Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 

Travel Management Plan 

Record of Decision 

for 

Birch Creek South 

Lewis and Clark National Forest 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 

Teton, and Lewis & Clark Counties, Montana 

October 2007 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Lesley W. Thompson 

FOREST SUPERVISOR 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 1 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
For Further Information, Contact: 

Equal Employment Opportunity Act - "The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and 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 or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer." 

Data Accuracy - The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. 

Geographic information system (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. They may be 

developed from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales based on 

modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products 

for purposes other than those, for which they were created, may yield inaccurate or misleading 

results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace, GIS 

products without notification. For more information, contact: 

 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

 1101 15th St. North 

 P.O. Box 869 

 Great Falls, MT 59403 

 (406) 791-7700 

If a map contains contours, these contours were generated and filtered using the Digital 

Elevation Model (DEM) files. Any contours generated from DEMs using a scale of less than 

1:100,000 will lead to less reliable results and should only be used for display purposes. 

Dick Schwecke, Project Leader 

1101 15th Street North 

Great Falls, Montana 59403 

(406) 791-7700
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 2 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

Birch Creek South -- Travel Management Plan 

Record of Decision 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 

II. Decision .................................................................................................................................................. 5 

 Management Actions Specific to Decision ........................................................................................ 7 

III. Rationale for the Decision....................................................................................................................... 12 

A. Meeting the Purpose and Need................................................................................................... 12 

B. Consideration of Public Comments............................................................................................. 13

C. Consideration of the Issues......................................................................................................... 14

IV. Public Involvement.................................................................................................................................. 38 

V. Alternatives Considered in Detail........................................................................................................... 38 

VI. Findings Required by Law ..................................................................................................................... 40 

VII. Environmentally Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................... 40 

VIII. Appeal Provisions and Implementation ................................................................................................. 40 

IX. Planning Records / Contact................................................................................................................... 42 

 Approval Signature / Date.................................................................................................................. 42 

List of Tables

Table 1 Key Features of Summer Recreation Alternatives Selected and Modified for 

Implementation ............................................................................................................................................... 6 

Table 2 Key Features of Winter Recreation Alternatives Selected and Modified for Implementation ..... 7 

Table 3 Summer ROS Acreage – Outside Wilderness ............................................................................ 16 

Table 4 Winter Recreation Acreage – Outside Wilderness...................................................................... 18 

Table 5 Miles of Trails / Roads Accessible for Non-Motorized Winter Recreation............................... 20 

Table 6 Miles of Trails / Roads Accessible for Motorized Winter Recreation .......................................... 21 

Table 7 Wheelchair Accessible Trails ...................................................................................................... 21 

Table 8 Miles of Roads/Trails within Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan Inventoried Roadless Area......... 23 

Table 9 Winter Travel Restrictions within Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan Inventoried Roadless 

Area............................................................................................................................................. 23 

Table 10 Miles of Roads and Trails within Sawtooth Inventoried Roadless Area...................................... 24 

Table 11 Winter Travel Restrictions within Sawtooth Inventoried Roadless Area ..................................... 24 

Table 12 Miles of Roads and Trails with Deep Creek “Further Planning” Area ........................................ 25 

Table 13 Winter Travel Restrictions within Deep Creek “Further Planning” Area ..................................... 26 

Table 14 Miles of Roads and Trails within Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness Areas ...................... 26 

Table 15 Winter Travel Restrictions within Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness Areas ..................... 27 

Table 16 Trailheads Providing Non-Motorized Trail Access to Wilderness Trail System ......................... 27 

Table 17 Miles of Non-Motorized Trails Outside Wilderness .................................................................... 28 

Table 18 Miles of Open Motorized Routes within Seasonal Habitats ........................................................ 31 

Table 19 Total Acreage and % Beyond 500m of Open Motorized Routes 

in key Spring Wildlife Habitats..................................................................................................... .31 

Table 20 Percent of Bear Management Unit Subunits Outside 500m Buffer in Summer and Fall ............ .32 

Table 21 Total Acreage and % of Seasonal Habitat Open to Snowmobiles.............................................. .33 

Table 22 Miles of Designated Over-Snow Routes & Regularly Used Roads in Lynx Habitat by LAU....... .36 

Table 23 Acres Open to Snowmobiling in Lynx Habitat by LAU and 

Percent of Habitat in LAU Open to Snowmobiling ...................................................................... .36 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Appendices

Appendix A Trails for Hiking Travel Only ...................................................................................... 44 

Appendix B Trails for Hiking and Stock Travel.............................................................................. 45 

Appendix C Trails and Roads for Hiking, Stock, and Bicycle Travel............................................. 46 

Appendix D Trails and Roads for Motorcycle (single-track) Travel............................................... 49 

Appendix E Trails and Roads for ATV (double-track) Travel ........................................................ 51 

Appendix F Roads for Seasonal Travel with Passenger Vehicles................................................ 53 

Appendix G Roads for Yearlong Travel with Passenger Vehicles ................................................ 54 

Appendix H Yearlong Access Roads Not Changed or Included in ROD ...................................... 56 

Appendix I Disposition of “Undetermined” Routes....................................................................... 58 

Appendix J Decommissioned Trails and Roads........................................................................... 64

Appendix K Biological Assessment............................................................................................... 66 

List of Maps

Map 1 Record Of Decision – Birch Creek South (located in separate map pocket) 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 3 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Motorized and non-motorized travel on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District has been 

managed for the past 19 years under regulations described on the 1988 Lewis and Clark Forest 

Travel Plan map for the Rocky Mountain Division. In 2005, the Lewis and Clark National 

Forest proposed to revise and update the travel management plan for the Rocky Mountain 

Ranger District. In doing so, the Lewis and Clark National Forest proposed to designate 

roads, trails, and airfields that would be managed as system routes and comprise part of the 

Forest transportation system. 

The analysis area encompassed approximately 391,700 acres (the entire non-wilderness 

portion of the Rocky Mountain Division) of the 777,600 total acres that comprise the Rocky 

Mountain Ranger District. Approximately 385,900 acres of designated Wilderness in the Bob 

Marshall Wilderness Complex (BMWC) were not addressed in an Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) prepared for the project. 

Of the 391,700 acres analyzed in the FEIS, about one-third (129,520 acres) are located in the 

Badger-Two Medicine area, and about two-thirds (262,180 acres) are located south of there in 

the Birch-Teton-South Fork Sun-Dearborn-Elk Creek area. 

II. DECISION

This decision covers the southern two-thirds of the Rocky Mountain Ranger District, referred 

to as the Birch Creek South area. It encompasses approximately 262,180 acres of National 

Forest System (NFS) lands that are located south of Birch Creek (that flows into Swift 

Reservoir). The project area extends from Birch Creek which is situated about 17 miles west 

of the town of Dupuyer, Montana, south about 70 miles to Red Mountain near Highway 200. 

It is important to note that this decision does not include NFS lands commonly referred to as 

the Badger-Two Medicine area. A separate decision will be made at a later date for travel 

management in the Badger-Two Medicine area. 

After careful consideration of the potential impacts of the alternatives analyzed and 

documented in the Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan FEIS issued in 

October 2007, I have decided to implement Alternative 4 for the southern two-thirds of the 

Ranger District with several modifications. An overview of management actions selected 

from Alternative 4, including the actions selected to modify Alternative 4, is outlined below. 

ROD Tables 1 and 2 list key features from the various alternatives that were selected for 

implementation under this decision. These key features will serve as focal points for 

discussion of the rationale involved in selecting all of the specific actions detailed in the 

electronic datatables. ROD Tables 1 and 2 do not list all the features of the decision. 

There is a tremendous amount of detail involved in all of the specific actions related to every 

segment of road and trail. Literally, there are about 2,054 lines of data to describe travel 

management on all of the segments of roads and trails involved. This tremendous amount of 

detail is captured in an electronic database that corresponds to an electronic GIS map of the 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 5 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

selected action. Tablular reports were inserted in appendices to this document or the project 

file. Most people, including Forest Service employees, will find it time consuming to read 

these tablular lists and locate all segments of a particular road or trail of interest to them. We 

published lists of the most commonly asked categories, but we may not have listed everything 

that is of interest. Printed copies of the datatable and GIS map are in the project files, and 

electronic copies are available upon request. 

ROD Table 1. Key Features of Summer Recreation Alternatives 

Selected and Modified for Implementation 

HIGHLIGHTS OF MOTORIZED WHEELED-VEHICLE TRAVEL 

SELECTED FOR SUMMER RECREATION MANAGEMENT: 

LOCATION: 

SELECTED 

ACTION 

ANALYZED 

IN: 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

FEATURES: 

Old Beaver-Willow road, & 

Red Lake loop Trails 277/utr 144 Alt. 4 Select Alt. 4 and manage as ATV trails. Restrict all motorized wheeled vehicle travel 10/15 to 12/1. 

Waldron Crk Trl. 2005, 

Wright Crk. Rd. 8980, and 

other miscellaneous spurs

Alt. 4 Select Alt. 4 and manage as ATV trails. Restrict all 

motorized wheeled vehicle travel 10/15 to 6/30. 

Home Gulch / Lime Gulch 

Trail 267 (& connector to Red Lk.), 

Cut Reef Creek Trail 275, 

Norwegian Gulch Trail 271, 

& Ford Basin Trl. 258 (& spurs)

Alt. 4 Select Alt. 4 and manage as motorcycle trails. Restrict 

all motorized wheeled vehicle travel 10/15 to 6/30. 

Fairview Crk Trl. 204 and 

Renshaw Lake Trl 236 

(and associated connectors) 

Alt. 4 Select Alt. 4 and manage as motorcycle trails. Restrict 

all motorized wheeled vehicle travel 10/15 to 6/30. 

Cyanide Crk.Trl. 257 (& spurs), 

Hannan Gulch Trail 3305 Alt. 4 Select Alt. 4 and manage as ATV trails, open yearlong.

Bailey Basin Trail 253 Alt. 4 Select Alt. 4 and manage as motorcycle trail, open 

yearlong. 

Lonesome Ridge Trail 154 

& Route Crk Pass Trl. 108 Alt. 2 Modify Alt. 4 by choosing Alt. 2 for portions of these 

trails, and manage as motorcycle trails open yearlong. 

Petty-Crown loop Trails 

270/232/244 (and connectors)

Alt. 1 

Modify Alt. 4 by choosing Alt. 1 for these trails, relocate 

0.2 miles of Crown Mtn. Trl. 270, and manage all three 

as motorcycle loop trail, open yearlong. 

HIGHLIGHTS OF NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL 

SELECTED FOR SUMMER RECREATION MANAGEMENT:

Cow Creek Trail 191 and 

Mt. Frazier-Chicken Coul. Trl. 153 Alt. 3 Modify Alt. 4 by choosing Alt. 3 for these trails and manage as non-motorized for stock, bicycles and hiking. 

Deep Crk., Lange Crk., 

Benchmark, and Smith Crk areas. Alt. 4 

Select Alt. 4 for trails not listed separately (above) and 

manage trails in these areas as non-motorized trails, open 

to stock, bicycles, and hiking. 

West Fk. Teton, Middle Fk. Teton, 

South Fk. Sun, & Falls Crk. areas. 

Modified 

Alt. 4. 

Modify Alt. 4 as discussed in the FEIS by prohibiting 

bicycles on trails within the four areas recommended for 

wilderness in the Forest Plan. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 6 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

ROD Table 2. Key Features of Winter Recreation Alternatives 

Selected and Modified for Implementation 

HIGHLIGHTS OF MOTORIZED OVER-SNOW VEHICLE TRAVEL 

SELECTED FOR WINTER RECREATION MANAGEMENT: 

LOCATION: 

SELECTED 

ACTION 

ANALYZED 

IN: 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

FEATURES: 

Teton area Alt. 4 

Modify Alt. 4 in the Teton area by choosing boundaries 

that allow for open cross-country snowmobiling during 

the winter south and west of the Teton River. Trail #107 

would be closed to snowmobile use. Restrict over-snow 

cross-country motorized travel 4/1 to 12/1. 

Beaver-Willow area Alt. 4 

Benchmark area Alt. 4 

Modify Alt. 4 by choosing boundaries for open crosscountry snowmobiling during the winter along BeaverWillow road in a definable area east of the West Fork of 

Beaver Creek; and choosing boundaries for open crosscountry snowmobiling during the winter in the 

Benchmark area that can be easily understood and 

followed by the recreating public. Restrict over-snow 

cross-country motorized travel 4/1 to 12/1. 

HIGHLIGHTS OF NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL 

SELECTED FOR WINTER RECREATION MANAGEMENT:

Blackleaf area Alt. 3 Modify Alt. 4 by choosing Alt. 3 in the Blackleaf area and 

restrict snowmobiling yearlong. 

Jones Creek area Alt. 3 Modify Alt. 4 by choosing Alt. 3 in the Jones Creek area 

and restrict snowmobiling yearlong. 

Elk Creek area Alt. 3 

Modify Alt. 4 by choosing Alt. 3 (MWA/MSA winter 

recreation agreement) in the Elk Creek area and restrict 

snowmobiling yearlong except on the main road. 

Deep Creek and Falls Creek 

areas 

Alt. 4 

Select Alt. 4 for areas not listed separately (above) and 

manage for non-motorized winter recreation, open to 

cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. 

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS SPECIFIC TO DECISION: 

1. Designate 4 Trails for Hiking Travel Only (no horses, no bicycles1): 

All or portions of 4 trails (listed in Appendix A), totaling about 7 miles would allow hiking 

only. The use of stock, bicycles1

, and motorized trail vehicles would be restricted yearlong. 

1 Bicycles is a generic term that includes all forms of gear-driven mechanized transportation powered by 

human muscles, such as mountain bicycles. 

2. Designate 25 Trails for Hiking and Stock Travel Only (no bicycles1

): 

All or portions of 25 trails (listed in Appendix B), totaling about 93 miles would allow hiking 

and stock only. Use of bicycles1

 and motorized trail vehicles would be restricted yearlong. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 7 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

3. Designate 66 Routes for Hiking, Stock, and Bicycle1 Travel Only (non-motorized): 

All or portions of 56 trails (listed in Appendix C), totaling about 164 miles would allow 

hiking, stock, and bicycle1 travel yearlong. All or portions of 10 roads (listed in Appendix C), 

totaling about 3 miles would allow hiking, stock, and bicycle1 travel yearlong. The use of 

motorized wheeled vehicles would be restricted yearlong on all of these trails and roads. 

4. Designate 17 Trails and 2 Roads for Motorcycle Travel (no ATVs): 

All or portions of 7 trails, totaling about 13 miles would allow motorcycle travel yearlong. 

All or portions of another 10 trails, totaling about 33 miles would allow motorcycle travel 

after December 1 until October 15 (restricted during the rifle hunting season). Likewise, all 

or portions of 2 roads, totaling about 1 mile, would allow motorcycle travel after Dec. 1 until 

Oct. 15. Non-motorized travel by hiking, stock, and bicycles1

 would be allowed yearlong on 

all of these routes. All-terrain-vehicles would be restricted yearlong. (See Appendix D for 

complete list of trails and roads.) 

5. Designate 13 Trails and 10 Roads for ATV and Motorcycle Travel: 

All or portions of 8 trails, totaling about 12 miles would allow ATV and motorcycle travel 

yearlong. All or portions of another 4 trails, totaling about 5 miles would allow ATV and 

motorcycle travel after December 1 until October 15 (restricted during the rifle hunting 

season). One trail, totaling 1 mile, would allow ATV and motorcycle travel from July 1 until 

October 15. All or portions of 6 roads, totaling about 3 miles, would allow ATV and 

motorcycle travel yearlong; one road, less than 1 mile in length, would allow ATV and 

motorcycle travel after Dec. 1 until Oct. 15; and all or portions of 3 roads, totaling about 2 

miles, would allow ATV and motorcycle travel from July 1 until October 15. Nonmotorized travel by hiking, stock, and bicycles1

 would be allowed yearlong on all of these 

routes. Full-sized (passenger type) motor vehicles would be restricted yearlong. (See 

Appendix E for complete list of trails and roads.) 

6. Designate 23 Roads for Passenger Vehicle Travel on Seasonal basis: 

All or portions of 21 roads, totaling about 12 miles would allow full sized (passenger type) 

vehicle travel from after December 1 until October 15 (restricted during the rifle hunting 

season). All or portions of another 2 roads, totaling about 3 miles would allow full sized 

(passenger type) vehicle travel from July 1 until October 15 (restricted during the rifle 

hunting, winter, and spring bear seasons). Street legal motorcycles and ATVs would be 

allowed on these roads during the same time periods. Non-motorized travel by hiking, stock, 

and bicycles1

 would be allowed yearlong on all routes. (See Appendix F for complete list of 

roads.) 

7. Adopt and Designate 74 Roads for Dispersed Camping Access on Yearlong basis: 

All or portions of 74 undetermined (non-system) roads, totaling about 10 miles would be 

adopted as part of the official road transportation network, and managed to allow full sized 

(passenger type) vehicle travel yearlong to access dispersed campsites adjacent to the main 

access roads. Street legal motorcycles and ATVs would also be allowed yearlong on these 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 8 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

roads, as would non-motorized travel by hiking, stock, and bicycles1. (See Appendix G for 

complete list of roads.) 

8. Relocate and/or Reconstruct 2 Existing Routes: 

Approximately 1,000 feet (0.2 miles) of Crown Mountain Trail 270 would be relocated and 

reconstructed to single-track motorcycle trail standards. This modification in alignment at the 

junction of Trails 270 and 232 would divert motorcycle loop traffic away from the Wilderness 

boundary, and provide a loop route via the Petty-Crown trail system. 

About 0.5 mile of old Beaver Willow Road (utrl48) would be relocated and reconstructed to 

ATV trail standards to bypass private land and connect with Road 233 at the gate/trailhead. 

This modification at the south end of the private inholding in Willow Creek would allow 

public access into the Beaver Creek drainage via the old road, and provide a loop route. 

9. Construct 5 Handicapped Accessible Trails: 

My decision is to proceed with construction of fully accessible trails as follows: 

WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE 

TRAIL LOCATION LENGTH DESCRIPTION 

Mill Fall campground 0.1 mile Connect campground to waterfall. 

Elk Creek trailhead 0.3 mile Connect trailhead to Cataract Falls. 

West Fork campground 1.1 mile Connect rental cabin to junction with Trail 106 near 

wilderness boundary. 

Wagner Basin trail/road 1.0 mile Downstream from Hannan Gulch bridge on north side 

of river. View mountain sheep. 

Hannan Gulch Interpretive Site 1.0 mile Upstream from Hannan Gulch bridge on north side of 

river to connect with Sun Canyon road. 

10. Adopt some Previously Undetermined Routes. Designate and Manage them as 

System Routes. 

Prior to the analysis we inventoried as many undetermined (non-system) roads and trails as we 

could locate on the ground. Our analysis indicated that some undetermined routes were 

desirable for public use and were feasible to manage as part of the designated transportation 

system. Therefore, several undetermined routes described in previous sections and identified 

by footnotes in Appendices A – G would be adopted and managed as part of the official road 

and trail transportation network. Overall, a total of about 1 mile of trail would be adopted for 

hiking only, about 12 miles of trail would be adopted for non-motorized hike, horse, or 

bicycle travel, about 7 miles of trail would be adopted for motorized OHV (motorcycle or 

ATV) travel, about 1 mile of road would be adopted for future resource management options 

but closed to motorized travel at this time, and about 10 miles of spur roads would be adopted 

for full sized passenger vehicles to access dispersed campsites adjacent to the main road 

system. Appendix I consolidates all of the information about undetermined routes in one 

location, and shows the disposition of all identified “undetermined” roads and trails. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 9 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

11. Eliminate Unneeded Roads and Trails. 

During the analysis process several roads and trails (both system and undetermined routes) 

were deemed unnecessary for public use and/or were contributing to undesirable resource 

degradation. Appendix J lists all identified routes that would be eliminated and not managed 

as part of the transportation system. All these routes would be closed to motorized travel 

yearlong under this decision. They would remain legally open to the public for foot, horse, 

and bicycle travel, but the agency would not encourage nor maintain the routes for such use. 

The simple action of prohibiting motorized traffic yearlong may be sufficient to allow some 

unneeded routes to naturally fade away. Other routes may take additional action to hasten regrowth of vegetation or repair resource degradation. The need for further actions to 

decommission some routes is expected to be addressed in separate analyzes as deemed 

necessary by the Ranger District and resource specialists. Overall, a total of about 6 miles of 

trail, and about 6 miles of road would be eliminated. 

12. Allow travel off Designated Motorized Routes for parking/passing/turning around. 

Restricting motorized vehicles to designated routes has an inherent problem related to the 

constructed width of the travelway. Long segments of constructed roads and trails are not 

wide enough to accommodate two vehicles passing one another, and most routes do not have 

constructed wide spots for parking or turning around. Some leeway needs to be allowed for 

two-way traffic to be safely and reasonably accommodated on designated motorized vehicle 

routes. I have decided that motorized travel off all designated motorized roads and trails 

would be allowed for parking, passing, or turning around under the following criteria. 

Wheeled vehicle off-road / off-trail travel exceptions - Motorized wheeled 

vehicle travel off the traveled way of designated system roads and off the 

constructed tread of designated system trails for parking, passing, or turning 

around is allowed within the length of the vehicle and attached trailer (unless 

signed otherwise) as long as: 

1) parking/passing/turning around is accomplished within a minimum distance, [can be either perpendicular or parallel to the main travel-way] 

2) parked vehicles and trailers do not impede traffic on the main traveled-way, 

[parked vehicles are off the edge of the road] 

[people exiting/entering parked vehicles can safely do so without stepping into traffic] 

 [animals/OHVs/equipment can be safely unloaded/loaded without obstructing traffic] 

3) no new permanent routes are created by this activity, 

4) existing vegetation is not killed or removed, 

5) no damage to soil or water resources occurs, 

6) travel off route does not cross streams, and 

7) travel off route does not traverse riparian or wet areas. 

Snowmobile off-road / off-trail travel exceptions - Motorized over-snow 

vehicle travel off designated snowmobile roads and trails that go through a 

“restricted area” is allowed within the standard width of a road right-of-way 

(normally 66-feet wide, unless signed otherwise) for turning around or avoiding 

obstructions as long as: 

1) no new permanent routes are created by this activity, 

2) existing vegetation is not killed or removed, and 

3) no damage to soil or water resources occurs. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 10 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

13. Designate areas for Over-Snow Motorized Vehicle Travel: 

Allow motorized over-snow cross-country travel from December 1 through March 31 on 

about 29,170 acres as shown on the ROD Winter Decision map. Restrict all motorized oversnow cross-country travel yearlong on about 232,595 acres as shown on the ROD Winter 

Decision map. Motorized over-snow travel through closed areas would be allowed on 

designated snowmobile routes only. 

MANAGEMENT NOT SPECIFIC TO DECISION: 

1. Roads and airstrip that will remain a part of the designated system, and roads that 

will remain open to facilitate special uses. 

We did not propose any changes in how the following roads and airstrip would be used in the 

future. Approximately 47 roads, totaling about 60 miles in length, that provide primary access 

to trailheads, campgrounds, recreation residences, dispersed campsites and other features on 

NFS lands. Another 11 roads, totaling about 3 miles, provide access within developed 

campgrounds. All 63 miles of these roads (listed in Appendix H) have been open to 

motorized vehicle travel, and will remain a part of the designated system as part of this 

decision. There are also a number of roads and trails under Special Use Permits authorizing 

access to recreation residences, dams and irrigation facilities, resorts, and private land. These 

Special Use Permit roads and trails would remain open under the authority upon which they 

were issued. The Benchmark airstrip will continue to be open to public use under this 

decision. 

2. Subsequent determination to designate segments of some roads for “mixed traffic”. 

The issue of designating some roads for mixed traffic was considered as non-significant in the 

Draft EIS. Some public comment expressed an interest in this concept, and the new national 

OHV policy issued in 2005 recognized mixed traffic could be allowed as a management tool 

for recreation. To fairly address this issue, mixed traffic was discussed in the Final EIS as a 

new transportation issue. After considering all comments about this issue, a decision 

concerning specific roads to designate for mixed traffic will be made following an 

engineering evaluation as outlined in EM-7700-30. A separate decision will be made on a 

case-by-case basis as to whether or not to designate each road for mixed traffic. Providing for 

public safety will be the most important criteria. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 11 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

III. RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

I have determined that my decision to select Alternative 4 with the specific modifications 

listed in Appendices A-J and ROD Tables 1 and 2 are consistent with all laws, regulations, 

and agency policy. I have considered reasonably foreseeable activities and potential 

cumulative effects. I believe that my decision provides the best balance of management 

activities that respond to the purpose and need and issues. My decision also strikes a balance 

between competing interests such as the interest for unrestricted motorized recreation and 

wildlife habitat protection and enhancement. 

The factors I used to make my decision on this project included: 

• Achievement of the project’s purpose and need (FEIS, pages 3-5) 

• Relationship to environmental and social issues (FEIS, pages 36 - 310) 

• Public comments (FEIS, pages 313 - 388) 

The analysis and decision processes for this project are based on the consideration of the best 

available science. The manner in which best available science is addressed can be found 

throughout the disclosure of rationale found within the ROD, DEIS, FEIS, Response to 

Comments, Biological Assessments, and the project file. 

A. Meeting the Purpose and Need 

The purpose and need for action in regard to travel management on the Rocky Mountain 

Ranger District -- Birch Creek South area are based on Forest Plan goals, objectives, and 

standards. More specifically, this project addresses the following purposes and needs. 

A comprehensive evaluation on the best way to manage recreational travel has not been done 

since 1988. Due to recent trends in recreation use on the District, and the many resource and 

environmental protection issues that have emerged in the past decade, it is timely and 

appropriate to develop an updated travel management plan. 

In general, the present road and trail system evolved incrementally over many decades based 

on site-specific demands for various recreational activities, and capabilities of the land to 

accommodate those activities. Use of roads and trails has changed substantially since the last 

Travel Plan was signed in 1988. ATVs, while rare in 1988, have become common on many 

roads and trails. Use of snowmobiles has grown in popularity, as has the demand for crosscountry skiing. Advances in technology now allow motorized vehicles to travel on terrain that 

they could not traverse in 1988. Demand for access by people with disabilities has increased. 

A new Travel Plan is needed to incorporate these changes in recreational demand and extent. 

The 24 types of travel restrictions shown on the 1988 Travel Plan map for the Rocky 

Mountain Division are confusing. Many visitors are unable to correctly interpret the map, and 

the 1988 map has errors. Non-system roads and trails exist on the landscape but are not 

shown on the map; hence visitors don’t know what rules apply to traveling on them. Visitors 

are also confused when they encounter different travel restrictions as they cross from one 

National Forest to another. A new Travel Plan is needed that is simpler with fewer categories 

of restrictions. A new Travel Plan is also needed to comply with National standards for 

mapping, and to be consistent with adjoining National Forests. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 12 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Conflicts between different uses generally occur on trails and roads that are not designed to 

accommodate the types of uses allowed, or on trails and roads not designed for the level of use 

occurring. Also, conflicts can occur when visitors encounter other types of uses that they had 

not expected. A new Travel Plan is needed on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District so that the 

road and trail system provides safe travel routes for an appropriate mix of uses. 

In 2001, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management issued a joint decision to 

prohibit motorized cross-country travel on all National Forest System and BLM public lands 

in a three state area. This decision did not address winter travel. The decision 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. The Lewis and 

Clark National Forest determined that the Rocky Mountain Ranger District was a high priority 

for completing a detailed site-specific travel management plan. 

Ever since the 1988 Travel Plan was issued there have been questions about its legality. 

There is a need to complete an analysis of the effects of current travel management to comply 

with direction issued following appeal of the 1988 Travel Plan. 

Since the publication of the Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan DEIS, 

the Forest Service promulgated new regulations governing OHV use throughout the National 

Forest System. These 2005 regulations mandate individual National Forests to complete 

travel plan analysis within 4 years, and designate the roads and trails where motorized vehicle 

use will be allowed. The Lewis and Clark National Forest expects the results of this travel 

planning decision to be in full compliance with the new regulations. 

The purpose for this Birch Creek South decision is to: 

1. Provide for public access and recreation travel in the Birch Creek South area, 

considering both the quantity and quality of recreation opportunities provided. 

2. Bring the area, road, and trail use into compliance with laws, regulations, and other 

higher level management direction. 

3. Provide for public understanding of the types of use and season of use allowed for 

each road and trail. 

B. Consideration of Public Comments 

The Interdisciplinary Team developed a Response to Comments for the project file, and these 

responses are summarized in the Final EIS. In addition, I have reviewed all the public 

comments made on the project, and met with many groups and individuals. 

One recurring theme of public comment was the value people placed on the wild, remote 

setting offered by the front country of the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. Many 

commenters emphasized the diversity of wildlife species, the presence of the grizzly bear and 

wolf, and asked that my decision help maintain the undeveloped character of the Rocky 

Mountain Front. The vast majority of public comments we received favored emphasizing 

traditional non-motorized modes of travel on the Rocky Mountain Front. However, I did 

receive comments from local individuals and community members which indicate that this 

area receives some motorized use in summer and winter. Nearby residents and visitors have 

come to ride motorcycles, ATV’s and snowmobiles while hunting, camping, or sightseeing. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 13 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

This use, although limited, is important to some who live in communities along the front and 

to those who occasionally visit the area. 

After reviewing the information contained in the analysis and public comments, my 

conclusion is this area provides the highest quality opportunities on the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest for non-motorized types of outdoor recreation. For these reasons, I have 

decided to increase our emphasis on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District as a primary place 

to enjoy solitude, wildlife viewing, hiking, backcountry hunting, fishing, horseback riding, 

and pack trips. In order to address concerns of motorized users, my decision will include 

limited opportunities for motorized recreation activities off designated roads or for 

snowmobiling. Although there will be limited motorized trail opportunities, licensed 

operators with street legal vehicles are welcome to use the 88 mile road system for motorized 

recreation, sightseeing, and dispersed camping. In addition, as we identify roads where 

mixed use is safe, unlicensed drivers with non-street legal vehicles will be allowed to use 

these roads if they comply with state laws regarding mixed use on Forest Service roads. 

Public comment is reflected in the issues identified and addressed in the environmental 

analysis. My rationale for how my decision addresses each issue is also my rationale for how 

I considered various public comments. 

C. Consideration of the Issues 

Significant issues, as defined under 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(2), guided the range of alternatives and 

development of mitigation measures, and were used to incorporate into the analysis the 

measured effects of the alternatives. The issues focused the environmental disclosure on sitespecific, direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that may occur under the alternatives. Other 

impacts and concerns were also analyzed and summarized as they related to the proposal as 

directed under 40 CFR 1501.7(a)(3). Issues identified in public scoping were similar to those 

identified by the Interdisciplinary Team. Similar issues were combined into one statement 

where appropriate. The team determined the following issues were significant issues. The 

following section addresses how my decision responds to these issues. 

AIR QUALITY / WATER QUALITY / SOILS:

Effects on air quality due to motorized OHV travel. There was nothing in the analysis to 

indicate a significant impact on air quality as a result of the current level and extent of OHV 

use. The analysis indicated that all of the action alternatives may reduce the potential for 

effects on air quality, because all of the action alternatives reduce the mileage of roads and 

trails open to motorized travel. This is based on an assumption that fewer miles of motorized 

roads and trails equate to lower amounts of dust particles being lifted into the air. My 

decision reduces the mileage of roads and trails open to motorized travel. The most likely 

problem that may arise in the next 10 to 20 years is dust along the main access roads. This 

problem is shared by all the alternatives and all recreationists. Heavy traffic by stock trucks 

and trailers, campers, and cabin owners would all contribute to the issue. Potential solutions 

may include hard surfacing, dust abatement on roads, limiting speeds, and limiting traffic. 

These solutions may affect a broad array of recreationists. Road dust problems can be dealt 

with annually as cases arise. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 14 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Effects on water quality from existing road and trail system under current levels of 

maintenance. As stated in the analysis, the risks of impacts to water quality are greater at 

stream crossings and when roads and trails are within 100 feet of perennial streams. Research 

indicates impacts to water quality are caused by OHVs, livestock, hikers to a limited extent, 

using trails in riparian areas. Other factors such as inadequate maintenance, poor route 

location, and high use levels exacerbate (or aggravate) erosion problems and increase 

sediment delivery to streams from roads and trails. Water Quality is important along the 

Rocky Mountain Front. My decision will change the type and season of use allowed on many 

roads and trails, and should allow limited maintenance funds to be prioritized on trails causing 

impacts to water quality. 

Effects on water quality if human use levels or road/trail mileages increase. My rationale 

for selecting a particular travel management action is based on public comments favoring nonmotorized modes of transportation, my desire to maintain the undeveloped character of the 

Rocky Mountain Front and to better protect or enhance wildlife and fish habitats. My 

decision is not expected to increase the amount of OHV use along the Front. If there are 

increases in motorized use or livestock uses that result in detrimental effects to water quality 

the District Ranger may take further actions, on a site specific basis, to change route locations, 

eliminate stream crossings, construct bridges, or increase maintenance levels to protect water 

quality and aquatic habitats. 

Effects on soil quality due to motorized OHV travel. There is very little difference 

between alternatives in regard to the miles of roads and trails on sensitive soil types. Crosscountry travel by motorized modes of travel is prohibited under all alternatives, including the 

no-action alternative. The District Ranger may take actions, on a site specific basis, to change 

route locations or increase maintenance levels to protect soil quality 

HERITAGE RESOURCES:

Potential effects on the Blackfeet Traditional Cultural District. This issue was analyzed 

in the FEIS, and is being discussed further with the Blackfeet Tribe. It is one of the reasons 

for delaying a decision about travel management for the Badger-Two Medicine area. It will 

be an important part of my future decision for the Badger-Two Medicine. 

Potential for effects on other identified and unidentified archaeological and historical 

sites. As indicated in the FEIS, I have further considered cultural resources through the 

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process in order to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate effects to cultural resources. The Montana State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) has concurred with our procedures. I have chosen a stepped process. The first step 

was identification of properties through the DEIS analysis. The second included field 

inventory in locations common to all alternatives, site evaluations, and determinations of 

effect. This site-specific review resulted in a finding of “no effect” for nine (9) cultural sites, 

a result of allowable travel methods under my decision. These nine sites co-exist with routes; 

they include the three (3) sites where potential mitigation was anticipated (see table in FEIS 

Ch. 2). As a condition of the ‘no effect’ findings, and in accordance with the Lewis and 

Clark Forest Plan, archaeologists will periodically monitor these sites during the next five 

years. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 15 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

A third step in the outlined process is the procedural review for those construction and 

relocation projects that I have identified in the Record of Decision (see 8 and 9 above), and for 

those user trails and decommissioning-related locations (identified in 10 and 11) which were 

not already covered in the ‘common to all alternatives’ inventory. These reviews will take 

place in site-specific detail, prior to the implementation of each of these actions. In this 

manner, effects to archaeological and historical resources are addressed, effects minimized, 

and procedural requirements met. 

RECREATION:

Opportunities for solitude/quiet trails. The analysis displayed the opportunities for 

solitude by comparing the acreages within different “Recreation Opportunity Spectrum” 

classifications. ROS is a useful means by which to compare and discuss non-motorized and 

motorized recreational opportunities. The following tables display acreages by ROS class for 

my selected action versus all of the alternatives. My decision places about 71% of the Birch 

Creek South area in a primitive (which is non-motorized) or semi-primitive non-motorized 

setting, which is a significant increase over the existing condition (Alt. 1 = 51%), and a slight 

increase over Alternative 4 (70%). During my deliberations, I modified Alt. 4 (see ROD 

Table 1) by making Cow Creek Trail 191 and Mt. Frazier-Chicken Coulee Trail 153 nonmotorized. My primary reason to make these two trails non-motorized was to protect wildlife 

habitat, but the effect of making this decision also increased opportunities for solitude beyond 

the Blackleaf trailhead. Overall, my decision provides significant opportunities for someone 

to find solitude and a “quiet” trail experience. 

ROD Table 3. Summer ROS Acreage - Outside Wilderness 

In the Birch Creek South area 

SUMMER ROS 

CLASSIFICATION DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2 

ALT. 

3 

ALT. 

4 

ALT. 

5 

RURAL 1,820 ac. 

1 % 

1,820 

1 % 

1,820 

1 % 

1,820 

1 % 

1,820 

1 % 

1,820 

1 % 

ROADED NATURAL 42,680 ac. 

16 % 

48,060 

18 % 

46,720 

18 % 

45,990 

18 % 

46,410 

18 % 

46,410 

18 % 

SEMI-PRIMITIVE 

MOTORIZED 

29,320 ac. 

12 % 

80,260 

30 % 

60,580 

23 % 

4,760 

2 % 

27,920 

11 % 

27,920 

11 % 

SEMI-PRIMITIVE 

NON-MOTORIZED 

152,790 ac. 

58 % 

130,770

50 % 

129,840

50 % 

174,040 

66 % 

150,470 

57 % 

150,470

57 % 

PRIMITIVE 35,570 ac. 

13 % 

1,270 

1 % 

23,220 

8 % 

35,570 

13 % 

35,560 

13 % 

35,560 

13 % 

Total Acreage 262,180 ac. 

100 % 262,180 262,180 262,180 262,180 262,180

 

My decision also places about 12% of the area in a semi-primitive motorized setting during 

the summer, which is a slight increase over the selected Alternative 4. This is due to 

modifying Alt. 4 (see ROD Table 1) by continuing to allow motorcycle travel on Lonesome 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 16 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Ridge Trail 154, a portion of Route Creek Pass Trail 108, and the Petty-Crown loop trail 

270/232/244. My primary reasons for including these as motorcycle trails is because 

motorized use is compatible with wildlife habitat in those drainages, and because they 

provided additional OHV riding opportunities near other OHV riding trails, near camping 

opportunities, and specific destination points. My objective is to allow OHV riding where we 

can provide a quality recreation experience. My decision provides some opportunities to 

enjoy riding a motorcycle in the backcountry while placing more emphasis on non-motorized 

modes of travel and enhancing the undeveloped character of the Rocky Mountain Front.. 

My decision results in about 35 miles of “undetermined” routes being adopted as system roads 

or trails as detailed in Appendix I. Of the total, 13 miles of adopted trails would be for nonmotorized travel by hikers, horsemen, and bicyclists; 7 miles for motorized travel by 

motorcycles or ATVs; and 1 mile would be useful for future resource management of the 

area. As shown in the analysis, these routes serve a useful purpose in accommodating public 

travel for recreational purposes, and can be managed by the agency as system routes. About 

14 miles of the total would be adopted as spur roads to formally designate and manage 

dispersed camping opportunities along the main system roads. Dispersed campsites are a key 

feature of future management of NFS lands. Allowing and managing designated access routes 

to dispersed campsites is an important step in minimizing the proliferation of new routes, and 

in accommodating public enjoyment of the area. My decision to designate all access routes to 

dispersed campsites prohibits indiscriminate motorized travel to reach new dispersed 

campsites, and allows the public ample opportunity to enjoy the dispersed campsites that have 

been in use for many years. 

My decision also results in about 6 miles of unneeded roads and 6 miles of unneeded trails 

being closed to motorized wheeled vehicle use under this decision. Further analysis of these 

unneeded routes would be accomplished at some future date to determine more specific needs 

to fully decommission them. My objective is to prevent any further resource degradation on 

these routes, and begin the process of restoration and re-vegetation to a natural landscape. 

Restricting motorized vehicles to designated routes has an inherent problem related to the 

constructed width of the traveled-way. Long segments of constructed roads and trails are not 

wide enough to accommodate two vehicles passing one another, and most routes do not have 

constructed wide spots for parking or turning around. We received comments concerned 

about the provision in the 3-State OHV Decision to allow motorized travel off road 300 feet to 

camp. However, public comments did not advocate that vehicles, stock trailers, campers, 

equipment trailers, etc. only be parked within constructed road turnouts or in designated 

parking lots. It seemed that most people agreed with the concept of being able to choose their 

own parking spot alongside designated routes, and to choose their own spot to turn around. 

The issue is defining a “reasonable” distance to allow people to pull their vehicles off a 

designated travel-way in order to park or turn around. It is illegal under current law for people 

to park and leave their vehicle or OHV as an obstruction on the traveled-way of a trail or road. 

We must allow visitors the reasonable opportunity to park their car, 4x4, ATV, or motorcycle 

a short distance off a designated route so that they are not a hazard to other traffic, and so that 

they can safely stop and go about enjoying other activities. The 2005 National OHV 

regulations (36 CFR 212.51(b)) provides leeway to designate limited use of motor vehicles 

within a specified distance of certain designated routes. Consistent with the National OHV 

regulations, I have decided that motorized travel off all designated motorized roads and trails 

would be allowed for parking, passing, or turning around under the criteria specified in my 

decision. This allows people an opportunity to make reasonable decisions about how to best 

pull off the travel-way to park in a safe manner. This decision conforms to standard practice 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 17 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

that the public has been doing for many years. We do not have any evidence that parking or 

turning around adjacent to main travel-ways has resulted in undue resource damage in this 

area. The allowance for motorized off-route travel to park and turn-around assures that 

recreationists have an opportunity to enjoy their visit to the National Forest. 

ROD Table 4. Winter Recreation Acreage - Outside Wilderness 

In the Birch Creek South area 

WINTER 

CLASSIFICATION DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2 

ALT. 

3 

ALT. 

4 

ALT. 

5 

RURAL 

415 ac. 

0 % 

415 

0 % 

415 

0 % 

415 

0 % 

415 

0 % 

415 

0 % 

SEMI-PRIMITIVE 

MOTORIZED 

29,170 ac. 

11 % 

246,720

94 % 

159,680

61 % 

0 

0 % 

98,440 

38 % 

98,440 

38 % 

SEMI-PRIMITIVE 

NON-MOTORIZED 

232,595 ac. 

89 % 

15,045 

6 % 

102,085

39 % 

261,765

100 % 

163,325 

62 % 

163,325

62 % 

Total Acreage 262,180 ac. 

100 % 262,180 262,180 262,180 262,180 262,180

For winter recreation, my decision places about 89% of the area in a non-motorized setting. 

This is a significant increase in solitude during the winter months in comparison to the 

existing condition or Alternative 4. My decision to restrict snowmobiling during the winter is 

heavily influenced by collaborative efforts between Montana Wilderness Association, 

Montana Snowmobile Association, and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 

The areas open for snowmobile use are areas historically used and popular with local 

residents. I used the collaborative efforts of Montana Wilderness Association, Montana 

Snowmobile Association, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, and input from Forest Service 

recreations specialists and law enforcement personnel to identify areas that are historically 

used, provide a quality experience, and have boundaries that can be easily communicated and 

enforced in the Falls Creek, Elk Creek, Deep Creek, Beaver-Willow, and Benchmark areas. I 

recognize that in some cases using an easily communicated boundary creates, on the map, 

larger areas open. In reality smaller portions of these open areas will actually be used. Due to 

dense tree cover and terrain features that naturally prohibit snowmobile use there are areas 

included that are not useable. 

In the Sun Canyon area, we received input to allow snowmobiling on a limited amount of 

terrain around the cabin sites. I believe that allowing snowmobile use in small areas around 

the cabins is likely to be disturbing to some of the owners. Therefore, I decided to restrict 

cross-country snowmobile use yearlong around the Home Gulch, Hannah Gulch, and Gibson 

Reservoir cabin sites. People that do want to snowmobile in the Sun Canyon area, including 

cabin owners, would have the opportunity to snowmobile on the Beaver-Willow road to reach 

motorized over-snow (cross-country) recreation. [Cabin owners in Sun Canyon would be 

allowed to snowmobile to their cabins during times when deep snow prevents vehicle access.] 

North of the South Fork Teton River area I selected Alternative 4 with some modifications 

(see ROD Table 2). The South Fork Teton road and area north of the road would remain open 

for snowmobiling on a seasonal basis. The North Fork Teton and West Fork Teton would 

remain as primary snowmobile areas on the same seasonal basis. These areas have a long 

history of snowmobile activity, and are the areas most important to avid snowmobilers. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 18 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Boundaries of open snowmobile areas follow logical landscape features to help snowmobilers 

stay out of closed areas. Due to the concern that a snowmobile could trespass into the 

Wilderness up the North Fork of the Teton, I am continuing the existing closure of Trail #107 

to snowmobiles. Features such as the head of Waldron Creek have been retained as “quiet” 

areas to provide opportunities for cross-country skiing accessible from a plowed road, and to 

protect grizzly bear spring range. 

In the Blackleaf area, I decided to select Alternative 3 and prohibit snowmobiling yearlong to 

protect important winter and spring range. Wildlife that winter in this area move up and down 

the slope, and move from drainage to drainage as snow conditions change. Due to the 

variability of snow cover, this area provides only intermittent opportunity for snowmobiling. 

It is more important to minimize disturbance of wintering animals in this area than to provide 

marginal and intermittent opportunities for motorized over-snow recreation. 

In the Jones Creek area, I decided to select Alternative 3 and prohibit snowmobiling yearlong 

based on comments stressing the importance of the area for solitude and quiet recreation, and 

on the limited value of the area as a snowmobile opportunity. Like the Blackleaf area, Jones 

Creek provides only intermittent opportunity for snowmobiling, but provides a valuable 

opportunity for solitude that is easily accessible from a main access road. Selecting this 

alternative for Jones Creek may have the added benefit of further minimizing the potential for 

disturbance of wildlife that winter in the area. 

In order to protect grizzly bears if they emerge early in the spring, I decided that cross-country 

snowmobiling would be restricted starting April 1 in all portions of the Birch Creek South 

area. It is important to minimize disturbance of grizzly bears when they first emerge in the 

spring, especially if they emerge early. Since the entire area provides habitat for these bears, I 

have decided to restrict all motorized over-snow travel during the period of time when the 

bears are in their weakest condition. On a similar note, I decided to not allow cross-country 

snowmobiling until after December 1. This restriction date provides protection for animals 

throughout the rifle hunting season in the fall, and accommodates the generally recognized 

start of the winter recreation season. 

People that own cabins (recreation residences) in the Elk Creek area would have access with 

snowmobiles on the main access road if it is snow covered. The Elk Creek cabin owners 

would not be able to ride their snowmobiles on surrounding public lands. Cabin owners in the 

Sun Canyon area would have the opportunity to haul their snowmobiles to the trailhead below 

Gibson Dam and access the Beaver-Willow road in order to ride their snowmobiles. In the 

Benchmark area, my decision retains the right of cabin owners to access their property by 

riding snowmobiles on the snow covered portion of the road, and also provides them an 

opportunity to use snowmobiles to play on adjoining hillsides north of the main road. In Sun 

Canyon, cabin owners would be allowed to snowmobile on the main roads to their cabins 

during times when deep snow prevents vehicle access. 

In areas where a designated snowmobile route goes through an otherwise restricted area, my 

decision allows snowmobilers to maneuver within the standard right-of-way width of a 

roadway (33-feet on either side of the centerline) to make a U-turn or to avoid obstructions. 

This allowance gives recreationists an opportunity to maneuver depending upon snow 

conditions or obstacles, and provides guidance for law enforcement officers. 

Overall, my decision allows motorized over-snow travel on about 11% of the Birch Creek 

South area. This 11% is a significant reduction from the current 94% of the area open to 

snowmobiles, but is more in line with areas being used for motorized winter recreation. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 19 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Current and potential use levels by activity. Projected use levels did not vary by 

alternative. Use levels are a reflection of national and regional trends and are not likely to 

change because of a travel management decision. 

Opportunities for diverse winter recreation. Vehicle access to snow covered terrain 

during the winter months is relatively uncertain due to main roads being alternately blown 

clear or blown shut by snowdrifts. Only two plowed roads (N. Fk. Teton and Sun Canyon) 

provide reliable access for winter recreation in the Birch Creek South area. Other roads offer 

intermittent access based upon intensity of snowstorms, and can change quickly due to 

drifting and melting. Although not plowed beyond the Forest boundary, the S. Fk. Teton road 

also offers reasonably reliable access to snow covered terrain for skiing, snowshoeing, or 

snowmobiling. As shown in the analysis, the existing condition provides winter access to 4 

non-motorized routes for day-trip skiing and snowshoeing. My decision increases this to 16 

non-motorized routes being reasonably available for day-trips on cross-country skis or 

snowshoes. This is a substantial increase in the number of opportunities for quiet trips into 

the backcountry. In particular there is a substantial increase for non-motorized excursions in 

the Sun Canyon area, and in the Clary Coulee/Jones Creek/Massey Creek drainages of the 

North Fork Teton area. 

ROD Table 5. Miles of Trails / Roads Accessible* 

for Non-Motorized Winter Recreation within Birch Creek South area 

Non-Motorized 

Trails / Roads Accessed 

from Plowed Roads 

DECISION Alt 

1 

Alt 

2 

Alt 

3 

Alt 

4 

Alt 

5 

N. Fk. Teton Road 4 routes 

14.4 mi. 

1 route 

1.2 mi. 

2 routes 

6.2 mi. 

8 routes 

27.7 mi. 

2 routes 

6.2 mi. 

2 routes 

6.2 mi. 

Sun Canyon Road 5 routes 

22.1 mi. 

1 route 

1.0 mi. 

1 route 

1.0 mi. 

6 routes 

27.1 mi. 

2 routes 

10.0 mi. 

2 routes 

10.0 mi. 

S. Fk. Teton Road 7 routes 

25.6 mi. 

2 routes 

7.0 mi. 

7 routes 

24.8 mi. 

8 routes 

27.7 mi. 

8 routes 

27.7 mi. 

8 routes 

27.7 mi. 

Total 16 routes 

62.1 mi. 

4 routes 

9.2 mi 

10 routes 

32.0 mi. 

22 routes 

82.5 mi. 

12 routes 

43.9 mi. 

12 routes 

43.9 mi. 

(* Table includes approximate mileage of routes that are closed to motorized use during all or most of winter, 

and that are immediately accessible from plowed roads and S.Fk. Teton Rd. Trails or roads more than 5 miles 

distance from roads shown are not included. More miles are available for overnight cross-country skiers or 

snowshoers than are shown in this table.)

Reliable access to snow covered terrain for snowmobiling is also a problem during the winter 

due to the fact there are only two plowed roads. The analysis showed there are 19 routes 

available for snowmobiles to travel in the Birch Creek South area under the existing travel 

management plan. My decision would reduce this to 6 routes. This reduction is due to 

restricting snowmobiles in the Jones Creek area, and in the Sun Canyon area except on 

Beaver-Willow Road 233. Jones Creek was restricted to maintain solitude and wilderness 

character; Sun Canyon was restricted to minimize disturbance to cabin owners. Both areas 

represent marginal opportunities for snowmobiling. The remaining opportunity for 

snowmobiling on the Beaver-Willow road should accommodate the snowmobilers that visit 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 20 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Sun Canyon. There remains ample opportunity for motorized winter activity in the Teton 

area. 

ROD Table 6. Miles of Trails / Roads Accessible* 

for Motorized Winter Recreation within Birch Creek South area 

Motorized 

Trails/Roads Accessed 

from Plowed Roads 

DECISION Alt 1 

(miles) 

Alt 2 

(miles) 

Alt 3 

(miles) 

Alt 4 

(miles) 

Alt 5 

(miles) 

N.Fk. Teton Road 4 routes 

8.3 mi. 

7 routes 

25.5 mi. 

6 routes 

17.0 mi. 

2 routes 

4.3 mi. 

6 routes 

16.5 mi. 

6 routes 

16.5 mi. 

Sun Canyon Road 1 route 

5.0 mi. 

6 routes 

27.1 mi. 

6 routes 

27.1 mi. 

1 route 

1.0 mi. 

5 routes 

18.1 mi. 

5 routes 

18.1 mi. 

S. Fk. Teton Road 1 route 

2.1 mi. 

6 routes 

19.8 mi. 

1 route 

2.1 mi. 

0 routes 

0.0 mi. 

0 routes 

0.0 mi. 

0 routes 

0.0 mi. 

Total 6 routes 

15.4 mi. 

19 routes 

72.4 mi. 

13 routes 

46.2 mi. 

3 routes 

5.3 mi. 

11 routes 

34.6 mi. 

11 routes 

34.6 mi. 

(* Table includes approximate mileage of routes that are open to snowmobile use during all or most of winter, and that are immediately 

accessible from plowed roads and S. Fk. Teton Rd. 109. Trail or road miles more than 5 miles distance from roads shown are not included 

for ease of comparison between alternatives. More miles are available for snowmobilers than are shown in this table. Note that trails and 

roads open to snowmobile use may be more difficult to use than existing established snowmobile routes.)

Opportunities for disabled access. As stated in the analysis, about 16% of Montana’s 

population has some type of disability. It is important that outdoor recreation opportunities on 

public lands be available to them. At present there is only one handicapped accessible trail on 

the Ranger District located at Wood Lake. My decision is to proceed with construction of 

fully accessible trails as shown in the following list, as funding allows: 

ROD Table 7. Wheelchair Accessible Trails 

WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE 

TRAIL LOCATION LENGTH DESCRIPTION 

Mill Fall campground 0.1 mile Connect campground to waterfall. 

Elk Creek trailhead 0.3 mile Connect trailhead to Cataract Falls. 

West Fork campground 1.1 mile Connect rental cabin to junction with Trail 106 near 

wilderness boundary.

Wagner Basin trail/road 1.0 mile Downstream from Hannan Gulch bridge on north side 

of river. View mountain sheep. 

Hannan Gulch Interpretive Site 1.0 mile Upstream from Hannan Gulch bridge on north side of 

river to connect with Sun Canyon road. 

The analysis considered designating two roads for motorized access by disabled hunters only. 

Some members of the public, including representatives of people with disabilities, did not 

want special privileges granted to people with disabilities, while others supported this idea. 

Regional policy allows district rangers to provide disabled hunters access on some closed 

roads during hunting season under certain circumstances. Considering the limited number of 

roads and motorized trails on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District it is my decision to 

continue allowing yearlong motorized access, rather then a seasonal restriction with an 

exception for handicap access, on Hannan Gulch trail (6.8 miles) and on Green Gulch road 

(2.1 miles) for everyone. All hunters will have the opportunity to use ATVs to drive on these 

two routes during the hunting season, as well as drive an ATV on Cyanide Creek Trail 257 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 21 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

(1.2 miles). There are 85 miles of open motorized routes during the fall hunting season, but 

these three trails (totaling about 10 miles) are the only ones in the Birch Creek South area that 

would offer motorized hunting opportunities that disabled hunters are likely to use. Four 

motorcycle trails (totaling about 12 miles) also would offer motorized access during the 

hunting season, but it is unlikely that very many disabled people would utilize these routes. 

Cumulative effects of past closures on opportunities for motorized recreation. As stated 

in the FEIS, in the early 1960s there were no management restrictions on where motorized 

vehicles could be driven on the Rocky Mountain Front. But as the population of our country 

has grown, and as technology has allowed motorized vehicles to travel over more difficult 

terrain, it has become necessary to manage the use of motorized vehicles on National Forests. 

The 2001 TRI State OHV Decision reduced the opportunities to drive motorized vehicles off 

road and trail in the Northern Region of the Forest Service and BLM in those states. The 

Chief of the Forest Service identified unmanaged recreation as one of the four threats to our 

National Forests. The 2005 OHV rule directed each National Forest to designate which roads 

and trails are appropriate for motorized use. In addition, many private land owners and most 

state agencies prohibit OHV use on their lands. The result has been a reduction in the number 

of miles of roads and trails open to motorized use on National Forest system lands. Our 

challenge is to protect forest resources while allowing motorized uses. My decision will have 

a cumulative effect in reducing the total miles of roads and trails available to motorized travel. 

Opportunities for hiker-only trails. Providing hiker-only trails reflects a need to protect 

resources or to limit use in a heavily congested site. There are only 4 trails that warrant such 

protection. My decision is to impose yearlong travel restrictions on stock and bicycles on 

about 7 miles of trails as listed in Appendix A. The entire length of the trail to Our Lake, and 

the trail by Wood Lake are popular for hiking and are congested on weekends and other times 

throughout the season. Both of these trails warrant the added precaution of keeping stock and 

bicycles off to provide a safer and more enjoyable trip for hikers. The Mount Wright trail and 

Mill Falls Ridge trail are quite steep and difficult to negotiate. Both of these trails warrant the 

added precaution of keeping stock and bicycles off to protect the trail surface and to provide a 

safer trip for everyone. 

ROADLESS/WILDERNESS:

Effects on roadless characteristics. The analysis displayed the effects on the two 

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. Two of the 

following tables display miles of roads and trails in each of the IRAs, and two other tables 

display acreages open and restricted to snowmobiling. 

For the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA, my decision continues to allow motorized travel 

on about 14% of the roads and trails within the roadless area. This is a significant reduction 

from the current situation that allows motorized travel on about 60% of the roads and trails 

within the IRA. The change in travel management will increase the opportunity for solitude 

and the opportunity for a primitive recreation experience. My decision would place about 

82% of the IRA in a primitive or semi-primitive non-motorized ROS category. Under the 

existing situation, only about 58% of the IRA has a semi-primitive non-motorized setting. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 22 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

About 2 miles of undetermined road, and 12 miles of non-system trail would be adopted and 

managed as part of the designated transportation system within the IRA. Only about 4 miles 

of these adopted routes would be open to motorized travel, which is entirely offset by the 

decommissioning of about 6.2 miles of unneeded existing roads and trails. Overall, there 

would be an increase in opportunity for solitude and a primitive recreation experience during 

the summer recreation season. 

ROD Table 8. Miles of Roads and Trails In the Birch Creek South area 

Within Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan Inventoried Roadless Area 

BEAR-MARSHALLSCAPEGOAT-SWAN IRA DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2 

ALT. 

3 

ALT. 

4 

ALT. 

5 

Motorized Roads 6 mi. (2%) 18 13 3 12 12 

Motorized Trails 31 mi. (12%) 154 104 0 34 34

Subtotal -- motorized 37 mi. (14%) 172 117 3 46 46 

Non-Motorized Roads 0 mi. (0%) 0 2 10 0 0 

Non-Motorized Trails 236 mi. (86%) 117 158 260 228 228

Subtotal -- non-motorized 236 mi. (86%) 117 160 270 228 228 

 Subtotal – motorized 

 & non-motorized

273 mi. 

(100%)

289 277 273 274 274 

During the winter recreation season, my decision for the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan IRA 

continues to allow motorized over-snow travel on about 9% of the area. This is a significant 

reduction from the current situation that allows motorized over-snow travel on about 94% of 

the IRA. One route about 2 miles in length would continue to be designated as a snowmobile 

trail in the vicinity of the Teton snowmobile trailhead. 

ROD Table 9. Winter Travel Restrictions In the Birch Creek South area 

Within Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan Inventoried Roadless Area 

BEAR-MARSHALLSCAPEGOAT-SWAN IRA DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2 

ALT. 

3 

ALT. 

4 

ALT. 

5 

Acres open seasonally 

to snowmobiling. 

21,460 ac. 

(9%) 217,240 131,590 0 72,420 72,420 

Acres restricted yearlong 

to snowmobiling. 

208,910 ac. 

(91%) 13,130 98,780 230,370 157,950 157,950

Subtotal – IRA Acreage 230,370 ac. 

(100%) 230,370 230,370 230,370 230,370 230,370 

Miles of designated 

snowmobile trail. 2 mi. 2 2 0 2 0 

For the Sawtooth IRA, my decision continues to allow motorized travel on about 97% of the 

roads and trails within the roadless area. This is the same level of motorized access allowed in 

the IRA for the past 18 years (existing condition). My decision would not change the existing 

opportunity for solitude and a primitive recreation experience. No part of the IRA would be 

classified as primitive or semi-primitive non-motorized ROS category, which is the same as 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 23 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

the existing condition for the past 18 years. About 2 miles of undetermined road, and 5 miles 

of non-system trail would be adopted and managed as part of the designated transportation 

system within the IRA. About 5 miles of these adopted routes would be open to motorized 

travel, which is partially offset by the decommissioning of about 2 miles of unneeded existing 

roads and trails. Overall, there could be a decrease in opportunity for solitude and a primitive 

recreation experience during July-August-September. Since most of the routes are closed to 

motorized use from Oct. 15 through June 30, there would be a great opportunity for solitude 

from mid-October through the end of June. 

ROD Table 10. Miles of Roads and Trails In the Birch Creek South area 

Within Sawtooth Inventoried Roadless Area 

SAWTOOTH IRA DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2 

ALT. 

3 

ALT. 

4 

ALT. 

5 

Motorized Roads 4 mi. (14%) 5 2 3 3 3 

Motorized Trails 24 mi. (83%) 21 21 0 24 24

Subtotal -- motorized 28 mi. (97%) 26 23 3 27 27 

Non-Motorized Roads 0 mi. (0%) 0 0 1 0 0 

Non-Motorized Trails 1 mi. (3%) 4 1 25 1 1

Subtotal -- non-motorized 1 mi. (3%) 4 1 26 1 1 

 Subtotal – motorized 

 & non-motorized

29 mi. 

(100%) 

30 24 29 28 28 

During the winter recreation season, my decision for the Sawtooth IRA continues to allow 

motorized over-snow travel on about 10% of the area. This is a significant reduction from the 

current situation that allows motorized over-snow travel on 100% of the IRA. There would be 

a noticeable increase in opportunity for solitude and a primitive recreation experience from 

mid-October through June. 

ROD Table 11. Winter Travel Restrictions In the Birch Creek South area 

Within Sawtooth Inventoried Roadless Area 

SAWTOOTH IRA DECISION ALT. 

1

ALT. 

2

ALT. 

3

ALT. 

4 

ALT. 

5

Acres open seasonally to 

snowmobiling. 

1,470 ac. 

(10%) 15,040 15,040 0 15,040 15,040 

Acres restricted yearlong to 

snowmobiling. 

13,570 ac. 

(90%) 0 0 15,040 0 0 

Subtotal – IRA Acreage 15,040 ac. 

(100%) 15,040 15,040 15,040 15,040 15,040 

Miles of designated snowmobile 

trail. 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 24 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Consistency with adjacent BLM management of Outstanding Natural Areas. There are 

four “outstanding natural areas” adjacent to NFS lands in the Birch Creek South area. The 

BLM manages these ONAs, totaling 13,087 acres, to protect their wilderness character. 

Motorized use is not allowed within them. I specifically modified Alternative 4 by making 

Mt. Frazier-Chicken Coulee Trail 153 non-motorized in order to prevent inadvertent trespass 

into the Ear Mountain ONA by motorcycles. This makes management of Trail 153 the same 

on both BLM and NFS lands. My decision allows non-motorized travel only on all of the 

trails leading into and adjacent to the ONAs. Likewise, my decision restricts snowmobile 

travel on any NFS lands immediately adjacent to the ONAs. Therefore, my decision is fully 

compatible with management on the outstanding natural areas. 

Consistency with adjacent National Forest management. There is one area along the 

boundary of the Birch Creek South area that adjoins the Flathead National Forest, and two 

areas that adjoin the Helena National Forest. My decision in the headwaters of the West Fork 

Teton area is fully consistent with summer and winter management of travel on the Flathead 

National Forest The Flathead NF manages their side as Wilderness, and the Lewis and Clark 

NF side would be managed for non-motorized travel yearlong. 

Similarly, my decision in the Falls Creek area is fully consistent with summer and winter 

management of travel on the Helena National Forest. The Helena NF manages part of their 

side as Wilderness, and the remaining part for non-motorized recreation. Under my decision, 

the Lewis and Clark NF side would be managed yearlong for non-motorized recreation. 

Effects on Wilderness Study Areas. My decision increases the protection of the Deep 

Creek “further planning” wilderness study area. Although my decision continues to allow 

motorized travel on about 8 miles of road and trail within the Deep Creek area, this is a 

significant reduction from the current 51 miles of roads and trails open to motorized use. 

Hannan Gulch would be the only route open to motorized vehicles in the entire 42,730 acre 

area. About the first mile of Hannan Gulch would be open yearlong to all motorized wheeled 

vehicles to allow for dispersed camping. The remaining 7 miles of Hannan Gulch would be 

managed as a trail open to ATVs and motorcycles yearlong. 

ROD Table 12. Miles of Roads and Trails in the Birch Creek South area Within 

Deep Creek “Further Planning” Management Area N 

ROADS & TRAILS 

WITHIN 

MANAGEMENT AREA “N”

DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2 

ALT. 

3 

ALT. 

4 

ALT. 

5 

Motorized Roads 1 mi. 8 7 0 7 7 

Motorized Trails 7 mi. 43 38 0 1 1 

Subtotal -- motorized 8 mi. (13%) 51 45 0 8 8 

Non-Motorized Roads 0 mi. 0 0 6 0 0 

Non-Motorized Trails 55 mi. 18 18 55 55 55 

Subtotal -- non-motorized 55 mi. (87%) 18 18 61 55 55 

Total – motorized and 

 non-motorized 63 mi. 69 63 61 63 63 

Decommissioned Roads & Trails 

Assigned as Special Use Trails

0.6 mi. 

5.6 mi. 

0 

n/a 

0.6 

5.6 

2.3 

5.6 

0.6 

5.6 

0.6 

5.6 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 25 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

The entire Deep Creek area would be restricted yearlong to cross-country over snow travel by 

snowmobiles under this decision. This is a significant increase in the protection of the 

wilderness character of the area during the winter months. 

ROD Table 13. Winter Travel Restrictions in the Birch Creek South area Within 

Deep Creek “Further Planning” Management Area N 

WINTER TRAVEL 

WITHIN MANAGEMENT 

AREA “N”

DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2 

ALT. 

3 

ALT. 

4 

ALT. 

5 

Acres open seasonally to 

snowmobiling. 0 ac. 42,570 25,880 0 0 0 

Acres restricted yearlong to 

snowmobiling. 42,730 ac. 160 16,850 42,730 42,730 42,730 

Total – Deep Creek acreage 42,730 ac. 42,730 42,730 42,730 42,730 42,730 

Miles of designated 

snowmobile trail. 0 mi. 0 0 0 0 0 

Effects on Recommended Wilderness Areas. The Forest Plan recommended four areas 

totaling about 51,834 acres for inclusion in the wilderness preservation system. As shown in 

the following table, my decision would restrict all motorized wheeled vehicle travel within 

those four areas. My decision prohibits the use of bicycles on all 60 miles of trail within 

these recommended wilderness areas. I took this action because the area’s wilderness values 

would be best protected by not allowing incompatible uses to become established, and there is 

no discernible use of the areas by bicyclists at present. 

ROD Table 14. Miles of Roads and Trails Within 

Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness Management Areas Q 

ROADS & TRAILS 

BY FOREST PLAN 

MANAGEMENT AREA “Q”

DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2 

ALT. 

3 

ALT. 

4 

ALT. 

5 

Motorized Roads 0 mi. 0 0 0 0 0 

Motorized Trails 0 mi. 9 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal -- motorized 0 mi. 9 0 0 0 0 

Non-Motorized Roads 0 mi. 0 0 0 0 0 

Non-Motorized Trails 60 mi. 51 60 60 60 60 

Subtotal -- non-motorized 60 mi. 51 60 60 60 60 

Total – motorized and 

 non-motorized

60 mi. 60 60 60 60 60 

Decommissioned Roads & Trails 

Assigned as Special Use Trails

0 mi. 

0 mi. 

n/a 

n/a 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Likewise, my decision would restrict motorized over-snow travel yearlong within the four 

areas recommended for wilderness designation. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 26 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

ROD Table 15. Winter Travel Restrictions Within 

Forest Plan Recommended Wilderness Management Areas Q 

WINTER TRAVEL 

WITHIN MANAGEMENT 

AREA “Q”

DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2 

ALT. 

3 

ALT. 

4 

ALT. 

5 

Acres open seasonally to 

snowmobiling. 0 ac. 49,180 12,500 0 0 0 

Acres restricted yearlong to 

snowmobiling. 55,770 ac. 6,590 43,270 55,770 55,770 55,770 

Total acreage 55,770 ac. 55,770 55,770 55,770 55,770 55,770 

Miles of designated 

snowmobile trail. 0 mi. 0 0 0 0 0 

SOCIAL-ECONOMICS 

Effect on the “western heritage” social value of the Rocky Mountain Division. As stated 

in the Final EIS, all of the action alternatives maintain the features that are most valued in this 

premier landscape. My decision enhances these features by emphasizing the Rocky Mountain 

Ranger District as a primary place to enjoy hiking, horseback riding, pack trips, hunting, 

fishing, and wildlife viewing. The following table shows that 9 trailheads would provide 

direct non-motorized access to the Wilderness via 29 different routes, which are 11 more 

routes than under the existing travel plan. 

ROD Table 16. Trailheads Providing Non-Motorized Trail Access 

to Wilderness Trail System within Birch Creek South area 

TYPE OF 

RECREATIO N

ACTIVITY

DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2

ALT. 

3

ALT. 

4

ALT. 

5

Access to 

Wilderness 

Trail 

System 

Trip lengths 

of 

1 to 100+ 

miles

Trailhead:

Swift Reservoir (3) 

Blackleaf (2) 

N. Fork Teton (4) 

S. Fork Teton (4) 

Sun River (4) 

Benchmark (5) 

Smith Creek (2) 

Elk Creek (1) 

Dearborn River (4) 

9 trailheads 

provide nonmotorized access 

to Wilderness via 

29 routes. 

Trailhead:

Swift Reservoir (3) 

Blackleaf (1) 

N. Fork Teton (5) 

S. Fork Teton (1) 

Sun River (1) 

Benchmark (4) 

Smith Creek (1) 

Elk Creek (1) 

Dearborn River (1) 

9 trailheads 

provide nonmotorized access 

to Wilderness via 

18 routes. 

Trailhead:

Swift Reservoir (3) 

Blackleaf (1) 

N. Fork Teton (5) 

S. Fork Teton (1) 

Sun River (1) 

Benchmark (6) 

Smith Creek (2) 

Elk Creek (1) 

Dearborn River (4) 

9 trailheads 

provide nonmotorized access 

to Wilderness via 

24 routes. 

Trailhead:

Swift Reservoir (3) 

Blackleaf (2) 

N. Fork Teton (5) 

S. Fork Teton (5) 

Sun River (4) 

Benchmark (9) 

Smith Creek (3) 

Elk Creek (1) 

Dearborn River (4) 

9 trailheads 

provide nonmotorized access 

to Wilderness via 

36 routes. 

Trailhead:

Swift Reservoir (3) 

Blackleaf (1) 

N. Fork Teton (5) 

S. Fork Teton (5) 

Sun River (4) 

Benchmark (7) 

Smith Creek (3) 

Elk Creek (1) 

Dearborn River (4) 

9 trailheads provide 

non-motorized 

access to Wilderness 

via 

33 routes. 

Trailhead:

Swift Reservoir (3) 

Blackleaf (1) 

N. Fork Teton (5) 

S. Fork Teton (5) 

Sun River (4) 

Benchmark (7) 

Smith Creek (3) 

Elk Creek (1) 

Dearborn River (4) 

9 trailheads 

provide nonmotorized access 

to Wilderness via 

33 routes. 

 (The number of non-motorized trails from each trailhead are shown in parentheses.) 

Likewise, my decision provides about 264 miles of non-motorized trails outside the 

wilderness to enjoy horse, foot, and bicycle excursions. That is an increase of over 130 miles 

from the existing condition. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 27 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

ROD Table 17. Miles of Non-Motorized Trails outside Wilderness 

within Birch Creek South area 

AREA DECISION ALT. 

1 

ALT. 

2

ALT. 

3

ALT. 

4

ALT. 

5

Birch – Teton 104 mi. 43 mi. 42 mi. 105 mi. 90 mi. 90 mi. 

South Fork Sun 104 mi. 62 mi. 62 mi. 136 mi. 91 mi. 91 mi. 

Dearborn - Elk 56 mi. 29 mi. 59 mi. 63 mi. 59 mi. 59 mi. 

TOTAL 264 mi. 134 mi. 163 mi. 304 mi. 240 mi. 240 mi. 

Overall, my decision enhances the Rocky Mountain Ranger District as a starting point for 

lengthy excursions or short trips into the Wilderness. There are additional trails to use as 

access routes for horse and foot trips into the wilderness, and there are additional miles of 

trails outside the wilderness to enjoy non-motorized excursions into the backcountry. 

Social conflict between motorized and non-motorized activities. The vast majority of 

commentors discussed the need for quiet trails to reduce the conflicts between motorized and 

non-motorized users. Many favored Alternative 3 and felt motorized use should be reduced or 

eliminated on the RMF. Motorized users and non-motorized users have opposing view points 

on whether or not quality experiences are possible while sharing the same trail at the same 

time. Each person’s perspective determines if they enjoy their particular activity while 

sharing trails with others. My decision emphasizes non-motorized travel but includes some 

opportunities for recreationists to share use of trails. 

For the Birch Creek South area, my decision continues to allow motorized ATV and 

motorcycle travel on about 74 miles of trail, which is 22% of the non-wilderness trail system 

in the area. This is a sizeable reduction in opportunity for motorized recreation from the 

existing 209 miles (61%) of the trail system open currently. Motorized recreationists may feel 

they have lost opportunities to visit the backcountry. In my judgment, the backcountry is still 

open to all visitors by non-motorized modes of travel. The 74 miles of trail designated for 

motorized travel provides some high quality opportunities for visitors to ride motorcycles or 

ATVs in the backcountry. Although limited in number of miles, these motorized trails 

provide several loops, connect to popular dispersed camping sites, and access destination 

features such as Renshaw Lake. 

To reduce conflicts, it is important to direct visitors to the type of experience they are seeking, 

and to forewarn visitors as to other types of people they may encounter along the trail. Most 

of the conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreation could be eliminated by 

informing people at the trailhead what they may encounter on the trail. Information goes a 

long way in meeting people’s expectations, and preventing surprises. Potential conflicts could 

be reduced by applying mitigation measures listed in the FEIS, including: (1) trailhead 

signing about types of uses that one may encounter on multiple-use trails, and (2) recreational 

maps and information emphasizing areas for non-motorized activities, and motorized 

activities. 

Many commentors favored Alternative 3 (non-motorized Alternative), and some may be 

unhappy if any trails remain open to motorized travel. My decision responds to the interests 

expressed by many in having a predominately non-motorized area with access to 267 miles of 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 28 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

trail (79% of the non-wilderness system) to hike, ride horseback, or pedal a bicycle without 

risk of encountering a motor. Should safety conflicts arise on trails open to both pedal bikes 

and other uses, the District Ranger can determine an appropriate action to address the 

situation. There will be 93 miles of trail that are open only to hikers and stock travel (closed 

to bicycles); or people can use West Fork Teton, South Fork Teton, Gibson Lake, South Fork 

Sun, Straight Creek, Dearborn, or Falls Creek trailheads to access 463 miles of Wilderness 

trails (on just the Rocky Mountain Ranger District) where they can hike or ride horseback 

without risk of encountering a motorized vehicle or a pedal bike. 

Effects on grazing and Special Use permits. Main access roads to recreation residences 

would remain open yearlong to both motorized wheeled vehicles and snowmobiles. 

Permittees with cabins in the Benchmark and Sun Canyon areas would still have access to 

their cabins in the winter by snowmobiling on the main road. Cabin owners in the Sun 

Canyon area would not be able to use snowmobiles to play on the adjacent hillsides as in the 

past. Cabin owners in the Benchmark area would have access to snowmobile in a designated 

area on both sides of the main access road, in an area similar to the historic use areas. People 

renting the West Fork Cabin in the winter would still be able to snowmobile in the 

surrounding area. A local guest ranch would have to share the first 2 miles of trail with 

motorcycle riders when taking clients into the backcountry up the Middle Fork Teton River. 

If clients of the 7 guest ranch wanted to ride into the South Fork Teton River, they would have 

to share about 4 miles of trail with motorcycle riders. Grazing permittees, outfitters, and other 

special use permit holders in the Birch Creek South area would not be affected by my 

decision. 

Benefits to the local and State economy. The analysis in the Final EIS indicated that none 

of the action alternatives would affect the local or State economy to any noticeable extent. 

My decision to emphasize non-motorized modes of travel and restrict motorized travel is 

expected to have very little influence on the local economy. It is unlikely that there will be a 

noticeable change in visitor use levels as a result of this decision for the Birch Creek South 

area. There will continue to be a low level of visitors that bring motorcycles or ATVs to use 

during their stay. Visitors who bring horses or bicycles, or who come to hunt, fish or hike 

will have more opportunities for non-motorized recreation but their use levels are not 

expected to dramatically increase. Although snowmobiling opportunities in the Benchmark 

and Beaver-Willow areas are limited in acreage, the areas will provide enough opportunity for 

the existing demand. Snowmobilers that generally seek riding opportunities in the Sun 

Canyon area will still find the Beaver-Willow area open, and probably won’t shift their use to 

the Teton area. Any shifting of day-use traffic that may occur during the winter could reduce 

spending in Augusta and increase spending in the Choteau area. 

Effects on Blackfeet Reserved Rights – the Ceded Strip. This issue was analyzed in the 

FEIS, and is being discussed further with the Blackfeet Tribe. It is another reason for 

delaying a decision about travel management for the Badger-Two Medicine area. It will be an 

important part of my future decision for the Badger-Two Medicine. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 29 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

TRANSPORTATION:

Effect on management of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. As disclosed in 

the Final EIS, only about 7 miles of the CDNST is located within the Birch Creek South area. 

These 7 miles were analyzed for non-motorized travel under all alternatives, including the no 

action alternative. My decision is to continue the yearlong restrictions on motorized travel on 

all 7 miles of the CDNST outside of the Wilderness in the southern two-thirds of the Rocky 

Mountain Division. This is in full compliance with the 1985 Comprehensive Plan for the 

CDNST, and also in compliance with a July 3, 1997, policy memo from the Deputy Chief of 

the Forest Service emphasizing non-motorized recreation. 

Designation of some Roads for Mixed Traffic. As disclosed in the Final EIS, there are 

some roads that may be suitable for mixing ATV/motorcycle traffic with highway vehicles in 

order to provide more recreational opportunities. Likewise, there is a need to evaluate and 

properly sign some roads to warn motorists that they may encounter hikers, horseback riders, 

packstrings, and bicycle riders on the roadway. An engineering evaluation must be completed 

on each of these roads before a final determination can be made. Therefore, no decision will 

be made at this time as to which roads, if any, would be designated for mixed traffic. 

VEGETATION: 

Potential for spread of noxious weeds. The analysis showed no correlation between the 

mode of recreational travel and the spread of noxious weeds. From the analysis, horse and 

foot traffic are just as likely to spread weeds as motorized OHVs. It appears that the potential 

for spread of noxious weeds is closely connected to the amount of infestation at the trailhead 

and the amount of use on the trails leading from the trailhead. If there is a large infestation of 

weeds at the trailhead, and there are a lot of people using the trails from the trailhead, then 

there is a higher potential for weeds to be spread along the trail. Management of the type of 

travel allowed on the trail has no relationship to the extent of weed spread. Use levels, not 

type of use, has the greatest potential impact on the spread of weeds. Because of this finding 

the potential for the spread of noxious weeds was not an influence in my decision about 

modes of travel allowed on roads and trails. 

Effects on sensitive plant species. The analysis shows that none of the alternatives would 

affect sensitive plant species because this decision only applies to management of road and 

trail surfaces, an area where sensitive plant species do not grow. Off-road and off-trail travel 

is restricted by this decision, thereby eliminating the potential for motorized vehicles to affect 

sensitive plant populations. As stated in the Final EIS, the only potential to affect three 

known populations of sensitive plants is associated with decommissioning of two routes. It is 

important that the method of decommissioning these routes is closely coordinated with plant 

specialists to minimize effects on the identified sensitive species. For right now, 

decommissioning means the routes will not be designated for motorized use, and the routes 

will not be signed nor managed for any type of non-motorized use. A separate analysis would 

be made before any more ground disturbing activity (such as barricading, ripping, seeding, 

drainage dips, etc.) took place to decommission a road or trail. Mitigation measures described 

in the FEIS would be incorporated. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 30 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

WILDLIFE / FISH: 

Effects on Seasonally Important Habitats for Wildlife / Potential for Disturbance and 

Displacement – Wheeled Travel. My decision will reduce the mileage of open motorized 

routes within important seasonal habitats, will increase the acreage of spring habitats that are 

potentially secure from disturbance by motorized travel, and will increase the overall acreage 

of wildlife summer and fall habitat potentially secure from motorized travel in the Birch Creek 

South Area (see tables below). My decision will retain motorized travel in a few specific 

areas leaving some large areas free from motorized travel, unlike in the existing situation. 

This change in pattern is likely to benefit wildlife.

ROD Table 18. Miles of Open Motorized Routes Within Seasonal Habitats 

 for Birch Creek South area (Table III-87 in DEIS) 

Seasonal Habitat DECISION Alt. 

1 

Alt. 

2 

Alt. 

3 

Alt. 

4 

Alt. 

5 

Grizzly Bear Spring 111 184 128 85 106 106 

Grizzly Bear Denning 1 7 2 0 1 1 

Elk Calving 10 27 7 5 5 5 

Elk Winter 35 89 68 25 56 56 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing 2 19 12 0 11 11 

Bighorn Sheep Winter 42 71 57 32 46 46 

Mountain Goat Kidding 1 12 2 1 1 1 

Mountain Goat Yearlong 9 31 20 3 9 9 

ROD Table 19. Total Acreage and % Beyond 500m of Open Motorized Routes 

in key Spring Wildlife Habitats on NF Land within Birch Creek South area

Spring Wildlife Habitat DECISION Alt. 

1 

Alt. 

2 

Alt. 

3 

Alt. 

4 

Alt. 

5 

Grizzly Bear Spring 137,740* 

(87%)** 

125,310 

(79%) 

134,210 

(85%) 

141,880 

(89%) 

138,740 

(87%) 

138,740 

(87%) 

Elk Calving 51,560 

(93%) 

47,440 

(85%) 

52,640 

(95%) 

53,400 

(96%) 

53,400 

(96%) 

53,400 

(96%) 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing 34,690 

(98%) 

28,970 

(82%) 

30,630 

(86%) 

35,140 

(99%) 

31,560 

(89%) 

31,560 

(89%) 

Mountain Goat Kidding 102,790 

(99%) 

99,010 

(96%) 

101,850 

(98%) 

102,870 

(99%) 

102,810 

(99%) 

102,810 

(99%) 

 * Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 acres 

** Percents are the portion of seasonal habitat within the NF boundary in the Birch-South area that is outside a 

500m buffer. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 31 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

ROD Table 20. Percent of Bear Management Unit (BMU) Subunits Outside 500m 

Buffer in Summer and Fall – Simple Buffer Method; Birch Creek South Area 

BMU DECISION Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Subunit % of Subunit Outside 500m Buffer* 

Birch 99% 91% 94% 100% 94% 94% 

Teton 87% 76% 77% 91% 86% 86% 

Pine Butte 89% 59% 65% 91% 91% 

89% 

91% 

89% 

Deep Creek 89% 63% 66% 95% 95% 

89% 

95% 

89% 

Route Biggs 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Lick Rock 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

W Fk Beaver 91% 90% 89% 96% 91% 91% 

S Fk Willow 85% 81% 83% 91% 84% 84% 

Scapegoat 92% 92% 95% 97% 95% 95% 

Falls Creek 100% 72% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

 * Where 2 percentages are shown, figures for summer differ from those for fall. The first figure is summer, and 

the second figure is fall. 

The table above, although displaying results in terms of Bear Management Unit Subunits, 

serves as a means to estimate in general the amount of summer/fall wildlife habitat that would 

potentially be secure from impacts of motorized recreation. 

Whether the reduction in potential disturbance from motorized travel displayed in these 

analyses would result in any measurable impacts to wildlife populations in terms of survival 

or reproduction is impossible to determine. It is important to understand that non-motorized 

travel may also cause disturbance and/or displacement of wildlife. The potential impacts of 

non-motorized travel on wildlife have not been analyzed for this Decision, and are assumed to 

be similar across all alternatives. 

Effects on Seasonally Important Habitats for Wildlife / Potential for Disturbance and 

Displacement – Snowmobile Travel. My decision will dramatically reduce the acreage 

open to snowmobiles during identified seasons in key seasonal wildlife habitats as compared 

to the existing situation, as displayed in the table below. Results for Canada lynx are discussed 

in a separate section below. 

Under the decision less than one mile of designated snowmobile route will enter mapped 

grizzly bear denning habitat, and approximately 1 mile of designated snowmobile route will 

enter grizzly bear spring habitat in the Birch-South Area. This is the same as in the existing 

situation. Results of this analysis are displayed in the FEIS. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 32 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

ROD Table 21. Total Acreage and % of Seasonal Habitat Open to Snowmobiles 

for Birch Creek South Area (Table III-93 in DEIS) 

Spring Wildlife Habitat* DECISION Alt. 

1 

Alt. 

2 

Alt. 

3 

Alt. 

4 

Alt. 

5 

Grizzly Bear Denning 8,150** 

(3%)*** 

82,710 

(29%) 

51,300 

(18%) 

70 

(<<1%) 

27,340 

(9%) 

27,340 

(9%) 

Grizzly Bear Spring 8,420 

(5%) 

68,550 

(43%) 

38,070 

(24%) 

0 26,310 

(17%) 

26,310 

(17%) 

Elk Winter Range 9 

(<<1%) 

42,240 

(52%) 

33,730 

(57%) 

0 28,000 

(47%) 

28,000 

(47%) 

Bighorn Sheep Winter 

Range 

2,980 

(5%) 

48,340 

(73%) 

37,210 

(56%) 

0 31,000 

(47%) 

31,000 

(47%) 

Bighorn Sheep Lambing 1,230 

(3%) 

28,750 

(81%) 

18,140 

(51%) 

0 15,200 

(43%) 

15,200 

(43%) 

Mountain Goat Yearlong 11,350 

(5%) 

84,180 

(40%) 

48,730 

(23%) 

170 

(<1%) 

26,710 

(13%) 

26,710 

(13%) 

Wolverine Natal Denning 220 

(2%) 

2,580 

(23%) 

1,290 

(11%) 

0 640 

(6%) 

640 

(6%) 

 * Mountain goat kidding and elk calving ranges are not included because the dates of importance for those 

habitats begin May 1, when snowmobiling activity is generally minimal to nonexistent. 

 ** Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 acres. 

*** Percents are the portion of seasonal habitat within the NF boundary in the Birch-South area that is open to 

snowmobiles at least 25% of the season of concern. 

Effects on Wildlife Habitat Connectivity. Habitat connectivity, the term used to describe 

the maintenance of connections between seasonal habitats (east-west connectivity on the 

RMRD) and between larger areas with potentially distinct wildlife populations (north-south 

connectivity on the RMRD), was analyzed for Alternatives 1-5 in the FEIS. The analysis 

looked at the number and size of habitat ‘patches’, or areas >10 acres in size that were >500 

meters from an open motorized trail or road open during the summer season (the season 

during which the most roads and trails would be open to motors). In general, fewer, larger 

patches maintain connectivity more effectively than more, smaller patches. 

My decision was not numerically analyzed, but visual inspection shows that it will strongly 

resemble Alternative 4 in the size, location, and number of patches. Alternative 4 (as 

displayed in Table III-97 and Map 8 in the FEIS) would reduce the proportion of small 

patches and increase the proportion of large patches as compared to the existing situation. 

My decision, as in Alternatives 3-5 (see FEIS Maps 7-9), will allow motorized use in 

localized areas providing large areas in which no motorized trails will potentially impact eastwest movements of wildlife. North-south connectivity will be maintained as well, reinforced 

by the relatively large expanse of designated Wilderness along both sides of the Continental 

Divide west of the project area. 

Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species. Effects of Alternatives 1-5 on Canada 

lynx and grizzly bear were analyzed in the FEIS and in a Biological Assessment (BA) 

submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Impacts to grizzly bear that were 

analyzed in the FEIS are reviewed above in the sections on disturbance and displacement from 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 33 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

seasonal habitats. Additional analysis carried out for the BA is summarized below. The FEIS 

analysis for lynx parallels the analysis in the BA, and is summarized below. 

Consultation.

Effects of my decision on the four federally listed species occurring on the RMRD were 

analyzed in a BA and Supplement that were sent to the FWS for informal consultation on 

August 7, 2006 (Supplement sent on September 5, 2006). On September 18, 2006 the FWS 

concurred with the determinations in the BA and Supplement that the Decision will have “No 

Effect” on the Threatened Bald Eagle, and “May Affect, But is Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” the Threatened Gray Wolf, Canada Lynx, and Grizzly Bear. The FWS based its 

concurrence on the findings of the analysis in the BA as summarized below for each species. 

The decision analyzed for the BA differs very slightly from my final decision discussed in this 

document, through removal of wheeled and over-snow motorized travel in the Jones Creek 

area, and addition of over-snow motorized travel in the Benchmark area. The changes do not 

affect conclusions from the analysis for any of the 4 listed species. The change in mileage of 

wheeled travel will have a very small positive effect on the grizzly bear analysis for one 

Subunit compared to what was reported in the BA. The change will not result in an effect to 

grizzly bears that differs from that reported in the BA, and will not change the determination 

or the basis for concurrence by the FWS. FWS personnel indicated by telephone (1/30/07; see 

project file) that the described changes will not require new consultation. 

The change in over-snow areas will result in an increase of approximately 4,370 acres of area 

open to snowmobile travel within lynx habitat over that reported and analyzed in the BA. My 

decision still represents a significant reduction in acres of lynx habitat open to snowmobiles as 

compared to the existing situation (see below). Potential effects will not be different from 

those reported in the BA, and will not result in changes to the determination or the basis for 

concurrence by the FWS. FWS personnel indicated by telephone (1/30/07; see project file) 

that the described changes will not require new consultation. 

Gray Wolf

One wolf pack, known as the Red Shale Pack, is known to be established on the RMRD 

roughly seven miles west of the Travel Plan boundary in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. The 

project area does not include any known den or rendezvous sites that will be affected. My 

decision will not result in any impacts to the wolf prey base, and will not increase mortality 

risk to wolves. Because the decision covers a large area and is expected to be in place for a 

minimum of 10-15 years, however, impacts to individual wolves could potentially occur 

during the life of the plan. 

Grizzly Bear 

Motorized Access Management 

Potential impacts to grizzly bears were analyzed in the BA by looking at route density and 

core area as outlined in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) Taskforce Report on 

Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management and the Interim Motorized Access Management 

Direction (Interim Guidelines) for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE). 

Values from the Interim Guidelines for motorized route densities and for core area, based on 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 34 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

percent federal ownership of BMU Subunits, were applied as reference guidelines to the 

RMRD analysis. Only two Subunits in the Travel Plan area are above the percent federal 

ownership level (>75%) for which numeric guidelines for motorized route density and core 

area apply. The guideline for the remainder of the Subunits is no net increase in the percent of 

the Subunit at specified total and open motorized route densities, and no net decrease in the 

percent of the Subunit in core area. Specific numbers, definitions, and other analysis 

information can be found in the BA. 

My decision will reduce both total and open motorized route densities on National Forest 

lands in all Subunits, and will result in route densities within the reference guideline for the 

two Subunits that are >75% National Forest lands. Core area will be increased for all Subunits 

under the Decision, although it will remain slightly below the reference guideline for one 

Subunit with >75% National Forest land. When calculated by season, core area in that Subunit 

does not meet the guideline only during the fall season. The analysis shows that high-use nonmotorized trails, which are included along with motorized trails in core calculations, are the 

factor that limits this Subunit’s ability to meet the guideline value during the fall season. 

CEM

The east-side NCDE Cumulative Effects Model (CEM) for grizzly bears was run as another 

means of assessing potential impacts of the decision on grizzly bear habitat. The model 

assigns a value (Habitat Value, or HV) to grizzly bear habitat based on vegetation 

characteristics, and then decreases that value according to the amount and type of human 

activity occurring in it. The resulting value, called Habitat Effectiveness (HE), reflects the 

relative worth of a specific area (usually a BMU Subunit) as compared to other areas or as 

compared to the same area with different levels of human activity. CEM calculations are 

carried out separately for spring, summer, and fall. 

The impact of the decision as compared to the existing situation was measured by relative 

amount of change from HV to HE in each Subunit. The analysis showed that the decision 

either does not alter or decreases the amount by which HV is reduced by human activity, 

effectively maintaining or improving the value of grizzly bear habitat in all Subunits over all 

seasons. 

Canada Lynx

The USDA Forest Service Region 1 is a signatory to the Lynx Conservation Agreement 

(USFS #00-MU-11015600-013).). Signatories have agreed to follow specific 

recommendations and guidelines in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS; 

Reudiger et al. 2000) that includes mapping potential lynx habitat, and establishing Lynx 

Analysis Units (LAUs) as the standard unit at which analyses should occur. The LCAS guides 

land managers to “...allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes and 

snowmobile play areas by LAU unless the designation serves to consolidate unregulated use 

and improves lynx habitat” (Modifications of LCAS, August 2000 Edition- Clarifying 

Language; Memo to Deputy Regional Forester, August 28, 2003). 

The table below shows the mileage of designated over-snow routes (trails designated on maps 

or other official documentation as snowmobile trails or cross-country ski trails) and the miles 

of road known to be used by snowmobiles in lynx habitat by LAU for both the Existing 

Situation and the Proposed Plan. Because plowed roads also provide a compacted surface 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 35 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

during winter, the miles of plowed road within lynx habitat are also displayed below. There 

are no designated snowmobile play areas on the RMRD and none will be created by the 

decision. 

ROD Table 22. Miles of Designated Over-Snow Routes and Regularly Used Roads 

in Lynx Habitat, by LAU 

Miles of Designated 

Over-Snow Route 

Miles of Road 

Regularly Used by 

Snowmobiles 

LAU Miles of Plowed Road 

Name 

Existing DECISION Existing DECISION Existing DECISION

RM9 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.7 

RM12 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 

RM20 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 

RM23 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 

TOTAL 1.9 1.9 3.3 3.3 0.7 0.7 

There will be no change in the mileage of over-the-snow routes or the mileage of road 

regularly used by snowmobiles between the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan. 

The LCAS does not provide specific recommendations for dispersed over-the-snow 

recreation, but it recommends maintaining “... a landscape of interconnected blocks of 

foraging habitat where snowmobile, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, or other snow 

compacting activities are minimized or discouraged”. The table below displays the acreage 

and percent of lynx habitat in each LAU in the Birch-South area that is currently open to 

snowmobiles and that will be open under the Decision. This table differs from Table 15 in the 

BA, reflecting the aforementioned changes that were made after consultation had occurred. 

ROD Table 23. Acres Open to Snowmobiling in Lynx Habitat by LAU 

and Percent of Habitat in LAU Open to Snowmobiling 

Existing Condition 

(Alt. 1) DECISION 

LAU Name 

Acres Open Acres as Percent 

of Lynx Habitat in LAU Acres Open Acres as Percent 

of Lynx Habitat in LAU 

RM7 1817 19% 10 <<1% 

RM9 8704 99% 3766 43% 

RM11 2 <1% 0 -- 

RM12 5686 72% 892 11% 

RM14 2 <1% 0 -- 

RM15 7024 100% 0 -- 

RM16 4419 36% 0 -- 

RM18 12 <1% 0 -- 

RM19 4722 30% 0 -- 

RM20 13104 97% 692 5% 

RM21 965 5% 0 -- 

RM22 2402 24% 1 <1% 

RM23 10326 100% 6435 62% 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 36 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 37 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

Existing Condition 

(Alt. 1) DECISION 

LAU Name 

Acres Open Acres as Percent 

of Lynx Habitat in LAU Acres Open Acres as Percent 

of Lynx Habitat in LAU 

RM25 2709 99% 0 -- 

RM26 1987 42% 0 -- 

RM27 3564 100% 0 -- 

TOTAL 67,446 29% 11,797 5% 

My decision will remove snowmobiling entirely from lynx habitat in 10 of the 22 LAUs in the 

Birch-South area, and will reduce the acreage open to snowmobiles in the remaining LAUs 

substantially. Overall the decision will result in a reduction from 29% of lynx 

foraging/denning habitat open to snowmobiles under the existing situation to 5% of lynx 

foraging/denning habitat open to snowmobiles. It is important to note that under both 

situations a certain percentage of area open to snowmobiles is not, in fact, available to 

snowmobiles due to terrain, vegetation, and other factors. Nevertheless, the decision 

represents a large decrease in potential impacts to lynx from snowmobile travel. 

All other provisions of the LCAS are currently being met and will continue to be met under 

the decision. 

Bald Eagle

There are no known bald eagle nests and no suitable bald eagle nesting habitat on the RMRD. 

Some bald eagles may winter along the eastern portion of the project area, which is also 

periodically used by migrating individuals. My decision will have no effect on bald eagles or 

their habitat. 

Effects on Sensitive Species. Impacts to Sensitive Species are summarized in Table III-84A 

of the FEIS. Wolverine are the only Sensitive Species that received detailed analysis; the 

results are displayed in the FEIS and in Table III-84A showing potential impacts of 

snowmobiles on key wildlife habitats. Fisher have not been documented on the RMRD, but 

potential impacts to fisher will be similar to those described above and in the FEIS for grizzly 

bear, lynx, and elk. My decision will have no impact on the remaining sensitive species due 

to the nature of the decision being made, the scale at which their habitat requirements occur, 

or the location or type of the specific habitats used. 

Potential for sedimentation of fish habitat from existing roads and trails. Although none 

of the alternatives will significantly reduce the total miles of roads and trails within 100 feet of 

streams in the Birch Creek South analysis area, my decision will result in fewer stream 

crossings after unneeded routes are decommissioned. Additionally, the decrease in motorized 

travel on some routes is expected to reduce sediment delivery to perennial streams.

Effects on westslope cutthroat trout. The majority of westslope cutthroat trout habitat 

occurs in the Badger Two Medicine area and will not be affected by my decision. However, 

my decision is expected to reduce motorized use and associated effects on westslope cutthroat 

trout streams in the upper Teton drainage. 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

In 2000, the Lewis and Clark National Forest asked the public about the need to update and 

revise travel management across the entire Forest. A total of 211 people attended 10 open 

house meetings, and 90 letters were received from the public. In 2002, an Interdisciplinary 

Team of Forest Service employees began developing a proposed action for travel management 

on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. This proposed action was released to the public for 

comment beginning August 22, 2002. The 30-day comment period was extended to midDecember 2002. Meetings with the Blackfeet Tribal Business Council in October resulted in 

additional open house meetings being held in December, and the comment period was 

extended to late January 2003. Seven open house meetings were attended by 192 people 

during the scoping period. About 6,300 comments were received from the public as a result 

of this process. 

A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released for public comment beginning June 16, 

2005. Eight open house meetings were attended by 357 people. About 35,500 comments 

were received as a result of this process. A content analysis of public comments is contained 

in the project file. 

V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 

The Interdisciplinary Team developed five alternatives (including the No Action Alternative) 

that were studied in detail. The alternatives are site specific to road and trail location and vary 

primarily in the mode of travel restricted and season of travel restricted. 

No Action Alternative

ALTERNATIVE 1 

The No Action alternative provides a baseline for estimating the effects of other alternatives 

and therefore must be considered in detail (FSH 1909.15, part 14.1; 40 CFR 1502.14(d)). In 

cases such as this, where ongoing programs or management described within an existing plan 

continue as new plans are being developed, the No Action alternative means no change from 

current management direction (FSH 1909.15, part 14.1; CEQ’s 40 Most Asked Questions, 

section 65.12, question 3). The 1988 Travel Plan and the 2001 Three-State OHV Decision 

define travel management that is currently enforced on the ground. This is the existing 

condition, and it would be carried forward if there were no decision made to change travel 

management. Therefore it is appropriately considered the No Action alternative. Analysis of 

current travel management also fulfills a 1989 directive by the Regional Forester to complete 

additional analysis of the 1988 Travel Plan. 

Action Alternatives

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 38 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

In 2002, an interdisciplinary team (IDT) of resource specialists began developing a proposal 

for travel management on the RMRD, based on the need for change identified through an 

early scoping effort conducted in late 2000 and through detailed review of all roads and nonwilderness trails on the RMRD. The IDT considered seven criteria on which to assess the 

need for change on roads and trails throughout the non-wilderness portion of the RMRD: 

wildlife and fish habitat protection, conflict between uses, erosion control, safety, 

facility/resource protection, wilderness protection, and noxious weed spread. The IDT also 

identified and proposed corrections to travel management restrictions and ownership that were 

shown erroneously on the existing 1988 Travel Plan Map. 

Based on field visits and knowledge of on-site conditions acquired during 2002/2003, the IDT 

determined that some modifications were needed to correct errors in and improve the 

Proposed Action. Because the majority of these modifications were minor corrections or 

changes that did not alter the basic characteristics of the Proposed Action, the decision was 

made to carry the new, modified alternative forward for detailed analysis in place of the 

Proposed Action. This modified alternative is now referred to only as Alternative 2, in 

accordance with my direction as described above. The original “Proposed Action” that was 

provided to the public for comment is retained in the Alternatives Not Considered in Detail 

section of the DEIS, along with the rationale for not carrying it forward for detailed analysis. 

ALTERNATIVE 3

Alternative 3 is based largely on comments submitted by the public requesting that travel 

management on the RMRD emphasize traditional foot and horse travel and eliminate 

motorized travel on trails. 

ALTERNATIVE 4

Alternative 4 is based both on comments submitted by the public requesting greater separation 

of motorized and non-motorized travel, and on efforts by the IDT to identify areas in which to 

focus motorized loop opportunities and other areas in which to emphasize enhancement of 

other resources. In identifying areas in which to restrict motorized travel, the IDT attempted 

to choose areas in which more than one resource (e.g. wildlife habitat, wilderness/roadless 

characteristics, traditional travel, etc.) might benefit. In identifying areas in which to focus 

motorized loop opportunities, the IDT looked for areas in which the existing infrastructure 

could support a specific type of motorized use, in which loops existed or trail mileages were 

sufficient to create a reasonable motorized recreational opportunity, and in which other 

resources could be appropriately protected or impacts of motorized travel mitigated. The IDT 

also attempted to provide a mix of recreational opportunities throughout various geographic 

areas of the RMRD. 

ALTERNATIVE 5

Alternative 5 was developed by the IDT in response to consultation with the Blackfeet tribal 

government and to address cultural issues in the Badger-Two Medicine area. The National 

Forest and the Blackfeet Indian Reservation share a common boundary in this area, and the 

Blackfeet retain specific reserved rights in the area in accordance with the 1895-96 agreement 

with the U.S. Government. Much of the Badger-Two Medicine area has been determined 

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as a Traditional Cultural District. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 39 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 

A. Forest Plan Consistency 

The Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan provides integrated guidance for all natural 

resource management activities as required by the National Forest Management Act of 1976. 

The Forest Plan established goals and management direction for the entire Forest and 

identified standards for resource protection. The actions selected in this ROD comply with 

Forest Plan goals and direction. 

A. National Forest Management Act 

B. National Environmental Policy Act 

C. Endangered Species Act 

D. National Historic Preservation Act 

E. Additional Laws and Regulations 

VII. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations direct the decision-maker to identify the 

environmentally preferable alternative. The environmentally preferred alternative is not 

necessarily the alternative that will be implemented and it does not have to meet the 

underlying need of the project. It does, however, have to cause the least damage to the 

biological, and physical environment and best protect, preserve, and enhance historical 

cultural, and natural resources (Section 101 NEPA: 40 CFR 1505.2(b)). 

The Forest Service did not identify an environmentally preferred alternative in either the 

“Draft” or “Final” Environmental Impact Statement. On environmental issues like water 

quality and air quality the analysis does not indicate great differences between the alternatives. 

Based on the assumptions used in the analysis Alternative 3 would have slightly less negative 

impact on water and air quality. The analysis for effects on wildlife is more insightful. In 

reviewing ROD Tables 18, 19, 20, and 21 Alternative 3 has the least negative effects on 

wildlife habitat, and is the environmentally preferred alternative. My decision has almost 

identical impacts to the environmentally preferred alternative. 

VIII. APPEAL PROVISIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal must be 

submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in 

the Great Falls Tribune, the newspaper of record. It is the responsibility of the appellant to 

ensure their appeal is received in a timely manner. The publication date of the legal notice of 

the decision in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file 

an appeal. Appellants should not rely on date or timeframe information provided by any other 

source. 

Paper appeals must be submitted to: 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 40 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region 

ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer 

P.O. Box 7669 

Missoula, MT 59807 

Or 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region 

ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer 

200 East Broadway 

Missoula, MT 59802 

Office hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

Electronic appeals must be submitted to: appeals-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us 

In electronic appeals, the subject line should contain the name of the project being appealed. 

An automated response will confirm your electronic appeal has been received. Electronic 

appeals must be submitted in MS Word, Word Perfect, or Rich Text Format (RTF). 

It is the appellant's responsibility to provide sufficient project- or activity-specific evidence and rationale, 

focusing on the decision, to show why my decision should be reversed. The appeal must be filed with the 

Appeal Deciding Officer in writing. At a minimum, the appeal must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 

215.14, and include the following information: 

• The appellant’s name and address, with a telephone number, if available; 

• A signature, or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic 

mail may be filed with the appeal); 

• When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant and verification of 

the identity of the lead appellant upon request; 

• The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the 

Responsible Official, and the date of the decision; 

• The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal under either 

36 CFR 215 or 36 CFR 251, subpart C; 

• Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes; 

• Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the 

disagreement; 

• Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decision failed to consider the substantive 

comments; and 

• How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy 

The decisions identified in this ROD shall be implemented as soon as practicable following 

opportunity for review and appeal. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 41 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

IX. PLANNING RECORDS/CONTACT PERSON

The planning records contain detailed information and data used in preparation of the Rocky 

Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan EIS and in selecting Alternative 4 with 

modifications for implementation. 

Documents are available at: 

Lewis and Clark National Forest 

1101 15th Street North, Box 869 

Great Falls, MT 59403 

(406) 791-7700 

For additional information concerning this decision please contact Dick Schwecke, ID Team 

Leader, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, Montana, (406) 791-7700. 

________________________________ ______________________________ 

LESLEY W. THOMPSON Date 

Forest Supervisor 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 42 Lewis and Clark National Forest 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – Record of Decision 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 43 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation measures as described in the FEIS for this project will be implemented to 

minimize, reduce, rectify, avoid, eliminate, and/or compensate the potential impacts to 

resources identified in Chapter III (40 CFR 1508.20). 

Appendices 

Appendix A Trails for Hiking Travel Only 

Appendix B Trails for Hiking and Stock Travel 

Appendix C Trails and Roads for Hiking, Stock, and Bicycle Travel 

Appendix D Trails and Roads for Motorcycle (single-track) Travel 

Appendix E Trails and Roads for ATV (double-track) Travel 

Appendix F Roads for Seasonal Travel with Passenger Vehicles 

Appendix G Roads for Yearlong Travel with Passenger Vehicles 

Appendix H Yearlong Access Roads Not Changed or Included in ROD 

Appendix I Disposition of “Undetermined” Routes 

Appendix J Decommissioned Trails and Roads

Appendix K Biological Assessment** 

**Appendix K includes a copy of the Biological Assessment 

(BA) submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

subsequent correspondence. 

A Biological Evaluation (BE) was completed as part of the 

analysis of alternatives, and is documented and displayed in 

both the FEIS and Rationale for the Decision. 

 
Restricted

4/1-12/1

Restricted

4/1-12/1

Note:

Travel Planning in the

Badger Two Medicine

Area will be made in a

separate decision

Swift Dam Road

Sun Canyon Road

Teton Canyon Road

Benchmark Road

Blackleaf Canyon Road

Dearborn Road

Smith Creek Road

Elk Cree k

Road

202

110

101

206

107

212

131

203

108

128

243

201

126

111

267

153

223 168

104

174

165

105

261

117

103

220

204

150

209

265

152 121

251

109

229

222

225

116

137

127

161

175

151

130

205

252

166

106

177

118

219

157

122

256

218

114

271

124

254

145

172

231

123

221

132

249

228

171

216

226

147

241

148

232

162

129

208

275 242

268

211

247

215

227

244

191

138

262

167

155

250

139

266

182

214

270

207

224

235

245

143

258

246

276

187

142

259

217

269

248

154

198

135

234

125

146

238

188

189

239

213

233

133

113

200

163

272

274

240

192

253

184

279

156

199

257

2005

261.1

201.1

211.1

147

204

229

232

235

233

109

144

196

BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS

SCAPEGOAT WILDERNESS

BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS

Gibson Reservoir

Swift Reservoir

Travel Management for other Jurisdictions is

not displayed on this map. Please refer to

regulations for the appropriate Agency, Forest

or other Jurisdiction for more information.

Winter Area Restrictions

0 5 10 20

Miles

Legend

Restricted Yearlong-Wilderness

Road-no restrictions to snowmobiles

Road-restricted to snowmobiles 4/1-12/1

Snowmobile Trail-follows Area Restriction

Snowmobile Trail-No Restrictions

X-C Ski Trail

Snowmobile Area Restrictions

Restricted Yearlong

Restricted Seasonally

Restricted - Ski Area Permit

Private Land

All roads & trails displayed on this map follow the area

restrictions for winter travel unless otherwise noted.

Roads open to snowmobile use include the road and a

33' right-of-way on each side from center line.

Note: Montana State Law prohibits the operation of

snowmobiles on plowed roads open to wheeled vehicle

traffic.

Havre

Helena

Choteau

Bozeman

Missoula

Browning

Billings

Kalispell

Great Falls

/ Vicinity Map

Disclaimer:

The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed

from sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, incomplete while being created or

revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The

Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS products without notification. For more information contact:

Lewis & Clark National Forest

1101 15 Street N, Box 869

Great Falls, Montana 59403

406-791-7700

np

np

np

np

np

np

np

np

np

np

np

np

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8 8

8

8

8

Lolo National

Forest

Helena

National Forest

Glacier National

Park

Flathead National

Forest

Public motorized

use prohibited within

Ski Area boundary

To Choteau

To

Augusta

J

J

Note:

Travel Planning in the

Badger Two Medicine

Area will be made in a

separate decision

BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS

SCAPEGOAT WILDERNESS

BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS

Teton

Pass

Badger

West Fork

Green Fork

Rock Creek

Gates Park

Cabin Creek

Wrong Creek

Willow Creek

Indian Point

Hannan Gulch

Welcome Creek

Pretty Prairie

Ear Mountain GS

Webb Lake Cabin

Carmichael Cabin

Fish & Game Cabin

E

B2

R

A3

J

F

B

A

E2 A4

N

A

A

N

A

A

B2

A4

A

R

A

A4

B

A

A

A

A

B2 B

R

N

A4

E2

A

A4

A

B2

B2

N

A4

A

A

B2

A

B2

A

A

B2

A

A

A3

A

A

A4

A

A

R

B2

A

A4

A

A

N

N

A4

A

N

A

A4

A4

A

A4

A4

A4

A

R

N

A4

A

A

A4

A

A

E2

A

B

A

B2

A

A

A4

F

B

A

A

A

A

A4

A

A

A

A

A

A4

R

A4

Elko CG

Bean Lake CG

Wood Lake CG

Benchmark CG

West Fork CG

South Fork CG

Mill Falls CG

Cave Mountain CG

Mortimer Gulch CG

Swift Dam Road

Sun Canyon Road

Benchmark Road

Teton Canyon Road

Blackleaf Canyon Road

Smith Creek Road

Dearborn Road

Elk Creek

Ro

ad

202

110

206

107

212

131

203

108

128

243

201

126

111

267

153

223 168

174

165

105

261

117

220

204

150

209

265

152

251

109

229

222

225

116

127

106

161

175

151

130

215

205

252

166

177

219

157

256

218

114

271

124

254

231

123

210

221

132

249

228

171

216

232

226

208

241

162

129

275

242

268

211

247

227

244

191

262

167

155

250

276

266

182

214

207

224

235

245

143

194

258

270

246

160

187

259

217

269

248

154

189

198

135

234

125

112

240

238

188

239

213

233

184

163

272

274

192

253

199

257

164

176

158

197

211.1

268.1

204

232

229

Elk Cr

Su n R

Birch Cr

Smit h Cr

Badger Cr

Rock Cr

Wi llow Cr

Sheep Cr

Muddy Cr

Straight Cr

Ford Cr

Moose Cr

S

Fk Sun R

Dearborn R

S Fk Willow Cr

Blindhorse Cr

Bear Cr

N

F k Teton R

Deep

Cr

N Fk Sun R

Lange Cr

S Badger Cr

S F k Teton R

S Fk Deep Cr

R ay Cr

N Fk Whitetail Cr

Wood Cr

N Fk Deep Cr

Open Cr

N Badger Cr

Goat Cr

Wrong

Cr

S Fk Birch Cr

Blackleaf Cr

Blubber Cr

B gi gs Cr

Lee Cr

Little Badge r Cr

Gates Cr

Scoffin Cr

Cabin Cr

N Fk Birch Cr

S Fk White tail Cr

Whitetail Cr

Prairie Cr

S F k Two Medicine R

Green Fk

Ellis Cr

Jones Cr

Cir cle Cr

Hannan Gulch

Deer Cr

Lick Cr

Beaver Cr

Cow Cr

Cutrock Cr

Kip Cr

Falls Cr

N Fk Willow Cr

Home Gulch

S Fk Dupuyer Cr

Route Cr

Phone Cr

Limestone Cr

Grouse Cr

Summit Cr

Lonesome CR

Bruce Cr

Fool Cr

Pine Cr

Bridge Cr

Elbow Cr

Fairview Cr

Hoadley Cr

H all Cr

Lo st F k

Cuniff Cr

Loaf Cr

Headquarters Cr

Battle Cr

E Fk Falls Cr

Waldron Cr

Miners Fk

N F k Ford Cr

Pike Cr

Arsenic Cr

Crown Cr

Ahorn Cr

Camp Cr

Coonsa Cr

M

Fk Birch Cr Muskrat Cr

B lind Fk

Reef Cr

Wapiti Cr

In dian Cr

Nineteen Cr

Alces Cr

Mortimer Gulch

M y Cr

Small Cr

S Fk Lick Cr

Haywood

Cr

Rival Cr

Dry Fk

Sulfur Cr

Blin d Cr

Billie Cr

S Fk Open Cr

Looko ut Cr

Red Butte Cr

M Fk Dupuyer Cr

Circus Cr

R ei rdon Gulch

Miners Cr

Lost Cabin Cr

Furman Cr

Fie ld Cr

W Fk of S Fk Sun R

Windmill Cr

McDonald Cr

Star Cr

South

Cr

Cave Cr

Blowout Cr

N Fk Glenn Cr

Happy Cr

E Fk Ahorn Cr

Pool Cr

N Fk Dupuyer Cr

Rain Cr

Nanny Cr

Ho xsey Cr

Mule Cr

L mi e Gu cl h

Red Cr

Sidney Cr

Baldy Bear Cr

Bear Gulch

Bull Cr

Lake Cr

Seven-up Cr

P int o Cr

Tubby Cr

Frazier Cr

Grizzly

Cr

Wright Cr

Hungry Man Cr

M

Fk Falls Cr

Edward s Cr

Ki llem Horse Cr

S

Fk S

Fk Teton R

Milky Stream

N Fk Lick Cr

Spruce Cr

No Grass Cr

Lone Pine Cr

Little Willow

Cr

Park Cr

Bur ned C r

N eal Cr

Pinky Cr

Bald Bear Cr

Cataract Cr

Post Cr

Black Bear Cr

Freezeou t Cr

Tow nsend Cr

French Gulch

White Bear Cr

Lo st Horse Cr

Upper Twin Cr

Canyon Cr

Stovepipe Cr

No Name Gulch

Ki llem Quick Cr

Dupuyer Cr

Spi ke Cr

Green T im ber Gul ch

No Business Cr

Punch Cr

Wrangle Cr

Horse Cr

Porcupine Cr

Hoy Gulch

Whitewater Cr

Steep Cr

Skull Gulch

Goofy Gulch

Lower Twin Cr

Washout Cr

Mowitch Basin

Bennie Cr

Trapper Gulch

E Fk Blacktail Cr

Welcome Cr

E lbow Cr

Whitetail Cr

Lick Cr

Deep Cr

Willow Cr

N Fk Willow Cr

Bear Cr

Rocky Mountain Ranger District

Lewis and Clark National Forest

Legend

General Color Categories

Road - No Restrictions

Road - Seasonal Restrictions

Road - Yearlong Restrictions

Trail - Open to ATV +

Trail - Open to Motorcycle +

Trail - Nonmotorized

Trail - Pedestrian travel only

Trail - Nonmotorized & no Bicycles

Trail - No perfected easement

} } } Decommission Route

Route Type

Adjacent Trails-other Jurisdiction

Public Roads

Roads

Trails

Adjacent Ownership

BLM

Bureau of Reclamation

National Park Service

Other Federal

Private Land

Private Land Trust

Reservation Land

State Land

Water

Adjacent National Forests

Wilderness on Lewis & Clark NF

np Campgrounds

0 5 10 20

Miles

*Note: Table above does not reflect any mileages within the Badger Two Medicine area

Data Compiled: February 2007

Birch Creek South

Travel Management Plan

Record of Decision

Travel

Management

Code

Restricted to:

Road

Vehicles

Restricted to:

All-Terrain

Vehicles

Restricted to:

Trail

Bikes

Restricted to:

Pack and

Stock

Restricted to:

Bicycles

Approximate

Miles of Roads

& Trails

Comments

Note: see winter area restrictions for snowmobile restrictions

A Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

167 Closed yearlong to all types of wheeled motorized

vehicles.

A2 Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

No

restrictions

Closed

Yearlong

463 Trails within Wilderness –closed yearlong to all

forms of motorized and mechanized. (not labeled)

A3 Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

7 Open only to pedestrian foot travel, closed

yearlong to motorized, mechanized and stock.

A4 Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

No

restrictions

Closed

Yearlong

93 Closed yearlong to all types of wheeled motorized

and bicycle travel. (Game carts allowed)

B Closed

Yearlong

No restrictions No

restrictions

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

15 Closed yearlong to road vehicles.

B2 No

restrictions

No restrictions No

restrictions

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

70 No restrictions yearlong to motorized, mechanized

or nonmotorized travel.

E Closed

10/15-12/1

Closed

10/15-12/1

Closed

10/15-12/1

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

12 Seasonal restrictions to all types of wheeled

motorized vehicles.

E2 Closed

Yearlong

Closed

10/15-12/1

Closed

10/15-12/1

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

6 Same as E code, except also closed yearlong to

road vehicles.

F Closed

10/15-6/30

Closed

10/15-6/30

Closed

10/15-6/30

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

3 Seasonal restrictions to all types of wheeled

motorized vehicles.

J Closed

Yearlong

Closed

10/15-6/30

Closed

10/15-6/30

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

3 Closed yearlong to road vehicles, seasonal

restrictions to other wheeled motorized vehicles.

N Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

Closed

10/15-6/30

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

34 Closed yearlong to road vehicles and ATVs,

seasonal restrictions to other wheeled motorized

vehicles.

R Closed

Yearlong

Closed

Yearlong

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

12 Closed yearlong to road vehicles and ATVs.

Z Seasonal

Closures

Seasonal

Closures

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

No

restrictions

3 Closure dates by administrative option, related to

weather or potential for resource damage.
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix A 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 44 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

APPENDIX A 

“HIKING ONLY” TRAILS

10/01/2007 

TRAILS RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO TRAVEL BY 

BICYCLES, STOCK AND ALL TYPES OF MOTORIZED 

WHEELED VEHICLES 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code A3 in 

FEIS) are trails that would be restricted yearlong to travel by bicycles, stock, and all types of 

wheeled motorized vehicles. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

160 Mt Wright Hiker Birch Teton 3.06 

184 Our Lake Birch Teton 2.83 

263 Wood Lake Hiker South Fk Sun 0.65 

utrl72* Mill Falls Ridge Birch Teton 0.88 

TOTAL MILEAGE 7.42 miles

* Undetermined (non-system) route to be adopted and managed as a system trail. 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix B 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 45 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

APPENDIX B 

HIKING and STOCK ONLY TRAILS

10/01/2007 

TRAILS RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO TRAVEL BY 

BICYCLES AND MOTORIZED WHEELED VEHICLES 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code A4 in 

FEIS) are trails that would be restricted yearlong to travel by bicycles and all types of 

motorized wheeled vehicles. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

108 Route Cr Pass Birch Teton 4.72 

114 West Fk Teton Birch Teton 5.14 

117 Washboard Reef Birch Teton 2.92 

157 Nesbit - Olney Cr Birch Teton 2.08 

165 Headquarters Cr Birch Teton 3.84 

201 North Fk Sun South Fk Sun 7.80 

201.1 Beaver-Mortimer Connector South Fk Sun 1.50 

202 South Fk Sun South Fk Sun 7.60 

204 Fairview Cr South Fk Sun 4.39 

206 Dearborn River Dearborn Elk 5.26 

208 Arsenic Cr South Fk Sun 3.92 

212 Straight Cr South Fk Sun 2.92 

213 Patrol Mtn LO South Fk Sun 3.36 

229 Falls Cr Dearborn Elk 8.53 

230 S Fk Sun - 202 Access South Fk Sun 0.38 

241 Windfall Cr South Fk Sun 1.35 

242 Bighead Cr South Fk Sun 4.38 

243 Lange Cr South Fk Sun 11.50 

255 South Fk Sun Cutoff South Fk Sun 0.04 

255.1 S Fk Sun TH Connector South Fk Sun 0.28 

256 Benchmark Cr South Fk Sun 5.90 

266 Middle Fk Falls Cr Dearborn Elk 3.51 

276 Deer Cr South Fk Sun 0.58 

utrl40* North Fk Sun Alt South Fk Sun 0.52 

Kencks** Kencks Cabin Access South Fk Sun 0.58 

TOTAL MILEAGE 92.99 miles

 * Undetermined (non-system) route to be adopted and managed as a system trail. 

** Special use road converted to and managed as a system trail. 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix C 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 46 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

APPENDIX C 

HIKING, STOCK, AND BICYCLE TRAILS

 10/01/2007 

TRAILS RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO TRAVEL BY 

ALL TYPES OF MOTORIZED WHEELED VEHICLES 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code A in 

FEIS) are trails that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all types of motorized wheeled 

vehicles. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

106 Blackleaf Birch Teton 2.07 

107 North Fk Teton Birch Teton 5.27 

108002* ns South Fk Sun 0.96 

112 South Fk Dupuyer Birch Teton 0.51 

113 Indian Head Rock Birch Teton 1.32 

114 West Fk Teton Birch Teton 0.42 

124 North Fk Dupuyer Birch Teton 1.03 

126 Rierdon Gulch Birch Teton 12.35 

127 green gulch Birch Teton 6.35 

128 Deep Cr-Biggs Cr Birch Teton 6.83 

135 North Fk Deep Cr Birch Teton 2.04 

153 MT Frazier-Chicken Coulee Birch Teton 12.66 

155 Jones Cr Birch Teton 3.17 

156 West Fk Jones Cr Birch Teton 1.01 

168 South Fk Teton Birch Teton 11.41 

177 Clary Coulee Birch Teton 5.27 

191 Cow Cr Birch Teton 3.73 

 cow creek Birch Teton 0.18 

192 Muddy Cr Birch Teton 1.27 

197 Wagner Basin South Fk Sun 0.44 

201.2* Carrols Access South Fk Sun 0.21 

201.3 Mortimer Spur 3 South Fk Sun 0.23 

201.4 Mortimer Spur 4 South Fk Sun 0.14 

204 Fairview Cr South Fk Sun 0.96 

204.1 Fairview Spur South Fk Sun 0.16 

205 Elk Pass Dearborn Elk 5.04 

210 Beaver Cr South Fk Sun 4.75 

214 Jakie Cr Dearborn Elk 3.38 

215 Smith Cr Dearborn Elk 6.45 

219 East Fk Falls Cr Dearborn Elk 8.69 

220 Cabin Cr South Fk Sun 3.71 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix C 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 47 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

223 Blacktail Cr South Fk Sun 9.86 

229 Falls Cr Dearborn Elk 2.23 

233 Sawmill Cr Dearborn Elk 1.38 

237 Cataract Falls Dearborn Elk 0.08 

238 Moudess Cr Dearborn Elk 1.45 

239 Steamboat LO Dearborn Elk 1.52 

244 Petty Ford Cr Dearborn Elk 1.19 

245 Weasel Creek Dearborn Elk 3.51 

251 Big George Gulch South Fk Sun 6.93 

252 Mortimer Gulch South Fk Sun 5.77 

252.1 Mortimer NFK Connector South Fk Sun 0.04 

255 South Fk Sun Cutoff South Fk Sun 0.58 

255.1 S Fk Sun TH Connector South Fk Sun 0.45 

259 Mortimer Pass South Fk Sun 1.99 

264 Benchmark Corral Spur South Fk Sun 0.56 

264.1 Benchmark Cabin Spur South Fk Sun 0.29 

269 North Fk Beaver - Leavitt South Fk Sun 2.14 

8988 cow creek Birch Teton 0.49 

8989 south fork dupuyer Birch Teton 1.02 

sutrl71* Ford ATV spur South Fk Sun 1.45 

utrl45* home gulch ns South Fk Sun 1.41 

utrl58* Falls Area ns Dearborn Elk 0.89 

utrl59* Falls Area ns Dearborn Elk 2.72 

utrl62* alt114 Birch Teton 0.10 

utrl65* Wood Creek Snotel South Fk Sun 1.07 

utrl70* Ford Basin ATV South Fk Sun 2.62 

TOTAL MILEAGE 163.75 miles

* Undetermined (non-system) route to be adopted and managed as a system trail.
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix C 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 48 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

HIKING, STOCK, AND BICYCLE ROADS

ROADS RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO TRAVEL BY 

ALL TYPES OF MOTORIZED WHEELED VEHICLES 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code A in 

FEIS) are roads that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all types of motorized wheeled 

vehicles. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

108F gravel pit South Fk Sun 0.06 

233003* Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.09 

233009* Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.37 

3308 green gulch west Birch Teton 1.35 

9167004* home gulch ns South Fk Sun 0.06 

9200A benchmark fs station South Fk Sun 0.22 

9206001* Airstrip Service Road South Fk Sun 0.22 

 * Airstrip/CG Access South Fk Sun 0.40 

9206004* Pilots CG Admin Road South Fk Sun 0.07 

9206005* airstrip creek access South Fk Sun 0.01 

TOTAL MILEAGE 2.85 miles

* Undetermined (non-system) route to be adopted and managed as a system trail. 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix D 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National 49 Forest 

APPENDIX D 

MOTORCYCLE (Single Track) TRAILS

10/01/2007 

TRAILS UNRESTRICTED TO TRAVEL BY MOTORCYCLES 

AND RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO TRAVEL BY ATVs 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code R in 

FEIS) are trails that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all types of motorized wheeled 

vehicles that do not meet the definition of a motorcycle. These trails would be open 

yearlong to travel by motorcycles. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

108 Route Cr Pass Birch Teton 1.66 

154 Lonesome Ridge Birch Teton 2.11 

232 Petty Crown Dearborn Elk 2.91 

244 Petty Ford Cr South Fk Sun 1.87 

253 Bailey Basin Dearborn Elk 1.16 

270 Crown Mtn South Fk Sun 2.60 

270.1 Petty Crown Connector South Fk Sun 0.19 

TOTAL MILEAGE 12.50 miles

The junction of Trails 270 and 232 would be modified by relocating about 0.2 miles of Trail 

270 onto a new location, to divert motorcycle traffic away from the Wilderness boundary. 

 

TRAILS RESTRICTED SEASONALLY TO MOTORCYCLES, 

and RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO TRAVEL BY ATVs 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code N in 

FEIS) are trails that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all motorized wheeled vehicles 

not meeting the definition of a motorcycle. They would be seasonally restricted to travel by 

motorcycles from October 15 to June 30 annually. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

204 Fairview Cr South Fk Sun 5.51 

236 Renshaw Lake South Fk Sun 0.19 

243 Lange Cr South Fk Sun 1.29 

256 Benchmark Cr South Fk Sun 1.03 

258 Ford Basin South Fk Sun 4.43 

267 Home Gulch-Lime Gulch South Fk Sun 10.25 

271 Norwegian Gulch South Fk Sun 4.47 

275 Cut Reef Cr South Fk Sun 3.73 

277 Red Lake South Fk Sun 1.09 

utrl50* Ford Basin Spur South Fk Sun 0.81 

TOTAL MILEAGE 32.81 miles

* Undetermined (non-system) trail to be adopted and managed as a system trail. 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix D 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National 50 Forest 

ROADS RESTRICTED SEASONALLY TO MOTORCYCLES, 

and RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO TRAVEL BY ATVs, 

and RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO FULL-SIZE VEHICLES 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code N in 

FEIS) are roads that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all motorized wheeled vehicles 

not meeting the definition of a motorcycle. They would be seasonally restricted to travel by 

motorcycles from October 15 to June 30 annually. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

235018 dual use road South Fk Sun 0.58 

235-C 14 mile sale South Fk Sun 0.24 

TOTAL MILEAGE 0.81 miles
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix E 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National 51 Forest 

APPENDIX E 

ATV (Double Track) TRAILS

10/01/2007 

TRAILS UNRESTRICTED TO TRAVEL BY ATVs 

AND RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO FULL SIZE VEHICLES 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code B in 

FEIS) are trails that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all types of motorized wheeled 

vehicles that do not meet the definition of an ATV or motorcycle. These trails would be 

open yearlong to travel by ATVs and motorcycles. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE (approx.)

200 Hannan Blacktail Connector South Fk Sun 1.31 

240 Hannan Gulch South Fk Sun 1.53 

240.1 Hannan Gulch Shortcut South Fk Sun 0.19 

257 Cyanide Cr Dearborn Elk 1.24 

3305 Hannan west South Fk Sun 5.31 

utrl34* west fork firewood Birch Teton 0.86 

utrl56* Cyanide ns Dearborn Elk 1.32 

utrl66* elk ATV Dearborn Elk 0.49 

TOTAL MILEAGE 12.26 miles

* Undetermined (non-system) route to be adopted and managed as a system trail. 

TRAILS RESTRICTED SEASONALLY TO ATVs, 

and RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO FULL SIZE VEHICLES 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code E2 in 

FEIS) are trails that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all motorized wheeled vehicles 

not meeting the definition of an ATV or motorcycle. The following trails would be 

seasonally restricted to travel by ATVs and motorcycles from October 15 to December 1. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE (approx.)

277 Red Lake South Fk Sun 1.55 

utrl44* old road-red lake South Fk Sun 1.24 

utrl48* Old Beaver Willow South Fk Sun 0.42 

 * Old Beaver Willow Rd*** South Fk Sun 1.91 

TOTAL MILEAGE 5.11 miles

* Undetermined (non-system) route to be adopted and managed as a system trail. 

*** About 0.5 mile of old Beaver Willow Road (utrl48) would be relocated and reconstructed to ATV 

 trail standards to bypass private land and connect with Road 233 at the gate/trailhead. 

The following trail (code J in FEIS) would be seasonally restricted to travel by ATVs and 

motorcycles from October 15 to June 30. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE (approx.)

2005 waldron creek Birch Teton 1.22 

TOTAL MILEAGE 1.22 miles
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix E 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National 52 Forest 

ROADS UNRESTRICTED TO TRAVEL BY ATVs 

AND RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO FULL SIZE VEHICLES 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code B in 

FEIS) are roads that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all types of motorized wheeled 

vehicles that do not meet the definition of an ATV or motorcycle. These roads would be 

open yearlong to travel by ATVs and motorcycles. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

8996 teton firewood access 1 Birch Teton 0.49 

8997 teton firewood access 2 Birch Teton 0.79 

8998 teton firewood access 3 Birch Teton 0.53 

8999 teton firewood access #4 Birch Teton 0.25 

9151 teton firewood access 5 Birch Teton 0.30 

9152 teton firewood access 6 Birch Teton 0.38 

TOTAL MILEAGE 2.75 miles

 

ROADS RESTRICTED SEASONALLY TO ATVs, 

and RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO FULL SIZE VEHICLES 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following routes (code E2 in 

FEIS) are roads that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all motorized wheeled vehicles 

not meeting the definition of an ATV or motorcycle. The following road would be 

seasonally restricted to travel by ATVs and motorcycles from October 15 to December 1. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

6497 flat creek South Fk Sun 0.59 

TOTAL MILEAGE 0.59 miles

The following roads (code J in FEIS) would be seasonally restricted to travel by ATVs and 

motorcycles from October 15 to June 30, and restricted yearlong to travel by all motorized 

wheeled vehicles not meeting the definition of an ATV or motorcycle 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

8980 wright creek Birch Teton 0.70 

8995 snowmobile loop Birch Teton 0.84 

8995001*

rd ns Birch Teton 0.10 

TOTAL MILEAGE 1.63 miles

*rd Undetermined (non-system) route to be adopted and managed as a system road. 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix F 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National 53 Forest 

APPENDIX F 

ROADS OPEN SEASONALLY TO MOTORIZED TRAVEL 

10/01/2007 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following roads (code E in 

FEIS) would be restricted seasonally from October 15 to December 1 annually to travel by 

all types of wheeled motorized vehicles. Conversely, these roads would be open seasonally 

from December 2 to October 14 for travel by all types of street legal, motorized wheeled 

vehicles. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

233 beaver-willow South Fk Sun 7.48 

233002*

rd Bear Tree Rd South Fk Sun 0.27 

233004*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.13 

233005*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.84 

233006*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.20 

233007*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.12 

233010*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.13 

233011*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.10 

233012*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.18 

233013*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.24 

233014*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.10 

233015*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.05 

233016*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.07 

233037*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.10 

233039*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.14 

233040*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.25 

233041*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.27 

3310 lower beaver creek South Fk Sun 0.12 

6497 flat creek South Fk Sun 0.84 

6497005*

rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.20 

9153 sawmill flat South Fk Sun 0.45 

TOTAL MILEAGE 12.28 miles 

*

rd Undetermined (non-system) route to be adopted and managed as a system road.

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following roads (code F in 

FEIS) would be restricted seasonally from October 15 to June 30 annually to travel by all 

types of wheeled motorized vehicles. Conversely, these roads would be open seasonally 

from July 1 to October 14 for travel by all types of street legal, motorized wheeled vehicles. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

9193 north fork dupuyer creek Birch Teton 1.37 

9209 wood lake hogback South Fk Sun 1.56 

TOTAL MILEAGE 2.94 miles 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix G 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National 54 Forest 

APPENDIX G 

ROADS OPEN YEARLONG TO MOTORIZED TRAVEL 

10/01/2007 

Travel management would change on the following routes as a result of the Birch Creek – 

South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. The following “undetermined” 

roads would be adopted and managed as part of the road transportation system, because they 

provide necessary public access to dispersed campsites and trailheads along the main access 

roads in the Birch Creek - South area. The following routes (code B2 in FEIS) are roads that 

would be open yearlong to all types of street legal motorized vehicle access. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

8992 W.Fk. CG Dispersed Site & RecRes Access Birch Teton 0.09 

108001 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.60 

108002 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.32 

108003 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.23 

108004 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.05 

108005 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.34 

108006 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.55 

108007 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.09 

108009 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.10 

108010 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.12 

108012 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.20 

108017 Diversion Lake Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.14 

108019 Diversion Lake Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.20 

108020 Diversion Lake Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.12 

108022 Diversion Lake Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.20 

108023 Diversion Lake Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.07 

108024 Home Gulch Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.14 

108052 Norwegian Gulch Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.10 

108053 French Gulch Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.24 

108C001 Gibson Dam South Fk Sun 0.06 

108C003 Blacktail Creek Trailhead & 

Access to Special Use Camp (K-L) South Fk Sun 0.02 

108C004 Gibson Dam South Fk Sun 0.03 

108E01 Gibson Dam South Fk Sun 0.05 

109001 Rierdon Gulch Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.12 

109003 S.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.03 

109005 S.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.17 

109010 S.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.14 

144002 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.38 

144003 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.06 

144004 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.56 

144006 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.11 

144007 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.12 

144009 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.26 

144040 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.10 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix G 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National 55 Forest 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

144B Jones Creek Trailhead Birch Teton 0.05 

145003 Blackleaf Trailhead Dispersed Site Birch Teton 0.10 

196001 Elk Creek Dispersed Site Dearborn Elk 0.29 

196002 Elk Creek Dispersed Site Dearborn Elk 0.05 

196003 Elk Creek Dispersed Site Dearborn Elk 0.09 

196004 Elk Creek Dispersed Site Dearborn Elk 0.10 

196005 Elk Creek Dispersed Site Dearborn Elk 0.02 

196006 Elk Creek Dispersed Site Dearborn Elk 0.10 

196007 Elk Creek Dispersed Site Dearborn Elk 0.01 

233042 Willow Creek Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.06 

235003 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.08 

235006 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.40 

235009 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.17 

235010 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.05 

235010A Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.09 

235011 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.14 

235012 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.11 

235012A Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.06 

235014 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.07 

235016 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.14 

235025 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.13 

235061 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.08 

235063 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.06 

235066 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.11 

235067 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.04 

235069 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.08 

235078 Benchmark Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.07 

235b004 Crown Mtn Parking South Fk Sun 0.08 

3318A001 willow cr dispersed South Fk Sun 0.07 

3318A002 willow cr dispersed South Fk Sun 0.02 

3327A Benchmark Packer Corrals South Fk Sun 0.25 

8982A ns at Cave Mtn TH Birch Teton 0.24 

8992003 w fk corral access Birch Teton 0.09 

9167001 Home Gulch Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.10 

9167003 Home Gulch Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.09 

9167004 home gulch Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.19 

9182002 West Fork CG overflow Birch Teton 0.06 

9206002 Fairview Creek Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.29 

9206003 Fairview Creek Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.02 

9229001 Benchmark Dispersed Site South Fk Sun 0.07 

TOTAL MILEAGE 10.43 miles
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix H 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 56 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

APPENDIX H 

ROADS OPEN YEARLONG TO MOTORIZED TRAVEL 

AND 

NOT CHANGED BY THE RECORD OF DECISION 

FOR BIRCH CREEK-SOUTH 

10/01/2007 

No change in travel management would occur on the following routes as a result of the Birch 

Creek – South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. These roads have been 

open to public motorized vehicle travel since the time they were originally constructed, and 

remain open as originally authorized. Nothing in the Record of Decision for the Birch Creek 

– South area attempts to make a decision about these roads. The following routes (code B2 

in FEIS) are roads open yearlong to all types of street legal, motorized wheeled vehicles. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

108 sun river South Fk Sun 7.29 

108A sun river spur a South Fk Sun 0.26 

108B gibson overlook South Fk Sun 0.09 

108C gibson dam access South Fk Sun 0.27 

108D gibson dam access South Fk Sun 0.28 

108E beaver trailhead South Fk Sun 0.18 

108H Hannan Gulch-Wagner South Fk Sun 0.47 

108I ns South Fk Sun 0.13 

109 south fork teton river Birch Teton 5.05 

109A ns Birch Teton 0.13 

144 north fork teton river Birch Teton 11.70 

144A ns Birch Teton 0.06 

144C ns Birch Teton 0.03 

145 blackleaf canyon Birch Teton 0.62 

196 elk creek Dearborn Elk 2.90 

196a bailey basin th Dearborn Elk 0.27 

2004 mill falls Birch Teton 0.22 

233 beaver-willow South Fk Sun 5.52 

233A beaver basin trailhead South Fk Sun 0.17 

235 benchmark South Fk Sun 13.82 

235a Petty Ford TH South Fk Sun 0.20 

3305 hannon gulch South Fk Sun 1.07 

3307 green gulch Birch Teton 2.09 

3318 Willow Creek Guard Station South Fk Sun 1.26 

3318A Fairview Trailhead South Fk Sun 0.65 

3327 benchmark creek South Fk Sun 0.43 

6327A Wood Lake CG spur South Fk Sun 0.10 

6330 wood lk boat lndng South Fk Sun 0.16 

8981 west fork teton river Birch Teton 0.02 

8982 m.f. teton river Birch Teton 0.60 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix H 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 57 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

8982A Cave Mtn TH Birch Teton 0.05 

8983 hannon guard station South Fk Sun 0.73 

8988 cow creek Birch Teton 0.12 

8998 teton firewood access 3 Birch Teton 0.09 

9167 home gulch South Fk Sun 0.58 

9182 West Fork CG Birch Teton 0.16 

9182001 West Fork CG spur Birch Teton 0.02 

9200 straight cr packer camp South Fk Sun 0.35 

9205 fairview creek South Fk Sun 0.23 

9206 airstrip road South Fk Sun 0.29 

9207 wood lk picnic area South Fk Sun 0.05 

9209 wood lake hogback South Fk Sun 0.11 

9225 home gulch boat lndng South Fk Sun 0.10 

9229 benchmark rec. area South Fk Sun 0.16 

9229A benchmark spur a South Fk Sun 0.14 

9234 south fork camp South Fk Sun 0.29 

9234A South Fork Camp A South Fk Sun 0.16 

TOTAL MILEAGE 59.67 miles 

No change in travel management would occur on the following routes as a result of the Birch 

Creek – South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan. These roads have been 

open to public motorized vehicle travel since the time they were originally constructed, and 

remain open as originally authorized. Nothing in the Record of Decision for the Birch Creek 

– South area attempts to make a decision about these roads. The following routes are roads 

managed as part of the developed campground system, and the roads are subject to seasonal 

restrictions when the campgrounds are closed for the winter (code Z in FEIS). When the 

campgrounds are open, these roads are open to all types of street legal, wheeled, motorized 

vehicles. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

6327 wood lake campground South Fk Sun 0.26 

8801 fairmule South Fk Sun 0.50 

9181 wf guard station Birch Teton 0.11 

9220 home gulch c.g. South Fk Sun 0.34 

9228 cave mtn cg Birch Teton 0.25 

9229 benchmark rec. area South Fk Sun 0.54 

9229B benchmark camp B South Fk Sun 0.21 

9229C Benchmark Camp C South Fk Sun 0.17 

9229D Benchmark Camp D South Fk Sun 0.13 

9231 mortimer glch c.g. South Fk Sun 0.30 

9231A south mortimer gulch c.g. South Fk Sun 0.22 

TOTAL MILEAGE 3.04 miles
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix I 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 58 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

APPENDIX I 

DISPOSITION OF “UNDETERMINED” (Non-System) ROUTES 

 BY THE RECORD OF DECISION 

FOR BIRCH CREEK-SOUTH 

10/01/2007 

The following “undetermined” roads provide necessary public access to dispersed campsites 

along the main Beaver-Willow access road in the Birch Creek South area. They will be 

adopted and managed as part of the road transportation system. The following routes are 

listed in Appendix F as roads that would be restricted seasonally October 15 to December 1 

(code E in FEIS) to all types of motorized vehicle access. They would be open to motorized 

wheeled vehicles from December 2 to October 14. 

ROUTE # GENERAL LOCATION MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

233002 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.27 

233004 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.13 

233005 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.84 

233006 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.20 

233007 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.12 

233010 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.13 

233011 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.10 

233012 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.18 

233013 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.24 

233014 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.10 

233015 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.05 

233016 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.07 

233037 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.10 

233039 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.14 

233040 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.25 

233041 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.27 

6497005 Beaver-Willow Dispersed Site SFS 0.20 

TOTAL MILEAGE 3.39 miles 

The following “undetermined” road provides necessary access for future resource 

management. It will be adopted and managed as part of the road transportation system. The 

following undetermined road is listed in Appendix E as a road that would be seasonally 

restricted (code J in FEIS) to travel by ATVs and motorcycles from October 15 to June 30, 

and restricted yearlong to travel by all motorized wheeled vehicles not meeting the definition 

of an ATV or motorcycle 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

8995001*

rd ns Birch Teton 0.10 

TOTAL MILEAGE 0.10 miles 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix I 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 59 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

The following “undetermined” roads provide necessary public access to dispersed campsites 

and trailheads along the main access roads in the Birch Creek South area. They will be 

adopted and managed as part of the road transportation system. The following routes are 

listed in Appendix G as roads that would be open yearlong (code B2 in FEIS) to all types of 

motorized vehicle access. 

ROUTE # GENERAL LOCATION MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

8992 W.Fk. CG Dispersed Site & RecRes Access BT 0.09 

108001 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site SFS 0.60 

108002 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site SFS 0.32 

108003 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site SFS 0.23 

108004 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site SFS 0.05 

108005 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site SFS 0.34 

108006 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site SFS 0.55 

108007 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site SFS 0.09 

108009 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site SFS 0.10 

108010 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site SFS 0.12 

108012 Sun Canyon Dispersed Site SFS 0.20 

108017 Diversion Lake Dispersed Site SFS 0.14 

108019 Diversion Lake Dispersed Site SFS 0.20 

108020 Diversion Lake Dispersed Site SFS 0.12 

108022 Diversion Lake Dispersed Site SFS 0.20 

108023 Diversion Lake Dispersed Site SFS 0.07 

108024 Home Gulch Dispersed Site SFS 0.14 

108052 Norwegian Gulch Dispersed Site SFS 0.10 

108053 French Gulch Dispersed Site SFS 0.24 

109001 Rierdon Gulch Dispersed Site BT 0.12 

109003 S.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site BT 0.03 

109005 S.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site BT 0.17 

109010 S.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site BT 0.14 

144002 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site BT 0.38 

144003 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site BT 0.06 

144004 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site BT 0.56 

144006 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site BT 0.11 

144007 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site BT 0.12 

144009 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site BT 0.26 

144040 N.Fk. Teton Dispersed Site BT 0.10 

145003 Blackleaf Trailhead Dispersed Site BT 0.10 

196001 Elk Creek Dispersed Site DE 0.29 

196002 Elk Creek Dispersed Site DE 0.05 

196003 Elk Creek Dispersed Site DE 0.09 

196004 Elk Creek Dispersed Site DE 0.10 

196005 Elk Creek Dispersed Site DE 0.02 

196006 Elk Creek Dispersed Site DE 0.10 

196007 Elk Creek Dispersed Site DE 0.01 

233042 Willow Creek Dispersed Site SFS 0.06 

235003 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.08 

235006 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.40 

235009 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.17 

235010 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.05 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix I 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 60 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

ROUTE # GENERAL LOCATION MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

235011 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.14 

235012 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.11 

235014 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.07 

235016 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.14 

235025 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.13 

235061 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.08 

235063 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.06 

235066 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.11 

235067 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.04 

235069 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.08 

235078 Benchmark Dispersed Site SFS 0.07 

8992003 W.Fk. Campground Dispersed Site BT 0.09 

9167001 Home Gulch Dispersed Site SFS 0.10 

9167003 Home Gulch Dispersed Site SFS 0.09 

9167004 Home Gulch Dispersed Site SFS 0.19 

9182002 West Fk Teton CG - overflow BT 0.06 

9206002 Fairview Creek Dispersed Site SFS 0.29 

9206003 Fairview Creek Dispersed Site SFS 0.02 

9229001 Benchmark Dispersed Site SFS 0.07 

108C001 Gibson Dam SFS 0.06 

108C003 Blacktail Creek Trailhead & Access to 

Special Use Camp (K-L) SFS 0.02 

108C004 Gibson Dam SFS 0.03 

144B Jones Creek Trailhead BT 0.05 

235010A Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.09 

235012A Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.06 

235b004 Benchmark Road Dispersed Site SFS 0.08 

3318A001 Willow Creek Dispersed Site SFS 0.07 

3318A002 (3318A012) Willow Creek Dispersed Site SFS 0.02 

3327A Benchmark Dispersed Site SFS 0.25 

8982A Cave Mtn. Campground Disp. Site BT 0.29 

1080E01 Gibson Dam SFS 0.05 

TOTAL MILEAGE 10.43 miles 

The following “undetermined” roads provide necessary access for future resource 

management. They will be adopted and managed as part of the road transportation system. 

The following undetermined roads are listed in Appendix C as roads that would be restricted 

yearlong (code A in FEIS) to travel by all types of motorized wheeled vehicles. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

233003* Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.09 

233009* Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.37 

9167004* home gulch ns South Fk Sun 0.06 

9206001* Airstrip Service Road South Fk Sun 0.22 

 * Airstrip/CG Access South Fk Sun 0.40 

9206004* Pilots CG Admin Road South Fk Sun 0.07 

9206005* airstrip creek access South Fk Sun 0.01 

TOTAL MILEAGE 1.22 miles 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix I 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 61 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

The following “undetermined” trail provides necessary public access for a recreational 

experience and enjoyment. It will be adopted and managed as part of the trail transportation 

system. The following undetermined route is listed in Appendix A as a trail that would be 

restricted yearlong (code A3 in FEIS) to travel by bicycles, stock, and all types of wheeled 

motorized vehicles. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

utrl72* Mill Falls Ridge Birch Teton 0.88 

TOTAL MILEAGE 0.88 miles

The following “undetermined” trail provides necessary public access for a recreational 

experience and enjoyment. It will be adopted and managed as part of the trail transportation 

system. The following undetermined route is listed in Appendix B as a trail that would be 

restricted yearlong (code A4 in FEIS) to travel by bicycles and all types of wheeled 

motorized vehicles. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

utrl40* North Fk Sun Alt South Fk Sun 0.52 

TOTAL MILEAGE 0.52 miles

The following “undetermined” trails provide necessary public access for a recreational 

experience and enjoyment. They will be adopted and managed as part of the trail 

transportation system. The following undetermined trails are listed in Appendix C as trails 

that would be restricted yearlong (code A in FEIS) to travel by all types of motorized 

wheeled vehicles. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

108002* ns South Fk Sun 0.96 

201.2* Carrols Access South Fk Sun 0.21 

sutrl71* Ford ATV spur South Fk Sun 1.45 

utrl45* home gulch ns South Fk Sun 1.41 

utrl58* Falls Area ns Dearborn Elk 0.89 

utrl59* Falls Area ns Dearborn Elk 2.72 

utrl62* alt114 Birch Teton 0.10 

utrl65* Wood Creek Snotel South Fk Sun 1.07 

utrl70* Ford Basin ATV South Fk Sun 2.62 

TOTAL MILEAGE 11.42 miles 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix I 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 62 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

The following “undetermined” trail provides necessary public access for a recreational 

experience and enjoyment. It will be adopted and managed as part of the trail transportation 

system. The following undetermined route is listed in Appendix D as a trail that would be 

restricted yearlong (code N in FEIS) to travel by all motorized wheeled vehicles not meeting 

the definition of a motorcycle. It would be seasonally restricted to travel by motorcycles 

from October 15 to June 30 annually. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

utrl50* Ford Basin Spur South Fk Sun 0.81 

TOTAL MILEAGE 0.81 miles 

The following “undetermined” trails provide necessary public access for a recreational 

experience and enjoyment. They will be adopted and managed as part of the trail 

transportation system. The following undetermined trails are listed in Appendix E as trails 

that would be restricted yearlong (code B in FEIS) to travel by all types of motorized 

wheeled vehicles that do not meet the definition of an ATV or motorcycle. These trails 

would be open yearlong to travel by ATVs and motorcycles. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

utrl34* west fork firewood Birch Teton 0.86 

utrl56* Cyanide ns Dearborn Elk 1.32 

utrl66* elk ATV Dearborn Elk 0.49 

TOTAL MILEAGE 2.67 miles 

The following “undetermined” trails provide necessary public access for a recreational 

experience and enjoyment. They will be adopted and managed as part of the trail 

transportation system. The following undetermined trails are listed in Appendix E as trails 

that would be restricted yearlong (code E2 in FEIS) to travel by all motorized wheeled 

vehicles not meeting the definition of an ATV or motorcycle. The following trails would be 

seasonally restricted to travel by ATVs and motorcycles from October 15 to December 1. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

utrl44* old road-red lake South Fk Sun 1.24 

utrl48* Old Beaver Willow South Fk Sun 0.42 

 * Old Beaver Willow Rd*** South Fk Sun 1.91 

TOTAL MILEAGE 3.57 miles 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix I 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 63 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

The following “undetermined” trails are not needed for recreational or resource management 

purposes, and will be decommissioned. The following undetermined routes are listed in Appendix J 

as trails that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all types of wheeled motorized vehicles and 

decommissioned (code X99 in FEIS). 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

utrl32*

tr Scoffin Basin ns Birch Teton 0.62 

utrl33*

tr Scoffin Basin ns Birch Teton 2.77 

utrl34*

tr west fork firewood Birch Teton 0.13 

utrl47*

tr Red Lake ns South Fk Sun 0.96 

utrl49*

tr blindhorse ns South Fk Sun 0.66 

utrl53*

tr aspen ns South Fk Sun 0.37 

utrl67*

tr Mortimer Decom South Fk Sun 0.02 

utrl73*

tr atv user Dearborn Elk 0.31 

TOTAL “UNDETERMINED” TRAIL MILEAGE DECOMMISSIONED 5.82 miles 

The following “undetermined” roads are not needed for recreational or resource management 

purposes, and will be decommissioned. The following undetermined routes are listed in Appendix J 

as roads that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all types of wheeled motorized vehicles and 

decommissioned (code X99 in FEIS). 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

108018**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.08 

108029**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.15 

108058**rd User Spur South Fk Sun 0.23 

144005**rd dispersed camp rd Birch Teton 0.11 

144034**rd ns Birch Teton 0.10 

145001**rd Cow Cr Dispersed Birch Teton 0.18 

145002**rd Cow Cr Dispersed Birch Teton 0.09 

233001**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.15 

233002**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.09 

233008**rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.06 

233010**rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.37 

235001**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.08 

235002**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.09 

235004**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.14 

235007**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.18 

235011A**rd green timber ns South Fk Sun 0.04 

235013**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.07 

235018a**rd spur road South Fk Sun 0.09 

235070**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.13 

235old1**rd access old 235 South Fk Sun 0.08 

3307001**rd ns Birch Teton 0.07 

8992002**rd ns Birch Teton 0.28 

8992012**rd wfk access Birch Teton 0.03 

8992013**rd Massey Firewood Birch Teton 0.69 

9153001**rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.26 

9167002**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.25 

9167004**rd home gulch area South Fk Sun 0.10 

9220001**rd home gulch ns South Fk Sun 0.07 

TOTAL “UNDETERMINED” ROAD MILEAGE DECOMMISSIONED 4.26 miles 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix J 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National 64 Forest 

APPENDIX J 

DECOMMISSIONED ROUTES

10/01/2007 

UNNEEDED ROADS AND TRAILS 

TO BE RESTRICTED YEARLONG TO TRAVEL 

BY ALL TYPES OF MOTORIZED WHEELED VEHICLES 

AND DECOMMISSIONED 

During the analysis process, some trails and roads were determined to be unnecessary for 

public use, and provided no benefit for future resource management of the area. As part of 

the Birch Creek – South decision on the RMRD Travel Management Plan, the following lists 

of unneeded trails and roads are restricted yearlong to motorized wheeled vehicle travel as 

the first step in decommissioning them. 

The following system and undetermined non-system routes (code X99 in FEIS) are trails that 

would be restricted yearlong to travel by all types of wheeled motorized vehicles. At some 

future date, the Forest Service will strive to evaluate each route to determine what other 

actions may be necessary to fully decommission them and to reduce any resource 

degradation. 

 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

191 Cow Cr Birch Teton 0.33 

utrl32*

tr Scoffin Basin ns Birch Teton 0.62 

utrl33*

tr Scoffin Basin ns Birch Teton 2.77 

utrl34*

tr west fork firewood Birch Teton 0.13 

utrl47*

tr Red Lake ns South Fk Sun 0.96 

utrl49*

tr blindhorse ns South Fk Sun 0.66 

utrl53*

tr aspen ns South Fk Sun 0.37 

utrl67*

tr Mortimer Decom South Fk Sun 0.02 

utrl73*

tr atv user Dearborn Elk 0.31 

TOTAL TRAIL MILEAGE DECOMMISSIONED 6.15 miles 

 *tr Undetermined (non-system) trail not needed for management of area.
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix J 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National 65 Forest 

The following system and undetermined non-system routes (code X99 in FEIS) are roads 

that would be restricted yearlong to travel by all types of wheeled motorized vehicles. At 

some future date, the Forest Service will strive to evaluate each route to determine what 

other actions may be necessary to fully decommission them and to reduce any resource 

degradation. 

ROUTE # ROUTE NAME MAP ZONE MILEAGE 

(approx.) 

108014 ns South Fk Sun 0.11 

108018**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.08 

108029**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.15 

108058**rd User Spur South Fk Sun 0.23 

108G ns South Fk Sun 0.18 

144005**rd dispersed camp rd Birch Teton 0.11 

144034**rd ns Birch Teton 0.10 

145001**rd Cow Cr Dispersed Birch Teton 0.18 

145002**rd Cow Cr Dispersed Birch Teton 0.09 

233001**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.15 

233002**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.09 

233008**rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.06 

233010**rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.37 

235001**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.08 

235002**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.09 

235004**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.14 

235007**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.18 

235011A**rd green timber ns South Fk Sun 0.04 

235013**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.07 

235018 old timber sale South Fk Sun 0.07 

235018a**rd spur road South Fk Sun 0.09 

235070**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.13 

235old1**rd access old 235 South Fk Sun 0.08 

3307001**rd ns Birch Teton 0.07 

3319 Ford Creek South Fk Sun 0.09 

8989 south fork dupuyer Birch Teton 0.12 

8990 roughlock Birch Teton 0.79 

8992002**rd ns Birch Teton 0.28 

8992012**rd wfk access Birch Teton 0.03 

8992013**rd Massey Firewood Birch Teton 0.69 

9153001**rd Beaver Willow Spur South Fk Sun 0.26 

9167002**rd ns South Fk Sun 0.25 

9167004**rd home gulch area South Fk Sun 0.10 

9220001**rd home gulch ns South Fk Sun 0.07 

TOTAL ROAD MILEAGE DECOMMISSIONED 5.62 miles 

 **rd Undetermined (non-system) road not needed for management of area. 
Birch Creek South Travel Plan – ROD Appendix K 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Lewis and Clark National 66 Forest 

APPENDIX K 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Record of telephone conversation, Jan. 30, 2007 - 1 page 

USFWS concurrence letter, Sept. 18, 2006 - 2 pages 

LCNF letter transmitting Supplement BA, Aug. 31, 2006 - 1 page 

Supplement to the Biological Assessment, Aug. 30, 2006 - 6 pages 

LCNF letter transmitting BA, Aug. 4, 2006 - 1 page 

Biological Assessment, Aug. 3, 2006 - 69 pages 
RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

DATE:

TIME:

CALL TO:

SUBJECT:

1/30/07

12:30 P.M.

Katrina Dixon, Consultation Biologist, US Fish & Wildlife Service

Changes to RMRD Travel Plan decision since consultation completed \

1called Katrina to discuss with her some changesthat we recently made in the Travel Plan

Decision that differ slightly from the Decision as analyzed and consulted on in the BA sent to

FWS in August (Supplemented in September). 1explained the changesto her, namely that we

were removing both snowmobile and wheeled travel from the Jones Creek area, and expanding

snowmobile use in the Benchmark area. 1informed her that my preliminary analysis showed that

there would be an additional approximately 4370 acres oflynx foraging/denning habitat open to

snowmobiles under the new Decision. 1asked whether we would need to re-consult on the

Decision because of these changes.

Katrina asked whether the changes would result in any alteration of my Determination of Effects

to lynx or grizzly bear as displayed in the BA (I answered no), whether the change would result

in our not meeting the LCAS guidelines (we would still meet the guidelines, and there are no

specific acreage or %LAU guidelines for dispersed snowmobiling, anyway), and whether the

Decision would still reduce the amount oflynx habitat open to snowmobiles as compared to the

Existing Situation (yes, by a great deal). 1informed her that the removal of wheeled travel from

Jones Creek would result in a small improvement in the road density and core figures in one

BMU for grizzly bears over those reported in the BA. Katrina then referred to the concurrence

letter from FWS, that stated that if the changes do not result in effects other than those described

in the BA, then there is no need to revise the BA or re-consult. She noted that some units prefer

to re-analyze and re-consultunder such a situation, to create a firm "paper trail", but that it is not

necessary where the effects would not be different. She also noted that although they are

supposed to respond to informal consultation requests within 30 days, that despite their best

efforts she could not guarantee that timeline if we chose to re-consult, due to their current

workload.

/J/WendyCMap~ 1130107

Wendy C Maples

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Ranger District

Wildlife Biologist
REC'DLCNTSEPl 02006

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFESERVICE

ECOLOGICALSERVICES

MONTANA FIELD OFFICE

585 SHEPARDWAY

HELENA, MONTANA 59601

PHONE (406) 449-5225, FAX (406) 449-5339

File: M19 Lewis and Clark National Forest (I) September 18, 2006

Lesley W. Thompson, Forest Supervisor

Lewis and Clark National Forest

1101 15thStreet North

P.O. Box 869

Great Falls, Montana 59403-0869

Dear Mr. Thompson:

This is in response to your August 4,2006 request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

review ofthe biological assessment for federally listed threatened and endangered speciesregarding

the effects of the proposed Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan (Travel Plan).

Your request was received August 7, 2006 and a supplement to the biological assessment was

received September 5, 2006.

The Travel Plan would be implemented on the non-wilderness portion of the Rocky Mountain

Ranger District south of the North Fork of Birch Creek. The proposed Travel Plan would decrease

the amount of roads open to motorized travel as well as trails open to ATV and motorcycle travel.

The proposed plan would also incorporate provisions of the 200I three-state OHV decision signed

by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management that prohibits motorized cross-country

on all National Forest System and BLM public lands.

The Service has reviewed the biological assessment and supplement to the biological assessment

and concurs with the determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the

threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), the threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and

the endangered graywolf (Canis lupus). The Service acknowledgesthe no effect determination for

the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetusleucocephalus). Therefore, pursuant to 50 CFR 402.13 (a),

formal consultation on the speciesreferenced above is not required.

The Service bases its concurrence on the information and analysisin the biological assessment and

the supplement to the biological assessment prepared by Wendy Maples, District Biologist. Eight

grizzly bear subunits occur within the analysis area. Forest Service ownership is lessthan 75

percent in six of these subunits. Open and total motorized accessroute densities would be reduced

and core area would be increased on Forest lands in all grizzly bear subunits. Several lynx analysis

units occur within the analysis area. The overall acreage available for dispersed snowmobiling

would be greatly reduced and concentrated within two main areas. All aspects of the proposed

Travel Plan are compatible with applicable standardsin the LCAS. One wolfpack is known to
occur on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. The Red Shale pack is established roughly seven

miles west of the Travel Plan boundary, in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. The Travel Plan is

a long-term plan, expected to be in place for a minimum of 10to 15 years. During this timeframe,

the potential for disturbance to grizzly bears, Canada lynx and graywolves does exist, however

impacts would be insignificant.

If the final project design is changed so as to have effects on threatened or endangered species other

than those described in the biological assessment, a revised biological assessment will be necessary.

The Service will then issue a letter of concurrence/non-concurrenceon the revised biological

assessment.

We appreciate your effortsto ensure the conservation of threatened and endangered species as part

of your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, as amended. If you have questions or

comments related to this issue, please contact Katrina Dixon or me at 406-449-5225.

;;;;J<JL

R. Mark Wilson

Field Supervisor
United States

USDA Dep~rtmentof

~ .. Agnculture

Forest

Service

Le~is and Clark

National Forest

1l0115tb Street North

P.O. Box 869

Great Falls, MT 59403-0869

406791-7700

FAX 406 731-5302

File Code: 2670/1920

Date: August 31, 2006

Mark Wilson

Field Supervisor

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

585 Shepard Way

Helena, MT 59601

Dear Mr. Wilson:

On August 4, 2006 I requested infonnal consultation on the Biological Assessment for the Rocky

Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan. After additionaldiscussion with your staff,

I am submitting the enclosed Supplement to the Biological Assessment. This supplement revises

detenninations made for the gray wolf and Canada lynx based on reconsideration of existing

infonnation. There are no changes to the Proposed Project.

In accordancewith Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, I request concurrence with the

biologist's detenninations that the proposed Federal Action may effect,but is not likely to

adversely affect the threatened grizzly bear (Ursos arctos horribilis) or Canada lynx (Lynx

canadensis), or the endangered gray wolf (Canis lupus).

The biologist's detennination that this action will have no effect on the threatened bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is unchanged.

If you have any questions regarding this Supplement to the Biological Assessment please contact

Wendy Maples, District Biologist at 406-466-5341.

Sincerely,

~~~AA--U~

~. p LESLEY ;:<t~O~PSON

U - - Forest Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: Michael A Munoz, Wendy C Maples

8 Caring for the Land and Serving People

'-"'.

PrintedonRecycledPaper ..,
SUPPLEMENT

TO THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

FOR

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan

Rocky Mountain Ranger District

Lewis and Clark National Forest

Prepared By: Wendy C Maples, District Biologist,Rocky Mountain RD

&,)4{d/f) C/JI".J{h-- ame /

J

gj3;/ot( , Date

REVIEWED BY: Laura Conway, Forest Biologist, Lewis and Clark NF

/1

'//1A1/. #1/ / ~b

Name Date
Introduction

This Supplement to the Biological Assessment (BA) for Terrestrial Wildlife Species regarding 

the Rocky Mountain Ranger District Proposed Travel Management Plan contains revised 

determinations of affect for the Threatened Canada lynx and the Endangered gray wolf. In the 

original BA, a determination of NO EFFECT was arrived at for both species. After additional 

consideration and discussion with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

has determined that the Proposed Travel Plan MAY AFFECT, BUT WOULD NOT LIKELY 

ADVERSELY AFFECT both the Canada lynx and gray wolf. This re-consideration was based 

primarily on the longevity and scope of the Travel Management Plan once it is implemented. 

This document is not a Revised Biological Assessment, but a Supplement to the existing 

Assessment based on additional consideration of existing information. The Proposed Plan has 

not been modified, nor have additional listed species been found in the project area or added to 

the federal listing of Threatened and Endangered Species. This supplement addresses only 

Canada lynx and gray wolf. Determinations for the Threatened bald eagle and grizzly bear 

remain as in the Biological Assessment submitted to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service on August 

4, 2006. 

Information on the Proposed Project and on the legal status, local population and habitat status, 

and direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Canada lynx and gray wolf can be found in the 

BA. This document references the BA and includes only a discussion of the re-consideration and 

rationale for changing the Determination of Effects for both species. 

Gray Wolf 

Re-Consideration of Existing Information

A discussion of the status of the gray wolf on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District (RMRD) and 

the anticipated effects of the Proposed Plan can be found on pages 15-18 of the BA. On page 16, 

the BA references Claar et al. (1999) in stating, “Humans are responsible for the majority of 

mortalities of wolves through shooting and trapping both illegally and for management purposes, 

through vehicle collisions, and potentially due to den abandonment of displacement of packs due 

to disturbance”. The BA also states, “Humans may also impact wolves by altering distribution 

or abundance of their prey”. 

Analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) indicates that the expected impact 

of Alternatives similar to the Proposed Plan on distribution and abundance of ungulates (i.e. wolf 

prey) on the RMRD would be negligible (DEIS pp 255 - 270). The Proposed Plan would reduce 

the total mileage of motorized wheeled routes in the project area (the non-wilderness portion of 

the RMRD), and would reduce the total acreage available for snowmobiling. The existing known 

wolf pack (Red Shale Pack) is based almost entirely in wilderness, where no motorized travel 

occurs. Although livestock grazing occurs on the RMRD, it does not occur in the known territory 

of the existing pack, and the Lewis and Clark National Forest (LCNF) Plan includes provisions 

to make management decisions that favor Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species where 

conflict may arise with livestock grazing (LCNF Forest Plan, p. 2-41). Based on these 

considerations and on the overall low level of motorized use within the project area (the non-

 1
wilderness portion of the RMRD), the original determination in the BA was that the Proposed 

Plan would have No Effect on the gray wolf. 

Although the Proposed Plan would reduce the overall mileage of motorized wheeled routes in the 

project area and would reduce the overall acreage available for snowmobiling, it would retain 

some opportunities for motorized travel. Under the Proposed Plan there would be 85 miles of 

road open to seasonal or year-round use; most of this mileage is main access roads to trailheads, 

campgrounds, and recreation residences. Traffic levels on these roads are therefore not likely to 

decrease. An additional 24 miles of trail would be open year-round or seasonally to ATV use, 

primarily in areas immediately adjacent to roads. Another 50 miles of trail would be open 

seasonally or year-round to motorcycle use. Approximately 27,500 acres would be open to 

snowmobiles in winter, along with roughly 24 miles of road or trail. 

In the short term, with little or no wolf activity outside the wilderness, this mileage of motorized 

routes is unlikely to impact wolves. The Proposed Plan, however, is expected to be in place for at 

least 10-15 years after implementation. During this time, wolf activity within the project area 

could change. The Red Shale Pack could alter its territory, including den and rendezvous sites. 

One or more new pairs or packs of wolves could become established within the non-wilderness 

of the RMRD. It is not possible to predict what may happen with levels of motorized use under 

the Proposed Plan (refer to the Recreation section of the DEIS for a discussion of trends in 

motorized recreation). The Proposed Plan covers a large area (approximately 264,000 acres). 

Although motorized use would be confined to a few concentrated areas, the overall effect is a 

mix of motorized and non-motorized trails across a broad landscape. 

The vast majority of wolf mortality in Montana is currently associated with private lands, 

through management removals related to livestock depredation (Sime et a. 2006). A small 

number of wolves are killed annually by vehicles (Sime et al. 2006), most or all of which occurs 

in association with high-speed travel on highways. Some known mortality cannot be assigned a 

cause (Sime et al. 2006), and it must be assumed that some illegal mortality may occur on both 

public and private lands. Illegal mortality requires access of humans into areas occupied by 

wolves. Both motorized routes and non-motorized routes provide that access. As noted in Claar 

(1999), “Of all recreational activities in Montana, big-game hunting probably has the greatest 

potential for detrimental impact to wolves”. This is because hunters, armed with rifles, enter via 

foot, horse or vehicle into areas occupied by wolves. 

Page 16 in the BA notes that wolves “exhibit a wide variety of individual behaviors with respect 

to humans. Some individuals within a pack may be extremely sensitive to human disturbance, 

while others may be extremely tolerant (Claar et al. 1999)”. The Red Shale Pack has 

demonstrated great tolerance for human activity throughout the summer and fall, establishing a 

rendezvous site adjacent to one of the busiest wilderness administrative sites on the RMRD, near 

trails that are non-motorized but receive some of the heaviest foot and horse traffic on the 

RMRD during the summer and during hunting season. Nevertheless, the area experiences very 

little human activity during the spring, when denning takes place. 

It has not been established whether motorized travel itself has greater or less potential to disturb 

or displace wolves than non-motorized travel. Claar et al. (1999) noted that all linear travel 

 2
routes, including roads and motorized trails, may provide easy travelways for wolves, but that 

there is a trade-off between easier travel and increased potential for mortality resulting from 

increased risk of human encounters. Various studies have shown a wide range of tolerance by 

wolves for motorized travel routes, depending on the location, nature, and level of motorized 

travel (Claar et al. 1999), as well as on individual wolves themselves. The potential exists, 

however, for motorized travel under the Proposed Plan to disturb or displace wolves that may 

colonize the project area in the future. 

Determination of Effect

I have determined that implementation of the proposed Federal Action MAY AFFECT, BUT 

WILL NOT LIKELY ADVERSELY AFFECT the Endangered gray wolf. This determination is 

based on the following rationale: 

1. The Proposed Plan is expected to be in place for a minimum of 10-15 years. This 

may mean: 

a. Wolves could recolonize the project area and potentially be affected by 

travel management, particularly if they establish dens or rendezvous sites 

during a time of year when human visitation is minimal and subsequently 

experience unexpected human activity in the area. 

b. Trends in both motorized and non-motorized use are not possible to 

predict over the expected life of the plan. 

2. The Proposed Plan encompasses the entire non-wilderness portion of the RMRD. 

Therefore it includes a large area in which individual wolves may already occur, 

and in which wolves could establish packs and territories in the future. 

3. Illegal mortality of wolves could occur as a result of both motorized and nonmotorized access into areas currently inhabited by wolves, or into areas wolves 

may occupy in the future. 

Canada Lynx 

Re-Consideration of Existing Information

A discussion of the status of the Canada lynx on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District (RMRD) 

and the anticipated effects of the Proposed Plan can be found on pages 51-62 of the BA. 

As displayed in the BA (p.57), the Proposed Plan would maintain the existing mileage of overthe-snow routes in lynx habitat at 1.9 miles, the mileage of road regularly used by snowmobiles 

within lynx habitat at 3.3 miles, and the mileage of plowed road within lynx habitat at 0.7 miles. 

The Proposed Plan would reduce the overall acreage available for dispersed snowmobile activity 

in lynx habitat from a current total of 67,400 acres (29% of mapped lynx habitat in the project 

area) to a total of 7,400 acres (3% of mapped lynx habitat in the project area), eliminating 

dispersed snowmobiling from 10 of 16 Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) in which it is currently 

allowed (BA p.55). As displayed on pages 57-61 of the BA, the RMRD meets all the relevant 

guidelines set forth in the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS), including 

specific guidelines for recreation and travel planning ([Agencies must] “provide a landscape with 

interconnected blocks of foraging habitat where snowmobile, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, 

or other snow compacting activities are minimized or discouraged”). Based on these 

 3
considerations, the original determination in the BA was that the Proposed Plan would have No 

Effect on Canada lynx. 

Despite the overall reduction in over-snow travel, however, some opportunities for over-snow 

travel on designated routes, roads, and in dispersed areas would remain. The LCAS suggests that 

maintaining snowmobiling opportunities in mapped lynx habitat could have an impact on lynx. 

Furthermore, in early 2000 the USDA Forest Service submitted determinations of effect for 

ongoing actions occurring on several National Forests, including the LCNF. At that time it was 

determined that the existing level of snow compacting activity “May Affect, is Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect” Canada lynx. The mileage of routes available for over-the-snow activity 

would remain the same under the Proposed Plan as under the Existing Condition, for which that 

determination was made. Therefore the Proposed Plan should logically result in the same 

determination of effect. The acreage available for dispersed snowmobile activity was not 

included in the 2000 determination. Although that acreage would be substantially decreased 

under the Proposed Plan, opportunities for dispersed snowmobiling, and consequently for snow 

compaction and its possible impacts on lynx, would still occur on approximately 7,400 acres of 

lynx habitat in localized areas of the RMRD. 

The Proposed Plan would likely be in place for a minimum of 10-15 years, ensuring that some 

level of dispersed snowmobile travel would be allowed on the RMRD for a lengthy period of 

time. As noted in the Recreation section of the DEIS, it is not possible to predict whether 

snowmobile use levels might increase or decrease over the life of the Proposed Plan. 

Determination of Effect

I have determined that implementation of the proposed Federal Action MAY AFFECT, BUT 

WILL NOT LIKELY ADVERSELY AFFECT the Threatened Canada lynx. This determination 

is based on the following rationale: 

1. The Proposed Plan would be in place for a minimum of 10-15 years. This may mean: 

a. The existing mileage of over-the-snow routes in lynx habitat that would be 

maintained under the Proposed Plan would be in place through the life of the 

plan. 

b. Approximately 27,500 total acres, of which approximately 7,400 acres are in 

mapped lynx habitat, would be open to dispersed snowmobiling through the 

life of the plan. 

c. Trends in both motorized and non-motorized use are not possible to predict 

over the expected life of the plan. 

2. The Determination of Effects made in 2000 for ongoing activities, which included the 

same mileage of over-the-snow routes as in the Proposed Plan, was “May Affect, Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect” Canada lynx. 

3. Screens developed by the Level I Team, based on the LCAS, recommend a NLAA 

determination when any over-the-snow activities will occur within lynx habitat. 

Literature Cited

Claar, J.J., N. Anderson, D. Boyd, M. Cherry, B. Conard, R. Hompesch, S. Miller, G. Olson, H. 

Ihsle Pac, J. Waller, T. Wittinger, H. Youmans. 1999. Carnivores. Pages 7.1-7.63 in

Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain 

 4
wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife. 

Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307 pp. 

Sime, C.A., V. Asher, L. Bradley, K. Laudon, M. Ross, J. Trapp, and L. Handegaard. 2006. 

Montana gray wolf conservation and management in the northern Rockies wolf recovery 

area. Pp. 3-63 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 

2005 Interagency Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E.E. Bands, eds. USFWS, Ecological 

Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT. 59601. 130 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Lewis and Clark National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, MT. 

 5
United States

IISDA Department of Agriculture

Forest

Service

Lewis and Clark

National Forest

llOllStb Street North

P.O. Box 869

Great FaDs,MT 59403-0869

406 791-7700

FAX 406 731-5302

File Code: 2670/1920

Date: August 4, 2006

Mark Wilson

Field Supervisor

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

585 Shepard Way

Helena, MT 59601

Dear Mr. Wilson:

In accordancewith Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, I request infonnal consultation on

the enclosed Biological Assessment forthe Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management

Plan. In particular, I request concurrence with the biologist's detennination that the proposed

Federal Action may effect, but is not likely to adversely affect the threatened grizzly bear (Ursos

arctos horribilis).

The biologist has also determined that this action will have no effect upon the threatened bald

eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) or Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), or the endangered gray

wolf(Canis lupus).

If you have any questions regarding the project or Biological Assessmentplease contact Wendy

Maples, District Biologist at 406-466-5341, or Laura Conway,Forest Biologist at 406-791-7739.

Sincerely,

L~u)

LESLEY W. fHOMPSON

Forest Supervisor

/lJ

. ~'v,--

~/

Enclosure

cc: Michael A Munoz, Wendy C Maples

8 Caring for the Land and Serving People

~

PrintedonRecydedPaper \.~
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

FOR

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Travel Management Plan

Rocky Mountain Ranger District

Lewis and Clark National Forest

Prepared By: Wendy C Maples, District Biologist, Rocky Mountain RD

fJ/,3/6 (r / / Date

REVII}WEDBY: Laura Conway, Forest Biologist, Lewis and Clark NF

~-~//II //7

"/ Ii/U'l/(tl

Name

<;{1~/c6

I f

Date
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

PROPOSED PROJECT 

SPECIES ASSESSMENT 

Gray Wolf 

Grizzly Bear 

Access Management Analysis 

Cumulative Effects Model Analysis 

Forest Plan Direction 

Canada Lynx 

Dispersed Snowmobiling 

Over-the-Snow Routes 

LCAS Standards 

Bald Eagle 

CONSULTATION 

LITERATURE CITATED 

APPENDICES 

A. Proposed Travel Plan Map 

B. Existing Travel Plan Map 

MAPS 

1 . Project Area 

2. Vicinity Map 

3. Bear Management (BMU) Unit Subunits 

4. Lynx Habitat and Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) 

.............................................5

..............................................7

..............................................8

..............................................15

..............................................15

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

..............................................24

..............................................36

..............................................40

..............................................51

..............................................52

..............................................56

..............................................57

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

..............................................64

..............................................65

.............................................68

..............................................70

..............................................11

..............................................13

..............................................21

..............................................53

3
4
SUMMARY 

The Lewis and Clark National Forest (LCNF) proposes to revise Travel Management on 

the non-wilderness portion of the Rocky Mountain Ranger District (RMRD) south of 

Birch Creek. This Biological Assessment analyzes the potential impacts of the Proposed 

Plan on four species listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act: gray wolf, 

grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and bald eagle. 

Gray wolves inhabit primarily the wilderness portion of the RMRD that would not be 

affected by the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan would reduce the total mileage of 

motorized routes and the total area available to snowmobiles in the non-wilderness 

adjacent to the area occupied by wolves. There would be no anticipated impacts to wolf 

denning or rendezvous areas or to the prey base (ungulates). Therefore the Proposed Plan 

would have no effect on gray wolves or their habitat. 

The Proposed Plan would result in motorized route densities that would be at or below 

threshold levels recommended by the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) 

Interim Access Management Direction for grizzly bears and levels recommended in the 

Flathead National Forest A-19 Amendment regarding motorized access and grizzly bears. 

The Proposed Plan would also result in security core areas at or above levels 

recommended in the those guidelines. Analysis using the NCDE Eastside Cumulative 

Effects Model (CEM) indicates that the Proposed Plan would maintain or improve 

Habitat Effectiveness for grizzly bears as compared with the Existing Situation. The 

LCNF Forest Plan standards would provide additional protection from future increases in 

motorized access. Therefore the Proposed Plan is not likely to affect grizzly bears or their 

habitat. 

The Proposed Plan would decrease the total area available to snowmobiles in winter, thus 

reducing the potential for dispersed snow compaction and for fragmentation of Canada 

lynx travel and foraging habitat. The plan would maintain the existing low mileage of 

designated over-the-snow routes and roads used regularly by snowmobiles. The Proposed 

Plan would therefore have no effect on Canada lynx or their habitat. 

There are no known bald eagle nesting areas and little if any nesting habitat on the 

RMRD. Use of the RMRD by bald eagles is primarily by transient birds along the eastern 

boundary during migration. The Proposed Plan would not alter habitats currently used by 

eagles. Therefore the Proposed Plan would have no effect on bald eagles or their habitat. 

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 

Implementation of the proposed Federal action WILL HAVE NO EFFECT on Gray 

Wolf, Canada Lynx, and Bald Eagle, and IS NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY 

AFFECT Grizzly Bear. 

CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS 

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), its implementation regulations, 

and FSM 2671.4, the Lewis and Clark National Forest is required to request written 

5
concurrence from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) with respect to 

determinations of potential effects on Threatened Gray Wolf, Canada Lynx, Bald Eagle, 

and Grizzly Bear. 

NEED FOR RE-ASSESSMENT BASED ON CHANGED 

CONDITIONS 

The Biological Assessment findings are based on the best current data and scientific 

information available. A revised Biological Assessment must be prepared if: (1) new 

information reveals affects, which may impact threatened, endangered, and proposed 

species or their habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered in this assessment; (2) 

the Proposed Plan is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an affect, which was 

not considered in this assessment; or (3) a new species is listed or habitat identified, 

which may be affected by the action. 

6
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to review the possible effects of a proposed 

federal action (revising the travel management plan for the Rocky Mountain Ranger 

District of the Lewis and Clark National Forest) on threatened, endangered, and proposed 

species and their habitats. Threatened, endangered, and proposed species are managed 

under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (PL 93-205, as amended) and 

the National Forest Management Act (PL 94-588). Under provisions of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), Federal agencies shall use their authorities to carry out programs for 

the conservation of listed species, and shall insure any action authorized, funded, or 

implemented by the agency is not likely to: (1) adversely affect listed species or 

designated critical habitat; (2) jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species; or 

(3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat (16 USC 1536). 

This Biological Assessment analyzes the potential effects of the proposed federal action 

on all threatened, endangered, and proposed species known or suspected to occur in the 

Proposed Plan influence area (Table 1). This species list was confirmed on 19 July 2006 

by referencing the FWS website: 

http://montanafieldoffice.fws.gov/Endangered_Species/Listed_Species/Forests/L&C_sp_list.pdf. 

The list for the Rocky Mountain Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest was 

most recently updated on the website on 17 July 2006. Life history information on these 

species can be found in the reference document “The Distribution, Life History, and 

Recovery Objectives For Region One Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Terrestrial 

Wildlife Species” (2001) and is incorporated by reference in this Biological Assessment. 

Table 1. Threatened, Endangered And Proposed Species Known Or Suspected To 

Occur Within The Influence Area Of The Proposed Plan. 

Species Status Occurrence 

Gray Wolf 

(Canis lupus)

Endangered Established pack in 

Wilderness portion of 

Rocky Mountain RD west 

of project area, limited 

documented use of project 

area 

Grizzly Bear 

(Ursus arctos) 

Threatened Known to occur throughout 

Rocky Mountain RD 

Canada Lynx 

(Lynx canadensis) 

Threatened Known to occur throughout 

Rocky Mountain RD 

Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Threatened May occur occasionally, 

particularly during 

migration; no known nests 

or suitable nesting habitat 

on Rocky Mountain RD 

7
PROPOSED PROJECT 

Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of travel management is to provide the public with opportunities to use both 

non-motorized and motorized modes of transportation to access public lands and travel 

on National Forest System (NFS) lands, roads, and trails. Motorized and non-motorized 

travel on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District has been managed for the past 18 years 

under regulations described on the 1988 Lewis and Clark Forest Travel Plan map for the 

Rocky Mountain Division. In recent years several concerns regarding the Travel Plan 

have been identified and need resolution. Revision of the current Travel Plan is needed 

to: 

• Simplify the number and type of restrictions and their display on the map, both to 

reduce confusion by the public and to increase enforceability on the ground 

• Improve consistency in travel types and restriction dates with adjoining National 

Forests and state and BLM managed lands 

• Reduce conflicts among different user groups 

• Reduce any negative impacts to resources that may be occurring as a result of 

current travel management 

• Evaluate the impacts of recreational ATV use, which was in its infancy in 1988, 

and decide where and when this type of travel is appropriate 

• Evaluate a number of non-system routes and determine whether they should be 

retained as system routes or decommissioned 

• Address the impacts of changes in snowmobile technology and identify 

appropriate areas and seasons for snowmobile use 

• Assess opportunities for disabled access 

• Respond to an outstanding appeal to the 1988 Travel Plan that directed the Forest 

Service to conduct additional analysis on that plan 

• Fully implement the provisions of the 2001 three-state OHV decision that was 

signed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

• Implement Forest Service regulations that were passed in November 2005 

regarding management of motorized travel on NFS lands 

Proposed Action (Proposed Plan) 

The Lewis and Clark National Forest proposes to implement revised travel management 

on the non-wilderness portion of the Rocky Mountain Ranger District south of the North 

Fork of Birch Creek. Although alternatives were considered and analyzed for the entire 

District in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) released in June 2005, a 

decision on travel management for the Badger-Two Medicine area, between U.S. 

Highway 2 and the North Fork of Birch Creek, has been postponed awaiting further 

analysis and consultation with the Blackfeet Tribe. This Biological Assessment addresses 

the Proposed Plan selected for the non-wilderness portion of the District extending from 

the Dupuyer Creek area in the north to the Falls Creek drainage in the south. This area 

will be referred to as the Project Area or as the Birch-South area. 

8
The alternative selected as the Proposed Plan is based both on comments submitted by 

the public requesting greater separation of motorized and non-motorized travel, and on 

efforts by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to identify areas in which to focus motorized 

loop opportunities and other areas in which to emphasize enhancement of other 

resources. In identifying areas in which to restrict motorized travel, the IDT attempted to 

choose areas in which more than one resource (e.g. wildlife habitat, wilderness/roadless 

characteristics, traditional travel, etc.) might benefit. In identifying areas in which to 

focus motorized loop opportunities, the IDT looked for areas in which the existing 

infrastructure could support a specific type of motorized use, in which loops existed or 

trail mileages were sufficient to create a reasonable motorized recreational opportunity, 

and in which other resources could be appropriately protected or impacts of motorized 

travel mitigated. The IDT also attempted to provide a mix of recreational opportunities 

throughout various geographic areas of the RMRD. 

Travel management proposals are quite complex due to the amount of detail involved 

with each road and trail. The Proposed Plan developed by the IDT consists of a map and 

accompanying data tables containing information on how each road, trail, and area would 

be managed for motorized and non-motorized travel, including seasons of allowed use. 

Maps displaying the Proposed Plan and the Existing Condition (for comparison) are 

included as attachments (Appendices A and B) to this document, and the information 

contained in the data tables is summarized below in Table 2. 

Table 2. Miles of Roads and Trails In the Birch Creek South area 

by Type of Wheeled Vehicle Management 

ROADS & TRAILS 

ON ROCKY MTN. RANGER 

DISTRICT 

EXISTING SITUATION PROPOSED PLAN 

Roads (open yearlong or seasonally 

to motorized travel). 105 mi. 85 mi. 

Trails (open seasonally to 

 ATV travel). 65 mi. 24 mi. 

Trails (open seasonally to 

 motorcycle travel). 144 mi. 50 mi. 

Subtotal -- motorized 314 mi. 159 mi. 

Roads (closed yearlong to 

 motorized travel). 2 mi. 3 mi. 

Trails (closed yearlong to 

 motorized travel). 136 mi. 259 mi. 

Subtotal--non-motorized 138 mi. 262 mi. 

Grand Total 452 mi. 421 mi. 

NOTE: differences in grand totals between alternatives are due to the differences in mileage of 

road and trail abandoned (decommissioned) and not managed as a designated system route. 

In addition to the travel management detailed in the map and summarized in the table 

above, the Proposed Plan would incorporate provisions of the 2001 three-state OHV 

decision signed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. This decision 

prohibits motorized cross-country travel on all National Forest System and BLM public 

9
lands in a three state area, including the entire Lewis and Clark National Forest. It allows 

motorized cross-country travel within 300 feet of a designated route for the purposes of 

accessing a campsite, provided that streams are not crossed, trees or other vegetation are 

not cut or removed, and other resource damage does not occur. The 2001 decision did not 

address winter travel, but winter travel has been thoroughly considered and incorporated 

in the travel management DEIS and the Proposed Plan. 

In November 2005 the Forest Service issued revised regulations for motor vehicle use on 

all National Forest System lands. These rules are to be implemented over the course of 

the next 4 years. The new regulations require designation of roads, trails, and areas for 

motor vehicle use. The new rules prohibit the use of motorized wheeled vehicles off of 

routes specifically designated for motorized travel (closed unless designated open). The 

new rules also apply to snowmobiles, but provide local land managers more flexibility in 

allowing cross-country travel by snowmobiles within areas appropriate for such use. The 

Proposed Plan considers and is in compliance with these new regulations. 

Project Area 

The project area is the non-wilderness portion of the Rocky Mountain Ranger District 

(RMRD) of the Lewis and Clark National Forest south of the North Fork of Birch Creek 

(Map 1). It encompasses approximately 264,000 acres, or about 67% of the 777,600 total 

acres that comprise the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. 

Approximately 385,900 acres of designated Wilderness in the Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Complex (BMWC), which includes the Scapegoat and Bob Marshall Wilderness areas, 

will not be specifically addressed in this Biological Assessment. Travel management in 

these two wilderness areas will continue to occur in accordance with the Wilderness Act 

of 1964 and Recreation Management Direction for the Bob Marshall Complex (USDA, 

1987). An additional 133,000 acres in the Badger-Two Medicine area, or approximately 

33% of the non-wilderness portion of the RMRD will not be specifically addressed here, 

but will be in a future decision and Biological Assessment. 

The vicinity map (Map 2) shows the location of the Rocky Mountain Ranger District in 

relation to other locations in Montana. Due to the complexity of travel management 

issues, some discussions in the analysis focus on general areas. 

10
Great Bear

Wilderness

Bob Marshall

Wilderness

Scapegoat

Wilderness

Badger

Two

Medicine

Bob Marshall

Wilderness

Birch-South

Decision Area

Swift Dam Road

Sun Canyon Road

Benchmark Road

Smit h Creek Road

Elk Creek Road

Rocky Mountain Ranger District

Travel Management Plan

0 5 10 20 Miles

Project Area

/

Badger Two Medicine

Birch-South Decision Area

Wilderness Areas

Roads

Trails

MAP 1
12
Rocky Mountain

Ranger District

Glacier

 National

 Park 

C A N A D A

Blackfeet

Indian 

Reservation

Bob Marshall

Wilderness

Complex

Helena

Valier

Shelby

Conrad

Lincoln

Augusta

Choteau

Chester

Missoula

Cut Bank

Browning

Kalispell

Great Falls

White Sulphur Springs

Rocky Mountain Ranger District

Travel Management Plan

0 12.5 25 50 Miles

Vicinity Map

/

Rocky Mountain Ranger District

Wilderness

Reservation Lands

Forest Service Lands

BLM Lands

National Park Service

MAP 2
14
SPECIES ASSESSMENTS 

GRAY WOLF (Canis lupus)

Legal Status 

The RMRD Travel Management plan occurs within the Northwest Montana Recovery 

Area for the gray wolf. Wolves within this area are classified as Endangered by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The 

USFWS is currently undergoing a status review to determine whether wolves in the 

northern Rocky Mountains constitute a Distinct Population Segment (DPS), separate 

from wolves elsewhere in the United States, and whether this DPS has recovered and can 

be removed from the Endangered Species list. 

The population objective stated in the Northwest Montana Recovery Plan is to establish a 

minimum of 10 breeding pairs, or approximately 100 wolves, in the Northwest Montana 

Recovery Area for three successive years (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987). The 

FWS, which is the agency responsible for administering the ESA, believes that 30 or 

more breeding pairs of wolves, with an equitable distribution among the 3 states of 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for 3 successive years constitutes a viable and recovered 

wolf population. That criterion was met at the end of 2002. If other provisions required 

for delisting are met, primarily adequate regulatory mechanisms in the form of state laws 

and wolf management plans that would reasonably assure that the gray wolf would not 

become threatened or endangered again, the USFWS will propose delisting (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2005). 

Local Population and Habitat Status 

According to the most recent available Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Annual Report 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. 2006), at the end of 2005 there were 16 packs 

containing a total of 126 wolves in the Northwest Montana Recovery Area. Gray wolves 

are resident on the RMRD, in Glacier National Park (GNP) to the north, and on the 

Flathead National Forest to the west. One pack is known to occur on the RMRD. The Red 

Shale pack has established a territory in the North Fork Sun River drainage in the Bob 

Marshall Wilderness on the RMRD, roughly 7 miles west of the western boundary of the 

area for which this travel management decision is being made. 

Observed pack size in the Red Shale pack has ranged from 2 to 14 individuals, with a 

minimum of 7 wolves (4 adults and 3 pups) observed in November 2005. Two radiocollars were placed on wolves in the Red Shale pack in late 2002; one collar was shed in 

2003 and the other has not been successfully located since early 2004. Information since 

that time has been from observations of wolves, wolf sign (tracks, scats and killsites), and 

howling reported by a number of experienced observers. 

The Red Shale pack appears to use primarily the upper North Fork Sun River drainage 

within the Wilderness, although occasional winter movements outside the wilderness in 

the upper Gibson Reservoir area have been documented. Sporadic observations of 

15
individual wolves have been recorded in the non-wilderness portion of the RMRD and on 

non-NFS lands to the east. It is not known whether these observations represent wolves 

from the Red Shale pack, other wolves traveling through the area, or both. No regular 

activity, dens, or rendezvous sites are known to occur in the project area. 

Habitat requirements for the gray wolf are extremely general. Wolves require only 2 key 

habitat components: 1) an adequate year-round supply of wild ungulate prey, and 2) 

freedom from excessive persecution by humans (Fritts et al. 1994, Fritts and Carbyn 1995 

in Claar et al. 1999). Habitat used by wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains has been 

correlated with ungulate distribution and abundance (Carbyn 1974, Huggard 1993, 

Weaver 1994, Kunkel 1997, Boyd-Heger 1997 in Claar et al. 1999). In Montana, lowerelevation landscapes that tend to contain productive riparian areas and higher year-round 

concentrations of wild ungulates also frequently contain livestock, recreationists, and 

human development (Claar et al. 1999). 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Humans are responsible for the majority of mortalities of wolves through shooting and 

trapping both illegally and for management purposes, through vehicle collisions, and 

potentially due to den abandonment or displacement of packs due to disturbance (Claar et 

al. 1999). Because wolves are highly intelligent and depend on learning and behavioral 

plasticity as a survival strategy, they exhibit a wide variety of individual behaviors with 

respect to humans. Some individuals within a pack may be extremely sensitive to human 

disturbance, while others may be extremely tolerant (Claar et al. 1999). Humans may also 

impact wolves by altering distribution or abundance of their prey. 

The Proposed Plan would reduce the total mileage of motorized wheeled routes in the 

non-wilderness portion of the RMRD, as well as reducing the total acreage available to 

snowmobiles. Motorized travel would be confined to main roads or concentrated in 

specific areas, rather than being distributed throughout the non-wilderness of the RMRD 

as it is under the Existing Condition. Non-motorized recreation would continue to occur 

throughout the RMRD. Whether these changes may have any impact on recreation use 

patterns or levels is unknown. 

Although specific measurements have not been made, it is generally recognized that very 

little trail-based motorized travel occurs in the area encompassed by the Proposed Plan. 

Furthermore, because the Red Shale Pack territory is almost exclusively in the 

Wilderness, changes in pattern and amount of motorized travel resulting from the 

Proposed plan are unlikely to have any impact on the wolves or their prey. Individual 

wolves using other portions of the RMRD and adjoining lands are likely transient 

individuals that would also be unaffected by changes in the pattern of motorized travel. 

16
Cumulative Effects 

A number of factors could potentially result in impacts to wolves cumulative to those of 

the Proposed Travel Plan. These factors are: prescribed burning/wildfire, timber harvest, 

wildlife habitat on adjacent lands, and livestock grazing. 

Two large wildfires have burned in the Red Shale Pack territory since the pack became 

established there. During that time two prescribed fires were carried out in areas outside 

the known Red Shale Pack territory. Within the perimeter of all 4 of these fires, a mosaic 

of fire effects was achieved. Additional prescribed burning is scheduled within the 

Scapegoat Wilderness as soon as conditions are favorable. This planned fire is expected 

to create a varied patchwork of fire intensity and effects. Additional natural and 

prescribed fires may occur throughout the RMRD and adjoining lands in future years. 

Impacts on habitat will vary depending on the location and severity of the fires and on 

other factors. Generally, however, fires result in improved forage for ungulates (i.e. wolf 

prey) within 1-5 years of their occurrence. 

Very little timber harvest has occurred on the RMRD since 1988. A total of 107 acres 

were harvested between 1988 and 2002, using a variety of techniques ranging from small 

(1-20 acre) clearcuts, to small (1- 8 acre) thinning and other limited harvest projects. The 

sum of these past harvests has had no detectable impact on wolf prey numbers or 

distribution. These projects occurred and any future projects would occur outside the 

known territory of the Red Shale pack. 

Several small fuels treatment projects are planned that will alter the vegetation on a total 

of approximately 750 acres of the RMRD in the Benchmark drainage. The size of 

individual units varies from 3 to 236 acres, and all units are located immediately adjacent 

to recreation residences or to the National Forest boundary. All treatment units are 

outside the area known to be used by the Red Shale pack, and most are outside of areas 

mapped as important ungulate ranges. The result of these projects will be a variety of 

small openings or thinned canopy that may improve forage for wolf prey species. 

The area to the west of the project area, including the territory of the Red Shale pack, is 

the heart of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. Wildlife habitats there are subject 

almost exclusively to natural forces, such as climate and fire, and receive only minimal 

influence from human activity. Lands east of the NF boundary are largely privatelyowned ranch lands, where livestock husbandry is the primary activity. Although there are 

3 state-owned Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) that provide key ungulate winter 

range, large numbers of elk and deer also winter on private lands. Despite the presence of 

the WMAs and of a large block of land owned by The Nature Conservancy, it is unlikely 

that wolves would exist for long east of the NF boundary without eventually coming into 

conflict with livestock operations. The history of the Sawtooth Pack, which established a 

territory in 1993 on private land in the Smith Creek area and eventually had to be 

removed (in 1996-97) after a series of livestock depredations, lends weight to this 

assumption. 

17
Livestock grazing occurs within the project area on permitted grazing allotments. No 

cattle grazing permits are allowed within designated wilderness, where the Red Shale 

pack lives. The pack has not been observed to frequent any of the cattle grazing 

allotments on the RMRD. Several allotments also exist for limited outfitter/guide horse 

and mule grazing, some of which are in wilderness near or within the Red Shale pack 

territory. The LCNF Forest Plan states that “the Interagency Wildlife Guidelines [will be 

used] to avoid or mitigate conflicts between livestock razing [sic] and T&E Species”. The 

RMF Guidelines do not specifically address wolves, but guidelines for grizzly 

bear/livestock conflict would likely be used as a basis by which to manage wolf/livestock 

conflicts. The Guidelines stress that any actions taken as a result of conflict should 

minimize disturbance to bears, and that in general, management of multiple-use activities 

on the RMRD should favor bears. 

Determination of Effects 

I have determined implementation of the proposed Federal Action will have NO EFFECT 

on the Gray Wolf. My determination is based on the following rationale: 

1. The project area does not include any known den or rendezvous sites, and the 

Proposed Plan would not affect the known den/rendezvous site on the RMRD 

west of the project area. 

2. The Proposed Plan would not affect the wolf prey base, and would not 

increase mortality risk to wolves. 

3. Although livestock grazing occurs within the project area, it does not occur 

within the known territory of the Red Shale pack, and the Proposed Plan 

would not result in any changes to existing grazing practices. Current grazing 

of outfitter/guide horses may occur within the Red Shale pack territory, which 

is outside the project area, and would not be changed by the Proposed Plan. 

Recommendations For Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects 

No adverse effects are anticipated. 

GRIZZLY BEAR (Ursus arctos) 

Legal Status 

The grizzly bear is currently listed as a Threatened species throughout the conterminous 

United States. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan identifies 5 recovery zones, based on 

ecosystem characteristics, in which grizzly bear populations could be self-sustaining 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). The RMRD is entirely within the Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) Recovery Zone, which extends approximately 20 

miles eastward from the NF boundary to U.S. Highway 89, northward across U.S. 

Highway 2 into Glacier National Park, west of the RMRD into the Flathead and Lolo 

National Forests, and south of the RMRD into the Helena National Forest. Recovery of 

grizzly bears in the NCDE is contingent on (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993): 

18
• presence of 10 females with cubs inside GNP and 12 females with cubs outside 

GNP over a running six-year average both inside and outside the Recovery Zone 

(excluding Canada) 

• occupation of 21 out of 23 Bear Management Units (BMUs) by females with 

young from a running 6-year sum of verified sightings and evidence, with no 2 

adjacent BMUs unoccupied 

• known human-caused mortality not to exceed 4%, during any 2 consecutive 

years, of the population estimate based on the most recent 3-year sum of females 

with cubs; no more than 30% of this mortality limit shall be females 

• occupation of the Mission Mountains portion of the ecosystem 

Local Population and Habitat Status 

Population estimates of grizzly bears on the RMRD portion of the NCDE have ranged 

from 80 to 115 bears (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1992), although these 

estimates are several years old and based on limited mark-recapture data. An effort is 

currently underway to estimate the entire population of the NCDE using DNA samples 

collected systematically across the ecosystem. When that study is complete (estimated in 

late 2006) a more precise estimate of the grizzly bear population on the RMRD should be 

available. An additional effort is underway to analyze grizzly bear population trend in the 

NCDE. Results from that study may help determine population trend on the RMRD as 

well. 

In 2004, the most recent year for which recovery measures were calculated, the NCDE 

did not meet recovery goals for females with cubs inside GNP or overall, and exceeded 

the mortality limits established in the Recovery Plan. The distribution goals (occupation 

of 21 out of 23 BMUs as described above), however, were met (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service data revised 3/16/06, C. Servheen). Grizzly bear mortality, particularly along the 

Highway 2 corridor and on private lands within the NCDE continues to be an issue with 

respect to recovery. 

Grizzly bears are opportunistic and adaptable omnivores. Habitat use varies between 

areas, seasons, local populations, and individuals (Servheen 1983, Craighead and 

Mitchell 1982 in Claar et al. 1999). In Montana, important grizzly bear habitats include 

coniferous forest for thermal and security cover, and meadows, riparian zones, shrubs, 

parks, avalanche chutes, and alpine areas for foraging. Grizzly bears frequently exhibit 

wide-ranging seasonal movements in search of widely dispersed and varying food 

sources. 

On the RMRD, grizzly bears generally den in the higher elevation areas well within the 

NF boundary (Aune and Kasworm 1989). Many grizzly bears then move to low-elevation 

foothill habitat along the eastern NF boundary as well as to adjacent non-NFS lands in 

spring to forage on greening vegetation and winter-killed carcasses on ungulate winter 

ranges. Spring habitats are generally used between April 1 and June 30 in this area (USDI 

Bureau of Land Management et al. 1987). 

19
Summer grizzly bear habitat is primarily on the RMRD, although a few grizzly bears 

remain on non-NFS lands throughout the non-winter months. Bears generally use higher 

elevation forests and meadows during the summer, although they may be found 

throughout the RMRD during this time. Many grizzly bears return to lower elevations, 

including non-NFS lands, in late summer and fall to take advantage of ripening 

buffaloberry (Sheperdia canadensis) and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). During fall, 

some bears may shift to areas with concentrations of hunters throughout the RMRD and 

lands to the east to capitalize on gut piles and carcasses left by big-game hunters. 

Summer habitats are generally used between July 1 and August 31, while fall habitats are 

used between September 1 and November 30 (USDI Bureau of Land Management et al. 

1987). 

Potential grizzly bear spring and denning habitats have been mapped for the RMRD 

based on general habitat and landscape characteristics and information derived from 

studies of radio-collared bears. Table 3 shows the amount of mapped grizzly bear habitat 

in and adjacent to the RMRD, as well as the amount and percent on NFS lands and within 

the project area. For completeness, this table includes figures for the Badger-Two 

Medicine area that are not under consideration in the current decision. Nearly all denning 

habitat in the area occurs on NFS lands, while a large majority of the spring habitat 

occurs on non-NFS lands east of the boundary. 

Table 3. Total Acreage of Grizzly Bear Denning and Spring Habitats, and Acreage 

and Percent of each Habitat within National Forest Boundary and within BadgerTwo Medicine and Birch-South Areas 

Habitat Total 

Acreage 

Acreage 

Within 

NF 

Boundary 

% of Total 

Habitat 

Within NF 

Boundary

Acreage 

of 

Habitat 

in 

BadgerTwo 

Medicine

% of NF 

Habitat in 

BadgerTwo 

Medicine 

Acreage of 

Habitat in 

BirchSouth1

% of NF 

Habitat 

in 

BirchSouth1

Grizzly 

Bear 

Denning 

340,840 333,200 98% 45,270 14% 287,930 86% 

Grizzly 

Bear 

Spring2

632,870 205,410 32% 46,720 23% 158,680 77% 

 

1 Acreage and percent of habitats in Birch-South portion includes habitat within designated Wilderness 2

Acreage and percent of spring habitat within NF boundary includes approximately 1% of total spring 

habitat that occurs on private inholdings inside the NF boundary

The RMRD has been divided into Bear Management Units (BMUs) and Subunits to 

facilitate analysis of project effects and to evaluate recovery goals (Map 3). Each BMU 

Subunit approximates the size of an adult female grizzly bear’s annual home range. See 

Table 4 for acreage of each BMU subunit and the portion of each that is on NFS lands 

and within Wilderness. For completeness, this table includes figures for the 3 Subunits in 

the Badger-Two Medicine area that are not under consideration in the current decision, as 

20
£¤2

£¤89

£¤287

Glacier

 National

 Park Blackfeet

Indian

Reservation

Rocky

Mountain

Ranger

District

 

83

Bynum

Condon

Valier

Dupuyer

Augusta

Choteau

Swan Lake

Seeley Lake

Heart Butte

Teton

Birch

Badger

Lick Rock

Scapegoat

Deep Creek

Pine Butte

West Fork Beaver

Falls Creek

South Fork Willow

Heart Butte

Two Medicine

Roule Biggs

Rocky Mountain Ranger District

Travel Management Plan

0 5 10 20 Miles

BMU - Bear Management Unit Subunits

/

Grizzly Bear BMU Subunits

Rocky Mountain Ranger District

Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex

Indian Reservation MAP 3
22
well as figures for 2 subunits that fall entirely within designated Wilderness and are 

therefore outside the project area. The project area (the non-wilderness portion of the 

RMRD south of the North Fork of Birch Creek) includes portions of 8 BMU Subunits out 

of a total of 13 on the RMRD. The portions of the 8 Subunits within the project area that 

extend onto non-NFS lands to the east, as well as the portions of 5 of those Subunits that 

fall within designated Wilderness are not included in the travel managment decision. 

Nevertheless, most of the analysis with respect to grizzly bears occurs at the level of the 

Subunit and will therefore incorporate both non-NFS lands and designated wilderness. 

Table 4. Total Acreage of BMU Subunits, and Acreage and Percent of each BMU 

within National Forest Boundary and within Designated Wilderness 

Subunit 

Total 

Acreage in 

Subunit

Acreage 

Within NF 

Boundary

% of Subunit 

Within NF 

Boundary

Acreage in 

Wilderness

% of Subunit 

Within NF 

Boundary in 

Wilderness 

% of 

Subunit in 

Wilderness

Badger Two Medicine Area: 

Two 

Medicine 62,780 47,520 76% 0 -- -- 

Badger 82,430 56,660 69% 0 -- -- 

Heart 

Butte 71,020 33,380 47% 5,620 17% 8% 

Birch South Area: 

Birch 94,640 47,050 50% 40,240 86% 43% 

Teton 113,200 58,250 51% 14,800 25% 13% 

Roule 

Biggs 64,120 64,120 100% 64,120 100% 100% 

Lick Rock 101,060 101,060 100% 101,060 100% 100% 

Pine Butte 87,170 25,960 30% 0 -- -- 

Deep 

Creek 104,700 40,850 39% 0 -- -- 

West Fork 

Beaver 142,420 120,830 85% 78,920 65% 55% 

South Fk 

Willow 120,730 97,380 81% 50,620 52% 42% 

Scapegoat 100,900 58,030 58% 30,350 52% 30% 

Falls 

Creek 84,950 30,540 36% 0 -- -- 

Following direction in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Management Guidelines 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 1986), the RMRD has been stratified into 

Management Situations (MS) to prioritize habitat and multiple-use management in 

relation to grizzly bear recovery. Nearly all (98%, or over 760,000 acres) of the RMRD is 

classified as MS-1, which contains grizzly bear population centers and habitat key to 

species survival and recovery. Management priorities in MS-1 are to maintain/improve 

23
grizzly bear habitat, minimize grizzly-human conflicts, and to make management 

decisions that favor the needs of the grizzly bear when grizzly habitat and other land use 

values compete. A small portion (2%, or roughly 14,000 acres) of the RMRD is 

designated MS-3. This habitat is located around existing centers of human activity such 

as recreation residence tracts, permitted lodges, and campgrounds. Management priorities 

in MS-3 habitat are to manage grizzly-human conflicts and to discourage grizzly bear 

presence and factors contributing to their presence. An additional roughly 5,000 acres 

that fall within the boundary of the RMRD are privately owned; nearly half of this private 

inholding acreage is at the north end of the Badger-Two Medicine area immediately 

adjacent to U.S. Highway 2. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Access Management

Overview 

To protect important seasonal grizzly bear habitat from disturbance, the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest has relied primarily upon the dates recommended in the Rocky Mountain 

Front Interagency Wildlife Guidelines (RMF Guidelines) to restrict motorized access in 

those habitats. Adherence to the RMF Guidelines is incorporated as a Forest-Wide 

Wildlife Management Standard (C-1, p.2-31) in the LCNF Forest Plan. Restriction dates 

recommended by the RMF Guidelines were incorporated into the 1988 Travel Plan, and 

were included as key factors in developing the Proposed Plan. Thus LCNF has not 

adopted formal motorized access route density objectives as have some other national 

forests in the NCDE and other ecosystems where grizzly bears are present. 

The IGBC Access Management Taskforce Report on Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access 

Management (Taskforce Report) published in 1993 provided the basis for development in 

1995 of the Interim Motorized Access Management Direction for the NCDE (Interim 

Direction). The Interim Direction calls for calculating total motorized access route 

density (TOTMARD), to include all routes that are designated as motorized regardless of 

seasonal or year-round restrictions, and open motorized access route density (OPMARD), 

to include all routes that are open to motorized travel at any time during the non-denning 

season (1 April – 30 November). Core, consisting of blocks of habitat that are > 2500 

acres in size and more than 500m from an open motorized or high-use non-motorized 

road or trail, is also to be calculated. According to the Interim Direction TOTMARD, 

OPMARD and CORE are to be calculated for each BMU Subunit regardless of 

ownership pattern, for the entire non-denning season. Guideline values for the % of each 

Subunit at a certain density of TOTMARD and OPMARD or in Core are to be applied 

only to federal lands within the Subunit. The Interim Direction recommendations are as 

follows: 

• TOTMARD: No increase; move toward <19% of Subunit in >2 mi/mi2

density category on federal lands 

• OPMARD: No increase; move toward <19% of Subunit in >1 mi/mi2

density category on federal lands 

24
• CORE: No decrease in % of analysis area in Core. Move toward > 68% of 

Subunit in Core on federal lands. 

The Taskforce Report was updated in 1998, noting among other things that OPMARD 

and Core may be calculated or identified by season. The Report recommended that each 

ecosystem subcommittee of the IGBC develop or update their access management 

direction based on relevant ecosystem-specific information. The NCDE Access 

Management Rule Set Proposed Direction (IGBC 2001) was subsequently developed, 

proposing a set of guidelines that addressed some difficulties in applying the original 

guidelines, and suggested more specific protocols for calculation of densities. The 

Proposed Direction also incorporated important differences between grizzly bear habitats 

and land ownership and management east of the Continental Divide versus west of it, 

included consideration of percent federal ownership of subunits, and attempted to address 

seasonal changes in grizzly bear habitat needs. Objectives for the Proposed Direction are 

measured in kilometers per square kilometer, to be more in line with units used in 

scientific research, but they are therefore difficult to compare directly with calculations 

made under the Interim Direction. The Proposed Direction has not yet been formally 

accepted by the IGBC. 

 

Meanwhile, in 1995 the Flathead National Forest adopted Amendment 19 (A-19), 

amending their Forest Plan to incorporate access management standards. These standards 

are based on the 1995 NCDE Interim Direction but include more specific application of 

density standards based on percent federal ownership in a Subunit. A protocol was 

developed to calculate TOTMARD, OPMARD, and Core for all projects to evaluate 

compliance with A-19. The A-19 standards are as follows: 

• TOTMARD 

o Subunits > 75% NFS lands: <19% of Subunit in >2 mi/mi2

 density 

category 

o Subunits < 75% NFS lands: no net increase in % of Subunit in >2 

mi/mi2 density category 

• OPMARD 

o Subunits > 75% NFS lands: <19% of Subunit in >1 mi/mi2

 density 

category 

o Subunits < 75% NFS lands: no net increase in % of Subunit in > 1 

mi/mi2 density category 

• CORE 

o Subunits > 75% NFS lands: < 68% of Subunit in core areas > 2500 

acres 

o Subunits < 75% NFS lands: no net decrease in % of Subunit in 

core areas > 2500 acres. 

Despite not having adopted access management standards based on the NCDE Interim or 

Proposed Direction, the LCNF has conducted an access management analysis to evaluate 

motorized access on the RMRD under the existing (1988) Travel Plan and under the 

Proposed Plan. The FNF A-19 standards provide a useful and familiar point of reference 

because they have been formally established in a Forest Plan Amendment and applied to 

25
a number of land management projects on the FNF. Therefore the A-19 protocol used by 

the Flathead National Forest, modified slightly to account for some minor differences in 

available type and quantity of data, was used to carry out the analysis for the RMRD 

travel plan. Specific information regarding those modifications as well as other details on 

application of the access management analysis to the RMRD is available in the project 

file. Results are compared to A-19 standards for a point of reference, as well as to the 

NCDE Interim Direction. 

In addition to calculations made for the entire non-denning season OPMA and Core were 

calculated by season, as suggested in the 1998 IGBC Taskforce Report and in the NCDE 

Proposed Direction. Calculating these values by season better reflects specific concerns 

about impacts to important grizzly bear habitats, and allows better evaluation of the 

effectiveness of adhering to the RMF Wildlife Guideline recommendations for seasonal 

restrictions on motorized access. The results for the Birch-South area are displayed by 

analysis category in Tables 5-11 below, and are organized to group Subunits by 

ownership level per the A-19 divisions. The tables do not include the Badger-Two 

Medicine portion of the RMRD, for which a later decision will be made. The tables also 

do not include the 2 wilderness Subunits, which meet objectives for TOTMARD, 

OPMARD, and Core in both the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan. In all tables, 

numbers in Bold indicate Subunits or portions of Subunits that would not be in 

compliance if the A-19 standards were applied to the RMRD Existing Situation. Numbers 

in Italics indicate Subunits or portions of Subunits that would not meet the A-19 numeric 

objective under the Proposed Plan, even if they meet the standard by moving toward the 

numeric objective. 

Total Motorized Access Route Density (TOTMARD) 

TOTMARD calculations include all roads and trails that are designated for motorized 

travel, regardless of whether or not there are seasonal or yearlong restrictions present. 

26
Table 5. TOTMARD: Percent of each Subunit portion in >2mi/mi2

 density class, by 

ownership category. 

NFS Lands Portion All Lands in Subunit Non-NFS Lands 

Portion1 Subunit 

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 

W. Fork 

Beaver >75% 2.90 2.65 7.06 7.00 29.73 30.68 

NFS 

Lands S. Fork 

Willow 2.43 1.63 5.59 4.92 17.76 17.60 

Birch 3.26 0.13 23.04 21.03 42.62 41.72 

Teton 5.82 3.97 17.47 16.03 29.45 28.42 

Pine 

Butte 11.7 3.38 20.83 18.35 24.70 24.70 

Deep 

Creek 9.1 1.23 18.26 15.35 23.53 23.48 

Scapegoat 

2.29 2.22 14.00 13.96 29.76 29.76 

<75% 

NFS 

Lands 

Falls 

Creek 5.99 0.17 22.47 19.90 31.71 30.98 

1 Differences between Existing and Proposed numbers on Non-NFS lands are likely due to portions of 

routes that are included and managed as NF system routes but that travel across non-NFS lands. Note that 

all such differences are minor, involving short portions of road or trail, and do not affect compliance of 

those lands. 

The NFS lands portion of all Subunits meets the A-19 standard in both the Existing 

Situation and the Proposed Plan. Three of 6 Subunits with <75% NFS lands do not meet 

the A-19 recommendation as a whole in the Existing Situation, but all 6 subunits would 

move in that direction under the Proposed Plan, thus meeting the A-19 standard, and the 

Interim Direction. 

Open Motorized Access Route Density (OPMARD) 

OPMARD calculations included all routes that are open for motorized travel during the 

season for which the calculation was made. Routes are included regardless of the 

estimated use level; i.e. some routes may be open during all or part of the non-denning 

season, and therefore included in OPMARD calculations, but they may receive little or 

no use all or part of that time. Development of OPMARD differs from the A-19 protocol 

as follows: under A-19, the method of closure (e.g. berm vs. gate) determines inclusion or 

exclusion from OPMARD, and that determination differs for roads and trails. For the 

RMRD calculation, method of closure was not considered, and all motorized routes were 

treated the same. 

27
The Proposed Direction stresses that the benefits of the proposed access management 

“depend heavily on effective implementation of a ‘gated’ road management system”. The 

RMRD, however, has a total of only 135 miles of road within an area of over 776,000 

acres (with 105 road miles on 264,000 acres considered in the current travel management 

decision). Almost all of these roads are closely tied to major public access points such as 

trailheads, campgrounds, and recreation residences, and are therefore considered 

“uncloseable”. Thus very few roads are involved in the access management issue and in 

TOTMARD calculations on the RMRD. Roads may be a more critical issue both on the 

west side and with respect to requirements for gates or other physical closure devices. 

The RMRD access issue revolves primarily around motorized trails, and very few 

physical closure devices are used to implement seasonal or other restrictions on trails. 

The majority of ATV trails are in the Badger-Two Medicine area. Motorized trails in the 

Birch-South decision area are almost entirely single-track motorcycle trails that receive 

almost no use at any time of year due to a combination of terrain, trail structure, and lack 

of a significant motorcycle user group. Most of these single-track trails are also relatively 

inaccessible until after the critical spring season. 

OPMARD calculations were carried out for the entire non-denning season (1 April – 30 

November), as well as for spring (1April – 30 June), and summer/fall (1 July – 30 

November). Seasonal calculations were done to examine the effectiveness of seasonal 

restrictions on motorized routes based on the RMF Guidelines. 

Summer and/or fall also include the maximum number of routes that might be open at 

any time during the non-denning season, because most seasonal closures are in place 

either in spring to protect grizzly bear spring or elk calving habitats, or in fall to protect 

elk and other big game habitats during general rifle hunting season. Summer/fall 

OPMARD is thus the same as OPMARD for the entire non-denning season. Therefore 

the results for overall non-denning OPMARD and summer/fall OPMARD are presented 

in a single table (Table 6) below. 

A number of motorized routes on the RMRD are restricted to motorized access between 

15 October and 1 December (general rifle hunting season) under both the Existing 

Condition and the Proposed . These routes were included in fall OPMARD totals, 

however, because the fall season for bears is considered to begin 1 September, fully 6 

weeks before the restrictions begin. Therefore OPMARD for both summer and fall 

include the same routes. It should be noted, however, that OPMARD is further reduced 

for half the bear fall season, at a time when motorized use likely increases on many 

unrestricted routes and human activity overall likely increases as well. Hunting season 

restrictions on motorized access likely provide additional security for bears that have not 

yet entered hibernation. 

It is important to note that nearly all of the 105 miles of road open seasonally or yearlong 

on the RMRD under the Existing Condition are open yearlong or for a long enough 

period to be included in all OPMARD calculations. With respect to trails, of the 209 

miles of motorized trail in the Existing Condition, 144 miles are single-track trail open to 

motorcycle use only. Although no numeric data are available regarding use levels, it is 

28
generally accepted that these trails receive very low levels of use throughout the time 

period they are open. All or part of most of these trails are inaccessible during the spring 

due to snow, high water, or wet and muddy conditions. Similar patterns of use are 

expected under the Proposed Plan, with the available motorized trail miles greatly 

reduced (74 total trail miles, 24 of them open to ATV and motorcycle, and 50 of them 

single-track trails open to motorcycle only). Thus many trails included in OPMARD 

calculations for both the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan may actually receive 

little or no use.

Table 6. OPMARD for Entire Non-Denning Season (1 April – 30 November) and for 

the Summer/Fall Season (1July – 30 September): Percent of each Subunit portion in 

>1mi/mi2

 density class, by ownership category 

NFS Lands Portion All Lands in Subunit Non-NFS Lands 

Portion1 Subunit 

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 

W. Fork 

Beaver 10.64 9.60 20.04 19.18 71.3 71.41 

>75% 

NFS 

Lands S. Fork 

Willow 14.5 9.96 23.3 19.63 57.17 56.85 

Birch 

8.95 1.55 43.34 40.40 77.37 78.85 

Teton 

23.16 12.54 44.46 38.30 66.37 64.78 

Pine 

Butte 46.59 12.62 54.00 43.88 57.14 57.14 

Deep 

Creek 40.43 9.25 57.13 45.51 66.74 66.38 

Scapegoat 7.36 7.24 29.12 29.05 58.43 58.43 

<75% 

NFS 

Lands 

Falls 

Creek 33.64 2.70 54.96 43.12 66.93 65.81 1 Differences between Existing and Proposed numbers on Non-NFS lands are likely due to portions of 

routes that are included and managed as NF system routes but that travel across non-NFS lands. Note that 

all such differences are minor, involving short portions of road or trail, and do not affect compliance of 

those lands. 

The NFS lands portion of all Subunits with > 75% NF ownership meets the A-19 

standard in both the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan. Four of 6 Subunits with 

<75% NFS lands do not meet the A-19 recommendation on NFS lands or as a whole in 

the Existing Situation. It should be noted that the Falls Creek subunit does not meet the 

standard because trails on NFS lands in that Subunit are designated as open to motorcycle 

use on the travel plan map. These trails, however, are in fact not currently available for 

motorized use due to restrictions placed by the private landowner who controls access to 

the Falls Creek trail system. 

29
Under the Proposed Plan the NFS portion of all 6 subunits would meet the density goal, 

and all 6 subunits would move in that direction in their entirety under the Proposed Plan, 

thus meeting the A-19 standard as well as the Interim Direction. 

Table 7. OPMARD for Spring Season (1 April – 30 June): Percent of each Subunit 

portion in >1mi/mi2

 density class, by ownership category 

NFS Lands Portion All Lands in Subunit Non-NFS Lands 

Portion1 Subunit 

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 

W. Fork 

Beaver >75% 8.14 4.69 17.84 14.94 70.73 70.83 

NFS 

Lands S. Fork 

Willow 6.31 4.34 16.76 14.80 56.98 55.07 

Birch 3.58 0.77 40.66 40.01 77.35 78.85 

Teton 18.77 9.69 42.05 36.85 65.97 64.78 

Pine 

Butte 19.31 12.62 45.87 43.88 57.14 57.14 

Deep 

Creek 18.85 9.25 49.10 45.51 66.52 66.38 

Scapegoat 

7.36 7.24 29.12 29.05 58.43 58.43 

<75% 

NFS 

Lands 

Falls 

Creek 30.29 2.70 53.57 43.12 66.64 65.81 

1 Differences between Existing and Proposed numbers on Non-NFS lands are likely due to portions of 

routes that are included and managed as NF system routes but that travel across non-NFS lands. Note that 

all such differences are minor, involving short portions of road or trail, and do not affect compliance of 

those lands. 

The NFS lands portion and the entire portion of all Subunits with > 75% NF ownership 

meets the A-19 standard in both the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan. Only 1 of 6 

Subunits with <75% NFS lands does not meet the A-19 density objective on NFS lands in 

the Existing Situation, and that subunit is at the borderline for meeting the objective. 

Once again it should be noted that the Falls Creek subunit does not comply on paper, but 

currently does comply on the ground as discussed above. The greater overall compliance 

and lower OPMARD densities in spring compared to the entire non-denning season 

demonstrate the effectiveness of existing seasonal road and trail closures in protecting 

key seasonal habitats. 

Under the Proposed Plan the NFS portion of all 6 subunits with <75% NFS lands would 

meet the standard, and all 6 subunits would move in that direction in their entirety under 

the Proposed Plan, thus meeting the A-19 standard, as well as the Interim Direction. 

30
Core Area (CORE)

The analysis of Core Area involves buffering all open motorized roads and trails as well 

as all high-use non-motorized trails by 500 m. Remaining blocks of habitat >2500 acres 

are then identified and assigned status as secure areas, or Core. Many large blocks of 

Core are bisected by >1 Subunit boundary. The percentage of each subunit in Core 

reflects the portion of each Subunit that contains entire blocks of Core or portions of 

blocks of Core. 

Core calculations were carried out for the entire non-denning season (1 April – 30 

November), as well as for spring (1 April – 30 June), summer, (1 July – 30 August) and 

fall (1 September – 30 November). Seasonal calculations were done to examine the 

effectiveness of seasonal restrictions on motorized routes based on the RMF Guidelines. 

Unlike OPMARD, Core differs between summer and fall as well as between those 

seasons and the entire non-denning season due to differences in high-use non-motorized 

trails. Non-motorized trails receive different levels of use in summer vs. fall because of 

seasonal changes in recreational pursuits (e.g. hiking/camping vs. hunting) as well as 

differences in weather and trail condition. 

Although a rule exists for determining whether a non-motorized trail is considered high 

use (>20 parties per week; see NCDE Cumulative Effects Model Manual - 2005), actual 

data do not exist with which to determine whether a particular trail should be considered 

high use or not. Use levels were assigned to all trails after discussion with trails and 

wilderness managers and other FS personnel familiar with those trails and the use they 

receive in each season. Where there was doubt between 2 use levels, the higher level was 

assigned in order to arrive at the most conservative estimate of secure grizzly bear 

habitat. 

As noted above under the OPMARD discussion, many trails included in OPMARD 

calculations, particularly single-track motorcycle trails, may receive little if any actual 

use during all or part of the non-denning season. Considering this and the manner in 

which use levels were assigned to non-motorized trails, the results presented below are 

more likely to underestimate Core than to overestimate it. 

31
Table 8. Core for Entire Non-Denning Season (1 April – 30 November): Percent of 

each Subunit in Core by ownership category 

NFS Lands Portion All Lands in Subunit Non-NFS Lands 

Portion1 Subunit 

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 

W. Fork 

Beaver 78.12 78.17 68.65 68.7 17.00 17.00 

>75% 

NFS 

Lands S. Fork 

Willow 66.95 67.01 59.21 59.28 29.42 29.50 

Birch 

82.81 89.01 47.05 50.55 11.66 12.48 

Teton 

68.82 75.76 44.06 49.65 18.60 22.80 

Pine 

Butte 46.16 81.30 40.75 53.72 38.46 42.01 

Deep 

Creek 44.98 62.36 29.87 39.20 21.18 25.87 

Scapegoat 62.48 62.58 50.96 51.02 35.46 35.46 

<75% 

NFS 

Lands 

Falls 

Creek 60.24 86.11 37.47 48.59 24.69 27.53 1 Differences between Existing and Proposed numbers on Non-NFS lands are likely due to portions of 

routes that are included and managed as NF system routes but that travel across non-NFS lands. Note that 

all such differences are minor, involving short portions of road or trail, and do not affect compliance of 

those lands. 

The NFS lands portion of one Subunit with > 75% NF ownership meets the A-19 

standard in both the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan. The South Fork Willow 

Subunit does not meet the standard in either situation, although the Proposed Plan moves 

this subunit closer to the standard. As displayed in Tables 9-11 below for seasonal Core 

calculations, the South Fork Willow Subunit meets the A-19 standard for Core in spring 

and summer, but not in fall. As discussed above in the OPMARD section, the density of 

open motorized routes is the same in both summer and fall. The only difference between 

these seasons that influences the amount of Core area is the density of high-use nonmotorized trails in the Subunit. Thus it is the contribution of fall (likely hunting-related) 

travel on non-motorized trails, rather than motorized travel, that heavily influences Core 

calculations in this Subunit and prevents it from achieving >68% Core for the entire nondenning season. Under the Proposed Plan this Subunit meets the Interim Direction, 

however, by not decreasing Core and by moving toward the 68% objective. As discussed 

above, it is possible that Core is underestimated in this as in other subunits due to the way 

in which use levels were assigned to non-motorized trails. 

Four of 6 Subunits with <75% NFS lands do not meet the A-19 Core objective on NFS 

lands or as a whole in the Existing Situation. The Falls Creek subunit does not meet the 

standard because trails on NFS lands in that Subunit are designated as open to motorcycle 

32
use on the travel plan map. These trails, however, are in fact not currently available for 

motorized use due to restrictions placed by the private landowner who controls access to 

the Falls Creek trail system. 

Under the Proposed Plan the NFS portion of 4 of those 6 subunits would meet the 

objective, and all 6 subunits would move in that direction in their entirety under the 

Proposed Plan, thus meeting the A-19 standard, as well as the Interim Direction. As with 

the South Fork Willow Subunit, Core in the Deep Creek and Scapegoat subunits is 

limited by high use of non-motorized trails during the fall (hunting) season. 

Table 9. Core for Spring Season (1 April – 30 June): Percent of each Subunit 

portion in >2mi/mi2

 density class, by ownership category 

NFS Lands Portion All Lands in Subunit Non-NFS Lands 

Portion1 Subunit 

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 

W. Fork 

Beaver 87.95 91.50 76.98 79.98 17.17 17.17 

>75% 

NFS 

Lands S. Fork 

Willow 93.27 95.22 80.11 81.69 29.42 29.61 

Birch 

95.39 97.40 53.31 54.73 11.67 12.50 

Teton 

81.14 89.98 51.58 59.47 21.18 28.10 

Pine 

Butte 80.21 86.46 50.89 55.25 38.46 42.01 

Deep 

Creek 79.80 88.81 42.59 48.86 21.18 25.87 

Scapegoat 91.46 91.56 67.69 67.75 35.7 35.70 

<75% 

NFS 

Lands 

Falls 

Creek 71.26 96.07 41.49 52.18 24.77 27.55 1 Differences between Existing and Proposed numbers on Non-NFS lands are likely due to portions of 

routes that are included and managed as NF system routes but that travel across non-NFS lands. Note that 

all such differences are minor, involving short portions of road or trail, and do not affect compliance of 

those lands. 

During the spring season, the NFS lands portion of all subunits, regardless of ownership 

level, would meet the A-19 standard and Interim Direction under both the Existing 

Situation and the Proposed Plan. In the Existing Situation this is likely due to a 

combination of adherence to the RMF Guidelines in restricting motorized travel, and low 

levels of use on all trails at this time of year. Under the Proposed Plan, overall reductions 

in density of motorized routes in combination with low levels of use during spring 

contribute to the generally high levels of Core. The Proposed Plan would increase the 

amount of Core in all Subunits considered in their entirety regardless of ownership. 

33
Table 11. Core for Summer Season (1 July – 31 August): Percent of each Subunit 

portion in >2mi/mi2 density class, by ownership category 

NFS Lands Portion All Lands in Subunit Non-NFS Lands 

Portion1 Subunit 

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 

W. Fork 

Beaver 78.4 79.91 68.89 70.17 17.00 17.00 

>75% 

NFS 

Lands S. Fork 

Willow 80.16 82.74 69.70 71.76 29.42 29.50 

Birch 

82.81 89.01 47.05 50.55 11.66 12.48 

Teton 

68.82 75.79 44.06 49.66 18.60 22.80 

Pine 

Butte 46.16 81.30 40.75 53.72 38.46 42.01 

Deep 

Creek 54.22 77.69 33.25 44.80 21.18 25.87 

Scapegoat 84.12 84.22 63.48 63.54 35.69 35.69 

<75% 

NFS 

Lands 

Falls 

Creek 60.24 86.20 37.47 48.62 24.69 27.53 1 Differences between Existing and Proposed numbers on Non-NFS lands are likely due to portions of 

routes that are included and managed as NF system routes but that travel across non-NFS lands. Note that 

all such differences are minor, involving short portions of road or trail, and do not affect compliance of 

those lands. 

During the summer season, the NFS lands portion and the entire subunit of all subunits 

>75% NF ownership would meet the A-19 standard as well as the Interim Direction 

under both the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan. Three of 6 Subunits with <75% 

NFS lands do not meet the A-19 numeric objective on NFS lands, and none of the 6 meet 

the objective when considered as a whole. As discussed above in the OPMARD section, 

the Falls Creek subunit may meet the objective on the ground, despite not meeting it on 

paper, due to actual restrictions on motorized access into the area by the private owner of 

the trailhead. 

All Subunits would experience increases in Core as a whole under the Proposed Plan, 

thus meeting the A-19 standard and the Interim Direction. These increases are due 

entirely to reductions in density of motorized routes on NFS lands under the Proposed 

Plan, since non-motorized use levels are assumed to remain the same under either 

situation. 

34
 Table 11. Core for Fall Season (1 September – 30 November): Percent of each 

Subunit portion in >2mi/mi2

 density class, by ownership category 

NFS Lands Portion All Lands in Subunit Non-NFS Lands 

Portion1 Subunit 

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 

W. Fork 

Beaver 84.03 84.09 73.64 73.69 17.00 17.00 

>75% 

NFS 

Lands S. Fork 

Willow 66.99 67.05 59.24 59.31 29.42 29.50 

Birch 

82.81 89.01 47.05 50.55 11.66 12.48 

Teton 

68.82 78.62 44.06 51.68 18.6 23.99 

Pine 

Butte 48.00 83.15 41.30 54.27 38.46 42.01 

Deep 

Creek 45.86 65.15 30.20 40.22 21.18 25.87 

Scapegoat 62.81 62.91 51.15 51.21 35.46 35.46 

<75% 

NFS 

Lands 

Falls 

Creek 60.24 86.11 37.47 48.59 24.69 27.53 1 Differences between Existing and Proposed numbers on Non-NFS lands are likely due to portions of 

routes that are included and managed as NF system routes but that travel across non-NFS lands. Note that 

all such differences are minor, involving short portions of road or trail, and do not affect compliance of 

those lands. 

Results for the the fall season are similar to those displayed above for the entire nondenning season. The NFS lands portion of one Subunit with > 75% NF ownership meets 

the A-19 standard in both the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan. The South Fork 

Willow Subunit does not meet the standard in either situation due to the level and pattern 

of high-use non-motorized trails used during the fall (hunting) season rather than to 

motorized travel. 

Four of 6 Subunits with <75% NFS lands do not meet the A-19 numeric objective on 

NFS lands or as a whole in the Existing Situation. As in summer and for the entire nondenning season, the Falls Creek subunit does not meet the objective on paper but likely 

does meet it on the ground. This is illustrated by the fact that it would easily meet the 

standard under the Proposed Plan, in which the only change from the Existing Situation is 

the removal of the motorized designation from all trails in that area. Use levels are 

assumed to remain the same under both situations. 

Under the Proposed Plan the NFS portion of 4 of the 6 subunits with <75% NFS lands 

would meet the A-19 numeric objective, and all 6 subunits would move in that direction 

in their entirety under the Proposed Plan, thus meeting the A-19 standard as well as the 

Interim Direction. As discussed above for the South Fork Willow Subunit, Core in the 

35
Deep Creek and Scapegoat subunits is limited by high use of non-motorized trails during 

the fall (hunting) season. 

Summary of Access Management Analysis 

In summary, the Proposed Plan would result in the NFS portion of all Subunits meeting 

A-19 standards and Interim Direction for TOTMARD, OPMARD, and Core. In 3 

Subunits, Core is limited by fall use levels on non-motorized trails, but the Proposed Plan 

would meet the standards by moving those Subunits closer to the objective. 

A key management tool on the RMRD has been seasonal restrictions on motorized access 

in seasonally important habitats. However the methods used to determine compliance 

with the Interim Direction do not include consideration of seasonal restrictions (note that 

the 1998 Revised IGBC Taskforce Report indicates that OPMARD “may be calculated 

for a season or yearlong”). Therefore stating that under the Existing Situation some 

Subunits fail to comply with the Interim Directions when calculated only for the entire 

non-denning season ignores the fact that some or all of those Subunits may actually 

comply with the direction during the seasons when bears would most likely be using 

those areas. This is most likely to be the case in spring, when many trails and some roads 

are closed to motorized use specifically to provide security for grizzly bears. The 

relatively high compliance with the Interim Direction for OPMARD on NFS lands when 

calculated seasonally, particularly in spring, illustrates that the existing system of 

seasonal restrictions on the RMRD is an effective means for providing habitat security 

for grizzly bears. 

The Proposed Plan would generally not affect the non-NFS lands portion of Subunits. 

The figures for non-NFS lands for all Subunits illustrate the contribution of those lands to 

TOTMARD, OPMARD, or Core, and demonstrate very clearly the limit to which 

decreasing the density of motorized access routes on NFS lands can contribute to 

increasing grizzly bear security in Subunits as a whole. 

Cumulative Effects Model

Overview 

Efforts have been made since the late 1980’s to develop both unified and area-specific 

models with which to analyze the cumulative effects of human activity on grizzly bears. 

Most recently in the NCDE, a Cumulative Effects Model (CEM) has been developed that 

uses multivariate analysis of data from field studies on grizzly bears to predict seasonal 

grizzly bear habitat preference (USDA Forest Service et al. 2005). The model was 

adjusted to create an east-side and a west-side version, recognizing that habitats and 

grizzly bear use of them appear to differ substantially east vs. west of the Continental 

Divide. Simply put, the CEM for each area incorporates habitat features identified from 

satellite imagery that, based on data from research on grizzly bears, are assigned a value 

to indicate relative importance as grizzly bear habitat. These features in combination 

provide a Habitat Value (HV) for a given area, indicating the potential importance of that 

area to grizzly bears as compared to other areas. Calculations are made on a BMU or 

36
BMU Subunit scale, so that each BMU or Subunit is assigned a HV for each season 

(spring, summer, and fall). 

The key to the CEM and the reason behind its development, however, goes beyond 

simply assigning HV. The CEM uses information on human activities in the area of 

analysis to adjust the HV. Different types of human activity are assumed to decrease HV 

by different amounts. The adjustments to the HV made by the CEM after considering all 

human activities in an area are referred to as the Habitat Effectiveness (HE). Thus a 

Subunit may have a high HV for spring, for example, indicating that it has the potential to 

be more valuable than other Subunits, but it may have a relatively low HE because of the 

presence of a large amount of human activity or influence as compared to other Subunits. 

Specific information about development of the model, data and rationale behind values 

used in HV and HE calculations, and paramaterization of the model can be found in the 

NCDE Cumulative Effects Manual (USDA Forest Service et al. 2005). 

Development of the various CEMs was intended to provide an objective, repeatable, and 

quantifiable measure of the accumulated impact of individual human activities on grizzly 

bear habitat. The NCDE CEM does that, but it is critically important to understand that 

the calculated HV and HE values have no intrinsic meaning beyond providing a means to 

compare local areas or different activities within a single area. The technical group 

working on development and interpretation of the NCDE CEM agreed that the most 

useful way to use and understand outputs from the CEM is to look at the relative amount 

of change from HV to HE in each Subunit. The group agreed that looking at percent loss 

([1- (HE/HV)] x 100) appeared to be the simplest and most appropriate way of looking at 

the CEM results. As an example, if a Subunit has an HV of 10 but an HE of 5, it has 

experienced a 50% loss in the value of its habitat as a result of human activity. When 

looking at several Subunits, it is then possible to identify which Subunits have 

experienced greater or lesser impacts to their inherent habitat potential as a result of 

accumulated human activities. This method can be used to predict the relative impact of a 

new activity, such as a road or timber sale, on grizzly bear habitat in an area. It can also 

be used to compare the relative impacts of alternative activities within a specific area by 

comparing the percent loss in HV that would be caused by each alternative. 

CEM Analysis 

To provide a means of comparing the potential impacts on grizzly bear habitat of the 

existing (1988) RMRD Travel Plan with the potential impacts of the Proposed Plan, the 

east-side NCDE CEM was run at the BMU Subunit level for both situations. For both 

situations the only differences were in travel management – the quantity and pattern of 

motorized access routes on the RMRD. All other habitat features and human activity 

features were the same in both situations. 

The most appropriate way to look at this analysis is to compare the percent loss for each 

Subunit, as described above, under the Existing Condition with the percent loss for each 

Subunit under the Proposed Plan. Habitat Value (HV) is the same under the Existing 

Situation and the Proposed Plan, so the comparison of percent loss provides some idea of 

the reduction in value of grizzly bear habitat due to travel management under the 

37
Proposed Plan as compared to the Existing Situation. The results are displayed by season 

in Table 12 below for the Birch-South area; wilderness subunits are not included because 

travel management would be the same under the Proposed Plan as under the Existing 

Situation, so both HE and HV are the same under both situations. The percent loss under 

both the Existing Situation and Proposed Plan is displayed, as well as a measure of the 

degree to which that value would change under the Proposed Plan as compared to the 

Existing Situation. 

38
 Table 12. NCDE East-Side Cumulative Effects Model Results: Percent Loss ([1-(HE/HV)] x 100) Compa

Situation and Proposed Plan by Subunit and Season

SPRING SUMMER 

Subunit 

Existing Proposed Change in %: 

(Ex-Pref)x100 

Existing Proposed Change in %: 

(Ex-Pref)x100

Existing Prop

Birch 26.03% 24.82% 1.21% 18.84% 15.65% 3.19% 16.06% 13.

Teton 23.31% 21.82% 1.49% 17.23% 14.23% 3.00% 13.65% 10.

Pine 

Butte 29.21% 28.93% 0.28% 18.11% 18.11% 0.00% 17.23% 16.

Deep 

Creek 25.21% 23.85% 1.36% 18.48% 16.11% 2.37% 16.48% 16.

W. Fork 

Beaver 8.28% 7.67% 0.61% 6.25% 6.25% 0.00% 4.39% 4.1

S. Fork 

Willow 13.38% 12.89% 0.49% 10.80% 7.95% 2.85% 8.22% 6.6

Scapegoat 21.42% 21.42% 0.00% 16.17% 16.17% 0.00% 13.21% 13.

Falls 

Creek 27.25% 27.25% 0.00% 19.82% 19.37% 0.45% 16.49% 16.
Summary of CEM Analysis 

In all Subunits and all seasons, the Proposed Plan either does not alter or decreases the 

amount by which HV is reduced by human activity, effectively maintaining or improving 

the value of grizzly bear habitat. The amount by which the Proposed Plan does this 

indicates the relative degree of improvement and is displayed in the “Change in %” 

column in Table 12 above. In the Birch Subunit in spring, for example, there would be a 

1.21% less reduction in HV due to human activity in the Proposed Plan than in the 

Existing Situation. Put another way, the habitat in the Birch Subunit would be 1.21% 

better under the Proposed Plan. 

Differences between the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan appear to be greatest in 

the summer. Summer is when the most motorized routes would be open under either 

situation, so the greater difference during that season illustrates the degree to which the 

overall reduction in motorized routes under the Proposed Plan would affect grizzly bear 

habitat. Differences between the Existing and Proposed are least in spring, reflecting the 

existing protection of important seasonal habitat through restrictions on motorized travel 

in the spring. 

Use levels on motorized routes were assigned as described in the Access Management 

analysis above for non-motorized routes. Where there was question, the higher level was 

assigned in order to be conservative about estimates of grizzly bear habitat. 

Forest Plan Direction

The LCNF Forest Plan includes a variety of standards and guidelines that either directly 

or indirectly address management of grizzly bears and grizzly bear habitat management. 

Table 13 below summarizes Forest Plan standards that are relevant to the proposed 

project or that pertain directly or indirectly to grizzly bear habitat management. This table 

also displays how both the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan comply with those 

standards, with differences highlighted in the Proposed Plan column. 

40
Table 13. Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan Standards for Grizzly Bear and Management of Roads an

Forest Plan Standards Existing Proposed Plan CManage motorized use on NFS lands... to reduce effects on wildlife during periods of high stress (Wildlife & Fish C-1-6) 

RMF Guidelines used to apply seasonal restrictions on motorized use primarily in grizzly bear spring and denning habitats 

Continued use of restrictions in addition to overall reduction in mileage/density of motorized routes

Use the Interagency Wildlife (RMF) Guidelines to manage land-use activities occuring within the habitat of these species on the RMF (Wildlife & Fish, C1-11) 

RMF Guidelines used to apply seasonal restrictions on motorized use primarily in grizzly bear spring and denning habitats 

Continued use of restrictions in addition to overall reduction in mileage/density of motorized routes

Maintain active communication with research and use current research for planning and implementation of projects in T&E species habitat (Wildlife & Fish, C-2-4) 

Ongoing involvement with NCDE subcommittee and other groups at Forest and District level 

No change 

Use the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines to coordinate multiple-use activities and manage T&E habitat (Wildlife & Fish, C-2-5; C-2-7, C-2-8) 

Entire RMRD stratified into MS-1 (98%) and MS-3 (2%) habitat; appropriate management based on Interagency Guidelines applied to all activities accordingly 

No change 

Schedule direct habitat improvement projects (Wildlife & Fish, C-2-6) 

Periodic habitat improvement projects usually designed to benefit multiple species, including grizzly bears 

No change 
Forest Plan Standards Existing Proposed Plan C

Establish an active public information and education program addressing T&E species management; emphasize protective measures (Wildlife & Fish, C2-11) 

Various ongoing public information efforts; major emphasis on enforcement of the NCDE Food Storage Order 

No change 

Grazing will be made compatible with grizzly bears and/or habitat or discontinued (Range, D-4-6) 

Most on-dates after July 1; ongoing monitoring of livestock forage consumption in riparian zones 

No change 

Coordinate timber harvest activities with seasonal grizzly bear habitat use (Timber E-4-14); maintain or improve bear food production on harvest sites (Timber E-4-15,16,17,18); maintain escape cover and isolation for grizzly bears (Timber E-4-19) 

Standard applied to past sales and incorporated into project development for planned fuels reduction projects. Projects since 1988 have averaged 3.5 acres, and maximum size has been <20 acres. 

No change 

Limit firewood cutting on timber harvest roads, and permanently close after 2-3 years (Timber, E-2-4) 

Minimal mileage of road, all within 1 mile of existing main access road, available for firewood cutting. No new roads for past >10 years. 

Slightly reduced mileage of road available for firewood cutting. 

Protect T&E species through no surface occupancy and controlled surface use stipulations, timing limitations, and use of Interagency Guidelines for minerals operations and leases (Oil & Gas Leasing, Exploration Drilling Field Development, and Production, G-2-9, 10) 

Stipulations and timing restrictions applied to all leases and to proposals for exploration and production. No active oil and gas operations for past >10 years. 

No change 
Forest Plan Standards Existing Proposed Plan C

Unacceptable damage to.. wildlife... will be mitigated by road restrictions or other road management actions...Coordinate wildlife restrictions with MFWP (Facilities/Travel Planning, L-2-4) 

RMF Guidelines used to apply seasonal restrictions on motorized use primarily in grizzly bear spring and denning habitats 

Continued use of restrictions in addition to overall reduction in mileage/density of motorized routes

Use the Interagency Wildlife Guidelines to avoid or mitigate conflicts between road construction and use and T&E species (Facilities/Travel Planning, L-2-33) 

RMF Guidelines used to apply seasonal restrictions on motorized use primarily in grizzly bear spring and denning habitats 

Continued use of restrictions in addition to overall reduction in mileage/density of motorized routes

Implement seasonal or year-round closures on existing or proposed roads if... they are necessary to allow grizzly use of important habitat, to reduce conflict, or to meet habitat objectives (Facilities/Travel Planning, L-2-34) 

RMF Guidelines used to apply seasonal restrictions on motorized use primarily in grizzly bear spring and denning habitats 

Continued use of restrictions in addition to overall reduction in mileage/density of motorized routes 

Management Area (MA) Direction MA-E (79,900 acres or 10% of RMRD) Goal: Provide sustained high level of forage for livestock and big game. Objectives: Maintain important identified wildlife habitat, including T&E habitat; achieve low (0.5-1.5 mi. open road/mi2

area) public access through permitting motorized use on all arterial and most collector roads 

Overall open road density 0.2 mi/mi2; motorized travel 

permitted on designated trails; no off-trail motorized travel allowed 

Overall open road density 0.16 mi/mi2; reduced mileage of motorized trails; no offtrail motorized travel allowed 
Forest Plan Standards Existing Proposed Plan C

MA-F (58,500 acres or 7.5% of RMRD) Goal: Emphasize semi-primitive recreation opportunities, while maintaining and protecting other Forest resources. Objectives: Minimize impact on identified wildlife habitat, including T&E habitat; Do not construct roads for surface use activities; obliterate roads built for subsurface use when not needed; close all areas and trails to ORVs except designated routes

No new roads built; road provisions and other stipulations included in leases and applications for subsurface use; no off-trail motorized travel allowed 

No new roads proposed; road provisions and other stipulations included in leases and applications for subsurface use; no off-trail motorized travel allowed; reduced 

mileage of motorized trails 

MA-G (103,400 acres or 13% of RMRD) Goal: Maintain and protect Forest resources with minimal investment. Objectives: Maintain important identified wildlife habitat, including T&E habitat; minimize public access by limiting motorized use to existing roads and travelways; obliterate roads built for subsurface use when not needed. 

No new roads built; road provisions and other stipulations included in leases and applications for subsurface use; no off-trail motorized travel allowed 

No new roads proposed; road provisions and other stipulations included in leases and applications for subsurface use; no off-trail motorized travel allowed; reduced 

mileage of motorized trails
Forest Plan Standards Existing Proposed Plan C

MA-H (11,500 acres or 1.5% of RMRD) Goal: Provide recreation supported by public and private developments while maintaining other resource values Objectives: Minimize impacts on important identified wildlife habitat, including T&E habitat; achieve high (+3.0 mi. open road/mi2 area) public access through permitting motorized use on all arterial and most collector roads

Primarily areas around main access roads, recreation residences and other developed areas. Patrols by recreation guards for public information and enforcement of NCDE Food Storage Order; overall open road density 2.99 mi/mi2

Overall open road density 3.51 mi/mi2; no other change 

MA-I (20,100 acres or 3% of RMRD) Goal: Maintain or enhance important biggame habitat... emphasize the management of T&E species habitat such as grizzly bear spring range Objectives: Maintain important identified wildlife habitat, including T&E habitat; allow occupancy for minerals where wildlife habitat can be maintained and surface quality can be fully reclaimed; achieve low (0.5-1.5 mi. open road/mi2

area) public access through permitting motorized use on all arterial and most collector roads

Overall open road density 0.31 mi/mi2; no new roads built; 

road provisions and other stipulations included in leases and applications for subsurface use; motorized travel permitted on designated trails; no offtrail motorized travel allowed 

Overall open road density 0.35 mi/mi2; no new roads 

proposed; road provisions and other stipulations included in leases and applications for subsurface use; motorized travel permitted on designated trails after June 30; no off-trail motorized travel allowed 
Forest Plan Standards Existing Proposed Plan C

MA-N (42,700 acres or 5.5% of RMRD) Goal: Manage to maintain wilderness characteristics pending decision on wilderness recommendation Objectives: Maintain important identified wildlife habitat, including T&E habitat; minimize public access by limiting motorized use to existing roads and travelways; do not construct roads for surface use; roads for subsurface use will be closed to public and obliterated when not needed

No new roads built; road provisions and other stipulations included in leases and applications for subsurface use; motorized travel permitted on designated trails; no offtrail motorized travel allowed 

No new roads proposed; road provisions and other stipulations included in leases and applications for subsurface use; greatly reduced mileage of motorized trails; no offtrail motorized travel allowed 

MA-O (23,100 acres or 7.5% of RMRD) Goal: Protect, maintain, and improve resource quality while providing timber at low intensity level to meet local need. Objectives: Maintain important identified wildlife habitat, including T&E habitat; minimize public access by limiting motorized use to existing roads and travelways; roads constructed for surface and mineral use will be closed to the public; roads will be located...for the most economical commodity... management along with production of T&E species habitat. 

No new roads built; road provisions and other stipulations included in leases and applications for subsurface use; no new roads for proposed fuels reduction projects; motorized travel permitted on designated trails; no off-trail motorized travel allowed 

No new roads proposed; road provisions and other stipulations included in leases and applications for subsurface use; no new roads for proposed fuels reduction projects; reduced mileage of motorized trails; no off-trail motorized travel allowed 
Forest Plan Standards Existing Proposed Plan C

MA-P, Designated Wilderness (385,900 acres or 49% of RMRD) Goal: Manage in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964; maintain indigenous animals by protecting natural processes. Objectives: Conservation of T&E species and their habitats will receive high priority; the grizzly bear will continue to be a part of the wilderness experience; public will be informed of but generally not restricted from use of known problem areas; education of bear avoidance techniques will be emphasized.

Fall inspections of hunting camps with estimated >80% contact; bear-resistant container rental program; wilderness ranger public contacts; wildland fire allowed in as many situations as possible 

No change 

MA-Q, Recommended Wilderness (55,800 acres or 7% of RMRD) Goal: Manage these areas to protect wilderness values Objectives: Maintain important identified wildlife habitat, including T&E habitat

No specific actions; overall open road density 0 mi/mi2; 

motorized travel permitted on designated trails; no off-trail motorized travel allowed 

Overall open road density 0 mi/mi2; reduced mileage of 

motorized trails; no off-trail 

motorized travel allowed 
All MAs on the RMRD meet Forest Plan objectives. The Forest Plan direction for MAs, 

however, provides density objectives only for roads, and tends to be imprecise about 

motorized trails or overall motorized route density objectives. Evaluation of Forest Plan 

Management Area direction is an important component of assessing how well current 

Forest Plan direction controls access and therefore protects grizzly bear habitat. Because 

the amount and location of a particular MA may vary greatly by Subunit, however, and 

because each Subunit may contain anywhere from one to several MA types, this analysis 

must occur only as a component of overall analysis of access. Evaluation of MA direction 

and compliance is most useful if accompanied by maps displaying the quantity and 

configuration of MAs within each Subunit. These maps are available in the project file. 

In sum, the LCNF Forest Plan specifically calls for applying seasonal restrictions to all 

motorized activities in important seasonal wildlife habitats, based largely on the 

recommendations included in the RMF Guidelines. These recommendations have been 

applied rigorously to travel management on both roads and motorized trails beginning 

with the Existing (1988) Travel Plan, as well as to any projects proposed since the Forest 

Plan was signed in 1986. 

The Forest Plan also calls for any proposed new roads to be single-purpose roads that 

would be closed to the public during the period of use, and either closed permanently or 

obliterated upon completion of the project activity. Construction and use of these roads is 

to be carried out according to the seasonal restrictions recommended in the RMF 

Guidelines. Although no new road construction has been carried out for at least a decade, 

all proposals that have included new road construction (primarily oil/gas proposals) have 

incorporated those provisions. 

Cumulative Effects 

A number of factors could potentially result in impacts to grizzly bears cumulative to 

those of the Proposed Travel Plan. These factors are: developed and dispersed recreation, 

prescribed burning/wildfire, timber harvest, wildlife habitat on adjacent lands, and 

livestock grazing. 

Recreation is one of the primary uses by the public of the RMRD. There are 98 permitted 

recreation residence cabins on the RMRD, clustered in MS-3 habitat mainly in the Sun 

Canyon and Benchmark areas. There are also 11 developed campgrounds, as well as 

numerous dispersed campsites, trailhead facilities, and other recreation sites. A large 

proportion of visitors to the RMRD travel in the backcountry away from these facilities, 

where they hike, ride horseback, camp, fish, and hunt. The potential for displacement 

from these activities and consequent reduction in the value of grizzly bear habitat was 

displayed above in the results of the CEM. The other potential impact of these 

recreational activities is access by grizzly bears to human food sources. The RMRD 

initiated development of the NCDE Food Storage Special Order (current version: Food 

Storage Special Order LC00-18) in the late 1980’s. Since that time, the RMRD has led 

efforts in the NCDE to revise the Food Storage Special Order (the Order) to make it both 

more effective and more enforceable. Several recreation guards are employed to patrol 

front-country recreation sites, posting signs and contacting the public as well as enforcing 

48
the Food Storage Order. Several wilderness guards are employed to carry out the same 

tasks in the backcountry, and all employees are trained annually in the basics of the Order 

and enforcing it. The RMRD carries out a hunting camp patrol in the fall with an 

estimated >80% contact rate. Enforcement of the Food Storage Order is a primary 

purpose of those patrols. All activities permitted on the RMRD (including grazing, 

recreation residences, outfitting and guiding, etc.) include consequences of failing to 

comply with the Order within their permits. Through these combined efforts, the potential 

for grizzly bears to gain access to human foods is minimized. 

Several wildfires of varying size as well as several smaller prescribed fires have occurred 

on the RMRD since 1988. At least one prescribed fire was part of a multi-phase grizzly 

bear habitat improvement project, and others included grizzly bear habitat improvement 

as a secondary goal or as a consideration. Within the perimeters of all of these fires, a 

mosaic of fire effects was achieved. Additional prescribed burning is scheduled within 

the Scapegoat Wilderness as soon as conditions are favorable. This planned fire is 

expected to create a varied patchwork of fire intensity and effects. Additional natural and 

prescribed fires may occur throughout the RMRD and adjoining lands in future years. 

Impacts on habitat will vary depending on the location and severity of the fires and on 

other factors. Frequently fires result in improved forage for grizzly bears within 1-5 years 

of their occurrence. 

Very little timber harvest has occurred on the RMRD since 1988. A total of 107 acres 

were harvested between 1988 and 2002, using a variety of techniques ranging from small 

(1-20 acre) clearcuts, to small (1- 8 acre) thinning and other limited harvest projects. 

Several of these projects included grizzly bear habitat improvement as an objective, 

through improving growing conditions for buffaloberry (Sheperdia canadensis). The sum 

of these past harvests has likely had no impact on grizzly bear numbers or distribution. 

Several small fuels treatment projects are planned that will alter the vegetation on a total 

of approximately 750 acres of the RMRD in the Benchmark drainage. The size of 

individual units varies from 3 to 236 acres, with the majority of units under 25 acres. All 

units are located immediately adjacent to recreation residences, most of which are in MS3 habitat, or next to the National Forest boundary. Many treatment units are within 

mapped grizzly bear spring habitat, although Forest Plan standards restricting activity 

until after July 1 will be applied to all treatment projects. The result of these projects will 

be a variety of small openings or thinned canopy. 

The area to the west of the project area is the heart of the Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Complex. Wildlife habitats there are subject almost exclusively to natural forces, such as 

climate and fire, and receive only minimal influence from human activity. Lands east of 

the NF boundary are largely privately-owned ranch lands, where livestock husbandry is 

the primary activity. Although there are 3 state-owned Wildlife Management Areas 

(WMAs) that provide key ungulate winter range, large numbers of elk and deer also 

winter on private lands. Grizzly bears are known to frequent lands east of the NF 

boundary, particularly in spring and late summer/fall. Nearly all grizzly bear-human 

conflicts occurring in the area known as the Rocky Mountain Front for the past 10+ years 

49
have been on private land. All but one permanent management-related removal (via 

relocation or killing) from the area have been from private lands. Although significant 

efforts have been made by agencies and private groups, private lands east of the NF 

boundary are likely to continue to be a source of grizzly bear mortality. 

Livestock grazing occurs within the project area on permitted grazing allotments. Several 

allotments also exist for limited outfitter/guide horse and mule grazing, most of which are 

in wilderness. The LCNF Forest Plan (see Table 13 above) requires, through 

incorporation of the RMF Guidelines and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines, that 

grizzly bear-livestock conflicts be resolved in favor of grizzly bears. Known conflicts 

have been minimal and where they have occurred, livestock permittees have been advised 

to move cattle from the area to reduce likelihood of further conflict. 

Determination of Effects 

I have determined implementation of the proposed Federal Action MAY AFFECT, BUT 

IS NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT grizzly bears. My determination is based 

on the following rationale: 

1. The Proposed Plan would reduce TOTMARD and OPMARD and increase 

Core in all Subunits to objectives recommended by the NCDE Subcommittee 

of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. Motorized access densities on 

BMU Subunit portions east of the NF boundary, however, largely do not meet 

objectives and no controls exist to limit those densities. The LCNF Forest 

Plan includes a number of prohibitions and limitations on future road-building 

(see Table 13), and requires use of the RMF Wildlife Guidelines to implement 

restriction dates on human activities in grizzly bear habitat. The 2001 

FS/BLM OHV decision and the 2005 FS OHV regulations prohibit off-trail 

motorized travel. In sum, the Proposed Plan would greatly reduce motorized 

travel on the RMRD, and would be reinforced by additional restrictions 

included in the Forest Plan and in recent FS regulations. Cumulative effects of 

other projects will not result in additional motorized access. 

2. The NCDE Food Storage Order has been enforced effectively in both the front 

country and the back country on the RMRD since its inception. Extensive 

public education efforts are in place, and all permitted activities include 

provisions regarding the Order. 

3. Timber harvest has been and will continue to be minimal. Treatments will 

have minimal, and potentially positive impacts on grizzly bear spring forage 

in localized areas. Fire may impact vegetation but generally in a manner that 

is positive for grizzly bears. These activities will not result in adverse 

cumulative impacts to grizzly bears or their habitat. 

4. LCNF Forest Plan standards require adherence to the Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Guidelines for management of multiple use activities in grizzly bear 

habitat on the RMRD, 98% of which is designated as MS-1 habitat in the 

LCNF Forest Plan. 

50
Recommendations For Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects 

Adverse effects are not likely to occur under the Proposed Plan. Widespread public 

education efforts regarding new travel management regulations, coupled with enhanced 

enforcement of new regulations would help make the transition occur more quickly and 

smoothly. Effective signing, patrolling, and enforcement as ongoing activities would help 

avoid adverse effects. Ongoing activities by other agencies, and where appropriate by the 

U.S. Forest Service, to address and limit grizzly/human conflicts on non-NFS lands will 

continue to be an important component of maintaining a healthy grizzly bear population 

in the area. 

CANADA LYNX (Lynx canadensis) 

Legal Status 

The Canada Lynx is listed as Threatened throughout the contiguous Unites States. 

The USDA Forest Service Region 1 is a signatory to the Lynx Conservation Agreement 

(USFS #00-MU-11015600-013). Signatories have agreed to take actions to reduce or 

eliminate adverse effects or risks to the species and its habitat and to maintain the 

ecosystems on which lynx depend. This agreement will eventually be superceded by the 

Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment, which will add specific management direction to 

Forest Plans, including the LCNF Forest Plan. Specific recommendations and guidelines 

to be followed under the current agreement are contained in the Lynx Conservation and 

Assessment Strategy (LCAS; Reudiger et al. 2000). 

Local Population and Habitat Status 

Lynx generally occur in cool, moist coniferous forest types that support populations of 

their primary prey, snowshoe hare (Reudiger et al. 2000). Sufficient presence of large, 

woody debris appears to be important for natal den sites (Reudiger et al. 2000). Lynx 

have been documented throughout the RMRD, with concentrations of observations in the 

Two-Medicine, Teton, and Sun River drainages. The accumulation of observations in 

these areas may result in part from the fact that these areas receive more use by forest 

visitors and employees than other, more inaccessible portions of the RMRD. 

Potential lynx habitat has been mapped for the RMRD, using vegetation type and using 

models developed by the Kootenai National Forest, that were modified to fit conditions 

on the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Mapped potential lynx habitat is entirely within 

the NF boundary, and is classified as foraging, denning, or travel habitat (habitat that 

does not meet the requirements for denning or foraging habitat but that may serve to 

connect blocks of those habitat types). About 378,500 total acres of lynx habitat has been 

mapped on the RMRD. Table 14 displays acreage of lynx habitat by area. 

51
Table 14. Total Acreage of Key Wildlife Habitats, and Acreage and Percent of each 

Habitat within National Forest Boundary and within Badger-Two Medicine and 

Birch-South Areas 

Habitat Total 

Acreage 

% of 

Total 

by 

Habitat 

Type 

Acreage of 

Habitat in 

BadgerTwo 

Medicine

% of Total 

Habitat in 

BadgerTwo 

Medicine 

Acreage 

of Habitat 

in BirchSouth

% of Total 

Habitat in 

Birch-South 

Total Lynx Habitat 378,470 -- 61,470 16% 317,000 84% 

Lynx Travel Habitat 110,450 29% 25,140 23% 85,320 77% 

Lynx Foraging Habitat 171,300 45% 25,980 15% 145,320 85% 

Lynx Denning Habitat 96,710 26% 10,350 11% 86,360 89% 

As part of the requirements of the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS; 

Reudiger et al. 2000), Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) were mapped for the RMRD. LAUs 

are a conceptual framework meant to approximate the home range of a female lynx. They 

contain blocks of denning and foraging habitat in sufficient quantity to maintain a female 

lynx throughout the year. The LAU is generally the unit at which project analysis of 

impacts to lynx habitat is conducted. The RMRD contains 27 LAUs, encompassing all 

mapped potential lynx habitat as described above (see Map 4). 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Dispersed Snowmobiling

The LCAS acknowledges that lynx can “adapt to the presence of regular and 

concentrated recreational use”, but that to do so “it is essential that an interconnected 

network of foraging habitat be maintained that is not subjected to widespread human 

intervention or competition from other predator species” (Reudiger et al. 2000). 

The LCAS guidelines for recreation and travel management planning efforts include: 

Provide a landscape with interconnected blocks of foraging habitat where 

snowmobile, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, or other snow compacting 

activities are minimized or discouraged. 

Although the LCAS does not set specific numeric guidelines for dispersed snowmobile 

travel, the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan were analyzed to provide an idea of 

the potential impact this type of activity might have on lynx habitat. This analysis did not 

include over-the-snow routes, which are discussed separately below, or designated play 

areas, of which there are none on the RMRD. Table 15 shows the acreage of lynx habitat 

open to snowmobiles by LAU, and the percent of each LAU this represents. Lynx habitat 

includes foraging and denning habitat combined, but not habitat potentially used only for 

52
Great Bear

Wilderness

Bob Marshall

Wilderness

Scapegoat

Wilderness

Blackleaf

WMA

Ear Mtn

WMA

Sun River

WMA

RM3

RM8

RM17

RM4

RM11

RM6

RM21

RM19

RM5

RM1

RM2

RM7

RM10

RM16

RM14

RM27

RM9

RM22

RM24

RM12

RM13

RM20

RM25

RM23

RM15

RM26

RM18

Swift Dam Road

Teton Canyon Road

Dearborn Road

Sun Canyon Road

Benchmark Road

Blackleaf Canyon Road

Smith Creek Road

Elk Creek Road

Rocky Mountain Ranger District

Travel Management Plan

0 5 10 20 Miles

Lynx Habitat and

Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs)

/ MAP 4

Lynx Habitat

Lynx Analysis Unit

Rocky Mountain Ranger District Boundary

Wilderness Areas

Wildlife Management Areas

RM18
54
travel. LAUs not listed (i.e. breaks in the numbering sequence) have no acreage open to 

snowmobiles. 

Table 15. Acres Open to Snowmobiling in Lynx Habitat by LAU and Percent of 

Habitat in LAU Open to Snowmobiling 

LAU Name Existing 

Open Acres as 

Percent of 

Lynx Habitat 

in LAU 

Proposed 

Open Acres as 

Percent of 

Lynx Habitat 

in LAU 

RM7 1817 19% 28 <1% 

RM9 8704 99% 5000 57% 

RM11 2 <1% 0 -- 

RM12 5686 72% 892 11% 

RM14 2 <1% 0 -- 

RM15 7024 100% 0 -- 

RM16 4419 36% 0 -- 

RM18 12 <1% 0 -- 

RM19 4722 30% 0 -- 

RM20 13104 97% 692 5% 

RM21 965 5% 0 -- 

RM22 2402 24% 1 <1% 

RM23 10326 100% 831 8% 

RM25 2709 99% 0 -- 

RM26 1987 42% 0 -- 

RM27 3564 100% 0 -- 

TOTAL 67,446 29% 7444 3% 

A substantial portion of the acreage listed as open to snowmobiling under both the 

Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan may not actually be available to snowmobiles. 

Areas indicated as open were designated by drawing general boundaries on a twodimensional map. Open areas thus include heavily vegetated areas, cliffs, rocks, steep 

terrain and other features that are actually unavailable to snowmobiles. Therefore the 

acreage open to snowmobiles in lynx habitat is likely to be substantially less than that 

displayed above. 

The Proposed Plan would eliminate snowmobiling from lynx habitat in 10 of 16 LAUs in 

which it is allowed under the Existing Situation. In the LAUs where snowmobiling would 

55
continue to be allowed under the Proposed Plan, the acreage available to snowmobiles in 

lynx habitat would be greatly reduced. Snowmobiling in lynx habitat on the RMRD as a 

whole would be reduced by 89% (from 67,400 acres to 7400 acres). As displayed on the 

Proposed Plan travel plan map (Appendix A) dispersed snowmobiling would only be 

allowed in two main areas (the Beaver-Willow divide, and portions of the North and 

South Fork Teton drainages). These localized snowmobile areas, within which only a 

portion of the landscape would be actually available as discussed above, would 

concentrate snowmobile use and preserve large blocks of lynx habitat undisturbed by this 

activity. 

Over-the-Snow Routes

Concern regarding potential competition from other predator species provides the basis 

for the LCAS standard for programmatic planning in recreation management. The 

guideline for over-snow recreation, as stated in the Modifications of Lynx Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy, August 2000 Edition – Clarifying Language; Memo from 

Deputy Regional Forester, August 28, 2003, is to: 

... allow no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow routes and 

snowmobile play areas by LAU unless the designation serves to consolidate 

unregulated use and improves lynx habitat. 

Designated over-the-snow routes are defined as “over-the-snow routes (such as trails) and 

snowmobile play areas (usually large, open areas) that are ‘designated’, that is 

specifically marked on a map, described in the resource or forest plan, described in the 

travel plan, or signed. This definition does not apply to ski areas” (Modifications of Lynx 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy, August 2000 Edition – Clarifying Language; 

Memo from Deputy Regional Forester, August 28, 2003). There are very few miles of 

trail specifically designated as over-the-snow routes on the RMRD. There are, however, 

several stretches of road that are not plowed in winter but that may be used frequently by 

snowmobiles, and that therefore may experience compaction on a somewhat regular 

basis. 

Table 16 shows the mileage of designated over-snow routes (trails designated on maps or 

other official documentation as snowmobile trails or cross-country ski trails) and the 

miles of road known to be used by snowmobiles in lynx habitat by LAU for both the 

Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan. Because plowed roads may also provide a 

compacted surface during winter, the miles of plowed road within lynx habitat are also 

displayed below. 

56
Table 16. Miles of Designated Over-Snow Routes and Regularly Used Roads in 

Lynx Habitat, by LAU 

Miles of Designated 

Over-Snow Route 

Miles of Road 

Regularly Used by 

Snowmobiles 

Miles of Plowed Road 

LAU 

Name 

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 

RM9 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.7 

RM12 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 

RM20 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 

RM23 0 0 1.4 1.4 0 0 

TOTAL 1.9 1.9 3.3 3.3 0.7 0.7 

There would be no change in the mileage of over-the-snow routes or the mileage of road 

regularly used by snowmobiles between the Existing Situation and the Proposed Plan. In 

both situations, the total combined mileage of over-the-snow route, regularly used road, 

and plowed road within lynx habitat is minimal (6 miles) and is confined to a few 

localized areas (see Appendix A). In addition to the miles shown, a few other roads, such 

as access roads to recreation residences, could experience limited over-snow travel. 

Those roads are usually very short and are located immediately off main access roads that 

are included under either the regularly used or plowed road totals above. The location and 

mileage of those would be the same under the Proposed Plan as under the Existing 

Situation. 

The LCAS recommends, with respect to management of forest roads and trails: 

Determine where high road densities (>2 miles per square mile) coincide with 

lynx habitat, and prioritize roads for seasonal restrictions or reclamation in those 

areas (Reudiger et al. 2000, p. 7-10). 

The LCAS also states, however, that “...lynx may not avoid roads, except at high traffic 

volumes. Therefore, at this time, there is no compelling evidence to recommend 

management of road density to conserve lynx” (Reudiger et al. 2000). There are only 105 

miles of open road in the Birch-South area under the Existing Situation and 85 miles in 

the Proposed , spread across roughly 264,000 non-wilderness acres on the Birch South 

portion of the RMRD. Of those non-wilderness acres, over 260,000 acres are Inventoried 

Roadless. 

LCAS Standards

Tables 17-20 below provide a summary of compliance with the appropriate LCAS 

standards and conservation measures for both the Existing Situation and the Proposed 

Plan. Text in bold indicates changes between the Existing and the Proposed.

57
Table 17. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures Ap

Programs and Activities (LCAS, 7-2 to 4). Standards Existing Situation Proposed Plan Project Planning (7-4) Within each LAU, map lynx habitat;... and topographic features important for lynx movement...; identify non-forest vegetation...adjacent to and intermixed with forested lynx habitat providing habitat for alternate lynx prey species 

Lynx habitat mapped and classified; travel management does not alter habitat 

No Change 

Within each LAU, maintain denning habitat in patches generally larger than five acres comprising at least 10% of suitable lynx habitat 

Travel management does not alter habitat 

No Change 

Maintain habitat connectivity within and between LAUs 

Large patches of habitat remain undisturbed by motorized travel 

Reduced amount and density of both summer and winter motorized travel 
Table 18. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures to Ad

Affecting Lynx Productivity (LCAS, 7-4 to12). Standards Existing Situation Proposed Plan Recreation Management (7-8 to 9) On Federal lands in lynx habitat, allow no net increase in groomed or designated overthe-snow routes and snowmobile play areas by LAU 

Extremely limited mileage of designated over-the-snow routes; no designated play areas 

No Change 

Map and monitor the location and intensity of snow compacting activities in lynx habitat 

Dispersed snowmobiling allowed in defined areas; plowed roads and roads regularly used for snowmobile travel mapped 

Area in which dispersed snowmobiling is allowed greatly reduced; no change in mileage of plowed roads and roads regularly used for snowmobile travel 

Ensure Federal actions do not degrade or compromise landscape connectivity when planning and operating new or expanded recreation developments in lynx habitat 

Large patches of habitat remain undisturbed by motorized travel 

Reduced amount and density of both summer and winter motorized travel

Design trails, roads, and lift terminals to direct winter use away from diurnal security areas 

Extremely limited mileage of designated over-the-snow routes, roads used by snowmobiles, and plowed roads 

No Change 

Evaluate and amend as needed, winter recreational special use permits (outside permitted ski areas) promoting snow compaction in lynx habitat 

No winter recreational use permits in project area (except ski area) 

No Change 

Forest/Backcountry Roads and Trails (7-9 to 10) 
Standards Existing Situation Proposed Plan 

On Federal lands in lynx habitat, allow no net increase in groomed or designated overthe-snow routes and snowmobile play areas by LAU (winter logging activities are not restricted) 

Extremely limited mileage of designated over-the-snow routes; no designated play areas 

No Change 

Table 19. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures to Ad

Factors (LCAS, 7-12 to 13). 

Standards Existing Situation Proposed Plan Competition and Predation as Influenced by Human Activities (7-13) On federal lands in lynx habitat, allow no net increase in groomed or designated overthe-snow routes and snowmobile play areas by LAU (intended for dispersed recreation rather than existing ski areas) 

Extremely limited mileage of designated over-the-snow routes; no designated play areas 

No Change 
Table 20. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy Standards; Conservation Measures to Ad

Dispersal (LCAS, 7-13 to 16). Standards Existing Situation Proposed Plan Programmatic Planning (7-14) Identify key linkage areas important in providing landscape connectivity within and between geographic areas, across all ownerships 

Additional lynx habitat exists to north in National Park, west in Wilderness, and south in NFS lands. Large patches of habitat remain undisturbed by motorized travel. 

Reduced amount and density of both summer and winter motorized travel

Develop and implement a plan to protect key linkage areas on Federal lands from activities creating barriers to movement 

Ongoing at Forest level No Change 

Evaluate the potential importance of shrubsteppe habitats in providing landscape connectivity between blocks of lynx habitat 

Ongoing at Regional level No Change 
Cumulative Effects 

A number of factors could potentially result in impacts to Canada lynx cumulative to 

those of the Proposed Travel Plan. These factors are: prescribed burning/wildfire, timber 

harvest, and livestock grazing. 

Several wildfires of varying size as well as several smaller prescribed fires have occurred 

on the RMRD since 1988. Within the perimeters of all of these fires, a mosaic of fire 

effects was achieved. Additional prescribed burning is scheduled within the Scapegoat 

Wilderness as soon as conditions are favorable. This planned fire is expected to create a 

varied patchwork of fire intensity and effects. Additional natural and prescribed fires 

may occur throughout the RMRD and adjoining lands in future years. Impacts on habitat 

will vary depending on the location and severity of the fires and on other factors. Fires 

may alter or remove habitat for lynx prey species within portions of their perimeter, but 

in some areas regeneration may result in improved snowshoe hare habitat within several 

years of burning. 

Very little timber harvest has occurred on the RMRD since 1988. A total of 107 acres 

were harvested between 1988 and 2002, using a variety of techniques ranging from small 

(1-20 acre) clearcuts, to small (1- 8 acre) thinning and other limited harvest projects. The 

sum of these past harvests has likely had no detectable impact on lynx or their prey. 

Several small fuels treatment projects are planned that will alter the vegetation on a total 

of approximately 750 acres of the RMRD in the Benchmark drainage. The size of 

individual units varies from 3 to 236 acres, with the majority of units under 25 acres. All 

units are located immediately adjacent to recreation residences or to the National Forest 

boundary; several units are outside mapped lynx habitat and LAUs. The result of these 

projects will be a variety of small openings or thinned canopy that will likely remove 

lynx prey habitat in very small, localized areas immediately adjacent to recreation 

residences. 

Livestock grazing occurs within the project area on permitted grazing allotments. Many 

of these allotments contain only limited acreage of lynx habitat, and some are partly or 

entirely outside of LAUs. Grazing is managed in the project area on a deferred restrotation basis. Allotments are monitored and grazing plans adjusted annually to maintain 

established standards for forage utilization and impacts to vegetation and landscape 

features. Nevertheless, grazing has the potential to alter habitat for lynx prey species. 

Determination of Effects 

I have determined implementation of the proposed Federal Action will have NO EFFECT 

on Canada Lynx My determination is based on the following rationale: 

1. The project would reduce the overall acreage available for dispersed 

snowmobiling and concentrate it in two main areas. 

2. The project would maintain a very small mileage of designated over-the-snow 

routes and roads available for snowmobile and cross country use. 

62
3. The limited area and mileage of routes available to snowmobiles would 

maintain large blocks of interconnected lynx habitat undisturbed by snow 

compacting or other activities. 

4. The project would reduce overall mileage of wheeled motorized travel in 

spring, summer, and fall, thus reducing potential for impacts to lynx. 

5. Cumulative impacts of other projects on lynx, their habitat, and prey species 

would be negligible. 

Recommendations For Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects 

No adverse effects are anticipated. 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Legal Status 

The Secretary of the Interior, on March 11, 1967, listed bald eagle populations south of 

the 40th parallel endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. 

However, the decline continued until DDT was banned from use in the United States on 

December 31, 1972. Bald eagles were listed endangered under the ESA in 1973. From 

1973 through 1995 bald eagles were listed as endangered, but due to cooperative efforts 

by government agencies and public and private non-government organizations, 

populations have increased and in 1995 it was down-listed to threatened status. The bald 

eagle is presently listed as threatened in Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota, but is 

currently proposed for de-listing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). 

Local Population and Habitat Status 

There are no known bald eagle nesting areas on the RMRD. Bald eagles nest almost 

exclusively in live trees usually within one mile in line of sight of a large river or lake. 

Although the RMRD includes all or part of 3 large lakes (Gibson, Diversion, and Swift 

Reservoirs), these are man-made reservoirs established primarily for irrigation purposes. 

Water levels in the reservoirs and downstream rivers fluctuate dramatically during the 

bald eagle nesting season, potentially affecting the foraging opportunities in those water 

bodies. 

Some bald eagles may winter along the eastern portion of the project area, although most 

bald eagles observed along the Rocky Mountain Front, including the eastern portions of 

the project area, are migrants. Winter and migration habitat is generally associated with 

areas of open water where fish and waterfowl congregate (Stalmaster 1987 in USDA 

Forest Service 2001). Bald eagles use perches during the day while hunting, feeding, or 

resting; roosts are used at night or for protection during bad weather (Stalmaster 1987 in

USDA Forest Service 2001). 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Management of bald eagle breeding territories may be accomplished by protecting 

nesting stands and feeding sites and minimizing human activities during the nesting 

period (Paige et al. 1991 in USDA Forest Service 2001). Guidelines have been 

63
developed to provide management direction for bald eagles where there is little 

information on actual use areas. Because there are no known nesting sites in the project 

area, and little if any suitable nesting habitat, there will be no impacts from the Proposed 

Plan. Areas used by migrating bald eagles are frequently open areas where snow 

conditions seldom allow snowmobile travel, and are generally confined to the eastern 

portion of the project area, near larger river courses, reservoirs, and prairies east of the 

NFS boundary where carcasses and waterfowl may be found. Bald eagle use of the area 

appears to be temporary and flexible. Winter travel management under both the Existing 

Situation and the Proposed Plan will not impact bald eagle use of these areas. There 

would be no cumulative effects of other actions on bald eagles in the project area.

Determination of Effects 

I have determined implementation of the proposed Federal Action will have NO EFFECT 

on bald eagles. My determination is based on the following rationale: 

1. No bald eagle nests are known to exist in the project area, and there is little if 

any suitable bald eagle nesting habitat in the project area. 

2. Foraging and perching areas used by migrating bald eagles would not be 

affected by travel management under the Proposed Plan. 

Recommendations For Removing, Avoiding, or Compensating Adverse Effects 

No adverse effects are anticipated. 

CONSULTATION 

Consultation for this project was initiated by a meeting between the following FS 

personnel: A. Rowley (LCNF Deputy Forest Supervisor), L. Conway (LCNF Forest 

Biologist), W. Maples (RMRD District Biologist), and the following USFWS personnel: 

A. Vandehey (Consultation Biologist). The meeting was held on 15 November 2005 in 

Wolf Creek, MT. Discussion focused primarily around information needs for consultation 

on grizzly bears pertaining specifically to access management. USFWS personnel 

expressed concern regarding the lack of a LCNF Forest Plan amendment regarding access 

management, and requested that the Biological Assessment for the proposed travel plan 

include: 1) evaluation at the BMU Subunit level of Existing and Proposed motorized 

access using the Flathead National Forest A-19 procedure or similar methodology and 

comparing motorized route density and security areas with A-19 and NCDE Direction 

objectives, 2) analysis and discussion of current method of using seasonal restrictions to 

limit motorized access, including any available information on actual use, limitations to 

use (e.g. terrain, weather), and compliance, and 3) discussion of all LCNF Forest Plan 

standards that would limit or prohibit increases in motorized access on the RMRD, and 

compliance with those standards. All of that information has been incorporated into this 

Biological Assessment in the appropriate sections. Additionally, USFWS personnel 

suggested that a uniform spring snowmobile closure date of 1 April would be 

recommended for protection of post-denning and spring grizzly bear habitats. That 

suggestion was fully incorporated into the Proposed Plan. 

64
LITERATURE CITED 

Aune, K. and W. Kasworm. 1989. Final report: East Front grizzly studies. MT Dept. Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks. Helena, MT. 332 pp. 

Claar, J.J., N. Anderson, D. Boyd, M. Cherry, B. Conard, R. Hompesch, S. Miller, G. 

Olson, H. Ihsle Pac, J. Waller, T. Wittinger, H. Youmans. 1999. Carnivores. 

Pages 7.1-7.63 in Joslin, G. and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation 

on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of 

Recreation on Wildlife. Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307 pp. 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1986. Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Guidelines. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 100 pp. 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1994. Access Management Taskforce 

Report on Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management. 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1995. Interim Motorized Access 

Management Direction for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. 7 pp. 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 1998. Access Management Taskforce 

Report on Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management - Update. 6 pp. 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). 2001. Access Management Rule Set 

Proposed Direction for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. 9 pp. 

Reudiger B., J. Claar, S.Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. 

Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. 

Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA 

Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-

00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp. 

Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle In Living With Bald Eagles. In Magaddino, R. 

1989. Montana Outdoors, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. Helena, 

MT. 4 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1987. Bob Marshall, Great Bear, Scapegoat Wildernesses: 

Recreation Management Direction. 67 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. The Distribution, Life History, and Recovery Objectives for 

Region One Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Terrestrial Wildlife Species. 

24 pp. 

65
USDA Forest Service. 2002. Protocol Paper: NCDE Grizzly Bear Motorized Access 

Management and Flathead National Forest, Amendment 19; Moving Window 

Motorized Access Density Analysis and Security Core Area Analysis for Grizzly 

Bear. Flathead National Forest, Kalispell, MT.19 pp. 

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Lewis and Clark National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, MT. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service, USDI National Park Service, Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 

Montana Dept. of Natural Res. and Conservation, Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes, Blackfeet Tribe. 2005. Cumulative Effects Model Manual for 

the Northern Continental Divide Grizzly Bear Ecosystem. Flathead National 

Forest, Kalispell, MT. 18 pp. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1992. Final Blackleaf Environmental Impact 

Statement. Lewistown District Office, Lewistown, MT. 365 pp. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1987. Interagency Rocky 

Mountain Front Wildlife Monitoring/Evaluation Program and Management 

Guidelines for Selected Species. BLM-MT-PT-87-003-4111. 71 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 181 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Bald Eagle, Fish and Wildlife Information 

Exchange, data sheet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 40 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks, Idaho Fish and Game, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2005. 

Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2004 Annual Report. D. Boyd, ed. USFWS, 

Ecological Services, 100 N Park, Suite 320, Helena MT. 72 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nez Perce Tribe, National Park Service, Montana Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks, Idaho Fish and Game, and USDA Wildlife Services. 2006. 

Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2005 Annual Report. C.A. Sime and E. E. 

Bangs, eds. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana. 

59601. 130pp.

66