of vehicles.
It is very difficult to ride these trails without using a Forest Service Road especially if the user
wants to create a loop. However, a rider could choose to offload their non-highway legal
machine in the Cedar Flats area (or come from private property) and ride portions of the user-
created routes. If the rider chose to use the system roads the motorized vehicle machine must be
licensed as a highway legal vehicle and ridden by a licensed person. Road #10815 would
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
28
become seasonally open from June 1 through November 30. Designating a season would protect
the trail and road treads during the spring break up season when tread damage and erosion can
occur due to soft soils from the motorized use. Non-motorized users would not be restricted to a
season, so trail damage may still occur due to hiker, mountain bike, and stock use. The tread
impacts would be expected to reduce from the current condition. The trails would be maintained
according to the Forest Service Handbook 2309.18 for motorized trails and if needed, erosion
control devices such as rolling dips, climbing turns, turnpikes, would be used. The new trail
segments would avoid sensitive plants and soils. If the route should cross wet areas, turnpikes
would be constructed to minimize impacts to the habitat.
The existing trails that lead directly to private lands are not proposed for designation under the
Alternative 2. By not designating these trails, the level of trespass from the Flathead National
Forest onto private property should be reduced. Several other routes travel through sensitive
soils and ephemeral drainages and would not be considered for motorized designation due to
their potential for resource damage under this alternative. However, non-motorized users may
continue to use the non-designated routes which would continue the potential for some resource
damage. However, continued use of these routes would be discouraged.
The undesirable activities in the Cedar Flats area such as shooting, uncontained and poorly
located campfires, trash/dumping, and underage partying should diminish under this alternative
with the proposed prohibition against overnight use, target shooting and campfires. The
restriction to OHV 50 inches or less would reduce where full size vehicles have been traveling
and, in general, the damage and vandalism has mostly been associated with the full size vehicles
rather than OHV.
Pioneer
In this alternative, motorized use would be limited to the initial gravel bar, which provides access
to the main stem of the Flathead River. Prohibiting motorized use down the side channel would
eliminate the resource damage caused by motorized vehicles in the wetland areas.
Alternative 3
Direct and Indirect Effects
The direct and indirect effects mentioned under Alternative 2 are the same in Alternative 3
except for the Cedar Flats area. The following are the effects of the changes relative to the Cedar
Flats area specific to the design of Alternative 3.
Cedar Flats
This alternative would designate approximately 7 miles of trail for OHV 50 inches or less
including the BPA access route. A season would be enforced for both trails and Road #10815
from June 1 through November 30. A prohibition against overnight use, target shooting, and
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
29
campfires would be put in place under this alternative. The trails proposed for designation avoid
dead ends, do not lead to private lands, and have minimal resource issues.
This alternative modifies Alternative 2 by altering two aspects: it does not designated trails south
of the BPA line for motorized use, and it has 3 new connections to existing routes at the
northeast portion of the trail system. The trails would be maintained according to the Forest
Service Handbook 2309.19 for motorized trails including rolling dips, climbing turns, turnpikes,
and other drainage structures to address erosion control on the trails. The new trail segments
would avoid sensitive plants and soils. If the route crossed wet areas, turnpikes would be
constructed to minimize impacts to the habitat.
Making the above mentioned changes would reduce the noise, dust and trespass impacts that
OHVs are having on adjacent private lands and eliminate the need to construct structures across
an ephemeral stream. Non-motorized users may continue to use the non-designated routes which
would increase the potential for some resource damage
Cumulative Effects
General
Motorized wheeled cross-country travel to a dispersed campsite within 300 feet of the identified
roads, trails, or areas are reduced under the action alternatives. This feature in combination with
other motorized access reduction actions across the Forest may be perceived as an additional
reduction of motorized access opportunities. However, the physical terrain of the areas analyzed
in this project limits the ability to use a motorized vehicle in the 300 foot buffer areas as well as
the areas identified as currently being used are being designated for continued use so the actual
effects to the recreationist would be minimal.
In addition to the cumulative effects discussed above, Alternative 2 includes additional miles of
reduction in motorized opportunities, and seasonal restrictions to address issues associated with
motorized activities. This alternative contributes to a minimal cumulative loss of motorized
recreation to the motorized users and a minimal increase in non-motorized use to the non-
motorized users. Alternative 3 includes 2 additional miles of reduction in motorized
opportunities to address issues associated with motorized activities adjacent to private land. This
alternative contributes to a minimal cumulative loss of motorized recreation to the motorized
users and a minimal increase in non-motorized use to the non-motorized users.
Under the no action alternative, there are no cumulative effects to the motorized user as their
opportunities are not being reduced or affected. However, there could be cumulative effects to
other values and resources as a result of the potential for expanding dispersed motorized
opportunities.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
30
Wild and Scenic River
By limiting motorized travel within the river corridors, competition for vehicle supported
campsites may increase so river recreationists may change their use patterns from vehicle-
supported camping to a more traditional float party (e.g. launching from one location and being
self-contained without vehicle support, camping along the river and finally taking out at a
predetermined location down river). This traditional float party would have more options for
camping since they could access miles of shoreline without vehicle access and not be in
competition with the vehicle-supported floaters. Additional floater camps along the motorized
vehicle inaccessible portions of shoreline may increase litter, campfires, and other undesirable
impacts. However, overall, through the designation of cross-country motorized areas and the
prohibition of the 300 foot motorized allowance for dispersed camping, the undersireable
impacts mentioned above should be reduced.
The Wild and Scenic River Corridor would continue to be monitored for the indicator standards
and the results will help managers identify appropriate management responses. Limiting the
motorized access to the Wild and Scenic River Corridor to designated areas may cause river
users to reduce their visitation on weekends and recreate on weekdays using these locations.
This may cause less congestion during the weekends at both the access points and along the
river.
Cumulatively, it is expected that the natural environment and recreational experience in the wild
and scenic river corridor would be protected and enhanced with the proposed limitation of
motorized use along with the human waste containment regulations currently in place.
Hungry Horse Reservoir Cross-Country Areas
The cross-country areas will continue to be used by those wanting to gain motorized access to
the reservoir. If recreation use grows, these cross-country areas may reach capacity especially on
weekends. Use patterns may shift to weekday use for those recreationists with the flexibility. At
some point, each of these areas may reach capacity with no opportunity for expansion.
Hungry Horse Track
Private land is being developed around Hungry Horse and the track is no longer secluded. The
track is a part of the Hungry Horse neighborhood. OHV use produces noise, dust, and increases
traffic on Colorado Drive. This alternative is designed to mitigate the impacts to private land
owners from the motorized recreation taking place at the track area by funneling the access to
one location, setting a season of use, and limiting the vehicles to 50 inches or less.
Cedar Flats
Motorized use opportunities would be reduced in the Cedar Flats area under Alternative 2 and 3.
Since the OHV opportunities on the Flathead National Forest are limited, riders may find
themselves using the same trails. As motorized use grows in popularity, designated trails and
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
31
areas may see increased use and resource impacts such as trail damage, rutting, and erosion
issues. The Forest Service would respond with additional trail maintenance and seek
partnerships with local riding groups to attend to the trail conditions.
The vandalism, damage, dumping, shooting, and other undesirable activities should reduce with
the restriction of full size vehicles from the trails and BPA access road as well as the prohibition
on overnight use, target shooting and campfires. The overall effect should be a safer and more
enjoyable environment for the users and surrounding landowners of the area.
It is reasonable to conclude OHV traffic will continue on the adjacent county road from the
adjoining neighborhoods throughout Columbia Falls and along the North Fork Road. OHV and
full size vehicles traveling on Road #5285 and Road #10815 would continue to generate dust
during low moisture times of the season. Speed limits across private lands may mitigate some of
the impacts; however, the Flathead National Forest does not impose speed limits on National
Forest System Roads but rather suggests safe and prudent travel on them.
The recent Cedar Spool fuels treatment created several skid routes throughout the Cedar Flats
Area. There was a concern OHV users would begin using these skid routes; however, through
diligent work by the sale administrator and contractor the routes were closed so OHV are not
using them.
Regulatory Framework and Consistency
The action alternatives described in the CHR Project EA would meet the direction of the Forest
Service Manual 2300 (Recreation) as well as Forest Service Manual 7710 (Travel Planning) and
are consistent with the Forest Plan direction related to recreation and wild and scenic river
direction. The action alternatives restrict and designate a system of motorized use that is
compatible with the resource objectives of the identified areas.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 as amended in 1976 with the passing of Public Law 94-
486 designated the 219 miles of the Flathead River (North Fork, Middle Fork, and South Fork).
The CHR Project meets the Declaration of Policy for Wild and Scenic Rivers defined as a three-
fold purpose: free flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. The
segments of the Flathead River included in the CHR Project have already been classified into the
appropriate categories of scenic and recreation and this project maintains those classifications.
Additionally, the river is managed through the River Management Plan and River Recreation
Direction which sets objectives and standards to maintain, protect and enhance the natural
environment and recreation experience. The CHR Project meets these objectives and standards.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
32
Threatened, Endangered and Regionally Sensitive Plants
Affected Environment
Occurrences of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants
Water howellia
On the Flathead National Forest, water howellia is known only to occur in the Swan Valley,
approximately 65 miles to the south of the project area. There are no known occurrences or
potential habitat within the project area or on the HH/GV Ranger Districts. Aerial photo
interpretation locating ponds, old oxbows, and other wet areas of potential habitat have been
determined to be unsuitable habitat and/or past surveys did not locate occurrences. Water
howellia is excluded from further discussion in this document due to the lack of occurrences and
potential habitat within or near the project area.
Spalding’s Catchfly
Based on the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) database and the Flathead National
Forest sensitive plants database, there are no known occurrences of Spalding’s catchfly within
the project area, on the HH/GV Ranger Districts, or within the Flathead National Forest.
Spalding’s catchfly is excluded from further discussion in this document due to the lack of
occurrences and potential habitat within or near the project area.
Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plants
Botanical surveys that may have detected sensitive plants in the project area and on the HH/GV
Ranger Districts were not initiated in the area until the onset of the Forest’s Botany Program in
1991. The impacts of the original construction of existing roads and trails to sensitive plants and
sensitive plant habitat is unknown because construction occurred prior to the Forest’s Botany
program, which would have required surveys prior to disturbance.
Surveys for various other projects (e.g., vegetation management, road maintenance, sensitive
plant surveys) within and near the project area have occurred through the years (1991-2007).
Based on the information sources listed above, there are 18 sensitive plant species located within
or near the project area (refer to Table 2).
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
33
Table 2. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plants within Five Miles of Project Boundary
Species EO#
Habitat Guilds
AV
F
W
R
MC
T
MC
MM
C
GO
MS
CR
S
S
A
D
Botrychium ascendens 2, 7, 11,
18 X X X X X X
Botrychium
crenulatum 8, 9 X X X X X X
Botrychium hesperium 2, 6, 9,
11, 19 X X X X X
Botrychium
paradoxum 20 X X X
Corydalis sempervirens 9, 10, 14,
17, 18 X X X
Drosera anglica 1, 4 X
Dryopteris cristata 16 X X X
Epipactis gigantea 12, 21, 24 X X X X
Eriophorum gracile 4, 18,
TBD X
Lathyrus bijugatus 1 X X
Kalmia polifolia 4 X X X
Meesia triquetra 7, 15 X
Ophioglossum
pusillum 13 X X
Petasites frigidus
var. nivalis 5, TBD X X X X
Scheuchzeria palustris
3, 12, 13,
15, 21,
TBD
X X
Schoenoplectus
subterminalis 14 X
Scorpidium scorpoides 12 X
Trichophorum
caespitosum 11, 21, 29 X
EO# = Element Occurrence number in the Montana Natural Heritage Program database
AV=Aquatic and vernal pools; F=Fens and fen margins; W=Marshes, seeps, springs, and wet meadows; R=Riparian; MCT=
Vernally moist cliffs or mossy talus; MC= Mid-elevation moist coniferous forests; MMC=Margins of moist coniferous forests;
GO=Dry grasslands & openings in ponderosa pine and dry Douglas-fir forests; MS=Mid-montane/Subalpine grass/forb;
CRS=Canyon walls, crevices, rock outcrops and slides S=Subalpine forests; A=Alpine; D= Disturbed areas
Species Account of Known Occurrence within the Action Area
Giant helleborine, (Epipactis gigantean), occurs in the Cedar Flats area. The Cedar Flats
population (element occurrence 24) is comprised of approximately 12 individuals, and was last
visited in 2003. The plant is found in shaded, moist, seeps with high organic matter content.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
34
Potential Occurrences
Based on the information sources listed above, the project area potentially contains habitat types
for sensitive plants associated with all 13 habitat guilds listed above.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative)
Direct and Indirect Effects
The no-action alternative would not change the existing access conditions. Alternative 1 may
increase the potential for establishment and spread of new noxious weed occurrences due to
continued and potentially increased motorized travel to a dispersed camp site within 300 feet of
an open road. Use of areas not appropriate for motorized travel may damage potential habitat or
Regional Forester’s Sensitive plants due to compaction and introduction of noxious weeds.
Activities associated with motorized use may disturb forest habitats and favor the spread and
introduction of noxious weeds that could impact sensitive plant populations. Weed
establishment and spread facilitated by ground disturbance and vehicle traffic in and out of the
project area, would continue to occur with Alternative 1. In addition, the potential for weed
invasion and competition for nutrients and light with sensitive plant populations and native
vegetation would continue to occur.
There would be no ground disturbance associated with this activity, as there would be no project
activities under this alternative; therefore, there would be no direct effects to Regional Forester’s
sensitive plants.
Disturbance regime sensitive plants such as Howell’s gumweed (Grindelia howellii) and some
moonworts (Botrychium spp.) occasionally establish along roadsides. These species can be
opportunistic along roadside habitats. Alternative 1 may create roadside habitat for this
opportunistic establishment. Roadside occurrences are not considered representative of the
natural disturbance habitats such as grasslands or rocky outcrops that these sensitive plants more
commonly occupy. Preservation of these roadside sensitive plant occurrences are secondary to
those occurring in natural habitats.
Cumulative Effects
Past, present, and foreseeable actions within the project area (Federal, state, and private) that
may have affected or may affect sensitive plants include reservoir building, timber harvesting,
road construction, maintenance, and reclamation, recreation and forest product gathering,
noxious weed control, special use permits, trail construction and maintenance, wildland fire and
fire suppression. These actions may have historically affected sensitive plant populations and
habitat and may continue to have effects.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
35
Alternatives 2 and 3
Direct and Indirect Effects
Cedar Flats
Alternative 2 proposes to reduce the miles of motorized trail from 14 miles to 9 miles, and
Alternative 3 proposes to reduce that even further to 7 miles. This would decrease the potential
for weeds to become established and would reduce potential effects to sensitive plant habitat and
occurrences. One of the new trail segments proposed in Alternative 2 is located near a
population and habitat of Epipactis gigantean; however, this trail segment would be constructed
to avoid impacting this population. Alternative 3 proposes an alternative route that is not located
near this population.
Hungry Horse Track
Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to prohibit motorized use on portions of open roads and limit use to
OHV 50 inches or less. The reduced area would decrease the potential for damage to habitat or
potential occurrences of Regional Forester’s Sensitive plants from compaction and the
introduction of noxious weeds. Seasonal restrictions would reduce impacts to soils, which would
reduce the potential for weed establishment.
Wild and Scenic River Corridors
The total acres of access for motorized vehicles would be reduced under these alternatives by
designating cross-country motorized travel areas and rescinding the ability to travel 300 feet to a
dispersed campsite. The reduced motorized use would decrease the potential for damage to
habitat or potential occurrences of Regional Forester’s Sensitive plants.
Hungry Horse Reservoir Cross Country Areas
There are nine historic areas which currently receive motorized vehicle use below the high-water
line. Traveling 300 feet to a dispersed campsite is allowed. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to
designate specific areas for access to the reservoir below the high-water line from an open road.
Limiting use would reduce potential damage to habitat and any potential occurrence of Regional
Forester’s Sensitive plants.
Pioneer and South Fork Flathead River Access
These two areas currently receive motorized vehicle use. Dispersed camping in these areas is
prohibited by a special order. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to designate these specific areas for
access. These alternatives would reduce the potential for the spread of noxious weeds and their
impacts to sensitive plants by restricting motorized use outside of the designated areas.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
36
Cumulative Effects
Many past, present, and foreseeable actions have had, and would continue to have effects to
potential sensitive plant populations and habitat in the project area. The proposed project may
reduce the potential effects to habitat and potential threatened and sensitive plant populations due
to the closure of selected unauthorized use and seasonal restrictions.
Spread of noxious weeds has the greatest potential for indirect and cumulative effects on
occurring or potentially occurring sensitive plant populations within the project boundary.
Roads and trails may act as corridors for establishment into adjacent undisturbed native habitats,
especially where susceptible conditions exist. Weed invasion and expansion has been observed
along road corridors and into adjacent undisturbed habitats. Noxious weeds may alter organic
matter distribution and nutrient flux such as spotted knapweed’s greater ability to uptake
phosphorus over some native species in grasslands (Thorpe, et. al., 2006). In addition, noxious
weeds may influence species richness and displace of resident species by reducing native
seedling establishment (Yurkonis et. al., 2005).
Regulatory Framework and Consistency
Alternatives 2 and 3 described in the CHR Motorized Route and Area Designation Project EA
would meet the direction of Forest Service Manual 2670.3 (sensitive plant species) and are
consistent with the Forest Plan direction for sensitive plants. In addition, all activities are in
compliance with ESA and Flathead National Forest LRMP Amendments 20 and 21.
The activities associated with Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 may affect individuals, but are not likely to
result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for potentially occurring Regional
Forester’s sensitive plant species and proposed plant species listed in Project File Exhibit G-2.
This is based on the following conditions: 1) presence of suitable habitat for potentially
occurring sensitive plants within the project area; 2) the potential for indirect effects of noxious
weed competition; and 3) the delineation of new occurrences located prior to project
implementation.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
37
Noxious Weeds
Affected Environment
In the project area, there is a concern that invasive plants may continue to spread along existing
road corridors and into new proposed trail segments. Roads may act as corridors for
establishment into adjacent undisturbed native habitats, especially where susceptible conditions
exist. Weed invasion and expansion has been observed along road corridors and into adjacent
undisturbed habitats. Noxious weeds may alter organic matter distribution and nutrient flux such
as spotted knapweed’s greater ability to uptake phosphorus over some native species in
grasslands (Thorpe, et. al., 2006). In addition, noxious weeds may influence species richness and
displace of resident species by reducing native seedling establishment (Yurkonis, et. al., 2005).
Invasive species considered for this analysis are those listed as noxious by the State of Montana,
as well as other exotic species determined to be highly invasive. They are displayed below in
Table 3. Of the 1,062 vascular plant species known to occur on the Flathead National Forest,
about 110 are classified as exotic; of these, over 42 species are classified as invasive. Within the
project and adjacent areas, 12 noxious weed species and 4 undesirable weed species of concern
have been observed within or near the proposed project sites as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Noxious Weed Species of Concern
Scientific Namea Common Name In Project Area Potential Invader
Category 1 – Widespread Establishedb
Acroptilon repens (C. repens) Russian knapweed X
Cardaria draba hoary cress X
Centaurea biebersteinii (C. maculosa) spotted knapweed X
Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed X
Cirsium arvense Canadian thistle X
Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed X
Cynoglossum officinale hound’s-tongue X
Euphorbia esula leafy spurge X
Hypericum perforatum St. John’s-wort X
Leucanthemum vulgare ox-eye daisy X
Linaria dalmatica Dalmatian toadflax X
Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax X
Potentilla recta sulphur cinquefoil X
Tanacetum vulgare common tansy X
Category 2 – Recently Established, Rapidly Spreadingb
Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed X
Hieracium caespitosum, H. floribundum, H.
piloselloides, H. pretense yellow hawkweed complex X
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
38
Scientific Namea Common Name In Project Area Potential Invader
Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed X
Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife X
Lythrum virgatum wandlike loosestrife X
Ranunculus acris tall buttercup X
Senecio jacobaea tansy ragwort X
Tamarix spp. salt cedar or tamarisk X
Category 3 – Not Yet Detected or Small Occurrenceb
Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle X
Chondrilla juncea rush skeletonweed X
Crupina vulgaris common crupina X
Iris pseudacorus yellowflag iris X
Isatis tinctoria dyer’s woad X
Myriophyllum spicatum Eurasian water milfoil X
Additional Invasives of Concern for the Flathead National Forest
Achillea nobilis noble yarrow X
Artemisia absinthium absinthium X
Bromus tectorum cheatgrass X
Campanula rapunculoides (undesirable) creeping bellflower X
Carduus nutans musk thistle X
Chorispora tenella purple mustard X
Cirsium vulgare bull thistle X
Elymus repens quackgrass X
Euphorbia species (cautionary) spurge (all) X
Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass X
Potentilla argentea silvery cinquefoil X
Sonchus spp. perennial sowthistle X
Tragopogon dubius goat’s bear/salsify X
Tripleurospermum perforata (Matricaria
inodora, M. perforata) (undesirable) scentless chamomile X
Veronica officinalis common speedwell X a Nomenclature follows the USDA Plants Database: USDA, NRCS 1999. The PLANTS database (http://plants.usda.gov/plants). National Plant
Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. b Montana Department of Agriculture Noxious weed categories:
Category 1 Noxious weeds currently established in the State and generally widespread in many counties of the state. Management criteria
include awareness and education, containment and suppression of existing infestations and prevention of new infestations. These
weeds are capable of rapid spread and render land unfit or greatly limit beneficial uses.
Category 2 Noxious weeds that have recently been introduced into the state or are rapidly spreading from their current infestation sites. These
weeds are capable of rapid spread and invasion of lands, rendering lands unfit for beneficial uses. Management criteria include
awareness and education, monitoring and containment of known infestations and eradication where possible.
Category 3 Noxious weeds that have not been detected in the state or may be found only in small, scattered, localized infestations. Management
criteria include awareness and education, early detection and immediate action to eradicate infestations. These weeds are known pests
in nearby states, are capable of rapid spread, and render land unfit for beneficial uses.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
39
Surveys
Inventories for various other projects (e.g., vegetation management, road maintenance, sensitive
plant surveys) within and near the project area have occurred from 2003 – 2007. The most
abundant and widely-distributed noxious weed species in the project area are spotted knapweed
(Centaurea biebersteinii), St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum), Canadian thistle (Cirsium
arvense), orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), and oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum
vulgare).
Spotted knapweed, sulphur cinquefoil, common tansy, and ox-eye daisy are roadside species that
generally have not invaded into understory-forested habitats. However, these species do have
potential for expansion into open canopies and natural occurring forest openings (grasslands,
open rock outcrops), and other open areas created by recreational uses (campsites, vehicle turn-
around). Canadian thistle is a generalist and can invade almost any habitat from dry to wet
disturbed areas with canopy openings (personal observation). Orange and yellow hawkweed
(state-listed Category 2 noxious weeds species) are of greatest concern in the area. Hawkweed
has been recently established (last 5 to 10 years), and is rapidly expanding from established
areas.
The amount and distribution of the above invasive plants is highly variable within the project
area, ranging from scattered, isolated individuals to small, dense groups. These species occur
along portions of many of the roads, gravel pits, and other disturbed sites. Invader weed species
tend to be shade-intolerant, with the exception of orange and yellow hawkweed (personal
observation). Invasive plants establish in disturbed areas where other plants are slow to establish
and recover. These areas are mostly associated with road right-of-ways, landing sites for timber
harvesting, gravel pits, mechanically piled slash burn piles, skid roads, mechanical site
preparation treatment on well-drained or shallow soils, power line corridors, and mines. Most of
the area outside of these more heavily disturbed sites has experienced limited invasive plant
establishment.
The Flathead National Forest has been treating portions of some Hungry Horse Reservoir roads
with chemical spray. In addition, spot treatments at river access points have also occurred for
several years. Portions of the Cedar Flats areas have been treated as part of other projects.
Within the last three years, Bonneville Power Administration has entered into a challenge cost
share agreement with the FNF to fund the treatment of noxious weeds along their permitted
utility corridors. The BPA line within Cedar Flats has been treated as a part of this agreement
and a marked reduction of spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii), St. John’s wort
(Hypericum perforatum), Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvense), orange hawkweed (Hieracium
aurantiacum), and oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) has been observed.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
40
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1 would provide more opportunity for creating weed habitat in the Wild and Scenic
River corridor, because the 300 feet allowance to travel to a dispersed campsite would be
maintained within this alternative. The existing use would continue in areas and greater
opportunities for new ground disturbance exist under this alternative. Invasive species currently
known in the project area would have potential for expansion into the newly created routes
leading to dispersed campsites. Vehicles have the potential to create new disturbed soils and to
transport weed seeds. Soil disturbance provides optimum conditions for noxious weed invasion.
Cumulative Effects
Past ground disturbing activities such as timber harvest, road construction, trail construction, and
road maintenance have contributed to the establishment and spread of noxious weeds and
invasive plants in the project area. Recreational and other land uses like logging, firewood
gathering, have also promoted the spread of weed seeds, because users and their vehicles become
vectors for weed seed spread. It is likely that wildlife have contributed to weed spread in the
past by transporting weed seeds across the landscape.
Noxious weed treatments have occurred on the HH/GV Ranger Districts. Future weeds
treatments will be prioritized for this area based on criteria described in Flathead National Forest
Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Decision Notice (May 2001) and EA (March 2001). Past
and future road closures, and noxious weed treatments have and will likely continue to decrease
the potential spread of weeds.
The no-action alternative would potentially create more new ground disturbed areas for potential
new weed establishment and spread. The amount of weed-infested acres would be expected to
increase if the existing uses and conditions continue under this alternative.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Direct and Indirect Effects
Cedar Flats
The reduced miles would decrease the potential for weeds to become established on the routes
not designated for motorized use. The prohibition of overnight use would eliminate the
exemption of the 300 feet of travel to a dispersed campsite which would reduce the potential
spread of weeds. The new trail segments would create new exposed soils for potential weed
establishment. However, seasonal restrictions would reduce soil disturbance, and thus reduce the
potential for weed establishment.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
41
Hungry Horse Track
Designating motorized travel on the existing routes and prohibiting motorized travel on
approximately 1 mile of road would decrease the potential for weeds to expand from these areas.
In addition, seasonal restrictions would reduce impacts to soils, which would also reduce the
potential for weed establishment.
Wild and Scenic River Corridors
Removing the 300 feet of motorized travel off a designated road within the corridor, as well as
designating cross-country travel areas, would decrease the potential for weeds to become
established in these closed areas.
Hungry Horse Reservoir
Currently, motor vehicles use the area below the reservoir’s high-water line in distinct locations
which area accessed from open roads. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to designate specific areas
for reservoir access; dispersed camping within 300 ft of these areas would be prohibited. The
reduced use area would decrease the potential for weeds to become established in these closed
areas.
Pioneer and South Fork Flathead River Access
These areas currently receives motorized vehicle use. Dispersed camping in these areas is
prohibited. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose to designate these specific areas for motorized access.
These alternatives would reduce the potential for the spread of noxious weeds by restricting
motorized use outside of the designated areas.
Cumulative Effects
Past, present, and foreseeable actions within the project area (Federal, state, and private) that
may have affected or may affect noxious weeds include reservoir building, timber harvesting,
road construction, road maintenance, road reclamation, recreation, forest product gathering,
noxious weed control, special use permits, trail maintenance, wildland fire, and fire suppression.
These actions may have historically affected noxious weed populations and may continue to
have effects.
People, vehicles, domestic animals, wildlife, and wind are all vectors contributing to the
transport of weeds within the project area. Once seeds are dispersed to a new site, habitat type
and disturbance patterns influence the establishment potential of invasive plant species. The
potential for each species to establish is also dependent on life history, morphology, phenology,
ecology, and reproductive biology of the individual weed species. Activities that create ground
disturbance provide a substrate for colonization of noxious weeds when propagules are present.
In general, past, present, and future activities with the greatest amount of ground disturbance
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
42
accompanied by a vector source of noxious weed seeds have the greatest potential for noxious
weed establishment and spread.
Many past, present, and foreseeable actions have and would continue to contribute to weed risk
and weed spread in the project area. The proposed project may potentially reduce the risk of new
weed introduction and expansion due to the closure of selected areas and seasonal restrictions.
Regulatory Framework and Consistency
Management direction for noxious and invasive weed control on the FNF is set at the national
and forest levels. Forest Service policies were developed in response to Federal laws guiding
implementation of noxious weed control actions. These policies are set forth in Amendment
2000-95-5 of the FSM, Chapter 2080, Noxious Weed Management. Treatment and monitoring
of known weed populations in the project area would be implemented under the authority and
guidance of the Flathead National Forest Noxious and Invasive Weed Control Decision Notice
(May 2001) and EA (March 2001). These were designed to meet legal requirements and Forest
Service policies for noxious weed control. The proposed project incorporates and is consistent
with the Flathead National Forest Weed Control Decision.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
43
Hydrology and Soils
Introduction
Changes to water quantity (water yield increase or decrease) and water quality (sediment yield
increase, nutrient yield increase, and/or chemical pollutant increase) are the primary
characteristics of the water resource typically analyzed to describe the effects of a proposed
action. Significant changes to any of the characteristics can potentially affect the beneficial uses
of water resource. These four characteristics (water yield, sediment yield, nutrient yield,
chemical pollution) are the effects indicators for this project.
The primary soil characteristics analyzed to describe the effects of proposed action on soils are
changes in soil productivity due to soil compaction and/or displacement, and soil erosion.
Therefore, the effects indicators for soils are soil productivity and soil erosion.
Alternative 1 (No-action Alternative)
Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects
Water Quantity and Water Yield Effects
The Hungry Horse Track area comprises a small portion of a very large watershed, and there
would be very little removal of live vegetation canopy in these areas. Consequently, the
potential for increased water yield is essentially zero; current water yield models indicate that
water yield increase due to OHV trails would be immeasurable, even in the highest use areas.
Therefore, continuing the recreational use of motorized routes and designated recreational use
areas would not have any measurable effect to the water quantity of the streams and rivers
flowing on the HH/GV Ranger Districts. There would be no effect on water quantity due to
continuing motorized use areas in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor or at Hungry Horse
Reservoir recreation sites. Because there is no potential water yield increase or decrease due to
the exiting situation, there is no potential for stream channel modification due to the existing
direction.
Water Quality
Nutrient Yield Effects
Off-highway vehicle use in the watersheds of the FNF could potentially have an effect on the
nutrient levels in the streams from two different scenarios. The first scenario is when gasoline is
burned there is some amount of ammonia, nitrogen, and sulfur compounds produced as
emissions, which can be deposited by precipitation onto the land or water surface. The second
scenario is when ATV use causes soil erosion that is deposited as sediment in a stream then
nutrients attached to soil particles (e.g. phosphorus) are transported downstream. This second
scenario is addressed later in this section.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
44
Ammonia and nitrogen ions are among the nutrients readily absorbed by soils with high cation
exchange capacity. The volcanic ash topsoil present on virtually all of the soils on the FNF has a
high cation exchange capacity (USDA Forest Service 1982). Because of the generally low
amounts of nitrogen and sulfur present in the forest soils of this area, and the significant plant
biomass competing for these available nutrients, there are typically only very small amounts of
nitrogen leached beyond the root zone in these soils.
Under the existing condition, there is the potential for small inputs of chemicals from the
emissions of OHV into the atmosphere. The emission standards for a off-highway motorcycle
set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 was 2.0 grams per kilometer of
hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen; along with 25 grams of carbon monoxide. The emission
standards for ATVs were established by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2005 as 1.5
grams per kilometer of hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen and 35 grams of carbon monoxide.
These levels of emission, or slightly less, can be expected with each kilometer of riding by an
OHV at the Cedar Flats area, or the Hungry Horse Track, Hungry Horse Reservoir, and Wild and
Scenic River Corridor.
The number of kilometers/miles of OHV use that occurs at these areas on an annual basis is
unknown, although there is use occurring at all of these sites throughout the riding season. The
direct effect of this activity is the addition into the atmosphere of several gases and/or vapors.
Some of these gases and/or vapors precipitate out of the atmosphere on dust particles or during
precipitation events; and some of the precipitates are deposited in streams, lakes, or reservoirs.
According to Stanford et al. (1997), the wet deposition from airborne sources of nitrogen into
Flathead Lake was approximately 7% of the total nitrogen load going into the lake. The sources
for the atmospheric nutrient deposition are both natural and anthropogenic. Natural sources
include wind-blown dust, animals, and wildfires; manmade sources include internal combustion
emissions and agricultural activities. The amount of these precipitated compounds within the
waters of the HH/GV Ranger Districts that could be directly attributable to the OHV would be
immeasurable with the current technology. However, the emissions from these vehicles add to
the global “carbon footprint” due to internal combustion engines.
Chemical Pollution Effects
Motorboats and personal watercraft with less than 10 horsepower ratings are currently allowed
on the Middle Fork from the confluence with the South Fork to Bear Creek, and on the North
Fork from the confluence with the Middle Fork to Camas. The State of Montana, not the Forest
Service, has jurisdiction of the surface water management of Hungry Horse Reservoir. There
may be motorboats and personal watercraft refueled with gasoline or gasoline/oil mixes at the
developed boat launch facilities along the Hungry Horse Reservoir, and in some cases this may
occur when the water level is below the full pool elevation of the Reservoir. There are several
river access sites along the North Fork and the Middle Fork where boats with >10 hp motors
could potentially be refueled. Motor vehicles may also drive below the high-water mark to
launch boats when the water level declines; some vehicles may leak small amounts of oil during
this activity. Therefore, the potential exists for gasoline/oil to be spilled directly into the water
and/or onto the shoreline of these water bodies during launching or refueling activities. The
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
45
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks did not address the subject of refueling on
waterbodies or shorelines in their 2008 Montana Boating Laws publication.
There is no information available as to how often this type of incident may occur or how much
spilled gasoline/oil may enter these waters. Under the existing rules of recreational management,
this activity may occur, so there is the potential for an unknown amount of gasoline/oil to enter
the waters of the HH/GV Ranger Districts. Because this has not been identified as a resource
problem by the recreational resource managers, and because of a lack of listings on the Montana
State Hazardous Spill Database, these incidents are likely rare and are expected to have
immeasurable effects to the water quality of the waters of the HH/GV Ranger Districts.
Soil Quality-Soil Erosion, and Water Quality-Sediment Yield Effects
River/Reservoir Access Sites
At the water access sites (river sites and Hungry Horse Reservoir sites), shoreline materials are
primarily composed of naturally packed cobbles, gravels, and coarse sands. When a boat or raft
is launched, there is a very small potential to cause soil erosion and create suspended sediment.
If this were to occur in small amounts with medium or fine sand particles, the particles would
rapidly settle out of the water column and would not cause any measurable change to the
sediment yield input into the rivers and/or reservoir. The motorized vehicle use patterns at the
River and Reservoir Access Sites do not appear to have contributed sufficient sediment yields to
warrant water quality concerns and are not expected to contribute sufficient sediment yields to
warrant concern if use is restricted to existing river and reservoir access sites.
Motorized Trails and Areas
The second situation is the OHV use at the identified OHV areas (Cedar Flats, and Hungry Horse
Track). An OHV would tend to rut a motorized trail in areas of wetter soil conditions, or on
some of the steeper segments with loose soil conditions. The ruts tend to channel water and
increase soil erosion from the trail tread. The WEPP soil erosion model was used to estimate the
existing potential soil erosion on the track areas and the motorized trail segments.
The OHV use areas were reviewed for the topography and soil type of the track, as well as the
track distance to perennial water body. This was done to develop input into the WEPP model to
generate a general estimate of the annual soil erosion occurring from the exposed soils on the
track surface. In all cases, the tracks or trails are surrounded by growing vegetation (grasses,
forbs, shrubs, and trees) that act as a sediment filter, trapping soil erosion before it travels very
far from the site. The minimum buffer width was used in the WEPP model to estimate eroded
soil that would leave a buffer and become potential sediment. Because of the existing vegetation
in several of the ephemeral draws, this results in overestimating the amount of potential
sediment. Note: soil weight is approximately 110 pounds/cubic foot (depending on the
percentage of stones/gravels), or 2,970 pounds/cubic yard. One wheelbarrow full of soil weighs
approximately 660 pounds.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
46
The estimated annual soil erosion from the Hungry Horse Track area is approximately 2,122
pounds of soil erosion per year (3.2 wheelbarrows). There is no sediment (eroded soil delivered
to a stream channel) leaving the vegetation buffer zones in this area. The estimated annual soil
erosion from the FK&L area is approximately 2,050 pounds per year (3.1 wheelbarrows). There
is approximately 87 pounds of sediment (1 large bucket) leaving the vegetation buffer zones in
this area, some of which may be deposited in the Hungry Horse Reservoir. The estimated annual
soil erosion from the Cedar Flats area is approximately 2,217 pounds per year (3.4
wheelbarrows). There is approximately 639 pounds of sediment leaving the vegetation buffer
zones and being deposited in three ephemeral draws in this area.
The Cedar Flats track area is currently transporting potential sediments (639 pound/year) into
three ephemeral stream channel riparian buffer zones. During high stream flow periods, this
sediment could be transported into the perennial stream system, which would slightly increase
sediment yield and nutrient yield downstream from this area. The amounts of soil erosion and
sedimentation resulting from the existing uses at the Hungry Horse Track and Cedar Flats is very
small and is likely having no measurable effect when compared to the natural sediment yield
levels for the streams and rivers on the HH/GV Ranger Districts. In all cases except Cedar Flats,
the motorized routes are located away from perennial streams and/or there is enough riparian
buffer zone between the water and the motorized routes, that any soil erosion from the track area
would be trapped in the buffer area before it can enter water (stream or reservoir) and become
suspended sediment. Since there is no potential for measurable sediment yield increases, there is
no potential for any measurable levels of nutrients yield increase due to a sediment increase.
A small area of wheeled vehicle access is located near the confluence of Coal Creek and the
North Fork Flathead River. This motorized area does not occur in the stream channel but rather
in a terrace above the high water line (GIS mapping layers do not match up well in this area).
This area also ends near a native materials launch approach to the North Fork of the Flathead
River rather than Coal Creek.
The continuation of this existing access at the mouth of Coal Creek would not be in conflict with
the intent of the ongoing Coal Creek Watershed Restoration Plan (developed because Coal Creek
is listed as an impaired stream on the Montana Department of Environmental 303(d) Report).
This is because the intent of the watershed restoration plan was dealing with sediment sources
several miles upstream from the mouth of Coal Creek. As described earlier there is very little
potential for soil erosion to occur on these cobbly, loamy sandy soils. If any erosion were to
occur it would immediately settle out of the water column.
Soil Quality – Long-Term Productivity Effects
The existing soil quality conditions have been reviewed and are not considered to be exceeding
soil quality standards. The R-1 Soil Quality Standard of less than 15% aerial detrimental soil
disturbance was assessed for each of the cross-country travel areas. Soil quality standards do not
apply to intensively developed areas such as developed recreation sites, administrative sites, or
rock quarries. They also do not apply to designated system roads/trails, or in areas where there
are geologic materials not having soil pedogenic processes occurring (e.g. geologic materials
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
47
within stream channels). Based upon this review none of the cross-country travel areas were
reported to have detrimental soil disturbance in excess of 10% on the portions of the polygons
that qualify for the soil quality standards to be applied. The maps of cross-country travel areas,
estimated soil disturbance, assumptions, and pass monitoring transects used in the assessment are
in the project record. Additionally, none of the user created routes used by motorized vehicles in
the areas associated with this project would exceed 15% R-1 Soil Quality Standard.
Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Water Yield Effects and Nutrient Yield Effects
There would be no effects; see direct/indirect effects for Alternative 1.
Chemical Pollution Effects
There would be no measurable effects, the same as described for Alternative 1. The potential risk
of a gasoline spill remains the same from Alternative 1.
Soil Quality-Soil Erosion and Water Quality-Sediment Yield Effects
Alternative 2 would implement the placement of best management practices (BMP) water
drainage structures (e.g. drive–thru-dips) on the ATV trails at the Cedar Flats and FK&L sites.
This would reduce the estimated soil erosion to 1.5 tons/year, and the potential sediment yield to
approximately six pounds per year. Therefore, there would be no measurable effect to the
sediment yield to any of the streams in the areas of the OHV tracks, motorized trail segments, or
designated recreational areas on the river corridors or Hungry Horse Reservoir. A short segment
of existing trail that crosses near a wetland area is proposed for designation under Alternative 2;
this segment would go around this area and therefore not degrade the wetland site.
Soil Quality – Long-Term Productivity Effects
There would be a reduction in potential soil compaction, rutting, and erosion under Alternative 2
due to the reduced mileage of user created OHV trails now in use. The trails not in use would re-
vegetate and the detrimental soil disturbance would reduce over time. The estimated detrimental
soil disturbance at the cross-country travel areas proposed under Alternative 2 would be the same
as reported for Alternative1.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
48
Alternative 3
Direct and Indirect Effects
Water Yield Effects and Nutrient Yield Effects
There would be no effects; see direct/indirect effects for Alternative 1.
Chemical Pollution Effects
There would be no effects; see direct/indirect effects for Alternative 1.
Soil Quality-Soil Erosion and Water Quality-Sediment Yield Effects
Proposed activities under Alternative 3 would implement the placement of BMP water drainage
structures (e.g. drive–thru-dips) on the motorized trails at Cedar Flats and FK&L. This would
reduce the estimated soil erosion to one ton/year, and the estimated sediment potential to
approximately 4 pounds per year. Therefore, there would be no measurable effect to the
sediment yield to any of the streams in the areas of the OHV, motorized trail segments, or
designated recreational areas on the river corridors or Hungry Horse Reservoir.
Soil Quality – Long-Term Productivity Effects
There would be a reduction in potential soil compaction, rutting, and erosion under Alternative 3
due to the reduced of mileage of user-created OHV routesnow in use. The routes not in use
would revegetate and the detrimental soil disturbance would reduce over time. The estimated
detrimental soil disturbance at the cross-country travel areas proposed under Alternative 3 would
be the same as reported for Alternative1; however, there would be slightly less detrimental soil
disturbance in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 because of the smaller number of motorized user-
created routes.
There would be no effects; see direct/indirect effects for Alternative 1.
Table 4. Summary of Effects for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
Effects Indicators Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 & 3
Water Effects
Potential Water Yield Increase No measurable effect No measurable effect
Potential Water Nutrient Yield
Increase No measurable effect No measurable effect
Potential Chemical Pollution
Increase No measurable effect
No measurable effect
(potential for decreased risk due to
public information efforts)
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
49
Effects Indicators Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 & 3
Potential Soil Erosion - Sediment
Yield Increase
OHV areas: Estimated soil
erosion of 3.2 tons/year.
Cedar Flats & FKL: Estimated
726 pounds/year potential
sediment yield.
OHV areas: Decrease in existing
soil erosion due to BMP
implementation (down to 1.5
tons/year in Alt. 2 and 1.0 tons/year
in Alt. 3).
Cedar Flats: Estimated 4-6
pounds/year potential sediment yield
with no measurable effect to
sediment yield.
FK&L: No sediment yield.
Soils Effects
Potential Change in Soil
Productivity (soil compaction, soil
displacement) and Soil Erosion.
Less than 10% Detrimental Soil
Disturbances at Cross Country
Travel Areas
Reduced Detrimental Soil
Disturbance
Alternatives 2 & 3
Cumulative Effects (Water and Soils)
The project cumulative effects area for considerations of water quantity, water quality, and soil
quality effects are all the watersheds on the HH/GV Ranger Districts.
As described in the direct effects analysis, there are no measurable impacts to the water quantity,
water quality, and soil quality from either Alternative 2 or 3. In fact, there is a decrease in
potential impacts to the water and soil resources from the existing condition with the
implementation of Alternative 2 or 3. The Cedar Flats area would continue to deliver a small
amount of sediment (4-6 pounds per year), but it would be so small as to be virtually
immeasurable, and would be much less than is currently being delivered under the existing
condition. Because there would be no measurable direct effects, there would be no cumulative
effects from any of the alternatives.
Regulatory Framework and Consistency
The proposed action meets the Clean Water Act, Montana State Water Quality Standards,
Montana Streamside Management Zone Law, and Forest Plan Water Standards.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
50
Fisheries
Affected Environment
The project area includes watersheds in the North, South and Middle Forks Flathead River.
The North Fork Flathead River (North Fork) originates in British Columbia, Canada, and flows
south for 50 miles to the international boundary. It then flows another 58 miles south before
joining the Middle Fork of the Flathead River. South of the border, all eastern tributaries
originate in Glacier National Park, and do not support bull trout populations with the exception
of disjunct populations in lakes that move from the lake into the inlets to spawn. The reason for
this is believed to be the geology of the area and most likely thermal restrictions originating from
lakes.
There are five major tributaries to the North Fork on the Flathead National Forest that support
bull trout spawning (Trail, Whale, Red Meadow, Coal, and Big Creeks). In addition, six
tributaries in Canada (Howell, Cabin, Couldrey, Sage, Starvation, and Kishenehn) are known to
support bull trout. Redds have also been found in the main stem in Canada. Fifty-eight miles of
the North Fork are under the Wild & Scenic River Act designation. The North Fork is
considered a wild, sparsely populated area, which for the most part supports an intact functioning
ecosystem.
The Middle Fork Flathead River originates in the Bob Marshall Wilderness, and flows south to
Highway 2 and Bear Creek. Ninety-two miles of the Middle Fork are under Wild & Scenic
River Act designation. Bull trout primarily use the Middle Fork as a migration corridor to spawn
in wilderness streams and Bear Creek which parallels Highway 2.
Species Description:
Two basic life history forms of bull trout are known to occur: resident and migratory. Resident
bull trout spend their entire lives in their natal streams, while migratory bull trout travel
downstream as juveniles to rear in larger rivers (fluvial types) or lakes (adfluvial types). Bull
trout populations in the Flathead basin are believed to be predominantly an adfluvial migratory
group, with juveniles typically moving down to a lake at age 2-3, and returning at about age 6 to
spawn. Bull trout spawning occurs in the fall, and the eggs incubate in the stream gravel until
hatching in January (Fraley and Shepard 1989). The alevins remain in the gravel for several
more months and emerge as fry in early spring. Unlike many anadromous salmonids, which
spawn once and die, bull trout are capable of multi-year spawning (Fraley and Shepard 1989).
Several factors have contributed to the regional decline of bull trout, including the Flathead Lake
population. Habitat degradation, interaction with exotic species, over-harvest, and fragmentation
of habitat by dams and diversions have all been implicated (Rieman and McIntyre 1995).
Substrate size and quality, the availability of cover, and stream channel stability are other habitat
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
51
requirements linked to bull trout abundance (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Bull trout embryo
and fry survival decreases with increasing fine sediment levels in spawning gravels (Fraley and
Shepard 1989). Juvenile bull trout are especially dependant upon stable cobble and boulder
substrate for daytime cover and over-winter survival (Thurow 1997). Adult bull trout utilize
pool habitats and under-cut stream banks, often in conjunction with large woody debris cover
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Where bull trout are sympatric with non-native eastern brook
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) hybridization between the species has resulted in displacement of
bull trout (Leary et al. 1993). Bull trout are believed to be the most thermally sensitive salmonid
native to western Montana, with a marked preference for streams with cold water temperatures
(Fraley and Shepard 1989). Specifically, bull trout are seldom found in streams in which
summer maximum temperatures exceed 16 º C, and virtually never found in streams that exceed
20 º C (Dunham et al. 2003; Gamett 2002).
A change in the species composition of Flathead Lake is perhaps the single factor most
responsible for the decline of the Flathead Lake bull trout subpopulation (McIntyre 1998).
Flathead Lake has gone through a major change over the last two decades. Opossum shrimp
(Mysis relicta) first showed up in Flathead Lake in 1981 after being stocked into three upstream
lakes between 1968 and 1975. Mysis numbers in Flathead Lake peaked in 1986. Two non-native
species, lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis)
expanded as juveniles benefited from the addition of Mysis to the prey base. The expansion of
these species has contributed to the decline of bull trout (McIntyre 1998). The mechanisms for
the decline are not well understood since only a few bull trout have shown up in lake trout
stomachs, so competition appears likely. This conclusion is substantiated by the fact that bull
trout populations remain healthy in Swan Lake and Hungry Horse Reservoir where lake trout are
absent. Bull trout in the Flathead Lake population have declined equally in wilderness and
managed areas, suggesting that habitat degradation may not be the primary factor in their
decline.
Westslope Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisii) have a similar life history and habitat
requirements as bull trout and likewise have been impacted from food web changes in Flathead
Lake although not to the extent of bull trout.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed Critical Habitat for bull trout on January 14, 2010.
The proposal includes the North, South, and Middle Fork Flathead Rivers along with Hungry
Horse Reservoir within the project area. In addition, tributaries where bull trout spawn have also
been proposed for designation.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
52
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 (No-action Alternative)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Currently, forest users may use a motorized vehicle to travel up to 300 feet to a dispersed camp
from a designated road/trail on HH/GV Ranger Districts. In a few places, this 300 feet of
motorized access from roads/trails within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor has caused riparian
vegetation to become compacted as trails are formed from the old floodplain terraces down to the
river. Erosion is limited due to the large gravel and cobble that is deposited on gravel bars as the
river recedes from high spring flows. Impacts are more aesthetic and there is no impact to fish or
fish habitat from these trails.
Motorized access to dispersed sites also occurs along Hungry Horse Reservoir. Damage to
riparian vegetation is less than in the Wild and Scenic River corridor because most motorized
recreation occurs below the full pool elevation of 3,560 feet when the reservoir is drawn down.
Vegetation is less established in these sites due to the annual fluctuation in water levels. Once
again, the impacts are aesthetic due to the tracks and occasional ruts; however, the motorized
activities do not impact fish or fish habitat. As the reservoir fills, the loose unconsolidated fines
would be suspended temporarily and settle back out to the bottom.
In addition, the potential exists for engine leaks or damaged crankcases to contaminate the
rivers/reservoir, though it is likely rare (see hydrology section). These leaks would lead to a
reduction in water quality, but would not impact fish or fish habitat because the minimal amount
of contaminants expected would be diluted by the volume of water in the rivers/reservoir.
These leaks would lead to a reduction in water quality, but would not impact fish or fish habitat
because the amount would be so minimal which would become diluted with the volume of water
in the rivers/reservoir.
The existing motorized vehicle use patterns at the River and Reservoir Access Sites have not
resulted in significant effects to fish populations nor are they expected to pose a significant risk
to fish populations because the areas are used as migration corridors or in the case of the
reservoir as rearing habitat. Sediment would need to increase in spawning areas in order to have
an impact on fish or rearing areas such as pools in streams would need to be filled excessively so
that overwintering habitat is reduced or interstitial areas between substrates are filled and insect
production is reduced, thereby impacting a food source. The existing condition as well as the
location of the sites, i.e. along large water bodies do not lend themselves to significant impacts.
The remaining sites, Cedar Flats and Hungry Horse Track, would not affect fisheries or water
quality because there are no streams nearby where sediment or contaminants can be routed.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
53
Alternatives 2 & 3
Direct and Indirect Effects
There would be no effects to fisheries or water quality associated with Cedar Flats, Hungry
Horse Track, because there are no streams nearby where sediment or contaminants can be routed.
Riparian conditions along the river sites and Hungry Horse Reservoir would improve under both
alternatives because motorized vehicle use would be more restricted. Vehicles would no longer
have unlimited access below the full pool along the Reservoir, and would be limited to
delineated areas along the rivers as shown on the MVUM map. Limiting access to a certain
number of designated sites along the rivers and reservoir would result in fewer vehicle tracks or
ruts that would have the potential to route sediment to these waterbodies. Lastly, since areas are
delineated for use, vehicles would no longer be allowed to drive up and down along gravel bars
from the designated areas, which would reduce the likelihood of fuel leaks or punctured
crankcases and thus reduce the potential routing of contaminants to waterbodies. Gas or fuel
storage would also be limited to the designated sites.
Overall, while there would be an improvement in riparian conditions; the improvement would
not be of sufficient magnitude to improve fish populations in these areas. Therefore, alternatives
2 and 3 would have “no effect” on bull trout or westslope cutthroat trout populations. In addition
there would be “no impact” on proposed critical habitat for bull trout. Migration corridors along
the rivers or rearing habitat in Hungry Horse Reservoir will not be impacted or compromised
because of the limited nature of the activity. Riparian conditions should improve but fish
populations will not increase as a result of riparian improvements. At best, more terrestrial
insects would be available as food items.
Cumulative Effects
There would be an improvement in riparian conditions, potentially including a reduction in
noxious weeds over the long term. In the long term, if weeds were reduced due to fewer dispersal
mechanisms (i.e. vehicles), then there would be less spraying in riparian area. Other than this
improvement, there would be no cumulative effects associated with this project.
Regulatory Framework and Consistency
The Forest Plan is the primary document that codifies management standards and guidelines
governing activity on national forest lands. Management standards for and related to fisheries
habitat are contained in the Flathead Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1985), pages II-21 - II-
22, and II-26 – II-35. In addition, a separate management area (MA 12) was established for
riparian areas where specific standards and guides apply (III-52-60). Originally adopted in 1986,
the Flathead Forest Plan was amended in 1990 (Amendment #3) to better define the standards for
protection of fish populations.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
54
The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA Forest Service 1995) amended the Flathead
Forest Plan on August 30, 1995. INFISH is an aquatic conservation strategy developed by the
Forest Service to protect habitat and populations of all native fish (USDA Forest Service 1995).
This interim strategy was designed to provide additional protection for existing populations of
native fish, outside the range of anadromous fish, on 22 National Forests in the Pacific
Northwest, Northern, and Intermountain Regions.
INFISH designated Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) around all bodies of water on
forest-administered lands. The RHCAs are areas where specific management activities are
subject to standards and guidelines in INFISH in addition to existing standards and guidelines in
the Flathead Forest Plan. The RHCAs are defined for four categories of stream or water body
dependent on flow conditions and presence of fish.
INFISH Guideline RA-4 prohibits storage of fuels or refueling within RHCAs. This guideline is
to intended to provide direction for timber management and fire suppression activities rather than
recreational boating activities.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are consistent with the LRMP and INFISH and should improve riparian
conditions.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
55
Wildlife
Introduction
The CHR Project proposes to designate specific areas and/or routes where motorized use occurs.
For wildlife species affected by motorized vehicle use, the primary documented responses have
included mortality, disturbance, avoidance, and displacement. However, when motorized use
occurs in high quality habitats, some species of wildlife may become habituated to human
presence and/or disturbance and fail to exhibit expected and often biologically advantageous
avoidance behavioral responses. At the lower-end of effects, motorized use adjacent to wildlife
habitat may include minor short-term disturbances, whereas at the higher-end of effects,
motorized use may include habituation, reduced habitat availability, and increased mortality risk.
It is likely that the primary potential effects to wildlife from the proposed CHR Project are
changes in disturbance and displacement related to changes in levels and types of motorized use.
Data used for the analysis were from existing resource information sources, research literature,
aerial photography and field visits and knowledge of the proposed areas. Arcview geographical
information system was used for quantification of various habitat characteristics. Habitat quality
adjacent to proposed designated areas were considered during effects analysis.
Analysis Area
The proposed action is spread throughout the North, Middle and South Forks of the Flathead
River drainage on the Hungry Horse and Glacier View Ranger Districts. Fourteen grizzly bear
subunits were used for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis. The grizzly bear section
defines subunits and lists the fourteen subunits used for this analysis. This common analysis area
is larger than needed for most species but would encompass all anticipated effects to wildlife for
the proposed CHR Project. Analysis areas for individual species are described in later sections
only if they differed from that described here, such as for Canada lynx.
Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species
Individual species or groups of species analyzed may experience unique effects from the
alternatives of this proposal, but a majority of the potential effects of this project are of a general,
common, and largely unquantifiable nature. The following sections summarize unique potential
impacts to threatened, endangered, sensitive, management indicator, and other species, pursuant
to regulatory guidelines and current management direction described in later sections.
The effects indicator for wildlife in this analysis was whether Alternatives 2 and 3 would have
additional disturbance/displacement impacts as compared to the existing situation. Alternatives
2 and 3 are nearly identical except for a reduction in designated route mileage in the Cedar Flats
area. Based on this relatively minor difference between the two action alternatives, this analysis
assumed that both alternatives would have similar effects to wildlife.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
56
Alternative 1 (No-action Alternative)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Under this alternative, motorized access would remain the same on the affected roads, trails and
areas. Cross-country travel below the high-water line along the Hungry Horse Reservoir and
within the Wild and Scenic River corridor would continue to be allowed, and the current
direction allowing motorized access within 300 feet of an existing route for dispersed camping
would remain in place, including in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor.
If current amounts of allowed uses persist, the baseline condition for wildlife would be
maintained. The physical baseline condition at these sites, as it pertains to most wildlife species,
can be generally characterized as hardened surface areas such as: 1) areas used for recreating
below the high water mark of the Hungry Horse Reservoir; 2) historical use sites in areas such as
Wurtz or Ford and Sondreson Meadows; and 3) user created routes such as at Cedar Flats or the
Hungry Horse track. The baseline also includes disturbance and displacement for multiple
species associated with motorized vehicle use, as well as risk of food conditioning where
attractants are not properly stored and habituation where animals become accustomed to human
presence. Travel routes and corridors, particularly for large mammals, are likely disrupted in
some areas where cross-country travel is permitted. Travel below high-water line has the
potential to displace animals using or traveling through the area.
If levels and/or extent of use, particularly motorized use, increases over time, negative effects
described above would be expected to also increase. In particular, increases in allowable
motorized use within 300’ of open routes for dispersed camping would be likely to increase
negative impacts to wildlife, especially in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor, as described
above. The likelihood of this occurring cannot be precisely anticipated as the number of sites
that have been established in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor or reservoir shoreline is not
known. Future user-created sites are generally limited by terrain, topography, and access points.
Overall, current and potentially increasing future disturbance and displacement of wildlife due to
motorized vehicle use in the project area are expected to represent negative (but not significantly
adverse) impacts to wildlife. This is due to a combination of factors for various portions of the
project area, as discussed further in individual species sections where applicable. The primary
factors leading to this conclusion are a) the proximity of most of the project area to other
motorized routes, b) the proximity of the motorized use areas to private land, homes, and other
human use areas, and c) limitations to future user created sites discussed earlier. Due to the
proximity to other human disturbance and/or development, motorized use is not expected to
significantly decrease connectivity or habitat value in these areas.
Cumulative Effects
The HH/GV Ranger Districts have been involved with the implementation of Amendment 19
motorized access objectives (USDA Forest Service 1994, 2005) since 1995, and this has resulted
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
57
in a reduction of routes open to wheeled-motorized uses between April and December (grizzly
bear non-denning season) within the project area. This has resulted in improved habitat security
for numerous wildlife species, particularly large mammals. Forest Plan Amendment 19 is
discussed in further detail in the grizzly bear section of the Biological Assessment (BA). By
reducing motorized routes open during the non-denning season, Amendment 19 has significantly
changed the forest landscape within and beyond the project area, and wildlife security has been
increasing as legal, motorized routes have been decreasing.
Private land development generally means a decrease of potential habitat for wildlife. However,
how land is developed makes a difference in terms of whether wildlife continues using habitats
near/adjacent to the land development. In general, private land development is not considered
beneficial to wildlife.
Sightseeing, hiking, walking, camping, boating and floating, hunting, biking, cross-country
skiing, fishing, snowmobiling, wheeled motorized vehicle use, and cabin rentals are activities
that can affected wildlife security and have produced displacement/disturbance of wildlife
adjacent to where these activities have occurred. These types of human activities have been
occurring for decades in the analysis area and are considered part of the existing condition.
The analysis area for the CHR Project overlaps several recent and on-going Forest Service
projects including: Red Whale Project in 2008, Belton Fuels Reduction Project in 2008,
Blankenship Fuels Reduction Project in 2006, Robert Wedge Post-Fire Project in 2004, Westside
Reservoir Post Fire Project in 2004, Cedar Spoon Fuels Reduction Project in 2004, Moose Post-
fire Project in 2002, Paint Emery Resource Management Project in 1999, and the Middle Fork
Fuels Reduction Project. These projects altered vegetation in ways that benefited wildlife by
increasing food availability and stand condition diversity. In some cases, they can reduce short
or longer term habitat value for wildlife (such as through disturbance during implementation,
removal of cover, and removal of/reductions in beneficial stand conditions for some species
habitat needs). Net reductions in motorized access, primarily pursuant to meeting Amendment
19 objectives, occurred on multiple projects as well. The influences of past forest management
activities that is most likely to interact with CHR Project are the changes each made in access
density.
Current motorized activities cause displacement and disturbance cumulative to the effects of the
diverse on-going activities discussed above; the cumulative influences of motorized activities
under the no-action alternative would increase if current allowable use increases over time.
Alternatives 2 & 3
Direct and Indirect Effects
All of the roads, trails and areas proposed for designation have had historical use and are
currently being used by motorized vehicles. Only in the Cedar Flats area would the proposal
actually result in vegetation being altered as a result of the construction of relatively short route
segments. The discussions below compare changes in use that occur as a result of Alternatives 2
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
58
and 3 with changes that would not occur under the no-action alternative. In other words, while
evaluating effects to wildlife, it should be noted that potential increases in use levels at the
specific sites could occur over time under all alternatives.
Cedar Flats
Miles of designated motorized trail are reduced in both alternatives; from more than 15 miles to
9 miles in Alternative 2, and to 7 miles in Alternative 3. The area of disturbance would decrease
in either alternative. There is and will continue to be, a relatively high level of human impacts in
the Cedar Flats area from the adjacent residences, open roads (small private, Forest Service and
county), and heavy motorized uses.
The two segments of new motorized trail proposed in Alternative 2 and three segments in
Alternative 3 (and/or additional minor re-routes for resource protection) would include ground
disturbance, but since this would occur within the existing motorized trail system, this would
expect to have very little impact on most wildlife species. A benefit to wildlife would be
expected if this segment helps keep motorized vehicle use within allowed areas.
Seasonal closure (December 30 to May 31) of 1.5 miles of a portion of the open-yearlong Road
#10815 along with changes listed above, would be expected to reduce disturbance in the area,
increasing habitat quality and relative security.
Hungry Horse Track
Alternatives 2 and 3 would restrict motorized access to some currently open roads, would
designate motorized use on the existing trail system and designate a season for the roads, trails,
and track of April 1 to November 30. This area lies between open roads, and due to the trails,
does not currently reflect secure habitat for wildlife which typically requires a distance of
hundreds of feet, depending on the species, from an open road. The ability of large mammals to
pass through the area would be increased.
Hungry Horse Reservoir
The proposal for this area is the same under all alternatives. Vehicle use below the high-water
line is currently unrestricted; however, the shoreline creates topographical barriers, so that
historic motorized areas have stayed consistent for approximately the last decade. All
alternatives would designate these historic motorized areas to maintain access to the reservoir.
Designating use areas would increase availability of riparian habitats of seasonal and/or year
round importance to many species. As with the Wild and Scenic River Corridor, the general
ability of wildlife to travel below the high-water line would be improved. Disturbance and
displacement would be decreased.
In the FK&L area, motorized use would be restricted to motorized vehicles 50 inches or less.
Since the resulting change in use levels is difficult to anticipate, it is difficult to discern whether
changes in disturbance, displacement, or relative wildlife security would be expected to occur.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
59
However, it is likely that fewer campers will choose to use the end of the route for camping,
which may result in somewhat lesser disturbance to wildlife.
Wild and Scenic River Corridor
Since the area where motorized access is allowed would be reduced, habitat availability and
relative security would be expected to increase and disturbance and displacement would be
expected to decrease. These corridors are important, particularly to wide ranging mammals and
several bird species. They provide for seasonal and year round foraging, and for secure travel
which ensures crucial habitat connectivity in many areas affected by this proposal. It is within
the Wild and Scenic River Corridors that wildlife mortality risk is most likely to be reduced by
Alternatives 2 and 3. Decreased motorized use and protection from potential future increased
use in these areas would be considered beneficial to wildlife.
Cumulative Effects
The cumulative effects discussion under Alternative 1 is similar for Alternatives 2 and 3;
however, the two action alternatives represent a further reduction of motorized use in the
analysis area. These reductions would be positively cumulative to the far reaching beneficial
effects to wildlife security from the ongoing implementation of Amendment 19, (discussed in the
cumulative effects section for the no-action alternative). Therefore, considering the
environmental baseline (existing condition) and the existing potential effects to wildlife from
ongoing human activities (see no-action cumulative effects), it does not appear that the selection
of either Alternative 2 or 3 would adversely cumulatively impact wildlife, but would rather offer
cumulative benefit.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Grizzly Bear (Threatened)
Analysis Area
A grizzly bear subunit is an area that approximates the size of a female home range (~30-50 mi2)
and is commonly used to analyze the status of habitat security for grizzly bears. Subunits on the
Flathead National Forest were delineated to include seasonal and elevational habitat distribution,
as recommended by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC 1994). Twenty-five
subunits were used for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis (for bears and for wildlife
in general, unless stated otherwise for individual species). The twenty-five subunits include
Coram Lake Five, Peters Ridge, Riverside Paint, Stanton Paola, Dickey Java, Canyon McGinnis,
Cedar Teakettle, Lower Big Creek, Logan dry Park, Hay Creek, Lower Whale, Red Meadow
Moose, and State Coal Cyclone, Moccasin Crystal, Emery Firefighter, Doris Lost Johnny, Jewel
Basin Graves, Wheeler Quintonkon, Kah Soldier, Lower Win, Jungle Addition, Bunker Creek,
Harrison Mid, and Ketchikan. Further detail regarding subunits is available in the BA.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
60
Environmental Consequences
In addition to general disturbance effects discussed that would be common to wildlife, the
primary effects indicator for grizzly bear in this analysis was whether the proposed CHR Project
would result in a numeric change in Amendment 19 standards within any of the subunits.
Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative)
Direct and Indirect Effects
The designation of existing allowable motorized use as proposed in the no-action alternative
would not result in any changes to motorized route densities as calculated under A-19. If
current amounts of allowed use persist, the baseline condition for bears would be maintained in
terms of: 1) wide dispersion of sites, 2) proposed sites are already established and currently have
motorized use, 3) use of the site would slightly decrease in size and/or be precluded from
increase in others, 4) none of the proposed sites would produce a change in the percentages for
A-19 standards within any of the potential affected sub-units.
As described earlier in the Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section,
potential increased motorized use for dispersed camping could increase the potential for effects
listed above.
Cumulative Effects
The common cumulative effects in terms of on-going human activities discussed earlier under
the no-action alternative are applicable to grizzly bears. The influences discussed pertaining to
motorized access are particularly true for grizzly bears, since multiple negative impacts specific
to bears have been documented associated with motorized use (including but not limited to
reduced habitat availability, reduced habitat security, and increased mortality). As was stated for
wildlife in general, it is also true for bears that this alternative would make no cumulative
difference in terms of the ongoing implementation of motorized access restrictions as guided by
Amendment 19.
Habitat security/effectiveness for grizzly bears has also been improving in the analysis area as a
result of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Food Storage Order. Beginning in
1998 and revised in 2000, this special order requires people while on National Forest System
land to store bear attractants in a bear resistant manner. There probably will never be 100%
adherence to this order; however, it has undoubtedly reduced the amount of bear-human conflicts
related to improperly stored bear attractants.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
61
As for wildlife in general, on-going disturbance associated with these motorized use areas would
remain cumulative to the on-going human influences discussed here and discussed earlier as
common to wildlife.
Alternatives 2 & 3
Direct and Indirect Effects
See Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section; the effects described for
each site are applicable to grizzly bears. However, several factors suggest that the CHR Project,
as proposed, would have relatively minor effects on grizzly bear habitat suitability: 1) the sites
and/or routes are widely dispersed within the North, South and Middle Forks of the Flathead
River drainages; 2) with the exception of the Cedar Flats area, the proposed routes and/or
motorized use areas in the CHR are generally short/small; 3) motorized use historically has and
continues to occur at all of the proposed sites; and 4) none of the proposed sites would produce a
change in the percentages for A19 standards within any of the potentially affected subunits.
The effects to bears described above under the no-action alternative as part of the baseline for
bears would be reduced to varying extents at each site. The most important beneficial reduction
for bears is likely the rescinding of 300’ foot motorized use allowance for dispersed camping in
WSRC, as this could reduce the potential for future disturbance in spring and increase future
availability of important spring habitats for bears. Additionally, reducing the number of riparian
areas where motorized access is allowed will help reduce grizzly bear mortality risk and help
reduce the risk of food rewards.
Cumulative Effects
The common cumulative effects in terms of on-going human activities discussed earlier under
the action alternatives also relate strongly to grizzly bears; particularly the strong cumulative
influence of Amendment 19, but also the context of other on-going activities. The food storage
order, as mentioned above in cumulative effects for bears of the no-action alternative, would be
an important element of cumulative effects to bears. The action alternatives would not
cumulatively adversely impact bears, but rather would offer some amount of cumulative benefit
as compared to the no-action alternative through reduced disturbance and additional limitations
to future increases in motorized access areas in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
62
Canada Lynx (Threatened)
Analysis Area
The changes proposed by the CHR Project would occur within 33 Lynx Analysis Units (LAU)
which together formed the analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The thirty-
three LAU are: Moose, Red Meadow, Lower Coal, Lower Big, Canyon, Teakettle, North Trail,
South Trail, Hay, Moccasin Nyack, Paola Ridge, Stanton Grant, Lake Five, Essex Java, Paola
Ridge, Coram Abbot, Murray Canyon, Wildcat Mtn, Felix Logan, Doris Creek, Clayton Anna,
Graves Forest, Wheeler, Quitonkon, Kah Soldier, Stony Jungle, Bunker Creek, Lost Jack Mid,
Spotted Bear Mountain, Peters Crossover, South Firefighter, Hungry Horse Creek, Sullivan
Environmental Consequences
Negative effects to Canada lynx would be expected if: 1) the CHR Project fails to fully meet any
of the goals, objectives, standards or guidelines contained in the Northern Rockies Lynx
Management Direction (NRLMD) within any of the affected LAU, 2) existing lynx habitat is
reduced; 3) negative impacts or reductions to critical habitat or its primary constituent element
(PCE) occur. These constitute the effects indicators for lynx.
Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative)
Direct and Indirect Effects
See Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section; the general disturbance
effects discussed that would be common to wildlife are broadly applicable to lynx as well. The
baseline for lynx is influenced in general by motorized access density, the overall amount of
human use/disturbance, and the number of developed sites (including existing motorized use
areas). Lynx have not been documented to avoid roads to as great an extent as other forest
carnivores have been, although general disturbance associated with motorized use of these areas
likely causes some amount of lynx avoidance. Associated hardening of surfaces and reductions
in brush have already occurred, which has reduced lynx habitat and potentially some amount of
snowshoe hare habitat (a component of the lynx critical habitat PCE, further discussed in the
BA).
Several of the sites identified in the CHR Project are surrounded by mapped lynx habitat and/or
critical habitat. However, the sites themselves are specifically identified as sites where
motorized use has been ongoing (considered “developed sites” from a lynx analysis perspective,
in terms of existing physical condition); they do not contain lynx habitat components and are not
considered critical habitat (the BA contains further discussion of lynx critical habitat). The Wild
and Scenic River Corridor contains critical habitat for lynx.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
63
The no-action alternative complies with the NRLMD. Under current use and considering
existing motorized use areas, no reductions in lynx habitat or critical habitat would occur.
Maintaining the 300 feet allowance for dispersed camping in Wild and Scenic River Corridor
could allow future incursions into currently suitable lynx habitats and/or could impede travel
through affected riparian habitat, as discussed for wildlife in general. These increases in
motorized use in Wild and Scenic River Corridor are currently allowed and would remain
allowable under this alternative. Cross-country travel below the high-water line along the
reservoir does not occur within lynx habitat. Therefore, the risk of increased motorized use in
the Wild and Scenic River Corridor is the potential negative impact to lynx with the highest
likelihood of occurrence.
Cumulative Effects
See Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section; the general cumulative
influences discussed are broadly applicable to lynx as well. Lynx, however, may not be as
influenced by human presence as other carnivores, so that general disturbance may have a lesser
impact to lynx. However, since continued private land development and human disturbance are
expected, some amount of displacement is expected as well. As public and private habitats/sites
are developed, displacement or increased displacement under the no-action would be cumulative
to displacement occurring due to on-going human activities described for common cumulative
effects.
Past vegetation management practices such as timber harvesting of older-aged, multi-storied
coniferous forests and thinning of regenerating sapling-sized stands have been more detrimental
than beneficial for lynx while favorable stand conditions regenerated/were re-established. Over
longer time frames and on broader spatial scales, the same practices may also have contributed to
diversity in stand conditions and seral stages, offering benefits to lynx over longer time frames.
Maintaining the 300 feet allowance for dispersed camping in Wild and Scenic River Corridor
would be considered additive to habitat reduction and general displacement of lynx associated
with on-going activities described earlier.
Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action) & 3
Direct and Indirect Effects
See Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section for general direct and
indirect effects at each site or area. Only minute portions of each LAU would be affected by
proposed changes in the CHR Project. Where designations reduce motorized use and limit future
motorized use, vegetation may regenerate over time in previously disturbed areas and future
losses of lynx habitat would be prevented. This is particularly true in the Wild and Scenic River
Corridor, where total acreage of area available (which includes mapped lynx habitat and
designated critical habitat) for dispersed camping within 300 feet of open routes is reduced (see
BA for greater detail). Existing sites and routes are not currently considered lynx habitat or
critical habitat, as discussed earlier (and further discussed in the BA). Changes in the Cedar
Flats area include creation of small route connectors within existing trail systems.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
64
Human use projects such as special use permits, recreation management, roads, highways, and
mineral/energy development have the potential to affect lynx. However, the CHR Project was
found to be compliant with the NRLMD’s six objectives and 12 guidelines related to human
uses. Similarly, linkage area objectives and guidelines would be met.
Cumulative Effects
See Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section and cumulative effects
discussion for the no-action alternative. Since these alternatives would limit new motorized use
in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor (limiting designation to 9 existing locations), these
alternatives would each offer cumulative benefit to lynx by reducing the potential for future
reductions in habitat. Similarly, all other reductions (through site designations or by reducing
cross-country travel) could potentially cumulatively benefit lynx. The effect to habitat
connectivity ranges from no effect to beneficial (assuming that the number of use areas could
have increased without implementation of the proposed action).
The CHR Project would not be negatively additive to past land management activities. Nothing
in the analysis indicated that that CHR Project would adversely affect Canada lynx. Particularly
by limiting future motorized use in Wild and Scenic River Corridor, the CHR Project could be
cumulatively positive for lynx and cumulatively beneficial in terms of critical habitat protection.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
In accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2673.42, determinations have been made as to
the degree of impact the proposed activities may have on sensitive species (Table 5). These
determination statements are for the segment of the population using the analysis area. A larger
scale analysis document (available in the project record) provides viability/diversity evaluations
for these species at larger spatial scales including that of the Flathead National Forest. These
statements are based on the available information on the distribution, presence/absence from the
project area, habitat requirements, and management strategies for these species, as well as the
project design and location. General direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for all alternatives
are discussed above in the “Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species” section;
earlier effects discussions in combination with species-specific considerations in the table below
summarize the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for
sensitive species.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
65
Table 5. Potential Species-Specific Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife from the Proposed CHR Project (in addition to common
potential affects discussed earlier)
Species
Alt. 1 No
Action
Alt.2/3 Prop.
Action & Alt.
RATIONALE
Gray Wolf MIIH BI The gray wolf is a wide-ranging carnivore recently taken off the Endangered
Species list (5/4/09). No substantial change in the baseline for wolves would be
expected to occur under any of the three alternatives; wolves are likely to already
be avoiding the human-influenced areas within which most of these areas occur.
Prey species may be more likely to be affected by motorized use of these areas
than wolves. Under all alternatives, no activities/changes will occur near key
habitat features (dens, rendezvous sites); no expected change to
availability/abundance of prey. Proposed activities meet Forest Plan direction for
wolves. As for other carnivores, rescinding of the 300 foot allowance for
dispersed camping in Wild and Scenic River Corridor under the action alternatives
would be considered beneficial, as would overall reductions in motorized
areas/routes as compared to no action alternative.
Bald Eagle MIIH BI The bald eagle is a wide-ranging bird of prey that was recently removed from the
Endangered Species list (6/28/07). Post de-listing, National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007) recommend that no
potentially disruptive human activities occur within nesting areas during the
breeding season, from courtship to fledging of nestlings. None of the proposed
designated areas/routes for motorized use would be within any known nesting
territory on the Hungry Horse-Glacier View Ranger Districts. Rescinding of the
300’ allowance for dispersed camping in Wild and Scenic River Corridor under the
action alternatives would be considered beneficial for eagles, as it may protect
foraging habitat in the future.
Peregrine
Falcon
NI NI This bird of prey was removed from the Endangered Species list on (8/25/99). A
reduction of environmental contaminants was a primary factor in the recovery of
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
66
Species
Alt. 1 No
Action
Alt.2/3 Prop.
Action & Alt.
RATIONALE
the peregrine. A post-delisting monitoring plan was developed; monitoring
parameters include occupancy, nest success, and productivity (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2003). The only known active peregrine nest on the HH/GV
Ranger District occurs in an area that will not be affected by any of the
alternatives. Known potential habitat would be unaffected.
Flammulated
Owl
NI NI No change to potential habitat under all alternatives. Flammulated owls occupy
mature forest types consisting of Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir.
Harlequin Duck MIIH BI Harlequins breed in clean, relatively remote, fast moving mountain streams; all 3
Wild and Scenic River Corridor areas have tributaries where current breeding is
known to occur and hens with broods (who move down to rivers in late summer)
are reported on the North, South, and Middle Forks of the Flathead River annually.
Accessibility of shorelines, measured in terms of proximity to roads, trails, or
recreation sites, is thought to be important to hens with broods (especially on
breeding streams). The no action alternative could bring increased disturbance to
hens with broods if the current 300 foot allowance for dispersed camping is
maintained in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor, whereas rescinding the 300 foot
allowance for dispersed camping under the action alternatives could lead to
reduced risk of additional disturbance in the future.
Common Loon NI NI Common loons breed in lower elevation lakes at least 10-13 acres in size. No
change to known or potential habitat.
Townsend’s Big
Eared Bat
NI NI Uses caves primarily for roosts and nurseries; occasionally uses tree cavities at all
elevations; insectivorous; forages nocturnally, mostly in openings. Big-eared bats
are very sensitive at/near roosting areas, especially during winter hibernation. No
change to potential habitat.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
67
Species
Alt. 1 No
Action
Alt.2/3 Prop.
Action & Alt.
RATIONALE
Black-backed
Woodpecker
NI NI Associated with subalpine fir, spruce and lodgepole pine forests; somewhat
nomadic; populations tend to erupt after stand replacement fires. Feed on wood
boring and bark beetles. Black-backed woodpeckers are generally associated with
post-fire forest environments; historic and recent burn areas are dispersed
throughout the project area. Recent burns are in closes proximity to Wild and
Scenic River Corridor to the largest extent along the North Fork. Snag habitat has
been removed and will continue to be removed by campers and firewood cutters
throughout the project area, and deadwood has been removed in association with
the dispersed sites that will be designated in all proposals. No changes are
proposed to rules regarding camping or dead wood removal. Rescinding the 300
foot allowance for dispersed camping in Wild and Scenic River Corridor (under
the action alternatives) and designating only existing use areas (under all
alternatives) could incidentally reduce loss of snags, but camping and firewood
cutting will continue to lead to allowable removal of dead trees in these areas, so
that the difference under all alternatives, if any, would not be measurable.
Wolverine MIIH BI The wolverine is a very wide-ranging, medium-sized carnivore that spends most of
its time in higher elevation habitats. However, because the wolverine does roam
widely, it occasionally gets to lower elevation habitats where the potential exists to
travel and/or forage in or near proposed designated areas/routes. Therefore
displacement could occur under all alternatives. As for other carnivores,
rescinding the 300 foot allowance for dispersed camping under the action
alternatives could lead to reduced risk of additional disturbance in the future, as
compared to the no-action alternative.
Fisher MIIH BI The fisher is a forest-dwelling, medium-sized carnivore that makes a living in
closed-canopied, lower elevation forests. Trapped heavily in the past, the fisher is
considered relatively rare in northwest Montana. It prefers forests near streams and
has a relatively large home range. Since this species is considered to be strongly
associated with riparian corridors, rescinding the 300 foot allowance for dispersed
camping under the action alternatives could lead to at least somewhat reduced risk
of additional disturbance in the future, as compared to the no-action alternative.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
68
Species
Alt. 1 No
Action
Alt.2/3 Prop.
Action & Alt.
RATIONALE
Northern
Leopard Frog
NI NI This amphibian is typically found in and adjacent to permanent slow-moving or
standing water, with growth of cattails or other aquatic vegetation (Werner and
Reichel 1996, Reichel and Flath 1995). The leopard frog has not been documented
in the project area in recent decades and there would be no expected change to
potential habitat.
Boreal Toad MIIH BI Boreal toads inhabit both wetland/riparian and upland sites; ponds and riparian
landtypes are present within the project area. The potential for individual toad
mortality as a result of motorized use in many of the areas to be designated would
be at least somewhat reduced in the action alternatives as compared to the no-
action alternative.
Northern Bog
Lemming NI
NI
The bog lemming is typically found in, or very near, thick mats of sphagnum moss
in bogs, fens, or other wet areas (Reichel and Beckstrom 1993). None of the
proposed areas or routes is adjacent to these kinds of habitats; no potential habitat
would be affected. NI = “No Impact”; MIIH = “May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not likely result in a trend toward federal listing or reduced viability for the population or
species”; BI= “Beneficial Impact.”
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
69
Other Wildlife Species
General direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for all alternatives are discussed above in the
Environmental Consequences Common to Wildlife Species section; earlier effects discussions in
combination with considerations for MIS and other species in the table below summarize the
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 for MIS species (and
additional). As for sensitive species, a larger scale analysis document (available in the project
record) provides viability/diversity evaluations for these species at larger spatial scales including
that of the Flathead National Forest.
Table 6. Potential Impacts to Management Indicator Species and Other Wildlife (in addition to
common potential affects discussed earlier)
Species
Additional Potential Impacts
Elk (MIS), Mule
Deer(MIS), and
White-tailed
Deer
Generally, wild ungulates (deer, elk, moose) that are not habituated to human presence tend to
avoid roads that allow motorized use. Since all of the proposed areas/routes for designated
motorized use have had historical use, ungulates have already made either 1) an avoidance-type
behavioral adjustment or 2) have become habituated and use habitats adjacent to areas/routes
motorized with no obvious level of concern. All three alternatives will continue to cause
ungulate displacement and avoidance behaviors. Old Growth,
Snag, and
Deadwood
Habitat-
Associated
Species
Potential effects in terms of snag reductions or protections are discussed above in the Black-
backed woodpecker section of Table 3-7. The Proposed Action would have no effect s on old-
growth species because: 1) there would be no vegetation management actions; and 2) for the
most part, all proposed areas/routes have already had motorized uses and any impacts to old-
growth habitat integrity, such as snag/firewood cutting have probably already occurred.
Therefore, it is unlikely that any of the alternatives would have any discernable impacts on old-
growth habitat/wildlife species. Northern
Goshawk (MIS)
Alterations to nesting habitat would not be expected given existing human use of these areas.
Alterations to foraging habitat, if any would be expected to be negligible, and would be
associated with potential for additional disturbance (by maintaining the 300’ allowance for
dispersed camping in WSRC; see earlier discussions) under the no action alternative. This
species is not riparian associated, so that the potential for effects to this species, positive or
negative, appear to be extremely remote.
Neotropical
Migratory Birds
For many migratory birds, the most notable potential for impact would most likely be in
WSRC, associated with potential increased habitat alteration and/or disturbance under the no-
action alternative versus decreased potential disturbance/alteration under the action alternatives
(see earlier discussions regarding the 300’ allowance). Little to no change would be expected
associated with other portions of the project area, other than the general common potential
impacts discussed earlier.
Regulatory Framework and Consistency
The Endangered Species Act, recovery plans for threatened and endangered species, and
Flathead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) standards provide
habitat management direction for threatened and endangered species.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
70
Multiple subunits in the analysis area do not currently meet Forest Plan Amendment 19 standards
(as further discussed in the BA), but A 19 related access densities will not change as a result of
the Proposed Action. In some areas, motorized routes and/or cross-country travel areas would
decrease and rescinding of the 300 foot motorized use allowance for dispersed camping in
WSRC could reduce the potential for future disturbance in spring and increase future availability
of important spring habitats for bears. In these ways, and through general restrictions and
reductions to disturbance in MS1 (as further described in the BA), management decisions and
design criteria for this project favor, and make this project compatible with, the needs of the
grizzly bear. Thus the effects of the Proposed Action would be consistent with Forest Plan
Standards, and Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines (1987).
Potential lynx habitat and designated lynx critical habitat both occur within the analysis area.
The project meets FNF Forest Plan management direction and standards, as established in the
NRLMD. As further discussed in the BA, the project would not result in the destruction or
adverse modification of lynx critical habitat nor any of the physical/biological elements of the
PCE.
The National Forest Management Act of 1976, Forest Service Manual 2670, and the Forest Plan
(and Amendment 21) provide habitat management direction for Northern Region Sensitive
Species. The Forest Plan provides habitat management direction for other Management
Indicator Species (e.g. deer and elk). The proposed project is consistent with the regulatory
framework and the proposed Forest Service action would not contribute to the loss of viability of
native species because of the beneficial effects to wildlife from implementing the action
alternatives.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
71
Heritage Resources
The proposed areas were inventoried by a records search and an on-the-ground survey; which did
not result in the discovery of any historical or cultural sites. There are some historical and
prehistoric sites within the project area that would not be affected by any of the proposed
activities (refer to the historical documents in the Heritage section of the Project File for more
information). Any unknown sites found during project implementation would be protected.
Thus, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to heritage/cultural resources and
this project complies with the National Historic Preservation Act.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
72
LITERATURE CITED Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2006. Plant species of concern, June 2006. MNTHP, Helena, MT. 48 pp.
Reichel, J. D. and S. G. Beckstrom. 1993. Northern bog lemming survey: 1992. Montana Natural Heritage
Program, Helena, MT. 64 pp.
Reichel, J., and D. Flath. 1995. Identification of Montana’s amphibians and reptiles. Montana Outdoors 26(3):15-
34.
Stanford, J.A., Ellis, B.K., Craft, J. A., and G.C. Poole. 1997. Water quality data and analysis to aid in the
development of revised water quality targets for Flathead Lake, Montana; Phase I of a cooperative study to
determine total maximum daily loads of nitrogen and phosphorous. Open File Report 142-97. Flathead
Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, Polson, MT. 154 pp.
Thorpe, Andrea S, Vince Archer, and Thomas H. DeLuca. 2006. The invasive forb, Centaurea maculosa,
increases phosphorus availability in Montana grasslands. Applied Soil Ecology 32: 118–122.
USDA Forest Service (D. Sirucek). 1982. Summary of the soil chemical and physical analysis data. Flathead
National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 1985. Flathead National Forest land and resource management plan. Kalispell, MT.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Decision Notice. Flathead land and resource management plan Amendment #19 -
allowable sale quantity and standards for grizzly bear habitat management. Flathead National Forest,
Kalispell, MT. 30 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Environmental Assessment for the interim strategies for managing fish-producing
watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana and portions of Nevada. USDA
Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Washington, D.C.
USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Flathead National Forest noxious and invasive weed control Environmental
Assessment (March 2001). Flathead National Forest. Kalispell, MT. 171 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Flathead National Forest noxious and invasive weed control Decision Notice and
Finding of No Significant Impact (May 2001). Flathead National Forest. Kalispell, MT. 10 pp.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Monitoring plan for the American peregrine falcon, a species recovered
under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Divisions of Endangered Species and
Migratory Birds and State Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 53 pp.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines.
http://fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf. 23 pp.
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
73
PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS
Preparer Contribution Title
Angela Daenzer Wildlife Wildlife Biologist
Jimmy DeHerrera Line Officer Lead District Ranger
Linda Donner Writing, Editing Writer/Editor
Michele Draggoo Project Leader Planning Team Leader
Tim Light Heritage Resources Forest Archaeologist
Paula Peterson Project Leader, Recreation Resource Assistant
Henry Rivera Wildlife Wildlife Biologist
Dean Sirucek Hydrology/Soils Hydrologist
Pat Van Eimeren Fisheries Fisheries Biologist
Rebecca Whithed TES Plants/Noxious Weeds Botanist
Dave Yarger GIS, Maps Resource Information Manager
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
74
ORGANIZATIONS, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND INDIVIDUALS
CONSULTED ABOUT THIS PROJECT
(List below also includes those groups/individuals
who received the EA or notice of its availability)
Organizations
Alliance for the Wild Rockies
American Wildlands
Backcountry Horsemen
BlueRibbon Coalition
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
Capital Trails Vehicle Association
Center for Biodiversity
CenturyTel of Montana
Columbia Falls Aluminum Co.
Croft Petroleum
Extreme Power Products
Families for Outdoor Recreation
Fastoys
The First Best Place
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Flathead Lutheran Bible Camp
Flathead Snowmobile Association
Friends of the Wild Swan
Glacier Electric
Glacier Institute
Glacier National Park
Glacier Raft Company
Glacier Wilderness Resort
Great Bear Foundation
Great Northern Whitewater, Inc.
Headwaters Montana
Hungry Horse News
J & L Rentals
Kurt's Polaris
The Lands Council
Leland Honda
Meadow Lake Estates Real Estate Inc.
Montana Native Plant Society
Montanans for Multiple Use
Montana Raft Company
Montana Snowmobile Association.
Montana Wilderness Association
Mocko Family Living Trust
NorthWestern Energy
Penco Power Products
Ravenwood Natural Science Center
Recreational Aviation Foundation
Rocky Mountain ORV Club
Sierra Club
South Fork Outfitters
S.T. Outfitters
Stoltze Land & Lumber Co.
Swan View Coalition
Western Montana Trail Riders
Wild River Adventures, Inc.
Wilderness River Outfitters
The Wilderness Society
Wildlands CPR
WildWest Institute
Government Agencies
Bonneville Power Administration
City of Columbia Falls
Hungry Horse Dam, Bureau of Reclamation
Montana Depart. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Montana DNRC
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Flathead County Commissioners
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
75
Individuals
Fred Adkins
Dave Amnotte
Tom Anderson
Ken & Phyllis Ausk
Deanna & Michael Babb
Shawn Baker
Julie Bates
Bill Baum
Jason & Cheryl Bechard
Bob Beck
Mark & Selena Beckwith
Stefan Belman
Robert Bender
Wayne Bengston
Richard Bergmann
Claireen Bidstrup
Richard Birdsell
Edd & Janet Blackler
D.L. Blank
Andrew Blazer
Denise Boggs
Conservation Congress
Jack & Sandy Bradford
Greg Brauch
Elton O. Brendsel
Dee & Steven Brown
Bill Browne
Stephen Bruan
Kevin Brubaker
Stanley Bruner
David & Mary Brushwood
Mark & Signe Brust
Billie Bryan
Ron Buentemeier
June Burgau
Steven Burglund
Donnie Burns
Kerrie Byrne
Kirby Campbell-Rierson
Sen. Max Baucus
Jeanette Cheney
Loyal Chubb
Bubba & Leta Chustz
Pat Clanton
Brent Clark
Samuel Clark III
Samuel & Jodi Clark IV
Rodney & Suzanne Cogliati
Daniel & Maria Commins
Barry Conger
William Cooper
Wilma Corneliuson Trust
Lisa Crane
Philip Crissman
Ed Cumming
Lori & Walt Curtis
Linda de Kort
Doug Deaton
Rick Deniger
Jim Dettman
Sean Dillon
Lisa Discoe
Bill Dodge
Jenny Draband
Dennis Drayna
Bill Droskoski
George Everett, House District #5
Glinda & Joseph Fagen
Beau Fast
Gideon Fauth
Kevin Feist
Jim Fiddler
Edwin Fields
Sara Finch-Steward
Dannie D. Fischer
Donald & Dawna Fleming
Richard Funk
Steve Funke
Anna Gallus
Marvin Galts
Matthew & Meredith Gargasz
Don Gee
Kirk Gentry
Josh Giffin
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
76
Bernard Gnam
Jennifer Golan
Chris Gotschalk
Charles Grant
Walter Grimes
Leona Hajost
James & Cynthia Hajost
Carolyn Hajost
Gary & Rita Hall
Mike Hall
William Hamilton
Larry Hamilton
Robert Hammer
Wayne Hammer
Daniel & Mary Hawe
Melvin Hedgpeth
Mark Hensley
Carl Hensley
Cesar Hernandez
John & Nancy Hewitt
Wilson Higgs
Jennifer Hintz
Don Holman
Brett Holmquist
Ann Holst
Ralph & Keni Hopkins
Kenneth & Lawanda Hotz
Charlie Jantzen
Howard Johnson
Frank & Katherine Johnson
Bruce Jungnitsch
Carolyn & Loren Kauffman
Liz Kehr
Bob Keith
Randy Kenyon
Sandy Kindt
Chris Kingston
Mark Kirk
Chuck Klefner
John & Jeannette Klein
Rachel Klempel
Jeremy Kolden
Allen Kolodejchuk
Dave Konopatzke
Linda Kopitzke
Loren Kreck
Richard Kuhl
Joe Kuzmic
Mike Lakes
Scott Landon
James & Katherine Langston
Kevin Larson
Greg Larson & Bill Bangsten
John Ledyard
Chris Leever
Bert Lindler
Leroy List
Ivan Lorentzen
Bob Love
James & Deloris Matson
Lloyd & Vera McClanahan
Mark McCoy
Scott McGuffie
Paul McKenzie
Wayne McMichael
Lucas Meyer
Terry Meyers
Russ Miller
Kimberly Mitchell
Michelle Nasrallah
Laura Negin
Scott Nolan
Gary Noland
Calvin Novacek
Jerry O'Neil
Joe & Laurie O'Rourke
Glenn & Sandy Ott
Bill Oursland
Brian M. Parks
Randy Parrish
Rachel Potter
Edwin Prach
Timothy Ravndal
Linda & Jim Regnier
Rep. Dennis Rehberg
David Ricards
Chuck Roady
Charlie Rogers
Steve Rolfing
Christine Rupp
CHR Project Revised Environmental Assessment
77
Clarice Ryan
Jim Sadler
Chuck Samuelson
William & Diana Sandalack
Lynn Sandefer
Joan Sandefer
Gary & Karen Saurey
Jamie Schaefer
Hilde Scharn
Greg and Deborah Schatz
Franklin E. Schroeter
Steve Settle
Dona Shehan
Roger Sherman
Susan Sherman
Bret Sickmann
Jillenne & Kurt Sigler
Dave Skinner
Dave Slack
Senator Jon Tester
James Smith
Richard Spotts
Robert Steffes
Richard Steiner
Gary Stephens
JB Stone
Carrie Stringer
Betty Stuart
Ron Stuber
Patrick & Wendy Sullivan
Clarence Taber
Jeanne Tallman
Joe Tamburelli
Janis Taylor
Steven Thompson
Lloyd Thorsrud
Jim Thramer
Brandon Tice
Peter Tracey
Underdahl Family Trust
James Valentine
Joel Vignere
Jim Voeller
Jim & Marsha Wailser
Susan Waldron
Stephen Warren
Cathy Weeks
Jeff Wentzel
John Wierschem
Matthew & Dianne Williams
Pamela Willison
Steve Windbigler
George Wirt
Jeff & Pam Wolfe
Glen Wysel
CHR Project Appendix A - Maps
78
Appendix A
Maps