United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest

January 2009

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan 

Forest Plan 
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income 

derived from any public assistance program. (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 to USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 

20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

employment opportunity provider and employer. 
Preface 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan complies with the National Forest Management Act 

of 1976 (NFMA); the regulations for the National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Planning (36 CFR Part 291); and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Decision notices for individual projects are posted in the Forest Service offices at the time of 

decision. A list of decision notices may be obtained at each Ranger District, the Supervisor’s 

Office, or on the website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/b-d/. 

More information about the Forest Plan can be obtained from the Forest Supervisor, 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, 420 Barrett Street, Dillon, MT 59725. 

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER 1 - REVISION OVERVIEW ...................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Revised Plan ................................................................................................................................1

General Forest Description..................................................................................................................................2

Forest Niche - Distinctive Role and Contribution..............................................................................................2

CHAPTER 2 - ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION SUMMARY......... 5

Modifications to the Draft AMS..........................................................................................................................5

Summary of Resource Commodities and Services ............................................................................................5

Recreation..........................................................................................................................................................5

Timber Production.............................................................................................................................................6

Livestock Grazing..............................................................................................................................................7

Leasable and Locatable Minerals ......................................................................................................................7

Benchmark Analysis.............................................................................................................................................7

Validation of 1986/87 Benchmarks ...................................................................................................................8

New Benchmarks...............................................................................................................................................9

CHAPTER 3 - FORESTWIDE DIRECTION............................................................. 11

Forestwide Desired Condition ...........................................................................................................................11

Forestwide Goals, Objectives, and Standards..................................................................................................12

Air Quality ..........................................................................................................................................................12

Goals................................................................................................................................................................12

Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................12

Standards .........................................................................................................................................................12

American Indian Rights and Interests..............................................................................................................12

Goals................................................................................................................................................................12

Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................13

Standards .........................................................................................................................................................13

Aquatic Resources ..............................................................................................................................................13

Goals................................................................................................................................................................13

Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................16

Standards .........................................................................................................................................................18

Economics and Social Values.............................................................................................................................21

Goals................................................................................................................................................................21

Objective..........................................................................................................................................................21

Standards .........................................................................................................................................................21

Fire Management ...............................................................................................................................................22

Goals................................................................................................................................................................22

Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................22

Standards .........................................................................................................................................................22

i 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Heritage Resources............................................................................................................................................ 22

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 22

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 23

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 23

Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................... 23

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 23

Objective......................................................................................................................................................... 24

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 24

Lands .................................................................................................................................................................. 24

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 24

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 24

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 24

Livestock Grazing.............................................................................................................................................. 25

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 25

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 25

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 25

Minerals, Oil, and Gas ...................................................................................................................................... 27

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 27

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 27

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 27

Recreation and Travel Management................................................................................................................ 29

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 29

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 31

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 31

Scenic Resources................................................................................................................................................ 33

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 33

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 33

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 33

Soils..................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 34

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 34

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 34

Special Designations .......................................................................................................................................... 34

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 34

Objective......................................................................................................................................................... 37

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 37

Timber Management......................................................................................................................................... 38

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 38

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 38

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 39

Timber Harvest Classification Protocol.......................................................................................................... 39

Vegetation........................................................................................................................................................... 43

Goals............................................................................................................................................................... 43

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................... 43

Standards......................................................................................................................................................... 44

ii 
Table of Contents 

Wildlife Habitat ..................................................................................................................................................45

Goals................................................................................................................................................................45

Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................47

Standards .........................................................................................................................................................48

CHAPTER 3 - MAP SECTION................................................................................. 51

Landscape Map................................................................................................................................................52

Forest Plan Interim Roads & Trails GIS Layer................................................................................................53

Summer Recreation Allocations ......................................................................................................................54

Winter Recreation Allocations.........................................................................................................................55

Recommended Wilderness ..............................................................................................................................56

Special Designations........................................................................................................................................57

Key Watersheds...............................................................................................................................................58

Deer / Elk Hunting Units (as of 2006).............................................................................................................59

Modeled Timber Harvest Classification ..........................................................................................................60

Utilities and Communication Sites ..................................................................................................................61

CHAPTER 4 - MANAGEMENT AREA DIRECTION................................................ 63

Big Hole Landscape............................................................................................................................................65

Boulder River Landscape ..................................................................................................................................89

Clark Fork Flint Landscape ............................................................................................................................109

Elkhorns Landscape.........................................................................................................................................125

Gravelly Landscape..........................................................................................................................................127

Jefferson River Landscape ..............................................................................................................................165

Lima Tendoy Landscape..................................................................................................................................181

Madison Landscape..........................................................................................................................................197

Pioneer Landscape ...........................................................................................................................................205

Tobacco Root Landscape .................................................................................................................................221

Upper Clark Fork Landscape .........................................................................................................................241

Upper Rock Creek Landscape.........................................................................................................................251

CHAPTER 5 - MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................... 271

Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy..............................................................................................................271

Forest Plan Evaluation and Reports...............................................................................................................272

Monitoring Elements........................................................................................................................................273

GLOSSARY........................................................................................................... 281

iii 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

iv 

APPENDIX A - SCENIC RESOURCE INVENTORIES ..............................................1

Scenic Attractiveness........................................................................................................................................ 1

Landscape Visibility Mapping.......................................................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX B - LEASE STIPULATIONS AND NOTICES .........................................1

Standard Lease Terms....................................................................................................................................... 2

Definitions ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

No Surface Occupancy Stipulation Guidance................................................................................................... 4

Timing Limitations Stipulation Guidance......................................................................................................... 5

Controlled Surface Use Stipulation Guidance .................................................................................................. 6

Special Administration Stipulation Guidance................................................................................................... 7

Stipulations........................................................................................................................................................... 8

Beaverhead National Forest Lease Notices...................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX C - PROJECTED OUTPUTS AND BUDGET .........................................1

APPENDIX D - SCHEDULE OF TIMBER SALES AND RELATED ACTIVITIES......1

APPENDIX E - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ..................................1

Harvest Systems................................................................................................................................................ 1

Site Preparation/Slash Disposal ........................................................................................................................ 4

Timber Stand Improvement .............................................................................................................................. 5

APPENDIX F - TIMBER CAPACITY PROJECTIONS...............................................1

APPENDIX G - GRIZZLY BEAR AND LYNX MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.............1

APPENDIX H – KEY WATERSHEDS........................................................................1

APPENDIX I - TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PROTECTION OF WOLVES........1

Terms and conditions........................................................................................................................................ 2
CHAPTER 1 - REVISION OVERVIEW 

The term forest plan in this document refers to forest land and resource management plans in 

general. The term 1986 Plan refers to the Beaverhead National Forest Plan signed in 1986. 

The term 1987 Plan refers to the Deerlodge National Forest Plan signed in 1987. The term 

“revised plan” refers to this document. 

This plan consists of five chapters and a glossary. Chapter 1 introduces the revised 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan and explains the purpose, structure, and relationship to 

other documents with a general description of the forest. Chapter 2 summarizes and finalizes 

the Analysis of the Management Situation, (AMS), issued as a draft in 2002, including a 

description of the need to change for the eight revision topics. Chapter 3 presents forestwide 

desired conditions, goals, objectives, and standards. Chapter 4 contains specific management 

area direction. Chapter 5 provides the monitoring and evaluation followed by the glossary. 

Definitions for recreation allocations, are grouped under “recreation allocations” in the 

glossary. 

Forest plans are prepared in accordance with the 1976 National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA), the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other laws and 

regulations. This revised Forest Plan implements Alternative 6 outlined in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). It guides all natural resource management activities 

and sets management standards for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF). 

PURPOSE OF THE REVISED PLAN 

A forest plan establishes guidance for all resource management activities on a National 

Forest based on the following six decisions required by the 1982 Code of Federal 

Regulations: 

Forestwide multiple-use goals and objectives including projections of goods and services 

that may be produced (36 CFR 219.11(b)). 

Forestwide management requirements (standards) (36 CFR 219.13 – 219.27). 

Management area direction and prescriptions, including management practices (36 CFR 

219.11(c) and 36 CFR 219.13-219.27. 

Lands not suited for timber and the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) (36 CFR 219.14 and 

219.16. 

Monitoring and evaluation requirements (36 CFR 219.11(d)). 

Recommendation to Congress of areas eligible for Wilderness designation as required (36 

CFR 219.17). 

Land use allocations, suitable management practices, desired conditions, goals, objectives, 

and standards are statements of the management direction in this plan. Future projects will 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

follow direction contained in this plan. While forest plans estimate future management 

activities, actual activities accomplished are determined by annual budgets and site-specific 

project decisions. Environmental analyses will be conducted, when required, for all projects 

as they are proposed. In addition to direction in this plan, projects are also guided by Forest 

Service manuals, handbooks, and other directives. 

GENERAL FOREST DESCRIPTION 

The BDNF covers 3.38 million acres, in Beaverhead, Butte-Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, 

Granite, Jefferson, Madison, Powell, and Gallatin counties, in southwestern Montana. Its 

mountain ranges encompass trout streams and elk populations, Wilderness, and roadless 

areas. They feature patterns of forest and meadows, expanses of sagebrush and grasslands. 

The culture is one of western open space traditions and customs. 

Table 1. Acres of Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest by County in 2004 

County BDNF Acres Percent of BDNF 

Beaverhead 1,372,841 41% 

Deer Lodge 207,503 6% 

Gallatin 21 < 1⁄2% 

Granite 472,204 14% 

Jefferson 361,066 11% 

Madison 694,806 20% 

Powell 84,469 2% 

Silver Bow 187,090 6% 

3,380,000 100% 

The Forest Supervisor’s Office is located in Dillon, Montana. Ranger District offices are in 

Butte, Dillon, Ennis, Philipsburg, Whitehall, Wisdom, and Wise River. The Forest is 

managed for a wide range of resources and opportunities including watersheds, wildlife, 

Wilderness, livestock grazing, recreation, wood products, and minerals, oil and gas. 

FOREST NICHE - DISTINCTIVE ROLE AND 

CONTRIBUTION 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is unique for its nationally renowned trout 

streams, large elk populations, and uncrowded backcountry recreation. It contributes to 

species diversity, Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, public open space, recreation, tourism, 

commodity production, and to local economic opportunities. 

Straddling the Continental Divide the BDNF provides the headwaters for rivers flowing 

through both the western and central United States. These streams are valued for abundant 

fish habitat and recreational opportunities. They are also important to local communities and 

agricultural enterprises. 

Complex geology contributes to the scenery, recreational opportunities, and local economies. 

Mineral extraction has attracted people since prehistoric times and continues today. 

2 
Chapter One 

Overview 

There is a continental climate and four distinct seasons. About half of Montana’s native plant 

species are present. The BDNF also supports diverse wildlife and is recognized for large 

populations of big game, especially elk. 

The rich cultural history of southwestern Montana is inextricably tied to the resources. 

Historic features are common, from aboriginal flint collection sites to European settlements 

which created the area’s mining and ranching heritage. Forest resources support the present 

day lifestyles and traditions which include hunting and fishing, camping, ranching, firewood 

cutting, etc. 

The BDNF offers a wide variety of recreation activities. Day hikes in non-motorized settings, 

picnicking, and OHV trails are available within a 30 minute drive of regional population 

centers including Butte, Anaconda, Deerlodge, Philipsburg, Boulder, Ennis, Whitehall, 

Helena, and Dillon. Hunting includes a mix of walk-in and OHV activities. In the winter 

people go downhill and cross-country skiing as well as snowmobiling when snow conditions 

are favorable. There are opportunities for backpacking and stock use in Wilderness and other 

primitive areas. Backcountry travel routes in other areas provide off-highway vehicle and 

bicycle riding opportunities. The high country offers more than 240 mountain lakes in a 

variety of settings. 

Recreation opportunities are also available through private business operations including 

skiing and snowmobiling, recreation resorts, outfitters and guides. Partnerships and 

agreements with local recreation groups provide groomed cross-country skiing and 

snowmobile trails. Recreation opportunities across the Forest are also enhanced by roads, 

trails, picnic and campgrounds, trailheads, and interpretive sites. 

Unique qualities are preserved and ecosystem integrity is a management focus, in addition to 

providing the settings for activities which will enrich communities into the future. 

3 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

4 
CHAPTER 2 - ANALYSIS OF THE 

MANAGEMENT SITUATION SUMMARY 

In the spring of 2002 the Forest Service announced the revision of the Beaverhead and 

Deerlodge National Forests land and resource management plans, to provide a broad 

framework of decisions to identify the kind of land use allowed. A draft of the Analysis of 

the Management Situation (AMS) was released in December 2002 describing why and what 

changes were sought through revision. Numerous public information forums were held in 

communities throughout southwestern Montana. Comments on the AMS generally supported 

the need to change findings. Based on public comments, with further analysis and discussion, 

the revision topics were refined and are described below. These changes conclude the 

Analysis of the Management Situation and constitute the final documentation. 

Following is a brief summary of the analysis of the management situation, including demand 

and supply conditions for resource commodities and services (36 CFR 219.11(a) and a 

description of the revision topic benchmarks used to frame alternative development (36 CFR 

219.12(e). Much of this information was derived from the accompanying Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Legal requirements of an AMS, described in CFR 

219.12(e), are met by a combination of the Draft AMS, 2002, the summary below and 

detailed discussion of revision topics in the FEIS. 

MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT AMS 

Through the analysis process primary revision topics were refined into recommended 

wilderness vegetation, wildlife, aquatic resources, recreation and travel management, fire 

management, livestock grazing, and timber management. 

Additional topics not identified as primary revision topics, were addressed in the FEIS. They 

were refined as: noxious weeds, Research Natural Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

heritage resources, lands and special uses, minerals, roadless areas, soils, air quality and 

sensitive plants. 

Benchmarks were more fully developed to guide formulation of alternatives. The 

benchmarks are described below. These changes conclude the Analysis of the Management 

Situation and constitute the final documentation. 

SUMMARY OF RESOURCE COMMODITIES AND 

SERVICES 

Recreation 

A wide variety of recreation opportunities are offered on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 

Forest (BDNF) with an emphasis on dispersed recreation. There are 219,000 acres of 

designated Wilderness and an additional 1.8 million acres of inventoried roadless areas 

5 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

(IRAs). There are approximately 2600 miles of trails, most of which are available to hikers, 

horseback riders, and mountain bikers. Almost half of the trails are also available to 

motorcycles or ATVs. Nearly 85% of approximately 6800 miles of roads are open to 

motorized public use. There are many developed campgrounds and trailheads. Ski areas are 

located on National Forest System lands outside the towns of Dillon and Philipsburg. Other 

major recreational activities include hunting and snowmobiling. 

The majority of recreation on the BDNF is dispersed, meaning it does not rely on or 

concentrate around constructed facilities. Demand for both dispersed and developed 

recreation is expected to continue growing at 10% per decade, based on recent national 

recreation surveys (USDA, 2001). The BDNF has the capacity to support demand for 

developed and dispersed activities for at least the next 50 years. 

Demand for Wilderness recreation experiences, based on visitation only, is currently about 

5,700 visits (USFS, 2005). Demand for Wilderness recreation is also expected to continue 

growing at 10%/decade. Demand for Wilderness based on ecological and societal need is 

more difficult to quantify as it applies to a single forest, but is addressed by the Region 1 

Wilderness Needs Assessment (USDA, 2003). 

Timber Production 

Timber harvest is a long time historic use of the BDNF. Approximately 1,489,000 acres are 

tentatively suitable for timber production. Productivity is considered low to moderate, with 

an estimated mean annual growth on all forested lands of 46 cubic feet per acre per year 

(BDNF, Forest Inventory Analysis data). From 1987 to 2005 an average of 14 million board 

feet per year were sold from a base of 676,000 acres of land suitable for timber production 

and 768,000 acres where harvest was allowed (excluding the Elkhorn Mountains). 

This plan allocates 299,000 acres as lands suitable for timber production. Timber harvest is 

allowed on another 1,614,000 acres to achieve other resource objectives 

Less than 15 percent of the stumpage in the 7 county area that includes the BDNF comes 

from this Forest. The majority comes from private lands. Within the larger timer processing 

area of 14 counties, there are 148 timber processing facilities including 64 log home 

manufacturers, 38 sawmills, 25 post and pole plants, 18 log furniture manufacturers and three 

plywood facilities. Sawtimber mill capacity has declined in the area that uses stumpage from 

the BDNF by approximately 6% from 1985 to 2000. During the same time mill capacity for 

the state of Montana fell a much larger 31%. The timber demand assessment is based on a 

study of the BDNF timber processing area (Keegan 2004) and an analysis of Montana’s 

forest products industry (Keegan 2001). 

Supply potential or long-term sustained yield for the Forest is based on the SPECTRUM 

model. The Long Term Sustained Yield for the preferred alternative without budget 

constraints is 24 million board feet, compared to the maximum timber benchmark of 118 

million board feet. Neither figure includes projections for timber harvest on non-suitable 

lands for other purposes. Long term sustained yield exceeds estimated outputs for harvest 

based on budgets and other management constraints. 

6 
Chapter Two 

AMS Summary 

Livestock Grazing 

Permits are required for livestock grazing on BDNF lands. Permitted use is 87% of numbers 

in the mid-1980s. Actual use has declined by 44% but numbers fluctuate annually depending 

on economics and weather. In 2001, 36,579 of the permitted 50,750 cattle grazed on the 

BDNF and 13,050 of the permitted 15,600 sheep. 

Demand for livestock forage is expected to increase to the extent of available permitted use . 

However, increases in grazing fees, or more restrictive regulations, affecting use of National 

Forest rangeland could decrease demand. 

Leasable and Locatable Minerals 

The BDNF does not have a high potential for oil and gas discoveries. Areas with moderate 

potential are confined mostly to the Gravelly, Lima Peaks and Tendoy Mountain ranges 

within inventoried roadless areas. Ten-year leases were issued in 2006 in the Garfield 

Mountain area but exploration and development are not likely. If the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule applies, it will constrain development although demand for oil and gas 

and the value of the deposits is expected to increase over the coming years. 

Locatable minerals are those valuable deposits subject to exploration and development under 

the Mining Law of 1872 and its amendments. More than 1⁄2 of BDNF lands are classified as 

favorable for one or more polymetallic mineral deposits. Demand is closely tied to 

economics and international markets. 

BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 

Benchmark analysis is required as part of the AMS in planning regulations in the Code of 

Federal Regulations 36 CFR 219.12(e)(1) (1982). Benchmarks help define the maximum and 

minimum range within which alternatives can be constructed using the minimum 

management requirements defined in 36 CFR 219.27. Selection of benchmarks depends on 

the primary revision topics. 

Benchmarks for livestock grazing, recreation, wildlife, and wilderness, developed during the 

1986 and 1987 planning process were reviewed, validated, and found appropriate. For 

vegetation and fire the historic range of variability described in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, 

“Vegetation Management – Affected Environment” serves as a benchmark. Benchmarks for 

fisheries in the 86/87 Plans are not relevant to the aquatic revision topic which focuses on 

watershed health and viability of native species. Alternatives 3 (watershed restoration and 

conservation) and Alternative 4 (sustainable commodity outputs) serve as minimum and 

maximum benchmarks for this topic. 

Benchmarks were re-established for the timber revision topic using the SPECTRUM model. 

Three benchmarks were analyzed - maximizing timber production for the first decade, 

maximizing present net value (PNV) of the timber program, and minimizing the level of 

timber management. 

7 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Validation of 1986/87 Benchmarks 

The 1986/87 Plans developed benchmark numbers for recreation, elk, game fish, livestock 

forage (AUMs), and acres of wilderness, and timber production. A program called 

FORPLAN produced the numbers based on constraints and assumptions documented in 

Appendix B of the 1986 FEIS. For this exercise, the benchmark numbers produced by 

FORPLAN were evaluated (adding 1986 Beaverhead and 1987 Deerlodge plan estimates) 

and compared to current data and science to determine whether they continue to be 

reasonable. 

Livestock Forage Production: Livestock forage production maximums measured in Animal 

Unit Months (AUMs), appear to be reasonably close to maximum supply potential. These 

numbers are closely tied to land capability which has not changed over the past 20 years. The 

Beaverhead estimate was 264,800 AUMs and the Deerlodge estimated 81,800 AUMs for a 

total of 346,600 AUMs. The minimum benchmark for livestock grazing would be zero 

AUMs. 

Wilderness Potential: Wilderness potential increased slightly since the early 1980s based on 

acres inventoried as roadless. The 2005 inventory increased by 12%, largely from additions 

in Lost Creek, the Madison Range, and Garfield Mountain. The remaining increase is 

because of improved mapping (GIS) and minor additions to existing roadless areas. The 1986 

benchmark used 1,246,000 acres in addition to existing Wilderness. In 2007, 1,468,122 

roadless area acres comprised the maximum wilderness benchmark. The minimum 

wilderness benchmark is zero acres of roadless recommended, represented by Alternative 4. 

The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, if it applies, constrains consideration of an 

alternative that opens roadless areas to development using road construction or timber 

harvest. 

Elk Population Numbers: The number of elk predicted for the 1986 and 1987 benchmarks 

is low compared to 2001 Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP) Elk Plan Objectives. 

Actual counts are considerably higher than the previous benchmark of 23,200 animals. 

Table 2. Elk Population Maximum Benchmark Compared to Current Populations 

Number of Elk Previous BDNF 

Benchmark 

2001 State Objective 

Applied to BDNF 

Actual Count in 

2005 

Winter 18,650 

Summer 23,200 26,720 – 29,300 

32,841* 

*The actual MT FWP count was 41,052 elk in the analysis area. This number estimates 80% of those animals summer on 

the BDNF. The States Elk Objective (Elk Plan 2001) is 33,400 – 36,700 animals, of which 80% is 26,720-29,300. 

The maximum benchmark is adjusted upward to meet the actual MTFWP population count 

for elk management. This number is considerably higher than the State elk objective, it’s an 

ideal number rather than maximum capability. The maximum benchmark population is 

33,000 animals. The MTFWP Objective of 29,300 (80% of 36,700) animals is considered the 

demand. A minimum benchmark was not provided. 

Recreation Use Potential: Projections for maximum visitor use potential are similar to 

previous projections. The 1986 and 1987 projections were compared with current use and no 

adjustments to the previous benchmarks were necessary. Projections in 1986 show the 

8 
Chapter Two 

AMS Summary 

capability to supply three times more recreation use than the BDNF did at the time of this 

analysis. Updated projections agree the Forest can supply three times more use than shown in 

the 2005 NVUM survey. However, the distribution of use between developed camping and 

hunting does not fit the distribution of current use or future predictions. Hunting was 

underestimated in the 1986 document and developed recreation was overestimated as 

explained in Table 5 on the next page. 

Table 3. Distribution of Recreation Activities Compared to the Present 

Recreation Maximum Actual based on 

2005 NVUM* 

Maximum Benchmark 

based on updated 

percentages 

Developed 30% 5% 279,600 

Dispersed 66% 69% 3,858,480 

Wilderness 2% 2% 111,840 

Hunting and Fishing 3% 24% 167,760 

Total Recreation Visitor 

Days 

5,592,000 1,750,000 5,592,000 

* National Visitor Use Survey 2005. Visits were converted to Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs) using a factor of 1 visit = 1,259 

RVDs or 1 RVD= .795 visits. 

The previous plans used 1980 recreation visitor levels as a base level to establish the 

minimum recreation benchmark. This benchmark is still reasonable. 

New Benchmarks 

Maximum Timber Production: This benchmark indicates the maximum capability, under the 

current legal framework, to produce timber on the BDNF and the costs/benefits of doing so. 

SPECTRUM software was used as a timber harvest scheduling tool, reporting timber outputs 

and timber costs and benefits. SPECTRUM was not used to make land allocation decisions. 

Based on 2004 SPECTRUM runs, the maximum timber benchmark has an allowable sale 

quantity (ASQ) of 720 MMBF in decade 1 (72.0 MMBF/year), with harvest occurring on 

82,693 acres. Long term sustained yield (LTSY) for this benchmark is 23.6 MMCF/year or 

118 MMBF/year calculated on 1,455,247 acres. The 1986 and 1987 benchmarks can be 

compared in the table below. 

Table 4. Previous timber benchmarks compared to 2004 maximum timber production 

Measure 

Beaverhead 

Forest Plan 

Benchmark 

1986* 

Deerlodge 

Forest Plan 

Benchmark 

1987** 

Combined 

Total 

Maximum Timber 

Volume 2004 

SPECTRUM 

Maximum PNV 

2004 

SPECTRUM 

Suitable Acres 804,200 594,771 1,398,971 1,455,247 1,455,247

LTSY (MMBF) 68.1 46.7 114.8 118 112

ASQ in decade 1 

(MMBF) 53.5 28.4 82 720 715

*Page II-10 1986 Beaverhead FEIS 

** Page II-15 1987 Deerlodge FEIS 

9 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

10 

Long term sustained yield benchmarks for timber have not changed notably in the last 20 

years despite updates in the model assumptions and constraints. The 2004 LTSY benchmark 

is 3% higher than the benchmark prior to 1986. Suitable acres vary only by 4%, a difference 

that may be a result of improved computer mapping technology. 

The small difference in the ASQ harvest in decade one may reflect some of the changes made 

to the model (Harry 2006). Both the FORPLAN and SPECTRUM models were based on 

yield outputs of Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). 

In the last 20 years, continual adjustments were made to FVS. Most of the adjustments relate 

to mortality – the original vegetation simulator considered trees growing very dense and 

predicted stands would continue to accrue volume as they did so. The current tables more 

closely reflect what is taking place in actual stands. As they become denser, mortality 

increases. Yield tables only calculate live volume, so it begins to drop as stands reach a 

certain age. In addition, constraints built into the model produce different results due to 

40,000 acres of timber harvest between 1986 and 2004. 

Maximum Present Net Value for Timber: This benchmark explores the opportunity to 

maximize the net monetary value of the timber resource. It provides a basis for evaluating the 

costs and benefits of implementing other alternatives, each of which is constrained to meet 

specific resource management objectives. 

The SPECTRUM model provides volumes, acres, and a financial report for optimizing 

maximum present net value (PNV) of timber.) The benchmark for modeled volumes and 

acres in the maximum PNV scenario (over a horizon of 50 years) is presented in the table 

below. 

Table 5. Maximum Present Net Value for Timber 

Category Annual Volume PNV of Benefits PNV of Costs Cumulative 

PNV 

Maximum PNV 71.5 mmbf $292,292,000 $201,666,000 $90,626,000 

A maximum PNV was not modeled for resources other than timber. Use of the SPECTRUM 

model was confined to those activities for which accurate cost and value data for the BDNF 

was available and could be applied spatially. 

There is no accurate data to quantify opportunity costs for maximizing aquatic species, water 

quality, or wildlife. They are addressed through the range of alternatives, by resource, in the 

FEIS. Opportunity costs for maximizing Wilderness and roadless areas, are also addressed by 

the range of alternatives in the FEIS. 

Minimum level of timber management: The minimum level benchmark for timber would 

show no commercial timber production or an ASQ of zero. The PNV for timber is zero, since 

there would be no costs incurred (for timber) and no revenues generated. 
CHAPTER 3 - FORESTWIDE DIRECTION 

This section presents desired conditions, goals, objectives and standards that apply 

forestwide. If there are additional objectives and standards for specific areas it will be listed 

in the appropriate management area in Chapter 4. For example, the Elkhorn Mountains 

Landscape, managed by the Helena National Forest will retain management direction as 

described in the 1987 Deerlodge Forest Plan. It will apply until revision of the Helena Forest 

Plan. 

FORESTWIDE DESIRED CONDITION 

• Ecological processes, which affect the chemical, physical, and biological components 

of the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and fully support designated beneficial uses, 

are present and functioning to provide the diversity of forest, shrub land, grassland, 

riparian, and aquatic communities. 

• Conditions for self-sustaining or viable populations of native and desired non-native 

plant and animal species are supported within the natural capability of the ecosystem. 

• Natural disturbance processes are recognized and accepted as essential to the health 

of ecological communities at various spatial scales. Fire is allowed to play its natural 

role where appropriate and desired. Life, investments, and valuable resources are 

protected using the full range of responses to wildland fire. 

• Issues involving species with needs that go beyond Forest boundaries and authority 

are identified and resolved in conjunction with other federal agencies, state, county, 

tribal, and city governments. 

• People and communities benefit from programs and infrastructure that support 

livestock grazing and an array of forest products and services. Methods for using 

resources to benefit people while maintaining functioning ecosystems are employed. 

• Visitors benefit from a range of primitive to developed recreation settings and 

opportunities. Most of the BDNF continues to offer uncrowded motorized and nonmotorized backcountry opportunities. 

• Mineral and energy resources are explored, developed, and produced according to 

national direction. 

• Resources adversely affected by past management activities have been rehabilitated 

or the related public health and safety issues corrected. 

• National Forest land ownership patterns contribute to the open rural landscape and 

scenery of southwestern Montana. Forest managers act in partnership with adjacent 

landowners to capitalize on the contribution all lands make to this unique quality. 

• National Forest System lands have been consolidated through land adjustments. 

Right-of-ways and conservation easements have been acquired to maintain the 

integrity of resources and provide public access. 

• Heritage resources are preserved and managed for the benefit of the American public. 

11 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

FORESTWIDE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND 

STANDARDS 

These goals, objectives and standards apply only to National Forest System lands and are 

measured at the forestwide scale unless specifically stated otherwise. The time frame to 

achieve objectives is 10 to 15 years unless stated otherwise. These goals, objectives and 

standards do not alter any legal or statutory rights such as mineral development or private 

lands access or reduce the need to provide public or employee safety. These goals, objectives 

and standards do not supercede law, or regulation in the event of conflict between them. 

Standards apply only to management actions. Standards are applied to management actions 

as mitigation; they do not initiate management actions. 

AIR QUALITY 

Goals 

Air Quality: Air quality is maintained within the standards set by federal and state agencies 

and by the Montana Airshed Group’s Memorandum of Agreement and State Implementation 

Plan. 

Smoke Management: A variety of management tools, (including prescribed fire and 

appropriate management response) are used to help manage vegetation to reduce potential 

smoke. 

Objectives 

Emissions and Trends: Emissions data and trend information are developed for fires to be 

stored in a centralized database within five years or within the timeframe required by 

Montana’s State Implementation Plan. The data will be used to document compliance with 

Regional Haze requirements established by the State. 

Standards 

Standard 1: Meet smoke management requirements according to the Idaho/Montana 

Airshed Group Operating Guide. 

AMERICAN INDIAN RIGHTS AND INTERESTS 

Goals 

Tribal Governments: Forest officials respect that tribal governments are sovereign nations 

with a strong interest in National Forest System land management. 

12 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Objectives 

Traditional Cultural Properties: Identify and protect traditional cultural properties (TCPs). 

Treaty Rights: Recognize and support treaty rights and tribal values when planning and 

implementing forest management activities. 

Standards 

Standard 1: No impact to identified TCPs shall occur until Forest officials consult with the 

tribe or other cultural group who identified the property and their concerns have been 

considered. TCPs shall be identified through proactive consultation with affected tribes. 

AQUATIC RESOURCES 

This section contains abbreviations in parenthesis to indicate the Inland Native Fish Strategy 

goals, objectives, and standards carried forward as part of this plan. 

Goals 

Watersheds: Watersheds are maintained to ensure water quality, timing of runoff, and water 

yields necessary for functioning riparian, aquatic ecosystems, wetlands, and to support native 

aquatic species reproduction and survival. Watershed restoration projects promote long-term 

ecological integrity of ecosystems, conserve genetic integrity of native species, and 

contribute to attainment of desired stream function and support beneficial uses (IN 1). 

Fish Key Watershed: Populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout exhibit 

numbers, life histories, age classes, recruitment levels, and reproductive characteristics 

representative of historic conditions. 

Restoration Key Watershed: Fish habitat, riparian habitat, and water quality are recovered 

to desired conditions developed through watershed assessments. 

Watershed Restoration Projects: Projects are designed and implemented to promote longterm ecological integrity of ecosystems, conserve the genetic integrity of native species, and 

contribute to attainment of desired stream function (WR-1). 

Municipal Watersheds: Site-specific criteria for managing municipal watersheds are 

developed, and degraded waters are restored to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and Safe 

Drinking Water Act. 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs): Management actions are consistent with TMDLs. 

Where waters are listed as impaired and TMDLs and Water Quality Restoration Plans are not

yet established, management actions do not further degrade waters. Water quality restoration 

supports beneficial uses. 

Stream Channels: Stream channel attributes and processes are maintained and restored to 

sustain natural desired riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats and keep sediment regimes as 

close as possible to those with which riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed (IN 2). 

13 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Instream Flows: Instream flows are secured to support functioning riparian and aquatic 

habitats, stable and effective stream function, and ability to route flood discharges (IN 3). 

Floodplains: The condition of floodplains, channels and water tables are maintained and 

restored to dissipate floods and sustain the natural timing and variability of water levels in 

riparian, wetland, meadow and aquatic habitats (IN 4). 

Riparian Areas: Riparian habitat, species composition, and structural diversity of native and 

desired non-native riparian plant communities are maintained or restored to (IN 5-6): 

• Provide an amount and distribution of woody debris characteristic of functioning 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems; 

• Provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation for streams to support 

beneficial uses; 

• Provide bank stability to maintain rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel 

migration which are characteristic of functioning aquatic and riparian ecosystems; 

• Effectively trap and store sediment, build stream banks and floodplains, and promote 

recovery after watershed disturbance. 

Riparian Habitat: Habitat to support viable, well distributed populations of native and 

desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate aquatic- and riparian-dependent species 

are maintained or restored. Movement corridors within and between watersheds, where 

desired, are maintained or restored to provide aquatic-dependent species’ habitat needs and 

maintenance of metapopulations (IN 8).

Riparian and aquatic habitats necessary to foster the unique genetic fish stocks that evolved 

within the specific geo-climatic region are maintained or restored (IN 7). 

Channel Integrity: Stream channel function and water quality are maintained or restored to 

support designated beneficial uses on all reaches through management decisions, restoration 

projects or Best Management Practices as outlined in the Soil & Water Conservation 

Practices Handbook. 

Aquatic Nuisance Species: Introductions of aquatic nuisance species in riparian and aquatic 

habitats are prevented. Forest biologists work cooperatively with appropriate state and 

federal agencies, or other stakeholders to reduce or eliminate impacts, where aquatic 

nuisance species are adversely affecting the viability of desired aquatic species. 

Snow Courses, Telemetry Sites: Established snow courses, snow pack telemetry sites, and 

precipitation gauges are protected. 

Sensitive Aquatic Species: Viable populations of sensitive aquatics species are maintained 

(R1 Sensitive Species list) by managing habitat. 

Ungulate Impacts: Wild ungulate impacts that prevent attainment of the desired stream 

function or adversely affect native fish and sensitive aquatic species are identified and 

addressed through cooperation with federal, tribal, and state wildlife management agencies 

(FW 3). 

14 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Agency Cooperation: Adverse effects on native fish or sensitive aquatic species associated 

with habitat manipulation, fish stocking, fish harvest, and poaching are identified and 

addressed through cooperation with federal, tribal, and state fish management agencies (FW 

4). 

Leases, Rights-of-way, Easements: Leases, permits, rights-of-way, and easements are 

issued to avoid effects that would prevent attainment of the desired stream function and avoid 

adverse effects on threatened and endangered aquatic species and adverse impacts to 

sensitive aquatic species. 

Where the authority to do so was retained, existing leases, permits, rights-of –ways, and 

easements are adjusted to eliminate effects that would retard or prevent attainment of the 

desired stream function or adversely effect on threatened and endangered aquatic species and 

adverse impacts to sensitive aquatic species. Where adjustments are not effective, the activity 

is eliminated. 

Where the authority to adjust was not retained, existing leases, permits, right-of-way, and 

easements are negotiated with the lead agency to make changes to eliminate effects that 

would prevent attainment of the desired stream function, adversely affect threatened and 

endangered aquatic species, or adversely impact sensitive aquatic species. 

Priority for modifying existing leases, permits, right-of-way and easements would be based 

on the current and potential adverse effects on native fish and sensitive aquatic species, and 

the ecological value of the riparian resources affected (LH 3). 

Acquisitions and Exchanges: Land acquisition, exchange, and conservation easements are 

used to meet desired stream function and facilitate restoration of fish stocks and other species 

at risk of extinction (LH 4). 

Livestock Grazing: Grazing practices are designed to attain, or maintain, desired stream 

function (GM 1). 

Mineral Operations: Mineral operations minimize adverse effects to threatened and 

endangered fish species or adverse impacts to sensitive aquatic species (MM 1). 

Mining Facilities: Structures, support facilities, and roads are located outside RCAs (MM 

2).

Roads: Roads are designed, constructed, and maintained to meet desired stream function and 

avoid adverse effects to native fish and sensitive aquatic species (RF 2).

Transportation Atlas: The Transportation Atlas addresses the following items (RF 2c):

1. Road design criteria, elements, and standards that govern construction and 

reconstruction. 

2. Road management objectives for each road which include criteria for operation, 

maintenance, and management. 

3. Season of use and type of vehicle. 

4. Road condition surveys to identify annual and deferred maintenance needs 

15 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Stream Crossings: Culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings can accommodate a 100-

year flood, including associated bedload and debris (RF 4). 

Recreation Sites: Developed sites, dispersed sites, and trails are designed, constructed, and 

maintained in a manner which achieves desired stream function (RM 1). 

Water Drafting Sites: Water drafting sites are located in a manner that does not retard or 

prevent the attainment of desired minimum stream flows and stream function or have adverse 

effects, on threatened and endangered aquatic species or adverse impacts to sensitive aquatic 

species (RA 5).

Objectives 

Vegetation Management: Manage vegetation to reduce the risk of adverse wildfire impacts 

to isolated native fish populations and water resources at the sub-watershed scale (6th Code 

HUC). 

TMDLs: Cooperate with the state, tribal, and other agencies and organizations to develop 

and implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and their implementation plans for 

303(d) impaired water bodies influenced by National Forest System lands. 

Watershed Analysis: Prepare and maintain a schedule for completing watershed analysis, 

with emphasis on key watersheds shown on page 58, or listed in Appendix H (IN). 

Management Indicator Species: Maintain habitat conditions for native species as reflected 

by changes in abundance of Drunella doddsi (Mayfly) as a Management Indicator Species 

(MIS). 

Restoration Key Watersheds: Complete watershed assessments for restoration key 

watersheds and associated restoration activities. 

Spawning Areas: Reduce impacts from grazing practices in known or suspected threatened, 

endangered or sensitive fish spawning areas to avoid or reduce trampling of redds that may 

result in adverse impacts to threatened or endangered species, loss of viability, or a trend 

toward federal listing of sensitive species (GM 4).

Riparian Management Objectives: Establish stream specific Riparian Management 

Objectives (RMOs) using watershed or other analyses incorporating data from streams at or 

near desired function. RMOs are a means to define properly functioning streams and measure 

habitat attributes against desired condition. The following RMOs apply by stream reach until 

new RMOs are developed through watershed or other site specific analysis, 

(West of the Continental Divide) 

Pool Frequency (all systems) width/number of pools: 10/96, 20/56, 25/47, 50/26, 

75/23,100/18,125/14,150/12, 200/9 

Large woody debris (forested systems) >20 pieces per mile, > 12 inch diameter, >35 foot 

length. 

Bank stability (nonforested systems) >80% stable. 

16 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Lower bank angle (nonforested systems) >75% of banks with <90 degree angle (i.e., 

undercut). 

Width/ Depth ratio (all systems) <10, mean wetted width divided by mean depth. 

Water Temperature: Water temperatures meet life history requirements for native fish 

species. 

(East of the Continental Divide) 

Entrenchment Ratio (all systems) Rosgen Channel: A - <1.4, B – 1.6 – 1.8, C - >10.3, E - 

>7.5. 

Width/Depth Ratio (all systems) Rosgen Channel: A - <11.3, B – <15.8, C - <28.7, E - 

<6.9. 

Sediment Particle size, % < 6.25mm (all systems) Stream Type: B3 - <12, B4 - <28, C3 - 

<14, C4 - <22, E3 - <26, E4 - <28. 

Large Woody Debris: (forested systems) >20 pieces per mile, > 6 inch diameter, >12 foot 

length. 

Bank Stability: (nonforested systems) >80% stable. 

Wildland Fire Management: Suppression activities are designed and implemented so as not 

to prevent attainment of desired stream function, and to minimize disturbance of riparian 

ground cover and vegetation. Strategies recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and 

identify those instances where fire suppression actions could perpetuate or damage long-term 

ecosystem function or native fish and sensitive aquatic species (FM 1).

Temporary Fire Facilities: Incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots and 

other centers for incident activities are located outside of RCAs. An interdisciplinary team, 

including a fishery biologist, is used to predetermine incident base and helibase locations 

during pre-suppression planning (FM 2).

Fire Suppression: Chemical retardant, foam, or additives are not delivered to surface waters. 

Guidelines (fire management plan) are developed to identify exceptions in situations where 

overriding safety or social imperatives exist (FM 3).

Mineral Inspection: Mineral activities are inspected and monitored. The results of 

inspections and monitoring are evaluated and applied to modify mineral plans, leases, or 

permits as needed to eliminate impacts that prevent attainment of desired stream function and 

avoid adverse affects on threatened and endangered aquatic species and adverse impacts to 

sensitive aquatic species (MM 6).

Road Drainage: Reconstruct road and drainage features that do not meet design criteria or 

operation and maintenance standards, or are proven less effective than designed for 

controlling sediment delivery, or retard attainment of desired stream function, or increase 

sedimentation in Fish or Restoration Key Watersheds (RF 3a).

Roads: Close and stabilize or obliterate and stabilize roads not needed for future 

management activities (RF 3c).

17 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Recreation Sites: Existing, new, dispersed, or developed recreation sites and trails in RCAs 

are adjusted if they retard or prevent attainment of desired stream function, or adversely 

affect threatened or endangered species or adversely impact sensitive species. Adjustments 

may include education, use limitations, traffic control devices, increased maintenance, and 

relocation of facilities (RM 1). 

Bull Trout Restoration: Prioritize bull trout restoration activities with consideration given 

to bull trout core areas population status and health. Coordination will occur with USFWS, 

other federal, state, and local agencies. 

Standards 

Standard 1: Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) -1 Any activity in RCAs shall be 

designed to enhance, restore, or maintain the physical and biological characteristics of the 

RCA by implementing the following requirements. 

a. Activities in RCAs, that meet or exceed RMOs, must be designed to maintain existing 

stream function. 

b. Activities in RCAs that are not meeting RMOs shall include a restoration component, 

commensurate with the scope of the activity affecting the fishery, which trends 

towards accomplishing desired stream function, as part of the project. 

c. Activities in RCAs shall not result in long-term degradation to aquatic conditions. 

Limited short-term effects from activities in the RCA may be acceptable when 

outweighed by the long-term benefits to the RCA and aquatic resources. 

Standard 2: Evaluate the risks of aquatic nuisance /exotic species introduction as part of 

project analysis (Scale – Project area). 

Standard 3: Snow courses, snow pack telemetry sites, and precipitation gauges will be 

protected from project activity including maintenance of an adequate buffer to maintain 

reliability (Scale – Project Area). 

Standard 4: Watersheds that provide water for public water supplies (i.e. where waters are 

classified by the State of Montana as A-Closed or A-1) shall be managed to meet State water 

quality standards established for protection of drinking water quality and be consistent with 

applicable source water protection plans. 

Standard 5: New activities within known sensitive amphibian breeding sites and natal areas 

during breeding and juvenile rearing periods will not cause a threat to population viability or 

a trend toward federal listing (Scale - Breeding sites and natal areas identified at the project 

level). 

Standard 6: New management activities in Restoration Key Watersheds will be consistent 

with recovery of desired aquatic systems. 

Standard 7: Guidance defined in 16.2 – Section 1 (Permit Administration) of BeaverheadDeerlodge Supplement No. 2209.13-98-1 to the Grazing Permit Administration Handbook 

Title 2209.13 will become mandatory rather than discretionary in Fish Key Watersheds when 

18 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

grazing contributes to degraded westslope cutthroat or bull trout stream conditions, and there 

is non-compliance with livestock grazing standards; or other aspects of livestock grazing 

permits terms and conditions. 

Standard 8: New projects will have a beneficial effect or no measurable negative effect on 

westslope cutthroat or bull trout in Fish Key Watersheds. Short term negative effects are 

acceptable if outweighed by long term benefits. 

Standard 9: Restoration projects should correct existing problems, not mitigate effects 

created by proposed activities (WR 3).

Standard 10: If the only suitable location for incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, 

helispots and other centers for incident activities are within the RCA, an exemption may be 

granted following a review and recommendation by a resource advisor. The line officer will 

prescribe the location, use conditions, and rehabilitation requirements with avoidance of 

adverse effects to native fish and sensitive aquatic species as a primary goal. 

Standard 11: Monitor water quality and aquatic resources in fish key watersheds where 

chemical retardant, foam, or additives are delivered to surface waters. Monitoring should 

take place as soon as conditions allow for safe access. 

Standard 12: Require instream flows and habitat conditions for hydroelectric and other 

surface water development proposals to maintain or restore riparian resources, favorable 

channel conditions, fish passage, reproduction, and growth. Coordination will occur with the 

USFWS, other federal, state, and local agencies. (LH 1). 

During re-licensing of hydroelectric projects, provide written and timely license conditions to 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) , that require fish passage and flows and 

habitat conditions that maintain/restore riparian resources and channel integrity. Coordinate 

re-licensing projects with the appropriate state agencies. 

Standard 13: Locate new hydroelectric ancillary facilities for existing permits, outside 

RCAs. For existing ancillary facilities inside the RCA essential to proper management, 

provide recommendations to FERC to assure the facilities would not prevent attainment of 

the desired stream function and adverse effects on native fish and sensitive aquatic species 

are avoided. Where these objectives cannot be met, provide recommendations to FERC that 

such ancillary facilities should be relocated. Locate, operate, and maintain hydroelectric 

facilities that must be located in RCAs to avoid effects that would retard or prevent 

attainment of the desired stream function and avoid adverse effects on native fish and 

sensitive aquatic species (LH 2).

Standard 14: Grazing practices that prevent attainment of desired stream function, or are 

likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or adversely impact sensitive 

species, are modified to attain desired stream function or population objectives (GM 1).

Standard 15: Locate new livestock handling and/or management facilities outside of 

Riparian Conservation Areas. For existing livestock handling facilities inside Riparian 

Conservation Areas, assure facilities do not prevent attainment of desired stream function. 

Relocate or close facilities where these objectives cannot be met (GM 2). 

19 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Standard 16: Limit livestock trailing, bedding, watering, salting, loading, and other handling 

efforts to those areas and times that would not retard or prevent attainment of desired stream 

function or adversely affect native fish and sensitive aquatic species (GM 3). 

Standard 17: If a notice of intent indicates a mineral operation would be located in an RCA, 

the effects of the activity on native fish and sensitive aquatic species is considered in the 

determination of significant surface disturbance pursuant to 36 CFR 228.4. For operations in 

an RCA, operators take all practicable measures to maintain, protect, and rehabilitate fish and 

wildlife habitat, which may be affected by the operations. Bonding requires the cost of 

stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area of operation will be covered (MM 1). 

Standard 18: Where no alternative to placing facilities in RCAs exists, facilities are located 

and constructed in ways that avoid impacts to RCAs and streams and adverse effects on 

native fish and sensitive aquatic species. Where no alternative to road construction exists, 

roads are kept to the minimum necessary for the approved mineral activity. Roads no longer 

required for mineral or land management activities are closed, revegetated, or obliterated 

(MM 2). 

Standard 19: Solid and sanitary waste facilities in RCAs are prohibited. If no alternative to 

locating mine waste (waste rock, spent ore, tailings) facilities in RCAs exists, releases can be 

prevented, and stability can be ensured, then (MM 3): 

a. Analyze the waste material using the best conventional sampling methods and 

analytic techniques to determine its chemical and physical stability characteristics. 

b. Locate and design the waste facilities using the best conventional techniques to 

ensure mass stability and prevent the release of acid or toxic materials. If the best 

conventional technology is not sufficient to prevent such releases and ensure stability 

over the long term, prohibit such facilities in Riparian Conservation Areas. 

c. Monitor waste and waste facilities to confirm predictions of chemical and physical 

stability, and make adjustments to operations as needed to avoid adverse effects to 

native fish and sensitive aquatic species and to attain desired stream function. 

d. Reclaim and monitor waste facilities to assure chemical and physical stability and revegetation to avoid adverse effects to native fish and sensitive aquatic species, and to 

attain the desired stream function. 

Reclamation bonds are adequate to ensure long-term chemical and physical stability and 

successful re-vegetation of disturbed areas and mine waste facilities. 

Standard 20: Sand and gravel mining and extraction within RCAs are prohibited (MM 5).

Standard 21: Provide and maintain fish passage at new, replacement, and reconstructed road 

crossings of existing and potential fish-bearing streams, unless barriers are determined 

beneficial for native fish and/or sensitive aquatic species conservation (RF 5).

Standard 22: Complete watershed analysis prior to constructing roads or landings in RCAs 

within fish or restoration key watersheds (RF 2a). 

Standard 23: Where adjustments of recreation use impacts on desired stream function are 

not successful terminate activity or occupancy (RM 1). 

20 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Standard 24: Chemical pesticides and toxicants will be applied in a manner consistent with 

desired stream function and avoids adverse biological effects (RA 3).

Standard 25: Project related storage of fuels and toxicants within Riparian Conservation 

Areas is prohibited. Refueling within Riparian Conservation Areas is prohibited except for 

emergency situations, in which case refueling sites must have an approved spill containment 

plan (RA 4). 

Standard 26: Fuelwood cutting and salvage in RCAs will not prevent or retard attainment of 

desired stream function (TM 1a). 

Standard 27: Vegetation and/or fuel management prescriptions in RCAs will be for the 

purpose of restoring, enhancing, or protecting the physical and biological characteristics of 

the RCA including Riparian Management Objectives. Vegetation and/or fuel treatments, for 

the purpose of protecting urban interface, private property and other investment, and public 

safety in RCA’s shall be designed so as not to prevent the attainment of desired stream 

function (TM 1).

Standard 28: Complete the evaluation of on-going activities in Fish Key Watersheds. 

Activities or conditions inconsistent with goals and objectives will be identified within 3 

years and timeframes for implementation of mitigation will be identified. 

ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL VALUES 

Goals 

Economy Contribution: Contribute to the social and economic well-being of local 

communities by promoting sustainable use of renewable natural resources. Provide timber for 

commercial harvest, forage for livestock grazing, exploration and development opportunities 

for mineral resources, and recreation settings consistent with other resource goals. 

Coordination: Increase coordination with federal, state, county and tribal governments and 

strive for coordination and dialogue with a broad range of stakeholders. 

Economic Efficiency: The best available methods are used to contribute products to local 

communities while maximizing the ability to achieve Forest targets. 

Objective 

None 

Standards 

None 

21 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Goals 

Safety: Fire fighter and public safety is always recognized as the first priority for fire 

suppression. 

Wildland Fire Response: The full range of responses to wildland fire is available to meet 

social needs and to achieve ecosystem sustainability. 

Fuels Management: A full range of fuels management activities is available to achieve 

ecosystem sustainability, including, economic, and social components. 

Wildfire Hazard Reduction: Effects of unplanned and unwanted wildfire are reduced by 

moving areas of condition class 2 and 3 to a condition class 1 for all fire regimes and by 

maintaining areas in condition class 1. 

Objectives 

Wildland Urban Interface: Reduce the risk from wildfire to communities and resources in 

the following order of priority: 

1. Areas where a community wildfire protection plan has been developed. 

2. High risk areas adjacent to communities, for example: condition classes 2 and 3 

in fire regimes 1, 2, & 3. 

3. Areas in condition class 2 and 3 in fire regimes 4 & 5. 

4. Areas to be maintained in condition class 1. 

Standards 

Standard 1: Wildland fire use plans shall be developed in coordination with the appropriate 

county, state, tribal, and other federal agencies. 

Standard 2: Wildland fire use is an available tool for all unplanned ignitions.

HERITAGE RESOURCES 

Goals 

Heritage Resources: There is no loss of significant heritage resources. Significant means 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places, eligible for listing, or awaiting formal 

evaluation for National Register eligibility. 

Heritage Program: A heritage program is developed and maintained that includes legal 

compliance, preservation, interpretation, public education, scientific research, partnerships, 

and tribal consultation. 

22 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Objectives 

Historic Preservation Plan: Write historic preservation plans for every heritage property 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places within one year of listing. Other heritage 

sites, districts and cultural landscapes will be managed through heritage preservation plans as 

necessary. 

Heritage Assessment: Complete an assessment of heritage resources with conclusions and 

priorities for inventory, protection, stabilization, and enhancement. 

Heritage Management Strategy: Develop and update as needed, a forestwide heritage 

management strategy that includes programs to identify and evaluate sites; prioritized lists of 

sites needing treatment; treatment plans for those sites; appropriate uses for sites; and 

implementation strategies. Integrate the strategy into other resource assessments, interpretive 

plans, and recreation plans. Develop the strategy in partnership with all interested parties 

including the Montana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), tribes, local history and 

archaeological societies, universities, rural economic development councils, etc. Develop 

partnership agreements with interested parties, to assist in implementing the strategy and 

document the management strategy in prehistoric and historic overviews. 

Standards 

Standard 1: Heritage resources determined eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places will be preserved in place, or a consensus determination of “no adverse 

effect” will be reached with the Montana SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and appropriate Indian tribes. 

Standard 2: Unplanned discoveries of heritage resources during project implementation 

shall cause project operations in the area of the discovery to cease until analysis and 

evaluation of the heritage resources are completed, including consultation with the Montana 

SHPO and appropriate Indian tribes. 

Standard 3: Heritage protection measures will be added to all appropriate contracts, sales 

documents, and special use permits. 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

Goals 

Transportation System: The minimum transportation system necessary is identified and 

managed. Roads and trails are identified in the transportation atlas maintained at the Forest 

Supervisor’s Office. Roads and trails are constructed, managed, and maintained to meet land 

and resource objectives.

Facilities: Administrative and/or recreation facilities are constructed, managed, and 

maintained to meet land and resource objectives and address recreation demand. 

23 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Objective 

Recreation Facilities: Monitor use and reconstruct sites as needed, construct additional 

recreation facilities to meet demand, and convert existing sites to dispersed use areas if 

warranted. Reconstruct 30% of existing developed sites. 

Standards 

Standard 1: Facility Design: Use the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains sections of the Built 

Environment Image Guide, (USDA FS-710, Dec. 2001), or equivalent for development of 

recreation sites, administrative sites, and approval of special use structures and facility 

design. 

LANDS 

Goals 

Conservation Easements: Conservation easements are acquired where appropriate to 

protect important habitat or viewsheds. 

Land Adjustments: Land ownership adjustments are pursued as opportunities arise, to 

improve national forest management through purchase, exchange, or other authority. 

Property Lines: National Forest System property lines adjacent to private lands and 

boundaries of special areas such as the National Wilderness Preservation System are clearly 

marked where encroachment is likely. 

Right-of-way: Existing public access to National Forest System lands would be maintained 

and additional access would be provided by acquisition of new road or trail rights-of-ways.

Rights-of-ways are acquired to national trails or historic routes, special recreation areas, or 

other tracts of the National Forest System lands where public access does not exist. 

Utility Corridors and Communication Sites – A network of designated utility corridors 

and communication sites is provided to minimize the proliferation of rights-of-way, facilities, 

and corridors across the landscape. Designation of a corridor does not constitute approval of 

any particular project. 

Objectives 

None 

Standards 

Standard 1: Energy transmission facilities shall be located only in designated utility 

corridors shown on the Utility Corridor and Communication Site map at the end of Chapter 

3. Energy gathering or distribution facilities may be located outside of designated corridors. 

24 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

25 

Standard 2: Wireless telecommunication facilities shall be located in designated 

communication sites and utility corridors shown on the Utility Corridor and Communication 

Site map. Exceptions may be made for non-ground disturbing temporary facilities that are in 

place for less than one year. 

Standard 3: Comply with direction in USDA Forest Service Designation of Section 368 

Energy Corridors on National Forest System Land in 10 Western States Decision by 

Secretary of Agriculture To Amend Land Management Plans Described as the 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative January 14, 2009. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

Goals 

Grazing Opportunities: Sustainable grazing opportunities are provided for domestic 

livestock from lands suitable for forage production. 

Forage Use: Use of forage by domestic livestock will maintain or enhance the desired 

structure and diversity of plant communities on grasslands, shrub lands, and forests. Use will 

be managed to maintain or restore riparian function as defined in the allotment management 

plan. 

Objectives 

None 

Standards 

Standards 1: The interim standards in Table 6 apply to livestock grazing operations unless 

or until specific long-term objectives, prescriptions, or allowable use levels have been 

designed through individual resource management plans or site-specific NEPA decisions; for 

example, revised allotment management plans or Wilderness management plans. 

These interim standards are designed to prevent reduction of existing water quality or 

physical or biological functions of riparian-wetland areas from management activities. The 

standards are a means to assure use remains at levels which maintain existing riparianwetland function. The maximum utilization, minimum stubble height or minimum 

streambank standards may be incorporated in livestock annual operating plans. In streams 

containing 90% or greater, genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout (or other genetic purity 

requirement as defined by Montana State Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Strategy 

or Federal Recovery Plan), managers must use the interim standard for WCT in Table 6. 

Interim standards apply to the following situations: 

• Any allotment management plan lacking riparian management objectives and guides 

designed specifically for that allotment. 

• Any riparian recreation site used primarily by recreation stock. 

• Any outfitter operation where stock are grazed in a riparian area that lacks a specific 

riparian grazing strategy in the annual operating plan. 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Table 6. Interim Livestock Grazing Standards 

Category Season Long 

or 

Continuous 

Deferred or RestRotation 

Area Key Species (others 

may be used for 

specific allotments)

Upland range 

utilization 

≤ 40% of 

forage utilized 

on suitable 

range on 85% 

of the area. 

≤ 50% 

utilization on 

the remaining 

15%. 

≤ 55% of forage 

utilized on suitable 

range on 85% of 

the area. 

≤ 65% utilization

on remaining 15%. 

Suitable range. Idaho fescue 

Bluebunchwheatgrass 

Rough Fescue 

Streambank 

Disturbance 

≤ 25% 

streambank 

disturbance 

measured by 

reach. 

≤ 30% streambank 

disturbance 

measured by 

reach. 

85% of riparian habitat, by 

stream reach, within 

suitable range for each 

pasture. 5% of riparian 

habitat could exceed 

standards on a repeat basis 

(crossings). 

n/a 

Riparian Stubble 

Height 

Green Line ≥

6” measured 

by reach, flood 

plain ≥ 4” 

measured by 

reach. 

Green Line ≥ 4” 

measured by 

reach, flood plain 

≥ 3” measured by 

reach.

85% of riparian habitat, by 

stream reach, within 

suitable range for each 

pasture. 

Sedges, rushes 

Bluejoint reedgrass 

Tufted hairgrass. 

Winter Range N/A ≤ 35% of forage 

utilized on suitable 

range on 85% of 

the area. Allow no 

more than 55% 

utilization on 

remaining 15%. 

Exceptions can be 

made if a rest 

pasture is available 

to provide winter 

forage. 

Pastures in big game 

winter range as mapped in 

July 2006. 

Idaho fescue 

Bluebunch - 

wheatgrass 

Rough Fescue 

Riparian Sites on 

Streams that 

Contain Westslope Cutthroat 

Trout or listed 

species 

≤ 20% 

streambank 

disturbance by 

reach. 

≤ 45% of forage 

utilized on suitable 

range on 85% of 

the area. Allow no 

more than 65% 

utilization on 

remaining 15%. 

85% of riparian habitat, by 

stream reach, within 

suitable range for each 

pasture. 5% of riparian 

habitat could exceed 

standards on a repeat basis 

(crossings). 

Sedges, rushes, 

Bluejoint reedgrass, 

Tufted hairgrass. 

Standard 2: Domestic livestock grazing will not be allowed in developed recreation sites 

unless specifically permitted. 

26 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Standard 3: Allotment management plans will identify specific criteria for special areas, 

such as wet meadows, where limiting grazing at certain times of the years or under certain 

conditions is necessary to protect resources. 

Standard 4: Base Property Requirement - ownership of facilities and land capable of 

producing feed for livestock 50% of the time permitted livestock are not grazing on National 

Forest, will be demonstrated before issuing grazing permits. 

MINERALS, OIL, AND GAS 

Goals 

Hardrock and Saleable Minerals: Mineral commodities are explored and developed in 

accordance with national direction. 

Locatable Minerals: Locatable minerals are developed on all parts of the Forest not 

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry in accordance with the 1972 Mining Law, 

regulations, and national direction. 

Oil and Gas Leasing: Offer oil and gas leasing opportunities under stipulations which 

protect resource values. 

Objectives 

None 

Standards 

Standard 1: Use the following table to describe the lease terms and prescribe stipulations for 

the Beaverhead Unit. Appendix B contains detailed language. 

Table 7. Lease Terms and Prescribed Stipulations for the Beaverhead Unit. Corresponding lease 

stipulation map layers are available in the Beaverhead Unit GIS database 

Affected Environment Stipulation 

Special Designations 

Wilderness 

Recommended Wilderness 

West Pioneer WSA 

Maverick Ski Area 

Eligible Wild segments of Eligible Wild & Scenic Rivers – 1⁄4 mile buffer 

Research Natural Areas 

Eligible Scenic & Recreation segments of Wild & Scenic Rivers – 1⁄4 mile buffer 

Inventoried Roadless Areas

LU 

LU 

LU 

LU 

AU 

NSO 

CSU 

CSU 

TES and Wildlife 

Big Game Winter Range (12/2 – 5/15) 

Trumpeter Swan Nesting Areas (4/1 – 9/1) 

TL 

TL 

27 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Affected Environment Stipulation 

Bald Eagle & Peregrine Falcon Nesting Areas (2/1 – 9/1) 

Occupied Grizzly Bear Habitat 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Populations 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Fish Key Watersheds 

Arctic Grayling Recovery Sites 

NSO/TL 

CSU 

CSU 

NSO 

CSU 

Soil and Water Quality 

Slopes over 60% 

Areas of Mass Failure 

Areas prone to failure, slopes over 35% 

Areas sensitive to soil compaction 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

CSU 

Recreation and Aesthetics 

Heritage Resource Sites and Traditional Cultural Properties 

Grasshopper and Rock Creek Recreation Areas 

Special Use Recreation Residences – 1⁄4 mi. buffer 

Administrative Sites – 1⁄2 mi. buffer 

Developed Campgrounds – 1⁄2 mi. buffer 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail – 1⁄4 mi. buffer 

National Historic Trails: Nez Perce and Lewis & Clark - 1⁄2 mi. buffer 

Specific Semi-Primitive Recreation Areas 

Areas of High Scenic Value 

Areas of Moderate Scenic Value 

NSO 

CSU 

CSU 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

NSO 

CSU 

NSO 

CSU 

Other Resources 

All other Available Lands ST 

Leasing Options 

(ST) Standard Terms - provisions issued with all leases. Operations must comply with applicable laws, regulations, and 

Onshore Orders. Two key features of ST provide the federal surface management agency the ability to delay initial 

operations up to 60 days and/or to relocate a proposed drill site up to 200 meters at its discretion. The area encompassed 

within a circle having a radius of 200 meters is approximately 31 acres. 

(TL) Timing Limitation – exploration and construction activities would be restricted or prohibited during certain time periods.

(CSU) Controlled Surface Use – use and occupancy is allowed, but restricted to mitigate effects to a particular resource, 

such as requirements to meet a visual quality objective. 

(NSO) No Surface Occupancy – allows lands to be leased, but well sites, tank, batteries, or similar facilities would not be 

allowed to occupy the surface of specified lands. Roads would not be constructed in large blocks of land specified for No 

Surface Occupancy to provide access to leases, which allowed surface occupancy. An example would be no roads allowed 

in a Research Natural Area having a NSO stipulation in order to access an adjacent lease. However, roads may be 

authorized for construction across a segment of a linear strip of land specified NSO. Or an instance where it is necessary to 

construct an access road across a stream stipulated for NSO on a long linear strip of High Scenic Value. . 

(LU) Legally unavailable 

(AU) Administratively unavailable 

Standard 2: Any new road constructed for oil and gas activity will be obliterated unless the 

road is needed as part of the Forest Service permanent transportation system. 

Standard 3: All drill pads will be obliterated. 

28 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

RECREATION AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Goals 

Recreation Settings: Offer a choice of recreation settings ranging from remote backcountry 

to more developed front country areas. Recreation allocations use Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) concepts and definitions, (Tables 8 and 9). The allocations are mapped 

beginning on page 54 and are described below. 

Designated Wilderness: Provide primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings, and 

offer opportunities for foot, stock, ski, snowshoe travel, dispersed camping, and other 

activities allowed in Wilderness. 

Recommended Wilderness: Provide semi-primitive non-motorized settings and offer 

opportunities for foot, stock, ski, snowshoe travel, dispersed camping, and other activities. 

Recommended Wilderness: Areas allocated as recommended Wilderness are managed to 

protect or improve their Wilderness character and to protect the area’s potential for inclusion 

in the NWPS as described in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. 

Wilderness Study Areas: Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) are managed to protect 

Wilderness character according to the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977. 

WSA Summer: Provide semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized 

settings, and offer opportunities for wheeled motorized travel on routes as shown on the 

travel plan. 

WSA Winter: Provide semi-primitive motorized settings and offer opportunities for 

snowmobiling December 2 through May 15. 

WSA Winter Non-Motorized: Provide primitive non-motorized settings December 2 

through May 15.

Summer Non-Motorized Allocations: Provide semi-primitive non-motorized recreation 

settings, and offer opportunities for mountain biking, horse and stock travel, hiking, 

dispersed camping, and other activities. 

Summer Motorized Backcountry Allocations: Provide semi-primitive motorized 

recreation settings, and offer opportunities for varied types of travel and recreational 

activities.

Summer Roaded Allocation: Provide roaded natural and rural recreation settings, and offer 

a wide variety of opportunities for dispersed and developed recreational activities. 

Winter Non-Motorized Allocations: Provide primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized 

recreation settings in these areas, and offer opportunities for ski touring, snowshoeing, and 

hiking, and other non-motorized activities. 

29 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Winter Motorized Allocations: Provide roaded and semi-primitive motorized recreation 

settings in these areas, and offer opportunities for a variety of motorized and non-motorized 

travel and activities. The majority of these allocations provide opportunities for travel by 

snowmobile. 

Table 8. Activities Available in Summer Management Allocations 

Designated 

Wilderness 

Recommended 

Wilderness 

Summer 

Non-motorized 

Wilderness 

Study Area Backcountry Road Based 

Motorized 

watercraft 

Camping in 

campgrounds 

Scenic driving 

Four-wheeling (full-size) on roads 

ATV & motorcycle riding on trails 

Mountain Biking 

Stock use, hiking 

Mineral Collection 

Dispersed camping 

Hunting and Fishing 

Non-motorized watercraft 

Table 9. Activities Available in Winter Management Allocations 

Designated 

Wilderness 

Recommended 

Wilderness 

Winter 

Non-motorized 

Wilderness 

Study Areas Motorized Recreation 

Winter 

sport 

resorts 

scenic driving 

Four-wheeling (fullsize highway vehicles) 

on roads 

ATVs, motorcycles and other trail 

vehicles 

Snowmobiles, 

Cross-country skiing, ski touring skiing, snow-shoeing, winter hiking 

Dog sledding 

Trapping, hunting, fishing 

Recreation Opportunities: High quality diverse outdoor recreation opportunities are 

provided, including but not limited to:

• Day use activities within a 30 minute drive of communities for motorized and nonmotorized trails, picnicking and interpretive sites, 

• Winter use areas near communities for ski touring, snowshoeing and snowmobiling, 

30 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

• Trails and routes for autos, four-wheel-drive vehicles, ATVs, motorcycles, mountain 

bikes, horses, and hikers to high mountain lakes and other features, and 

• Developed and dispersed camping. 

Road and Trail Use: A system of routes and areas designated for non-motorized and 

motorized use are identified and available for public use. A Roaded or Backcountry 

recreation allocation does not determine the motorized status of any route, including the 

CDNST, within those allocations. A non-motorized recreation allocation (Summer NonMotorized, Recommended Wilderness, or designated Wilderness) does close all routes within 

the area to motorized use. 

Resources are protected and user conflicts are minimized by allowing motorized wheeled 

travel only on designated routes and areas. Established routes to dispersed campsites are 

recognized as part of the Forest transportation system. A system of trails designated for nonmotorized uses are also identified and available for public use. 

Developed Sites: High quality developed recreation facilities are strategically located to 

concentrate use, provide access to backcountry settings, and protect natural resources. Sites 

are clean, well maintained, and designed for universal accessibility. 

Commercial Recreation: Permitted guiding, outfitting, and resort operations enhance visitor 

access and enjoyment, help achieve forest management objectives and contribute to regional 

and local economies. 

Objectives 

Non-motorized winter activities: Increase opportunities for non-motorized winter activities, 

such as ski touring and snowshoeing, where highway access points and parking are available. 

Dispersed Sites: Identify dispersed campsites causing adverse resource impacts. Develop 

mitigation or relocate the site to protect the resource. Actions may include but are not limited 

to installing toilets for public health, bulletin boards, or hardening sites where necessary. 

Close campsites where unacceptable resource damage cannot be mitigated. 

Developed Recreation Sites: Complete mineral withdrawals for all developed recreation 

sites. 

Trails – Maintain motorized and non-motorized trails to standard. Reconstruct trails that do 

not meet standards based on the following Region One priorities: 

a. Safety hazards to users 

b. Actual or potential resource damage, especially in key watersheds, 

c. Level of use 

Standards 

Standard 1: Permanent road construction is not allowed in summer non-motorized 

allocations or in areas evaluated for wilderness potential. 

31 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Standard 2: Motorized vehicles are not allowed in summer or winter non-motorized 

allocations except for permitted or administrative use. 

Standard 3: Restrict year-round, wheeled motorized travel to designated routes or areas. 

Where routes have not been designated through site specific travel planning, restrict 

motorized vehicles to open motorized routes identified on the Forest Plan Interim Roads and 

Trails Inventory GIS Layer displayed on page 53. Motorized wheeled travel on routes 

leading to identified dispersed campsites is allowed. Exceptions may be authorized for: 

Motorized wheeled cross-country travel for any military, fire, search and rescue, or law 

enforcement vehicle used for emergency purposes. 

Authorized motorized wheeled cross-country travel is limited to official administrative 

duties or emergency services such as, fire suppression, prescribed fire, noxious weed 

control, vegetation restoration, surveying, and law enforcement. 

Motorized wheeled cross-country travel for other government entities on official 

administrative business as authorized through the normal permit processes or a 

memorandum of understanding. 

Motorized wheeled cross-country travel for lessees and permittees limited to terms 

described in the federal lease or permit. 

Standard 4: Extreme sport courses such as motocross trails, technical mountain bike 

courses, and motor vehicle challenge routes will not be constructed. 

Standard 5: New outfitter and guide permits or increases in existing permits, will be only be 

made based on need, administrative capability, and a suitable mix of guided and non-guided 

public capacity determined by a forestwide capacity study. This mix may vary by type of 

activity and/or season of use. Capacity validation will be made on an area-specific basis 

when the general forestwide capacity determination does not adequately address the 

management situation. Heli-skiing operations will not be permitted. 

Standard 6: New recreation resorts or residence tracts will not be permitted, nor will permits 

be issued for unoccupied tracts or lots. 

Standard 7: Manage summer non-motorized allocations for either a primitive or semiprimitive non-motorized setting from May 16 thru December 1, (page 54). 

Standard 8: Manage winter non-motorized allocations for a primitive or semi-primitive nonmotorized setting from December 2 thru May 15, (page 55). 

Standard: 9: Manage summer backcountry allocations for a semi-primitive motorized 

setting from May 16 thru December 1, (page 54). 

Standard 10: Manage recommended Wilderness for primitive or semi-primitive nonmotorized settings and protect Wilderness character. 

Standard 11: Commercial timber harvest is prohibited in recommended Wilderness. 

Standard 12: Road construction is not permitted in recommended Wilderness. 

32 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Standard 13: Wheeled or motorized vehicles designed for the primary purpose of 

transporting people, except for wheel chairs, are prohibited in recommended Wilderness 

except for permitted or administrative uses. 

SCENIC RESOURCES 

Goals 

Scenery Management: Scenic resources reflect ecosystem diversity, enhance the recreation 

settings, and contribute to the quality of life of local residents and communities. 

Objectives 

Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs): Map forestwide SIOs within one year.

Scenic Integrity: Identify and rehabilitate areas that do not meet the SIOs. 

Standards 

Standard 1: Where no minimum SIOs are identified by landscape or management area - 

prior to the completion of a forestwide scenic integrity map – the objectives for scenery shall 

be determined by procedures outlined in the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook, Agricultural 

Handbook No. 701. The analysis shall use the Scenic Concern Level List in Appendix A, 

Scenic Attractiveness GIS layer, and the Scenery Integrity Level Matrix below. 

Table 10. Scenery Integrity Level Matrix 

Landscape Visibility 

Scenic 

Attractiveness 

Middle or 

Foreground of 

Concern Level 1 

Background 

of Concern 

Level 1 

Middle or 

Foreground of 

Concern Level 2 

Background of 

Concern Level 

2 All Other Areas 

A - Distinctive High High Moderate Moderate 

B - Typical High Moderate Moderate Low 

C -Indistinctive Moderate Moderate Moderate Low 

Low SIO, or 

determine a higher 

SIO if it supports 

summer ROS 

Standard 2: Projects in non-motorized and summer backcountry allocations will be designed 

to meet a minimum SIO of Moderate. Use the Scenic Concern Level List in Appendix A,

Forestwide Scenic Attractiveness GIS layer, and Scenic Integrity Level Matrix above to 

determine a site specific SIO. Project-level analysis may determine a higher SIO to be 

appropriate. 

Standard 3: Projects in foreground areas of scenic byways, national scenic trails or wild and 

scenic rivers will be designed to meet the SIO of at least High. 

33 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

SOILS 

Goals 

Soil Productivity: Soil productivity is maintained or restored. 

Objectives 

Soil Productivity: Protect soil productivity through site-specific prescriptions. The objective 

would be achieved by applying the most current soil and water conservation practices and 

other appropriate mitigation measures identified during project analysis and design, in order 

to meet the most current Region 1 Soil Quality Standards and riparian area standards. 

Standards 

Standard 1: The most current Region 1 Soil Quality Standards are adopted as forest plan 

soil standards. 

Standard 2: Ground based yarding shall not be allowed on slopes exceeding 35% without 

site-specific environmental analysis that shows damage is unlikely and soil goals and 

objectives can be met. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

In addition to goals, objectives, and standards below, direction for specific special 

designations reside in the respective management plans for each designation or in Forest 

Service manuals. 

Goals 

Special Designations: Recreational opportunities are featured and improved in special 

designations except research natural areas. 

Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness: This area is managed to protect Wilderness character as 

defined in the Wilderness Act as outlined in the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Management 

Plan. 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail: The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail is 

managed according to the National Trails Act, the CDNST Study Reports and FEIS, and 

CDNST Comprehensive Plan (as amended) for the purpose of providing: 

• “A continuous, appealing trail route, designed for the hiker and horseman, but 

compatible with other land uses.” 

• Access for hikers and stock into the diverse country along the Continental Divide 

in a manner which will assure a high quality recreation experience while 

maintaining a constant respect for the natural environment. 

34 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

• Exception for motorized use is outlined in the National Trails Act. 

Lee Metcalf Wilderness: This area is managed to protect Wilderness character as defined in 

the Wilderness Act as outlined in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Management Plan. 

Lemhi Pass National Historic Landmark: The landmark is managed to provide recreation 

opportunities while protecting historic features and historic landscape character as outlined in 

the Lemhi Pass National Historic Landmark Management Plan. 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail: The Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and 

its related sites are managed according to the LCNHT Comprehensive Management Plan. 

National Recreation Trails: National Recreation Trails are managed to protect or enhance 

the values for which they were established. 

May Creek National Recreation Trail - a non-motorized route from May Creek 

Campground to the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. 

Pioneer Loop National Recreation Trail - a 32 mile loop trail through the West 

Pioneers. 

Wise River Polaris National Recreation Trail - the Pioneer Mountains Scenic Byway 

as a 30 mile snowmobile route in winter. 

Grasshopper Loop National Recreation Trail - a three mile trail in the southern part of 

the Pioneers, with non-motorized trail opportunities yearlong. 

Haystack National Recreation Trail - a three mile hike with a 2000 ft elevation gain to 

the top of Haystack Mountain for outstanding views of the area. 

Lodgepole National Recreation Trail - a three mile loop trail through varied mountain 

vegetation types north of Georgetown Lake, with summer OHV and winter cross-country 

ski opportunities. 

Louise Lake National Recreation Trail - a one mile trail near the end of the South 

Boulder Road in the Tobacco Root Range to this lake basin near the top of the range. 

Lost Cabin Lake National Recreation Trail - a three mile trail near the end of the 

South Boulder Road in the Tobacco Root Range to this high mountain lake. 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail managed according to the NPNHT Comprehensive Plan. 

Pioneer Mountains Scenic Byway: The byway is managed to provide scenic driving, 

camping and day use along its length, and access to backcountry opportunities in the Pioneer: 

The Nez Perce National Historic Trail (NPNHT) is Mountains.

Research Natural Areas and Special Interest Areas: Research natural areas (RNAs) and 

special interest areas (SIAs) are managed to protect the primary features for which they were 

identified. The Northern Region Status and Needs Assessment for Research Natural Areas of 

October 1996 has assigned communities and or habitat types to each national forest in 

Region 1 so the entire range of vegetative types in the Northern region is represented by one 

or more RNAs. The areas in the following table meet one or more of the assigned 

35 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

communities, habitat types, or other feature assigned to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 

Forest. 

Table 11. Research Natural and Special Interest Area Descriptions 

Research Natural 

Area 

Acres District Designated Primary Features 

Skull-Odell 2543 Wise River 1996 Subalpine forest, lakes, bog meadows and cold springs 

Horse Prairie 196 Dillon 1996 Sagebrush, Idaho fescue and willow communities, 

Type 2 streams 

Dry Mountain 507 Jefferson 1996 Douglas-fir, common juniper, sagebrush, bunchgrasses 

Lost Park 618 Jefferson 1996 Subalpine forest, willow, herbaceous wetlands and 

Idaho fescue and bluebunch wheatgrass 

Bernice 

Experimental Forest 

451 Jefferson 1996 Douglas-fir / subalpine forest, Douglas-fir, twinflower, 

and grasslands 

Thunderbolt 

Mountain 

792 Jefferson 1996 Subalpine forest, whitebark pine, wetlands 

Basin Creek 1014 Butte 1996 Subalpine forest, riparian, and herbaceous type, and 

spruce. 

Windy Ridge 235 Pintler 1996 Rare plants, grasslands 

Dexter Basin 1109 Pintler 1996 Whitebark pine, alpine larch, subalpine fir/woodrush, 

and forested scree. 

Sapphire Divide 1399 Pintler 1996 Alpine larch, whitebark pine, pond 

Goat Flats 1287 Pintler, Wise 

River 

2001 Rare plants, alpine tundra, subalpine larch, whitebark 

pine 

Cave Mountain 4513 Madison 1996 Idaho fescue grassland, geography, and wildlife 

Cliff Lake 2301 Madison 1951 Grassland and shrublands 

Cottonwood Creek 128 Madison 1972 Grasslands and shrublands, sagebrush and Idaho 

fescue 

Cattle Gulch 2162 Wise River 2009 Mountain Mahogany, bluebunch wheatgrass, and rare 

plants 

Elkhorn Lake 1765 Wise River 2009 Subalpine forest, whitebark pine/grouse whortleberry, 

and subalpine lake 

Special Interest Area 

West Fork Butte 486 Pintler 1996 Rare plants, grasslands 

Thompson Park Municipal Recreation Area: This recreation area is managed in 

cooperation with the Butte-Silverbow city-county government to provide outdoor recreation 

opportunities for the Butte municipal area. 

Unique Features: Habitats or features such as caves and thermal springs are managed to 

protect or maintain their natural condition or biological values. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Stream segments, determined to be eligible for classification under 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1986, as amended, are protected until suitability studies 

are completed. 

36 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Table 12. Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Eligible Stream Segments 

Segment Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values(s) 

Potential 

Classification 

Length 

in Miles 

District 

Browns Canyon Genetically pure westslope 

cutthroat trout Wild 4.3 Dillon 

Deadman Creek Recreation and wildlife values, and 

a National Historic Register Site Wild 10.2 Dillon 

Canyon Creek 

Geologic, recreation and wildlife 

values, and a stream dependent 

historic site 

Wild 

Recreational 

4.6 

6.4 Wise River 

Wise River Recreational and scenic values Recreational 13.6 Wise River 

Warm Springs Creek Geologic Feature Recreational 5.2 Madison 

Mill Creek Stream dependent National 

Historic Register site. Recreational 8.0 Madison 

West Fork of 

Madison River Fish recruitment to Madison River 

Wild 

Scenic 

Recreational 

8.2 

7.4 

6.5 

Madison 

Elk River Fish recruitment to Madison River Wild 

Scenic 

9.2 

5.2 Madison 

Rock Cr. between 

Gilles Bridge and 

Lolo National Forest 

boundary. 

Nationally recognized Class One 

Trout Stream Recreational 7.25 Pintler 

Wilderness Study Areas: Wilderness Study Areas are managed to protect Wilderness 

character according to the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977. 

Objective 

Caves: Complete an inventory and determination of significance for the Garrity Cave. 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail: Complete the Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail by 2013, with new segments designated as non-motorized. Convert existing 

motorized segments to non-motorized as opportunities arise to convert, reroute, or replace 

segments. 

Lee Metcalf Wilderness: Revise the Wilderness Plan. 

Wild & Scenic Rivers: Complete suitability studies for the nine wild and scenic rivers. 

Standards 

Standard 1: Research Natural Areas or Special Interest Areas will be managed in 

accordance with their individual management plans in addition to the regulations (36 CFR 

251.23), and the policy (FSM 4063 and 2370) pertaining to these areas. 

37 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Standard 2: Streams determined to be Eligible for protection under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act will be protected to maintain Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Standards for 

protection are provided in Forest Service Manual 1909.12.8.2. 

TIMBER MANAGEMENT 

Goals 

Lands Suitable for Timber Production: Manage lands suitable for timber production for 

the growth and yield of sawtimber, crop trees, pulpwood, and other forest products, including 

salvage harvest. 

Of the remaining lands: 

Lands Not Suitable for Timber Production but Timber Harvest is Permitted to Meet 

Other Resource Objectives: Manage lands where timber harvest is allowed to protect 

other resource values. Resource objectives may include, but are not limited to, protection 

of wildland urban interface, protection of improvements, aquatic system restoration, fuel 

reduction, wildlife habitat enhancement, fisheries habitat enhancement, range 

improvement, and grass and shrub land maintenance. 

Salvage activities are allowed on these lands. 

The type, size, and extent of harvest will be determined through site specific analysis. 

Multiple products would be provided from these lands, including but not limited to, 

sawlogs, pulpwood, post, poles, and fuel wood through appropriate silvicultural practices. 

The rest are: 

Lands Where Timber Harvest is Not Allowed: Manage lands where timber harvest is 

not allowed, where no exception for timber harvest has been identified to protect resource 

values. 

Product Utilization: Forest products would be used to provide economic benefits where 

project objectives, forest plan objectives, and forest plan standards can be met. 

Objectives 

Lands Suitable for Timber Production: 

• Bring 10% of lands suitable for timber production into a managed condition. 

• Manage those stands already in a managed condition to maintain long term sustained 

yield. 

38 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Standards 

Standard 1: On lands suitable for timber production, even aged harvest may occur only 

upon a finding that it is the appropriate and optimum method for the timber type and will 

contribute to meeting vegetative objectives for the site. Such harvest must be consistent with 

the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic resources. Harvest 

areas shall be blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain. 

Standard 2: On lands suitable for timber production, the maximum size of openings created 

by one regeneration harvest operation shall not exceed 40 acres. Exceptions can be made 

where a natural event, such as fire, insect, disease, or windthrow created an undesirable 

opening. A regeneration harvest larger than 40 acres may be allowed after public notice, and 

review and approval by the officer one level above the responsible official. This only applies 

to harvest on suitable timber lands for timber production activities. 

Standard 3: On lands suitable for timber production, even aged management regeneration 

harvest shall not occur unless the stand has reached the culmination of mean annual 

increment. An exception occurs where the primary purpose of treatment is for wildlife 

enhancement, visual enhancement, riparian area improvement or public safety or protection 

of property. The culmination of mean annual increment of growth requirement does not 

apply to cutting for experimental or research purposes; to non-regeneration harvests, such as 

thinning or other stand improvement measure; to management of uneven aged stands or to 

stands under uneven aged silvicultural system; and to salvage or sanitation harvesting of 

timber stands which are substantially damaged by events such as fire, insects, disease or 

windthrow. This only applies to harvest on suitable timber lands for timber production 

activities. 

Standard 4: Replace natural barriers to livestock movement removed by harvest activities 

with some other barrier. 

Standard 5: When trees are cut to achieve timber production objectives the cuttings shall be 

made in such a way as to assure that the technology and knowledge exists to adequately 

restock the lands. 

Standard 6: The following Timber Harvest Classification Protocol establishes where timber 

harvest is not allowed and where timber harvest is permitted to meet other resource 

objectives. 

Timber Harvest Classification Protocol 

Lands Where Timber Harvest Is Not Allowed (Step One) 

(Not suitable, not harvestable). 

Lands where timber harvest is not allowed are those acres identified as BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest System lands that meet the following criteria: 

1. Nonforested lands: [36 CFR 219.14(a)(1) and FSH 2409.13, 21.1] 

39 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

a. Lands that do not currently have and have never had 10% or greater 

tree cover 

b. Roads, railroads (16 foot buffer, 33 foot corridor) 

2. Irreversible soil, slope, watershed conditions [36 CFR 219.14(a)(2) and FSH 

2409.13, 21.41] (not modeled – site specific) 

a. Wetlands 

b. Landslide prone / high water table lands 

3. Areas withdrawn from timber harvest by Congress, Secretary of Agriculture, 

or Chief of the Forest Service [36 CFR 219.14(a)(4) and FSH 2409.13, 21.2] 

a. Wilderness (Anaconda-Pintler MA, Lee Metcalf MA)

b. Wilderness Study Areas (West Pioneer WSA MA, Sapphires WSA MA) 

c. Research Natural Areas 

4. Areas withdrawn from timber harvest by Regional Forester / Forest Plan 

Decision, by Management Area: 

Anaconda-Pintler Recommended 

Wilderness Additions 

Lee-Metcalf Recommended Wilderness 

Additions 

Centennial Recommended Wilderness 

Torrey Mountain Recommended 

Wilderness 

West Big Hole Management Area 

Garfield Mountain Recommended 

Wilderness 

Mount Jefferson Recommended Wilderness 

Italian Peak Recommended Wilderness 

Quigg Recommended Wilderness 

Snowcrest Recommended Wilderness 

Stony Mountain Recommended 

Wilderness 

Table Mountain Recommended 

Wilderness 

Electric Peak Recommended 

Wilderness 

5. 1⁄2 mile Eligible Wild River corridors (1⁄4 mile buffer) 

The remaining lands are used as a starting point for further classification. 

Lands Not Suitable for Timber Production but Timber Harvest is 

Permitted to Meet other Resource Objectives (Step Two) 

Lands where timber harvest is allowed are those acres not identified in the previous 

category that meet any of the following criteria. 

1. Lands not capable of producing industrial wood [FSH 2409.13, 21.2] 

20 cubic ft/ac/yr used as cut-off 

2. Lands where restocking within 5 years is not assured [36 CFR 219.14(a)(3) and 

FSH 2409.13, 21.42] 

3. Lands with inadequate response information [ FSH 2409.13, 21.5] 

Whitebark Pine cover type 

40 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

4. Riparian Conservation Areas – 300 feet from perennial streams and 150 feet 

from intermittent streams 

5. Municipal Watersheds (exception of Big Hole 4th Code and Basin Creek 6th 

Code HUCs) 

Basin Creek South 

Fish Creek 

Fred Burr Creek 

Indian Creek 

Rattlesnake 

South Boulder 

South Fork Divide Reservoir 

Tin Cup Joe 

Yankee Doodle Creek 

6. Summer Non-motorized Allocations 

7. Key Watersheds 

8. Visual Quality / Recreation Areas 

a. By Management Area 

Georgetown Lake 

I-15 Corridor 

Mill Creek Corridor 

Pioneer Mountains Scenic Byway 

b. By other Definition 

i. 6 th code HUCs (Montana NRIS 2003 Version Watersheds) 

• 100200041304 Trapper 

• 100200041305 Cherry Pioneers 

• 100200041307 Brownes* (sic) 

• 100200041308 Rock-Pioneers 

• 100200041403 Birch 

ii. 1⁄2 Mile Corridors (1⁄4 mile buffer) 

• National Trails 

• Highways 1, 2, 43, 45, 278, and I-90 

• Eligible Scenic & Recreation Rivers 

iii. 1⁄2 Mile buffer around Delmoe Lake 

iv. 300 foot buffer around developed recreation sites 

v. Thompson Park (near Butte) 

9. Rock Creek Drainage 

c. 5th code HUCs (Montana NRIS 2003 Version Watersheds) 

• 1701020207 East Fork Rock Creek 

• 1701020208 Middle Fork Rock Creek 

41 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

• 1701020209 Ross Fork Rock Creek 

• 1701020210 West Fork Rock Creek 

• 1701020211 Upper Willow Creek 

• 1701020212 Upper Rock Creek 

10. Areas Evaluated for Potential Wilderness (FEIS, Appendix C) 

11. Management areas allocated to resource uses, where timber harvest is 

permitted, but other resource objectives are primary. 

Anderson Mountain 

Antelope Basin 

Basin Creek Municipal 

Watershed 

Brown Back 

Bull Mountains 

Centennial Foothills 

Chain of Lakes 

East Fork 

Electric Peak 

Flint Uplands 

Greenhorn Mountains 

Hellroaring 

Hells Canyon 

Horse Prairie South 

Idaho Creek 

John Long 

Johnny Gulch 

Lima Peaks 

Lobo Mesa Madison 

Medicine Lodge / Tendoy 

Middle Fork 

Middle Mountain 

Ross Fork 

Ruby-Centennial Corridor 

Ruby-Horse Creek 

Stony 

Timber Creek 

Tobacco Root Peaks 

Upper Ruby 

Upper Willow 

Wall Creek 

West Fork Madison 

West Fork Rock Creek 

Whitetail 

Wigwam Cherry 

Wisconsin 

The remaining lands are suitable for timber production 

Lands Suitable for Timber Production: (Step Three) 

Lands Suitable for Timber Production are those acres not identified as lands where timber 

harvest is permitted in the two classifications above. 

Management Areas that contain lands allocated to Suitable for Timber Production: 

Backyard Butte 

Basin-Cataract 

Boulder River-Sheepshead 

Bryant Creek 

Burton Park 

Butte North 

East Deerlodge 

East face 

Fishtrap-Mount Haggin 

Flint Foothills 

Harvey Creek Foothills 

Horse Prairie North 

Humbug 

Kit Carson 

Little Boulder 

Little Boulder-Galena Gulch 

Meadow Creek 

Mormon-Buffalo 

Northeast Fleecer 

Pintler Face 

Pipestone 

Quartz Hill 

Ramshorn 

Ruby 

Selway-Saginaw 

South Fleecer 

South Boulder Corridor 

South Willow Corridor 

Tie-Johnson 

Trail Creek 

Warm Springs 

West Big Hole Flats 

West Face 

42 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

VEGETATION 

Goals 

Biodiversity: A variety of disturbance processes are managed or allowed to occur that 

produce resilient vegetation communities able to sustain diversity in the face of uncertain 

future climate-influenced disturbances. Resilient vegetation communities will have a mosaic 

of species and age classes of trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs for animal forage and cover, 

and perpetuate the diversity of plants and the microbial and insect communities upon which 

they are dependent. Old growth is managed on a forest wide basis and is well distributed. 

Unique Habitats: The trend toward an older forest is altered by increasing the younger age 

classes providing greater forest diversity in age classes. Stable or upward trends are achieved 

for declining or unique habitats. 

Sensitive Plants: Sensitive plant populations and their habitat are maintained or restored. 

Large core populations or fringe-of-range populations of sensitive plants are conserved in 

research natural areas, botanical special interest areas, or protected as populations in 

conservation strategies, or project design specifications (Scale - Populations). 

Non-native Species: The influx of persistent non-native species is minimized by using native 

plants, seed, and vegetative propagules for restoration work. 

Pest Management: Diagnosed pest problems are addressed with an integrated pest 

management approach, which allows monitoring, prevention, cultural, mechanical, 

biological, genetic and chemical techniques. 

Objectives 

Forested Vegetation 

Resiliency: (See Glossary) Reduce forest density in the large size classes of dry forest 

communities and some lodgepole pine communities to maintain or improve resilient 

forest conditions. 

Douglas-fir Type: Increase the number of acres in the 0 to 5 inch DBH class on 

approximately 20,000 acres, where one or more of the following circumstances occurs: 

• Where burned or insect infested stands are dead or dying (see Glossary) 

• Where needed to reduce the risk from wildfire for public and firefighter 

health and safety, or to protect structures, infrastructure, and municipal 

watersheds. 

• Where needed to meet objectives for lands suitable for timber 

production. 

• Douglas-fir which has established itself in former grasslands/shrublands 

(colonization) is not considered part of the Douglas-fir base described 

above.

43 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Lodgepole Pine Type: Increase the number of acres in the 0 to 5 inch DBH class by 

approximately 74,000 acres, where one or more of the following circumstances occurs: 

• Where burned or insect infested stands are dead or dying (see Glossary) 

• Where needed to reduce the risk from wildfire for public and firefighter 

health and safety, or to protect structures, infrastructure and municipal 

watersheds 

• Where needed to meet objectives for lands suitable for timber 

production. 

Aspen Component: Increase the aspen component within lodgepole pine and other 

vegetation types, on 67,000 acres. 

Whitebark Pine/Sub-Alpine Fir Type: Promote regeneration of whitebark pine on 

approximately 45,000 acres, largely through the use of fire. 

All Other Forested Vegetation Types: Manage within the historic range of variability. 

Grassland/Shrubland/Riparian: Reduce conifer encroachment on 74,000 acres of riparian 

areas, shrublands, and grasslands. 

Noxious Weeds: Prevent, reduce, or eliminate infestations of non-native or noxious weed 

species with emphasis on areas where there is a high likelihood of establishment and spread. 

Manage noxious weeds through Integrated Pest Management as described in the most current 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge Noxious Weed Control Record of Decision. 

Reference populations of sensitive plants: Monitor G1 thru G3 ranked sensitive plants, 

perform conservation assessments, and develop conservation strategies for species showing 

downward trends (Scale - BNDF populations). 

Standards 

Standard 1: Mechanical vegetation treatments and prescribed fire in old growth stands (see 

Glossary) do not reduce the age and number of large trees and basal area below the 

‘minimum criteria’ required for Eastern Montana old growth in Green et al, Table 3. 

Removing hazardous fuels within old growth stands is allowed if conducted in a manner that 

meets this requirement. This requirement does not apply to hazard tree removal and other 

public safety needs. 

Standard 2: Silvicultural examinations and prescriptions will be required prior to timber 

manipulation or silvicultural treatment. Exceptions are allowed for removal of trees that 

block vision along roads, removal of hazard trees, clearing of rights-of-way, clearing for 

mineral development, Christmas tree sales in encroachment areas, and removal of firewood. 

44 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

WILDLIFE HABITAT 

Goals 

Habitat: Cover and forage for animals is provided by a mosaic of species and age classes of 

native trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs. See Vegetation Goals for details. 

Grizzly Bear Conflicts: Conflicts between grizzly bears and humans or human activities in 

occupied grizzly bear habitat, are managed such that the removal of a bear is not necessary. 

Connectivity: Forest management contributes to wildlife linkages between landscapes, 

unless landscape isolation is determined to be beneficial. Linkage areas are those areas 

identified for large carnivores and ungulates through multi-agency coordination. Options 

may include, but are not limited to: 

• Maintaining Forest Service ownership at highway and road crossings, 

• Consolidating ownership at approach areas to highway and road crossings 

substantiated by empirical data as necessary to facilitate wildlife movement, 

and 

• Providing secure habitat at the landscape scale to facilitate large animal 

movement. 

Sage Grouse: Sagebrush habitat supports sage grouse and pygmy rabbit populations by 

providing suitable sage grouse brood-rearing habitat on at least 40% of the sagebrush habitat 

within 18 kilometers of documented active or inactive sage grouse leks and the area mapped 

as potential pygmy rabbit habitat. 

Wildlife Security: Secure areas and connectivity for ungulates and large carnivores are 

provided, while recognizing the variety of recreational opportunities. 

Grizzly Bear Security: The Gravelly Landscape is maintained to achieve 60% or greater 

secure areas (Scale - Gravelly Landscape). 

Wildlife Secure Areas and Connectivity: Manage density of open motorized roads and 

trails by landscape year-round, except fall rifle big game season, to achieve levels at or below 

the following (Scale - Landscapes): 

Table 13. Density of Roads and Trails Open to Summer Motorized Use by Landscape 

Desired Summer Open Motorized 

Landscape Road and Trail Density 

Miles per Sq. Mile* 

Big Hole 1.2 

Boulder River 1.9 

Clark Fork - Flints 1.9 

Gravelly 0.7 

Jefferson River 1.6 

Lima Tendoy 1.0 

45 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Desired Summer Open Motorized 

Landscape Road and Trail Density 

Miles per Sq. Mile* 

Madison 0.0 

Pioneer 1.5 

Tobacco Roots 1.3 

Upper Clark Fork 2.0 

Upper Rock Creek 0.9 

*This does not include roads available for permitted or administrative use. 

Elk Security: Elk security is managed to provide quality elk habitat, provide a variety of 

recreational hunting opportunities, and provide support for Montana’s fair chase emphasis. 

Manage open motorized road and trail density by MTFWP hunting units as of 2006 - on 

National Forest lands during the fall rifle big game season, to achieve levels at or below the 

following: (Scale - Hunting Unit) 

Table 14. Hunting Season Open Motorized Road/Trail Densities by Hunting Unit 

Desired Fall Open Motorized Road 

Hunting Unit and Trail Density 

Miles per Sq. Mile* 

210 0.9 

211 0.5 

212 1.4 

213 1.4 

214 1.6 

215 1.5 

216 0.8 

300 0.6 

302 1.0 

311 0.0 

318 1.8 

319 0.6 

320 0.8 

321 1.1 

323 0.5 

324 0.4 

327 0.8 

328 0.8 

329 1.1 

330 0.7 

331 1.5 

332 0.8 

46 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Desired Fall Open Motorized Road 

Hunting Unit and Trail Density 

Miles per Sq. Mile* 

333 0.9 

340 1.4 

341 0.5 

350 1.3 

360 0.0 

362 0.0 

370 1.0 

*This does not include roads available for permitted or administrative use. 

Objectives 

Grizzly Bear Conflicts: Implement food storage and sanitation orders in areas classified as 

occupied grizzly bear habitat. 

Road and Trail Densities by Hunting Unit: From October 15 to December 1, reduce the 

open motorized road and trail densities in hunting units 215 to 1.5; 300 to 0.6; 302 to 1.0; 

318 to 1.8; 333 to .9; 341 to .5; and 350 to 1.3 miles per square mile or less. 

Road and Trail Densities by Landscape: Reduce the open motorized road and trail 

densities from May 16 to December 1 in the Boulder River Landscape to 1.9 and Jefferson 

River Landscape to 1.6 miles per square miles or less. 

Management Indicator Species: Maintain habitat conditions for elk security and winter 

habitat integrity for wolverine and mountain goat as reflected by changes in abundance of 

these Management Indicator Species (MIS). 

Sage Grouse: Maintain or improve sagebrush height, and canopy and grass-forb canopy of 

sagebrush habitat, emphasizing habitat within 18 kilometers of documented active or inactive 

sage grouse leks and the area mapped as potential pygmy rabbit habitat. 

Snags: Snags and woody debris are well distributed by vegetation category and size class 

over time. 

Sensitive and Federally Listed Species: Information in the following sources should be 

considered when designing projects that may affect sensitive species or federally listed 

species. 

 Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana 

 Northern Region Conservation Assessment for Northern Goshawk, Black-backed 

Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, and Pileated Woodpecker (March 2006) 

 Montana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

 Grizzly Bear Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (GYA) 

 Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery Plan 

47 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

 Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. (refer to the State conservation plan or other 

appropriate plan.) 

Standards 

Standard 1: From October 15 to December 1 Hunting Units that exceed the open motorized 

road and trail density objective will have no net increase in designated open motorized road 

and trail mileage (Scale - Hunting Units on National Forest lands). 

Standard 2: Landscapes that exceed the open motorized road and trail objective will have no 

net increase in designated open motorized road and trail mileage (Scale – Landscapes on 

National Forest System Lands). 

Standard 3: Mechanical vegetation treatments will: 

Retain all snags greater than 20” dbh (except for hazard trees). 

In addition, do not reduce the number of snags greater than 15.0” dbh per acre in 

treatment units below the levels shown in the Table 12, calculated as an average for the 

total treatment unit acreage in a project area. This calculation allows variability among 

treatment units which produces a more natural clumpy distribution. 

If there are insufficient snags in treatment units, live trees in the same size class must be 

retained and counted towards the snag requirement. These would be in addition to any 

requirements of Standard 4. 

These per acre requirements do not apply to the treatment units if analysis shows the 

levels of snags will be met for the project area as a whole. 

If, in the project area as a whole, there are insufficient live trees and/or snags greater than 

15.0” dbh, the standard is deemed complied with by retention of the existing live trees 

and/or snags greater than 15.0” dbh in the treatment units. 

Table 12. Minimum average snags per acre to be retained, calculated for the total treatment unit 

acreage in a project area. 

Minimum average snags per acre to retain 

Vegetation Category 

Snags > 15.0” dbh 

Warm 3.6 

Cool 8 

Cold 5 

PICO 6.4 

Standard 4. Do not reduce the number of live trees greater than 10.0” dbh per acre in 

regeneration harvest treatment units (to provide future snags) below the levels shown in 

Table 13 on the next page. 

48 
Chapter Three 

Forestwide Direction 

Table 13. Minimum average live trees per acre to be retained after regeneration harvest, to supply future 

snags (if available), calculated for the total treatment unit acreage in a project area. 

Minimum average live trees per acre to retain 

Vegetation Category 

Live trees> 10.0” dbh 

Warm 1.3 

Cool 0.9 

Cold 1.4 

PICO 0.6 

Standard 5: Sheep allotments in the Gravelly Landscape which become vacant will be 

closed to sheep grazing or the vacant allotment may be used by an existing Gravelly 

Landscape sheep permittee, with no increase in permitted use (Scale - Gravelly Landscape). 

Standard 6: The Grizzly Bear Amendment applies to only the Beaverhead-portion of the 

BDNF and is incorporated as Appendix G (USDA 2006b). 

Standard 7: The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction (2007) is included in 

Appendix G, and will apply to the BDNF as described in the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Record of Decision. 

Standard 8: Within 18 kilometers of documented active or inactive sage grouse leks, do not 

remove sagebrush within 300 meters of riparian zones, meadows, lakebeds or farmland, 

unless site specific analysis indicates such removal promotes achievement of the sagebrush 

habitat goal. Springs developed for livestock water in these areas must be designed to 

maintain free water and wet meadows 

Standard 9: Mitigate, through avoidance or minimization, management actions around 

known active nest sites of threatened, endangered, proposed candidate, and sensitive bird 

species, if those actions would disrupt reproductive success during the nesting period. During 

project planning consider applicable science regarding species needs (such as nesting periods 

and buffers) and site-specific considerations. This standard also applies to Great Gray Owl 

and Northern Goshawk. 

Standard 10: When closing entrances to abandoned mines, determine whether suitable 

habitat for bats exists, and where it does, provide access for bats. 

Standard 11: Implement the most current National Fish and Wildlife Service Terms and 

Conditions for wolves in the northwest Montana recovery area (west of I-15 and north of I90) until such time as the gray wolf is delisted. (See Appendix I) 

Standard 12: Provide habitat for species requiring large woody debris in forested habitat 

types by retaining post project outcomes for regeneration harvest of the following: (Scaleproject) 

 Lodgepole cover type-6 pieces/ac with small end diameter equal to or greater than 8 

inches and 10-ft long. 

 Douglas-fir cover type-6 pieces/ac with small end diameter equal to or greater than 12 

inches and 10-ft long. 

49 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

50 
Chapter Three 

Map Section 

CHAPTER 3 - MAP SECTION 

All map products in this document are reproduced from geospatial information (GIS) 

prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 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. This GIS information is current as of the release 

date of this document. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or 

replace GIS products based on new inventories, new or revised information in conjunction, if 

necessary, with other federal, state or local public agencies or the public in general as 

required by policy or regulation. Previous recipients of the products may not be notified 

unless required by policy or regulation. Planning staff at the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 

Forest Supervisor’s Office can provide information. 

51 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Landscape Map 

52 
Chapter Three 

Map Section 

Forest Plan Interim Roads & Trails GIS Layer 

53 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Summer Recreation Allocations 

54 
Chapter Three 

Map Section 

Winter Recreation Allocations 

55 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Recommended Wilderness 

56 
Chapter Three 

Map Section 

57 

Special Designations 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Key Watersheds 

58 
Chapter Three 

Map Section 

Deer / Elk Hunting Units (as of 2006) 

59 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Modeled Timber Harvest Classification 

60 
Chapter Three 

Map Section 

Utilities and Communication Sites 

61 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

62 
CHAPTER 4 - MANAGEMENT AREA 

DIRECTION 

This chapter contains direction specific to each management area. The BDNF is divided into 

11 landscapes, which are further divided into unique management areas (MAs). MA 

boundaries delineate geographic areas with similar management direction. With the 

exception of congressionally established or special administrative boundaries, the lines are 

mapped based on coarse scale data. They represent a transition from one set of opportunities 

and constraints to another. Site specific planning and on the ground reconnaissance may 

refine or adjust these lines to reflect the intent of management direction. 

Each landscape section contains a landscape description with maps of individual 

management areas (MA) with a page of management direction specific to each MA. 

Management Area Map: These maps display percent of allocations, summer and winter 

motorized restrictions, percent of key watersheds, some special designations and utility rights 

of way. 

Management: Program priorities and recreation settings are described and specific mention is 

made where direction applies only to a portion of an area. 

Management areas may contain Objectives and Standards in addition to those described in 

Chapter 3. 

Scenic Integrity: The rating for each area will be listed. 

Landscapes Page 

Big Hole 65 

Boulder River 89 

Clark Fork Flint 109 

Elkhorn 125 

Gravelly 127 

Jefferson River 165 

Lima Tendoy 181 

Madison 197 

Pioneer 205 

Tobacco Root 221 

Upper Clark Fork 241 

Upper Rock Creek 251 

63 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

Big hole landscape map 

64 
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

BIG HOLE LANDSCAPE 

The forest provides a scenic backdrop of rugged mountains above the Big Hole Valley, 

where traditional ranching contributes a pastoral element to the overall character of the 

landscape. Lodgepole pine is the most common species on the BDNF though all typical 

conifers are represented. Wet meadows, aspen, riparian areas, sagebrush grasslands, and 

areas burned by wildfires add variety to this mostly forested area. The length of the 

continental divide contributes large secure areas of high elevation habitat for wildlife. 

Mountain goats, moose, and elk inhabit this landscape. 

The landscape has sections of the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail, and Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and the entire length 

of the May Creek National Recreation Trail. A large part of the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness 

is within the landscape, with several access points available along the southern wilderness 

boundary. 

Divide, Dewey, Wise River, Wisdom, and Jackson are located on the fringe of the Big Hole 

Landscape. The BDNF provides important benefits like products for fences, firewood, small 

logs, and livestock grazing. It contributes to tourism business opportunities as well as 

recreation. 

Streams feed into the Big Hole River, a nationally renowned class one trout stream and 

important grayling habitat. Water management in the Big Hole is important for fish habitat, 

sporting opportunities, irrigation, and the Butte municipal water supply. Timber harvest 

activities are concentrated in a few areas. Ranches depend on summer forage on National 

Forest pasture. Parts of the landscape are highly mineralized, and mining is a part of historic 

and present use in Ruby Creek and other isolated locations. 

The Continental Divide and Anaconda Pintler Wilderness provide special recreation 

opportunities in this landscape. There are many high mountain lakes, some may be driven to 

and some allow electric motors. Hunting and fishing are important locally and nationally. 

Recreation sites provide dispersed camping and day use opportunities along Forest roads. 

Summer horse back and hiking trips are popular along the Continental Divide and in the 

Anaconda Pintler Wilderness. 

The consistently high snowfall, terrain, and winter climate make this a great place for 

outdoor winter recreation. Chief Joseph Cross-country Ski Area provides groomed trails. 

Plowed parking lots provide access to popular snowmobiling, backcountry skiing, and other 

winter uses. 

Adjacent areas offer additional opportunities such as the Big Hole Battlefield National Park, 

Mount Haggin State Wildlife Management Area, Mount Haggin Cross-Country Ski Trails, 

snowmobile trails with parking, and Lost Trail Winter Sports (Ski) Area. 

65 
Clark Fork - Flint

Landscape

Big Hole

Landscape

Upper Rock

Creek

Landscape CDNS T

CDNST

CDN ST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

Dexter

Basin RNA

Goat

Flat RNA

Sapphire

Divide RNA

Senate

Mtn

Mt Evans

Calvert

Creek

Barker

Lakes

Anaconda-Pintler Recommended

Wilderness Additions

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 44% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.50 0.51 1.5

Miles

1:150,000

66
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

Anaconda Pintler Recommended Wilderness Additions Management 

Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and provide non-motorized 

recreation with a high level of challenge and solitude. 

There are three separate areas in this recommended wilderness, the Hellroaring, Storm Lake, 

and the East Fork units with semi-primitive non-motorized recreation settings. Local 

residents and tourists use stock or hike to camp, hunt, or fishing at alpine lakes. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed and natural fire. 

Plimpton, Twin Lakes, and Meadow-Philipsburg watersheds are managed to conserve native 

fish populations. Seymour creek is managed to restore desirable watershed conditions. 

Visitors may encounter 

Native vegetation changes from fire and other natural events 

Quiet natural landscapes and few visitors 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Very High 

Management changes if released from wilderness designation 

All three units: 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

Mountain bikes are allowed 

Semi-primitive non-motorized summer and a mix of motorized and non-motorized in 

winter - as mapped in Alternative 1 

67 
Clark Fork - Flint

Landscape

Big Hole

Landscape

Upper Rock

Creek

Landscape CDNS T

CDNST

CDNS T

CDN ST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNS

CD

T

NST

Dexter

Basin RNA

Goat

Flat RNA

Sapphire

Divide RNA

Senate

Mtn

Mt Evans

Calvert

Creek

Barker

Lakes

Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

100% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 41% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 7% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.50 0.51 1.5

Miles

1:150,000
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

Anaconda Pintler Wilderness Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and values and provide primitive 

recreation with high levels of challenge and solitude. 

The Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness, including lands on the Bitterroot National Forest, was 

designated in 1964 by Congress as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

The area provides primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized recreation settings. Local 

residents and destination tourists use stock or hiking to travel into or though the areas. 

Opportunities to camp, hunt, and fish at alpine lakes are available. Guided trips are available 

from local private outfitters. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed and natural fire. Carpp Creek, Copper 

Creek, Falls Fork and Plimpton Creek are managed to conserve native fish populations. Most 

active watershed restoration takes place in the lower reaches of Sullivan Creek key 

restoration watershed. See the 2002 A-P Wilderness Plan or subsequent revisions for 

additional direction. 

Visitors may encounter 

Native vegetation changed only by fire and other natural events 

Quiet natural landscapes and few other visitors 

Pack Stock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Very High 

Motorized vehicles are prohibited 

Mountain bikes are prohibited 

Timber harvest is not allowed 

The Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Plan provides additional standards 

69 
CDNST

CDNST

May 

Creek NRT

LCNHT

L

C

N

H

T

May 

Cr e ek 

NRT

CDNST C DNST

Butler Creek

Repeater

Anderson Mountain

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 96% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 18% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

100% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 96% Winter Non-motorized

 4% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 16% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360

70
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

Anderson Mountain Management Area 

This area is managed to protect its undeveloped (roadless) character, provide secure habitat 

for wildlife along the continental divide and non-motorized recreation. 

Recreation settings are semi-primitive with natural appearing scenery. A variety of nonmotorized backcountry recreation opportunities are available in summer and winter. Snow 

cover in winter is quite deep. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed and natural fire. Active restoration of 

Moosehorn Creek watershed takes place in the Ruby Management Area. 

Visitors may encounter 

Native vegetation changed only by fire and other natural events 

Visitors on foot, horseback, bicycles or skis 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

71 
CDNS T

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CD

N

ST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

Dexter

Basin RNA

Goat

Flat RNA

Senate

Mtn

Mt Evans

Calvert

Creek

Fishtrap-Mount Haggin

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 40% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 3% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 40% Summer Non-motorized

 2% Backcountry Recreation

 55% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 97% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 11% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 34% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.50 0.51 1.5

Miles

1:126,720
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

Fishtrap – Mount Haggin Management Area 

This area is managed as a transition between the level of activity in the Big Hole Valley and 

the relative solitude of the Anaconda-Pintler wilderness. Developed and dispersed recreation 

sites compliment wilderness recreation opportunities. 

Two fairly distinct areas of recreation settings are included. Summer non-motorized and 

undeveloped lands parallel the boundary of the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness, and provide 

wildlife habitat and quiet recreation. The area between the non-motorized area and private 

lands offer a roaded setting with developed and dispersed campsites, roads, and trails. 

Hunting, camping, ATV riding, bicycling, and horse riding are common activities. 

Snowmobile opportunities are available across the lower area though limited in some areas 

by terrain and vegetation. A winter non-motorized area adds to wildlife security provided by 

the adjacent wilderness. 

Timber harvest and production may take place in the area, as well as livestock grazing. Deep 

Creek watershed is managed to conserve native fish populations. Sullivan and Seymour 

Creek are managed to restore desirable watershed conditions. Active restoration is most 

likely in the roaded parts of these two key watersheds. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes as a result of timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle and mountain bike riders on roads and trails in the foothills 

Campers near roads and at developed campgrounds 

Developed trailheads for access to the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

73 
CDNST

CDNST

Pintler Face

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 49% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 5% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 49% Summer Non-motorized

 22% Backcountry Recreation

 24% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 95% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 46% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

Pintler Face Management Area 

This area is managed as a transition between the Big Hole Valley and the Anaconda-Pintler 

Wilderness. Developed and dispersed recreation sites compliment wilderness recreation 

opportunities. 

Two fairly distinct areas of management are included: summer non-motorized and 

undeveloped lands which parallel the Hellroaring part of the Anaconda Pintler recommended 

wilderness addition, and minimally roaded lands between the non-motorized areas and 

private lands. The non-motorized part provides horse riding, mountain biking, and hiking 

opportunities. The motorized part provides vehicle access to forest resources, roads and trails,

Mussigbrod Lake Campground, and Wilderness trailheads. Mussigbrod horse camp 

facilities are popular for wilderness trips, particularly in hunting season. Popular snowmobile 

opportunities are available across the area though limited in some areas by terrain and 

vegetation. 

Additional land uses include timber harvest and production, livestock grazing, and irrigation 

water storage at Mussigbrod Lake. 

Plimpton watershed is managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes as a result of timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle and mountain bike riders on roads and trails in the foothills 

Campers dispersed along roads and at developed campgrounds 

Developed trailheads for access to higher elevations 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

75 
CDNST CDNST CD NST

CDNST

CDNST

May 

C

reek 

NRT

LCNHT

LCNHT

CDNST

Butler Creek

Repeater

Ruby

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 1% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 8% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 1% Summer Non-motorized

 26% Backcountry Recreation

 65% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 7% Winter Non-motorized

 85% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 31% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.50

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

Ruby Management Area 

This area is managed for vehicle access, timber products, livestock grazing, and dispersed 

recreation. 

The area has a long history of use associated with travel across the Continental Divide, 

mining, in-holdings, and timber production. As one of Montana’s first gold mining areas the 

original town site of Pioneer is historically significant. Private in-holdings originating from 

patented mining claims are scattered along the Gibbonsville Road, between Idaho and the 

Big Hole Valley. Mineral potential in the area is high. 

A roaded setting is provided in most of the area, with a mix of natural appearing and 

modified appearing scenery. Common recreation activities include dispersed camping, 

driving or riding motorized vehicles, mountain biking, historic interpretation, or using the 

area to access non-motorized areas of the West Big Hole and Anderson Mountain areas. 

Much of the recreation use here comes from Idaho because it provides road access and winter 

deep snow for snowmobile opportunities close to Gibbonsville and Highway 93. 

The backcountry area adjacent to the West Big Hole Special Management Area has a semiprimitive setting in summer to preserve its roadless qualities. 

Active restoration of Moosehorn Creek key watershed takes place in this management area. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes as a result of timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles and mountain bike riders on roads and trails in the foothills 

Campers dispersed along roads and at developed campgrounds 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Protect and interpret sites around the Pioneer town site 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

77 
CDNST

Pi

oneer

Loop

NRT

PioneerLo

o

p

NR T

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

Wise River NRT

CDNST

CDNST

Dickie Peak

Granulated Mountain

Bean Ridge

Repeater

South Fleecer

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 2% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 60% Backcountry Recreation

 38% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 98% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 34% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.50 0.51

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

South Fleecer Management Area 

This area is managed for dispersed recreation, livestock grazing, and other forest products. 

The recreation settings include roaded and semi-primitive areas with mostly natural 

appearing scenery. Residents of Butte, Anaconda, Opportunity, and Wise River and others 

use the area for camping, hunting, ATV riding, mountain biking, and hiking. In fall 

additional walk-in hunting opportunities are provided to meet demand. In winter the area is 

popular for snowmobiling. Skiing and other non-motorized winter recreation use is 

incidental. 

Other land uses include timber harvest and production. The adjacent Mount Haggin Wildlife 

Management Area, administered by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, makes the whole 

mountain range a large area of important habitat for elk and other wildlife. 

Upper Jerry Creek watershed is managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes as a result of timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle or mountain bike riders on roads and trails in the foothills 

Campers dispersed along roads 

Hunters 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Improve motorized trail opportunities in summer. 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

79 
CD NS T

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

C

DNST

CDNST

LCNHT

M

ay Creek

NRT

LCNHT

CDNST

CD NST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

M

a

y

C

r

e

e

k

N

R

T

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

Tie

Creek

Butler Creek

Repeater

Tie-Johnson

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 7% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 1% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 7% Summer Non-motorized

 13% Backcountry Recreation

 79% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 99% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.50 0.51

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

Tie - Johnson Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, livestock grazing, and dispersed recreation. 

The recreation setting is mostly roaded with a mix of natural and altered appearing scenery. 

Areas burned by wildfires in 2000 and 2007 will dominate the scene for some time. Access 

for hunting, firewood cutting, fishing, summer drives, and winter snowmobiling are available 

from an existing road network. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail follows the 

divide through this management area. 

Exceptions to the setting include semi-primitive areas adjacent to the Anaconda Pintler 

Wilderness, where non-motorized recreation and ecosystem integrity are emphasized, and an 

area along Elk Creek managed to provide a mix of backcountry opportunities and to retain its 

roadless characteristics. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles and mountain bike riders on roads and trails 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Develop a historic preservation plan for the traditional cultural property 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

81 
CD NS T CDN ST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST CDNST

LCN HT

M

a y Creek

NRT

LCNHT

CDNST CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

M

a

y

C

r

e

e

k

N

R

T

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

Tie

Creek

Butler Creek

Repeater

Trail Creek

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 29% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 52% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 1% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 29% Summer Non-motorized

 19% Backcountry Recreation

 51% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 52% Winter Non-motorized

 47% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.50 0.51

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

Trail Creek Management Area 

This area is managed for dispersed and developed recreation, for access to adjacent area 

recreation and management activities and to protect historic features. 

Recreation takes place in roaded natural and semi-primitive settings. A concentration of 

nationally designated historic and recreation features with highway access contribute to the 

popularity of various motorized and non-motorized summer and fall hunting activities. 

Consistent deep snows with permanent plowed access on Highway 43 below the two divides 

at Lost Trail Pass and Chief Joseph Pass make this a high value winter sports area. Weekend 

and longer trips to the area are enhanced by the Forest Service cabin rental opportunities at 

Hogan, May Creek, and Gordon Reese Cabins. 

The area provides high quality summer habitat for moose and other wildlife. Vegetation may 

be managed by fire or timber harvest to reduce fuels, or to provide wildlife habitat, recreation 

opportunities and other values. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from fire and timber harvest 

A high density of recreationists, particularly at campgrounds and parking areas 

ATV, horse, and mountain bike riders on trails and at dispersed sites 

Snowmobilers and Skiers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Develop an historic preservation plan for the traditional cultural property 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

The Chief Joseph cross-country ski area is closed to snowmobiling except for grooming 

Commercial harvest of camas is prohibited 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

83 
C

DNS T

CDNST

CDNST

C

D

N

S

T

N

PN

H T

CDNST

CDNST CDNST

CDNST

West Big Hole

Management Area

Management Area Boundary

Forest Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 97% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 62% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 97% Summer Non-motorized

 3% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 62% Winter Non-motorized

 38% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 5% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

West Big Hole Management Area 

This area is managed to protect its undeveloped (roadless) character, to provide challenging 

recreation opportunities in a remote alpine setting, and to provide secure wildlife habitat. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive. Non-motorized summer activities include hiking, 

stock travel, and mountain biking. Snowmobiling and cross-country skiing is provided in 

challenging high elevation settings. Historic mine sites are present. 

An exception to the non-motorized setting is the motorized route to Ajax Lake. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed and natural fire. Most active restoration 

of Moosehorn Creek watershed takes place in the Ruby management area. The area is grazed 

lightly by livestock 

Undisturbed wildlife habitat is provided here along the continental divide summer long. 

Winter motorized closure of selected high elevation habitat provides security for wolverine 

and mountain goats. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes only from fire and other natural events 

Visitors on foot, stock, or mountain bikes 

Snowmobilers and skiers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

Timber harvest is not allowed. 

85 
C D

N

ST

C DNST

CDNST

C D

N ST

N

PN

H T

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

Darkhorse

Lake Bloody

Dick

Sno-tel

West Big Hole Flats

Management Area

Management Area Boundary

Forest Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 12% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 4% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 6% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 12% Summer Non-motorized

 62% Backcountry Recreation

 20% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 4% Winter Non-motorized

 90% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 3% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Big Hole Landscape 

87 

West Big Hole Flats Management Area 

This area is managed for livestock grazing, developed and dispersed recreation, and timber 

production. 

The recreation setting includes roaded and semi-primitive areas. Lakeside campgrounds are 

found at Twin, Miner and Van Houten Lakes. Motorized activities on roads and trails are 

common in summer and fall. Snowmobile and cross-country ski opportunities are popular 

across the winter motorized area except where limited by terrain and vegetation. Challenging 

winter ATV opportunities are also available. 

Semi-primitive non-motorized settings are provided north and south of the Skinner Meadows 

area. 

Active restoration of Saginaw Creek watershed takes place in this management area. The 

area is grazed lightly by livestock. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle and mountain bike riders on roads and trails in the foothills 

Campers dispersed along roads and at developed campgrounds 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

Boulder River Landscape Map 

88 
Chapter Four 

Boulder River Landscape 

BOULDER RIVER LANDSCAPE 

The landscape includes the upper Boulder River watershed from the Continental Divide to 

the town of Boulder. Rolling mountains above narrow valleys are characteristic of the area. 

Coniferous forests occupy the uplands with grasslands in the foothill and along lower south 

and west facing slopes. Lodgepole pine forests are most common though Douglas-fir 

occupies dry sites. Elk are common. 

The landscape has been changing since miners arrived in the 1860’s. The entire area is 

favorable for metallic deposits, like the gold which originally attracted miners. A large 

number of patented claims remain within the exterior Forest boundary. Much of the land 

along the Boulder River Road is privately owned. Permanent residences are common in 

mixed ownership areas. Roads are dense in several parts of the area and were built to 

accommodate timber harvest, mining and access to private property. 

Timber harvest and mining have and continue to modify the natural appearance of this 

landscape. Livestock grazing is another use as historically rooted here as mining and logging. 

The citizens of Butte, Boulder, Basin, Deerlodge, and Helena consider this area as a part of 

their backyard. The landscape lends itself well to dispersing recreation, with many roads and 

trails on gentle terrain that accommodates motorized vehicles. The area receives heavy 

recreation use in winter, summer, and fall hunting seasons. 

89 
CDNST

CDNST

C

DNST

CDNST

Bernice RNA

Experimental

Forest

Thunderbolt

Mountain

RNA

Blizzard

Hill

Jack

Mountain

Basin-Cataract

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 2% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 13% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 8% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 2% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 92% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 13% Winter Non-motorized

 79% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.50 0.51

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Boulder River Landscape 

Basin Cataract Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, livestock grazing and road based recreation. The 

recreation setting is mostly roaded natural, with altered areas showing its history and 

continuing use for timber harvest, mining, and utility corridors. Recreation use is fairly heavy 

in all seasons, especially on weekends. Many private land parcels are in the area, and are 

accessed by private or Forest roads. 

An area of secure wildlife habitat lies in the South Fork of Basin Creek, Vacchio/Clay Creek 

and Three Brothers area remains unroaded. Winter forage and elk security are maintained on 

the Bernice winter range using a winter motorized travel closure. 

Water quality is likely to improve from mine site reclamation. Hazardous mine waste from 

sites within and without of this landscape are stored in the Luttrell Repository. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Roads for timber harvest 

Motor vehicle riders on roads and trails year-round 

Remnants of historic mining and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Convert Basin Creek Campground to a dispersed camp site 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

No net increase in open motorized road and trails 

91 
CD

N

ST

C

D NST

CDNS T

Haystack Mtn NRT

Ha ys tack Mt

NRT

n

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

C

D

NST

CDNST

CDNST

Bernice RNA

Experimental

Forest

Thunderbolt

Mountain

RNA

Kit

Carson Pk

Blizzard

Hill

Boulder River-Sheepshead

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 6% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 27% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 18% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 6% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 76% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 27% Winter Non-motorized

 55% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Boulder River Landscape 

Boulder River - Sheepshead Management Area 

This area is a travel corridor managed for road based recreation and access to forest 

resources. 

Recreation takes place in a mix of roaded and rural settings which includes scenic views of 

the pastoral valley and hills with a forested mountain backdrop, remnants of historic mining 

and an electric transmission corridor. Recreation developments facilitate the area’s heavy 

recreation use throughout the year. Snowmobiling, hunting, driving, and camping in summer 

and fall (both developed and dispersed) are among the most common recreational activities. 

Winter motorized use is constrained on big game winter. 

Vegetation management includes livestock grazing and timber production. Winter forage and 

habitat security are maintained on big game winter range. 

Visitors may encounter 

Motor vehicle riders on a roads and trails year round 

Hunters 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Manage, harden, and designate dispersed recreation sites along the Boulder River and 

Lowland Roads 

Adjust the number and location of developed recreation sites (trails, trailheads, and 

parking areas) to meet demand originating from access points in this corridor 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

93 
CDNST

C

D

NST

CDNST

CDNST

Bernice RNA

Experimental Forest

Thunderbolt

Mountain RNA

Blizzard

Hill

Electric Peak

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 91% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 55% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed Exception

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 91% Summer Non-motorized

 9% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 55% Winter Non-motorized

 45% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Boulder River Landscape 

Electric Peak Management Area 

This area is managed to maintain the undeveloped (roadless) character, provide semiprimitive recreation and high elevation wildlife habitat. 

The semi-primitive recreation setting includes natural appearing scenery with the exception 

of a few remnants of old mine adits. The area provides opportunities unique within the 

Boulder river drainage and close to Helena, Butte, Boulder, and Deerlodge for hiking, 

mountain biking, and riding horses in summer in a non-motorized setting. 

Vegetation changes are mostly the result of fire and other natural processes. Livestock 

grazing is a minor use in the area. Travel closures protect high quality habitat for elk in 

summer and fall, and denning habitat for wolverine and other forest carnivores in winter. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from fire and other natural processes 

Mountain bikers and hikers 

Snowmobilers 

Historic mining remnants 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Restore closed motorized trails to a more natural condition 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Snowmobiling is confined to designated routes. 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – High 

95 
C DNST

C

D

NST

Thunderbolt

Mountain

RNA

Electric Peak Recommended Wilderness

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.25 0 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Boulder River Landscape 

Electric Peak Recommended Wilderness Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and provide non-motorized 

recreation with a high level of challenge and solitude. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive and natural appearing. Electric Peak Recommended 

Wilderness provides one of the few unroaded, high quality areas of wildlife habitat in this 

landscape. It is also potential habitat for wolverines and other forest carnivores. The rugged 

Blackfoot Meadows area, recommended for wilderness by the Helena National Forest lies 

adjacent to the northern edge. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed and natural fire. Ecosystem components 

are regulated by natural processes. Wildlife security is important along the top of this range. 

Visitors may encounter 

Quiet natural landscapes 

Native vegetation changes only from fire and other natural events. Recommended 

Wilderness: The setting is semi-primitive and natural appearing. 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

The minimum Scenic Integrity Level is Very High. 

Management changes if released from recommended wilderness designation 

Semi-primitive non-motorized allocations apply in summer and winter. 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – High 

Mountain bike travel is allowed. 

97 
CDNST

CDN

ST

CDNST

CDNST

Haystack Mtn NRT

Ha ys tack Mt

NRT

n

CDNST

CDNST

Lost

Park

RNA

Bernice RNA

Experimental

Forest

Thunderbolt

Mountain

RNA

Whitetail

Rim

Jack

Mountain

Galena

I-15 Corridor

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 26% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 47% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Motorized Travel Not Allowed Exception

Recreation Allocations

 17% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 26% Summer Non-motorized

 3% Backcountry Recreation

 54% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 47% Winter Non-motorized

 36% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Boulder River Landscape 

I-15 Corridor Management Area 

This area is managed as a travel corridor, providing utility corridors, access and visitor 

dispersal to other parts of the landscape, and as a scenic backdrop for Interstate 15. 

The recreation setting is a mix of roaded and semi-primitive with nearly natural appearing 

scenery. Vehicle access points are provided at the interstate highway exits. Recreation 

developments on private lands are supported by the scenery and opportunities for a wide 

range of dispersed activities in this area and other parts of the Boulder and Jefferson 

Landscapes. 

Yearlong and seasonal motorized closure areas are found either side of the interstate provide 

secure areas for the large elk herds found in the vicinity. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle riders on roads and trails year-round 

Historic mining remnants, current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Reduce risk of wildfire near Basin through vegetation treatments 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

99 
CD NST

CDN

S T

CD

N ST

CDNST

Bernice RNA

Experimental Forest

Kit Carson Pk

Kit Carson

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 21% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 3% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 97% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 21% Winter Non-motorized

 76% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Boulder River Landscape 

Kit Carson Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production and road based recreation. 

The recreations setting is mostly roaded, and includes areas where timber harvest or mining 

dominate the area’s appearance. Hunting, riding ATVs and motorcycles, camping, and 

snowmobiling are common activities. The northeastern corner of the area is big game winter 

range, and closed to motorized activities in winter. 

Vegetation management includes timber production and some livestock grazing. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Roads for timber harvest 

Motor vehicle riders on roads and trails year-round 

Historic mining remnants, current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

101 
CDNST

C

D

N

ST

Haystack Mtn NRT

Ha ys tack Mt

NRT

n

CDNST

CD

NST

Thunderbolt

Mountain

RNA

Whitetail

Rim

Jack

Mountain

Galena

Little Boulder

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 57% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 51% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 3% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 57% Summer Non-motorized

 40% Backcountry Recreation

 1% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 51% Winter Non-motorized

 46% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 38% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 33% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Boulder River Landscape 

Little Boulder Management Area 

This area is managed to protect its undeveloped (roadless) qualities, provide non-motorized 

and other backcountry recreation, and for livestock grazing. 

Recreation settings are mostly non-motorized and other backcountry, with a utility corridor 

and the Little Boulder road dissecting the area. Some activities in this uncrowded setting are 

dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, ATV riding, groups gathering at the Elder 

Creek Picnic Area, and snowmobiling in areas open to winter motorized activities. Big game 

winter range is closed to motorized activities in winter 

Other land uses include livestock grazing. Natural processes are the most common agents of 

change in forested areas, though some vegetation may be managed with fire or small areas of 

timber harvest. Restoration activities may take place in the North Fork and Lower Little 

Boulder restoration key watersheds. Upper Little Boulder watershed is managed to conserve 

native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Hikers in non-motorized areas and vehicles in motorized areas 

Historic mining remnants and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Expand summer non-motorized opportunities along the CDNST 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

103 
H

a

y

s

t

a

c

k 

M

t

n 

N

R

T

Hay sta

c k 

Mtn 

NRT

Galena

Little Boulder-Galena Gulch

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 17% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 1% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 99% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 17% Winter Non-motorized

 82% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 49% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Boulder River Landscape 

Little Boulder-Galena Gulch Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, livestock grazing, and motorized recreation 

opportunities. 

The recreation setting is roaded natural and modified. Mining activities and timber harvest 

are visible along the dense road network. The area serves as a backyard for residents of Basin 

and Boulder, who use the area primarily for hunting, ATV riding, and hunting. The northern 

portion of the area is big game winter range, and closed to motorized activities in winter 

Vegetation is managed for and using timber harvest, livestock grazing, and fire. Winter 

forage and security for elk are maintained on the Galena winter range. Mining and stream 

reclamation are possible. Restoration activities will take place in Little Boulder and Beaver 

Creek restoration key watersheds. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Timber harvest and roads 

Motor vehicle riders on roads and trails 

Historic mining remnants and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

105 
CD

NST

Haystack Mtn NRT

Ha ys tack Mt

NRT

n

Thunderbolt

Mountain RNA

Jack Mormon-Buffalo Mountain

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 34% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 67% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 2% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 34% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 64% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 67% Winter Non-motorized

 31% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Boulder River Landscape 

107 

Mormon Buffalo Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, grazing, mining, and wildlife habitat. 

The south end of the area has a road based recreation setting, with high concentrations of 

roads and an altered appearance from timber harvest and mining. The area is used for 

firewood cutting, driving, snowmobiling, and other activities. The north end includes 

summer and winter motorized closures for elk security, and provides hiking opportunities. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Timber harvest and roads 

Motor vehicle riders on roads and trails year-round 

Historic mining remnants and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

Clark Fork Flints Landscaperevised for final 

108 
Chapter Four 

Clark Fork Flint Landscape 

CLARK FORK FLINT LANDSCAPE 

The rocky peaks of the Flint Creek and Anaconda Mountain Ranges are dominant features of 

this landscape, towering above the broad Deer Lodge and Flint Creek Valleys. The overall 

pattern of mountain vegetation is coniferous forests, meadows, and aspen groves. Small 

stands of western larch and ponderosa pine are indicative of the difference in vegetation and 

climate on the western side of the Divide. The broad valleys are open grasslands with alfalfa 

fields and croplands in lower elevations and transitional vegetation including aspen along the 

foothills and in moist draws. This landscape includes and supports moose, bighorn sheep, 

mountain goats, large herds of elk, and other wildlife species as well as rare plants. 

Tributaries to the Clark Fork Watershed are found here. These waters flow to the Columbia 

River and Pacific ocean. Many provide habitat for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. 

Traveling through the valley bottoms, one sees ranch building sites, fences, hay meadows, 

and haystacks as well as cattle and horses, which add to the picturesque landscape below the 

forested mountains and rocky peaks. Remnants of the mining culture that once dominated 

and continues to contribute to the cultural features of the area are still visible and in some 

cases visually dominate the valleys and hillsides. The Anaconda Smelter Stack, no longer in 

use, is still visible along the skyline above Anaconda. 

Management of watersheds here is directed by decisions made for the protection of 

anadromous fish in the Columbia River Basin. Even so, the area continues to provide timber 

for local markets. 

Recreation use in this landscape varies from the developed high-density use around 

Georgetown Lake and Discovery Basin Ski Area to the challenging backcountry uses of the 

Anaconda Pintler Wilderness. Georgetown Lake is a popular destination and summer home 

location for the Region. Developed camping, boat docks and commercial businesses cater to 

destination oriented tourists and local residents. The Flint Range offers a mix of motorized 

and non-motorized, summer, hunting season and winter use. It is the “backyard” of the 

communities of Anaconda, Deer Lodge, Drummond, Fairmont, Galen, Gold Creek, Hall, 

Maxville, Opportunity, Philipsburg, Warm Springs, and West Valley. Communities in 

Granite and Powell Counties rely on Forest products for nearly a third of their economic 

industry. 

109 
C

D

NS T

CDN S T

C

DNST

CDNST

CDNST CDNST

CDN ST

Bernice RNA

Experimental

Forest

Kit

Carson Pk

Blizzard

Hill

East Deerlodge

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 21% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 8% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 16% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 21% Summer Non-motorized

 1% Backcountry Recreation

 62% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 8% Winter Non-motorized

 76% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 40% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 12% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Clark Fork Flint Landscape 

East Deerlodge Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, livestock grazing, mining, and dispersed 

recreation. 

The recreation setting is mostly roaded, and provides an abundance of varied motorized 

opportunities. The history of commodity production in the area is reflected in the developed 

road systems. Recreation activities are mostly road oriented and dispersed. There are many 

opportunities to engage in recreational pursuits such as firewood cutting, weekend camping, 

fishing or hunting. The road links the Boulder River area to the Deerlodge Valley over 

Champion Pass. Recreation opportunities include Orofino Campground and Picnic Area, and 

the Orofino Snowmobile Shelter along the Deerlodge Snowmobile Trail System. 

The semi-primitive summer non-motorized area on the north end is an exception to the 

setting which compliments the non-motorized opportunities in the adjacent Electric Peak and 

Blackfoot Meadows undeveloped areas. 

Big game winter range at low elevations north of Orofino is protected by motorized closures 

in winter. The north end contributes wildlife security to the Electric Peak and Blackfoot 

Meadow areas. Fred Creek (Cottonwood Creek) watershed is managed to conserve native 

fish populations. Girard Gulch is managed to restore beneficial watershed conditions. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Roads for timber harvest 

Motor vehicle and mountain bike riders on roads and trails year long 

Snowmobiles on groomed trails 

Historic mining remnants and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in Addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in Addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

111 
Silver

King

Racetrack

Peak

Rumsey

Mtn

Warm

Springs

Combination

Black Pine

Sno-tel

Black Pine

Lookout

Flint Foothills

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Travel Restrictions

 3% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 7% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 20% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 3% Summer Non-motorized

 1% Backcountry Recreation

 77% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 7% Winter Non-motorized

 73% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 21% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

1:126,720
Chapter Four 

Clark Fork Flint Landscape 

Flint Foothills Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, livestock grazing, and dispersed recreation. 

The management area provides a roaded setting for recreation in a mix of altered and natural 

appearing scenery. The Flint Foothills form a scenic backdrop for Interstate 90 between 

Drummond and Butte and the Pintler Scenic Route from Drummond south of Philipsburg. 

The history of use and management is reflected in the developed road systems, historic 

mining sites, and scenery. Recreation activities are mostly dispersed, and most common on or 

near roads. Local and Regional visitors participate in firewood gathering, weekend camping, 

fishing and hunting. 

The semi-primitive non-motorized area between Long Park and Tin Cup Joe Creek is an 

exception to the management area setting. Here hikers can access quiet areas in the higher 

elevations of the Flint Range. Winter non-motorized closures at low elevations along Flint 

Creek protect big game winter range. 

Historic mining sites are scattered throughout the area on patented inholdings and mining 

activity continues in some locations. Recreation residence tracts are authorized near 

Princeton. 

Bielenberg, Lower Boulder, and South Boulder watersheds are managed to conserve native 

fish populations. . 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Roads for timber harvest 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails year long 

Historic mining remnants and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Reduce fire risk near private residences in the Boulder Creek drainage through vegetation 

treatments 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

113 
Lodgepole 

N

RT

Racetrack

Peak

Rumsey

Mtn

Warm

Springs

Black Pine

Sno-tel

Flint Uplands

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 50% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 21% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 5% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 50% Summer Non-motorized

 15% Backcountry Recreation

 30% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 20% Winter Non-motorized

 75% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 54% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Miles

1:126,720
Chapter Four 

Clark Fork Flint Landscape 

Flint Uplands Management Area 

This area is managed for a mix of semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized recreation 

and secure high elevation wildlife habitat. 

The recreation setting is a mix of semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized areas with 

natural appearing scenery. The high mountain lakes, scenic vistas, and backcountry 

opportunities are key attractions supported by the mix of motorized and non-motorized low 

standard road and trail opportunities. Access in this unit is primarily by historic roads built 

for mining and dam maintenance. Lost Creek, acquired through land exchange, provides a 

non-motorized experience year round in a unique geologic setting adjacent to Lost Creek 

State Park. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed and natural fire with exceptions in 

roaded settings where some harvest may take place. Any active watershed restoration takes 

place mostly in the lower reaches of key watersheds in the Flint Foothills or Warm Springs 

Management Areas. Motorized closure of selected high elevation habitats protects summer 

wildlife security and winter habitat, primarily for mountain goats and forest carnivores. 

Boulder, Copper-Boulder, South Boulder, Racetrack, Warm Springs and Foster Creek are 

managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on some roads and trails 

People on foot, stock, mountain bikes, or skis 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Classify some low standard roads as motorized trails 

Maintain historic motorized access to irrigation lakes and dams 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

115 
Lodgepole

N

R

T

Goat

Flat RNA

Windy

Ridge

RNA

DNRC

Rumsey

Mtn

Warm

Springs

Petersen

Meadows

Barker

Lakes

Georgetown Lake

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 19% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 47% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 2% Backcountry Recreation

 51% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 19% Winter Non-motorized

 34% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Clark Fork Flint Landscape 

Georgetown Lake Management Area 

This area is managed for developed water based recreation, trail opportunities, and winter 

sports. 

The recreation setting is a mix of rural and roaded natural with a natural appearing backdrop. 

Recreation use is concentrated and heavy. This is a popular recreation destination because of 

Georgetown Lake, Echo Lake and Discovery Basin Ski Area. This area has the highest 

concentration of recreation development on the Forest with an alpine ski area, developed 

campgrounds, fishing, picnic areas, boat launches, interpretive sites, cross-country skiing and 

snowmobile trails. Ownership is mixed private and public land. Recreation residences under 

Forest Service permits line parts of the Georgetown and Echo Lake shorelines and adjacent 

subdivisions are growing. Winter non-motorized allocations provide quiet recreation 

opportunities near the ski area. 

Vegetation management, including timber harvest, around Georgetown Lake and Echo Lake 

is for fuel reduction and to sustain developed recreation sites and keep them safe or for other 

resource objectives. Unique rough fescue grassland is protected at Windy Ridge Research 

Natural Area. Noxious weed control is a priority. Mature forests provide secure habitat for 

wildlife movement between the Flint and Pintler mountain ranges. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Numerous visitors particularly at Georgetown Lake and Discovery Basin 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and fall 

Snowmobilers and skiers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Connect Georgetown and Red Lion snowmobile trail systems to create a loop 

Offer hiking trail opportunities 

Reduce risk of fire near private lands in mixed ownership areas and around developments 

on Forest Service land through vegetation treatments 

Manage nutrient input into Georgetown Lake from Forest Service recreation activities 

and facilities 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

117 
Harvey Creek Foothills

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 32% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 11% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 32% Summer Non-motorized

 24% Backcountry Recreation

 33% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 89% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 98% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0

Miles

1:70,000
Chapter Four 

Clark Fork Flint Landscape 

Harvey Creek Foothills Management Area 

This area is managed for native fish conservation and dispersed low density recreation. 

Most of the area is on the Lolo National Forest but administered by the BDNF. The 

recreation setting is a mix of roaded and semi-primitive. A variety of motorized and nonmotorized opportunities are available year around. Access to the area is limited and road 

densities low except on the periphery. Much of the non-motorized area is not accessed by 

trails. Most recreation use takes place in the fall. Hunters who prefer Harvey Creek are 

seeking rugged terrain and isolation for an opportunity to harvest trophy big game. 

Vegetation is managed by timber harvest and fire. Additional land uses include livestock 

grazing, firewood gathering and mining. 

Harvey Creek and Eightmile Creek are managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Light motor vehicle use on some roads and trails in summer, fall and winter 

Visitors on foot or horseback especially in the fall 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

119 
Silver

King

Combination

Black

Pine

Sno-tel

Black Pine

Lookout

John Long

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 3% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 65% Backcountry Recreation

 32% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 97% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

100% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Clark Fork Flint Landscape 

John Long Management Area 

This area is managed for native fish conservation and low density backcountry recreation 

The recreation setting ranges from roaded in the southeast corner to semi-primitive in the 

remainder of the area. Mostly motorized trail opportunities are available. The road to Black 

Pine Ridge provides a scenic view of the valley, the rugged Quigg Peak area, and the Pintler 

Range. While there are no non-motorized allocations, much of the backcountry is nonmotorized because it lacks access. The large blocks of undeveloped land with limited public 

access provide secure wildlife habitat year around. 

Additional land uses include livestock grazing, firewood gathering and mining. 

Cottonwood and South Fork Willow are fisheries key watersheds. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on some roads and trails in summer, fall, and winter 

Hikers or mountain bikers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

121 
Goat

Flat

RNA

Windy

Ridge RNA

Lodgepole

N

R

T

DNRC

Rumsey

Mtn

Warm

Springs

Petersen

Meadows

Barker

Lakes

Warm Springs Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 26% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 13% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 7% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 25% Summer Non-motorized

 1% Backcountry Recreation

 67% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 13% Winter Non-motorized

 80% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 46% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.5 0 0.5 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Clark Fork Flint Landscape 

123 

Warm Springs Management Area 

This area is managed for recreation, wildlife, and native fish conservation. 

The recreation setting is mostly roaded with a mix of managed and natural appearing 

scenery. The Pintler Scenic Route takes travelers to the Georgetown Lake area. Scenery is 

important as the backdrop for both travel and destination recreation. Motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities are available. 

Recently acquired lands south of the highway have high densities of roads constructed for 

timber management. The higher elevations approaching the Continental Divide are semiprimitive non-motorized. South facing slopes at lower elevations are closed to winter 

motorized use for bighorn sheep winter range. Secure habitat for wildlife movement is 

available between the Pintler and Flint mountain ranges and for wintering bighorn sheep. 

Additional land uses and activities include timber production and harvest, livestock grazing 

and road restoration, and recreation residence tracts. Noxious weed management is a priority 

along the scenic Highway 1 corridor. 

Warm Springs, Foster Creek and Twin Lakes are fisheries key watersheds. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Many visitors particularly along the Pintler Scenic Route 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and fall 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Identify road and trail systems needed on lands in watershed acquisition and add them to 

the forest inventory. Schedule others for removal, decommissioning, or conversion to 

trails. 

Reduce noxious weeds in bighorn sheep range to assure continued forage for wildlife. 

Establish an access route and wilderness trailhead below Storm Lake. 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

124 
Chapter Four 

Elkhorn Landscape 

125 

ELKHORN LANDSCAPE 

Management areas in this landscape are jointly administered by the Helena National Forest. 

Management direction will be updated during revision of the Helena National Forest Plan. 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

landscape map 

126 
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

GRAVELLY LANDSCAPE 

The Gravelly Landscape includes the Gravelly, Snowcrest, and Greenhorn Mountains, the 

Ruby River, and a small portion of the Centennial Mountains. The Snowcrest Mountains are 

steep and dissected. Though steep canyons dissect the Gravelly range, the top of these 

mountains includes gently rolling terrain covered with mixed alpine grasslands and conifer 

patches. Gentle uplands make it one of the more accessible mountain ranges. The Gravelly 

Range has unique geology with both recent and ancient evidence of volcanic and seismic 

activity. 

This landscape has a high percentage of non-forested vegetation types like sagebrush, wet 

meadows, aspen, riparian zones and alpine grasslands. Productive soils support some of the 

more extensive aspen stands on the Forest. Bands of sheep and sheepherder wagons 

compliment the picturesque setting of this landscape. Grasslands here support nearly 50% of 

the livestock grazing on the Forest. Grazing by sheep, cattle and wildlife continues to 

influence the vegetation. 

Vegetation includes lodgepole pine, dry site Douglas-fir, spruce, and subalpine fir and 

whitebark pine. Mountain pine beetle epidemics in the 1960’s and 70’s focused the Forest’s 

timber harvest program in the West Fork drainage of the Gravelly Range for three decades. 

Large areas of threatened lodgepole pine were harvested, and young trees are now growing in 

those areas 

Most streams in this landscape flow into the Madison and Ruby Rivers. The Madison, a 

world-renowned Class One Trout Stream, attracts large numbers of fly fishermen. The Ruby 

is noted for trout and grayling fisheries. Water management is critical to fish habitat and 

sporting opportunities in both rivers. 

The Gravelly Landscape lies within the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) and contributes 

important secure habitat for grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, bighorn sheep and elk. It is 

considered occupied grizzly bear habitat. The Gravelly Range also plays an important role in 

the GYA providing semi-primitive backcountry experiences for a range of users. The south 

end of the Gravellys, closest to Yellowstone Park, provides an extension to the snowmobile 

opportunities found in the West Yellowstone and Island Park areas. The south end has more 

predictable snow and the terrain is more inviting for off-trail experiences. 

Summer recreation activities include firewood gathering, horseback and ATV riding, fishing, 

boating, dispersed camping, and hiking. Driving for pleasure over the top of the Gravelly 

Range or up the Ruby River into the Centennial Valley is a popular summer activity. The 

wildflower display on top of the range is an attraction during July and August. 

Fall hunting contributes the greatest concentration of recreational visitors. This is one of the 

most heavily hunted areas in the State. The Ruby River Corridor, in particular becomes a city 

of hunting camps for the five week season. 

127 
CDNST

CDN

ST

Cliff

Lake RNA

Snowshoe

Pass

Antelope Basin

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 39% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 25% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

'Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed' Exception

Recreation Allocations

 2% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 39% Summer Non-motorized

 41% Backcountry Recreation

 18% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 25% Winter Non-motorized

 73% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 31% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.50

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Antelope Basin Management Area 

This area is managed for uncrowded dispersed recreation, livestock grazing, and wildlife 

habitat. 

The recreation setting is mix of roaded and semi-primitive with natural appearing scenery. 

There is a western ranching atmosphere from grazing cattle, water tanks, fences, and rider’s 

cabins enhanced by views of the pastoral setting in the Centennial Valley and the magnificent 

backdrop of the Centennial Mountains. The area provides recreational activities like hunting, 

driving, and camping in summer and fall, primarily along low standard roads and motorized 

trails and backcountry snowmobiling in winter. 

The Basin lies along the Continental Divide and Idaho State Line, very close to winter 

recreation destinations at Henry’s Lake, Island Park and West Yellowstone. Snowmobile 

opportunities in the Basin are more primitive and dispersed than at these destinations. Winter 

motorized closures offer quiet recreational opportunities accessible from Raynolds Pass. 

Winter closures near Hidden Lake contribute to secure areas in the Chain of Lakes. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and fall 

Snowmobilers and skiers on routes from Highway 87 

Livestock and handling facilities 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Limit snowmobiles to the Road #056 corridor through the non-motorized area to provide 

access to open areas beyond 

129 
Divide

Centennial Foothills

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Travel Restrictions

 40% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 40% Summer Non-motorized

 46% Backcountry Recreation

 14% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 20% Winter Non-motorized

 80% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

± 0.5 0.25 0 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Centennial Foothills Management Area 

This area is managed for semi-primitive recreation and livestock grazing. 

Recreation takes place in a semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized setting with natural 

appearing scenery. Although crossed by low standard roads, the area is natural appearing and 

gives visitors a feeling of isolation in a vast expanse. Fall is an exception, when hunters 

concentrate around dispersed camping sites. The low standard roads leading off the Ruby 

River Road offer backcountry driving with views of the striking mountain peaks of the 

Snowcrest Mountains, the Centennial Range above Red Rock Lakes, and the Centennial 

Valley. In fall, hunters concentrate in dispersed camping sites near roads. Adjacent Bureau of 

Land Management and State lands provide access options between the Forest and Centennial 

Valley. 

A winter closure west of the road contributes to secure wildlife habitat in the Snowcrest 

Range. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and winter 

Hunting camps 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Retain, but do not increase, opportunities for driving full size vehicles on primitive roads 

while mitigating impacts to other resources 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

131 
C DNST

Centennial

Recommended Wilderness

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Centennial Recommended Wilderness Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and values to enhance potential for 

future designation as wilderness and provide non-motorized recreation with high levels of 

challenge and solitude. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive with natural appearing scenery. Recreation activities 

are non-motorized with high levels of challenge and solitude which compliment 

opportunities in the adjacent BLM Centennial Mountain Wilderness Study Area. 

Red Rock Pass and the Hellroaring Drainage provide a potential wildlife linkage between the 

Gravelly and Centennial Mountains. The area links the Greater Yellowstone Area to the 

Centennial Mountains contributing habitat for grizzlies, peregrine falcons, and denning areas 

for wolverine to the NWPS. 

Visitors may encounter 

Quiet natural landscapes 

Native vegetation changes from fire and other natural events 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – Very High 

Management changes if released from wilderness designation 

Semi-primitive non-motorized allocations apply in summer and winter. 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – High 

Mountain bike travel is allowed. 

133 
C

D

N

ST

CDNST

Cliff

Lake RNA

Cave

Mountain

RNA

Feeezeout

Mountain

Teepee

Creek

Snowshoe

Pass

Flatiron

Mountain

GoldButte

Chain of Lakes

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

19% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 67% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 1% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 19% Summer Non-motorized

 34% Backcountry Recreation

 47% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 67% Winter Non-motorized

 33% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 2% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Chain of Lakes Management Area 

This area is managed for developed and dispersed recreation while protecting fish and 

wildlife habitat. The Cliff and Wade lakes area that is accessible by motor vehicles and the 

units along the Madison River are developed recreation sites 

The recreation settings are mixed roaded and semi-primitive with natural appearing scenery. 

The Madison River Recreation Area includes a variety of heavily used camping and day use 

facilities on the river. Developed sites at Cliff, Wade, and Elk lakes include boat launches, 

campgrounds, picnic areas, resorts, trailheads, and an interpretive trail. Hiking and fishing, 

ski touring, and ice fishing are popular. Snowmobilers access the south end of the Gravelly 

Range from the Lyons Bridge area. Wildlife security and quiet recreation opportunities are 

provided by a winter motorized closure. 

The Chain of Lakes provides habitat for grizzly bear, bald eagles, trumpeter swans, osprey, 

peregrine falcon, moose, elk, and otters. Elk Lake supports a rare population of native lake 

trout. Narrows Creek is important to a population of grayling and boreal chorus frogs. The 

Madison River is a world renowned trout stream. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Occasional restrictions on recreation activities to protect wildlife 

Many other visitors at developed sites and on trails 

Snowmobiles and skiers on winter routes from Highway 287 

Livestock and handling facilities around Elk Lake and the West Fork Cabin 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Pursue conservation easements to protect the viewshed at Wade and Cliff Lakes. 

Retain semi-primitive character in Lost Mine Canyon between the north end of Hidden 

Lake and Cliff Lake 

Manage and control dispersed camping 

Maintain a groomed ski trail system in Cliff and Wade Lake vicinity. Restrict 

snowmobiling to designated ice fishing access routes 

Enhance non-motorized winter recreation opportunities in the Madison River area. 

Provide a ski trail system easily accessed from Highway 287 

Increase the spring water flow in Narrows Creek to improve grayling habitat 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

135 
Greenhorn Mountains

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 86% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 96% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 86% Summer Non-motorized

 3% Backcountry Recreation

 11% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 96% Winter Non-motorized

 4% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 57% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Greenhorn Mountains Management Area 

This area is managed to protect its undeveloped (roadless) character, provide non-motorized 

recreation opportunities and provide secure wildlife habitat in both summer and winter. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive non-motorized with natural appearing scenery. 

Specific motorized roads provide access to the area. Visitors use the area and adjacent 

Bureau of Land Management lands for dispersed recreation in summer and hunting in the 

fall. Motorized use in summer and fall is limited to key access points. 

Winter motorized closures protect winter range for elk, moose, deer, and bighorn sheep. 

North Fork and South Fork Greenhorn watersheds are managed to conserve native fish 

populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Quiet natural landscapes 

Bighorn sheep 

Vegetation changes from fire and other natural events 

Visitors on foot, or horse and mountain bike riders 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Maintain or enhance roadless characteristics and naturalness 

Acquire motorized access to Powder Gulch and Ice Creek 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

137 
Cave

Mountain

RNA

Feeezeout

Mountain

Lazyman Repeater

Hellroaring

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

73% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 40% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 73% Summer Non-motorized

 27% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 40% Winter Non-motorized

 60% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 1% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 3% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.50

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Hellroaring Management Area 

This area is managed to protect its undeveloped character and secure wildlife habitat while 

providing semi-primitive recreation opportunities. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive with natural appearing scenery. Scenic vistas from 

the top of the Gravelly Range span three mountain ranges. The opportunity for these vistas 

and wildlife viewing attract visitors to the Gravelly Range Road and Standard Creek Roads. 

Dispersed camping and recreational driving are common along these roads, particularly 

during hunting season. Within the area, a range of mostly non-motorized backcountry 

recreation experiences are available in summer. Around the periphery, motorized roads or 

trails provide access. Winter motorized closures in the Blue Lake area provide secure winter 

wildlife habitat and a remote destination for non-motorized recreation. 

Visitors may encounter 

Quiet natural landscapes 

Native vegetation changes only from fire and other natural events 

Sightseers driving on main roads in summer and fall 

Visitors on foot, horseback, or mountain bikes 

Snowmobilers and skiers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Maintain or enhance roadless characteristics and naturalness 

Develop a historic preservation plan for Traditional Cultural Properties 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

No increase in motorized road or trail density 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

139 
Idaho Creek

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 90% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 1% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 99% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 90% Winter Non-motorized

 9% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 63% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Idaho Creek Management Area 

This area is managed for road based recreation and other forest uses. 

The recreation setting is roaded with a mix of altered and natural appearing scenery. Road 

based motorized opportunities and dispersed non-motorized opportunities are available. The 

road system was developed to access timber harvest units and mining activity. Recreation 

primarily takes place during hunting season. 

Winter motorized closures protect big game winter range. 

Idaho Creek watershed is managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and fall 

Historic mining remnants and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

141 
Johnny Gulch

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 64% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 35% Backcountry Recreation

 65% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 64% Winter Non-motorized

 36% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Johnny Gulch Management Area 

This area is managed for dispersed recreation and other forest uses. 

Recreation takes place in a roaded setting with a mix of altered and natural appearing 

scenery. Johnny Gulch has a history of timber production, firewood cutting and mineral 

extraction. The adjacent talc mine, on private land, has been providing products to a world 

market since the 1940s and is highly visible. Un-patented claims associated with the mine 

extend into this area. In summer mostly motorized recreation opportunities are available. 

Recreation use is heaviest during hunting season with camps along many of the roads. In 

winter, snowmobile access to the top of the Gravelly Range is provided up the Johnny Gulch 

road but the rest of the area is closed for wintering elk and non-motorized recreation. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails year round 

Dispersed camping along roads 

Historic mining remnants and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Retain dispersed camping opportunities with motorized access 

Retain opportunities for primitive full-size four wheel driving on low standard roads 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

No net increase in permanent open motorized road density 

143 
Cave

Mountain

RNA

Feeezeout

Mountain

Teepee

Creek

Clover

Meadows

Snowshoe

Pass

Flatiron

Mountain

GoldButte

Lazyman

Repeater

Lobo Mesa

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 51% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 1% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 51% Summer Non-motorized

 47% Backcountry Recreation

 1% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 99% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Lobo Mesa Management Area 

This area is managed for semi-primitive recreation and livestock grazing. 

Recreation takes place in a semi-primitive setting with predominantly natural appearing 

scenery. It is a popular area for recreation year around but particularly in fall hunting season. 

Miller Flat and Elk River trailheads provide access to a mix of motorized and non-motorized 

roads and trails through the classic “backcountry” of the Gravelly Range. Trails are traveled 

on ATV, motorcycle, snowmobile, horse, bicycle, foot and skis. Terrain and snowpack lend 

themselves to backcountry snowmobiling. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from fire and other natural events 

Motor vehicle, horse, and mountain bike riders or hikers on trails 

Snowmobilers 

Hunting camps 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Maintain or enhance roadless characteristics and naturalness 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

No net increase in motorized trails 

145 
C DNST

Mount Jefferson

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

100% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

100% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Mount Jefferson Management Area 

This area is managed to protect undeveloped (roadless) character, provide recreation 

opportunities in a remote alpine setting, and secure wildlife habitat. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive. Non-motorized summer activities include hiking, 

stock travel, and mountain biking. In winter, snowmobiling and cross-country skiing takes 

place in high elevation settings. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed and natural fire. Undisturbed wildlife 

habitat is provided here along the continental divide linking the Greater Yellowstone Area 

and Centennial Mountains. 

Visitors may encounter 

Native vegetation which changes little except for fire and other natural events 

Other visitors on foot, horseback or bicycles in summer and fall 

Snowmobilers and skiers in winter 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

Timber harvest is not allowed 

147 
Cottonwood

Creek RNA

Divide

Ruby-Centennial Corridor

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 20% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 37% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 2% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 20% Summer Non-motorized

 41% Backcountry Recreation

 37% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 37% Winter Non-motorized

 61% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 14% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Ruby-Centennial Corridor Management Area 

This area is managed for developed and dispersed recreation opportunities and scenic values, 

balanced with the fisheries and wildlife values of the Ruby River. 

The recreation setting is roaded with a mix of altered and natural appearing scenery. 

Ranching activities and remnants of historic ranching contribute to the area’s pastoral 

character. Home sites and rider’s cabins are scattered along this route linking the Ruby and 

Centennial valleys. The Ruby Centennial Road serves for pleasure driving and as a 

destination for campers who disperse up and down the river corridor in summer and 

especially during fall hunting season 

Winter non-motorized areas on the west side contribute to wildlife security in the Snowcrest 

Range. 

The Ruby River is one of the higher natural sediment producing streams on the Forest as a 

result of upslope cretaceous shale formations. Even so, the River is very important for trout 

and reintroduced grayling fisheries as well as irrigation. A number of streams support selfsustaining boreal toad populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails year-round 

Dispersed camping along roads 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Manage, harden, and designate new dispersed recreation sites along the Ruby Centennial 

Road 

Manage side roads consistently with adjacent management areas 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

149 
Cave

Mountain

RNA

Feeezeout

Mountain

Clover

Meadows

Flatiron

Mountain

GoldButte

Lazyman

Repeater

Ruby-Horse Creek

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 86% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 97% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 86% Summer Non-motorized

 13% Backcountry Recreation

 1% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 97% Winter Non-motorized

 3% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 37% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Ruby-Horse Creek Management Area 

This area is managed to protect roadless character, provide challenging recreation 

opportunities and secure wildlife habitat. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive, mostly non-motorized, with natural appearing 

scenery. The adjacent Gravelly Range Road corridor provides access to the area and a view 

into this particularly scenic area for pleasure drivers. Common activities in the area include 

horse, foot or bicycle travel. 

Large blocks of connected timber, unaffected by motorized use, provide secure wildlife 

habitat, particularly important to elk as the move to the Wall Creek Game Range to winter. 

High elevation winter habitat offers high quality wolverine denning sites in proximity to 

ungulate winter range. Livestock grazing is limited in parts of Ruby-Horse Creek to protect 

wildlife habitat. 

Horse Creek is managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Quiet natural landscapes 

Vegetation changes from fires and other natural events 

Pleasure drivers on main roads around the area 

Visitors on foot, horseback, or mountain bikes 

Snowmobiles on roads in the management area 

Skiers near Johnny Gulch or the West Fork 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Maintain or enhance roadless characteristics and naturalness 

Develop an Historic Preservation Plan for Traditional Cultural Properties 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

151 
Cottonwood

Creek RNA

Antone Pk

Comm Site

Divide

Comm Site

Snowcrest

Recommended Wilderness

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

'Motorized Travel Not Allowed' Exceptions

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Snowcrest Mountain Recommended Wilderness Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and provide non-motorized 

recreation with a high level of challenge and solitude. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive and natural appearing. The high alpine Snowcrest 

Mountains provides scenic vistas, wildlife viewing and a back country experience unique to 

island mountain ranges. This is one of the more remote areas requiring a long drive on gravel 

roads. The trail system is extensive and used by horseback riders and hikers. 

Road corridors through the recommended wilderness area lead to Antone and Notch cabins. 

These exceptions provide vehicle access at least part of the year to the cabins, designated 

campsites, and trailheads. 

Livestock grazing is an important traditional use in lower elevations. Ecosystem components 

are regulated by natural processes. The Snowcrest Mountains provide large blocks of secure 

wildlife habitat, next to the Blacktail and Robb Ledford Game Ranges. 

Visitors may encounter 

Quiet natural landscapes 

Native vegetation changes from fire and other natural events 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Stabilize abandoned roads to prevent further erosion 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – Very High 

Route to Antone Cabin is open to motorized vehicles yearlong, dispersed camping is 

allowed where marked. 

Route to the Notch Saddle is open to vehicles in the summer dispersed camping is 

allowed within 300 feet of the road. 

Traditional ranching uses will continue, such as sheep grazing and use of motorized 

vehicles for trailing and improvement maintenance 

Management changes if released from wilderness designation 

Semi-primitive non-motorized allocation with designated routes to trailheads and cabins 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – High 

Mountain bikes are allowed 

153 
Cottonwood

Creek RNA

Clover

Meadows

Lazyman

Repeater

Timber Creek

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 13% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 6% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 7% Backcountry Recreation

 87% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 13% Winter Non-motorized

 81% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Timber Creek Management Area 

This area is managed for a mix of forest uses, road based recreation, dispersed camping, and 

big game winter range. 

The recreation setting is roaded with a mix of altered and natural appearing scenery. 

Recreation activities are generally tied to access for hunting, firewood gathering, and nonmotorized trails into the Greenhorn Mountains. 

Habitat security is maintained on big game winter range through a winter non-motorized 

allocation. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Timber harvest and system or temporary roads 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and winter 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

155 
Cottonwood

Creek RNA

Divide

Clover

Meadows

Lazyman

Repeater

Upper Ruby

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 57% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 57% Summer Non-motorized

 32% Backcountry Recreation

 11% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

100% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 23% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Upper Ruby Management Area 

This area is managed for a range of semi-primitive recreation based on primitive roads and 

trails and for livestock grazing. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized with mostly natural 

appearing scenery. Primitive roads leading from the Ruby River and Gravelly Range roads 

offer backcountry driving experiences. A system of non-motorized trails also provides 

horseback riding and packing opportunities. Even though crossed by low standard roads, 

visitors can find solitude and a real backcountry experience – except in fall when hunters 

concentrate at dispersed camping sites. Winter recreation is generally confined to road 

corridors and some open areas near the top of the mountain range. 

Soils are a management consideration on the west flank of the Gravelly Range. They are 

derived from cretaceous shale, susceptible to saturation, soil movement and high sediment 

yields. 

Burnt Creek watershed is managed to conserve native fish populations. Several streams 

support populations of westslope cutthroat trout. An isolated population of tiger salamanders 

has been found here. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and some trails in summer and winter 

Hikers and horseback riders on trails in summer and fall 

Hunting camps 

Livestock and livestock handling facilities 

Objectives in Addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Retain opportunities for primitive full-size vehicle driving while mitigating impacts to 

other resources 

Develop an Historic Preservation Plan for Traditional Cultural Properties 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

157 
Cave

Mountain

RNA

Clover

Meadows

Lazyman

Repeater

Wall Creek

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 45% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 45% Summer Non-motorized

 55% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

100% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

100% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

Wall Creek Management Area 

This area is managed for secure wildlife habitat with an emphasis on wintering elk, and for 

semi-primitive recreation. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized with natural appearing 

scenery. Most of the area is undeveloped except around the Wall Creek Cabin and Game 

Range headquarters. In summer, visitors can find solitude in the backcountry of Wall Creek. 

Recreation concentrates during hunting season when opportunities shift to non-motorized. 

Dispersed campsites spring up along roads and backcountry camps along trails. The area is 

closed to winter use in conjunction with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks winter game range 

closures. 

Late fall wildlife security, thermal cover, and winter forage are important for wintering elk. 

Livestock grazing is closely coordinated with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at lower 

elevations and on the Game Range to improve vigor of forage for elk winter range. 

Wall Creek is managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Quiet natural landscapes 

Native vegetation which changes little except for fires or insect outbreaks 

Scattered hunting camps along roads and trails 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

No net increase in motorized trail density 

Dates for motorized prohibitions will be coordinated with Montana Fish Wildlife and 

Parks to improve winter elk security. These dates will supercede forestwide standards for 

non-motorized allocations. 

159 
Cliff

Lake RNA

Cave

Mountain

RNA

Feeezeout

Mountain

Teepee

Creek

Snowshoe

Pass

Flatiron

Mountain

GoldButte

West Fork Madison

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 8% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 28% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 1% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 8% Summer Non-motorized

 9% Backcountry Recreation

 82% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 28% Winter Non-motorized

 71% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 14% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 19% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

West Fork Madison Management Area 

This area is managed for dispersed road based recreation and a mix of forest uses. 

The recreation setting is roaded with a mix of altered and natural appearing scenery. 

Developed road systems and old harvest units reflect a history of use and management. 

Lodgepole pines have filled in the large-scale clearcuts from the 1960’s and blend into the 

surrounding forest. Driving for pleasure, dispersed camping, firewood gathering and hunting 

are primary activities. The River corridor attracts fishermen and campers from early summer 

through hunting season. Snow levels on the south end of the Gravelly Range are conducive to 

winter recreation with access from Highway 287 to groomed snowmobile trails and cross 

country skiing. 

Winter motorized closures in the Standard Creek and Gold Butte area secure an area for 

wildlife movement from Papoose Creek and the Madison Range and provide and opportunity 

for quiet recreation accessible from Highway 287. 

Freezeout Creek is managed to restore watershed conditions. Soap Creek is managed to 

conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Timber harvest and system or temporary roads 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails 

Dispersed camping along roads 

Snowmobilers and skiers on routes from Highway 287 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Retain a low level of development in dispersed camping sites along the West Fork 

Madison. Consolidate use, designate and harden sites to prevent resource damage 

Develop cross country skiing and snowshoeing opportunities with easy access from US 

287 

Retain current levels of development for snowmobiling. Snowmobile grooming will 

remain intermittent to provide more challenging experiences 

Manage summer road closures for firewood gathering and post and pole harvest 

opportunities 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

No net increase in permanent open motorized road density 

161 
Wigwam-Cherry

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

51% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 44% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 51% Summer Non-motorized

 48% Backcountry Recreation

 1% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 44% Winter Non-motorized

 55% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Gravelly Landscape 

163 

Wigwam-Cherry Management Area 

This area is managed for semi-primitive recreation and livestock grazing. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive with predominantly natural appearing scenery. 

Livestock grazing, fences, and water tanks are evident. Opportunities are available for 

dispersed motorized and non-motorized recreation. Activities include pleasure driving (to 

enjoy unique vistas and wildflower displays) and hunting. Hunters camp in dispersed sites 

along roads. The BLM Axolotyl Wilderness Study Area and Haypress Subdivision lie 

adjacent to the Forest on the north. Recreation use is often associated with these areas and 

with Alder Gulch historic mining district Snowmobilers access the area from Alder Gulch 

during good snow years. 

A winter non-motorized allocation provides secure elk winter range. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Dispersed camping along forest roads 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and winter 

Visitors on hiking trails 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Improve the quality of motorized trails without increasing density 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

164 
Chapter Four 

Jefferson River Landscape 

JEFFERSON RIVER LANDSCAPE 

The landscape includes parts of three mountain ranges which drain from the Continental 

Divide into the head of the Jefferson River. These are the Highlands, the Whitetail Pipestone 

area, and the Bull Mountains. Much of the area is part of the Boulder Batholith, a unique 

geologic feature characterized by large granite boulders jutting above the ground, worn 

smooth by erosion. The best example of these features can be seen from Interstate 90 at 

Homestake Pass. This landscape is drier than others on the Forest, because of the granitic 

composition of the soils and its position in the rain shadow of the Continental Divide. 

Lodgepole pine dominates the upper elevations while at low elevations Douglas-fir is the 

most common, and is intermingled with open grasslands. Mountain mahogany, an 

uncommon species on the BDNF, provides important browse for big game. A herd of 

bighorn sheep live in the Highland Mountains. Elk, moose, and other wildlife inhabit the 

area. 

Historic railroad structures, mills, adits, and cabins characterize mining and settlement 

history. Mining has had an impact on vegetation. Most timber was harvested at some point 

for lumber or fuel for home heat and smelters. There are numerous Native American historic 

sites. 

Livestock grazing, post and pole harvest, and small timber sales are common resource uses. 

Interstate 90, which crosses the Continental Divide at Homestake Pass, is a major east-west 

transportation and utility corridor. 

The landscape is fairly open with a mix of gentle and very steep terrain. Motorized trails near 

Butte are heavily used in both summer and winter. Scenic driving, picnicking, dispersed 

camping, and trail riding are very popular, along with some of the more unique activities 

associated with urban areas which create law enforcement challenges. 

165 
Jefferson River

Landscape

Boulder River

Landscape

Dry

Mountain

RNA

Lost

Park

RNA

Bull

Mtn

Galena

Bull Mnt

(Off NF)

Bull Mountains

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 46% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 55% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 36% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 46% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 18% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 55% Winter Non-motorized

 10% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Jefferson River Landscape 

Bull Mountains Management Area 

This area is managed for livestock grazing and low density dispersed recreation. Other 

ecosystem components are regulated by natural processes and events. 

Recreation takes place in a roaded and semi-primitive non-motorized setting with natural 

appearing scenery. The checkerboard mix of private and National Forest System lands 

constrains management and recreation opportunities. Only two roads provide public access. 

Recreation use is primarily during hunting season on limited motorized routes. Use in 

summer is infrequent. The few trails are non-motorized. 

Roads and trails are closed to motorized activities in winter to protect wintering elk. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from prescribed or wild fire 

Motor vehicles and hunters in fall 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Coordinate management with owners of private lands inside the Forest boundary 

Improve rangeland conditions by reducing widespread Douglas-fir colonization of 

grasslands 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

167 
CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

Basin

Creek

Burton Park

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 8% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 6% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 24% Summer Non-motorized

 15% Backcountry Recreation

 55% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 84% Winter Non-motorized

 10% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.501

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Jefferson River Landscape 

Burton Park Management Area 

This area is managed for a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities easily accessible 

from Butte, and for secure winter wildlife habitat. 

Recreation takes place in a range of roaded to semi-primitive non-motorized settings. In the 

middle lies Burton Park; a large privately owned open area. The area southeast of Burton 

Park provides a unique opportunity for quiet recreation experiences in all seasons within a 

short distance of Butte and amongst the granitic outcrops of the Boulder Batholith. North of 

Burton Park visitors find a summer roaded setting with motorized opportunities. 

Winter closures provide secure habitat for wildlife and accessible winter recreation activities. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and fall 

Skiers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Construct a trailhead at Burton Park at the terminus of Trail #106 and a trailhead and day 

use area where the Continental Divide crosses Highlands Road 

Acquire public access to the area north of Climax Gulch for non-motorized recreation 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

169 
CDNST

CDNST

Donald R

Site

Red Mountain

Table

Mountain

Repeater

Highland

Lookout

Hells Canyon

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Travel Restrictions

 10% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 46% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 10% Summer Non-motorized

 10% Backcountry Recreation

 80% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 46% Winter Non-motorized

 54% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 93% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

± 1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Jefferson River Landscape 

Hells Canyon Management Area 

This area is managed for a mix of forest uses including livestock grazing, firewood gathering, 

and backcountry recreation. 

The recreation setting is mostly roaded with low density motorized access in a mostly natural 

appearing setting. Visitors are mostly local residents who use Hells Canyon for firewood 

cutting, camping, hunting and recreational driving. Motorized use is allowed on roads and 

trails in much of the area. Winter recreation use is light with some cross-country skiing, 

mostly to Hells Canyon Rental Cabin. The lack of precipitation rarely leaves enough snow 

for snowmobiling on the east side of the management area. 

Hells Canyon is managed to restore desirable watershed conditions. This an important 

rainbow trout spawning stream for the Jefferson River 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle riders on roads and trails in summer, fall, and winter 

Dispersed camping along forest roads 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

171 
CD

N ST

CDNST

CDNST

Red

Mountain

Basin

Creek

Table Mountain

Repeater

Highland

Lookout

Humbug Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Travel Restrictions

 10% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 10% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 9% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 10% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 81% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 10% Winter Non-motorized

 81% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Jefferson River Landscape 

Humbug Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, livestock grazing, and dispersed recreation 

opportunities. 

Recreation takes place in a roaded setting with a mix of modified and natural appearing 

scenery. The area has a history of use for timber production and mining. Evidence of historic 

mining is common, private in-holdings established as mining claims are scattered throughout. 

The historic privately owned Moosetown is surrounded by National Forest. Roads through 

this area connect Humbug Spires Wilderness Study Area, Upper Basin Creek to Roosevelt 

Drive and Fish Creek, and the top of the Continental Divide. Driving for pleasure is a 

common activity. Recreation use is heavy during fall hunting season. The area is used by 

snowmobiles in winter. 

A non-motorized summer and winter area on the east edge of the unit below Red Mountain 

provides year around wildlife security for species including bighorn sheep. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Roads for timber harvest 

Motor vehicle riders on roads and trails in summer, fall, and winter 

Remnants of historic mining and present day mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Segregate opportunities for full size highway vehicles and ATVs 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Level (viewed from Humbug Spires WSA) - Moderate 

173 
C DNST

CDNST

CDNST

Haystack Mtn NRT

Haystack Mtn NRT

Basin

Creek RNA

Dry

Mountain

RNA

Lost

Park

RNA

Whitetail

Rim

Donald R

Site

Red

Mountain

Basin

Creek

Homestake

Pass

Table

Mountain

Repeater

Highland

Lookout

Pipestone

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 10% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 26% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 5% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 10% Summer Non-motorized

 2% Backcountry Recreation

 83% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 26% Winter Non-motorized

 69% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 6% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0 1 0.5

Miles

1:126,720
Chapter Four 

Jefferson River Landscape 

Pipestone Management Area 

This area is managed for a mix of uses, including timber production and concentrated 

motorized recreation opportunities. 

The recreation setting is roaded with a mix of modified and natural appearing scenery. North 

of the Interstate, heavily used roads and trails are dense. Motorcycles, ATVs, full size 

vehicles as well as mountain bikers and rock climbers frequent the Spire Rock area and 

adjacent trail system. Snow is light most winters, allowing access for hikers and ATVs. 

Delmoe Lake is the closest large reservoir to Butte. The campground and day use areas host 

visitors with motorized watercraft. South of the interstate, Toll Mountain Campground, near 

Highway 2, provides camping and day use among the giant boulder strewn conifer forest. 

A water transmission line, a natural gas and four electrical transmission lines, and a 

communication site are located in this management area. There are several special use 

recreation residences and private subdivisions in the Toll Mountain area. 

Halfway Creek is managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Winter closures on the north end protect the Bull Mountain game range. On the south end 

they provide quiet recreation opportunities accessible from Pipestone Highway 

Noxious weed infestations along Highway 2 and adjacent private lands are a priority for 

treatment and demand consistent management attention. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Roads for timber harvest 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails year around 

Remnants of historic and current mining or reclamation 

Travel restrictions near elk winter ranges 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Accommodate recreational demand for a mostly motorized trails network in this area 

Reduce risk of wildfire near private property through vegetation treatments 

Develop information and interpretive signs at Homestake Pass to highlight recreation 

opportunities in the area 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

175 
C DN ST

CDNST

Donald R

Site

Red

Mountain

Basin

Creek

Homestake

Pass

Table

Mountain

Repeater

Highland

Lookout

Table Mountain

Recommended Wilderness

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 22% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Jefferson River Landscape 

Table Mountain Recommended Wilderness 

Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and to provide yearlong nonmotorized recreation with high levels of challenge and solitude. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive non-motorized. This area offers a unique opportunity 

for quiet and solitude. Trail access is limited but off trail day hiking opportunities are good. 

Hunting is one of the predominant activities in the area. Entry into a portion of the area is 

prohibited yearlong by a closure order for the protection of public health and safety. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through natural or prescribed fire. Active restoration of 

Hells Canyon watershed takes place in the lower reaches of the watershed, outside of this 

management area. 

Visitors may encounter 

Quiet natural landscapes 

Native vegetation changes from fire and other natural events 

Many wildlife species, including mountain goats and bighorn sheep 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Develop an access point and trailhead on the eastern edge of the Forest Boundary 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – Very High 

Management changes if released from wilderness designation 

Semi-primitive non-motorized summer and winter 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – High 

Mountain bikes are allowed 

177 
CD

N

ST

CDN

ST

CDNST

Haystack Mtn NRT

Ha ys tack Mt

NRT

n

CDNST

Dry

Mountain

RNA

Lost

Park

RNA

Bernice RNA

Experimental

Forest

Whitetail

Rim

Galena

Whitetail

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 68% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 56% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Motorized Travel Not Allowed Exception

Recreation Allocations

 1% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 68% Summer Non-motorized

 16% Backcountry Recreation

 15% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 57% Winter Non-motorized

 42% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 43% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Jefferson River Landscape 

179 

Whitetail Management Area 

This area is managed for semi-primitive recreation and secure wildlife habitat. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive with natural appearing scenery. Most of the Whitetail 

area is unroaded. The road developed for the Whitetail Water User’s Association is the only 

road to the reservoir and is open to the public. The area contains a low density of motorized 

trails in a mostly undeveloped backcountry setting. Recreation use is mix of dispersed 

motorized and non-motorized in summer and fall hunting season Snowmobile use is light, on 

roads, trails, and the open area around Whitetail Reservoir. Winter motorized closures 

provide secure wildlife habitat. 

Whitetail Reservoir is a 1000 acre wetland system in the middle of the area. Elk calve in the 

meadows and parks north of Whitetail Reservoir. Halfway and Whitetail Creeks are fisheries 

key watersheds, managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Livestock grazing is a valued traditional use of the area, managed to protect soils and riparian 

vegetation in wet meadow areas. 

Recreation residences are authorized in the Halfway Creek area. 

Visitors may encounter 

Slight vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on the road and on trails in summer and fall 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Improve stream bank vegetation conditions and reduce sediment sources on Halfway 

Creek and Whitetail Creek 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

Lima Tendoy Landscape final 

180 
Chapter Four 

Lima Tendoy Landscape 

LIMA TENDOY LANDSCAPE 

The Lima Tendoy Landscape is located in the southwest corner of Montana. BLM lands are a 

large component of the overall landscape. The Horse Prairie and Big Sheep Creek Valleys 

surround the Tendoy Mountains. These valleys in turn are bordered by the Beaverhead 

Mountains, the crest of which form the Idaho border and Continental Divide. This section of 

the Continental Divide contains one of the tallest groups of mountain peaks in Montana. 

Along the southern edge of the landscape grasslands uniquely transition directly to rocky 

peaks, without the usual band of conifers between these two cover types. 

National Forest lands in this landscape are dominated by sagebrush-grasslands. Forests 

include lodgepole pine, dry site Douglas-fir, spruce and subalpine fir, and whitebark pine. 

Wet meadows, aspen stands, and riparian willow zones are common within both of these 

general vegetation types. The Forest provides habitat for a wealth of birds, waterfowl, small 

mammals, and big game species, including elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats. 

Habitat along the Continental Divide links wildlife in the Centennial, Lima Tendoy, and 

Beaverhead mountains, and provides a connection between the Greater Yellowstone and 

Bitterroot Ecosystems. Sage grouse migrate over the divide between Montana and Idaho. 

Grasslands dominate, making livestock grazing a valued traditional use. This landscape 

includes the second largest area on the Forest with moderate potential for oil and gas. 

Numerous historic and prehistoric Native American sites date back at least 12,000 years. 

Recreation use is usually most concentrated during hunting season. In the summer months 

people occasionally use roads, dispersed campsites, the Continental Divide National Scenic 

Trail, the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. 

The only National Landmark on the Forest, Lemhi Pass National Historic Landmark, is 

located along the Continental Divide and managed jointly with the Salmon-Challis National 

Forest. 

181 
CD

NST

CDNST

CD

NS T

CDNST

CDNST

White Pine

Ridge

Garfield Mountain

Recommended Wilderness

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.50 0.51

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Lima Tendoy Landscape 

Garfield Mountain Recommended Wilderness Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and provide recreation with high 

levels of challenge and solitude. 

The setting is semi-primitive with natural appearing scenery. Summer recreation includes 

light non-motorized use on roads and trails. Dispersed use is heaviest in hunting season. 

The area has high quality big game winter range. 

Livestock grazing is a valued use in this management area. Otherwise, vegetation is managed 

through prescribed and natural fire. 

Visitors may encounter 

Native vegetation changes only from fire and other natural events 

Wildlife, including forest carnivores 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Very High 

Management of the area if released from wilderness designation 

Semi-primitive non-motorized summer and a mix of semi-primitive motorized and nonmotorized in winter (as mapped in Alternative 5) 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

Mountain bikes are allowed 

183 
Big Hole

Landscape

Lima Tendoy

Landscape

Big Hole

Landscape

Lima Tendoy

Landscape

C D

NST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

LCNHT

LCNHT

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

NP

N

H

T

Horse

Prairie

RNA

Lemhi

Pass

Bloody

Dick Peak

Bloody

Dick

Sno-tel

Deadhorse

Repeater

(Off NF)

Horse Prairie North

Management Area

Management Area Boundary

Forest Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 49% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 27% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 1% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 49% Summer Non-motorized

 17% Backcountry Recreation

 33% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 27% Winter Non-motorized

 72% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

100% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 39% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1 0.5

Miles

1:126,720
Chapter Four 

Lima Tendoy Landscape 

Horse Prairie North Management Area 

This area is managed for dispersed recreation, historic preservation, and forest products. 

The recreation setting includes roaded and semi-primitive areas with both altered and natural 

appearing scenery. Locally and nationally, the area is unique for its included Lemhi Pass 

National Historic Landmark and three National Trail sections. The road system includes the 

graveled county road across Lemhi Pass, a mile of Highway 278, and several system and 

primitive roads along the Forest boundary. Hunting, traveling along national trails, Lemhi 

Pass interpretation, hiking, mountain biking, and ATV riding on primitive roads and trails are 

common activities. Snowmobiling is the most common winter recreation, with many people 

accessing the area from Idaho. The distance from populated areas and access make cross 

country skiing uncommon. 

Winter motorized closures on the north end provide secure winter wildlife habitat. 

Vegetation is managed through timber harvest and timber production, livestock grazing, and 

with fire or other natural changes. 

Buffalo, Fox, Reservoir, and Painter Creeks are fisheries key watersheds, managed to 

conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles and mountain bike riders on a variety of roads and trails in the foothills 

Visitors at Lemhi Pass or traveling along national trails 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Expansion of the utility corridor or its uses in areas visible from Lemhi Pass National 

Historic Landmark is not allowed 

185 
C D NST

CDNST

CDNST

LCNHT

C

D

N

ST

LCNHT

CDNST

Lemhi

Pass

Horse Prairie South

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

57% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 57% Summer Non-motorized

 22% Backcountry Recreation

 21% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

100% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 36% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Lima Tendoy Landscape 

Horse Prairie South Management Area 

This area is managed for livestock grazing and remote dispersed recreation. 

The recreation setting is mostly semi-primitive non-motorized with some backcountry and 

roaded areas. The area is remote from populated areas and access is primitive. Backcountry 

recreation, including hunting, traveling along the continental divide, hiking, mountain biking, 

and ATV riding on primitive roads and trails is available but use outside of hunting season is 

light. The entire area is open to travel in winter. Snowmobiling is the most common winter 

recreation. Some visitors access the area from Idaho. The distance from populated areas and 

access make cross country skiing uncommon. 

Vegetation is managed through grazing allotments and with fire or other natural changes. 

Bear Creek is a fisheries key watershed, managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles and mountain bike riders on a variety of roads and trails in the foothills 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

187 
CD N ST

CDNST

CDNST

C

D

N

S T

C D

N

S T

CDNST

CDNST

Beagle

Springs

Italian Peak

Recommended Wilderness

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 16% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Lima Tendoy Landscape 

Italian Peak Recommended Wilderness Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and provide non-motorized 

recreation with high levels of challenge and solitude. 

The Italian Peak area has been recommended for wilderness designation since 1986, in 

combination with adjacent lands in Idaho on the Targhee-Caribou National Forest and 

Bureau of Land Management. The recreation setting is semi-primitive non-motorized 

recreation. Recreation use in the area is highest in hunting season. Other common activities 

are hiking, horse use, dispersed camping, and fishing. 

Vegetation is managed through prescribed and natural fire and livestock grazing. 

Nicholia Creek is a fisheries key watershed, managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Native vegetation changes only from fire or other natural events 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – Very High 

Management changes if released from wilderness designation 

Semi-primitive non-motorized summer (as mapped in Alternative 1) and winter 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

Mountain bikes are allowed 

189 
CDNST

CDNST

C

D

NST

CDNST

Beagle

Springs

White Pine

Ridge

Lima Peaks

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 32% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 55% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 2% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 32% Summer Non-motorized

 58% Backcountry Recreation

 8% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 55% Winter Non-motorized

 43% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 5% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.50 0.51 1.5

Miles

1:150,000
Chapter Four 

Lima Tendoy Landscape 

Lima Peaks Management Area 

This area is managed for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat. 

The setting is semi-primitive with predominantly natural appearing scenery. Summer 

recreation includes light motorized and non-motorized use on roads and trails. The heaviest 

recreation use is in hunting season. Trailheads on low standard roads provide access to the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. 

Winter non-motorized allocations provide secure winter habitat for big game. 

Vegetation may be managed by grazing, timber harvest, or fire. Oil and gas exploration is 

likely here on lands with moderate potential for these resources. 

Lower Nicholia Creek is a fisheries key watershed managed to conserve native fish 

populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle and mountain bikers on a variety of roads and trails in the foothills 

Dispersed amp sites along roads 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Improve access to the Italian Peaks Recommended Wilderness by constructing a trailhead 

on the Nicholia Creek road 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

No net increase in roads. Existing roads may be reconstructed to trailheads 

191 
CDN ST

C DNST

CDNST

CDNST

Maiden

Peak

Ellis

Peak

Beagle

Springs

Mauer

Mountain

(Off NF)

White Pine

Ridge

Sourdough

Peak

Repeater

Medicine Lodge - Tendoy

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 29% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 42% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 1% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 29% Summer Non-motorized

 49% Backcountry Recreation

 21% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 42% Winter Non-motorized

 57% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0 1 2 0.5

Miles

1:200,000
Chapter Four 

Lima Tendoy Landscape 

Medicine Lodge - Tendoy Management Area 

This area is managed for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat. 

The recreation setting is mostly semi-primitive with natural appearing scenery. Most of the 

area roads are primitive. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail is located in Idaho 

rather than in this area for most of this stretch of the Continental Divide. The majority of 

recreation here occurs in hunting season. 

Winter non-motorized allocations provide secure winter habitat for big game. 

Timber harvest or fire may be used to achieve vegetation and other resource objectives. 

Other land uses may include livestock grazing, mining and oil and gas exploration. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

193 
Big Hole

Landscape

Big Hole

Landscape

Lima Tendoy

Landscape

Lima Tendoy

Landscape

C DNST

CDNST

C

D

N

S

T

CDNST

C

D

N

S

T

C

DNS T

NPNHT

Bloody

Dick

Peak

Darkhorse

Lake

Bloody Dick

Sno-tel

Selway-Saginaw

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 21% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 3% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 21% Summer Non-motorized

 27% Backcountry Recreation

 49% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 97% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 18% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 14% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.50 0.51 1.5

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Lima Tendoy Landscape 

195 

Selway - Saginaw Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, livestock grazing, and dispersed recreation. The 

Selway-Saginaw area includes lands in the Big Hole and Lima Tendoy Landscapes. Stringer 

meadows are included in the mostly forested lands at the headwaters of the Big Hole River. 

The setting is a mix of roaded and semi-primitive with altered and natural appearing scenery. 

Reservoir Lake Campground provides opportunity for boating (non-motorized or electric 

powered), fishing, and camping. Other recreation activities include motorized and nonmotorized travel in summer along roads and trails, and dispersed camping. Hunting takes 

place in a largely non-motorized setting due to seasonal closures. Snowmobiling is a popular 

winter day use and is most common on roads. 

Saginaw is a restoration key watershed managed to restore desirable watershed conditions. 

Andrus Creek is a fisheries key watershed managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle and mountain bike riders on roads and trails in the foothills 

Campers dispersed along roads and at developed campgrounds 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

196 

Landscape 
Chapter Four 

Madison Landscape 

MADISON LANDSCAPE 

The BDNF portion of the Madison Landscape includes two pieces of land along the westfacing slope of the Madison Range from Bear Trap Canyon on the north to Quake Lake on 

the south. Distinctive peaks of the Madison Range forms the scenic backdrop above the 

Madison Valley. Though the area is narrow it contributes a wealth of mountain vegetation, 

high lakes, and the distinctive Sphinx and Helmet Mountains. Streams flow into the Madison 

River, a world-renowned and regionally important class one trout stream. 

The Madison Range is part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Large blocks of secure 

habitat for wildlife characterize the landscape. Species such as wolves, elk, and grizzly bears 

move freely to and from Yellowstone Park via the Madison Range. Goats, bighorn sheep, 

wolverine, mountain lions and other fauna find a home in this landscape as well. Wildlife 

also moves from the Madison Range to other parts of southwest Montana through stringers of 

riparian vegetation and timber found in Wolf Creek, Papoose Creek, and other areas. 

Nearly all of the land managed by the BDNF in the Madison Range is in the Lee Metcalf 

Wilderness. The Wilderness is managed to retain the areas natural ecosystem parts and 

function and to provide challenging primitive recreation opportunities. Private land along the 

Jack Creek Road between Ennis and Big Sky splits the otherwise contiguous landscape. 

Travelers to Yellowstone National Park on Highway 287 through the Madison Valley enjoy 

views of the Madison Range from the highway. Recreation use however, is less influenced 

by proximity to Yellowstone Park than its own wilderness character and accessibility. Hikers, 

climbers, or horseback riders find wild and primitive settings in this landscape with few 

social encounters. Summer use is moderate. Fall hunting has been heavy for decades. Winter 

use is light because roads to trailheads are closed by snow. Bear Creek is one of the more 

accessible areas where cross-country skiing is popular and winter activities like 

mountaineering and ice climbing are emerging. Motorized access on National Forest is 

confined to snowmobiling at McAtee Basin and Bear Creek Cabin. 

197 
Feeezeout

Mountain Flatiron

Mountain

GoldButte

Lee-Metcalf Wilderness

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 98% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 98% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 2% Non-FS Inholding

 98% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1 2 3 0.5

Miles

1:200,000
Chapter Four 

Madison Landscape 

Lee Metcalf Wilderness Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and values and provide primitive 

recreation with high levels of challenge and solitude. 

Recreation takes place in a primitive to semi-primitive non-motorized setting guided by 

Wilderness regulations. The Lee Metcalf Wilderness, designated in 1983, includes parts of 

both the Gallatin and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests, and BLM lands. The 

wilderness is split on the north end by the Jack Creek drainage, which is privately owned and 

roaded. Development in close proximity to all sides of the wilderness increases management 

challenges. 

This side of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness receives moderate recreation use in the summer. 

Sphinx Mountain, Bear Creek and Indian Creek trail systems attract most users. During fall 

hunting season, trailheads and campgrounds accessing the area are full of hunters traveling 

by foot or horseback. Winter use is light due to limited access to snow. 

Prohibitions on motorized use contribute to important wildlife security in this area. Wildlife 

moves from Yellowstone, through the Madison Range to other parts of southwest Montana 

through stringers of riparian vegetation and timber in places like Wolf and Papoose creeks. 

The Hilgard area is in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. 

Visitors may encounter 

Native vegetation changes only from fire or other natural events 

Quiet natural landscapes and few visitors 

Grizzly bears 

Pack stock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Resolve inconsistent access and management with State land in Bear Creek 

Improve access to the Wilderness at Indian and South Indian Creeks 

Evaluate additional access between Indian Creek and Papoose Creek 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Very High 

The Lee Metcalf Wilderness Plan provides additional standards 

199 
Lee-Metcalf Recommended

Wilderness Additions

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1 2 0.5

Miles

1:150,000
Chapter Four 

Madison Landscape 

Lee Metcalf Recommended Wilderness Additions Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and values and to provide nonmotorized recreation opportunities with high levels of challenge and solitude. 

Recreation settings are semi-primitive non-motorized with wilderness characteristics.

Cowboy Heaven (Unit #1) lies between Bear Trap Canyon and the Spanish Peaks. Steep 

canyons and gentle ridge tops are accessed through two trailheads; the Bear Trap Canyon or 

a long trail from Spanish Creek. 

The Jordain Unit (#2), Fan Mt. Unit (#3), Shell Creek Unit (#4) and Corral Creek Unit (#5) 

are isolated because access to these units is available only through the Wilderness. 

The Papoose Bench Unit (#6) is easily accessible from Highway 287. This parcel contributes 

to elk winter range and spring elk calving habitat and links the Madison Range to the 

Gravelly Range. 

Visitors may encounter 

Native vegetation changes only from fire or other natural events 

Quiet natural landscapes and few visitors 

Grizzly bears 

Livestock 

Backcountry hunting camps (Cowboy Heaven, Papoose Bench) 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – Very High 

Management changes if released from wilderness designation 

Semi-primitive non-motorized summer and winter 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

Mountain bikes are allowed 

201 
Madison

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 69% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 38% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 27% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 69% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 4% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 38% Winter Non-motorized

 35% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1 2 0.5

Miles

1:150,000
Chapter Four 

Madison Landscape 

203 

Madison Management Area 

These areas are managed to provide access and a transition between the Lee Metcalf 

Wilderness and adjacent developed land and to provide semi-primitive recreation 

opportunities. 

This management area includes four separate parcels along the edge of the Lee-Metcalf 

Wilderness and the Bear Creek administrative site and campground. With the exception of 

Bear Creek, and McAtee Basin in winter, recreation settings are semi-primitive nonmotorized. 

Two parcels on the north end, along private land in Jack Creek, provide a transition between 

wilderness and the high use developed settings of Moonlight Basin and Big Sky resorts. 

The Indian Creek parcel lies along the foothills of the Madison Range. Both parcels are 

adjacent to the Lee Metcalf Wilderness but protrude from the Wilderness out into private 

lands. Indian Creek parcel is managed to provide vehicle access near the wilderness 

boundary. 

McAtee Basin and the head of Middle Fork of Bear Creek were excluded from wilderness 

designation to allow snowmobile use between Yellow Mules and Buck Creek on the Gallatin 

National Forest. It provides a non-motorized summer recreation opportunity and motorized 

winter opportunities. 

Bear Creek administrative site and campground is considered part of this Management Area 

even though it isn’t large enough to show as a mapped unit.. This site provides nonmotorized access to the Wilderness. 

Visitors may encounter 

Quiet natural landscapes 

Native vegetation changes only from fires or other natural events 

Campers, hikers, and horse riders at Bear Creek, occasional snowmobiles in McAtee, and 

few visitors in the Jack Creek parcels 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

Pioneer Landscape - final 

204 
Chapter Four 

Pioneer Landscape 

PIONEER LANDSCAPE 

The Pioneer Mountains are an island mountain range dominated by rocky peaks. Forest types 

include lodgepole pine, dry site Douglas-fir, spruce with subalpine fir, and whitebark pine. 

Lower elevations and valleys are covered by sagebrush and grasslands The forest interior 

provides secure habitat for a variety of wildlife including lynx and wolverine. Foothills 

provide big game winter range. 

Streams flow into the Big Hole and Beaverhead Class One Trout Streams. Challenges are 

managing critical fish habitat, recreation, and irrigation, while supplying municipal water for 

Dillon through Rattlesnake Creek and for Butte and Melrose through the Big Hole River. 

The communities of Dillon, Wisdom, Wise River, Dewey, Argenta, Glen, Jackson, Polaris, 

Melrose, and Divide are located along the highways which surround the landscape. 

Communities are tied to traditional hunting, grazing, logging, and mining activities, scenery, 

and recreation opportunities provided by the landscape. The proximity of the backcountry 

and developed sites to larger urban centers, Dillon and Butte, and Interstate 15 contribute to 

its popularity. 

The Pioneer Landscape offers several important historic features; the Birch Creek Education 

Center, a historic Civilian Conservation Corps Camp just north of Dillon; the Canyon Creek 

Kilns above Glendale and Melrose; and the Elkhorn mining district near the Scenic Byway. 

The most intensively managed feature is the Pioneer Mountains scenic Byway, which offers 

developed camping, crystal digging at Crystal Park, and access to the West Pioneer 

Wilderness Study Area and the Torrey Mountain Recommended Wilderness Area. In winter 

the byway becomes the Wise River National Recreation Trail popular for snowmobiling. 

Maverick Mountain Ski Resort, and Elkhorn Hot Springs near cross-country and snowmobile 

trails. Big game hunting is also popular here. 

205 
CDNST

C DN

ST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

Bryant Creek

Management Area

Management Area Boundary

Forest Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 30% Backcountry Recreation

 70% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

100% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Pioneer Landscape 

Bryant Creek Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, livestock grazing, and other forest products. The 

recreation setting includes roaded areas modified by timber harvest and semi-primitive areas 

with natural appearing scenery. Motorized, mountain bike, and other types of recreational 

travel on roads and trails are common year long, though some routes are closed to provide for 

elk security in summer and fall. 

Vegetation is managed to provide wood products, reduce fuels, and produce forage for 

livestock and wildlife. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes following timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle and mountain bikers on roads and trails in summer and fall 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in Addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in Addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

207 
Grasshopper Ridge NR

Wise River NRT

Pioneer Loop N RT

W si e

River N

RT

Pioneer Loop NRT

Wise River NRT

Wise

RiverN

RT

Wise

R ve i r N

RT

Elkhorn

Lake RNA

SkullOdell RNA

Cattle

Gulch RNA

Tower

Mtn

Maverick

Mtn

Mule

Creek

Vipond

Park / Sheep

Mountain

East Face

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 9% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 22% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 2% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 9% Summer Non-motorized

 42% Backcountry Recreation

 47% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 22% Winter Non-motorized

 76% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 6% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 26% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1 0.5

Miles

1:150,000
Chapter Four 

Pioneer Landscape 

East Face Management Area 

This area is managed for livestock grazing and a mix of recreation opportunities easily 

accessed from Interstate 15. 

The area provides a mix of semi-primitive and roaded settings. The terrain, vegetation, and 

types of past uses, including timber harvest, have resulted in some areas of high open 

motorized road density. The East Face has a long tradition of use by people from Dillon and 

other area communities for dispersed recreation yearlong, both motorized and non-motorized. 

Recreation residence tracts are authorized in several locations. 

The Bender Center, University of Montana Western, provides a variety of outdoor education 

programs and classes. The Canyon, Trapper, Rock, Birch, and French Creek drainages, and 

Hecla, are areas rich with mining history. 

Forage is managed for livestock grazing and for big game winter range on foothill slopes. 

Vegetation will also continue to be managed using timber harvest and fire. 

Winter non-motorized allocations protect big game winter range north of Canyon Creek. 

South of Rock Creek this allocation provides opportunities for accessible quiet recreation. 

There are several reservoirs, which allow popular small lake recreation activities as well as 

irrigation water for permittees. Active restoration of the Willow Creek, Birch Creek and 

Lost-Pioneers watersheds takes place in this area. Cherry Creek is managed as a fisheries key 

watershed for conservation of native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Dispersed campers, motor vehicle and mountain bike riders on roads and trails 

Snowmobilers and skiers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Develop or improve trailheads and access to motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities 

Improve the quality of motorized trail opportunities 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

209 
Grasshopper Ridge NR

Wise River NRT

Pioneer Loop NRT

W si e

River N

RT

Wise River NRT

Wise River N RT

Wise River NRT

Elkhorn

Lake RNA

SkullOdell RNA

Deer

Camp

Mtn

Tower

Mtn

Maverick

Mtn

Mule

Creek

Vipond Park

/ Sheep

Mountain

Deadhorse

Repeater

(Off NF)

Pioneer Mountains

Scenic Byway

Management Area

Management Area Boundary

Forest Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 29% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 19% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 5% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 29% Summer Non-motorized

 25% Backcountry Recreation

 42% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 19% Winter Non-motorized

 76% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1 0.5

Miles

1:150,000
Chapter Four 

Pioneer Landscape 

Pioneer Mountains Scenic Byway Management Area 

This area is managed to provide scenic driving and concentrated areas of recreation. 

Facilities are developed consistent with the theme, “The West the way it used to be.” 

The Pioneer Mountains National Forest Scenic Byway is administered by Beaverhead 

County. Developed recreation facilities are paved along the byway. Campgrounds and 

trailheads further from the road are gravel surfaced. There are several in-holdings and special 

use recreation residences. A trailhead provides parking for the trail to the Coolidge Ghost 

Town. 

The byway, and related roads offer a roaded natural setting and a variety of summer 

activities, especially scenic driving, family camping, natural and cultural history, crystal 

digging, and back country access. The Byway provides opportunities for fall hunting in a 

roaded setting, and access points to motorized and non-motorized backcountry trails. Premier 

snowmobiling along the Wise River National Recreation Trail, the Grasshopper Crosscountry Ski Trails, Elkhorn Hot Springs, and Maverick Mountain Ski Resort are popular with 

both local residents and tourists. 

Backcountry and non-motorized areas offer a semi-primitive recreation setting. 

Wildlife species traverse the riparian corridors along the Byway. Grazing livestock add their 

special contribution to the byway theme. 

Visitors may encounter 

Minor vegetation changes from fire and timber harvest 

Many visitors particularly at Crystal Park and campgrounds 

ATV, horse, and mountain bike riders on trails 

Snowmobilers and skiers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Erect barriers to control user built trails in Lacey Creek Campground and restore 

conditions 

Prepare a management plan for Crystal Park 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Moderate 

211 
Pioneer Loop NRT

Wise River NRT

Vipond

Park / Sheep

Mountain

Bean Ridge

Repeater

Quartz Hill

Management Area

Management Area Boundary

Forest Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 3% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 2% Backcountry Recreation

 95% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 97% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Pioneer Landscape 

Quartz Hill Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, livestock grazing, and dispersed recreation. 

The recreation setting is roaded, with a mix of modified and natural appearing scenery. 

Remnants of old mines are found throughout the landscape. Campers and hunters disperse 

themselves along and off of forest roads. Primitive roads form the backbone of motorized 

opportunities. The archery hunting season is very important here, along with the general big 

game season. Snowmobiling is common in winter. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle and mountain bike riders on roads and trails 

Snowmobilers 

Historic and active mining 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

213 
Grasshop per Ridge NR

Pioneer Loop NRT

Pioneer Loop NRT

Wise River NRT

Pioneer Loop NRT

Wise

R

vi e r N

RT

Wise

River NRT

Wise River NRT

Wise

River N

RT

Elkhorn

Lake RNA

SkullOdell RNA

Tower

Mtn

Maverick

Mtn

Mule

Creek

Vipond Park

/ Sheep

Mountain

Deadhorse

Repeater

(Off NF)

Torrey Mountain

Recommended Wilderness

Management Area

Management Area Boundary

Forest Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 22% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1 0.5

Miles

1:126,720
Chapter Four 

Pioneer Landscape 

Torrey Mountain Recommended Wilderness Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and to provide non-motorized 

recreation with high levels of challenge and solitude 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive non-motorized. Common recreation uses are day 

hikes, backpacking, or horseback trips of varied duration that originate from Birch Creek, 

Rock Creek , and other roads on the east side or trailheads on the Pioneer Mountains Scenic 

Byway on the west. Challenging backcountry skiing, snow shoeing, and hiking are available 

in winter. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed and natural fire. Most active watershed 

restoration takes place in the lower reaches of Birch and Willow Creek watersheds, in the 

East Face management area. 

Visitors may encounter 

Native vegetation changes only from fire and other natural events 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Restore closed motorized trails to a more natural condition. 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Very High 

Management of the area if released from wilderness designation 

Semi-primitive non-motorized summer 

Mixed semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized in winter as mapped in Alternative 1 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

Mountain bikes are allowed 

215 
rsa

G

shopp er Ridge

NR

Wise River NRT

Wise River NRT

Pioneer Loop NRT

Wise River NRT

WiseRiver N RT

Elkhorn

Lake RNA

SkullOdell RNA

Deer

Camp Mtn

Maverick

Mtn

Mule

Creek

Vipond Park

/ Sheep

Mountain

Deadhorse

Repeater

(Off NF)

West Face

Management Area

Management Area Boundary

Forest Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 27% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 31% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 2% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 27% Summer Non-motorized

 40% Backcountry Recreation

 31% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 31% Winter Non-motorized

 66% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 16% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0 1 0.5

Miles

1:155,000
Chapter Four 

Pioneer Landscape 

West Face Management Area 

This area is managed for a mix of forest uses including wood products, livestock grazing, and 

dispersed recreation. 

Much of the recreation setting is semi-primitive except for past timber harvest around the 

road systems of Doolittle, Steel, and Bull creeks. Road access on the north end is limited 

because it includes a river crossing. Roads through the area provide access to the West 

Pioneer Wilderness Study Area. Common recreation activities are hunting, camping, hiking, 

horseback trail trips, and driving. Snowmobiling is popular through areas leading to the West 

Pioneers. Motorized closures in winter protect big game winter range. 

Post and pole harvest, firewood gathering, and cattle grazing continue to be important uses, 

but the general character remains less developed as seen from the Big Hole Valley. 

Doolittle and Squaw Creek are fisheries key watersheds managed to conserve native fish 

populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle riders on roads and trails 

Snowmobilers 

Hunting camps 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

217 
Grasshop per 

Ridge NR

Wise 

Ri ver NRT

Wise River NRT

Pioneer Loop 

N

RT

Wise

River NRT

SkullOdell RNA

Deer

Camp Mtn

Maverick

Mtn

West Pioneer

Wilderness Study Area

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 68% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

100% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

100% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 7% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0 1 0.5

Miles

1:126,720
Chapter Four 

Pioneer Landscape 

219 

West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area Management Area 

This area is managed to protect Wilderness character, and to provide dispersed recreation and 

other forest activities consistent with the designation. 

This Wilderness Study Area was designated, through the 1977 Montana Wilderness Study 

Act, P.L.95-150, for study of the area’s potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. The study resulted in a non-wilderness recommendation in 1981 but the 

designation remains until Congress acts. . 

The area provides a semi-primitive recreation setting in summer and winter. Hunting, stock 

and OHV use on trails are the most common activities. Popular snowmobile trails connect 

the Big Hole Valley through the Warm Springs area to the Scenic Byway. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed and natural fire. 

Doolittle and Squaw Creek are fisheries key watersheds managed to conserve native fish 

populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from fire and other natural events 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Restore areas altered by discontinued uses to a more natural condition 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Manage according to the Montana Wilderness Study Act, P.L.95-150 

Timber harvest is prohibited 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

Tobacco Root Landscape - final 

220 
Forest Plan 

Management Areas 

TOBACCO ROOT LANDSCAPE 

The Tobacco Root Mountains are an island of high peaks, snowy basins, alpine lakes, 

accessible forested slopes and open rolling foothills. These mountains separate the rivers that 

form the Headwaters of the Missouri just miles away. 

The complex geology of the Tobacco Root Mountains is dominated by granite and gneiss, is 

highly mineralized, and is favorable for metallic vein deposits. As a result of this same 

geology, most stream channels are well armored by rocks, steep gradient, and vegetation. 

Vegetation is a mix of grasslands and conifer forests modified due to the discovery of gold in 

Alder Gulch in 1863 and fire suppression. Timber harvest related to early mining and the 

subsequent population boom affected most forest stands in the Tobacco Root Mountains. 

Forested stands occupy more foothill sites at lower elevations than they have in many 

decades. Dry rocky slopes on the northwest end support mountain mahogany, a unique 

habitat on this forest. The largest number of mountain goats in any southwest Montana 

mountain range inhabits the higher elevations. 

In spite of steep terrain, signs of ambitious gold miners from as long ago as the 1860’s and as 

recently as this decade are found in roads, trails, cabins and adits scattered throughout the 

range. Some sites may be historically significant and eligible for listing as historic places. 

Many mining claims were patented, resulting in scattered private in-holdings throughout the 

mountain range. Some claims are being sold as summer home property. 

The south half of Tobacco Root Landscape lies within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Even so, the landscape is far enough from Yellowstone Park to be outside its sphere of 

influence on tourism or wildlife movement. 

The Tobacco Roots serve as the back yard for communities like Bozeman, Sheridan, Ennis, 

McAllister, Pony, and Mammoth. Local use is common and demand for activities like 

firewood cutting, dispersed camping, and a variety of trail opportunities is high. Alpine lakes 

attract both motorized and non-motorized recreationists. Campers find dispersed sites along 

streams and at trailheads and developed campgrounds. In spite of terrain, the Tobacco Roots 

are well served by roads, many of dating back to historic mining. In winter snow depths and 

plowed road access to snow often limit snowmobile and cross-country ski opportunities. 

221 
Queens

Hill

Windy

Pass

Brown Back

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 2% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 84% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 14% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 2% Summer Non-motorized

 48% Backcountry Recreation

 37% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 84% Winter Non-motorized

 2% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter 4 

Tobacco Root Landscape 

Brown Back Management Area 

This area is managed for dispersed recreation, wintering wildlife, and livestock grazing. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive and roaded with low density summer motorized 

access in a mostly natural appearing area. Access to the area is limited by the terrain. Visitors 

are mostly local and regional residents. Recreation use occurs mostly in hunting season and 

is related to roads and trails. Brown Back is non-motorized in winter for wildlife security and 

occasional non-motorized recreation. 

Historic mining has less influence here than in the rest of the mountain range. Some interior 

homesteads and patented claims are being sold as recreational properties. 

Visitors may encounter 

Changes in the vegetation from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicle riders on roads and trails in summer 

Hikers or skiers on trails in winter 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Improve road access to the management area, and the quality of road and trails by 

designating routes and connecting access points 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

223 
Ramshorn

Albro Lake

Lower Twin Sno-tel

Meadow Creek

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 1% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 36% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 4% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 1% Summer Non-motorized

23% Backcountry Recreation

72% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 36% Winter Non-motorized

 60% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 16% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter 4 

Tobacco Root Landscape 

Meadow Creek Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production and a variety of recreation uses. 

Recreation takes place in a mix of roaded and semi-primitive settings with altered and natural 

appearing scenery. Evidence of historic mining is scattered throughout the area. Signs of 

timber harvest related to gold mining have blended into the landscape but some more recent 

harvest units are visible. The Meadow Creek area is easily seen from the Highway 287. 

Dispersed camping, hiking and fishing, ATV travel on primitive roads, and snowmobiling in 

winter are common activities. The few non-motorized trails are popular in summer and fall. 

Recreation use is fairly heavy in all seasons, especially on weekends. Meadow Creek serves 

as the backyard to several subdivisions (Elk Hills, Shining Mountains North, and Washington 

Bar) where homes are scattered through the sagebrush/juniper hills. The area is close to 

McAllister and Ennis and receives day use from both communities as well as 

Bozeman/Gallatin County area yearlong. The area north of Sureshot Lakes is closed to 

motorized use in winter to provide opportunities for skiing accessible from South Willow 

Creek and to provide wildlife security. 

Active watershed restoration may take place in parts of this management area within the 

South Willow Creek watershed. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Roads for timber harvest 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and winter 

Remnants of historic mining and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Provide separate loop opportunities for motorized and non-motorized use 

Reduce risk of fire near private lands in mixed ownership areas and subdivisions through 

vegetation treatments 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

225 
L

o

s

t 

L

a

k

e 

N

R

T

Loise Lake NRT

Windy

Pass

Middle Mountain

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 61% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 91% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 5% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 61% Summer Non-motorized

 31% Backcountry Recreation

 3% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 91% Winter Non-motorized

 4% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter 4 

Tobacco Root Landscape 

Middle Mountain Management Area 

This area is managed to protect roadless characteristics, provide dispersed recreation 

opportunities, and provide secure wildlife habitat. 

Recreation takes place in a semi-primitive setting. This is one of the few places in the 

Tobacco Roots where recreationists can find a quiet non-motorized backcountry experience 

in summer and fall. The entire area is non-motorized in winter to provide high elevation 

winter wildlife security and habitat for mountain goats and other species, and to provide 

opportunities for skiing or snowshoeing. 

Historic mining cabins, adits, and stamp mills are scattered throughout the area. Gold seekers 

still show occasional interest in both patented and unpatented claims in this highly 

mineralized area. The Nicholsen Mine, for example, is occasionally actively mined on the 

west face of Horse Mountain. 

Other land uses include livestock grazing. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from wind, fire, insects, and water events 

Visitors on trails at different times of the year on foot, horseback, or bicycles 

Motor vehicles on roads and some trails in summer 

Remnants of historic mining and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Maintain or enhance roadless characteristics and naturalness 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

No expansion of motorized opportunities 

227 
Lost Lake NRT

Mill Creek Corridor

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 8% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

100% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 8% Winter Non-motorized

 92% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.25 0 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter 4 

Tobacco Root Landscape 

Mill Creek Corridor Management Area 

This area is a travel corridor managed for developed and dispersed camping opportunities 

and motorized uses. 

The recreation setting is mostly roaded and natural appearing with areas of concentrated 

recreation developments. Evidence of historic mining is common, as is current activity. The 

corridor’s proximity to Sheridan makes it a backyard for the community. Scenery is 

important to users of the Mill Creek Road. Development of private in-holdings and patented 

claims in Mill Creek affects the view and setting Developed recreation sites are available at 

Mill Creek, Balanced Rock, and Branham Lakes. The day use areas are frequently full in 

summer and campgrounds receive heavy use in summer and fall hunting season. The corridor 

provides access to non-motorized areas in the Tobacco Root Peaks. In winter, both 

snowmobiles and skiers can recreate in Mill Creek corridor. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Dispersed campsites and campgrounds 

Motor vehicles on roads in spring, summer, and fall 

Snowmobiles and skiers on the road corridor in winter 

Remnants of historic mining and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Maintain the designated snowmobile route on Mill Creek Road 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

229 
Granit

e

Creek

(Off NF)

Ramshorn Lower Twin Sno-tel

Ramshorn

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 21% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 8% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 4% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 21% Summer Non-motorized

 9% Backcountry Recreation

 66% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 8% Winter Non-motorized

 88% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 18% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter 4 

Tobacco Root Landscape 

Ramshorn Management Area 

This area is managed for timber production, road-based recreation, and other forest uses and 

values. 

The recreation setting is roaded in the lower elevations and semi-primitive non-motorized in 

the higher elevations along the crest of the Tobacco Roots. Recreation use is light, and 

limited to activities like firewood cutting, hunting, and recreational driving. Visitors are 

mostly local and regional residents. Lower elevations are relatively snow free in winters, and 

provide non-snow opportunities much of the year. 

There are a number of subdivisions located in the dry foothills below the forest boundary. 

A snowmobile closure protects big game winter range in the Horse Creek – Currant Creek 

foothills. 

California Creek is a fisheries key watershed. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Roads for timber harvest 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer, fall, and winter 

Dispersed campsites along forest roads in summer and fall 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Retain and improve access to roadside dispersed camping sites 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

231 
Lost Lake NRT

Loise Lake NRT

Albro

Lake

Windy

Pass

South Boulder Corridor

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 7% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

38% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

62% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 7% Winter Non-motorized

 54% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter 4 

Tobacco Root Landscape 

South Boulder Corridor Management Area 

This area is managed for concentrated recreation use and road access through National 

Forest. 

The recreation setting is mostly roaded with concentrated areas of dispersed recreation. South 

Boulder serves as a travel corridor providing stunning views of the Tobacco Root peaks and 

as a destination for residents from Mammoth, Cardwell, Whitehall, Bozeman, and beyond. 

Recreation activities include driving, camping, horseback riding, hunting, and fishing in high 

mountain lakes and streams accessible from the corridor. Dispersed camping and trail access 

to non-motorized opportunities in Middle Mountain are available. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and winter 

Dispersed campsites along forest roads 

Developed trailheads for access into the high country 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Designate dispersed sites and where necessary, harden and provide sanitation to minimize 

soil and water impacts 

Reduce risk of wildfire near Mammoth through vegetation treatment 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

233 
Albro

Lake

Lower Twin

Sno-tel

South Willow Corridor

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 29% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 7% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

93% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 29% Winter Non-motorized

 64% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

100% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.25 0 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter 4 

Tobacco Root Landscape

South Willow Corridor Management Area 

This area is managed for concentrated recreation and road access through National Forest. 

The recreation setting is a mix of roaded and semi-primitive settings with concentrated areas of 

recreation development. The South Willow Corridor serves as both a travel corridor and a 

destination for visitors from Pony, Harrison, Bozeman and more distant areas. Views of the 

mountain peaks at the head of South Willow Creek from many points on the corridor and trails 

are stunning. Potosi Campground and other dispersed sites provide visitors the opportunity to 

camp and ride trail vehicles. Snowmobilers ride up the corridor to areas further up the drainage. 

The Camp and Rock creek areas are closed to snowmobiles to create ski and snowshoe 

opportunities from the end of the plowed road. 

There are various homes and structures on private in-holdings around Potosi. The Bungalow 

Group is an authorized recreation residence tract. 

Active watershed restoration may take place in this portion of South Willow Creek 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Dispersed camping along forest roads 

Motor vehicles on roads in spring, summer, and fall 

Snowmobilers and skiers on routes and trails in winter 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Develop access and parking to support winter recreation opportunities 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

235 
Lost Lake NRT

Loise Lake NRT

Queens

Hill

South

Baldy

Ramshorn

Albro

Lake

Lower

Twin

Sno-tel

Windy

Pass

Tobacco Root Peaks

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 38% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 45% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 6% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 38% Summer Non-motorized

 35% Backcountry Recreation

 21% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 45% Winter Non-motorized

 49% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 9% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 23% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter 4 

Tobacco Root Landscape 

Tobacco Root Peaks Management Area 

This area is managed for dispersed recreation and secure high elevation wildlife habitat. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive with natural appearing scenery. Traces of current and 

historic mining are common on patented ground and mining claims. Opportunities are 

provided for motorized access to some mountain lakes and alpine areas, while others are 

accessible only by foot, horse, or mountain bike. Both motorized and non-motorized winter 

recreation is also well established in some of the high basins and slopes. Motorized closures 

in selected high elevations habitat provide wildlife security, primarily for mountain goats and 

remote backcountry winter recreation opportunities. 

Because of inholdings and proximity to the forest boundary, the setting in some areas is 

roaded. Past mining activity and private development alters some locations even more. 

Watershed restoration activities, including vegetation management, may take place in the 

South Willow Creek watershed. Indian Creek is a fisheries key watershed. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and open motorized trails in summer and fall 

Hikers, skiers, or horseback riders on trails 

Remnants of historic mining and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock at lower elevations 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Retain opportunities for challenging full size four-wheel driving while mitigating impacts 

to soil and water 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - Very High 

237 
Lost Lake NRT

Loise Lake

N

RT

Wisconsin Creek

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 35% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 16% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 6% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 35% Summer Non-motorized

 18% Backcountry Recreation

 40% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 16% Winter Non-motorized

 78% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 16% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.5 0.25 0 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter 4 

Tobacco Root Landscape 

239 

Wisconsin Creek Management Area 

This area is managed for dispersed recreation and other resource uses. 

The recreation setting is roaded and semi-primitive with mostly natural appearing scenery. 

Evidence of historic mining is common, as is current activity. Recreation use tied to the roads 

and trails in various drainages which provide routes to the high alpine lakes of the Tobacco 

Root Peaks Management Area. Visitors are often just passing through to other destinations, 

except in winter and early spring. During those seasons recreationists use the area because it 

is relatively snow free and accessible. The area south of Wisconsin Creek is closed to 

motorized use in winter to provide opportunities for non-motorized recreation and 

compliment secure blocks of high elevation winter wildlife habitat connecting to the Tobacco 

Root Peaks. 

Indian Creek is a fisheries key watershed. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer, fall, and winter 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Retain opportunities for full sized four-wheel drive vehicles while mitigating impacts to 

soil and water 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 
Forest Plan 

Management Areas 

240 
Chapter Four 

Upper Clark Fork Landscape 

UPPER CLARK FORK LANDSCAPE 

The Upper Clark Fork is one of three landscapes located on the Pacific side of the 

Continental Divide. Vegetation is dominated by lodgepole pine forests. The headwaters of 

the Clark Fork River, a tributary of the Columbia River, originate in the forested highlands 

surrounding Butte. Mountain goats live in the Highland Mountains. Elk in addition to moose, 

and other wildlife are also found in the area.. Many of the streams contain bull trout and 

westslope cutthroat trout. 

The Upper Clark Fork Basin contains the Butte urban area and the forest is its playground. 

Land ownership is mixed along the forest fringe. This provides particular management 

challenges, with private homes and patented mining claims mixed in with forested vegetation 

and various access needs. The city and county administrators of Butte-Silver Bow take great 

interest in forest management because of the traditional interdependence between the 

community and surrounding lands. 

Mining was the reason for settlement of this area. Remnants of the mining culture provide 

historic features which visually dominate some valley and hillsides. Streams, soils, 

vegetation, and landform have been altered by mining. Nearly all present conifer stands are 

regenerated clear-cuts from over a century ago. Some forested areas have been logged a 

second time. Mining and timber harvest continue within the landscape, but their contribution 

to the local economy has declined. 

The Forest contributes to the scenic backdrop around Butte. The landscape is the smallest on 

the forest, yet the level of development and recreation use is high. Recreation tends toward 

day use gatherings, picnicking, and trail outings. 

241 
CDNST

CDNST

C DNST

C

D

N

ST

CDNST

CDN ST

CDNST

CDNST

Basin

Creek

RNA

Donald

R Site

Backyard Butte

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 34% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 55% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 9% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 34% Summer Non-motorized

 2% Backcountry Recreation

 55% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 55% Winter Non-motorized

 36% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 58% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Upper Clark Fork Landscape 

Backyard Butte Management Area 

This area is managed for concentrated recreation and other resource uses. 

The recreation settings include rural, roaded, and semi-primitive areas. Areas of private land 

are intermixed with Forest lands. A mix of motorized and non-motorized recreation 

opportunities are optimized for local citizens year around. Thompson Park, along the 

Continental Divide, and Old Milwaukee Rails to Trails are non-motorized routes and the 

Moulton Cross-Country Ski Trails are groomed by the local club. The East Ridge serves as a 

scenic backdrop for the city and scenic base for the Lady of the Rockies, located on private 

land. 

The mix of ownership leads to local concern about fuels buildup around homes and in 

municipal watersheds. Responsibility for managing the municipal water supply and the 

Thompson Park Municipal Recreation Area is shared with Butte-Silver Bow Consolidated 

City-County Government (BSCCCG). Recreation residence tracts are authorized here. 

Winter non-motorized allocations provide wildlife security above the East Ridge. South of 

Butte, the allocation provides wildlife security as well as a place for quiet recreation 

accessible from town. 

Vegetation is managed to provide wood products, reduce fuels, and produce forage for 

livestock and wildlife. Blacktail and Columbia Gulch are fisheries key watersheds, managed 

to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Roads for timber harvest 

Hikers, picnickers and skiers concentrated in developed areas and on trails 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails 

Remnants of historic mining and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Develop a master plan for Thompson Park in cooperation with BSCCCG to ensure 

community needs are met in addition to federal regulations for NFS management 

Reduce risk of wildfire to private property by managing vegetation and fuel loads in 

wildland urban interface 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

243 
C

D

N

S

T

CD NST

CDNST CDNST CDNST C DNST

CDNST

Basin

Creek

RNA

Basin

Creek

Basin Creek Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Travel Restrictions

 74% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 76% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 10% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 74% Summer Non-motorized

 5% Backcountry Recreation

 11% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 76% Winter Non-motorized

 14% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.25 0 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Upper Clark Fork Landscape 

Basin Creek Management Area 

This area is managed to protect water quality within a designated Class A watershed. Entry 

into a portion of the area is prohibited yearlong by a closure order for the protection of public 

health and safety. 

The setting is a mix of roaded and semi-primitive; however, recreation use is not encouraged. 

Exceptions are the Highland (Moose Creek) Road which traverses the east side, Trail #108 

on the west side, and the CDNST along the upper boundary. 

Winter non-motorized allocations provide wildlife security and protect water quality. 

Activities above the Basin Creek Dam are restricted to those which contribute to watershed 

protection. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Livestock grazing is not allowed 

New permanent roads or trails are not allowed 

245 
CDNST

CDNST

Kit Carson Pk

Butte North

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 18% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 82% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 82% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 28% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 2% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Upper Clark Fork Landscape 

Butte North Management Area 

This area is managed for timber harvest, livestock grazing and dispersed recreation. 

Recreation takes place in a roaded setting with a mix of modified and natural appearing 

scenery. Recreation opportunities are dispersed and motorized. Most of the recreation use is 

motorized. Snowmobile use in winter is common. One route is groomed. The area is 

important to local residents for fall hunting. Along with the neighboring management areas it 

is considered a part of Butte’s backyard. 

Columbia Gulch is a fisheries key watershed managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on designated roads and trails year-round 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Segregate opportunities for full size highway vehicles and ATVs 

Convert some roads to trails 

Reduce risk of wildfire to private property by managing vegetation and fuel loads in 

wildland urban interface 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

247 
Big Hole

Landscape

Upper Clark Fork Landscape Big Hole Landscape

Upper Clark Fork

Landscape

CDN

ST

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

Wise

River NRT

CDNST

CDNST

CDNST

Beals

Hill

Granulated

Mountain

Lobo

Mesa

Coppertown

FAA VOR

(Off NF)

Bean

Ridge

Repeater

Northeast Fleecer

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Travel Restrictions

 0% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 21% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 5% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 39% Backcountry Recreation

 56% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 21% Winter Non-motorized

 74% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Key Watersheds

 42% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

± 1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Upper Clark Fork Landscape 

249 

Northeast Fleecer Management Area 

This area is managed for dispersed recreation; secure fall and winter wildlife habitat, and 

other resource uses. 

The recreation setting is a mix of roaded and semi-primitive with a few exceptions to the 

natural appearing scenery, including Beal Mine. Proximity to Butte and Anaconda make this 

area attractive for a day of challenging motorized trail riding in summer and winter. 

Motorized loop trails cross this portion of the Fleecer Range and connect to the Continental 

Divide National Scenic Trail. Hunting is the biggest use, with some of the highest hunter 

densities in the State. Dispersed camping is common along Forest roads, especially near 

streams and riparian zones. 

Vegetation management provides wood products and forage for livestock and big game. 

The area provides supplemental secure wildlife habitat adjacent to two wildlife management 

areas. Travel is regulated to provide late fall and winter security for elk. Winter nonmotorized allocations protect winter elk security adjacent to Fleecer Mountain Wildlife 

Management Area. 

German Gulch is a Key Fish Watershed managed to conserve natural fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Roads for timber harvest 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails year-round 

Scattered campsites along roads 

Remnants of historic mining and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Manage, harden and designate dispersed camping sites to concentrate campers and reduce 

impact to soils and aquatic resources 

Provide a separate loop opportunity for non-motorized use 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

Landscape map 

250 
Chapter Four 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape 

UPPER ROCK CREEK LANDSCAPE 

The Upper Rock Creek landscape is characterized by high rocky peaks on the south and more 

rounded and forested yet steep mountain summits along its western edge. Vegetation in 

Upper Rock Creek varies from open grasslands in the lower elevations to whitebark pine and 

subalpine larch at the timberline. Ponderosa pine is a minor component but is unique on this 

Forest and provides habitat for flammulated owls. 

Lodgepole pine dominates, and most of the lodgepole community type consists of large 

blocks of mature forest. Douglas-fir grows on the sunnier south and west facing slopes, and 

subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce grow along stream bottoms and shadier north and east 

aspects. The landscape provides secure habitat for wide ranging wildlife species between the 

Sapphire Mountains to the south and Garnet Range to the north. Bighorn sheep, mountain 

goats, elk, moose and many other wildlife species live here. Rock Creek supports relatively 

strong populations of native trout, notably bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout. Rock 

Creek and all major tributary streams are designated important habitat for bull trout, and 

figures prominently in the recovery plan for this species listed under the Endangered Species 

Act. 

Most of the area along Rock Creek itself is under the jurisdiction of the Lolo National Forest 

but the upper forks draining into Rock Creek are administered by the Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest. Nearly one third of National Forest System lands in upper Rock Creek are a 

part of the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness or the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area. Rock Creek 

is a national class one trout stream, and segments are managed as eligible for National 

Recreational River designation on both the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Lolo National 

Forests. 

Many people place recreation and aesthetics as the highest value of this landscape. Rock 

Creek is a destination for a wide range of recreational pursuits. There are numerous 

developed and dispersed camping sites and trailheads. The quality of the fishing experience 

draws anglers from around the world, and many from Missoula. Big game hunting, camping, 

hiking, horseback riding, pleasure driving, and snowmobiling draw visitors to Rock Creek. 

The landscape serves as both provider and refuge for the surrounding communities in 

Granite, Deer Lodge, Missoula and Ravalli counties. 

251 
CDNST

Dexter

Basin RNA

Windy

Ridge

RNA

Petersen

Meadows

East Fork

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 11% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 14% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 13% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 11% Summer Non-motorized

 6% Backcountry Recreation

 70% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 14% Winter Non-motorized

 73% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 58% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

# Existing

" Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

1 0.5 0

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape 

East Fork Management Area 

This area is managed for native fish conservation, recreation, and livestock grazing. 

The recreation setting is mostly roaded with some semi-primitive areas bordering the 

Anaconda Pintler Recommended Wilderness. The area provides a transition between the 

development around Georgetown Lake and primitive areas in the Anaconda Pintler 

Wilderness. East Fork Campground and East Fork Reservoir are popular recreation 

destinations for those seeking a less crowded experience. Dispersed camping and big game 

hunting are also popular activities. The area is a popular with snowmobilers and provides 

groomed trails. The east side of the drainage is closed to motorized use in winter to protect 

big game winter range. 

Other land uses include livestock grazing and water storage for irrigation at East Fork 

Reservoir. Vegetation may be managed for watershed restoration or a number of other 

resource objectives like livestock forage production. 

Meadow Creek is a fisheries key watershed managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer, fall, and winter 

Campers and visitors at trailheads for the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

253 
CDNST

Dexter

Basin RNA

Sapphire

Divide RNA

Middle Fork

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

12% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

20% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 11% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 12% Summer Non-motorized

 18% Backcountry Recreation

 59% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 20% Winter Non-motorized

 69% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

100% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.50 0.51

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape 

Middle Fork Management Area 

This area is managed for native fish conservation and recreation. 

The recreation setting ranges from roaded at lower elevations, to semi-primitive nonmotorized at higher elevations against the Wilderness and Wilderness Study Area, and 

includes altered to natural appearing scenery consistent with the settings. The area is popular 

for fishing, hunting, and both motorized and non-motorized recreation. It contains the Copper 

Creek Campground and Wilderness trailheads. Frog Pond Basin is a destination for 

snowmobiling. 

Moose Lake is an exception to the setting where historic mining resulted in private inholdings with a number of cabins occupied seasonally and year round. Recreation residences 

are authorized on Forest Service lands in the same area. 

The entire management area is important for habitat for bull trout and managed as a key 

fisheries watershed. Vegetation may be managed a variety of resource objectives. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Campers dispersed along roads near Middle Fork and Copper creeks. 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer, fall, and winter 

Developed trailheads for access to higher elevations 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Manage, harden and designate dispersed camping sites to concentrate campers and reduce 

impact to soils and aquatic resources 

Restore vigor in riparian willow communities where willow is declining 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

255 
Silver

King

Black Pine

Sno-tel

Black Pine

Lookout

Quigg

Recommended Wilderness

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape 

Quigg Recommended Wilderness Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and to provide recreation with high 

levels of challenge and solitude. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive non-motorized and natural appearing. The area 

provides opportunities for challenging primitive recreation, all non-motorized. The Quigg 

area is managed in conjunction with an adjacent roadless area on the Lolo National Forest. 

Visitors access the area from the Rock Creek road through the Lolo NF. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed and natural fire. Other ecosystem 

components are regulated primarily by natural processes and events. Wildlife security is 

important along the top of this mountain range and benefits from motorized prohibitions in 

this area. 

Visitors may encounter 

Quiet natural landscapes 

Native vegetation changes from fire and other natural events 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

The Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – Very High 

Management changes if released from wilderness designation 

Semi-primitive non-motorized summer and winter 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

Mountain bikes are allowed 

257 
Sapph

ire

Divide RNA

Emerine

Repeater

Ross Fork

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 30% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 18% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 18% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 30% Summer Non-motorized

 13% Backcountry Recreation

 39% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 18% Winter Non-motorized

 64% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

100% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites # Existing " Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

±

0.5 0.250 0.5

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape 

Ross Fork Management Area 

This area is managed for native fish conservation, dispersed recreation, and secure winter 

wildlife habitat. 

Recreation takes place in a mix of semi-primitive and roaded settings. Low standard roads 

off the primary access are located in minimally roaded lands between the non-motorized area 

and private lands. Non-motorized trails connect to the Wilderness Study Area. This area is 

popular for big game hunting. Medicine Lake is a popular recreation destination in both 

summer and winter. Roads and trails provide access to snowmobile play areas. 

A winter closure protects big game winter range. 

The entire management area is important for habitat for bull trout and managed as a fisheries 

key watershed. Vegetation may be managed a variety of resource objectives. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and some trails in summer, fall, and winter 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Maintain opportunities for primitive 4-wheel driving routes 

Restore vigor in riparian willow communities where willows are declining 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

259 
CDNST

CDNST CDNST

Sapphire

Divide RNA

West Fork Buttes

Botanical Area

proposed SIA

Senate

Mtn

Emerine

Repeater

Sapphires

Wilderness Study Area

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Non-FS Inholding

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

 91% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 78% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

100% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 78% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 22% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

100% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape 

Sapphire Mountains Wilderness Study Area Management Area 

This area is managed to protect Wilderness character, and to provide dispersed recreation and 

other activities consistent with the designation. 

This Wilderness Study Area was designated in 1977 (P.L.95-150), to study the potential for 

inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System. It is part of both the 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Bitterroot national forest. Wilderness characteristics were 

assessed in the 2006 Wilderness Study Area Characteristic Study assessment housed at the 

Forest Supervisor’s Office. 

The recreation setting is semi-primitive with predominantly natural appearing scenery. 

Summer non-motorized trails and a few miles of motorized trails are provided including 

portions of Trail #313. The semi-primitive motorized setting is based on motorized use 

existence prior to 1977. Big game hunting and snowmobiling, particularly around Frog Pond 

Basin, are popular 

The entire management area is a fish key watershed important for bull trout habitat. 

Vegetation is managed through prescribed and natural fire. Other ecosystem components are 

regulated by natural processes and events. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from fire and other natural events 

Motorized use on specific trails in summer and fall 

Snowmobilers 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Develop an historic preservation plan for the traditional cultural property to ensure 

protection and consistent management with the Bitterroot National Forest 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Trail #313: Motorized use will conform to Bitterroot National Forest direction from Frog 

Pond Basin to the north and west 

Trail #313: Motorized use is permitted from Frog Pond Basin to O’Brien Mine. 

Trail #313: Motorized use is prohibited from O’Brien Mine south. 

Manage according to the Montana Wilderness Study Act, P.L.95-150 

Timber harvest is prohibited 

The Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

261 
West Fork Buttes

Botanical Area

proposed SIA

Stony

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 18% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 56% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 7% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 18% Summer Non-motorized

 3% Backcountry Recreation

 72% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 56% Winter Non-motorized

 37% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 43% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape 

Stony Management Area 

This area is managed for native fish conservation, recreation, and secure winter wildlife 

habitat. 

The recreation setting ranges from roaded to semi-primitive non-motorized. Rock Creek runs 

through part of this Management Area. Vestiges of historic mining can be seen throughout 

the area. Bighorn sheep can be viewed from the Rock Creek Road. Stony Creek Campground 

provides developed camping opportunities along the Forest boundary. The east half of the 

area provides road based recreation. The south and west portions lie adjacent to the Stony 

Recommended Wilderness and provide access to non-motorized trail opportunities. 

Winter range for big game, including bighorn sheep, is protected through winter travel 

closures. Vegetation may be managed for a variety of resource objectives. 

Stony Creek is a fisheries key watershed managed to conserve native fish populations. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer and fall 

Campers dispersed along roads and in campgrounds 

Historic mining remnants and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Harden, close, or improve dispersed and developed recreation sites to reduce impact to 

soils and aquatic resources 

Control weeds in bunchgrass communities to protect areas value as forage for bighorn 

sheep and big game 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

263 
West Fork Buttes

Botanical Area

proposed SIA

Emerine

Repeater

Stony

Recommended Wilderness

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

100% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

100% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 0% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

100% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 0% Summer Non-motorized

 0% Backcountry Recreation

 0% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 0% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

100% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

1 0.5 0 1

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape 

Stony Recommended Wilderness Management Area 

This area is managed to protect wilderness characteristics and to provide yearlong recreation 

with high levels of challenge and solitude. 

This area is contiguous with roadless areas on the Lolo and Bitterroot National Forest and the 

Skalkaho Game Preserve. The recreation setting is semi-primitive and natural appearing. 

Hunting is the most common activity in the area. Visitors travel by foot or on horseback. 

Access is available from Rock Creek road and the Skalkaho highway. 

Vegetation is managed primarily through prescribed or natural fire. Other ecosystem 

components are regulated by natural processes and events. 

Visitors may encounter 

Native vegetation changes from fire and other natural events 

Wildlife including forest carnivores 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective – Very High 

Management changes if released from wilderness designation 

Semi-primitive non-motorized summer and winter 

Minimum Scenic Integrity Objective - High 

Mountain bikes are allowed 

265 
Silver

King

Black

Pine

Lookout

Upper Willow

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Travel Restrictions

 11% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 0% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 3% Non-FS Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 11% Summer Non-motorized

 44% Backcountry Recreation

 42% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 0% Winter Non-motorized

 97% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

 0% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way 1 0.5

0

Miles

1:63,360
Chapter Four 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape 

Upper Willow Management Area 

This area is managed for dispersed recreation and other resource uses. 

Recreation takes place in settings ranging from mostly roaded on the south end to semiprimitive non-motorized on the north end. The most common recreational activities are big 

game hunting and dispersed camping. A county road lies on the east side of Upper Willow 

Creek and an administratively closed Forest Service road runs along the creek on the west 

side. Historic mining and homesteading in the valley bottoms and some upland areas have 

resulted in private lands surrounded by Forest lands. One recreation residence lot is 

authorized in this area. 

Vegetation may be managed for a number of resource objectives, including livestock forage 

production. Some areas remain non-motorized to provide secure areas in summer and fall for 

wildlife movement. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer, fall, and winter 

Dispersed campsites along roads 

Historic mining remnants and current mining activity or reclamation 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

None 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

267 
Sapphire

Divide RNA

West Fork Buttes

Botanical Area

proposed SIA

Emerine

Repeater

West Fork Rock Creek

Management Area

Forest Boundary

Management Area Boundary

Research Natural Areas (RNA's)

National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation Trails

Eligible Wild, Scenic, & Recreation Rivers

Eligible Wild Segments

Eligible Scenic Segments

Eligible Recreation Segments

Travel Restrictions

49% Summer Motorized Travel Not Allowed

 7% Winter Motorized Travel Not Allowed

Recreation Allocations

 12% Inholding

 0% Wilderness

 0% Recommended Wilderness

 Summer

 49% Summer Non-motorized

 3% Backcountry Recreation

 36% Road-based

 0% Wilderness Study Area

 Winter

 7% Winter Non-motorized

 81% Winter Motorized Recreation

 0% Wilderness Study Area Winter Non-motorized

 0% Wilderness Study Area

Key Watersheds

100% Fisheries Key Watersheds

 0% Restoration Key Waterhseds

Communication Sites

Existing

Proposed

Utility Rights of Way

Forest Declared Corridor

Existing Occupied Right-of-Way

0.50 0.51

Miles

1:100,000
Chapter Four 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape 

West Fork Rock Creek Management Area 

This area is managed for native fish conservation, dispersed recreation, and secure winter 

wildlife habitat. 

The recreation setting is roaded through the Skalkaho Highway corridor and on low elevation 

forested slopes. Much of the remaining area is semi-primitive non-motorized. The Skalkaho 

Highway, Montana Highway 38, is a popular summer road and winter snowmobile trail. 

Sand Basin and Burnt Fork on the Bitterroot National Forest are popular snowmobile play 

areas. Crystal Creek Campground and Mud Lake Fishing Access provide developed 

recreation opportunities. 

The entire management area is important for habitat for bull trout and managed as a fisheries 

key watershed. Vegetation may be managed a variety of resource objectives. 

Visitors may encounter 

Vegetation changes from timber harvest or fire 

Motor vehicles on roads and trails in summer, fall, and winter 

Dispersed camping is popular along Sand Basin Creek and the West Fork of Rock Creek. 

Livestock 

Objectives in addition to Forestwide Objectives 

Restore vigor in riparian willow communities where willows are declining 

Standards in addition to Forestwide Standards 

None 

269 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Management Areas 

270 
CHAPTER 5 - MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The purpose of monitoring and evaluation is to evaluate, document and report how well the 

forest plan is applied, how well it works, and if the purpose and direction remain appropriate. 

Monitoring determines actual conditions and circumstances and compares them with 

assumptions and desired results. Evaluation examines conditions as a result of management, 

identifies the reason desired conditions are not met and proposes alternative solutions. 

Adaptive management allows the use of alternative solutions to meet desired conditions. It 

includes defining measurable objectives, monitoring, learning and making changes, and 

recognizing uncertainties of outcomes. Monitoring and evaluating the effects of forest plan 

implementation is critical to adaptive management. Other components include inventory, 

assessment, planning, and implementation. 

Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy 

Forest plan monitoring and evaluation strategy is straightforward and tightly focused on 

critical goals and objectives laid out in the plan. Elements will include requirements from the 

National Forest Management Act, as well as other pertinent laws and regulations. 

Through monitoring and evaluation requirements in past forest plans it became apparent that 

budgets constrain the amount of monitoring and data collection accomplished. As a result a 

secondary goal was developed to keep requirements within current budget and workforce 

limitations. Monitoring and evaluation questions were further refined using the following 

criteria to establish priority items. Each of the questions responds to at least one of the 

following drivers.

1. New untested management assumptions (implementation of new concepts like key 

watersheds). 

2. Large gap identified between existing and desired conditions (aspen cover is currently 

less than 20% of the low end of the historic range of variation for aspen). 

3. Critical system components could be affected (riparian function). 

4. Unacceptable consequences from lack of information (occupation of habitats by 

invasive species). 

5. Key issue for the public (travel management and specifically, motorized closures). 

6. Legal compliance (sufficient stocking of suitable timber lands). 

7. National strategic plan component (Goals & Objectives as described in Fiscal Years 

2004 through 2008). 

Performance measures and methodologies were selected with the following principles in 

mind. 

271 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

• Keep it simple and relevant to the purpose. 

• Keep it adaptive. Systems are always in a state of flux, as is the imprint of 

management on such systems 

• Keep it affordable. Use corporate data and standardized national protocols 

when available, (FIA, NVUM, Region 1 Aquatic Monitoring, etc). 

• Recognize that systems are interrelated. Select components of systems that 

can tell more than one story. 

• Look for trends over long periods, not snapshots in time. The goal of resource 

management is resilience. The intent is to maintain the capacity of systems to 

renew themselves and thrive, not just survive for a time. 

• Describe what to measure but don’t prescribe a specific technique unless it is 

tied to corporate data or standardized national protocols. Science improves, 

methodologies change. 

Additional screening considerations for methodologies include: availability of baseline data, 

availability of protocols/methods, scale and extent, precision and reliability, sufficiency to 

address the indicator, availability of partners, utility for analysis and evaluation, 

appropriateness of scale, frequency of measurement, and technical requirements 

Monitoring identified in this section does not include monitoring conducted in compliance 

with other laws, policies, and site-specific decisions. Examples are compliance with the 

Environmental Management Systems (EMS), Biological Opinion for bull trout, the 

Settlement Agreement for the Beaverhead Riparian Grazing Lawsuit, progress toward 

removing streams from the State’s 303D list, and project implementation monitoring. 

Forest Plan Evaluation and Reports 

Forest plan evaluation uses information gathered during monitoring to judge how decisions 

have been applied and how effective they have been. It describes what has been learned 

along the way and how valid the assumptions are that led to those decisions. 

The Forest Supervisor will maintain monitoring information for public review and will 

evaluate it on a periodic basis to determine, among other things, the need for amendment or 

revision of the forest plan. Implementation of objectives and standards will be tracked and 

reported annually. Effectiveness of goals will be measured and reported every five years, 

unless the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Supervisor determines a shorter timeframe is 

warranted for some evaluations. It is difficult to discern trends in forestwide conditions in 

less than five years. A formal five year comprehensive evaluation report will provide a 

review of monitoring questions and regulatory review requirements, including any 

recommendations for changes. 

If the Five Year Comprehensive Evaluation Report concludes monitoring questions are not 

being answered by the performance measure, or the desired trend is not being achieved, 

further action will be taken. The results of the evaluation will lead to a decision about further 

action of the following types: 

272 
Chapter Five 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

273 

• Refer the problem to the appropriate line officer for improvement of the 

application of the management practice; 

• Modify the management practice as a forest plan amendment; 

• Modify the land management prescription as a forest plan amendment; 

• Modify the performance measure so it better answers the question; 

• Revise the projected outputs; 

• Revise the cost/unit projection, or 

• Initiate revision of the forest plan. 

Monitoring will be adaptive. The Five-Year Comprehensive Evaluation Report may conclude 

new information, such as science, technology, or legal requirements, requires addition or 

modification of monitoring questions. Recommendations for changing monitoring elements 

will meet the criteria and principles outlined in the previous section of this chapter. 

MONITORING ELEMENTS 

The following table displays the monitoring plan for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan. 

This monitoring plan reflects important forest plan decisions. It includes nine areas of focus 

linking key goals and objectives to elements of the National Monitoring and Evaluation 

Framework and Northern Region Monitoring Framework. The intent is to answer regional 

and national monitoring questions as well as forest plan questions. 

For each area questions are posed along with one or more performance measures. The table 

addresses requirements from the 36 CFR 219.12(k) (4) of 1982, and includes: 

• The actions, effects or resources to be measured, and the frequency of 

measurements; 

• Expected precision and reliability of the monitoring process 

• Timeframes for evaluation and reporting. 

Because data precision and reliability are tied to specific procedures and methods that 

change, updates of the Forest Monitoring Section will be made to take that into account. 

Monitoring and evaluation is planned for each area described in the table, but actual budget 

levels, funding emphasis, and emergence of new issues may affect accomplishment. Even 

with changes in funding tied to current issues, monitoring and evaluation are expected to 

show some movement toward objectives in each focus area. Partnerships will be developed 

to accomplish more monitoring and evaluation. 
M

Table 15. Forest Monitoring and Evaluation FormatPlan Component Monitoring Question Performance Measure Possible Data Sources 

Meand Fre

Soil Water and Air Resources 

Watershed Health 

1 GOAL (watersheds) 

Is the ecological condition of watersheds improving on the forest? 

Percent of watersheds in functioning status or improving trend, measured by changes in key characteristics identified in Forest Plan objectives, by 6th code HUC 

R1 Aquatic Monitoring and analysis. 30 random response reach sample points reread every 6th year - NRIS data base 

monitored by RMRS Regional 5-year report. 

M – R – 

2 GOAL (key watersheds) 

Have restoration activities identified through watershed assessment resulted in improved watershed condition? 

Percent of key watersheds in functioning status or improving trend, measured by changes in key characteristics identified in Forest Plan objectives, by 6th code HUCs 

Intensify R1 Aquatic Monitoring and analyses by adding sample points in the lowest response reach of each watershed with a completed assessment and project list. 

M – R – 

3 OBJECTIVE (watershed analysis) 

Are restoration and conservation activities focused in priority (key) watersheds? 

Number of watershed plans completed, number and type of projects completed in key and other watersheds. 

Report annual accomplishments of plans and projects. 

M– R – 

4 GOAL (stream channels) 

Are stream and riparian conditions improving? 

Percent of stream channels functioning or in upward trend. 

Reread stream and riparian transects at 5-year intervals, representing key watersheds and management activities. Allotment inspection notes on compliance with grazing standards. 

M – R – 

274 
M

Me

Plan Component Monitoring Question Performance Measure Possible Data Sources and 

Fre

5 GOAL (watersheds) 

Are management activities effectively maintaining conditions for native species reproduction? 

Changes in abundance of populations of the mayfly (drunella dodsii) as an indication of changing sediment levels. 

Sampling points on response reaches of sub-watersheds selected to represent potential sediment producing activities or restoration activities.

M – R – 

6 LEGAL (land productivity, 1982 36 CFR 219.12 (k)(2)) 

Are soil and water conservation practices (BMPs) being implemented during project work and are they resulting in protection of water quality and beneficial uses? 

BMPs implemented and percent rated effective 

Annual review of at least one project, including fuels reduction, timber harvest, minerals and grazing. Compare BMPs prescribed by EA, EIS or contract, to see if BMPs were followed and were effective 

M – R – 

7 GOAL (Soil productivity) 

How are management actions maintaining soil quality? 

Effects of treatments on areas treated. 

Inspection reports, daily diaries resource compliance monitoring, BMP monitoring and evaluation 

M – R – 

Biological Diversity Ecosystem Diversity 8 GOAL (Biodiversity) 

What is the current condition and trend for key characteristics of vegetation diversity identified in the forest plan? 

Changes and trends in vegetation composition and structure forestwide. Measure by changes in forest dominance types by size class, distribution and density of sagebrush in sagebrush/grasslands, percent of old growth, number of snags, and tons of coarse woody debris. Broad scale Regional change for key characteristics. 

Inventory based on FIA national inventory and/or other local Forestwide or project level inventories Region One 5 year monitoring summaries compiled forestwide, and by section or province where appropriate. 

M – sooR – M – R – 

275 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Me

Plan Component Monitoring Question Performance Measure Possible Data Sources and 

Fre

9 OBJECTIVE (Forested vegetation) 

Are management activities restoring aspen at the rate projected in the forest plan? 

Acres of aspen restored (treated or converted by wildfire). 

Acres treated from accomplishment reports (FACTS), acres converted from FIA 

M - R - 

10 OBJECTIVE (Grassland/Shrubland) 

Are management activities restoring grassland/shrublands at the rate projected in the forest plan? 

Acres of encroachment species treated (all methods) or converted by wildfire 

Acres treated annually from accomplishment reports (FACTS), acres converted using post burn surveys or FIA 

M - R - 

Species Diversity 

11 OBJECTIVE (Reference populations sensitive plants) 

Are we maintaining static or upward trends in globally designated 1, 2 & 3 sensitive plants (downward trend drives Conservation Strategy)? 

Change in cover or number of plants. 

Plant survey. M - 

R - 

12 GOAL (Sagegrouse) 

Are management activities affecting sage grouse brood rearing habitat? 

Acres of sagebrush cover affected by scheduled vegetation treatments on BDNF lands within 18 km of historic or active leks. 

Annual reports on lek locations obtained from partners (local sage grouse working groups) and MTFWP. Acres treated from accomplishment reports (FACTS) 

M - R - 

13 Goal (Elk Habitat) 

How are populations of elk changing? 

Population data for elk from Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks 

Annual MTFWP reports on animal numbers and licenses issued. 

M – R – 

276 
M

Me

Plan Component Monitoring Question Performance Measure Possible Data Sources and 

Fre

14 Goal (Wildlife Security) *row below 

Are management activities effectively protecting high elevation winter habitats for mountain goats and wolverines? 

Populations of mountain goats from MT Fish Wildlife & Parks. Number of snowmobile entries into non-motorized high elevation units protected for wolverines and mountain goats. Presence or absence of wolverines in high elevation habitats. 

Annual MTFWP reports on animal numbers and licenses issued. Results of aerial observation flights and field observations. Bait stations, DNA testing, and track surveys obtained from MT FWP and other partners. 

M – R - 

*The Mount Jefferson Recommended Wilderness boundary will be monitored for illegal snowmobile intrusions into the wolverine habmonitored during the period open to snowmobiles December 2 to May 15 and any other time of the year snow conditions make snowmdistance of intrusions into the closed area will be recorded. A reassessment of the decision to allow snowmobile use will be triggered if

(1) Illegal intrusions are documented throughout the closure period. (2) Illegal intrusions penetrate the closed area. (3) Illegal intrusions extend as far as the BLM Wilderness Study Area. 

15 GOAL (secure habitat) 

Are road and trail densities trending toward goals described by landscape? 

Change in open motorized road and trail density for both seasons by landscape. 

Forest Road and Trail inventory (GIS) 

M - R – 

Land Health and Vitality 

Invasive Species 

16 OBJECTIVE –(noxious weeds) 

Are management actions preventing or controlling new and existing infestations of weeds? 

Change in acres of known noxious weed infestations. Number of sites of new species and extent. 

Forest data base FACTS, NRIS, eventually FIA. Annual review of reports of known species and locations 

M - R - 

Native Insects and Pathogens 

277 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Me

Plan Component Monitoring Question Performance Measure Possible Data Sources and 

Fre

17 LEGAL (insects and disease , 1982 36 CFR 219.12(k)(5)(iv) 

Are levels of insect and disease increasing to damaging levels as a result of management activities?

Changes in acres infested by landscape, % change on the forest compared to the Region. 

Results of Regional Forest Health Program 

M - R - 

Resilience to Fire Disturbance 

18 OBJECTIVE (Wildland Urban Interface) 

Are fuels reduction projects being implemented in high risk urban interface areas? 

Acres in wildland urban interface areas (WUI) of reduced fuel loadings and crown fire risk. 

Acres of WUI acres treated based on targets and accomplishments (FACTS Database) 

M - R - 

Social Benefits Recreation opportunities 

and settings 

19 GOALS (allocations, opportunities) 

Is the BDNF providing desired recreation opportunities? 

Change in visitor numbers, activities, demographics, and satisfaction. 

Compare 5 year National Visitor Use Monitoring survey and report data for the forest. Available 2005, 2010, 2015) 

M - R - 

20 GOAL (opportunities) 

Are management actions resulting in the desired recreation settings? 

Change in percent of Forest in each recreation allocation and ROS class. 

Map and tabulate current ROS, compare to 2005 baseline ROS and FEIS predicted ROS for selected alternative. Compare ROS to allocations. 

M – R – 

Emerging Issues 

21 ALL PLAN COMPONENTS 

How is new information (science, technology, requirements) changing monitoring or the Plan? 

Research and science findings, monitoring evaluation findings, legal and other requirements. 

RMRS, Universities, Annual Monitoring Reports, Regional/National Monitoring and Evaluation. 

M – R - 

Heritage Resources 

278 
M

Me

Plan Component Monitoring Question Performance Measure Possible Data Sources and 

Fre

22 STANDARDS (Heritage 1-4) 

Are cultural resources being protected as the forest plan is implemented? Are mitigation measures sufficient to prevent damage to cultural resources from projects? 

Number of projects that protect cultural resources. 

Review up to 10% of projects in the field. 

M - R - 

Economic Benefits Provision of good and 

services 

23 GOAL (economy contribution) 

What is the status and trend of goods and services provided from the forest? 

Quantities of goods and services and the cost of producing them compared to Plan predictions. Contribution of employment and labor income to the 8-county impact area attributable to goods and services provided by the forest. 

Report outputs (i.e. AUMs, Board Feet, visitor use, oil and gas or minerals), payments to counties and budget expenditures using FACTS, INFRA and other corporate databases. Model estimated employment and labor income using outputs, revenues, expenditures above (IMPLAN) 

M –R - M -R - 

Timber Production 

24 GOAL (Lands Suitable for Timber Production) 

Are we maintaining the productivity of suitable timber lands? 

Acres of suitable timber lands under management compared to acres projected by SPECTRUM to keep lands in rotation. 

Acres harvested, regenerated, and thinned on suitable landsAnnual accomplishments from FACTS data base 

M -R - 

279 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

280 

Plan Component Monitoring Question Performance Measure Possible Data Sources 

Meand Fre

Infrastructure Capacity 

Facilities 

25 OBJECTIVE (Recreation Facilities) 

Are we maintaining and reconstructing campgrounds and developed sites on schedule? (30% over the planning period) 

Number of developed sites reconstructed. 

Report based on accomplishment data base 

M- R - 

NFMA compliance 

Stocking of lands Trees/acre, over percent of area 

treated by tree species. (FACTS Database) 

M - treaR - 

Lands suited for timber production Lands identified as not suited for 

timber production examined to determine if they have become suited. 

M 5 R 5 

26 LEGAL (1982 36 CFR ((k)(5)) 

Are we complying with appropriate NFMA requirements? 

Harvest Unit size limits Maximum size limits for harvest 

areas evaluated to determine whether such size limits should be continued. 

M - ROR - 
GLOSSARY 

A 

Adaptive Management: A type of natural resource management in which decisions 

are made and adjusted based on testing, monitoring, evaluation, and incorporating 

new knowledge gained from science or experience as part of an ongoing process. 

Adit: A nearly horizontal passage from the surface in a mine. 

Affected Environment: The natural, physical, and human-related environment 

sensitive to changes as a result of the proposed action. 

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV): A type of off-highway vehicle that travels on three or 

more low-pressure tires; has handle-bar steering; is less than or equal to 50 inches in 

width; and has a seat designed to be straddled by the operator. (FSM 2353.05) 

Allotment (grazing): Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of 

livestock for a prescribed period of time. 

Allotment Management Plan (AMP): A document applying to management of 

rangeland ecosystems and livestock operations on the public lands prescribing: (1) the 

manner in and extent to which livestock operations will be conducted in order to meet 

ecosystem health, multiple use, economic, and other objectives; (2) describing range 

improvements to be installed and maintained; and (3) containing such other 

provisions relating to livestock grazing and other objectives found by the Secretary of 

Agriculture to be consistent with the provisions of Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. An AMP integrates resource objectives, standards, guidelines, and 

management requirements for soil and water for watershed protection, wildlife and 

fisheries, recreation, timber, and other resources on lands within a range allotment. 

Allowable Use: A predetermined amount of current forage production that is to be 

removed and/or soil disturbance that is acceptable under a given set of circumstances 

in order to accelerate range improvement. Degree of use will vary depending upon 

range type, range condition and trend, season of use, and physiological needs of 

various species. Allowable use is also often defined as the degree of use estimated to 

be proper until proper use is known. 

Altered Potential: Condition caused by nature or humans that prevents a stream from 

recovering its original state. An example might be found where a stream has been 

placer mined, or a landslide or slump changed the immediate landscape features 

where the stream must function. 

Allowable Sale Quantity, (ASQ): On a National Forest, the maximum quantity of 

timber that may be sold from the area of suitable land covered by the forest plan for a 

specified time period specified by the plan. 

Anadromous: Fish that ascend rivers from the sea for breeding; i.e. salmon. 

281 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Animal Unit Month (AUM): The amount of forage required by a 1,000-pound cow, 

or the equivalent, for one month. 

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration: The establishment of improved hydrologic, 

geomorphic, and ecological processes in a degraded watershed system; and the 

replacement of lost, damaged, or compromised elements of the natural system. 

Aquatic Systems: The interaction of biological and physical attributes in relation to 

streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, etc. 

Appropriate Management Response (AMR): AMR is any specific action taken in 

response to a wildland fire suitable to meet protection or resource objectives 

described in fire or land management plans. 

Aquatic Nuisance Species: non-indigenous plant or animal species that threaten the 

diversity or abundance of native species, the ecological stability of infested waters, or 

commercial, agricultural, aqua-cultural, or recreational activities dependent on such 

waters. 

Aquatic Systems: Biological and physical attributes and their interaction related to 

water. 

Areas Evaluated for Potential Wilderness: Any undeveloped areas, exceeding 

5,000 acres that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under FS 

Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 7 (WO Amendment 1909.12-92-1 effective 8/3/1992). 

The roadless area inventory considers presence of existing roads, structures, or 

improvements. FSH 1909.12 (1992) specifies these areas “do not contain improved 

roads maintained for travel by standard passenger type vehicles.” 

The evaluation of areas for potential wilderness, documented in the FEIS, Appendix 

C, complies with the implementing regulations of NFMA, (36 CFR 219.17(1), 1982), 

which tells us that “roadless areas within the NFS shall be evaluated and considered 

for recommendation as potential wilderness areas during the forest planning process.” 

Inventoried Roadless Areas, on the other hand, are based on the Roadless Area 

Review and Evaluation II (RARE II) as formalized in the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (RACR). The areas evaluated for potential wilderness based on the 

2004 inventory may include all or only portions of Inventoried Roadless Areas in 

addition to new areas as explained in the FEIS, Appendix C 

Arterial Road: See Functional Class for subcategories under the new definition 

B 

Beaverhead Unit: The Beaverhead National Forest was combined with the 

Deerlodge National Forest in 1997. The geographic areas of the former forests are 

referred to as the Beaverhead or Deerlodge Unit. 

Beneficial Uses: Attributes that are considered useful products of the resource. They 

may include (but are not limited to): recreation, production of salmonid fishes, 

drinking water, power generation, and irrigation. 

282 
Glossary 

Beneficial Effect: A situation that results from a management activity that promotes 

improvement in stream or habitat conditions, beneficial to fish or other aquatic 

organisms. Activities that create a short-term impact, but will provide significantly 

longer benefits will still be classified as a Beneficial Effect. An example might be 

removal of a culvert that is a movement barrier to fish. Removal may produce 

sediment over a short period of time, but will provide significant long-term benefits to 

the fish population.

Best Management Practices (BMPs): A set of practices which, when applied during 

implementation of a project, ensures that water-related beneficial uses are protected 

and that State water quality standards are met. 

Biological Diversity (or Biodiversity): The variety and abundance of life and 

processes. It includes all living organisms, the genetic differences among them and 

the communities and ecosystems in which they occur. Biological diversity also refers 

to the compositions, structures, and functions of species and habitats and their 

interactions. 

Biological Assessment: A document prepared by or under the direction of the federal 

agency concerning listed and proposed threatened and endangered species and 

proposed critical habitat that may be present in the project area and the evaluation of 

potential effects of the action on such species and habitats. 

Biotic: Pertaining to any aspect of living components. 

C 

CSU: (Controlled Surface Use) A stipulation attached to a lease which allows use and 

occupancy but requires special operational constraints to protect identified resource 

values and may modify the lease rights. 

Candidate Species: Species identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which are considered to 

be candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

Canopy: The more or less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed 

collectively by the crowns of adjacent trees and other woody growth. Layers of 

canopies may be called “stories”. 

Capability: The potential of an area to produce resources, supply goods and services, 

and allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given 

level of management intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site 

conditions such as climate, slope, landform, soils and geology, as well as the 

application of silvicultural practices or protection from fires, insects, and disease. 

Climax: The terminal plant community of a succession; it remains relatively 

unchanged (dynamic stability) unless the environment changes. Species are capable 

of reproducing themselves within the community and excluding new species, 

especially dominant species. 

283 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Closure: A route or area is closed to all types of traffic, including foot traffic. This 

option is seldom used except in emergencies or special situations such as protection 

of an eagle nesting site (Access and Travel Management - Northern Region Guide, 

October 1997). 

Coarse Woody Debris: Sound and rotting dead woody plant material, standing or 

fallen, generally greater than 3 inches in diameter. It provides habitat for wildlife and 

plants and is a source of nutrients and structures for soil protection and development.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The official, legal tabulation, or regulations 

directing federal government activities. 

Commodity: Anything useful or anything bought or sold. 

Condition Class: Departure from the historic fire regime, as determined by the 

number of missed fire return interval – with respect to the historic fire return interval 

and the current structure and composition of the system resulting form alterations to 

the disturbance regime. Three classes categorize the current condition with respect to 

each of five historic Fire Regime Groups. The relative risk of fire-caused loss of key 

components defines the system increases for each higher number condition. Class 1 

level means little or no risk. 

Connectivity: The degree to which similar but separated vegetation components of a 

landscape are connected. 

Conservation Strategy: The term also refers to a requirement under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act for Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service with regard to federal 

actions that may affect listed threatened species or critical habitat. 

Corridor: 

Biological Corridor - Landscape elements that connect similar patches of habitat 

through an area with different characteristics. For example, streamside vegetation 

may create a corridor of willows and hardwoods between meadows or through a 

forest. 

Utility Corridor – A linear strip of land identified for present or future location of 

utility rights-of-way within its boundaries. 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 

Cover: Vegetation used by wildlife for breeding, and rearing of young, protection 

from predators, (hiding cover), or to ameliorate conditions of weather (thermal 

cover). 

Cross Country Travel: Wheeled motorized travel off of roads and trails. All roads 

and trails are identified on an inventory maintained at the Forest Supervisor’s Office. 

Cultural Resources: The physical remains of human activity (e.g., artifacts, ruins, 

burial mounds, petroglyphs, etc.) having scientific, prehistoric, or social values. 

284 
Glossary 

D 

Dead and Dying Stand: A dead and dying stand is defined as a stand where fire or 

bark beetle infestations are projected to create conditions where it is determined that 

previously mid or late seral stands will be set back to early seral stage by the 

disturbance. These types of conditions by dominance type are more fully described 

below. 

This definition does not require all trees within the stand to be dead or dying. The 

purpose of the definition is to meet the requirements of NFMA Section 4 (d)(1) which 

provides: “it is the policy of the Congress that all forested lands in the National Forest 

System shall be maintained in appropriate forest cover with species of trees, degree of 

stocking, rate of growth, and conditions of stand designed to secure maximum 

benefits of multiple use sustained yield management in accordance with land 

management plans.” 

To meet the NFMA requirement, stands which are reverting to an early seral stage 

must be managed to maintain appropriate forest cover. Without preparation of a 

seedbed, and treatment of undesirable fuel levels from the dead trees, the stand may 

not result in an appropriate tree cover or adequately stocked stand to develop into a 

mid and late seral stand that contains appropriate forest cover with species of trees, 

degree of stocking, rate of growth, and conditions of stand to meet multiple use 

objectives. 

Seral stage is the existing vegetation classification definition of stand size, which is 

determined from the basal area weighted average diameter (Berglund and others, 

2008). A stand size between 0.0”-4.9” is considered early seral, from 5.0” – 9.9” is 

mid seral, and late seral has a stand size of 10.0” and larger. 

For Douglas fir: 

A Douglas-fir stand is considered dead and dying if stand stocking is expected to 

be reduced below 60 square feet of basal area due to current and projected 

mortality from either fire or bark beetles, within a 3 year period. This stand 

condition is considered a stand in the process of reverting to an early seral 

successional stage through the initiation of regeneration. This criteria may be 

modified based on site-specific analysis that indicates the stand would be 

considered dead and dying even though it does not meet the above criteria 

because it is determined the stand would revert to an early seral stage due to other 

factors.- e.g. windthrow. 

Determination of tree mortality after a fire includes criteria such as crown scorch, 

DBH, cambium-kill rating, beetle attack level and interaction of beetle-attach 

level and DBH. (Hood et al. 2007). 

Determination of Douglas-fir tree mortality due to an infestation of Douglas-fir 

beetle not related to fire includes the following criteria: successfully attacked tree 

around the entire bole of the tree. (Schmitz 1996, Skovsgaard 1968). 

285 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

For Lodgepole pine: 

Beetle killed: A lodgepole pine stand is considered dead and dying where greater 

than 50% of the basal area is high hazard for MPB (generally greater than 8 inch 

in diameter and over 80 years old) and a current within stand infestation of MPB 

exceeds 10% by basal area, and where a current MPB epidemic is on going within 

the Forest, (Bollenbacher, Gibson, 1986, Cole 1983). This criteria may be 

modified based on site-specific analysis that indicates the stand would be 

considered dead and dying even though it does not meet the above criteria 

because it is determined the stand would revert to an early seral stage due to other 

factors.- e.g. windthrow. 

Fire killed: A lodgepole pine stand is considered dead and dying if greater than 

50% of a stand is killed by fire. This stand condition is considered a stand in the 

process of reverting to an early seral successional stage through the initiation of 

regeneration. This criteria may be modified based on site-specific analysis that 

indicates the stand would be considered dead and dying even though it does not 

meet the above criteria because it is determined the stand would revert to an early 

seral stage due to other factors.- e.g. windthrow. 

Determination of tree mortality after a fire in lodgepole pine types includes 

criteria such as crown scorch (Weatherby 2001). 

Determination of tree mortality for lodgepole pine tree mortality due to an 

infestation of mountain pine beetle not related to fire includes the following 

criteria: successfully attacked tree around the entire bole of the tree (Amman, 

1989, Safranyik, 2006). 

Deerlodge Unit: The Deerlodge Forest was combined with the Beaverhead Forest in 

1997. The former forest is referred to as the Deerlodge Unit. 

Decommissioned Road: a road stabilized and restored to a more natural state. 

Decommissioned roads are not managed as part of the Forest transportation system. 

Demographic: Statistics of human populations (size, density, growth, distribution, 

etc.). 

Designated Road, Trail, or Area. A National Forest System road, a National Forest 

System trail, or an area on National Forest System lands that is designated for motor 

vehicle use pursuant to 36CFR 212.51 on a motor vehicle use map. (36 CFR 212.1) 

Desired Condition (DC): A portrayal of the land, resource, or social and economic 

conditions that are expected to result in 50-100 years if objectives are achieved. A DC 

is a vision of the long-term conditions of the land. 

Developed Recreation: Recreation that requires facilities and might result in 

concentrated use of an area; for example, a campground or ski resort. 

Dispersed Recreation: Recreation, such as hunting, scenic driving, and backpacking, 

spread over a large area. Facilities or developments are provided for access and 

protection of the environment more so than the comfort and convenience of visitors. 

286 
Glossary

Corrected - 287

August 23, 1003

Disturbance: Any event, such as wildfire or timber harvest that alters the structure, 

composition, or function of an ecosystem. 

Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities 

and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan. 

Dominance Types for the BDNF: 

• If the dominance type is single species, the species comprises greater than or 

equal to 60%. 

• If the dominance type is two species, the 1st species comprises roughly 40-80% 

• If the dominance type is three species, the 1st species comprises roughly 20-

60%.

• If no three species can be assigned, the 1st species is a MIX, for BDNF this is 

either tolerant mix (TASH) or intolerant mix (IMIX).

E 

Economics: The study of allocation of limited resources, goods, and services among 

competing uses. 

Ecosystem: A naturally occurring, self-maintained system of varied living and nonliving interacting parts that are organized into biophysical and human dimension 

components. 

Ecosystem Integrity: A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are 

sustained over time and where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, 

such that goals for uses, values, and services of the ecosystem are met.

Ecosystem Management: Scientifically based land and resource management that 

integrates ecological capabilities with social values and economic relationships, to 

produce, restore, or sustain ecosystem integrity and desired conditions, uses, 

products, values, and services over the long term. 

Ecosystem Structure: The biological and physical attributes that shape ecological 

systems. Biotic attributes include: population size, structure, and range, foliage 

density and layering, snags, large woody debris, or the size, shape, and spatial 

relationships of cover types within a landscape. Physical attributes include: soil and 

geologic substrate variables, slope and aspect, or stream gradient.

Encroach: Plant succession in the absence of disturbance, in areas the plant type is 

not desired. 

Eligibility (for Wild and Scenic Rivers): A river is eligible for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic River System if it is free flowing and has at least one riverrelated value that is considered outstandingly remarkable. 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Corrected - 288

August 23, 1003

Endangered Species: Designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and animal 

or plant that has been given federal protection status because it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its natural range. 

Energy Transmission Facility: Pipelines or power lines and associated structures 

and equipment used to transmit bulk electricity, crude oil, natural gas, refined 

petroleum products, or hydrogen from generation or collection points to distribution 

points. Electric transmission lines are generally larger than 66 KV. Transmission 

facilities do not include smaller distribution lines serving residential or commercial 

end use. Transmission facilities do not include oil and gas field production, gathering, 

or collection lines or facilities.

Entrenchment Ratio: Entrenchment describes the relationship of the river to its 

valley and landform features. Entrenchment is qualitatively defined as the vertical 

containment of a river and the degree to which it is incised in the valley floor 

(Kellerhals et al. 1972). The term entrenchment ratio, the vertical containment of the 

river, has been quantitatively defined (Rosgen 1994) to provide a consistent method 

for field determination. The entrenchment ratio is the ratio of the width of the floodprone area to the surface width of the bankfull channel. Ratios of 1-1.4 represent 

entrenched streams; 1.41-2.2 represent moderately entrenched streams; and ratios 

great than 2.2 indicate rivers only slightly entrenched, (Rosgen, 1996) 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed statement prepared by the 

responsible official for a major federal action, which significantly affects the quality 

of the human environment. Alternatives to the proposed action are provided, and 

effects analyzed.

Even-Aged Management: The application of a combination of actions that results in 

the creation of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. 

Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed tree cutting produce even-aged stands of essentially 

the same age.

Extent of Concern: The portion of a travel route for which a Scenic Concern Level 

has been assigned. The extent of concern for sites is not listed, but can be described as 

the perimeter of developed or heavily used areas. The extent of concern provides the 

general location for project analysis viewpoints and visibility mapping. 

F 

Facilities: Picnic tables, toilets, hardened campsites, campground, other buildings or 

structures.

Fire-Dependent Ecosystem: Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically 

composed of species that evolved with and are maintained by periodic fire.
Glossary 

Fire Frequency or Return Interval: How often fire burns a given area; often 

expressed in terms of fire return intervals. For example, a site might burn over every 

5 to 15 years. 

Fire Intensity: Expression used to describe the power of wildland fires. More 

commonly described as the rate of energy release per unit length of the fire front. 

Fire-Prone Ecosystem: Ecosystems that historically burned intensely at low 

frequencies (stand replacing fires), burned at a high frequency (understory fires), or 

burned infrequently historically, but – because of changed conditions-now experience 

more frequent fire events. 

Fire Regime Group: A generalized description of the role fire plays in an ecosystem. 

It is characterized by fire frequency, predictability, intensity, seasonality, duration and 

scale (patch size), as well as regularity or variability. 

Fire Risk: The chance that a fire will ignite as affected by the nature and incidence of 

causative agents. 

Fire Severity: A qualitative measure of the fire’s immediate effects on the 

ecosystem. Relates to the extent of morality and survival of plant and animal life-both 

above and below ground-and to loss of organic matter. 

Fire Terms: 

Fire Use – “Use of Wildland Fire” or “Fire Use” describes the two types of 

wildland fire to provide resource benefits; prescribed fire and wildland fire use

Prescribed Fire – Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific 

objectives. A written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and NEPA 

requirements (where applicable) must be met, prior to ignition. 

Wildfire – An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including unauthorized humancaused fires, escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, 

and all other wildland fires where the objective is to put the fire out. 

Wildland Fire – Any non-structure fire, that occurs in the wildland. Three distinct 

types of wildland fire have been defined and include wildfire, wildland fire us and 

prescribed fire. 

Wildland Fire Use – The application of the appropriate management response to 

naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific resource management 

objectives in predefined designated areas outlined in Fire Management Plans. 

Fishery: The total population of fish in a stream or body of water and the physical, 

chemical, and biological factors affecting that population. 

Fladry: An east European term for a simple string of closely spaced strips of cloth 

used to deter wolves. Ideally, the strips of cloth should be 10 centimeters (4 inches) 

wide by 50 centimeters (20 inches) long, set less than 50 centimeters apart, and just 

touch the ground. When the flags are too far apart or the string is too high off the 

ground, wolves are likely to slip through. 

289 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Flora: The plant life characteristic of a region, period, or special environment. 

Forage: Plant material (usually grasses, forbs, and brush) that is available for animal 

consumption. 

Forest Plan: A document that provides strategic direction by goals and objectives for 

management of a National Forest developed through agency and public involvement 

Forest Products: Any products from national forest system lands that requires a 

permit to collect such as sawlogs, pulpwood, poles, posts, and firewood, mushrooms, 

berries, beargrass for floral arrangements, etc. 

Forest Road: As defined in Title 23, Section 101 of the United States Code (23 

U.S.C. 101), any road wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving the National 

Forest System and which is necessary for the protection, administration, and 

utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources 

(FSM 7705 – Transportation System). Also see Road.. 

Forest Transportation Atlas: A display of the system of roads, trails and airfields of 

an administrative unit (36 CFR 212.1). 

Forest Transportation Facility: A forest road or trail or an airfield that is displayed 

in a forest transportation atlas, including bridges, culverts, parking lots, marine access 

facilities, safety devices, and other improvements appurtenant to the forest 

transportation system. (36 CFR 212.1) 

Forested Watershed: A watershed where 90% or more of a watershed is forested. 

Fuel Management: Manipulation or reduction of fuels to meet forest protection and 

management objectives while preserving and enhancing environmental quality. 

Fuel Treatment: The rearrangement or disposal of fuels to reduce the fire hazard. 

G 

Game Species: Any species of wildlife or fish for which seasons and bag limits have 

been prescribed, and which are normally harvested by hunters, trappers, and 

fisherman under State or federal laws, codes, and regulations. 

Geographic Information System (GIS): A computer system that stores and uses 

spatial data. 

Goal: A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved sometime 

in the future, normally expressed in broad, general terms and is timeless in that it has 

not specific date by which it is to be completed. Goal statements form the principal 

basis form which objectives are developed. 

Goods and Services: The various outputs produced by forest and rangeland 

renewable resources. The tangible and intangible values of which are expressed in 

market and non-market terms. 

290 
Glossary 

H 

Habitat: The place where a plant or animal lives and grows under natural conditions. 

Habitat Type: An aggregation of all land areas potentially capable of producing 

similar plant communities at the climax phase of succession. 

Hazardous Fuel: Excessive live or dead wildland fuel accumulations that increase 

the potential for uncharacteristically intense wildland fire and decrease the capability 

to protect life, property, and natural resources. 

Historical Range of Variability (HRV): The natural fluctuation of components of 

healthy ecosystems over time. In this EIS, refers to the range of conditions and 

processes that are likely to have occurred prior to settlement of the project area by 

people of European descent (approximately the mid-1800’s), which would have 

varied within certain limits over time. 

(HUC) Hydrologic Unit Code: A coding system developed by the U.S. Geological 

Service to map geographic boundaries of watersheds by size. For example, the 

Columbia River Watersheds is 1st code, the Clarkfork River a 3rd code, the 

Beaverhead River a 5th code, and Mussigbrod Creek a 6th code HUC. The BDNF has 

mostly 6th code HUCs. 

I 

Indicators: A measure of, or surrogate for the elements of ecosystem management. 

INFISH (Inland Native Fish Strategy): On July 31, 1995, the Decision Notice for 

Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) Environmental Assessment was signed. This 

strategy was developed to provide interim direction to protect habitat and populations 

of native resident fish until longer-term conservation strategies such as the Upper 

Columbia River Basin and federal recovery plans replaced it. 

Inholding: Private land or patented mining claims that lie within National Forest 

land. 

Intactness: Untouched or unaltered, especially by anything that harms or diminishes 

its character. 

Integrated Pest Management: A pest management approach that uses prevention 

techniques, early detection, diagnosis and treatment of pest organisms in cooperation 

and coordination with other agencies and organizations to control or eradicate 

invasive species. Treatment uses cost effective methods that minimize adverse effects 

to non-target species. Examples: 

Cultural - Silvicultural prescriptions, change of crop species 

Mechanical - Fire, cultivation, pruning, trapping 

Biological - use of parasites, predators, or disease 

Genetic - use of resistant species or cultivars 

291 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Chemical - use of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc 

Interim Roads and Trails Inventory GIS Layer: The information on page 53 

(Interim Road and Trail Map) represents the GIS layer used to identify open 

motorized roads and trails until site-specific travel planning takes place. This is an 

interim map eventually replaced by the BDNF Motorized Use Visitors Map. 

Inventoried Roadless Area: See Areas Evaluated for Potential Wilderness. 

J 

K 

Key Watershed: One or both of the following types of watershed designations 

Fish Key Watersheds: Watersheds selected for focusing of federal funds and 

personnel for the purpose of protecting, restoring, or maintaining viability of 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive aquatic species. 

Restoration Key Watersheds: Watersheds selected for focusing of federal funds 

and personnel for the purpose of accelerating improvements in water quality and 

watershed conditions. 

L 

Lands Where Timber Harvest is Not Allowed: The acres identified as BDNF 

system lands that meet the criteria outlined in the timber harvest protocol in the forest 

plan. 

Lands Where Timber Harvest is Allowed: The acres that may not be suitable, but 

harvest is used to achieve other resource objectives as described in the timber 

protocol. 

Lands Suitable for Timber Production: The acres designated for growth and yield 

of timber products. These are the acres left over after the first two steps (listed above) 

of the timber protocol have been applied.

Landscape: An area composed of interacting ecosystems repeated because of 

geology, landforms, soils, climate, biota and human influences throughout. 

Landscapes are generally a size, shape, and pattern determined by interacting 

ecosystems. 

Landscape Character: Particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that 

give it an image and make it identifiable or unique. 

Landscape Visibility: Accessibility of the landscape to viewers, referring to one’s 

ability to see and perceive landscapes. 

Linkage: Route that permits movement of individual plants (by dispersal) and 

animals from a Landscape Unit and/or habitat type to another similar Landscape Unit 

and/or habitat type. 

292 
Glossary 

Long-Term-Sustained-Yield Timber Capacity: The highest uniform wood yield 

from lands being managed for timber production that may be sustained under 

specified management intensity consistent with multiple-use objectives

M 

Management Activity: Activity humans impose on a landscape for the purpose of 

managing natural resources. 

Management Area: A land area with similar management goals and a common 

prescription, as described in the forest plan. 

Management Indicator Species (MIS): “Certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate 

species present in the area . . . selected because their populations changes are believed 

to indicate the effects of management activities. . . additional plant or animal species 

selected because their population changes are believed to indicate effects of 

management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or 

on water quality." (CFR 219.19(a) (1). Designation does not infer a special degree of 

protection in and of itself. 

Mineral Classifications 

Common Variety: Includes common materials for building and commerce such 

as sand, gravel, building stone, fill material, and commodities such as sand, peat, 

inert fillers and abrasives. It does not include deposits of mineral materials which 

are valuable because of some property giving them distinct and special value or 

covered in the mineral leasing laws. If it is not locatable or leasable, it is salable. 

The terms “common variety,” “salable” and “ mineral materials” are used 

interchangeably in this document. 

Leasable Minerals (FSM 2822.11,.12): Through the 1920 Mineral Leasing Acts, 

Congress made mineral deposits that occur in relatively extensive deposits and 

involve relatively large areas leasable, rather than locatable. Leasable minerals 

include public domain status and acquired federally owned deposits of 

hydrocarbons (oil and gas, oil shale, tar sands, etc.), coal, geothermal, phosphate, 

sodium, and, on public domain land in LA and NM, sulfur. On lands with 

acquired minerals all non-common variety minerals are leasable per the 1947 Act. 

Locatable Minerals (FSM 2811.1,.2): These minerals are found on all national 

forests and lands which; 1.) Were public domain lands subject to location and 

entry under the US mining laws; 2.) Have not been appropriated, withdrawn, or 

segregated from location in entry; and 3.) Have been or may be shown to be 

mineral lands that are open for prospecting for locatable or hard rock minerals. 

Locatable minerals may include any solid, natural, inorganic substances, 

occurring in the crust of the earth such as “gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, 

or other valuable deposits.” Locatable minerals are not the common varieties of 

mineral materials or leasable minerals. They may include certain non-metallic 

minerals and uncommon varieties of mineral materials. 

293 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Mineral Materials: Includes minerals of widespread occurrence, like building 

materials, plain clay and limestone, used for ordinary purposes. Commodities 

such as sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, clay, cinders, and petrified wood 

are included. The terms “common variety, salable, and mineral materials” are 

used interchangeably in this document. 

Salable: Mineral materials which consist of petrified wood and common 

varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay and other similar 

materials. Such mineral materials include deposits used for agriculture, animal 

husbandry, building, abrasion, construction, landscaping, and similar uses. The 

terms “common variety, salable, and mineral materials” are used interchangeably 

in this document. 

Mitigation: Actions to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, replace, or rectify the 

impact of a management practice. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to evaluate if objectives and 

anticipate results of a management plan are being realized, or if implementation is 

proceeding as planned. 

Motor Vehicle: Any vehicle which is self-propelled, other than: 

1) A vehicle operated on rails; and 

2) Any wheelchair or mobility device, including one that is battery-powered, that 

is designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, and that 

is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area. (36 CFR 212.1; 36 CFR 261.2; 

FSM 2353.05) 

Motor Vehicle Use Map. A map reflecting designated roads, trails, and areas on an 

administrative unit or a Ranger District of the National Forest System. (36 CFR 

212.1) 

Multiple Use: The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the 

National Forest System so that they are used in the combination that will best meet 

the needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some 

or all of these resources or relate services over areas large enough to provide 

sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and 

conditions; that some lands will be used for less than all of the resources and 

harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with the 

other, without impairment of the productivity of the land with consideration being 

given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the 

combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output. 

Municipal Watershed: A watershed that contains a community water system or a 

stream feeding such a system. Montana Code Annotated 75-6-1-2 defines community 

water system as a public water supply system that serves at least 15 service 

connections used by year-round residents or that regularly serves at least 25 yearround residents. 

294 
Glossary

Corrected - 295

September 12, 2014

N

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as amendments to the Forest

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act that requires the preparation of regional and 

forest plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

requires environmental analysis and public disclosure of federal actions.

National Forest Scenic Byway: A road on National Forest System Land that has been 

designated by the Chief of the Forest Service for its exceptional scenic, historic, cultural, 

recreational, or natural resources.

National Forest System Road: A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority. (36 

CFR 212.1; 36 CFR 251.51; 36 CFR 261.2) 

Natural Appearing Landscape Character: Landscape character resulting from human 

activities, yet appears natural, such as historic conversion of native forests into farmlands, 

pastures, and hedgerows that have reverted back to forests through reforestation activity or 

natural regeneration. 

O

Objective - A concise, time-specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to preestablished goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps to 

be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified goals (36 CFR 219.3).

Occupied Grizzly Bear Habitat: Areas where there is high likelihood person will encounter a 

grizzly bear with her cubs of the year. 

Occupied mapped Lynx Habitat: All mapped lynx habitat on an entire national forest is 

considered “occupied” by lynx when:

1-There are at least 2 verified lynx observations or records since 1999 on the national forest 

unless they are verified to be transient individuals; or

2-There is evidence of lynx reproduction (dens) on the national forest.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV). Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-county 

travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural 

terrain. (36 CFR 212.1; FSM 2353.05)

Old Growth: The definition of Old Growth as found in Green, et. al., Old-Growth Forest Types 

of the Northern Region, R-1 SES 4/92: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT 

59807. 

Open Motorized Road and Trail Density (OMRTD): A measurement of motorized routes 

open to use, measured at the completion of project implementation in miles per square mile. It 

consists of motorized roads and trails that fall within the external forest boundary and are (1) 

open to public motorized use, (2) open for permitted and/or administrative use and remain on the 

landscape, (3) temporary unless obliterated at project completion, and (4) motorized routes on 

private inholdings.
Glossary

Corrected - 296

September 12, 2014

Outstandingly Remarkable Value: Characteristic of a river segment that is judged to be a rare, 

unique, or exemplary feature that is significant at a regional or natural scale. Values can be 

recreational, scenic, geological, historical, cultural, biological, botanical, ecological, heritage, 

hydrological, paleontological, scientific, or research-related.

P

PSU Dominance Type: 

If the dominance type is single species; the species comprises >= 60%,

If dominance type is 2 species, the 1st species comprises roughly 80-40%, 

If the dominance type is 3 species, the 1st species comprises roughly 60-20%

If no 3 species can be assigned, the 1st species is a MIX, For the BDNF this is either tolerant 

mix (TASH), or intolerant mix (IMXS)

Pastoral Landscape Character: Landscape character that is the result of human activities, 

containing positive cultural elements such as historic conversion of native forests into farmlands, 

pastures, and hedgerows, plus some remnants of native forests.

Pattern: The spatial arrangement of landscape elements (patches, corridors, matrix) that 

determines the function of a landscape as an ecological system.

Play: A known or possible accumulation of oil or gas sharing similar geologic properties.

Prescribed Fire: Any fire ignited by management action to meet specific objectives. All 

prescribed fires are conducted in accordance with prescribed fire plans.

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC): Ecosystems are in PFC when they function within 

their historic range of variability.

Proposed Action: A project or set of activities that a federal agency intends to implement, as 

defined in NEPA regulations.

Public Involvement: Any process designed to broaden the information base upon which agency 

decisions are made by informing the public about Forest Service activities, plans, and decisions 

to encourage public understanding about and participation in the planning processes which lead 

to final decision-making.

Q 

R

Rangeland: Land on which the potential natural plant community is predominantly grass, grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing.

Reach: A segment of stream. Segment length will vary based on resource values being 

considered. For example, if trout over-wintering habitat is a consideration for analysis and overwintering pools are confined to 1⁄4 mile of stream; the reach analyzed for fisheries may be defined 

as 1⁄4 mile. Similarly, if hydrologic function of the channel is being evaluated on a stream with 

1.5 miles of the same type of channel conditions, the reach analyzed for hydrology may be 1.5 

miles.
Glossary 

Recreation Allocations: 

- In Summer 

Backcountry: Semi-primitive motorized recreation settings are provided, and 

offer opportunities for varied types of travel (see table below) and recreational 

activities. 

Non-Motorized: Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation settings offer 

opportunities for mountain biking, horse and stock travel, hiking, dispersed 

camping, and other activities. These allocations are intended to provide secure 

wildlife habitat especially in areas which link landscapes. They also offer quiet 

summer and fall recreation opportunities and desirable semi-primitive settings. 

Recommended Wilderness: Semi-primitive non-motorized settings are provided, 

and offer opportunities for foot, stock, ski, snowshoe travel, dispersed camping, 

and other activities. 

Road-based: Roaded natural and rural recreation settings are provided, and offer 

a wide variety of opportunities for dispersed and developed recreational activities. 

Wilderness: Primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings are provided, 

and offer opportunities for foot, stock, ski, snowshoe travel, dispersed camping, 

and other activities allowed in Wilderness. These lands, designated as Wilderness 

by Congress, are the same in all alternatives. 

Wilderness Study Area: Semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive 

motorized settings are provided. Some opportunities are available for wheeled 

motorized travel on routes as shown on the travel plan and non-motorized travel is 

available yearlong. 

- In Winter 

Motorized Recreation: Roaded and semi-primitive motorized recreation settings 

are provided in these areas, and offer opportunities for a variety of motorized and 

non-motorized travel and activities. The majority of these allocations provide 

opportunities for snowmobile travel (Table 9, page 30). 

Non-Motorized : Primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized recreation settings 

are provided in these areas, and offer opportunities for ski touring, snowshoeing, 

and hiking, and other non-motorized activities. These allocations are intended to 

protect low elevation winter range for deer, elk, and moose; protect high elevation 

secure habitat for mountain goat and wolverine and to provide quiet winter 

recreation opportunities in accessible locations. 

Recommended Wilderness Motorized: In Alternative 1, motorized travel is 

allowed as shown in the travel plan. 

Recommended Wilderness: Semi-primitive non-motorized settings are provided, 

and offer opportunities for foot, stock, ski, snowshoe travel, dispersed camping, 

and other activities. 

297 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Wilderness: Primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings are provided, 

and offer opportunities for foot, stock, ski, snowshoe travel, dispersed camping, 

and other activities allowed in Wilderness. These lands, designated as Wilderness 

by Congress, are the same in all alternatives. 

Wilderness Study Area: Semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive 

motorized settings are provided, and offer opportunities for wheeled motorized 

travel on routes as shown on the travel plan. These areas also offer opportunities 

for snowmobiling December 2 through May 15, and some non-motorized travel in 

all seasons. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS): A framework for stratifying and 

defining classes of outdoor recreation environments, activities, and experience 

opportunities. The settings, activities, and opportunities for obtaining experiences are 

arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into six classes—primitive, semiprimitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, rural and urban. 

Primitive (PRIM) - Area is characterized by essentially unmodified natural 

environment of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low and 

evidence of other area users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free 

from evidence of man-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the 

area is not permitted. 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) - Areas characterized by a predominantly 

natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate-to-large size. Interaction 

between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is 

managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be 

present, but is subtle. Motorized uses not permitted, include airplanes, helicopters, 

hovercraft, etc. 

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) - Areas characterized by a predominantly 

natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate-to-large size. Concentration 

of users is low, but there is often evidence of other area users. The area is 

managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be 

present, but is subtle. Motorized use is permitted. 

Roaded Natural - Area is characterized by predominatntly natural appearing 

environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such 

evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between 

users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. 

Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with 

the natural enveronment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in 

constru8ction standards and design of facilities. 

Rural – Area is characterized by substantially modified natrual environment. 

Sights and sounds of humans are readily evidetn and interaction between users is 

often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for use 

by a large number of people. 

298 
Glossary 

Urban – Area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although 

the background may have natural –appearing elements. Vegetative cover is often 

exotic and manicured. Sights and sounds of humans on-site, are predominant. 

Facilities for highly intensified motor use and parking are available with forms of 

mass transit often available to carry people throughout the site. 

Recreation Types: 

Developed - The type of recreation that occurs where modifications (i.e., 

improvements) enhance recreation activities in a defined area. 

Dispersed - The type of recreation use related to and in conjunction with roads 

and trails that requires few if any improvements and may occur over a wide area. 

Activities tend to be day-use and include hunting, fishing, berry picking, off-road 

vehicle use, hiking, horseback riding, picnicking, camping, viewing scenery, 

snowmobiling, and many others. 

Recreation Use: 

LOW: 0 to 20 people per day, 

MODERATE: 20 to 40 people per day, 

HIGH: Over 40 people per day. 

Reference Landscapes: These are terrestrial and aquatic areas with high ecosystem 

integrity and within the historical range of variability. They are of sufficient size, 

where relevant disturbance and ecological processes occur, and are generally 

unaffected by human activities. 

Research Natural Area: An area that illustrates or typifies for research or 

educational purposes, the important forest and range types in each forest region, as 

well as other plant communities that have special or unique characteristics of 

scientific interest and importance (36 CFR 1251.23). 

Resiliency: The capacity of forests and grassland/shrublands to return to prior 

conditions after disturbance. Resilient forests are those that not only accommodate 

gradual changes related to climate but tend to return toward a prior condition after 

disturbance either naturally or with management assistance. (Millar et. al, 2007) 

Within the BDNF, maintaining a diversity of tree species or dominance types, age or 

size class diversity within dominance types, and forest density similar to what historic 

disturbance regimes produced, are considered underpinnings of a resilient forest. 

Restriction: A restriction precludes use of the route or area during a specified time 

period by: 1) Type of vehicle; 2) Type of traffic (Access and Travel Management - 

Northern Region Guide, October 1997). 

Retard: To slow rate of recovery below the near natural rate of recovery if no 

additional human caused disturbance was placed on the system. 

Riparian Areas/Habitats: Land where the vegetation and microclimate are 

influenced by perennial and/or intermittent water. 

299 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Riparian Conservation Area (RCA): As established by the Inland Native Fish 

Strategy, RCAs are portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources 

receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards 

and guidelines. Examples include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent 

streams, and other areas that help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. The 

following categories describe RCAs unless developed and documented through a 

watershed or site specific analysis. 

Category 1 – Fish bearing streams: RCAs consist of the stream and the area on 

either side of the steam extending from the edge of the active channel to the top of 

the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100 year floodplain, or to the outer 

edge of the riparian vegetation, or to the a distance equal to the height of two sitepotential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet including both sides of the 

stream channel), whichever is greatest. 

Category 2 – Permanently flowing non-fish bearing streams: RCAs consist of the 

stream and the area on either side of the steam extending from the edge of the 

active channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100 year 

floodplain, or to the outer edge of the riparian vegetation, or to the a distance 

equal to the height of one site-potential trees, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet 

including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. 

Category 3 - Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: RCAs 

consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer, edges of the 

riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or to the 

extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or to the a distance equal to the 

height of one site-potential trees, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the 

maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of 

the wetland, pond, or lake, whichever is greatest. 

Category 4 - Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands less than 1 acre, 

landslides, and landslide-prone areas: This category includes features with high 

variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum the RCAs must 

include: 

a. The extent of landsides and landslide-prone areas, 

b. The intermittent stream channel and the area to the top of the inner 

gorge, 

c. The intermittent stream channel or wetland and the area to the outer 

edge of the riparian vegetation, 

d. For Fish Conservation Watersheds, the area from the edges of the stream 

channel, wetland, landslide, or landslide-prone area to a distance equal 

to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet slope distance, 

whichever is greatest. 

e. For watersheds not identified as Fish Emphasis Key Watersheds, the 

area from the edges of the stream channel, wetland, landslide, landslide300 
Glossary 

prone area to a distance equal to the height of one-half site potential tree, 

or 50 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. 

Riparian Management Objective (RMO): Fish habitat objectives established for 

habitat attributes such as pool frequency, large woody debris, bank stability, bank 

angle, entrenchment ratio, fine sediment levels, water temperature, and width-todepth ratio to achieve properly functioning condition in streams. 

Road: A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless identified and managed as a 

trail. (36 CFR 212.1) 

Road Maintenance: The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the 

road to the approved road management objective (FSM 7705 – Transportation 

System). 

Road Management Objectives: Defines the intended purpose of an individual road 

based on management area direction and access management objectives. Road 

management objectives contain design criteria, operation criteria, and maintenance 

criteria (FSH 7709.55, Sec 33 – Transportation Planning Handbook). 

Route: A road or trail as defined in this section.

Rural/Agricultural Landscape Character: The result of extensive human activities, 

such as, conversion of native landscapes into extensively cultivated farmland, 

vineyards, pastures, or intensive livestock production. 

S 

Salmonids: Members of the family of elongate soft-finned fishes Salmonidae - the 

trout and salmon family. 

Scale: Defined in the framework as geographic extent; for example, region, subregional or landscape scale. 

Scenery: General appearance of a place, general appearance of a landscape, or 

features of a landscape. 

Scenery Management: The art and science of arranging, planning, and designing 

landscape attributes relative to the appearance of places and expanses in outdoor 

settings. 

Scenic Attractiveness: The scenic importance of a landscape based on human 

perceptions of the intrinsic beauty of landform, rock form, water form, and vegetation 

pattern. Reflects varying visual perception attributes of variety, unity, vividness, 

intactness, coherence, mystery, uniqueness, harmony, balance, and pattern. 

Attractiveness is classified as: A) Distinctive, B) Typical or Common, C) 

Undistinguished. 

Scenic Concern Level –Public value and importance of views. See Agricultural 

Handbook No. 701, Chapter 4 to further define concern levels and their use to map 

landscape visibility and establish Scenic Integrity Objectives. Concern Level 1: A 

travel route or site where use is high, and/or concern for the scenery is high. Concern 

301 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Level 2: A travel route or site where use is low or moderate, and/or concern for the 

scenery is moderate. 

Scenic Integrity: State of naturalness or, conversely, the state of disturbance created 

by human activities or alteration. Integrity is stated in degree of deviation from the 

existing landscape character in a national forest as follows. 

Very High – Generally provides for ecological change only. 

High – Human activities are not visually evident. Activities may only repeat 

attributes of form, line, color, and texture found in the existing attributes, qualities 

or traits of a landscape that give it an image and make it identifiable or unique. 

Moderate - Human activities must remain visually subordinate to the attributes of 

the existing landscape character. They may repeat form, line, color or texture 

common to these characters but changes in quality size, number intensity etc. 

must remain visually subordinate to the attributes, qualities or traits of a landscape 

that give it an image and make it identifiable or unique. 

Low – Human activities of vegetative and landform alterations may dominate the 

original, natural landscape character but should appear as natural occurrences 

when viewed at background distances. 

Scenic Quality: The essential attributes of landscape that when viewed by people, 

elicit psychological and physiological benefits to individuals and therefore, to society 

in general.

Scenic Resource: Attributes, characteristics, and features of landscapes that provide 

varying responses from and degrees of benefits to humans. 

Secure Areas: Areas larger than 10 acres that are1/3 of a mile from a route open to 

motorized vehicles. 

Sensitive Species: Those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester 

for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: a) Significant current or 

predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or, b) Significant current 

or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' 

existing distribution. Forest Service sensitive species are not “listed” under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and may not occur on all the forests within a Forest 

Service Region. Regional sensitive species lists undergo periodic review and are 

subject to change. G rankings denote global (range-wide) and state status from 1 

(critically imperiled) to 5 (demonstrably secure)

Seral Stage: The series of plant community conditions that develop during ecological 

succession from bare ground (or major disturbance) to the climax stage. Early seral 

stage is a condition in which plants are present soon after a disturbance or at the 

beginning of a new successional process (seedling or saplings in a forest). Grass, 

herbs, or brush are abundant, diversity is high. A mid-seral stage is characterized in a 

forest setting has almost full crown closure in pole-to medium-sized trees. Understory 

vegetation and species diversity is less due to tree shading. A late seral stage is a 

condition with mature trees, often of old forest character. Tree growth has slowed, 

302 
Glossary 

mortality has increased, understory forage is minimal, structural diversity may be 

high, and species diversity is generally less. 

Short Interval Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: Those plant and animal communities that 

depend on frequently occurring wildland fires to cycle nutrients, control pathogens, 

maintain species composition, population, and distribution in healthy resilient 

condition across broad landscapes. 

Ski Touring: Includes all types of backcountry skiing from cross country with a 

focus on covering terrain, seeing the sights and being away from well traveled routes 

to climbing snow covered mountains to ski downhill. It does not include lift-assisted 

skiing. 

Snowmobile: A motorized vehicle capable of use over snow or ice driven by a 

combination of cleats, belts, tracks, and skis. 

Soil Classification: Systematic arrangement of soils into groups or categories on the 

basis of their characteristics; the USDA soil classification system divided from 

Orders to Suborders, Great Groups, Subgroups, Family, and Type or Series Naming 

convention at the upper levels is based on Greek and Latin root words; at the series 

level naming is based on geographic place names. 

Soil Function: Primary soil functions are: (1) the sustenance of biological activity, 

diversity, and productivity, (2) soil hydrologic function, (3) filtering, buffering, 

immobilizing, and detoxifying organic materials, and (4) storing and cycling nutrients 

and other materials. 

Special Interest Area: An area important for cultural, biological, or geological 

features or values. 

Special-Use Authorization: A permit, lease, or easement that authorizes the use or 

occupancy of National Forest System lands for certain purposes other than grazing, 

forest products, or minerals (36 CFR 251.51). 

Species: A unit of classification of plants and animals consisting of the largest and 

most inclusive array of sexually reproducing and cross-fertilizing individuals, which 

share a common gene pool. 

Species Viability: A species consisting of self-sustaining and interacting populations 

that are well distributed through the species’ range. Self-sustaining populations are 

those that are sufficiently abundant and have sufficient genetic diversity to display the 

array of life history strategies and forms to provide high likelihood for their long-term 

persistence and adaptability over time. 

Stand: A community of trees or other vegetation uniform in composition, 

constitution, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent 

communities. 

Stand Composition: The representation of tree species in a forest stand, expressed 

by some measure of dominance (i.e., % volume, number, basal area). 

303 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Standard: A particular action, level of performance, or threshold specified by the 

forest plan for resource protection or accomplishment of management objectives. 

Unlike “guidelines” which are optional, standards are mandatory. Standards are 

applied to management actions as mitigation; they do not initiate management 

actions. 

Stream Channel Stability: A classification system that uses visual estimates of 

various channel, bank, and riparian area. 

Stream Order: 1st order stream is a headwater stream. A 3rd order stream is the third 

branch from the 1st order stream. 

Subpopulation: A geographically distinct segment of a larger population. 

Succession: The replacement in time of one plant community with another. The prior 

plant community (or successional stage) creates conditions that are favorable for the 

establishment of the next stage. 

Successional Stage: A stage or recognizable condition of a plant community, which 

occurs during its development from bare ground to climax. 

Suitability for Wild and Scenic Rivers: Evaluation of eligible rivers for inclusion 

into the national Wild and Scenic River System by determining the best use of the 

river corridor and the best method to protect the outstandingly remarkable values 

within the river corridor. 

Summer: Season of use is May 16 through December 1. 

Summer Backcountry: Semi-primitive motorized recreation settings (See ROS).

Sustainability: The ability to maintain a desired condition or flow of benefits over 

time. 

T 

TES: Threatened, endangered and sensitive species (TES). 

Temporal: Related to time. 

Temporary Road or Trail. A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or 

authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest 

road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas. (36 CFR 212.1) 

Terrestrial: Pertaining to the land. 

Threatened Species: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designation of a plant or 

animal species likely to become endangered throughout all or a specific portion of its 

range within the foreseeable future. 

Timber Harvest: Timber harvest is an activity or tool by which trees are removed for 

numerous management purposes, one of which may be timber production. 

304 
Glossary 

Timber Production: The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration 

of regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for 

industrial or consumer use. 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL): The total amount of a pollutant that a water 

body may receive from all sources without exceeding water quality standards 

(MTDEQ). 

Traditional Cultural Property: An site eligible for listing in the National Register 

of Historic Places because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a 

living community that are rooted in that community’s history and are important in 

maintaining the continued cultural identify of the community. 

Trail: A route 50 inches or less in width or a route over 50 inches wide that is 

identified and managed as a trail. (36 CFR 212.1; FSM 2353.05) 

U 

Unsuitable for Timber Production - Lands which meet at least one of the 10 

exceptions listed under “suitable for timber production.” 

Uncharacteristic Wildfire Effects: An increase in wildfire size, severity and 

resistance to control, and the associated impact to people and property, compared to 

that which occurred in the native system. 

Understory: Vegetation (e.g., trees or shrubs) growing under the canopy formed by 

taller trees. 

Uneven-aged Management: The application of a combination of actions needed to 

simultaneously maintain continuous high-forest cover, recurring regeneration of 

desirable species, and the growth and development of trees through a range of 

diameter or age classes to provide a sustained yield of forest products. Cutting 

methods to develop and maintain uneven-aged stands are single tree and group 

selection. 

Unique Habitat: Areas, usually small in size, that provide life requirements of plant 

or animal species that are not met on the general landscape: examples include vernal 

pools, snow beds, cliffs, talus slopes, seeps, fens, bogs, hummocks, solifluction lobes, 

caves, etc. 

Unsuitable Range: Land that should not be grazed by livestock because of unstable 

soils, steep topography, or inherent low potential for forage production. 

Uncharacteristic Wildfire Effects: An increase in wildfire size, severity and 

resistance to control, and the associated impact to people and property, compared to 

that which occurred in the native system. 

Unwanted Wildfire: Fire that burns more intensely than the natural or historical 

range of variability, thereby fundamentally degrading the ecosystem or destroying 

communities or rare or threatened species/habitat. Also known as catastrophic, 

severe, uncharacteristically severe, or damaging. 

305 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Utility Corridor: Designated right-of-way corridor (FSM 1905) 

V 

Vacant Allotment: An allotment not stocked with permitted livestock. 

Viable Population: A population, which has the estimated numbers and distribution 

of reproductive individuals to insure continued existence well distributed in the 

planning area. To insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be 

provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that 

habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in 

the planning area. 

Viewshed: Total visible area from a single observer position, or the total visible area 

from multiple observer positions. Viewsheds are accumulated seen-areas from 

highways, trails, campgrounds, towns, cities, or other viewer locations. Examples are 

corridor, feature, or basin viewsheds. 

W 

Watershed: An area of land with a characteristic drainage network that contributes 

surface or ground water to the flow at that point; a drainage basin or a major 

subdivision of a drainage basin. 

Watershed Analysis: Watershed analysis is a systematic procedure for 

characterizing watershed and ecological processes to meet specific management and 

social objectives (Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, Federal Guide for 

Watershed Analysis 1995). This information may then be used to: 

• determine changes in Riparian Management Objectives, 

• identify and prioritize restoration activities within the watershed, 

• identify management activities that are consistent with the processes that 

create and maintain high quality aquatic habitats, and 

• reveal the most useful indicators for monitoring environmental change. 

In brief, watershed analysis is a set of technically rigorous and defensible procedures 

designed to provide information on what processes are active within a watershed (6th

code), how those processes are distributed in time and space, what the current upland 

and riparian conditions of the watershed are, and how all of these factors influence 

riparian habitat and other beneficial uses. The analysis is conducted by an 

interdisciplinary team. 

Watershed Assessment: See Watershed Analysis. 

Water Yield: The measured output of forest streams. 

Well Distributed: Habitat is distributed over the entire forest, based on 

measurements by landscape. The intent is to achieve long-term objectives by not 

lumping habitat into one or a few areas; thereby increasing the risk of adverse effects 

from a single event. Well distributed will be evaluated by examining a particular 

condition or habitat for each landscape unless stated otherwise. 

306 
Glossary 

Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a 

frequency sufficient, under normal circumstances, to support a prevalence of 

vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions 

for growth and reproduction. Wetlands include marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, 

river overflows, mud flats, wet meadows, seeps, and springs. 

Wilderness Areas: Areas that are without developed and maintained roads, and that 

are substantially natural, and that Congress has designated as part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. 

Wilderness Study Area: Those areas required for study of Wilderness suitability 

under the Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-150). 

Wildland(s): These lands are largely undeveloped in character and natural appearing, 

especially when compared to nearby privately owned lands near towns, cities, 

industrial, commercial, agricultural and rural landscapes. Forest Service wildland is 

publicly owned and administered under laws of the U.S. Congress for a variety of 

purposes. 

Wildland Fire Use: The management of naturally ignited wildland fires to 

accomplish specific pre-stated resource management objectives in predefined 

geographic areas outlined in Fire Management Plans. 

Wildland-Urban Interface: The line, area, or zone, where structures and other 

human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative 

fuel. 

Winter: Season of use is December 2 through May 15. 

Wireless Telecommunication Facilities: Buildings, towers, or other physical 

improvements used to house or support wireless communication equipment and 

operations. 

X 

Xeric: A dry environment, characterized by plants that require very little moisture. 

Y & Z 

No defined terms 

307 
APPENDIX A - SCENIC RESOURCE 

INVENTORIES 

The following information is available at the Supervisor’s Office in Dillon, MT, and 

serves to develop a forestwide Scenic Integrity Objective Map based on the matrix in 

the Scenic Resources section of the plan. This information applies to site-specific 

project analysis. 

Scenic Attractiveness 

A Forest wide Scenic Attractiveness layer is available in the GIS database, and will 

be used to map SIOs. 

Landscape Visibility Mapping 

Landscape visibility mapping involves consideration of categories of concern levels. 

The general categories are listed first in this section and the BDNF concern level list 

follows identifying specific routes and sites of concern. 

Concern Level One: 

Paved highway sections across and within 15 miles of the Forest boundary, 

includes Interstates, Federal and State highways, forest and county roads and 

other jurisdictions. 

All designated National Historic, Scenic, and Recreation trails, National Scenic 

and Backcountry Byways, National Landmarks and Historic Sites. 

All National Forest Campgrounds 

All State Parks and Campground 

All incorporated towns 

All eligible Wild, Scenic, and Recreation rivers 

Developed Campgrounds and Recreation Resorts 

Concern Level Two 

All Forest Service Trailheads 

Forest Service Cabins and Administrative Sites 

The following are routes and sites identified for mapping minimum Scenic Integrity 

Levels according to the Scenic Integrity Matrix. 

Appendix A - 1 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Concern Level List 

Big Hole Landscape: Butte, Dillon, Wisdom, and Wise River Ranger 

Districts 

Route Extent of Concern 

Interstate Highway 15 Melrose to Rocker 

State Highway 278 Badger Pass to Wisdom 

State Highway 43 Interstate 15 to Chief Joseph Pass 

County Highway 274 Highway 43 to the Continental 

Divide 

Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail 

I-15 Divide Junction to Goldstone 

Pass 

Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trail 

Gibbons Pass to Badger Pass 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail Gibbons Pass to Bannock Pass 

Forest Trail 103, May Creek 

National Recreation Trail 

Highway 43 to the Continental 

Divide 

Big Hole River, including BLM 

Suitable National Recreational 

River Segment`` 

Hwy 43 bridge (T1N, R14W, Sec. 

26) to Maiden Rock Campground 

Site

Concern 

Level One 

All towns along Highways 43 and 278 

Beaver Dam Campground 

North Van Houten Campground 

Big Hole National Battlefield 

Pintler Campground 

May Creek Campground 

Twin Lakes Campground 

Miner Lake Campground 

Seymour Lake Campground 

Mussigbrod Campground 

South Van Houten Campground 

Concern Route Extent of Concern 

Appendix A - 2 
Appendix A 

 

Beaverhead Co. Lower North Fork 

Road 

Its entire length north of Highway 

43 

Forest Road 183 and 183A, and 

connecting Beaverhead Co. road 

Highway 278 to Twin Lakes 

Campground 

Forest Road 182, Miner Lake 

Road and connection Beaverhead 

Co. road 

Highway 278 to Miner Lake 

Trailhead 

Forest Road 573.2 North Fork Road to Mussigbrod 

Campground 

Forest Road 943 and county 

connecting roads 

Highway 43 to Forest Road 624 

Forest Road 944 and 945, 

Foothills Road 

Highway 278 to Forest Road 624 

Forest Road 185 Highway 43 to Pintler 

Campground 

Forest Road 96 Interstate 15 to Beaverdam 

Campground 

Chief Joseph Ski Trail System All trails, Gordon Reese Cabin, 

and parking 

Forest Road 624 Highway 43 to Big Hole Pass 

Site

Level Two 

n/a 

Boulder River Landscape: Butte and Jefferson Ranger Districts 

Route Extent of Concern 

Interstate Highway 15 I-15 crossing to the top of Boulder 

Hill 

State Highway 69 Boulder to Jack Creek 

Forest Road 82, Boulder River 

Road 

Interstate 15 to the Continental 

Divide 

Concern 

Level One 

Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail 

Our Lady of the Rockies to Bison 

Mountain 

Appendix A - 3 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Haystack National Recreation 

Trail 

Interstate 15 to Haystack 

Mountain summit 

Site

Basin 

Boulder 

Sheepshead Recreation Area 

Lowland Campground 

Elder Creek Picnic Area 

Whitehouse Campground 

Cottonwood Lake 

Route Extent of Concern 

Forest Road 9485 Sheepshead Day Use to the 

Continental Divide 

Forest Road 442 Forest Road 82 to the Continental 

Divide 

Forest Road 8675, Little Boulder 

Road 

Highway 63 to Elder Creek Picnic 

Area 

Forest Road 8505, Sunday Gulch 

Road 

Interstate 15 to the CDNST 

Site

Concern 

Level Two 

n/a 

Clark Fork Flint Landscape: Pintler Ranger District 

Route Extent of Concern 

Interstate Highway 90 Butte to Medicine Tree Hill 

US Highway 12 First 12 miles north from Garrison 

Junction 

State Highway 1, Pintler Scenic 

Loop 

Drummond to Interstate 90 

State Highway 48 Interstate 90 to Highway 1 

Concern 

Level One 

State Highway 38 (Skalkaho 

Road) 

Highway 1 to the Bitterroot NF 

boundary 

Appendix A - 4 
Appendix A 

 

County Highway 441 Interstate 90 to Highway 1 

County Highway 274 Highway 1 to the Continental 

Divide 

County Road 348 Phillipsburg to Highway 38 

Forest Road 82 and county 

connector road 

From Continental Divide to Deer 

Lodge 

Forest Road 8686 (Georgetown 

Lake Low Road) 

Entire length 

Forest Road 195 Highway 1 to Anaconda Job Corp 

Center 

Forest Road 65 Loop from Highway 1 by Echo 

Lake 

Forest Road 1598 Forest Road 65 to Discover Basin 

Ski Area 

Forest Road 406 Highway 1 to Forest Road 672 

Forest Road 672 Highway 1 to Highway 38 

Forest Road 102 County Road 48 to the Lolo 

National Forest boundary 

Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail 

Our Lady of the Rockies to Bison 

Mt 

Discovery Basin Ski Trails and 

facilities 

All trails and lifts 

Lodgepole National Recreation 

Trail 

Highway 1 to Forest Road 65 

Site

Appendix A - 5 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

All towns along included highway extents 

Georgetown Lake and surrounding recreation sites 

Flint Creek Campground 

Spring Hill Campground 

Warm Springs Picnic Area 

Spring Hill Picnic Area 

Warm Springs Campground 

Grant-Kohrs National Historic Site 

Lost Creek State Park 

Orofino Campground 

Racetrack Campground 

Route Extent of Concern 

Forest Roads 705 and 1504, and 

county road following 

Cottonwood Creek. Also known 

as Spring/Emery Loop 

Cottonwood Creek to Peterson 

Creek 

Forest Roads 707 Interstate 90 to Highway 1 

Forest Roads 302 and 645, Gold 

Creek 

Interstate 90 to Doney Cabin 

Forest Road 78615 Gold Creek Road to Forest Road 

636 

Forest Road 636 Forest Road 1554 to Forest Road 

1557 

Forest Road 1544 Forest Road 636 to Forest Road 

707 

Forest Road 1557 Forest Road 636 to Forest Road 

1554 

Forest Road 168 and connecting 

county road 

Deer Lodge to Rock Creek Lake 

Forest Road 670 and connecting 

county road 

Interstate 90 to Caruthers Lake 

Forest Road 170 Highway 1 to Warm Springs 

Picnic Area 

Concern 

Level Two 

Forest Road 675 Highway 1 to Storm Lake 

Appendix A - 6 
Appendix A 

 

Forest Road 635 County Road 273 to Lost Creek 

Campground 

County Road 273 From Highway 48 to Galin 

Forest Road 169, Racetrack Creek 

Road 

Warm Springs to end of road 

Forest Road 5146 Forest Road 169 to Pozega Lake 

Forest Road 5008 and 5147 Interstate 90 to Bowman Lakes 

Forest Road 5107 Forest Road 80 to end 

Forest Road 241 Forest Road 102 to Forest Trail 2 

Forest Road 261 and 5141 Forest Road 672 to East Fork 

Reservoir 

Forest Road 242 Forest Road 65 to Forest Road 

1525 

Forest Road 1525 Phillipsburg to Forest Road 242 

Forest Road 676 State Highway 1 to Princeton 

Forest Trails 32, 33, and 34 Flints, between Phillipsburg and 

Boulder Cr. 

Site

n/a 

Elkhorn Mountains Landscape: Jefferson Ranger District & Helena 

National Forest 

Mgt direction from the 1987 Deerlodge Plan remains until the Helena National Forest 

revises Forest Plan direction for this area. 

Gravelly Landscape: Madison Ranger District 

Route Extent of Concern 

Interstate Highway 15 Red Rock to Monida Pass 

State Highway 287 Sheridan to Silver Star 

US Highway 287 Norris to Quake Lake 

Concern 

Level One 

State Highway 87 US Highway 287 to Henry’s Lake, 

ID 

Appendix A - 7 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Madison County 248, Ruby River 

Road 

Alder to Ruby Reservoir 

Blacktail Road Dillon to Centennial Valley Road 

Southside Centennial Valley Road Monida to Henry’s Lake, ID 

Madison River Earthquake Lake to Norris 

Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail 

Hellroaring Creek to Raynolds 

Pass 

Highway 41 Twin Bridges to Dillon 

Site 

All towns along highway concern extents 

Ruby Reservoir Recreation Area 

Cottonwood Campground 

Earthquake Lake Recreation Area 

West Fork Madison Rest Area 

Cliff and Wade Lakes Recreation Complex 

Elk Lake Recreation Area 

Madison River Recreation Area 

Red Rock Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Route Extent of Concern 

Blacktail Road Price Creek to the Centennial 

Valley Road 

Ruby Road (Centennial Divide 

Road) 

Ruby Reservoir to the Centennial 

Valley Road 

North Side Centennial Valley 

Road 

Blacktail Road to Forest Road 

8384 

Forest Road 8384, Elk Lake Road North Side Centennial Valley 

Road to Elk Lake 

Forest Road 163, Warm Springs 

Road 

Ruby River Road to Forest Road 

290 

Forest Road 347 Ruby River Road to Eureka Basin 

Concern 

Level Two 

Forest Road 290, Gravelly Range 

Road 

Eureka Basin to Forest Road 292 

Appendix A - 8 
Appendix A 

 

Forest Road 237, Standard Creek 

Road 

Forest Road 209 to Forest Road 

290 

Forest Road 209, West Fork Road US Highway 287 to Little Elk 

River 

Forest Roads 292, Call Road and 

county connecting road 

Ennis to Forest Road 290 

County Road 122, Horn Creek 

Road 

State Highway 87 to Cliff Lake 

Forest Road 572 US Highway 287 to Wade Lake 

Forest Road 8386A Forest Road 572 to Cliff Lake 

Forest Road 325 Blacktail Road to Antone Station 

Snowcrest Trail segments 603, 69, 

and 670 

Vigilante to Antone Station and to 

Peterson Basin 

Divide Trail 61 Divide Administrative Site to 

Snowcrest Trail 

East Fork Blacktail Trail 69 East Fork Blacktail Road to 

Snowcrest Trail 

Hidden Lake Trail 35 Elk Lake to Cliff Lake 

Lobo Mesa Trail 405 Forest Road 290 to West Fork 

Trailhead 

Forest Road 1206, Elk River Jeep 

Trail 

Forest Road 209 to Forest Trail 79 

Site

Hidden Lake 

Otter Lake 

Goose Lake 

Jefferson River Landscape: Butte and Jefferson Ranger District 

Route Extent of Concern 

Interstate Highway 90 Homestake Pass to Cardwell 

State Highway 2 Pipestone Pass to Whitehall 

State Highway 55 State Highway 41 to Whitehall 

Concern 

Level One 

State Highway 69 Whitehall to Boulder 

Appendix A - 9 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

State Highway 41 State Highway 55 to Twin Bridges 

Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail 

Our Lady of the Rockies to Rocky 

Ridge Trailhead 

Jefferson River Twin Bridges to Whitehall 

Forest Road 84 Continental Divide to Forest 

Boundary 

Big Hole River Maiden Rock to Twin Bridges 

Site

Delmoe 

Lake Campground and Picnic Area 

Delmoe Lake 

Toll Mountain Campground 

Homestake Lake Picnic Area 

Pigeon Creek Campground 

Whitehall 

Route Extent of Concern 

Whitetail Road Boulder to Whitehall 

Forest Road 222 I-90 to Forest Road 8689 

Forest Road 8689 Forest Road 222 to I-90 

Site 

Concern 

Level Two 

n/a 

Lima-Tendoy Landscape: Dillon Ranger District 

Route Extent of Concern 

Interstate Highway 15 Melrose to Monida, including 

communities 

State Highway 278 Dillon to Wisdom, including 

Jackson 

Concern 

Level One 

Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail 

Goldstone Pass to Monida Pass 

Appendix A - 10 
Appendix A 

 

Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trail 

Carroll Hill to State Highway 324 

to Dillon, and Dillon to Lemhi 

Pass 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail Wisdom to Bannock Pass 

Road 257, Medicine Lodge BLM 

Backcountry Byway 

From Highway 278 to Interstate 15

Site

Clark Canyon Reservoir and all shoreline developments 

Reservoir Lake Campground 

Lemhi Pass National Historic Landmark 

East Creek Campground 

Bannack State Park 

Route Extent of Concern 

None Identified n/a 

Site

Concern 

Level Two 

n/a 

Madison Landscape: Madison Ranger District 

Route Extent of Concern 

US Highway 287 Earthquake Lake Visitor Center to 

Norris 

State Highway 287 Ennis to Madison Overlook 

Site

Concern 

Level One 

Bear Creek Trailhead 

Route Extent of Concern 

None Identified n/a 

Site

Concern 

Level Two 

n/a 

Pioneer Landscape: Dillon, Wisdom, and Wise River Ranger Districts 

Concern Route Extent of Concern 

Level One 

Interstate Highway 15 Rocker to Monida Pass 

Appendix A - 11 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

State Highway 278 Dillon to Wisdom 

State Highway 43 Interstate 15 to Chief Joseph Pass 

Forest Road 73, Pioneer 

Mountain National Forest Scenic 

Byway 

Wise River to Highway 278 

Forest Road 1299 The Byway to Lacy Creek 

Trailhead 

Forest Road 2417 The Byway to Odell Creek 

Trailhead 

Forest Road 98, Birch Creek 

Road 

Interstate 15 to Dinner Station 

Campground 

Forest Road 8210, Rock Creek 

Road 

Interstate 15 to Browns Lake 

Forest Trail 750, Pioneer Loop 

National Recreation Trail 

The Byway to Lacy Creek 

Trailhead 

Forest Trail 428, Grasshopper 

Ridge National Recreation Trail 

Elkhorn Hot Springs to the Byway 

Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail 

Trail Creek Road Junction to Twin 

Bridges 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail Trail Creek Road Junction to 

Reservoir Lake 

Site

Appendix A - 12 
Appendix A 

 

Towns along the extents of Interstate 15, Highway 278, and Highway 

43 

All Forest recreation sites along the Pioneer Mountains Scenic Byway 

Steel Creek Campground 

Coolidge Townsite and Trailhead 

Mono Creek Campground & Trailhead 

Elkhorn Hot Springs Resort 

Maverick Mountain Ski Area 

Canyon Creek Campground 

Canyon Creek Charcoal Kilns 

Browns Lake Campground 

Dinner Station Campground 

Aspen Picnic Area 

Birch Creek CCC camp and Bender Center 

Routes Extent of Concern 

Beaverhead Co. Trapper Creek 

Road 

Melrose to Glendale 

Forest Road 7401, Canyon Creek 

Road 

Forest Road 187 to Forest Trail 92 

Forest Road 187, Quartz Hill 

Road 

Highway 43 to Glendale 

Beaverhead Co. Argenta Road Dillon to Argenta, and spur to 

Highway 278 

Forest Road 806 and 192, French 

Cr. 

Birch Creek Road to Argenta 

Willow Creek Road, Forest Road 

8200 

Birch Creek Road to end of road 

Doolittle Road, Forest Road 2421 Highway 43 to end of road 

Forest Road 90 Wisdom to Steel Creek 

Campground 

Concern 

Level Two 

Site

Appendix A - 13 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Steel Creek Trailhead 

Sawtooth Trailhead 

Birch Creek Cabin 

Tobacco Root Landscape: Jefferson and Madison Ranger Districts 

Route Extent of Concern 

Interstate Highway 90 Homestake Pass to Three Forks 

US Highway 287 Cameron to Three Forks 

State Highway 287 Ennis to Twin Bridges, and 

communities 

State Highway 41 Dillon to State Highway 2, and 

communities 

State Highway 55 Whitehall to Highway 41, and 

Whitehall 

State Highway 2 Pipestone Pass to Three Forks 

Highway 359 Interstate 90 to U.S. 287 

Madison Co Highway 283 Harrison to Pony, including 

communities 

Forest Road 107, South Boulder 

Road 

Highway 359 to Mammoth 

Madison Co. and Forest Road 111 Sheridan to Upper Branham Lake 

Lake Louise National Recreation 

Trail 

Forest Road 107 to end of trail 

Lost Cabin National Recreation 

Trail 

Forest Road 107 to end of trail 

Jefferson River Twin Bridges to Three Forks 

Madison River Cameron To Bear Trap 

Concern 

Level One 

Site

Appendix A - 14 
Appendix A 

 

Towns along Interstate 90, and Highways 2, 287, 41, and 84 

Pony 

Mammoth 

Mill Creek Campground and Day Use 

Balance Rock Campground and Day Use 

Branham Lakes Campground 

Ennis Lake Recreation Complex 

Potosi Campground 

Route Extent of Concern 

Forest Road 107, South Boulder 

River Road 

Mammoth to Brannan Lakes 

Forest Road 160 and Madison Co. 

connecting road, N. Meadow Cr. 

Road 

McAllister to Sure Shot Lakes 

Forest Road 1221 and Madison 

Co. connecting road, S. Meadow 

Creek Road 

McAllister to South Meadow 

Creek Lake 

Forest Road 160 and Madison Co. 

connecting road, S. Willow Creek 

Road 

Pony to Potosi Campground 

Forest Trail 301 Pony to Hollow Top Lakes 

Forest Trail 338 and 366 and 

Forest Road 965 

Forest Road 160 to Lupine and 

Twin Lakes 

Site

Concern 

Level Two 

n/a 

Upper Clark Fork Landscape: Butte Ranger District 

Route Extent of Concern 

Interstate Highway 90 Warm Springs to Homestake Pass 

State Hwy 1, Pintler Scenic Loop Phillipsburg to Flint Creek 

Interstate Highway 15 Elk Park to Divide 

Concern 

Level One 

State Highway #2 Butte to Pipestone Pass 

Appendix A - 15 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Highway 441 Fairmont Hot Springs to Interstate 

90 

Forest Road 8493, Roosevelt 

Drive 

Forest Road 84 to the end of the 

road 

Forest Road 84 Highway 2 to CDNST 

Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail 

Our Lady of the Rockies to Bison 

Mountain 

Site

Butte 

Homestake Pass Trailhead 

Thompson Park 

Beaverdam Campground 

Pipestone Pass Trailhead 

Route Extent of Concern 

Forest Road 9485 and Silver Bow 

Co. connecting road, Lowland 

Road 

Butte to the Continental Divide 

Forest Road 96 Interstate 15 to Beaverdam 

Campground 

Moulton Reservoir Ski Trail 

System 

Site

Concern 

Level Two 

n/a 

Upper Rock Creek Landscape: Pintler Ranger District 

Route Extent of Concern 

State Highway 38 (Skalkaho 

Road) 

Scenic Highway 1 to Bitterroot 

Forest Boundary 

County Road 348 Phillipsburg to State Highway 38 

Forest Road 406 State Highway 1 to Forest Road 

672 

Concern 

Level One 

County Road 102 County Road 384 to the Lolo 

Forest Boundary 

Appendix A - 16 
Appendix A 

 

Forest Road 672 State Highway #1 to State 

Highway #38 

Discovery Basin Ski Trails and 

Facilities 

All trails and lifts 

Site

Moose Lake and Moose Lake Campground 

Stony Campground 

East Fork Campground 

Crystal Creek Campground 

Spillway Campground 

Route Extent of Concern 

Forest Road 5070 Highway 38 to end of road. 

Forest Road 5141 Forest Road 261 to Forest Road 

5103 

Forest Road 88, Willow Creek 

Road 

County Road 348 to the Lolo 

Forest boundary 

Forest Road 5106, Moose Lake 

Road 

Highway 38 to the end of the road 

Forest Road 80, Copper Creek 

Road 

Forest Road 5106 to the Bitterroot 

Forest line 

Forest Trail 2 Forest Road 241 to Stony Lake 

Forest Trail 10 State Road 38 to Stony Lake 

Forest Trail 12 State Road 38 to Fuse Lake 

Forest Trails 313, 168, 105, and 

104 

Lost Tooth Cabin to Frog Pond 

Basin 

Site 

Concern 

Level Two 

Medicine Lake 

Copper Creek Campground 

Appendix A - 17 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Appendix A - 18 
APPENDIX B - LEASE STIPULATIONS AND 

NOTICES 

Background 

The following information pertaining to lease stipulations is taken from the booklet, 

“Uniform Format for Oil and Gas Lease Stipulations,” prepared by the Rocky Mountain 

Regional Coordinating Committee in March 1989. These guidelines were developed by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service. 

Stipulations are conditions that are to be made part of a lease when the environmental and 

planning record demonstrates the necessity for the stipulations. The stipulation forms, in this 

appendix, provide standardized structure, wording, and usage. What, why, and how this 

mitigation/protection is to be accomplished is determined by the land management agency 

through land management planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

analysis. 

If the determination is made, upon weighing the relative resource values, uses, and/or users, 

that conflict with oil and gas operations exist and cannot be adequately managed under the 

Standard Lease Terms, a lease stipulation is necessary. Land use/management plans serve as 

the primary vehicle for determining the necessity for lease stipulations (BLM Manual 1624). 

Documentation of the necessity for a stipulation is disclosed in planning documents and 

through site-specific analysis. Land management plans and/or NEPA documents also 

establish the guidelines by which future waivers, exceptions, or modifications may be 

granted. Substantial modification or waiver subsequent to lease issuance is subject to public 

review for at least a 30-day period in accordance with Section 5102.f of the Federal Onshore 

Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987. 

Stipulations may be necessary if the authority to control the activity on the lease does not 

already exist under laws, regulations, or orders. It is important to recognize that the 

authorized officer has limited authority to modify the site location and design of facilities, 

control the rate of development and timing of activities, as well as require other mitigation 

under Sections 2 and 6 of the Standard Lease Terms (BLM Form 3100-11) and 43 CFR 

3101.1-2. Specifically, Standard Lease Terms allow the authorized officer to move a well or 

other facility site up to 200 meters or delay operations for up to 60 days in a year. 

The necessity for individual lease stipulations is documented in the lease-file record with 

reference to the appropriate land management plan or other leasing analysis document. The 

necessity for exceptions, waivers, or modifications also will be documented in the lease-file 

record through reference to the appropriate plan or other analysis. The uniform format for 

stipulations should be implemented when amendments or revisions of land management 

plans are prepared or by other appropriate means. 

The uniform format for stipulations is designed to accommodate most existing stipulations by 

providing space to record the local mitigation objectives. The stipulations have been 

developed for the categories of: 

Appendix B-- 1 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

No Surface Occupancy (NSO) 

Timing Limitations (TL) 

Conditional Surface Use (CSU) 

This guidance also includes the use of lease notices. Also, there is provision for special or 

unique stipulations, such as those required by prior agreements between agencies when the 

standardized forms are not appropriate. In all cases, use of uniform forms for stipulations 

requires identification of specific resource values to be protected and description of the 

specific geographical area covered. 

Standard Lease Terms 

The Standard Lease Terms (ST) are contained in Form 3100-11, Offer to Lease and Lease for 

Oil and Gas, United States Department of the Interior, BLM, October 1992. They provide the 

lessee the right to use the leased land as needed to explore for, drill for, extract, remove, and 

dispose of oil and gas deposits located under the leased lands. Operations must be conducted 

in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to the land, air, water, cultural, biological, and 

visual elements of the environment, as well as other land uses or users. Federal 

environmental protection laws such as the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and 

Historic Preservation Act, will be applied to all lands and operations and are included in the 

standard lease terms. If threatened or endangered species; objects of historic, cultural, or 

scientific value; or substantial unanticipated environmental effects are encountered during 

construction, all work affecting the resource will stop and the land management agency will 

be contacted. 

Standard Lease Terms provide for reasonable measures to minimize adverse impacts to 

surface resources. These include, but are not limited to, modifications to the location or 

design of facilities, timing of operations, and specifications of interim and final reclamation 

measures. At a minimum, measures shall be deemed consistent with lease rights granted 

provided that they do not: require relocation of proposed operations by more than 200 

meters; require that operations be sited off the leasehold; or prohibit new surface disturbing 

operations for a period in excess of 60 days in any lease year. 

All leases on National Forest System (NFS) lands contain the “Stipulation for Lands of the 

National Forest System under Jurisdiction of Department of Agriculture,” requiring the 

lessee to comply with the rules and regulations of the Department of Agriculture. All leases 

are subject to regulations and formal orders of the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture 

in effect at the time of issuance. 

Definitions 

Conditions of Approval 

Conditions of Approval (COA) are requirements under which an Application for a Permit to 

Drill or a Sundry Notice is approved. 

Appendix B - 2 
Appendix B 

Controlled Surface Use 

Use and occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another stipulation), but identified 

resource values require special operational constraints that may modify the lease rights. 

Controlled Surface Use (CSU) is used for operating guidance, not as a substitute for the NSO 

or timing stipulations. 

Exception 

Exemptions from a lease stipulation can be made on a case by case basis. The stipulation 

continues to apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which restrictive criteria apply. 

Lease Notice 

A Lease Notice (LN) provides more detailed information concerning limitations that already 

exist in law, lease terms, regulations, or operational orders. A lease notice also addresses 

special items the lessee should consider when planning operations, but does not impose new 

or additional restrictions. Lease notices attached to leases should not be confused with 

Notices to Lessees (NTL) (see 43 CFR 3160.0-5). 

Modification 

A modification is a fundamental change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either 

temporarily or for the term of the lease. Therefore, a modification may include an exemption 

from or alteration to a stipulated requirement. Depending on the specific modification, the 

stipulation may or may not apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the 

restrictive criteria apply. 

No Surface Occupancy 

Use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or development is 

prohibited to protect identified resource values. The No Surface Occupation (NSO) 

stipulation includes stipulations that may have been worded as “No Surface Use/Occupancy,” 

“No Surface Disturbance,” “Conditional NSO,” and “Surface Disturbance or Surface 

Occupancy Restriction (by location).” 

Notice to Lessees 

A written notice issued by the BLM authorized officer. It implements regulations and 

operating orders, and serve as instructions on specific item(s) of importance within a state, 

district, or area. 

Stipulation 

A provision that modifies standard lease rights and is attached to and made a part of the 

lease. 

Appendix B - 3 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Timing Limitation 

A Timing Limitation (TL) prohibits surface use during specified time periods to protect 

identified resource values. This stipulation does not apply to the operation and maintenance 

of production facilities unless the findings of analysis demonstrate the continued need for 

such mitigation and that less stringent, project-specific mitigation measures would be in 

sufficient. 

Waiver 

Permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer applies anywhere 

within the leasehold. 

No Surface Occupancy Stipulation Guidance 

The No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation is intended for use only when other 

stipulations are determined insufficient to adequately protect the public interest. The land 

management plan/NEPA document prepared for leasing must show that less restrictive 

stipulations were considered and determined by the authorized officer to be insufficient, i.e., 

show why the NSO stipulation is needed. The planning/NEPA record must also show that 

consideration was given to a no-lease alternative when applying an NSO stipulation. An NSO 

stipulation is not needed if the desired protection would not require relocation of proposed 

operations by more than 200 meters (43 CFR 3101.1-2). 

The legal subdivision, distance, location, or geographic feature, and resource value of 

concern must be identified in the stipulation and be tied to a land management plan and/or 

NEPA document. 

Land description may be stated as: 

The “Entire Lease” 

Distance from resources and facilities such as rivers, trails, campgrounds, etc. 

Legal description 

Geographic feature such as a 100-year floodplain 

Municipal watershed, percent of slope, etc. 

Special areas with identified boundaries--area of critical environmental concern, wild and 

scenic rivers, etc. 

Other description that specifies the boundaries of the lands affected. 

The estimated percent of the total lease area affected by the restriction must be given if no 

legal or geographic description of the location of the restriction is given. In other cases the 

estimated percent is optional (see Example B-1). 

This Land and Resource Management Plan identifies the specific conditions for providing 

waivers, exceptions, or modifications to lease stipulations. Waivers, exceptions, or 

modifications must be supported by appropriate environmental analysis and documentation, 

Appendix B - 4 
Appendix B 

and are subject to the same test used to initially justify the imposition of this stipulation. 

Language may be added to the NSO stipulation form to provide the lessee with information 

or circumstances under which waivers, exceptions, or modifications would be considered. A 

waiver, exception, or modification may be approved if the record shows that circumstances 

or relative resource values have changed or that the lessee can demonstrate that operations 

can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts, and that less restrictive stipulations 

will protect the public interest. Waivers, exceptions, or modifications can only be granted by 

the authorized officer. If the waiver, exception, or modification is inconsistent with the land 

management planning document, that document must be amended or the change disallowed. 

If the authorized officer determines, prior to lease issuance, that a stipulation involves an 

issue of major concern, modification or waiver of the stipulation will be subject to public 

review (43 CFR 3101.1-4). The land management plan also may identify other cases when a 

public review is required for a waiver, exception, or modification. In such cases, wording 

such as the following should be added to the stipulation form to inform the lessee of the 

required public review: “A 30-day public notice period is required prior to modification or 

waiver of this stipulation.” 

Timing Limitations Stipulation Guidance 

The Timing Limitation (TL) Stipulation prohibits fluid mineral exploration and development 

activities for time periods less than yearlong. When using this stipulation, assure date(s) and 

location(s) are as specific as possible. A timing limitation stipulation is not necessary if the 

time limitation involves the prohibition of new surface-disturbing operations for periods of 

less than 60 days (43 CFR 3101.1-2). 

The land use plan/NEPA document prepared for leasing must show less restrictive 

stipulations were considered insufficient. The environmental effects of exploration, 

development, and production activities may differ markedly from each other in scope and 

intensity. If the effects of reasonable foreseeable production activities necessitate timing 

limitation requirements, this need should be clearly documented in the record. The record 

should (shall?) also show that less stringent, project-specific mitigation may be insufficient. 

In such cases the stipulation language should be modified on a case-by case basis to clearly 

document that the timing limitation applies to all stages of activity. 

The legal subdivision and resource value of concern must be identified in the stipulation and 

be tiered to a land use planning and/or NEPA document. The timing limitations for separate 

purposes may be written on separate forms or as combined stipulation (see Example Timing 

Limitations). During the review and decision-making process for Application for Permit to 

Drill (APD) and Sundry Notices, the date(s) and location(s) should be refined based on 

current information. 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan identifies the specific conditions for providing 

waivers, exceptions, or modifications to lease stipulations. Waivers, exceptions, or 

modifications of this stipulation, such as continuing drilling operations into a restricted time 

period, must be supported with appropriate environmental analysis and documentation. They 

will be subject to the same test used to initially justify the imposition of this stipulation. 

Language may be added to the stipulation form to provide the lessee with information or 

Appendix B - 5 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

circumstances under which waiver, exception or modification would be considered. The need 

for one-time, case-by case exceptions of timing limitations stipulation may arise from 

complications or emergencies during the drilling program. The need for timely review and 

decision making is great in such cases. For this reason, it is desirable that land use 

plans/NEPA documents clarify how the review procedures and other requirements, if any, 

would apply in such cases. 

A waiver, exception, or modification may be approved if the record shows how 

circumstances or relative resource values have changed or that the lessee can demonstrate 

operations can be conducted without causing unacceptable impacts, and that less restrictive 

stipulations would protect the public interest. If waivers, exceptions or modifications are 

inconsistent with the land use planning document - and that document does not disclose the 

conditions under which such changes would be allowed - the plan or NEPA document must 

be amended as necessary, or the change disallowed. 

If the authorized officer determines, prior to lease issuance, a stipulation involves an issue of 

major concern, modification or waiver of the stipulation would be subject to public review 

(e.g., 43 CFR 3101.1-4). The land use plan also may identify other cases where a public 

review is required for waiver, exception, or modification. In such cases, wording such as the 

following should be added to stipulation form to inform the lessee of the required public 

review: “A 30-day public notice period is required prior to modification or waiver of this 

stipulation.” 

Controlled Surface Use Stipulation Guidance 

The Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulation is intended to be used when fluid mineral 

occupancy and use are generally allowed on all or portions of the lease area year-round, but 

because of special values or resource concerns, lease activities must be strictly controlled. 

The CSU stipulation is used to identify constraints on surface use or operations that may 

otherwise exceed the mitigation provided by Section 6 of the standard lease terms and the 

regulations and operating orders. The CSU stipulation is less restrictive than the NSO (No 

Surface Occupancy) or Timing Limitation stipulations, which prohibit all occupancy and use 

on all or portions of a lease for all or portions of a year. The CSU stipulation should not be 

used in lieu of an NSO or Timing Limitation stipulation. This stipulation should be limited to 

areas where restrictions or controls are necessary for specific types of activities rather than all 

activity. 

The stipulation should explicitly describe the activity to be restricted or limited, or the 

operation constraints required, and must identify the applicable area and the reason for the 

requirement. The record must show that less restrictive stipulations were considered and 

determined to be insufficient. The legal subdivision, distance, location, or geographic feature, 

and resource value of concern must be identified in the stipulation and be tied to a land 

management plan and/or NEPA document. 

Land management plans and/or NEPA documents should identify the specific conditions 

under which waivers, exceptions, or modifications to lease stipulations would be considered. 

Waivers, exceptions, or modifications of this stipulation must be supported with appropriate 

environmental analysis and documentation, and will be subject to the same test used to 

Appendix B - 6 
Appendix B 

initially justify the imposition of this stipulation. Language may be added to the stipulation 

form to provide the lessee with information or circumstances under which a waiver, 

exception, or modification would be considered. A waiver, exception, or modification may 

be approved if the record shows that circumstances or relative resource value have changed 

or that the lessee can demonstrate that operations can be conducted without causing 

unacceptable impact, and that less restrictive stipulations would protect the public interest. 

Waivers, exceptions, or modifications can only be granted by the authorized officer. If the 

waiver, exception, or modification is inconsistent with the land management planning 

document, that document must be amended as necessary or the change disallowed. 

If the authorized officer determines, prior to lease issuance, that a stipulation involves an 

issue of major concern, modification or waiver of the stipulation would be subject to public 

review (e.g., 43 CFR 3101.1-4). The land management plan also may identify other cases 

when a public review is required for waiver, exception, or modification. In such cases, 

wording such as the following should be added to the stipulation form to inform the lessee of 

the required public review: “A 30-day public notice period is required prior to modification 

or waiver of this stipulation.” 

Special Administration Stipulation Guidance 

There is no required or suggested uniform format for special administration stipulations. 

They are usually provided by another agency or organization. However, other agencies are 

encouraged to use the uniform stipulation format. 

Special Administration stipulations are used in situations where the three uniform stipulation 

forms or lease notices do not adequately address the concern. A Special Administration 

stipulation are used only when special external conditions, such as pre-existing agreements 

with other agencies, require use of a one-of-a-kind stipulation that is not used in any other 

area or situation. The resource use or value, location, and specific restrictions must be clearly 

identified. In addition, the external agency, agreement, or pre-existing use that dictates the 

special restrictions must be identified. The stipulation should state if and under what 

circumstances a waiver, exception, or modification may be allowed. 

Appendix B - 7 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

STIPULATIONS 

PRESCRIBED STIPULATIONS - This section describes the stipulations that will be 

attached to Beaverhead National Forest leases. Conditions are also described for waivers, 

exceptions, and modifications as follows: 

Eligible Scenic and Recreation Segments of Wild and Scenic River Candidates

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use - 1⁄4 mile buffer 

Mapping Criteria: Scenic and Recreational River Segments 

GIS layer s21_ScenicRecRivers 

Objective: To protect scenic and recreational river values along the river corridor and within 

a buffer zone of 1⁄4 mile on either side. Proposed activities must be designed or 

located in such a manner as to not affect the eligibility of the river segment. 

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived if it is determined the entire lease no longer 

contains a scenic and recreational river candidate area. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator can demonstrate in a surface use 

plan of operations that the scenic and recreational river values of the area can be 

maintained at a level acceptable to the authorized forest officer. 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if it is determined portions of the lease no 

longer contain scenic and recreational river candidate areas. 

Justification: The area is a candidate area for wild and scenic rivers designation. Therefore, a 

Controlled Surface Use stipulation is necessary to notify potential lessees of the 

resource concern and restrictions on activities. Under Standard Lease Terms 

some impacts could be mitigated but operations could not be denied if all the 

scenic and recreational values could not be protected. The No Surface Occupancy 

or No Lease stipulations were not considered appropriate since impacts can be 

mitigated using a Controlled Surface Use stipulation and not leasing could 

subject the federal mineral estate to drainage from adjacent leased lands. 

Research Natural Areas 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Mapping Criteria: Research Natural Areas 

GIS layer s23_ResearchNatAreas 

Objective: To preclude surface disturbance and maintain near natural conditions for future 

research. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if it is determined the entire leasehold no longer 

contains portions of a Research Natural Area. 

Exception: None 

Modification: A modification may be granted if the Research Natural Area boundaries have 

changed. 

Justification: A commitment has been made to maintain the area in near natural conditions for 

future research and use and a No Surface Occupancy stipulation is deemed 

necessary to protect the area in such a condition. Also, the area contains unique 

resources that cannot be provided elsewhere on the forest. If the operations 

within these areas would be allowed under either a Controlled Surface Use or 

Timing Limitation stipulations, or under Standard Lease Terms, natural 

conditions and value for future research within the area could be affected. The 

Appendix B - 8 
Appendix B 

No Lease stipulation is not considered appropriate since impacts can be mitigated 

using a No Surface Occupancy stipulation and not leasing could subject the 

federal mineral estate to drainage from adjacent leased lands. 

Eligible Wild Segments of Wild and Scenic River Candidates 

Stipulation: Administratively Unavailable. 

Mapping Criteria: One quarter mile buffer around segments. 

GIS layer s22_WildRivers 

Objective: n/a 

Waiver: n/a 

Exception: n/a 

Modification: n/a 

Justification: n/a 

Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use 

Mapping Criteria: 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule FEIS Inventoried Roadless Areas 

GIS layer s25_ira 

Objective: To preclude new temporary roads, permanent roads, road construction or 

reconstruction as defined in 36 CFR 294.11 

Waiver: This stipulation may cease to apply in the event the District Court orders 

reinstating the 2001 Rule are reversed, set aside, or if the Forest Service 

determines that other events have caused the 2001 rule to no longer be in effect. 

Exception: Same as waiver 

Modification: Same as waiver 

Justification: Compliance with Orders of the District Court C05-03508 and C05-04038 

Big Game Winter Range 

Stipulation: July 2006, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks - Big Game Winter Range. 

GIS layer s05_BigGameWinterRange 

Mapping Criteria: Timing Limitation 

Objective: To preclude surface disturbing activities in big game winter range. Big game can 

be adversely affected by drilling activity, causing increased stress and/or 

displacement during the critical December 2 to May 15 time period. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if habitat studies, in coordination with Montana Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks, conclude the area affected by this stipulation is no longer 

used as big game winter range. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if seasonal conditions are such that the animals 

have moved and are not using the specified area during the time they would 

normally be expected. 

Modification: A modification of the stipulation may be granted if habitat studies show that a 

portion of the area is not important winter range. 

Appendix B - 9 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Justification: Standard Lease Terms provide for delay of activities for up to 60 days. Since the 

critical period extends for approximately 166 days, the Standard Lease Terms 

would not be adequate. The No Lease or No Surface Occupancy stipulations are 

overly restrictive since operations conducted outside the winter range period 

would have a minimal effect on big game. 

Trumpeter Swan Nests 

Stipulation: Timing Limitation 

Mapping Criteria: Within 1⁄2 mile of known trumpeter swan nests. 

GIS layer s06_Nests 

Objective: To preclude surface disturbing activities near nests which may cause increased 

stress and/or displacement of birds during the critical April 1 to September 1 time 

period. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if new habitat studies, in coordination with Montana 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, conclude the area affected by this stipulation is not 

critical for trumpeter swans. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator demonstrates in a plan of operations, 

that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately 

mitigated. 

Modification: A modification of the stipulation may be granted if new habitat studies show a 

portion of the area is not used by trumpeter swans. 

Justification: Surface activities within these areas could adversely impact trumpeter swans. If 

operations were allowed to occur under Standard Lease Terms or Controlled 

Surface Use, swans could be displaced. The No Surface Occupancy and No 

Lease stipulations are overly restrictive since impacts can be avoided by using 

the Timing Limitation stipulation. 

Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon Nests 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Mapping Criteria: One half mile around bald eagle and peregrine falcon nests from February 1 to 

September 1. 

GIS layer s07_BaldEagleETALL 

Objective: To protect habitat and to facilitate recovery of the species. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if new habitat studies, coordinated with the US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, conclude the area affected by this stipulation no longer 

contains an eagle or falcon nest. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator demonstrates, in a plan of 

operations, that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

Modification: Same as waiver. 

Justification: A No Surface Occupancy stipulation is necessary to ensure continued use of the 

nest. If operations within these areas were to be under either a Controlled Surface 

Use or Timing Limitations stipulation, or under Standard Least Terms, the use of 

these areas by eagles or falcons would be affected. The No Lease stipulation is 

not considered appropriate since impacts can be mitigated using a No Surface 

Occupancy stipulation. No Lease could expose the federal mineral estate to 

revenue losses as a result of drainage from adjacent leased lands. 

Appendix B - 10 
Appendix B 

Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon Habitat 

Stipulation: Timing Limitation 

Mapping Criteria: An additional one half mile from No Surface Occupation area. 

GIS layer s07_BaldEagleETALL 

Objective: Buffer is and additional 1⁄2 mile to preclude surface disturbing activities around 

nests. Disturbance may cause increased stress and/or displacement of eagles or 

falcons during the critical February 1 to September 1 time period. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if new habitat studies, coordinated with the US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, conclude the area affected is not critical for eagles or 

peregrine falcons. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator demonstrates, in a plan of 

operations, that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. If the nest area contains only a peregrine falcon nest, an 

exception to the timing limitation from February 1 through March 31 would be 

considered. 

Modification: A modification of the stipulation may be granted if new habitat studies show a 

portion of the area is not used by eagles or peregrine falcons. 

Justification: Surface activities within these areas could adversely impact bald eagles or 

peregrine falcons. If operations were allowed under Standard Lease Terms or 

Controlled Surface Use, eagles and peregrine falcons could be displaced. The No 

Surface Occupancy and No Lease stipulations are overly restrictive since impacts 

can be avoided by using a Timing Limitation stipulation. 

Grizzly Bear Habitat 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use 

Mapping Criteria: Grizzly Bear Amendment for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Occupied 

Habitat as mapped by Kim Barber (USFS, 2006). 

GIS layer s08_GrizzlyHabitat 

Objective: To ensure proposed activities do not adversely affect the viability of grizzly 

bears. Operations will be designed and/or located to not adversely affect grizzly 

bears. Coordination of timing and timing adjustments in activities within grizzly 

use areas may be necessary. Noise levels may also be limited. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if habitat studies, in coordination with Montana Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks, conclude the area affected by this stipulation is no longer 

used as grizzly bear habitat. 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator demonstrates, in a plan of 

operations, that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

Modification: A modification of the stipulation may be granted if new habitat studies show that 

a portion of the area is not used by grizzly bears. 

Justification: Surface activities within these areas could adversely impact grizzly bears. If 

operations were allowed to occur under Standard Lease Terms, the bears could be 

displaced. No Surface Occupancy and No Lease stipulations are overly restrictive 

since impacts can be avoided by using a Controlled Surface Use stipulation. 

Appendix B - 11 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout in Fish Key Watersheds 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Mapping Criteria: Fish Key Watersheds 

GIS layer s09_Alts_Wct 

Objective: To prevent negative effects to westslope cutthroat trout populations critical to 

species viability. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: None 

Modification: None 

Justification: Forest plan direction precludes multiple management activities from these 

watersheds to ensure viability requirements are met. 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Populations 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use 

Mapping Criteria: Watersheds with westslope cutthroat trout conservation populations outside of 

fish key watersheds 

GIS layer s09_Alts_Wct 

Objective: To minimize effects to westslope cutthroat trout populations important to meet 

conservation objectives, mitigation will be applied to: 

Ensure no net increase in sediment over existing condition. Off-site mitigation 

may be required within the occupied reach of stream. 

Centralize drilling or production pads to minimize road network. 

Require that any proposed linear feature, pipeline, road, utility, etc. crossing a 

conservation population stream, be mitigated by special engineering or 

underground construction measure. 

Limit number of stream crossings. 

Ensure operations will not affect stream water quality and quantity. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: If a population is determined extinct, and the State of Montana and BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest biologists determine the watershed is not critical for 

future restoration of westslope cutthroat trout, an exception may be granted. 

Modification: None 

Justification: Standard lease terms were determined inadequate to meet conservation 

objectives. Mitigation under Controlled Surface Use ensures water quality, 

quantity, and habitat, adequate to maintain conservation populations. No Surface 

Occupancy was determined unnecessary because viability requirements were met 

through the NSO for Fish Key Watersheds Stipulation and the CSU mitigation on 

conservation populations outside of fish key watersheds. 

Appendix B - 12 
Appendix B 

Arctic Grayling

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use 

Mapping Criteria: The Ruby River from the forest boundary to its headwaters near Divide Creek. 

On the east side of the river the CSU buffer will be 1⁄2 mile wide and 1⁄4 on the 

west side. The east side requires a wider buffer because the slopes are less stable 

than those on the west side. 

National Forest System within the Trail Creek Hydrologic Drainage up to the 

confluence with May Creek. 

Tributaries to the Big Hole River where sediment introduction is affecting 

grayling habit: Lower Steel, Squaw, Sawlog, Shaw, Papoose, Toomey, Tucker, 

and Walker creeks. The main branch of Steel Creek will be buffered from the 

forest boundary, upstream for 2 miles to Moose Meadows. The buffer on the 

north side of the creek will be a 1⁄2 mile wide and 1 mile on the south side. This 

configuration follows the hydrologic boundaries of this portion of the drainage. 

On all other listed streams, CSU will apply to the National Forest System within 

their hydrologic drainages. 

GIS layer s10_Grayling 

Objective: To protect Arctic Grayling in the Big Hole and Ruby river drainages. To meet 

conservation objectives mitigation measures will apply to: 

Ensure no net increase in sediment over existing condition. Off-site mitigation 

may be required within the occupied reach of stream. 

Centralize drilling or production pads to minimize road network. 

Require any proposed linear feature, pipeline, road, utility, etc. across arctic 

grayling streams be mitigated by special engineering or underground construction 

measures to protect the stream. 

Limit the number of stream crossings 

Ensure operations will not affect stream water quality and quantity. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: If the Ruby River Population is determined extinct and the State of Montana and 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest biologists determine the stream reach is 

not critical for future restoration of arctic grayling, an exception may be granted. 

Modification: None 

Justification: Standard lease terms were determined inadequate to meet conservation 

objectives. Mitigation under Controlled Surface Use ensures water quality, 

quantity, and habitat adequate to maintain conservation. 

Slopes over 60% 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Mapping Criteria: Slopes over 60% 

GIS layer s11_Slopes60 

Objective: To minimize the potential for adverse effects to soil and water. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator can demonstrate, in a surface use 

plan of operations that adverse effects can be minimized and activities safely 

conducted. 

Modification: A modification may be granted if an on-the-ground inspection of a proposed well 

site or facility shows that an area of less than 60% slope exists or that design of 

the site can mitigate erosion and reclamation concerns. 

Appendix B - 13 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Justification: This stipulation is necessary to protect the basic soil and water resources. Soils 

disturbance of an area required for a well pad on steep slopes would be difficult 

to reclaim and could result in unacceptable soil loss through erosion, 

displacement, and compaction and could potentially increase the sediment load of 

streams. If operations within these areas were to be allowed under Standard 

Lease Terms, erosion and reclamation could result. The No Lease option is not 

considered appropriate since impacts can be mitigated using a Controlled Surface 

Use stipulation. No Lease could expose the federal mineral estate to revenue 

losses as a result of drainage from adjacent leased lands. 

Areas of Mass Failure

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Mapping Criteria: Areas where potential exists for mass failure 

GIS layer s12_AreasMassFailure 

Objective: To preclude construction of well sites and related facilities in areas where the 

potential for mass failure exists because these areas of high erosion and stability 

hazard are difficult to reclaim. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator can demonstrate in a surface use plan 

of operation that adverse effects can be minimized and activities safely conducted. 

Modification: A modification may be granted if an on-the-ground inspection of a proposed well 

site or facility determines a low risk of mass wasting or that site design can 

mitigate failure and reclamation concerns. 

Justification: This stipulation is necessary to protect the basic soil and water resources. Soil 

disturbance of an area required for a well pad on mass wasting soils would be 

difficult to reclaim, could result in unacceptable soil loss through erosion, and 

potentially increase the sediment load of streams. If operations within these areas 

were to be allowed under Controlled Surface Use or Timing Limitation 

stipulations, or under Standard Lease Terms, erosion and reclamation of the area 

could be affected. The No Lease option is not considered appropriate since 

impacts can be mitigated using a No Surface Occupancy stipulation. No Lease 

could expose the federal mineral estate to revenue losses as a result of drainage 

from adjacent leased lands. 

Areas Prone to Failure with Slopes over 35%

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Mapping Criteria: Current soil survey overlaid with slopes over 35% 

GIS layer s13_ProneFailureGT35 

Objective: To preclude construction of well sites and related facilities in areas which would 

be difficult to rehabilitate and to preclude surface disturbing activities on areas 

that have a high erosion/stability hazard rating 

Waiver: None 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator can demonstrate in a surface use 

plan of operations that adverse effects can be minimized and activities safely 

conducted. 

Modification: A modification may be granted if an on-the-ground inspection of a proposed well 

site or facility shows an area of less than 35% slope exists and mass wasting -

prone soils do not exist or that design of the site can mitigate erosion, failure, and 

reclamation concerns. 

Appendix B - 14 
Appendix B 

Justification: This stipulation is necessary to protect the basic soil and water resources. Soil 

disturbance of an area required for a well pad on steep slopes or mass wasting 

soils would be difficult to reclaim, could result in unacceptable soil loss through 

erosion, and could increase the sediment load of streams. If operations within 

these areas were to be allowed under Controlled Surface Use, Timing 

Limitations, or Standard Lease Terms, erosion, failure, and reclamation of the 

area could be affected. The No Lease stipulation is not considered appropriate 

since impacts can be mitigated using a No Surface Occupancy stipulation. No 

Lease could expose the federal mineral estate to revenue losses as a result of 

drainage from adjacent leased lands. 

Areas Sensitive to Soil Compaction 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use 

Mapping Criteria: Areas where soil has a high compaction /displacement hazard. 

GIS layer s14_SensitiveSoilCompaction 

Objective: To protect areas where soil conditions are such that the site would be difficult to 

rehabilitate and have a high compaction/displacement hazard. Reclamation 

standards will include: control of species, planting rate and methods, seed bed 

preparation method, and quality and handling of available topsoil. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator can demonstrate in a surface use 

plan of operations that adverse effects can be minimized and activities safely 

conducted. 

Modification: A modification may be granted if an on-the-ground inspection of proposed well 

site or facility shows an area of sensitive soils does not exist or that site design 

can mitigate erosion, failure, and reclamation concerns. 

Justification: This stipulation is necessary to protect the basic soil and water resources. Soil 

disturbance on sensitive soils in an area of the size required for a well pad would 

be difficult to reclaim and could result in unacceptable soil damage, compaction, 

and displacement, it could also increase the sediment load of streams. If 

operations within these areas were to be allowed under either a Timing 

Limitation stipulation or under Standard Lease Terms, sensitive soils could be 

affected and reclamation would be difficult. 

Heritage Resource Sites and Traditional Cultural Properties

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Mapping Criteria: Heritage resource sites larger than 40 acres 

GIS layer s15_CulturalSites 

Objective: To meet forest plan objectives to preserve in place significant heritage resources 

and to avoid disturbance to traditional cultural properties. Stipulations will be 

applied to ensure proposed activities do not adversely affect heritage resource 

sites larger than 40 acres. Heritage sites smaller than 40 acres will also be 

stipulated NSO but it is assumed operations will be designed and/or located to 

not adversely affect the heritage resource site. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: If the on-site inspection reveals archaeological or historic material that does not 

constitute a heritage site, or an archaeological site exists but is not significant, an 

exception may be granted. No exceptions will be given for traditional cultural 

properties. 

Appendix B - 15 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Modification: None 

Justification: To prevent the construction of well sites, support facilities and access roads on 

heritage sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, or 

on sites whose significance has not been determined. 

Grasshopper and Rock Creek Recreation Areas 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use 

Mapping Criteria: Management Area 28 and 30 from the 1986 Beaverhead Forest Plan. 

GIS layer s16_RecAreas 

Objective: To control surface occupancy and new surface disturbing activities in these 

recreation areas by requiring activities to be located and operations conducted in 

a manner that will minimize the effects on the characteristics of the area. 

Extensive reclamation will be required. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if these areas cease to be managed for their recreational 

values. 

Exception: Same as Waiver 

Modification: Same as Waiver 

Justification; A Controlled Surface Use stipulation is considered necessary to protect the 

recreation experience. By enforcing a CSU stipulation, noise, lights, and other 

disturbances to the visitors at the recreation area should be minimized. The No 

Surface Occupancy or No Lease stipulations are overly restrictive since 

operations within the area can be mitigated using a Controlled Surface Use 

stipulation. 

Special Use Recreation Residences

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use 

Mapping Criteria: A quarter mile buffer around Special Use Recreation Residences 

GIS layer s17_RecreationResidences 

Objective: To control surface occupancy and new surface disturbing activities for special 

use recreation residences by requiring activities to be located and operations 

conducted in a manner that will minimize the effects on the characteristics of the 

area. Extensive reclamation will be required. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the recreation residence is moved or eliminated. 

Exception: Same as waiver 

Modification: Same as waiver 

Justification: A Controlled Surface Use stipulation is considered necessary to protect the 

recreation experiences of the special use recreation residences permittees. By 

enforcing a CSU stipulation, noise, light, and other disturbances to visitors at the 

residence should be minimized. A No Surface Occupancy stipulation or No 

Lease are overly restrictive since operations within the area can be mitigated 

using a Controlled Surface Use stipulation and occupation of the sites is not yearround. 

Developed Campgrounds and Administrative Sties

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Mapping Criteria: Sites within one half mile of developed campgrounds, or administrative sites 

Appendix B - 16 
Appendix B 

GIS layer s18_Campgrounds_AdminSites 

Objective: To preclude surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted for campgrounds or administrative sites if the site is 

moved or eliminated. 

Exception: An exception may be granted for campgrounds or administrative sites if the site 

is moved or eliminated. 

Modification: Same as waiver. 

Justification: Construction of site developments allocates those specific lands to a specific use. 

A No Surface Occupancy stipulation is deemed necessary to protect the capital 

investment. If operations were to be allowed within these areas under either a 

Controlled Surface Use or Timing Limitations stipulation, or under Standard 

Lease Terms, the capital investment and/or recreational setting could be affected. 

The No Lease option is not considered appropriate since impacts can be 

mitigated using a No Surface Occupancy stipulation and not leasing could subject 

the federal mineral estate to drainage from adjacent lease lands. 

National Scenic and Historic Trails 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Mapping Criteria: One quarter mile corridor of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail or half 

mile buffer along the Nez Perce and Lewis and Clark national historic trails. 

GIS layer s19_NationalTrails 

Objective: To preclude surface occupancy and surface disturbing activities 

Waiver: None 

Exception: An exception may be granted if a surface occupancy plan shows that the 

designated routes, recreation experiences along those routes, and historic 

resources are protected. 

Modification: Same as exception. 

Justification: These National Trails have been designated to protect historic resources and to 

provide recreation opportunities. If operations were to be allowed within these 

areas under either a Controlled Surface Use or Timing Limitations stipulation, or 

under Standard Lease Terms, the capital investment and/or recreational setting 

could be affected. The No Lease option is not considered appropriate since 

impacts can be mitigated using a No Surface Occupancy stipulation and not 

leasing could subject the federal mineral estate to drainage from adjacent lease 

lands. 

Specific Semi-Primitive Recreation Areas

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use 

Mapping Criteria: GIS layer s04_Alts_PrimitiveSemiprimitive 

(1986 Beaverhead National Forest Plan MA 8 and the current West Big Hole 

Management Area.) 

Objective: To maintain semi-primitive values of the area through use of extensive 

reclamation requirements. The stipulation will also require activities to be located 

and operations conducted in a manner that will minimize the effects on the area 

characteristics. 

Waiver: A waiver may be granted if the area is no longer managed for semi-primitive 

values. 

Exception: None 

Appendix B - 17 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Modification: This stipulation may be modified if it is determined portions of the lease are no 

longer managed for semi-primitive recreation opportunities. 

Justification: These areas have been recognized for their high value as primitive and semiprimitive areas. Application of a Controlled Surface Use stipulation protects the 

surface resources and does not preclude development of potential oil and gas 

resources. If operations were allowed under Standard Lease Terms, the roadless 

character and recreational value of the area could be impacted. A No Lease 

stipulation is not necessary since the application of a Controlled Surface Use 

stipulation protects the resource concern and provides some opportunity to 

explore for oil and gas. Oil and gas exploration activities can be located or 

mitigated so the integrity of the area will not be affected. 

Areas of High Scenic Value 

Stipulation: No Surface Occupancy 

Mapping Criteria: Forest plan management areas with a high scenic objective and one half mile 

buffer on Concern Level One routes and sites. 

GIS layer s20_SenicValue 

Objective: To provide high scenic integrity 

Waiver: None 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator can demonstrate in a surface use 

plan of operations that the objectives for scenery can be met. 

Modification: None 

Justification: Areas are designated as high value because of natural beauty in proximity to 

travel routes or sites where users expect and desire a natural appearance. 

Therefore, a No Surface Occupancy stipulation is deemed necessary to notify 

potential lessees of the resource concern and restrictions. 

Areas of Moderate Scenic Value 

Stipulation: Controlled Surface Use 

Mapping Criteria: All areas that do not meet the criteria for high scenic value and are outside of the 

Tie-Johnson and Bryant Creek Mass. 

GIS layer s20_ScenicValue 

Objective: To ensure the scenic integrity of the area is maintained, proposed activities would 

be required to be located or designed to meet a minimum moderate scenic 

integrity level. 

Waiver: None 

Exception: An exception may be granted if the operator can demonstrate in a surface use 

plan of operations that the objectives for scenery can be met. 

Modification: If the area is determined to be not visible from those sensitive routes and sites 

listed above mitigation for scenery may not be needed. 

Justification: Application of the Controlled Surface Use stipulation identifies the standard an 

operator must meet and provides the opportunity to conduct activities as long as 

the standard is met. The No Lease or No Surface Occupancy stipulations are 

deemed overly restrictive because visual impacts to the scenic integrity level can 

often be mitigated by vegetative or topographic screening Under the Standard 

Lease Terms some impacts could be mitigated but operations could not be denied 

if the moderate scenic integrity level could not be mitigated. 

Appendix B - 18 
Appendix B 

Lease Notice Background 

Lease notices are attached to leases to transmit information at the time of lease issuance to 

assist the lessee in submitting acceptable plans of operation or to assist in administration of 

leases. Lease notices are attached to leases in the same manner as stipulations. However, 

there is an important distinction between lease notices and stipulations: lease notices do not 

involve new restrictions or requirements. Any requirements contained in a lease notice must 

be fully supported either in a law, regulation, standard lease term, or an onshore oil and gas 

order. A lease notice is not signed by the lessee. Guidance in the use of lease notices is found 

in BLM Manual 3101 and 43 CFR 3101.1-3. 

A lease notice should contain the following elements: 

The resource/use/value, 

The lands affected, if applicable, 

The reason(s), 

The effect on lease operations or what may be required, and 

A reference to the lease term, regulation, law, or the order from which enforcement 

authority is derived. 

If a situation or condition is known to exist that could affect lease operations, there should be 

full disclosure at the time of lease issuance via a lease notice. If a lessee may be prevented 

from extracting oil and gas through a prohibition mandated by a specific non-discretionary 

statute, such as the Endangered Species Act, then a stipulation may be used even though a 

lease notice would be sufficient. It is at the discretion of the authorized officer whether a 

situation is sufficiently sensitive to warrant the use of a lease stipulation. 

BEAVERHEAD NATIONAL FOREST LEASE NOTICES 

The following language provides example language for lease notices. Since lease notices 

transmit information about laws, regulations, or orders, the language in the lease notices may 

change if the underlying law, regulation, or order changes. 

NOTICE FOR LANDS OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM UNDER JURISDICTIONOF 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The permittee/lessee must comply with all the rules and regulations of the Secretary of 

Agriculture set forth at Title 36, Chapter II, of the Code of Federal Regulations governing the 

use and management of the National Forest System (NFS) when not inconsistent with the rights 

granted by the Secretary of Interior in the permit. The Secretary of Agriculture's rules and 

regulations must be complied with for (1) all use and occupancy of the NFS prior to approval of 

an exploration plan by the Secretary of the Interior, (2) uses of all existing improvements, such 

as forest development roads, within and outside the area permitted by the Secretary of the 

Interior, and (3) use and occupancy of the NFS not authorized by an exploration plan approved 

by the Secretary of the Interior. 

All matters related to this stipulation are to be addressed to: 

Forest Supervisor or District Ranger 

Appendix B - 19 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

who is the authorized representative of the Secretary of Agriculture. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES - The FS is responsible for assuring that the leased lands are examined 

to determine if cultural resources are present and to specify mitigation measures, in accordance with 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(as amended), and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1996. Prior to undertaking any 

surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee or operator, unless notified to 

the contrary by the FS, shall: 

1. Contact the FS to determine if a site specific cultural resource inventory is required. If a survey is 

required, then:

2. Engage the services of a cultural resource specialist acceptable to the FS to conduct a cultural resource 

inventory of the area of proposed surface disturbance. The operator may elect to inventory an area larger 

than the area of proposed disturbance to cover possible site relocation which may result from 

environmental or other considerations. An acceptable inventory report is to be submitted to the FS for 

review and approval at the time a surface disturbing plan of operation is submitted. 

3. Implement mitigation measures required by the FS and BLM to preserve or avoid destruction of 

cultural resource values. Mitigation may include relocation of proposed facilities, testing, salvage, and 

recordation or other protective measures. All costs of the inventory and mitigation will be borne by the 

lessee or operator, and all data and materials salvaged will remain under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

Government as appropriate. 

The lessee or operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the FS and BLM any 

cultural or resources or any other objects of scientific interest discovered as a result of 

surface operations under this lease, and shall leave such discoveries intact until directed to 

proceed by FS and BLM.

Vertebrate Paleontology Notice - The FS is responsible for assuring that the leased lands are 

examined to determine if paleontologic resources are present and to specify mitigation measures, in 

accordance with Organic Act, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 

Prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee or operator, 

unless notified to the contrary by the Forest Service, shall: 

1. Contact the Forest Service to determine if a site-specific vertebrate paleontologic inventory is required. 

The Forest Service will conduct inventories and surveys as part of the field review for the proposed 

activity on the lease. The operator may voluntarily engage the services of a qualified paleontologist to 

conduct the inventory. 

2. Implement mitigation measures required by the Forest Service and Bureau of land management to 

preserve or avoid destruction of vertebrate paleontologic resources. Mitigation may include relocation 

of proposed facilities or other protective measures. 

3. The lessee or operator shall immediately bring to the attention of the Forest Service any vertebrate 

paleontological resources discovered as a result of surface operation under this lease, and shall leave 

such discoveries intact until directed to proceed by the Forest Service. 

FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS - The lessee is hereby notified that this lease may contain land 

within a riparian ecosystem. All activities within this area may be highly restricted in order to comply 

with Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990 - Protection of 

Wetlands, in order to preserve and restore or enhance the natural and beneficial values served by 

floodplains and wetlands. 

Riparian ecosystems will be managed by the Forest Service to protect from conflicting uses in order to 

provide healthy, self-perpetuating plant and water communities that will have optimum diversity and 

density of understory and overstory vegetation. Occupancy and use of lands within riparian ecosystems 

proposed in a proposed Surface Use Plan of Operations will be considered in an environmental 

analysis done to identify the mitigation measures necessary to protect the riparian area. Special 

Appendix B - 20 
Appendix B 

measures such as road design, well pad size and location or directional drilling, may be made part of 

the permit authorizing the activity. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE PLANT OR ANIMAL SPECIES LEASE 

NOTICE

The lease area may contain threatened and endangered species or habitat necessary for the continued 

existence of threatened, proposed, candidate or endangered species which are protected by the 1973 

Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.) and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

402 et seq.). The lease area may also contain habitat or species, which may require protective measures 

to prevent them from being listed as threatened or endangered; or result in a loss of viability or 

biological diversity 

(36 CFR 219.19 or 219.26). A biological evaluation of the leased lands may be required prior to 

surface disturbance to determine if endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate or sensitive plant or 

animal species or their habitat are present and to identify needed mitigation measures. Prior to under 

taking any surface-disturbing activities on the lands covered by this lease, the lessee or operator shall: 

1. Contact the Forest Service to determine if a biological evaluation is required. The Forest 

Service is responsible for ensuring that the leased land is examined through a biological 

evaluation, prior to undertaking any surface-disturbing activities, to determine effects upon 

any plant or animal species listed or proposed for listing as threatened, endangered, or a 

sensitive species. 

2. The lessee or operator may choose to conduct the evaluation on the leased lands at their 

discretion and cost. This biological evaluation must be done by or under the supervision of a 

qualified biologist/botanist approved by the Forest Service. An acceptable report must be 

provided to the Forest Service identifying the anticipated effects of a proposed action on 

endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate or sensitive species. An acceptable biological 

evaluation is to be submitted to the Forest Service for review and approval no later than that 

time when an otherwise complete application for permit to drill or subsequent surfacedisturbing operation is submitted. 

3. Implement mitigation measures required by the Forest Service. Mitigation may include the 

relocation of proposed lease-related activities or other protective measures. The findings of 

the biological evaluation, analysis and consultation may result in restrictions to the operator's 

plans or even disallow use and occupancy to comply with the 1973 Endangered Species Act 

(as amended), threatened and endangered species regulations and Forest Service statutes and 

regulations. 

If endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate or sensitive plant or animal species are discovered in the area 

after any required biological evaluation has concluded; an evaluation will be conducted to assess the effect of 

ongoing and proposed activities. Based on the conclusion drawn in the evaluation, additional restrictions or 

prohibitions may be imposed to protect the species or their habitats. 

Appendix B - 21 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Appendix B - 22 
APPENDIX C - PROJECTED OUTPUTS AND 

BUDGET 

Average Annual Estimated Goods and Services* 

Outputs Current 

Level 

Decade 1 Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5 

Sawtimber Volume 

(CCF) 

28,000 28,000 28,360 28,670 28,690 29,890 

Sawtimber Volume 

(MMBF) 

14 14 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.9 

Fuelwood/post and 

poles (CCF) 

5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 

Cattle, Horse, Bison 

Grazing (AUMs) 

163,700 163,700 163,700 163,700 163,700 163,700 

Sheep Grazing 

(AUMs) 

7,400 7,400 7,400 7.400 7,400 7,400 

General Recreation 

Visits 

432,217 432,217 475,439 522,982 575,280 632,808 

Hunting, Fishing, 

Wildlife Viewing 

Visits 

389,464 389,464 428,410 471,251 518,376 570,214 

Summer Motorized 

Recreation Visits 

80,339 80,339 88,372 97,211 106,931 117,624 

Snowmobile Visits 10,434 10,434 11,477 12,625 13,888 15,276 

Crude Oil (barrels 

from 4 wells)** 

0 12,704 17,236 17,862 18,014 18,043 

Natural Gas (MCF 

from 4 wells)** 

0 503,000 901,000 1,007,000 1,036,000 1,042,000 

Forest Service 

Budget 

Expenditures (M$) 

19,385 19,385 19,188 19,088 18,888 18,988 

*Assumptions are documented in the Project File “FEIS PNV Assumptions” where 

recreation visits are organized by categories described in the Resources Planning Act (RPA) 

*based on reasonably foreseeable development scenario 

Appendix C - 1 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Appendix C- 2 
APPENDIX D - SCHEDULE OF TIMBER SALES 

AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 

The following schedule is displays the proposed timber sales to be offered to the public 

during the next three years (to meet the requirements of CFR 219.16) along with the schedule 

of watershed restoration and other activities incorporated into or funded by the stewardship 

portion of those sales. The timber sale program is one aspect of the Northern Region 

Integrated Restoration Strategy designed to comply with the National Fire Plan and 

emphasizing stewardship contracting to achieve multiple forest objectives. This is the BDNF 

contribution to the Regional 3-year schedule and subject to revision upon approval by the 

Forest Supervisor. Each year the Forest reviews the Integrated Restoration Strategy, makes 

necessary adjustments, and adds another year’s activities to the schedule. Abbreviations used 

in the tables are as follows: 

DIST = District D3 = Wise River Ranger District 

D4 = Butte Ranger District D6 = Madison Ranger District 

D6 = Jefferson Ranger District D8 = Pintlar Ranger District 

HUC = hydrologic unit code 

(Montana NRIS 2003 Version 

Watersheds) 

CCF = hundred cubic feet 

STWD = stewardship contract WUI = wildland urban interface 

PROJECT 

NAME DIST 6TH CODE HUC (NRIS 2003) ACTIVITY OUT-PUT UNIT STWD 

2008 

Lime Kiln D4 170102010202 Timber Sale, Salvage 7000 CCF YES 

170102010202 Fuel Reduction, WUI 350 Acres YES 

170102010202 Road Maintenance .5 Miles YES 

170102010202 Road Maintenance-STWD 3 Miles YES 

170102010202 Noxious Weed Trtmt- STWD 350 Acres YES 

170102010202 Habitat Enhancement 200 Acres YES 

170102010202 Stream Enhancement 1 Mile YES 

100200050102 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 1000 Acres YES 

170102010202 Stream Enhancement-STWD 2 Miles YES 

170102010202 Soil & Water Improvement 20 Acres YES 

170102010202 Soil & Water ImprovementSTWD 

180 Acres YES 

Homestake Pass D4 170102010202 Timber Sale, Salvage 6000 CCF YES 

170102010202 Fuel Reduction, WUI 600 Acres YES 

170102010202 Road Decommission 2 Miles YES 

170102010202 Noxious Weed Trtmt-STWD 600 Acres YES 

Appendix D - 1 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

6TH PROJECT CODE HUC DIST ACTIVITY OUT-PUT UNIT STWD NAME (NRIS 2003) 

100200050102 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 2000 Acres YES 

100200050202 Stream Enhancement 1 Mile YES 

100200050202 Stream Enhancement-STWD 15 Miles YES 

100200050202 Trail Restoration 3 Miles YES 

100200050202 Soil & Water Imprv STWD 105 Acres YES 

100200050202 Travel Management STWD 270,000 Acres YES 

100200050202 Trail Decommission STWD 8.5 Miles YES 

North Butte D4 170102010202 Timber Sold, Salvage 10000 CCF YES 

170102010202 Fuels Reduction, WUI 600 Acres YES 

170102010202 Road Decommission 2 Miles YES 

170102010202 Road Maintenance-STWD 12 Miles YES 

170102010202 Abandoned Mine Rec STWD 5 Sites YES 

170102010202 Noxious Weed Trtmt-STWD 1500 Acres YES 

170102010202 Habitat Enhancement 300 Acres YES 

170102010202 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 1500 Mile YES 

170102010202 Stream Enhancement 2 Miles YES 

170102010202 Stream Enhancement-STWD 5 Miles YES 

170102010202 Fuel Reduction Other-STWD 9400 Acres YES 

Thompson Park D4 170102010202 Timber Sold, Salvage 10000 CCF YES 

170102010202 Fuels Reduction, WUI 500 Acres YES 

170102010202 Road Maintenance .5 Miles YES 

170102010202 Road Maintenance -STWD 2 Miles YES 

170102010202 Habitat Enhancement 200 Acres YES 

170102010202 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 1000 Acres YES 

170102010202 Stream Enhancement 1 Mile YES 

170102010202 Stream Enhancement-STWD 8 Miles YES 

170102010202 Noxious Weed Trtmnt-STWD 500 Acres YES 

170102010202 Recreation Site Imprv -STWD 150 Acres YES 

170102010202 Soil & Water Imprv-STWD 150 Acres YES 

170102010202 Soil and Water Imprv. 10 Acres YES 

East Deerlodge D8 170102010506 Timber Sold, Salvage 20000 CCF YES 

170102010506 Habitat Enhancement 650 Acres YES 

170102010506 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 2000 Acres YES 

170102010506 Stream Enhancement 1 Mile YES 

170102010506 Stream Enhancement-STWD 5 Miles YES 

170102010506 Road Improvement 1.5 Miles YES 

Appendix D - 2 
Appendix D 

6TH PROJECT CODE HUC DIST ACTIVITY OUT-PUT UNIT STWD NAME (NRIS 2003) 

170102010506 Road Improvement –STWD 10 Miles YES 

170102010506 Soil & Water Improvement 10 Acres YES 

170102010506 Soil & Water Imprv.-STWD 30 Acres YES 

170102010506 Noxious Weed Trtmt 200 Acres YES 

170102010506 Noxious Weed Trtmt -STWD 500 Acres YES 

170102010506 Boundary line marked 5 Miles YES 

170102021003 Noxious Weed Trtmt -STWD 2500 Acres YES 

170102021003 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 2400 Acres YES 

170102021003 Soil & Water Improvement 50 Acres YES 

170102021003 Soil & Water Imprv.-STWD 150 Acres YES 

170102021003 Stream Enhancement 2 Miles YES 

170102021003 Stream Enhancement-STWD 8 Miles YES 

170102021003 Road Decommission 1 Miles YES 

170102021003 Road Decommission-STWD 4 Miles YES 

170102010506 Fuel Reduction, WUI 200 Acres YES 

Battle Mountain D2 100200040402 Timber Sold, Salvage 3000 CCF NO 

100200040402 Fuels Reduction, WUI 400 Acres NO 

100200040402 Noxious Weed Trtmt 400 Acres NO 

100200040402 Stream Enhancement 2 Miles NO 

Roadside Salvage 

#2 

D4 

D7 

170102010202 Timber sold, Salvage 6000 CCF NO 

170102010202 Noxious Weed Trtmt 300 Acres NO 

Elk Park Sawmill D4D7 100200060201 Timber Sold, Salvage 6200 CCF YES 

100200060201 Fuels Reduction, WUI 150 Acres YES 

100200060201 Noxious Weed Treatment 300 Acres NO 

100200060105 Habitat Enhancement 400 Acres YES 

100200060105 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 1000 Acre YES 

100200060201 Stream Enhancement .5 Miles YES 

100200060201 Stream Enhancement-STWD 1.5 Miles YES 

100200060201 Road Improvement .5 Miles YES 

100200060201 Soil & Water Imprv 5 Acres YES 

100200060201 Soil & Water Imprv-STWD 15 Acres YES 

Rat Creek Fire D2 100200040402 Timber Sold, Salvage 20000 CCF NO 

100200040402 Noxious Weed Trtmt 400 Acres NO 

Z Bar Tee D7 100200050205 Timber Sold, Salvage 1500 CCF NO 

Fuels Reduction, WUI 28 Acres NO 

Appendix D - 3 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

6TH PROJECT CODE HUC DIST ACTIVITY OUT-PUT UNIT STWD NAME (NRIS 2003) 

2009 

Birch Willow D1 100200041403 Timber Sold, Salvage 6000 CCF YES 

100200041403 Fuels Reduction, WUI 200 Acres YES 

100200041403 Habitat Enhancement 200 Acres YES 

100200041403 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 1000 Acres YES 

100200041403 Stream Enhancement .5 Miles YES 

100200041403 Stream Enhancement-STWD 3.5 Miles YES 

100200041403 Road Improvement 3 Miles YES 

100200041403 Road Improvement –STWD 9 Miles YES 

100200041403 Trail Maintenance 25 Miles YES 

100200041403 Trail Maintenance –STWD 25 Miles YES 

100200041403 Abandoned Mine Reclamation 7 Sites YES 

100200041403 Soil & Water Imprv 15 Acres YES 

100200041403 Soil & Water Imprv –STWD 45 Acres YES 

Powerline 

Salvage #1 

D4D7 100200060401 Timber Sold, Salvage 6000 CCF NO 

100200060401 Fuels Reduction, WUI 300 Acres NO 

100200060401 Road Maintenance 2.5 Miles NO 

Roadside 

Salvage #3 

D4 170102010506 Timber Sold, Salvage 6000 CCF NO 

Noxious Weed Treatment 200 Acres NO 

Bear Creek D7 100200071301 Winter Range Restoration 3000 Acres NO 

2010 

Moulton 

Reservoir 

D4 170102010403 Timber Sold, Salvage 3000 Acres NO 

170102010403 Fuels Reduction, WUI 150 Acres NO 

170102010403 Stream Enhancement 1 Miles NO 

170102010403 Noxious Weed Trtmt 150 Acres NO 

170102010403 Trail Replacement 5 Miles NO 

170102010403 Road Improvement .5 Miles NO 

170102010403 Road Maintenance 1 Mile NO 

South Fk Divide D4 100200041101 Timber Sold, Salvage 6000 CCF YES 

100200041101 Fuels Reduction, WUI 300 Acres YES 

170102010205 Habitat Enhancement 250 Acres YES 

170102010205 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 1000 Acres YES 

100200041101 Stream Enhancement .5 Miles YES 

100200041101 Stream Enhancement-STWD 1 Miles YES 

Appendix D - 4 
Appendix D 

6TH PROJECT CODE HUC DIST ACTIVITY OUT-PUT UNIT STWD NAME (NRIS 2003) 

100200041101 Noxious Weed Trtmt -STWD 300 Acres YES 

100200041101 Soil & Water Imprv –STWD 35 Acres YES 

100200041101 Soil & Water Imprv 10 Acres YES 

Timber Creek D6 100200030108 Timber Sold 2000 CCF NO 

100200030108 Fuels Reduction, WUI 300 Acres NO 

100200030108 Road Maintenance, Hi Clear. 5 Miles NO 

100200030108 Habitat Enhancement 400 Acres NO 

100200030108 Noxious Weed Trtmt 400 Acres NO 

Lockhart 

Meadow 

D7 100200060104 Timber Sold, Salvage 11000 CCF YES 

100200060104 Fuels Reduction, WUI 600 Acres YES 

100200060103 Habitat Enhancement 200 Acres YES 

100200060103 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 1000 Acres YES 

100200060104 Stream Enhancement 1 Mile YES 

100200060104 Stream Enhancement-STWD 3 Miles YES 

100200060104 Noxious Weed Trtmt -STWD 600 Acres YES 

100200060104 Road Maintenance 1 Mile YES 

100200060104 Road Maintenance -STWD 7 Miles YES 

100200060104 Soil & Water Imprv 5 Acres YES 

Johnson Creek D3 100200040902 Timber Sold, Salvage 4000 CCF YES 

100200040902 Fuels Reduction, Other 200 Acres YES 

100200041201 Habitat Enhancement 250 Acres YES 

100200044201 Habitat Enhancement-STWD 1000 Acres YES 

100200040902 Stream Enhancement 1 Mile YES 

100200040902 Stream Enhancement-STWD 3 Miles YES 

100200040902 Noxious Weed Trtmt 200 Acres YES 

100200040902 Road Maintenance .5 Miles YES 

100200040902 Road Maintenance -STWD 3 Miles YES 

100200041201 Soil & Water Imprv –STWD 15 Acres YES 

1002000412012 Soil & Water Imprv 5 Acres YES 

Powerline 

Salvage #2 

D4 100200060302 Timber Sold, Salvage 6000 CCF NO 

100200060302 Fuels Reduction, WUI 300 Acres NO 

100200060302 Noxious Weed Trtmt 300 Acres NO 

100200060302 Road Maintenance 2 Miles NO 

Rader Creek D7 100200050204 Timber Sold, Salvage 4000 CCF NO 

Appendix D - 5 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Appendix D - 6 

PROJECT 

NAME DIST 6TH CODE HUC (NRIS 2003) ACTIVITY OUT-PUT UNIT STWD 

100200050204 Road Improvement 2 Miles NO 

100200050204 Habitat Impv 200 Acres NO 

100200050204 Noxious Weed Trtmt 300 Acres NO 

100200050205 Timber Sold, Salvage 4000 CCF NO 

100200050205 Noxious Weed Trtmt 300 Acres NO 

100200050205 Fuel Reduction, WUI 600 Acres NO 
APPENDIX E - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT 

PRACTICES 

Vegetation management practices available for the primary coniferous forest types on the 

forest are described below, as required in CFR 219.15. The conditions and circumstances for 

selecting a practice are outlined. Planting and timber stand improvement practices are only 

applicable to suitable timber lands where timber production is the purpose for the activity. 

These practices are general guidelines. The final decision for the vegetative management 

practice (silvicultural system) chosen for each vegetative type and circumstance shall be 

made by a certified silviculturist using guidance in this Appendix, a review of applicable 

technical and scientific literature, and practical experience. Using this knowledge, the 

silviculturist will evaluate the practice for relevance to the specific vegetation and site 

condition. Additional practices may be dictated by other resource goals, particularly in 

riparian areas. 

Harvest Systems 

Managed forest lands include five general vegetative types. Each vegetative type provides 

several options for harvest systems depending on site conditions, phonological characteristics 

of individual species and management goals. Appropriate harvest systems for each type are 

as follows: 

Lodgepole Pine 

These sites generally occur on alpine fir or Douglas-fir climax habitats. Sites are generally 

dominated by pure or nearly pure lodgepole pine stands. 

Clearcut – Where timber production is the primary goal for the area, and lodgepole pine 

is the desired management species, clearcutting may be used. Lodgepole pine is very 

shade tolerant and produces maximum seed germination and growth in full sunlight 

conditions. 

Shelterwood – This harvest method may be used where conversion to more shade 

tolerant species such as Spruce or Douglas-fir is desirable, and where shelter is necessary 

to protect regeneration. Lodgepole pine will generally not be retained as shelter trees due 

to its; high susceptibility for windthrow. 

Seedtree – Harvest may occur on sites where conversion to more tolerant species is 

desireable. In these cases residual seed trees will generally be spruce or Douglas-fir. 

Lodgepole pine may be retained as seed trees on sites where cone serotony is poor and 

sufficient seed is not present in the logging slash to adequately regenerate the site 

following harvest. Due to the high susceptibility of lodgepole pine seedtrees to 

windthrow, this method should be used where the risk is low. Lodgepole pine containing 

seed bearing cones may be retained as seed trees on stands wehre broadcast burning is 

used to dispose of slash. This method may be used as a one-shot attempt to establish 

Appendix E-1 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

natural regeneration as seedtrees will normally be killed by the fire. These sites should be 

scheduled for planting if first year regeneration surveys do not show adequate stocking. 

Selection/Group Selection/Commercial Thinning – Lodgepole pine types are generally 

not well suited for unevenaged silvicultural systems where lodgepole pine is the desired 

species of regeneration. Hormonal response to shaded sunlight prevents germination of 

lodgepole pine seed and restricts root growth in existing trees in shaded or partially 

shaded conditions. These methods may be used where other resource goals dictate 

continuous site occupancy with trees and where conversion to more tolerant species is 

desirable or acceptable. 

Douglas-fir 

These stands generally occur on Douglas-fir climax habitats and are characterized by species 

compositions ranging from a mixture of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine to pure Douglas-fir. 

Clearcut – This harvest method may be used on sites where existing stands do not 

contain sufficient suitable seed or shelter trees. This may occur due to disease, infestation 

with insects or genetic undesirability of available trees. Sites harvested using this method 

will generally be scheduled for planting. 

Shelterwood – This harvest method will generally be used on sites where the retention of 

shelter trees is necessary to protect regeneration from excessive drying of the site or 

where continuous site occupancy with trees is necessary to protect other resource values. 

Where timber production is the primary goal of the area, the shelter trees will generally 

be removed after the regeneration is well established (10 to 20 years). Douglas-fir is 

considered a moderately shade intolerant species and produces greater growth under full 

sunlight conditions. On sites where the shelter trees are retained to protect other resource 

values, shelter trees may be retained on the site for a longer period of time, or not 

removed at all. 

Seedtree – This harvest method will be used on sites where the retention of shelter trees 

is not necessary to protect regeneration or other resource values. The retention of 

seedtrees provides seed for natural regeneration while retaining near full sunlight 

conditions to maximize growth. Seed trees will generally be removed from the site after 

sufficient desirable regeneration is established. 

Selection/Group Selection/Commercial Thinning – On very dry or harsh sites where 

regeneration of the site is difficult and stockability is low, selection harvest may be the 

most appropriate method of assuring continued regeneration of the site. These systems 

may also be used where other resource goals dictate continuous site occupancy with trees, 

and where full stocking of stands is not required. 

Spruce/Sub-alpine fir/Whitebark pine 

These stands generally occur on relatively high elevation sub-slpine fir climax habitat types 

and are characterized by a species mixture of sub-alpine fir, spruce, and whitebark pine. 

These sites often are not suited for regulated timber management due to harsh site conditions 

but may be managed where adequate site protection and regeneration can be assured or to 

meet other resource goals. 

Appendix E-2 
Appendix E 

Clearcut, Shelterwood, Seed tree – Even aged harvest may be used to manage these 

sites where individual site and stand conditions allow and successful regeneration is 

likely to occur. 

Selection/Group Selection/Commercial Thinning – On harsh sites where regeneration 

of the site is difficult and stockability is low, selection harvest may be the most 

appropriate method of assuring continued regeneration of the site. These systems may 

also be used where other resource goals dictate continuous site occupancy with trees, and 

where full stocking of stands is not required. 

Riparian 

These areas occur along streams and wet meadows. Existing stand conditions are highly 

variable, ranging from even-aged lodgepole stands to all-aged, multi-storied, mixed species 

stands. Harvest treatments will be designed to maintain natural conditions, protect riparian 

values, and to provide recruitment of trees to streams for pool development where 

appropriate. 

Selection/Group Selection – These harvest methods will be used in riparian areas to 

manage the timber resource while protecting other resource values. Selection harvest may 

be used where the desired management species is shade tolerant and regeneration of that 

species is likely to occur. On sites where the desired management species is shade 

intolerant, such as lodgepole pine, group selection will generally be used to create 

conditions favorable for regeneration and growth. Group selection units will generally not 

exceed five acres in size. 

Clearcut, Shelterwood, Seedtree – Even-aged systems will normally not be utilized in 

riparian areas. Exceptions may occur where other resource goals dictate removing the 

trees and riparian values can be adequately protected. 

Quaking Aspen 

These stands occur in riparian zones, in open sagebrush grasslands and intermingled with 

conifer stands. Quaking aspen regenerates primarily from root sprouts (suckers). 

Aggregations of raments (above ground stems) result from surviving root sprouts. Root 

sprouts are usually stimulated when above ground ramets are suppressed or removed thus 

removing apical dominance by auxins produced in the crowns from inhibiting the 

underground stem from sprouting. Heat of fires also stimulates root sprouting. Successful 

aspen ramets are intolerant of shade. 

Clearcut - Where an aspen stand has declined due to insect or disease, even aged 

regeneration may be attempted by clearcutting. 

Selection -Where the above ground ramets are generally free of pathogens and in sound 

physiological condition but are undergoing encroachment by various coniferous species 

subjecting the clone to competition for light, nutrients and moisture removal of the 

competitive stress by girdling encroaching conifers, falling and leaving encroaching 

conifers, or falling and removal when damage to the residual aspen ramets can be 

minimized are appropriate practices. Removal of conifers from a perimeter surrounding 

an existing aspen clone often allows the clone to expand into the space. Thus removal of 

Appendix E-3 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

conifers surrounding an aspen clone by clearcutting is an acceptable practice for aspen 

regeneration. 

Other - Where browsing pressure is identified as inhibiting the development of aspen 

ramets producing an ungulate barrier may be desirable. Prescribed burning to stimulate 

root suckering and reduce pathogens is an acceptable practice. 

Site Preparation/Slash Disposal 

Site preparation/slash disposal will be scheduled for harvested units where logging slash 

creates an untenable fire hazard and/or where site conditions inhibit reforestation efforts. 

Methods of site preparation/slash disposal include the following: 

Tractor Piling – will generally be scheduled following harvest on sites where slopes are 

less than 45% and soils are not sensitive to erosion or compaction. 

Hand Piling – will generally be scheduled on harvested units containing sensitive soils 

or hwere small unit size makes hand piling more cost efficient than other methods. 

Trampling – may be used on sites where logging slash will not create an undue fire 

hazard and trampling will accomplish adequate site preparation to allow the prescribed 

type of regeneration. 

Broadcast Burning – may be used on sites where other methods are not feasible due to 

slopes exceeding 45% or on sensitive soils where mechanical methods would crate undue 

soil disturbance or compaction. 

YUM Yarding – Yarding of unmerchantable material may be appropriate where whole 

tree yearding is planned or where other methods will cause undue soil disturbance. 

Jackpot Burning – may be used where fuels are scattered and site preparation is 

adequate to provide for regeneration. 

Herbicide Treatment – may be used where competing vegetation precludes regeneration 

and mechanical methods of removing the competing vegetation are infeasible or cost 

prohibitive. Herbicides will be applied under an approved environmental analysis and 

disclosure document like the BDNF 2002 Noxious Weed Management Plan FEIS and 

Record of Decision. 

Reforestation 

Natural Regeneration – will be the primary system of reforestation on the forest 

Planting – will generally only be scheduled on forested sites where natural regeneration 

is desired but unlikely to occur within five years of final harvest. Site conditions which 

generally indicate the need for planting include but are not limited to the following: 

1. Following clearcut harvest on Douglas-fir sites where Douglas-fir is the desired 

regenerated species. 

Appendix E-4 
Appendix E 

2. Following clearcut harvest on Lodgepole pine sites where cone serotony is poor 

or sites must be broadcast burned to dispose of logging slash due to steep slopes. 

3. Following shelterwood harvest where natural regeneration is not expected within 

five years due to harsh site conditions. 

4. Where third year regeneration surveys indicate that natural regeneration will not 

result in adequate stocking within five years of final harvest.. 

Timber Stand Improvement 

Precommercial thinning, cleaning, release and weeding may be used on seedling/sapling 

sized stands allocated as suitable timber lands. Treatments will be designed to reduce 

overstocking to increase growth, remove diseased, damaged, or genetically inferior trees or 

to control species composition. Treatment will be scheduled prior to growth loss due to 

stagnation but after the possibility of significant ingrowth has past, generally between twenty 

and thirty years of stand age. Residual stocking levels, species preference and timing of 

treatment will be specific in the silvicultural prescription. 

Appendix E-5 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Appendix E-6 
Appendix F 

APPENDIX F - TIMBER HARVEST CAPACITY 

PROJECTIONS 

SPECTRUM software was used as a timber harvest scheduling tool, reporting long term 

sustained yield (LTSY) and allowable sale quantity (ASQ) for alternatives 1-5 as well as the 

benchmark calculations (Chapter 2). Based on 2004 SPECTRUM runs, the maximum timber 

benchmark has an allowable sale quantity (ASQ) of 766 MMBF in decade 1 (76.6 MMBF/year), 

with harvest occurring on 82,693 acres. LTSY and ASQ, constrained by estimated budget 

projections, were calculated for Alternative 6 based on the following graphed data and 

calculations 

Appendix F - 1 

APPENDIX G - GRIZZLY BEAR AND LYNX 

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

Grizzly G-2 / Lynx G-72

Appendix G -1 
UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

APRIL 2006 

 

 

FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 

GRIZZLY BEAR HABITAT CONSERVATION

FOR THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE AREA NATIONAL FORESTS

RECORD OF DECISION

BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST

BRIDGER-TETON NATIONAL FOREST

CARIBOU-TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST

CUSTER NATIONAL FOREST

GALLATIN NATIONAL FOREST

SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST

COUNTIES IN IDAHO

BEAR LAKE, BONNEVILLE, CARIBOU, CLARK, FRANKLIN, FREMONT, MADISON, AND TETON

COUNTIES IN MONTANA

BEAVERHEAD, CARBON, GALLATIN, MADISON, PARK, STILLWATER, AND SWEET GRASS

COUNTIES IN WYOMING

FREMONT, HOT SPRINGS, LINCOLN, PARK, SUBLETTE, AND TETON

Appendix G

Appendix G - 2
 Page ii

Please recycle this document when it is ready to be discarded. 

Cover photograph by Joshua M. Westerhold. Used with permission. 

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

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or 

because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (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 to USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call 

(800) 795.3272 (voice) or (202) 720.6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 3
 Page iii

Abstract: The Forest Service is amending six forest plans on six Greater Yellowstone Area national 

forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, Gallatin, and Shoshone 

National Forests) to incorporate the habitat standards and other relevant provisions in the Final 

Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Amended forest plans are 

the 1986 Beaverhead Forest Plan, the 1990 Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, the 1997 Revised Forest Plan—Targhee National Forest, the 1987 Custer National 

Forest and Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan, the 1987 Gallatin National Forest Plan, and 

the 1986 Shoshone National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The purpose and need for the 

amendments is to ensure conservation of habitat to sustain the recovered grizzly bear population, update 

the management and monitoring of grizzly bear habitat, provide consistency among Greater Yellowstone 

Area national forests in managing grizzly bear habitat, and ensure the adequacy of regulatory 

mechanisms for grizzly bear habitat protection upon delisting as identified in the Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Plan. This Record of Decision presents the three principal reasons the responsible officials selected 

Alternative 2-Modified described in the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation 

for the Six Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Additionally, this decision document describes the public involvement process and issues and other 

alternatives considered; it explains legally required findings and administrative review procedures. The 

amendment to the six forest plans is contained in the appendix. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 4
 Page iv

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Responsible 

Officials: 

Bruce Ramsey, Forest Supervisor 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

420 Barrett Street 

Dillon, MT 59725-3572 

Carole ‘Kniffy’ Hamilton, Forest Supervisor 

Bridger-Teton National Forest 

P O Box 1888 

340 North Cache 

Jackson, WY 83001-1888 

Lawrence A. Timchak, Forest Supervisor 

Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

1405 Hollipark Drive 

Idaho Falls, ID 83401-2100 

Nancy T. Curriden, Forest Supervisor 

Custer National Forest 

1310 Main Street 

Billings, MT 59105-1786 

Rebecca Heath, Forest Supervisor 

Gallatin National Forest 

P O Box 130 

10 East Babcock 

Bozeman, MT 59771-0130 

Rebecca Aus, Forest Supervisor 

Shoshone National Forest 

808 Meadow Lane Avenue 

Cody, WY 82414-4549 

For 

Information 

Contact: 

Mr. Kim Barber 

Shoshone National Forest 

808 Meadow Lane Avenue 

Cody, WY 82414-4549 

Telephone 307.527.6241 

This document is available on the Internet at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/igbc/Subcommittee/yes/YEamend/gb_internet.h

tm

 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 5
 Page v

Table of contents 

Preface............................................................................................................................................................vi

Part 1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1

Part 2 Decision ................................................................................................................................................4

Part 3 Principal reasons for the decision .........................................................................................................7

Part 4 Implementation ...................................................................................................................................26

Part 5 Public involvement and issues ............................................................................................................27

Part 6 Alternatives considered.......................................................................................................................30

Part 7 Legally required findings....................................................................................................................32

Part 8 Administrative review.........................................................................................................................35

Appendix—Forest plan amendment for grizzly bear habitat conservation ...............................................A - 1

Amendment part 1—Goal, standards, guidelines, and monitoring...................................................... A - 2

Amendment part 2—The 1998 baseline .............................................................................................. A - 6

Amendment part 3—Nuisance bear standards..................................................................................... A - 7

Amendment part 4—Figures ............................................................................................................... A - 9

Appendix G

Appendix G - 6
 Page vi

Preface 

This Record of Decision describes our decision to approve Alternative 2-Modified from the Forest Plan 

Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

This Record of Decision has two purposes. First, it is a legal document detailing a formal decision from a 

government agency. Second, it explains why the decision was made. 

We want to thank all of the 55,000+ people that provided comments during the development of this 

amendment. Your comments helped guide the development of the amendment’s components. When 

implemented, this amendment and the supporting documents will shape the management of grizzly bear 

habitat for many years. 

Our decision strikes a balance that sustains a recovered grizzly bear population in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area while retaining public enjoyment and economic uses of these public lands. 

While the management direction in this amendment provides a firm foundation for grizzly bear habitat 

management, we recognize that habitat management is dynamic and new information is constantly being 

developed. The selected alternative embraces an adaptive management approach—as conditions change, 

so will management direction. Any necessary changes, based on monitoring and evaluation, will involve 

public collaboration. 

Again, thank you for your interest in grizzly bear habitat conservation and in the management of your 

national forests. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce Ramsey, Forest Supervisor, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Carole ‘Kniffy’ Hamilton, Forest Supervisor, Bridger-Teton National Forest 

Lawrence A. Timchak, Forest Supervisor, Caribou-Targhee National Forest 

Nancy T. Curriden, Forest Supervisor, Custer National Forest 

Rebecca Heath, Forest Supervisor, Gallatin National Forest 

Rebecca Aus, Forest Supervisor, Shoshone National Forest 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 7
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 1 

Part 1 Introduction 

1.1 About this document 

This Record of Decision is organized into eight parts. 

• Part 1—Introduction. This part includes information about the Greater Yellowstone Area, a 

summary of the history of grizzly bear conservation in the Greater Yellowstone Area, and 

describes the purpose and need for action. 

• Part 2—Decision. The decision and a summary of direction in the selected alternative are 

presented in part 2. 

• Part 3—Reasons for the Decision. In this part, the three principal reasons for the decision are 

described. 

• Part 4—Implementation. Part 4 includes information about the implementation of the 

amendment and the delisting process. 

• Part 5—Public Involvement and Issues. The public involvement process, a summary of public 

comment, a description of government consultation, and the issues are included in part 5. 

• Part 6—Alternatives Considered. This part describes the alternatives considered in the Forest 

Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area 

National Forests Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

• Part 7—Legally Required Findings. Part 7 lists the laws and regulations that were considered 

during the process. 

• Part 8—Administrative Review. Administrative review procedures are described in part 8. 

The Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area 

National Forests, baseline values and other relevant data, and a list of criteria and definitions used in the 

amendment are included in the appendix. 

1.2 Setting 

Since the 1960s, the Greater Yellowstone Area has been acknowledged as an ecosystem that extends 

beyond the core of Yellowstone National Park. The Greater Yellowstone Area is approximately 18 

million acres of public and private lands. Public lands comprise about 76 percent, or 13.6 million acres, 

of the Greater Yellowstone Area, including six national forests, two national parks, two national wildlife 

refuges, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation lands, and state and tribal lands. The 

Greater Yellowstone Area is in the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. 

Public lands are concentrated around the Yellowstone Plateau. Geographically, the Greater Yellowstone 

Area includes the headwaters of the Missouri-Mississippi, Snake-Columbia, and Green-Colorado River 

systems and 14 surrounding mountain ranges. 

Grizzly bear conservation in the Greater Yellowstone Area 

In 1975, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the grizzly bear as a threatened species in the lower 48 

states, placing the species under federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended1

. 

Since listing, government agencies have worked to improve habitat conditions, minimize grizzly 

bear/human conflicts and grizzly bear mortality, and increase public awareness and appreciation for the 

grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area. In 1975, land management agencies in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area initiated an effort to develop consistent management direction for grizzly bears. In 

1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee was formed to coordinate management and research 

actions more effectively for recovery of grizzly bears in different ecosystems, and the Yellowstone 

 

1

 In this Record of Decision, all references to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 are to the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 8
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 2 

Ecosystem Subcommittee was created to coordinate management of the Yellowstone grizzly bear habitat 

and population. The 1982 and 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plans (Recovery Plan) were developed to 

identify actions necessary for the conservation and recovery of the grizzly bear. The Recovery Plan2

defined a recovered grizzly bear population as one that could sustain a defined level of mortality and that 

is well distributed throughout the recovery zone. 

In 2003, the Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area (Conservation 

Strategy) was developed to be the document guiding management and monitoring of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population and its habitat upon recovery and delisting. The Conservation Strategy describes 

the Primary Conservation Area for grizzly bears, which is the same area as the recovery zone identified 

in the Recovery Plan. The Primary Conservation Area for the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone 

Area is approximately 5,893,000 acres in size and includes portions of the six national forests, two 

national parks, and other intermingled lands (Figure 1). 

The states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming developed state grizzly bear management plans that were 

incorporated as integral parts of the Conservation Strategy. These state grizzly bear management plans 

recommend and encourage land management agencies to maintain or improve habitats that are important 

to grizzly bears in areas biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bears and to monitor 

habitat conditions in those areas. 

Decades of interagency management efforts resulted in the grizzly bear population’s increasing from an 

estimated 200 bears to current estimates of 500 to 600 bears. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

reviewed the status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population under the Endangered Species Act and 

the Proposed Rule to delist the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has been published in the Federal 

Register. The Status Review determined adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to delist the 

grizzly bear if the habitat standards in the Conservation Strategy are incorporated into the National Park 

Service’s Superintendent’s Compendium for each affected national park and if current forest plans for 

each of the six Greater Yellowstone Area national forests are amended before the Rule is finalized. 

1.3 The purpose and need for action 

The management of grizzly bear habitat on national forests in the Greater Yellowstone Area is a dynamic 

process. Experience provides the public and land managers with understanding and insights regarding the 

conservation of grizzly bear habitat. Scientific research continues to bring forth new theories, 

observations, and findings relevant to the management of these resources. This learning is continuous. 

Most importantly, the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has increased over the past 25 years to the 

point where all established3

 demographic recovery targets have been met or exceeded since 1998 and the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population is in the process of being delisted. 

The purpose of these amendments is to: 

• Ensure conservation of habitat to sustain the recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

• Update the management and monitoring of grizzly bear habitat to incorporate recent interagency 

recommendations and agreements, as described in the Conservation Strategy 

• Improve consistency among Greater Yellowstone Area national forests in managing grizzly bear 

habitat 

• Ensure the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms for grizzly bear habitat protection upon delisting 

as identified in the Recovery Plan 

 

2

 The 1993 Recovery Plan is a revised and updated version of the original Recovery Plan, published in 1982. 

Throughout this document, any reference to the Recovery Plan is to the 1993 version, unless otherwise stated. 

3

 The Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee has approved new analysis protocols, developed by the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team, for estimating total population and mortality limits from all causes (IGBST 2005). This 

new method is a more comprehensive mortality management approach and is derived from a more accurate model 

for establishing sustainable mortality limits for grizzly bear populations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will 

incorporate this new methodology into the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and append this to the Conservation 

Strategy before making its final determination on the Rule to delist the grizzly bear. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 9
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 3 

The six national forests included in this proposal are the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, CaribouTarghee, Custer (Beartooth Ranger District), Gallatin, and Shoshone National Forests with a total area of 

about 13 million acres within proclaimed boundaries (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. The six Greater Yellowstone Area national forests and the Primary Conservation Area boundary. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 10
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 4 

Part 2 Decision 

2.1 Introduction 

The foundation for our decision is the analysis of alternatives documented in the Forest Plan Amendment 

for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and public comment during scoping and on the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Our decision incorporates by reference the analysis of effects and management 

direction disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the planning record in its entirety. 

All references and citations used in this Record of Decision are fully described in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Our decision applies only to National Forest System lands in the six Greater Yellowstone Area national 

forests. It does not apply to any other federal, state, or private lands, although the effects of our decision 

on those lands were considered. The geographic area of interest for the selected alternative is National 

Forest System lands inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area (Figure 1). 

The forest plan amendment for grizzly bear habitat conservation establishes the framework for future 

decision making by outlining direction for sustaining a recovered grizzly bear population. The selected 

alternative is programmatic in nature and guides implementation of site-specific projects that tier to 

forest plans. Additional National Environmental Policy Act compliance is required for site-specific 

projects. 

Reconsideration of other goals, objectives, land allocations, and other direction in a forest plan are not 

part of the selected alternative, but may be addressed when forest plans are revised. We find this 

amendment is not significant under the National Forest Management Act regulations as described in part 

7. 

2.2 The decision 

We have selected Alternative 2-Modified to amend the six national forest plans. By selecting Alternative 

2-Modified, we are approving management direction that maintains the integrity of grizzly bear habitat 

in the Greater Yellowstone Area, establishes consistent management direction, and sustains a recovered 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 

Our decision strikes a balance between competing demands expressed by many people: a sustainable, 

recovered grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Area balanced with public enjoyment and 

economic reliance on these public lands. In making our decision, we used the best available science in 

conjunction with public comments. In addition to the habitat standards in the Conservation Strategy, our 

decision adds guidance to provide assurances that many grizzly bear habitat management efforts that 

have been ongoing will continue. These additions include guidance inside and outside the Primary 

Conservation Area for food storage regulations, information and education, grizzly bear/human and 

grizzly bear/livestock conflict management, monitoring of secure habitat outside the Primary 

Conservation Area, and maintenance of key grizzly bear food sources. 

This decision incorporates adaptive management and monitoring and continued active government 

coordination through the agreement in the Conservation Strategy. This adaptive strategy offers an avenue 

to describe and evaluate the consequences of changing conditions and new knowledge. Monitoring and 

additional analyses will be used to shape future management actions within the framework of the 

amended forest plans. 

We selected Alternative 2-Modified because it conserves grizzly bear habitat, acknowledges the social 

and economic values of local communities, and allows us to work with others to monitor and adapt 

management. Further, it meets the purpose and need and responds to the issues. For further discussion on 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 11
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 5 

these issues, see part 5. Alternative 2-Modified is summarized in Figure 2 and described in detail in the 

appendix4

. 

Figure 2. The direction and guidance in Alternative 2-Modified. Wording in italics was added to the proposed 

action between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements to create Alternative 2-Modified in 

response to public comment 

Goals, Standards, Guidelines, and Monitoring Items 

Goal 

Manage grizzly bear habitat within the Primary Conservation Area to sustain the recovered Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population. Outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in state management plans as 

biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, accommodate grizzly bear populations 

to the extent that accommodation is compatible with the goals and objectives of other uses. 

Standard 1—Secure Habitat 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, maintain the percent of secure habitat in Bear Management Unit 

subunits at or above 1998 levels. Projects that change secure habitat must follow the Application Rules. 

Standard 2—Developed Sites 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, maintain the number and capacity of developed sites at or below 1998 

levels, with the following exceptions: any proposed increase, expansion, or change of use of developed sites 

from the 1998 baseline in the Primary Conservation Area is analyzed and potential detrimental and positive 

impacts on grizzly bears are documented through a biological evaluation or assessment. Projects that change 

the number or capacity of developed sites must follow the Application Rules. 

Standard 3—Livestock Grazing 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, do not create new active commercial livestock grazing allotments, do 

not increase permitted sheep animal months from the identified 1998 baseline, and phase out existing sheep 

allotments as opportunities arise with willing permittees. 

Standard 4 

Standard 4 was dropped from Alternative 2-Modified. The intent of Standard 4—to no longer manage by 

Management Situation areas or use the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines—is stated in this Record of 

Decision. 

Standard 5—Nuisance Bears 

Coordinate with state wildlife management agencies to apply Conservation Strategy nuisance bear standards.

Standard 6—Food Storage 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts using food storage, information 

and education, and other management tools. 

Guideline 1—Winter Motorized Access 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, use localized area restrictions to address conflicts with winter use 

activities, where conflicts occur during denning or after bear emergence in the spring. 

 

4

 Standards and guidelines are numbered here and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Numbers were 

dropped in the appendix describing final direction for grizzly bear management.

Appendix G

Appendix G - 12
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 6 

Goals, Standards, Guidelines, and Monitoring Items 

Guideline 2—Livestock Grazing 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, cattle allotments or portions of cattle allotments with recurring conflicts 

that cannot be resolved through modification of grazing practices may be retired as opportunities arise with 

willing permittees. Outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in state management plans as 

biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, livestock allotments or portions of 

allotments with recurring conflicts that cannot be resolved through modification of grazing practices may be 

retired as opportunities arise with willing permittees. 

Guideline 3—Food Storage 

Outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in state management plans as biologically suitable 

and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, emphasize proper sanitation techniques, including food 

storage orders, and information and education, while working with local governments and other agencies. 

Guideline 4—Food Sources 

Inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in state management plans as biologically 

suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, maintain the productivity, to the extent feasible, of 

the four key grizzly bear food sources as identified in the Conservation Strategy. Emphasize maintaining and 

restoring whitebark pine stands inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area. 

Monitoring Item 1—Secure Habitat and Motorized Access 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, monitor, compare to the 1998 baseline, and annually submit for 

inclusion in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Annual Report: secure habitat, open motorized access 

route density greater than one mile per square mile, and total motorized access route density greater than two 

miles per square mile in each Bear Management Unit subunit on the national forest. Outside the Primary 

Conservation Area in areas identified in state management plans as biologically suitable and socially 

acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, monitor, and submit for inclusion in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study 

Team Annual Report: changes in secure habitat by national forest every two years.

Monitoring Item 2—Developed Sites 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, monitor, and annually submit for inclusion in the Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Study Team Annual Report: changes in the number and capacity of developed sites on the national forest, 

and compare with the 1998 baseline. 

Monitoring Item 3—Livestock Grazing 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, monitor, compare to the 1998 baseline, and annually submit for 

inclusion in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Annual Report: the number of commercial livestock 

grazing allotments on the national forest and the number of permitted domestic sheep animal months. Inside 

and outside the Primary Conservation Area, monitor and evaluate allotments for recurring conflicts with 

grizzly bears.

Monitoring Item 4—Habitat Effectiveness 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, monitor, and every five years submit for inclusion in the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team Annual Report: changes in seasonal habitat effectiveness in each Bear Management 

Unit and subunit on the national forest through the application of the Cumulative Effects Model or the best 

available system and compare outputs to the 1998 baseline. Annually review Cumulative Effects Model 

databases and update as needed. When funding is available, monitor representative non-motorized trails or 

access points where risk of grizzly bear mortality is highest.

Appendix G

Appendix G - 13
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 7 

Goals, Standards, Guidelines, and Monitoring Items 

Monitoring Item 5—Whitebark Pine 

Monitor whitebark pine occurrence, productivity, and health inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area 

in cooperation with other agencies. Annually submit for inclusion in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

Annual Report: results of whitebark pine cone production from transects or other appropriate methods, and 

results of other whitebark pine monitoring. 

2.3 Decision authority 

The authority for this decision, under 36 CFR 219.10(f), belongs to the forest supervisors of the six 

Greater Yellowstone Area national forests. 

Part 3 Principal reasons for the decision 

Our decision to select Alternative 2-Modified for implementation is based on the three principal reasons. 

1. Habitat is conserved to sustain the recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

2. Local communities and social and economic values are acknowledged and public safety is emphasized 

3. Federal, state, local, and tribal governments work together to monitor and adapt to changing conditions and 

new science 

The reasons for our decision are described in the following sections. 

3.1 Principal reason 1 - habitat is conserved to sustain the recovered Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population 

Habitat loss and uncontrolled human-caused mortality have been the primary reasons for the elimination 

of bears from much of their former range. How and where bears use existing habitat is primarily a 

function of seasonally available foods moderated or precluded by the presence of humans. The majority 

of grizzly bear mortality is attributable to grizzly bear/human conflicts with a common outcome of bear 

mortality by either interagency bear managers or by other humans. In addition to mortality concerns, it is 

important to provide secure habitat (areas free of motorized access) so bears are able to fully utilize the 

available resources. Human presence can limit bear use of habitat, create tolerance among some bears 

that allows for interaction at great risk to both humans and bears, or attract bears to unnatural or 

unsecured food sources. This increases the risks of habituation to unnatural foods and human conflict. 

Maintenance of adequate habitat and associated important foods, along with management of human 

activities within the habitat, are key for the long-term sustainability of grizzly bear populations. 

Maintaining habitat to ensure the recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has been a 

cooperative goal of the national forests, national parks, state wildlife management agencies, and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in the Greater Yellowstone Area since the listing of the grizzly bear as a 

threatened species in 1975. Habitat management efforts on National Forest System lands, including 

seasonal and permanent motorized access restrictions, closure of many sheep allotments, provisions in 

livestock grazing and special use permits, food storage orders, installation of bear resistant facilities, 

information and education materials and programs, and the development of coordinated direction for 

management of forest resources have been instrumental in the recovery of this bear population. 

Current information indicates this population of grizzly bears is growing at approximately 4 to 7 percent 

or more annually. The grizzly bear has increased its distribution in the Greater Yellowstone Area by 

almost 50 percent since the 1970s; expansion is expected to continue. All of the current information (i.e., 

number of unduplicated females, distribution of reproducing females, distribution of bears, informal 

sightings by agency personnel, and areas where nuisance bears are being managed) indicates this 

population has increased in both the number of bears and the geographic area they occupy. Figure 3 and 

Figure 4 display the increase in number and distribution of one of the most important factors of the 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 14
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 8 

grizzly bear population: females with cubs-of-the-year. Existing habitat conditions—basically unchanged 

since 1998—have allowed for a recovered grizzly bear population that is increasing, expanding, and 

exceeding established demographic recovery targets. Consequently, maintaining habitat quality and 

quantity at current conditions is sufficient to support the recovered population of grizzly bears. 

Figure 3. Unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year in the Greater Yellowstone Area (Haroldson 2005). 

Unduplicated Females with Cubs-of-the-year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04

Years

No. of Females 

Fw/COYinside PCA + 10 mi. buffer Fw/COYoutside PCA + 10 mi. buffer

Alternative 2-Modified is tied closely to interagency agreements for habitat direction and cooperative 

and adaptive management reached in the Conservation Strategy. In response to public comment, 

Alternative 2-Modified also includes guidance to continue key ongoing Forest Service actions that have 

been instrumental in minimizing grizzly bear/human conflicts and promoting grizzly bear recovery. We 

have also formalized our commitment to maintaining the productivity, to the extent feasible, of the four 

key grizzly bear foods and monitoring other key habitat components. 

The following are key elements of grizzly bear habitat and are addressed in terms of why Alternative 2-

Modified is the selected alternative. 

• Area necessary to sustain a recovered grizzly bear population 

• Secure habitat 

• Food sources 

• Management of human activities 

• Minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts 

Area necessary to sustain a recovered grizzly bear population 

Many respondents to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement suggested the area necessary to sustain 

the grizzly bear population should be expanded beyond the Primary Conservation Area. Some believed 

due to the uncertainty regarding the loss of important grizzly bear foods, especially whitebark pine, an 

area larger than the Primary Conservation Area should be managed for grizzly bears. Other respondents 

suggested the ability of bears to move between important habitats in the Greater Yellowstone Area, 

particularly outside the Primary Conservation Area, should be addressed. Others believed the Primary 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 15
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 9 

Conservation Area is adequate and should not be expanded, while others believed the restrictions 

proposed under Alternative 4 outside the Primary Conservation Area were unrealistic. 

Figure 4. Distribution of female grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year for three different time periods in the 

Greater Yellowstone Area5

. 

 

5 Distribution map constructed from the initial observations of females with cubs-of-the-year using a 95 percent 

fixed kernel estimator (Schwartz et al. 2002 and Schwartz et al. 2005d). 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 16
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 10 

The Recovery Plan identifies the Primary Conservation Area or recovery zone as the area where grizzly 

bears and grizzly bear habitat would be managed to achieve recovery while recognizing that grizzly 

bears would occur outside the recovery zone. The grizzly bear population achieved recovery under that 

zone designation. The Conservation Strategy identifies the Primary Conservation Area as the area 

adequate to sustain a recovered grizzly bear population and allows grizzly bear occupancy in biologically 

suitable and socially acceptable habitats, as identified by the states, outside the Primary Conservation 

Area. 

There is little doubt the Primary Conservation Area is key to sustaining a recovered grizzly bear 

population. We have been and remain committed to maintaining the integrity of the Primary 

Conservation Area for grizzly bears. All alternatives in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

provide various levels of protection to habitats inside the Primary Conservation Area. The question is 

how much habitat beyond the Primary Conservation Area should be managed to sustain the recovered 

grizzly bear population at a minimum of 400 bears as identified in the Conservation Strategy. It has been 

estimated that 10 to 14 percent of the 500 to 600 grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Area from 

1990 through 2004 lived outside the Primary Conservation Area. Approximately 21 percent of the area 

occupied by grizzly bears during that time was outside the Primary Conservation Area on National 

Forest System lands. Bears continue to expand in both range and numbers. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 do not specifically address the management of habitats for grizzly bears outside 

the Primary Conservation Area. Alternative 4 imposes restrictions on land uses outside the Primary 

Conservation Area where there is no way to predict when or if bears would occupy those areas. 

Alternative 2-Modified was developed between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements in 

response to public comments and is consistent with the state grizzly bear management plans in providing 

guidance for accommodating the grizzly bear in biologically suitable and socially acceptable habitats 

outside the Primary Conservation Area. We believe Alternative 2-Modified will provide habitat 

protection in an area large enough to sustain the recovered grizzly bear population, while minimizing 

impacts to other forest activities. See further discussion in part 3 and the following discussions on secure 

habitat management inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area. 

Secure habitat 

Secure habitat is defined as areas greater than or equal to 10 acres in size6 and more than 500 meters 

from an open or gated motorized access route or recurring helicopter flight line. This is the same 

definition used in the Conservation Strategy. Secure habitat is divided into long- and short-term secure 

habitat based on the management area categories in existing forest plans. Long-term secure habitat is 

within management areas where new motorized access routes will generally not be constructed. Shortterm secure habitat is within management area categories that allow for forest management activities that 

could change secure habitat7

. 

Many of the comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were related to the amount of 

secure habitat that should be maintained for grizzly bears both inside and outside the Primary 

Conservation Area. Concerns were also expressed regarding the provision in Alternatives 2 and 2-

Modified that allows for a temporary 1 percent reduction in secure habitat inside the Primary 

Conservation Area. Some suggested the 1 percent rule should be eliminated and no change allowed and 

others believed the percentage should be increased to allow for more management activities. Still others 

questioned the 1998 baseline and believed site-specific secure habitat levels should be set to meet 

identified population goals rather than a no net loss of secure habitat. 

 

6

 Secure habitat for analysis used in this decision did not include areas open to cross country off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) travel. 

7

 The long-term secure habitat subject to the 1 percent rule under Alternatives 2 and 2-Modified inside the Primary 

Conservation Area is defined as short-term secure habitat under Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, short-term 

secure habitat inside the Primary Conservation Area could be lost due to project activities as there is no requirement 

to restore the secure habitat after project completion. Under Alternatives 2 and 2-Modified, any secure habitat 

affected by the 1 percent rule will be restored within one year after project completion and is considered long-term 

secure habitat. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 17
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 11 

We recognize the importance of secure habitat to long-term maintenance of the recovered grizzly bear 

population. This commitment to ensuring secure habitat for grizzly bears has resulted in a net reduction 

of over 600 miles of road inside the Primary Conservation Area on National Forest System lands from 

1986 through 2002. Almost 10 percent of the existing secure habitat inside the Primary Conservation 

Area was created through these road closures. Maintaining habitat security requires minimizing mortality 

risk and displacement from human activities in a sufficient amount of habitat to allow the grizzly bear 

population to benefit from this secure habitat and respond with increasing numbers and distribution. Both 

of these bear population responses are currently ongoing in the Yellowstone population. 

Secure habitat inside the Primary Conservation Area. There are 2.83 million acres of long-term secure 

habitat on National Forest System lands within the Primary Conservation Area, which is 83 percent of 

the National Forest System lands within the Primary Conservation Area (Figure 5). Under Alternative 2-

Modified, 87 percent of the secure habitat on National Forest System lands inside the Primary 

Conservation Area will remain unchanged. Thirteen percent of the secure habitat could be affected 

temporarily under the 1 percent rule. Even if all subunits (the area of application for the secure habitat 

standard) had simultaneous projects on National Forest System lands inside the Primary Conservation 

Area, which is unlikely, only 29,500 acres of secure habitat could be affected at any one time. This 

means at least 82 percent of the habitat on National Forest System lands inside the Primary Conservation 

Area will always be secure. Under Alternative 2-Modified, any secure habitat temporarily affected by the 

1 percent rule will be restored to secure habitat after project completion. 

This level of habitat security, along with other habitat conditions inside the Primary Conservation Area 

in 1998, provided the base environment that led to the growth of the bear population and the achievement 

of all demographic recovery targets by 1998. The bear population continues to grow in range and 

numbers under these secure habitat conditions. The allowance of a 1 percent temporary reduction in 

secure habitat maintains options for resource management activities at approximately the same level as 

existed in 1998 as the bear population reached recovery. Therefore, we believe the 1998 baseline for 

secure habitat, used as the basis for the secure habitat standard in Alternative 2-Modified inside the 

Primary Conservation Area, is more than adequate to maintain the recovered grizzly bear population. 

Figure 5. Total and secure habitat acres for areas inside the Primary Conservation Area under Alternative 2-

Modified. 

Area Total acres 

Longterm 

secure 

habitat 

acres 

Acres of longterm secure 

habitat that 

will remain 

unchanged 

Acres of longterm secure 

habitat subject 

to 1% rule 

Primary Conservation Area 3,413,000 2,827,000 2,458,000 369,000 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in 88 percent secure habitat on National Forest System lands inside the 

Primary Conservation Area (5 percent increase in secure habitat from existing conditions) by requiring 

each subunit to have a minimum of 70 percent secure habitat and by closing all existing motorized routes 

in inventoried roadless areas. No temporary reductions in secure habitat would be allowed. Forest 

management activities would not be allowed to occur at levels that existed during the recovery of the 

grizzly bear and some existing motorized recreation opportunities would be eliminated. We believe these 

strict limitations on other uses are unnecessary at this time. Bear populations continue to increase and 

expand without these restrictions. 

Monitoring of secure habitat levels inside the Primary Conservation Area will continue under Alternative 

2-Modified and the adequacy of secure habitat levels inside the Primary Conservation Area will be 

evaluated with other habitat and population parameters on an annual basis. 

Secure habitat outside the Primary Conservation Area. The area outside the Primary Conservation Area as 

described in Alternative 4 is our best estimate of the biologically suitable habitat for grizzly bears on 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 18
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 12 

National Forest System lands. This area was developed in response to concerns that more secure habitat 

should be maintained for grizzly bears outside the Primary Conservation Area and was based on the best 

available scientific information on suitable habitat and linkage areas outside the Primary Conservation 

Area. In Wyoming, this area is similar to that identified by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department as 

the area where grizzly bears outside the Primary Conservation Area would be managed to allow for 

population growth. This area includes lands identified for grizzly bear management in the Idaho and 

Montana state grizzly bear management plans on National Forest System lands, although these plans 

have not yet identified specific areas that are socially acceptable. The biologically suitable area includes 

96 percent of the area occupied by grizzly bears on National Forest System lands outside the Primary 

Conservation Area from 1990 through 2004. 

Alternative 4 results in an increase from 72 percent secure (71 percent long term) to 85 percent secure 

(100 percent long term) in the Alternative 4 area outside the Primary Conservation Area by requiring 

each analysis unit (the area of application for the secure habitat standard in Alternative 4 outside the 

Primary Conservation Area) to have a minimum of 70 percent secure habitat and by closing all 

motorized access routes (roads and trails) in inventoried roadless areas. No temporary reductions in 

secure habitat would be allowed. Forest management activities would be significantly reduced and many 

existing motorized recreation opportunities would be eliminated. 

Many believe that existing forest plans—following the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines— provide 

habitat protections outside the Primary Conservation Area for the bear as a listed species. These 

Guidelines, applicable under Alternative 1, do not provide habitat direction for the bear outside the 

Primary Conservation Area. Section 7 consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for activities 

outside the Primary Conservation Area have generally been focused on minimizing conflicts and 

mortality rather than prescribing habitat direction. 

Management of secure habitat outside the Primary Conservation Area under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 

would be guided by existing individual forest plan direction. The same direction will apply under 

Alternative 2-Modified with the addition of requirements to monitor changes in secure habitat in areas 

determined by the states to be biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy. 

Results will be reported and evaluated with other required monitoring according to the process outlined 

in the Conservation Strategy (see part 3.3). The following discussion focuses on how secure habitat 

outside the Primary Conservation Area will be managed under existing forest plan direction and why we 

selected Alternative 2-Modified. 

The areas estimated to be biologically suitable for grizzly bears outside the Primary Conservation Area 

on National Forest System lands total six million acres. Nearly three-fourths of the six million acres are 

secure habitat. About one-half of the six million acres is long-term secure habitat because it is in a 

management designation that generally does not allow road building, such as wilderness or backcountry 

management (long-term secure) (Figure 5). The remaining secure habitat, about one-fifth of the six 

million acres, is short-term secure habitat. Some of the short-term secure habitat (less than one-third of 

the total secure habitat) could be changed due to management activities. Most of the short-term secure 

habitat is managed under current forest plan direction that limits the amount of new road construction, 

e.g., road density standards on the Bridger-Teton and Targhee National Forests and no net gain in roads 

on the Shoshone National Forest. Additionally, the draft revised forest plan for the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest proposes road density standards for all Forest landscapes, and the draft travel 

management plan for the Gallatin National Forest includes a Forest-wide standard for no increase in 

public motorized access routes. These standards will allow only small changes in existing motorized 

access route density and associated secure habitat. Further, the trend over the last 17 years has been a 

reduction in road miles. Over 1,400 miles of road have been decommissioned in the Greater Yellowstone 

Area national forests, with less than 400 miles of road being constructed—a net reduction of over 1,000 

miles of road. Approximately 37 percent of the short-term secure habitat in the biologically suitable area 

is open to leasing for oil and gas where surface occupancy is allowed. Much of this area has a very low 

to moderate potential for occurrence and there are only eight active leases. Refer to part 3.3 for more 

discussion on oil and gas leasing. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 19
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 13 

In summary, the biologically suitable area outside the Primary Conservation Area contains three million 

acres more secure habitat (4.3 versus 1.3 million acres) in excess of that used by bears outside the 

Primary Conservation Area on National Forest System lands from 1990 through 2004 (Figure 6). This 

area contains two million acres more long-term secure habitat (3.1 versus 0.7 million acres) in excess of 

that used by bears outside the Primary Conservation Area on National Forest System lands. While we 

recognize there is not a one-to-one relationship between the amount of secure habitat and bear population 

numbers, we believe the maintenance of this level of secure habitat outside the Primary Conservation 

Area will provide additional assurances the population will be maintained above 400 grizzly bears as 

required by the Conservation Strategy. 

Figure 6. Total and secure habitat acres for areas outside the Primary Conservation Area on the six Greater 

Yellowstone Area national forests. 

Area Total acres 

Secure 

habitat 

acres 

Acres of longterm secure 

habitat1

Acres of shortterm secure 

habitat1

Area estimated to be biologically 

suitable habitat for grizzly bears 

outside the Primary Conservation 

Area 

5,999,000 4,331,000 3,089,000 1,242,000 

Occupied grizzly bear habitat 

outside the Primary Conservation 

Area from 1990-2004 

1,954,000 1,277,000 699,000 578,000 

1

 Designation as long- or short-term secure habitat based on current forest plan direction. 

Alternative 4 increases the amount of secure habitat outside the Primary Conservation Area with 

restrictions and motorized route closures (1,850 miles overall). We believe restrictions and closures over 

such a large area, without existing bear occupation or state defined biologically suitable or socially 

acceptable areas, are premature and would meet with resistance from local communities and recreation 

users and are unnecessary to maintain adequate secure habitat outside the Primary Conservation Area. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would provide the same assurances for maintenance of secure habitat outside the 

Primary Conservation Area as Alternative 2-Modified because management area direction outside the 

Primary Conservation Area in existing forest plans will not change. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 provide no 

guidance for accommodating grizzly bears outside the Primary Conservation Area in biologically 

suitable and socially acceptable areas nor do they require monitoring secure habitat outside the Primary 

Conservation Area. 

We believe Alternative 2-Modified does the best job of maintaining sufficient secure habitat both inside 

and outside the Primary Conservation Area to support the recovered grizzly bear population at desired 

levels, while allowing for management activities and other uses. Secure habitat outside the Primary 

Conservation Area will be monitored and any reduction in secure habitat evaluated as part of the Biology 

and Monitoring Review process identified in the Conservation Strategy. The selected alternative 

provides the most flexibility in working with state wildlife management agencies and local communities 

to define areas that will be socially acceptable and biologically suitable for bear occupancy. We believe 

public acceptance of grizzly bears is a key component in the ultimate success of sustaining a recovered 

grizzly bear population. 

One concern we heard from respondents was an interest in maintaining or improving connectivity 

between important habitats in the Greater Yellowstone Area. We believe the maintenance of over three 

million acres of long-term secure habitat, supplemented by over one million acres of short-term secure 

habitat outside the Primary Conservation Area, will provide the security necessary for bears to occupy 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 20
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 14 

many new areas within the Greater Yellowstone Area, improving chances for movement between 

important habitats. 

Food sources 

Respondents expressed numerous concerns regarding the persistence of the four major foods for grizzly 

bears— ungulates, cutthroat trout, army cutworm moths, and whitebark pine seeds—in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area. Of greatest concern was the future health of whitebark pine stands. Most respondents 

believed potential declines in these foods, from disease, climate change, and other factors, would 

significantly impact grizzly bear populations and that larger areas with more protection should be 

managed for the grizzly bear to offset any declines in availability of these foods. Others suggested threats 

to these food sources should be studied further or the Forest Service should manage habitats to protect or 

enhance these important foods. 

We have long recognized the importance of these foods to bears. The annual availability of these four 

key foods currently fluctuates widely primarily due to weather conditions and is generally independent of 

forest management or recreational activities. Grizzly bears have shown great adaptability to annual 

fluctuations in these key foods. Reproductive performance has remained constant over the years as the 

population has continued to grow between 4 to 7 percent annually, even with this food fluctuation (USDI 

FWS 2005a). 

Coordinated efforts have been ongoing for over a decade to gather more information on the status of 

whitebark pine and to develop management strategies to ensure whitebark pine’s future in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area. Transects for long-term monitoring have been established and a draft map displaying 

the distribution of whitebark pine has been completed. We have emphasized the importance of moth 

aggregation sites by discouraging new trails or extensive human uses in these areas. Winter ranges for 

ungulates have always received special management emphasis, partly for their importance to spring 

carcass-feeding bears. Since 1979, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines for forest management 

activities that were adopted by all the Greater Yellowstone Area national forests have included direction 

for protecting, maintaining, or enhancing important foraging areas for grizzly bears. 

In response to potential declines in these important foods due to climate change or disease, grizzly bear 

use of moth aggregation sites, cutthroat trout spawning streams, whitebark pine cone production, and 

availability of winter-killed ungulate carcasses will continue to be monitored annually under the 

direction in the Conservation Strategy. The selected alternative provides additional guidance not 

included in the Conservation Strategy or Alternative 2 for maintaining the productivity of the four key 

grizzly bear foods inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area, with emphasis on maintaining and 

restoring whitebark pine. We believe this emphasis may lead to improved conditions for whitebark pine 

if additional funds are available for research or restoration activities. Vegetation management activities 

could be used to increase whitebark pine resistance to disease, regenerate stands where whitebark pine is 

declining, and improve habitats for ungulates. The productivity, occurrence, and health of whitebark pine 

will be monitored and annually submitted for inclusion in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

Annual Report, which will serve as the basis for determining the need for adaptive management if 

significant declines in these important foods occur and/or negative grizzly bear population responses are 

documented. 

We believe the selected alternative and the Conservation Strategy together provide the mechanisms to 

monitor and document any declines in the four key grizzly bear foods and respond as necessary with 

management changes. Alternative 2-Modified provides secure habitat for grizzly bears inside and outside 

the Primary Conservation Area in sufficient quantity and protection to allow the grizzly bear to increase 

in numbers and range, even if some of these foods decline. 

Alternative 4 does not provide additional protection to food sources from the potential impacts of climate 

change above and beyond those adaptive management practices specified for Alternative 2-Modified. 

The strict limits on other uses of National Forest System lands outside the Primary Conservation Area 

are, we believe, counterproductive in maintaining habitats for grizzly bears. Rather, the adaptive 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 21
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 15 

management approach of the selected alternative will provide for interagency and public cooperation in 

the maintenance and monitoring of habitat for grizzly bears outside the Primary Conservation Area. 

Where needed, critical food sources including whitebark pine seed production, army cutworm moth 

aggregation sites, major fish spawning areas, elk parturition areas, and big game winter ranges will be 

maintained. Seasonal area closures will be used as necessary to provide adequate security to ensure areas 

are available to bears. 

Management of human activities 

Some respondents believed the numbers of developed sites both inside and outside the Primary 

Conservation Area should be reduced and those with recurring conflicts with grizzly bears should be 

eliminated. Others were concerned that limits on developed sites inside the Primary Conservation Area 

would impact future recreation uses (see part 3.2). Most comments on the livestock grazing standard 

(Standard 3) suggest more emphasis should be given to the grizzly bear in livestock conflict cases, both 

inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area. Some respondents were particularly concerned that 

cattle conflicts inside the Primary Conservation Area would not be solved in favor of the bear, while 

others felt the lack of direction for resolving conflicts with sheep and grizzly bears outside the Primary 

Conservation Area was inappropriate. 

A primary factor in providing for the conservation of grizzly bears is the management of human 

activities on the landscape. Most of the conflicts with grizzly bears on National Forest System lands in 

the Greater Yellowstone Area that can be attributed to Forest Service management activities are 

associated with developed sites and livestock allotments. In response, in conjunction with willing 

permittees, we have closed many domestic sheep allotments inside and outside the Primary Conservation 

Area to benefit the grizzly bear. Portions of cattle allotments have been rested to reduce conflicts and one 

cattle allotment has been closed to grazing. We have included special provisions, including food storage 

requirements, in livestock grazing permits and special use permits for developed sites to minimize 

grizzly bear/human conflicts. The number and capacity of developed sites on National Forest System 

lands has been reduced or remained stable in most cases during the last decade. Several developed sites 

have been closed; some campgrounds have been modified to allow hard-sided camping only or 

designated as picnic areas. 

Developed sites. Developed sites in grizzly bear habitat increase the potential for conflict with humans 

primarily due to the potential availability of human foods. Developments also reduce the effectiveness of 

the natural habitat near these sites. The larger the developed site and the more people using the site, the 

greater the potential for conflicts and reduction in the effectiveness of the adjacent habitat for bears. 

Food storage regulations and information and education efforts mitigate much of the potential for 

conflict. 

Alternative 2-Modified defines and limits site development within the Primary Conservation Area and 

contributes to sustaining the recovered grizzly bear population. Rather than imposing the strict 

requirements to close developed sites with recurring conflicts in the Primary Conservation Area 

(Alternatives 3 and 4), we believe the direction included within Alternative 2-Modified inside the 

Primary Conservation Area to minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts with various management tools 

provides a more effective and flexible approach to solve problems on a case-by-case basis for the benefit 

of the bear. Food storage orders, information and education, and clauses in special use permits have been 

effective in solving many conflict issues at developed sites. Alternative 2-Modified includes direction for 

continuing these efforts inside the Primary Conservation Area. Bear populations have recovered with the 

existing level of developed sites inside the Primary Conservation Area and the number of bears continues 

to increase. 

Limiting site development outside the Primary Conservation Area, as proposed under Alternative 4, is 

unnecessary at this time. The guidance under the selected alternative to accommodate grizzly bears in 

areas outside the Primary Conservation Area in cooperation with the states allows us to make 

adjustments in site development as needed and provides the mechanisms to accommodate site 

development outside the Primary Conservation Area where these developments are precluded inside the 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 22
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 16 

Primary Conservation Area. Food storage and other management tools will be used at these developed 

sites to minimize conflicts. Although it was assumed food storage orders would remain, Alternatives 2 

and 3 are silent on direction for minimizing conflicts or accommodating grizzly bears outside the 

Primary Conservation Area. Alternative 4 would impose limits on site development where there is no 

way to predict when or if bears would occupy those areas. Grizzly bear populations are expanding in 

range and numbers outside the Primary Conservation Area with the existing level of developed sites. 

Food storage orders and information and education efforts are ongoing in areas occupied by bears 

outside the Primary Conservation Area. Alternative 2-Modified includes guidance to ensure the 

continuation of these efforts to accommodate grizzly bears in areas that are biologically suitable and 

socially acceptable. Many of the conflicts between grizzly bears and humans occur at dispersed camping 

sites. Alternative 2-Modified provides the flexibility to deal with these problem areas by consolidating 

dispersed uses into a new or existing developed site where compliance with food storage regulations can 

be more easily monitored and controlled. Under Alternative 4, no increase in developed sites would be 

allowed, regardless of the potential benefit to bears. 

Livestock grazing. Most, if not all, grizzly bears that come in contact with domestic sheep prey on sheep 

and conflicts are inevitable. The majority of grizzly bears that come in contact with cattle do not make 

kills. Conflicts between livestock and grizzly bears have resulted in the relocation, removal, or direct 

mortality of grizzly bears. Many of the conflicts with grizzly bears and sheep have been resolved inside 

the Primary Conservation Area due to the closure of many of the affected allotments. Selective removal 

of grizzly bears is a viable management option, particularly when adult males that are repeat offenders 

are involved and translocation, aversion tactics, or carcass removal efforts are ineffective. 

All action alternatives prohibit the creation of new allotments and provide various levels of guidance for 

resolving conflicts with grizzly bears and livestock inside the Primary Conservation Area. Alternatives 3 

and 4 require the closure of the four remaining sheep allotments within three years and the closure of 

portions of cattle allotments with recurring conflicts. Alternatives 2 and 2-Modified do not allow 

increases in sheep animal months and would phase out the four sheep allotments with willing permittees. 

In response to public comment, Alternative 2-Modified includes guidance for retiring cattle allotments 

with recurring conflicts that cannot be resolved through modification of grazing practices as 

opportunities arise with willing permittees. Permittees with allotments that experience recurring conflicts 

will be given the opportunity to place their livestock in a vacant allotment outside the Primary 

Conservation Area should one be available. The nuisance bear standards in the selected alternative will 

allow the removal of bears that kill livestock but removal of female grizzly bears will be minimized. 

Adult males are responsible for the majority of cattle depredations. No grizzly bear involved in livestock 

depredations will be removed unless it has been relocated at least once and continues to prey on domestic 

livestock. We believe Alternative 2-Modified provides the mechanisms necessary to minimize conflicts 

with cattle inside the Primary Conservation Area without the mandatory retirement of these allotments as 

prescribed under Alternatives 3 and 4. Only three of the existing 69 cattle allotments inside the Primary 

Conservation Area have been documented with recurring conflicts between 1992 and 2004. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 do not provide guidance for resolving livestock conflicts outside the Primary 

Conservation Area. Alternative 2-Modified includes guidance for retiring both sheep and cattle 

allotments with recurring conflicts outside the Primary Conservation Area that cannot be resolved 

through modification of grazing practices as opportunities arise with willing permittees. Alternative 4 

requires the closure of all 73 sheep allotments outside the Primary Conservation Area within three years 

and the closure of portions of cattle allotment with recurring conflicts. Only two cattle allotments outside 

the Primary Conservation Area have been documented with recurring conflicts from 1992 through 2004. 

For areas outside the Primary Conservation Area, the nuisance guidelines in state grizzly bear 

management plans would apply under all action alternatives, with direction on how to manage bears that 

prey on livestock. 

We believe Alternative 2-Modified is the best approach for managing conflicts with grizzly bears and 

livestock outside the Primary Conservation Area. Many of the sheep allotments that would be closed 

under Alternative 4 are not occupied by grizzly bears. These blanket closures would likely increase 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 23
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 17 

social intolerance for grizzly bears. Rather, the mechanisms to solve livestock depredation issues on a 

case-by-case basis would minimize impacts on local communities and the livestock industry. 

Minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts 

Many respondents had concerns regarding the need to minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts from both 

the impacts to grizzly bears and the risks to human safety. Grizzly bear mortality is almost solely 

attributable to grizzly bear/human conflicts with a common outcome of bear mortality by interagency 

bear managers or by other humans. Human injuries and deaths are often associated with grizzly bears 

that have a prior history of conflicts with humans. Human-food conditioned and human-habituated bears 

are usually removed from the population due to the threat they pose to humans. Efforts by the six Greater 

Yellowstone Area national forests, other state and federal agencies, and numerous non-governmental 

agencies to minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts and subsequent mortality have been key to grizzly 

bear recovery. 

To reduce grizzly bear conflicts and deaths on National Forest System lands, we have established food 

storage regulations and special grizzly bear requirements in contracts and permits, provided bear resistant 

containers for garbage/food storage and information and education materials and programs, and issued 

access restrictions and regulations. Studies have demonstrated these efforts have been successful in 

reducing grizzly bear mortalities. Of the 270 documented grizzly bear mortalities in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area since 1975, only 27 are directly or indirectly attributable to Forest Service 

management activities or actions. 

Alternative 2-Modified provides direction to continue with efforts to minimize conflicts both inside and 

outside the Primary Conservation Area using food storage regulations, information and education, and 

other management tools, including efforts to assist the public in the development of bear resistant 

products. Minimizing conflicts benefits both bears and people. While it was assumed these efforts would 

continue inside the Primary Conservation Area under Alternatives 2 and 3, no specific direction was 

provided. Alternative 4 requires forest wide food storage regulations, while Alternatives 3 and 4 require 

elimination of sites with recurring conflicts and area closures; neither specifically identifies the need to 

minimize conflicts through information and education efforts or use less restrictive management tools. 

Alternative 2-Modified provides adequate direction to ensure the continued use of proven methods to 

minimize conflicts without eliminating human uses. Strict requirements to eliminate human uses before 

trying other, less drastic approaches could work against grizzly bear expansion. Public support for 

grizzly bear occupancy and expansion is important for long-term persistence of the grizzly bear in the 

Greater Yellowstone Area. The direction in the selected alternative to work cooperatively with local 

governments and other agencies to minimize conflicts outside the Primary Conservation Area is 

especially critical to local public support. 

3.2 Principal reason 2 - local communities and social and economic values are 

acknowledged and public safety is emphasized 

Grizzly bears and bear management affect people’s lifestyles, livelihoods, and values. This amendment 

affects 20 counties, more than 40 local communities, and more than 370,000 human residents in the 

Greater Yellowstone Area. Grizzly bears and bear management also affect the estimated eight million 

recreation visits that occur annually on the six national forests in the Greater Yellowstone Area. 

Approximately 60 percent of recreation users are local, but regional, national, and international visitors 

are attracted to the area as well. This amendment affects the business operations that are closely tied to 

the Greater Yellowstone Area, including outfitting and guiding services, resorts and recreation 

businesses, and ranching operations that have traditionally used public lands to graze livestock during the 

summer months. 

It is a credit to all citizens, residents, businesses, and recreation users that the demographic recovery 

targets have been met—the grizzly bear population has recovered. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 24
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 18 

Recreation activities and grizzly bear/human interactions have been monitored and evaluated over the 

last 25 years by the various land management agencies, research scientists, the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee, and non-governmental organizations. Particular efforts deemed effective in managing grizzly 

bear/human interactions are: 

• Information and education about recreating and living in bear country 

• Ensuring unnatural food sources are secure from bear use 

• Limiting human development and access within bear areas 

• Responding to grizzly bear/human conflicts 

The public highly values their opportunities to recreate and enjoy wildlife viewing in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area. The current undeveloped nature, wildness, and presence of grizzly bears are part of 

the allure that attracts recreation visitors and are valued by many of the residents of the Greater 

Yellowstone Area. Alternative 2-Modified maintains the undeveloped and wild character of the Greater 

Yellowstone Area within the Primary Conservation Area. Additionally, Alternative 2-Modified addresses 

the needs of the grizzly bear outside the Primary Conservation Area and the recreation pursuits and 

values of the public. Alternative 4 offers the most control over human uses inside and outside the 

Primary Conservation Area, which supports some of the environmental interests. Alternative 2-Modified 

best moves the partnership between the public, local communities, and state and federal governments in 

a common commitment toward support of the bear and without major impacts to recreation and livestock 

grazing on lands currently unoccupied by grizzly bears. 

Public safety 

Public safety continues to be a key consideration in grizzly bear management. Alternative 2-Modified 

addresses this concern by managing nuisance bears and minimizing grizzly bear/human conflicts using 

food storage, information and education, and other management tools within the Primary Conservation 

Area. Outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in state management plans as 

biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, Alternative 2-Modified 

emphasizes proper sanitation techniques, including food storage orders and information and education, 

while working with local governments and other agencies. 

Alternative 2-Modified puts more attention on public safety than do Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 by including 

areas outside the Primary Conservation Area where bears may exist. Alternatives 3 and 4 include a 

standard to eliminate developed sites or dispersed camping, including outfitter camps, with recurring 

grizzly bear/human conflicts and limit use of backcountry trails in high bear-use areas. These restrictions 

are not necessary to include in Alternative 2-Modified because other agencies are actively responding to 

reported grizzly bear/human conflicts and working to resolve recurrent problems. We have the flexibility 

of making adjustments on a site-specific basis and will continue to use the nuisance bear standard in 

resolving conflicts. 

Recreation, social and economic effects on local communities, and commercial livestock grazing 

Other social and economic considerations relate to issues identified through public comments during 

scoping and on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. These include: 

• Recreation opportunities—motorized use 

• Recreation opportunities—developed sites 

• Recreation opportunities—winter use activities 

• Social and economic effects on local communities 

• Commercial livestock grazing 

Recreation opportunities—motorized use. Many people expressed concerns that grizzly bear habitat 

standards would result in reduced motorized recreation opportunities by closing more roads and trails to 

motorized use. Motorized use is closely associated with reduced levels of secure habitat for grizzly bears. 

Since secure habitat is more than 500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route, where 

security is needed, permanent closures of motorized routes are often the solution. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 25
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 19 

Alternative 2-Modified and all alternatives reflect a history of motorized route (roads and trails) 

restrictions and closures that achieved the secure habitat that exists both inside and outside the Primary 

Conservation Area. Over the years, this has resulted in a net reduction of more than 1,000 miles of 

motorized routes on the six Greater Yellowstone Area national forests. This reduction has impacted 

many people who have enjoyed more freedom in exploring public lands through motorized travel. 

Because 83 percent of the Primary Conservation Area is secure habitat, additional motorized route 

closures are not proposed by Alternative 2-Modified. Alternatives 3 and 4 proposed an additional 500 

miles of motorized closures within the Primary Conservation Area; we believe these closures are 

unnecessary at this time and would unduly impact existing motorized use. We also recognize that as 

individual national forests amend forest plans with regard to travel management, recreational 

opportunities and wildlife habitat needs will be more comprehensively evaluated than with these 

amendments, which focus on grizzly bear habitat management across six national forests. 

Alternative 4 proposed an additional 1,400 miles of motorized route closures outside the Primary 

Conservation Area. We believe these additional closures are unnecessary at this time. Under Alternative 

2-Modified, there are approximately 4,331,000 acres of long- and short-term secure habitat on National 

Forest System lands outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas estimated to be biologically suitable 

for grizzly bears. We believe this is an adequate base and provides opportunities for grizzly bear 

movement and occupancy outside the Primary Conservation Area. Alternative 2-Modified does not 

propose motorized route closures. The selected alternative provides more flexibility in working with state 

wildlife management agencies and local communities to define areas that will be socially acceptable and 

biologically suitable for bear occupancy. Alternative 2-Modified goes beyond Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 to 

address the existing and likely occupancy by grizzly bears of lands outside the Primary Conservation 

Area with the goal of accommodating grizzly bear populations with other land use activities. 

Recreation opportunities—developed sites. Generally, the public did not seem as concerned with the 

standard that maintains developed Forest Service recreation sites (campgrounds, trailheads, lodges, etc.) 

at 1998 levels as they were with the potential effects on motorized use. The exceptions were agency 

comments concerned with areas that are experiencing capacity limits and public concerns regarding the 

effects to special use permitted resorts, ski areas, and lodges if developed sites were limited to 1998 

levels. 

Alternative 2-Modified retains Standard 2 as identified in the proposed action and in the Conservation 

Strategy. Within the Primary Conservation Area, approximately 267 developed recreation sites—nearly 

one-third of developed recreation sites in the six Greater Yellowstone Area national forests—will not be 

increased in size to accommodate more people, unless increases are mitigated. Specifically, this could 

affect approximately 19 lodges, resorts, dude ranches, and hotels having special use permits on the six 

national forests. 

Agency concerns about experiencing capacity limits are currently more of an issue in areas outside the 

Primary Conservation Area, specifically to accommodate winter use parking on the Gallatin and Targhee 

National Forests and to better manage dispersed use by concentrating use in some developed sites on the 

Custer National Forest. 

Taking steps to define and limit recreation developments within the Primary Conservation Area is 

appropriate and contributes to sustaining the recovered grizzly bear population. Research shows grizzly 

bear use is lower and foraging behavior is disrupted in areas near human developments and activities. 

Alternative 2-Modified retains the relatively undeveloped character within the Primary Conservation 

Area and people will continue to be attracted to the area for its wildlife and scenic beauty. 

Alternative 2-Modified is similar to Alternatives 1 and 2 where developed sites have been maintained at 

or below capacity since 1998. Alternative 2-Modified allows for slight adjustments in developed site 

capacity based on the Application Rules and this differs from the stricter standards of Alternatives 3 and 

4. Some flexibility is important to respond to situations for the benefit of the bear. 

In addition, we chose not to extend the limitations on developed sites outside the Primary Conservation 

Area, as Alternative 4 does, because we want to reserve the opportunity to evaluate the entire spectrum 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 26
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 20 

of recreation use and potential conflicts with grizzly bears and make adjustments as needed when 

recurring conflicts are identified at local levels. Further, we want the ability to accommodate potentially 

displaced recreation uses (from inside the Primary Conservation Area) in areas outside the Primary 

Conservation Area. 

Recreation opportunities—winter use activities. Many respondents to the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement raised concerns that snow machine use would be eliminated from bear denning habitat under 

Alternatives 3 and 4. Snow machine use is one of the primary recreation activities on the Bridger-Teton, 

Gallatin, Shoshone, and Targhee National Forests. As a 2002 Biological Opinion on snow machine use 

noted, the effects of snow machining on grizzly bears show disturbance and conflicts with grizzly bears 

have always been very low. We believe it is more appropriate to encourage restrictions on snow machine 

use on a localized basis where conflicts with denning or bear emergence in the spring are identified. 

Social and economic effects on local communities. Many respondents were concerned with the effects on 

income, employment, and lifestyle changes related to livestock operations, ranches, people associated 

with the timber industry, and recreation-related businesses. National Forest System lands within the 

Greater Yellowstone Area contribute to the social and economic bases of more than 40 local 

communities. Residents and communities need to ensure proper management of bear attractants as bear 

populations have expanded their range and movement through private lands. Some counties have passed 

resolutions banning the presence of grizzly bears and are concerned about the social and economic well 

being of their areas. 

We are committed to sustaining a recovered grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Area. 

This commitment is shared and managed with other agencies and organizations. Alternative 2-Modified 

was developed to respond to public and agency concerns about the need to provide for grizzly bears as 

the population expands outside the Primary Conservation Area. Grizzly bear habitat needs and 

minimizing human/bear conflicts are addressed. The value many people place on grizzly bears is also 

acknowledged in the selected alternative. While some communities will not favor additional grizzly bear 

management guidance outside the Primary Conservation Area, the guidance is responsive to managing 

bear habitat where bears are already occupying these areas and will ensure coordination with the states’ 

roles in managing bears. 

We recognize the importance of public acceptance of grizzly bears as a key component in the ultimate 

success in perpetuating the bear’s recovery, public safety, and ease to which agencies can effectively 

manage for the bear. A continued dialogue with the public, including local communities and 

environmental organizations, will be essential as grizzlies occupy lands outside the Primary 

Conservation Area. Alternative 2-Modified includes guidance outside the Primary Conservation Area 

based upon the states’ definitions of socially acceptable and biologically suitable lands for the grizzly 

bear. 

Alternative 2-Modified does the best job of managing habitat for bear populations while ensuring close 

coordination with the states and local communities with regard to socially acceptable areas for bears. 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 do not address the management of lands outside the Primary Conservation Area, 

and Alternative 4 imposes restrictions on land uses when there is no way to predict when or if bears 

would occupy those areas. Local communities, residents, and recreation users are likely to be intolerant 

of the restrictions in Alternative 4; we believe Alternative 4 diminishes the societal acceptance of bear 

occupation and our ultimate goal of accommodating bears. 

Livestock grazing operations. Livestock grazing on public lands is a long tradition of western culture and 

the use of public lands has been a key component of viable ranching operations. As has been 

demonstrated within the Primary Conservation Area, grizzly bears and sheep grazing are relatively 

incompatible, whereas cattle grazing and grizzly bears can be compatible with active management by the 

livestock operator and immediate response by agency officials when conflicts between bears and 

livestock are identified. 

Alternative 2-Modified maintains the management direction within the Primary Conservation Area as 

identified in the Conservation Strategy. Consistent with Alternatives 1 and 2, the selected alternative will 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 27
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 21 

phase out, at most, four sheep allotments. Alternatives 3 and 4 require the immediate action of closing 

the operations and include three cattle allotments as well. The approach in the selected alternative will 

work for the bear and is appropriate with our permittee partnerships. 

Alternative 2-Modified diverges from Alternatives 1 and 2 by establishing a guideline for livestock 

grazing outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in state management plans as 

biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy. This direction is needed to 

address recurring conflicts between livestock and bears. This guideline is less restrictive than Alternative 

4’s, which would close 73 sheep allotments and two cattle allotments outside the Primary Conservation 

Area. The best approach with livestock grazing and grizzly bears is reflected with the selected 

alternative. We intend to minimize the economic impact on grazing operations and address local 

situational conflicts between bears and livestock as they occur. 

Vegetation, fuels, and access 

Timber management. Since implementation of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines, vegetation 

management has been limited to those activities that did not adversely affect grizzly bears. For all six 

Greater Yellowstone Area national forests, nearly 10,000 acres have been treated each year through 

timber harvesting since 1986; although in the three-year period from 2000 through 2002, only 1,400 

acres were treated annually. The 10,000 acres represent 0.1 percent of the area of National Forest System 

lands in the Greater Yellowstone Area and 1 percent of the suitable acres. A review of five-year 

vegetation treatment plans indicates this number may have increased from the past three years, but is 

expected to be within the 17-year average, with vegetation treatment expected to be around 5,000 to 

10,000 acres per year in order to address insect, disease, and hazardous fuels concerns. 

Some respondents felt that Alternative 2 allowed too much flexibility and at least one part of the 

Application Rule, the 1 percent temporary reduction in secure habitat, should be dropped to allow no 

reduction in secure habitat. Others felt the standard for secure habitat was too restrictive and more than 

one project should be allowed at a time in a Bear Management Unit subunit. 

Alternative 2-Modified provides about the same amount of flexibility in treating vegetation as current 

management (Alternative 1). Because the secure habitat standard allows a 1 percent temporary reduction 

in secure habitat, timber harvesting activities that took place under the Guidelines could take place in this 

alternative. A 1 percent change in secure habitat means, on average, about 2,000 acres of secure habitat 

could be temporarily changed in a Bear Management Unit subunit since subunits average around 

200,000 acres. Most timber sale and mechanical treatment activities are temporary and would fit within 

this standard. Additionally, road decommissioning will occur within one year after project completion. 

Harvesting activities, other than road construction or the opening of a permanently restricted road, do not 

affect secure habitat. Up to about five miles of temporary road could be constructed to access areas for 

vegetation management under this Application Rule. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 evaluated dropping the Application Rule that allows a 1 percent temporary 

reduction in secure habitat. It is necessary to have the 1 percent Application Rule in order to allow 

managers to have some flexibility in managing vegetation. Without the Application Rule, the effects of 

reduced timber harvest in Alternatives 3 and 4 could be severe in terms of lost jobs and income in local 

communities. Finally, the recovered grizzly bear population could be sustained with a 1 percent 

temporary reduction in secure habitat because it is temporary. Secure habitat will be restored within one 

year of project completion; the grizzly bear population recovered with this level of activity. 

Our analysis indicates almost all harvesting activities that have taken place in the last 15 years could still 

take place within the secure habitat standard. During the last decade, the rate of road decommissioning 

has been greater than the rate of road construction both inside and outside the Primary Conservation 

Area, indicating the past level of harvesting activities would be consistent with the 1 percent temporary 

change in secure habitat. 

The current level of vegetation management can proceed with the selected alternative without negatively 

impacting the recovered grizzly bear population. Alternative 2-Modified provides some additional 

flexibility in treating vegetation due to fewer timing restrictions on timber harvest. These treatments are 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 28
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 22 

generally designed to protect structures, help control wildfire, prevent extensive loss of bear food 

sources, as well as provide timber and associated income and jobs to local communities. 

Fuels and vegetation management. Nearly all of the vegetation in the Greater Yellowstone Area has 

burned at one time or another. All the major plant communities have adapted to fire, although some plant 

communities ignite and carry fire more readily than others do. Conditions under which any given 

vegetation community will burn vary, depending on a wide variety of parameters including temperature, 

humidity, and vegetation type. 

Across the national forests in the Greater Yellowstone Area, the overall composition and structure of the 

different forest types would not be expected to change much in any alternative due to the effects of 

motorized access restrictions on potential vegetation treatments. Vegetation treatments would affect only 

about 0.1 percent of the National Forest System lands in Alternatives 1, 2, and 2-Modified. Within the 

suitable timber base and based on historical harvest rates in the past 17 years, about 6 percent of the area 

would be treated in one decade (about 98,000 acres out of the 1,500,000 acres in the suitable timber 

base). This can help improve conditions for some of the key forest types, such as aspen and lodgepole 

pine. 

The selected alternative is consistent with current wildland fire management, prescribed fire, and fuels 

management activities. The objectives, standards, and guidelines in the selected alternative will have 

little effect on fire starts or acreages burned. Roads currently available will remain available for use. 

Dozer lines created as part of wildland fire activities will be rehabilitated as part of normal fireline 

operations and will not reduce secure habitat. Allowing a 1 percent temporary reduction in secure habitat 

can allow some treatments of vegetation to improve composition and structure of key vegetation types, 

although we recognize these treatments will only be a small part of the landscape. Fire, both wildland 

fire and prescribed fire, will continue to be the single biggest process that changes vegetation in the 

Greater Yellowstone Area. 

Treatment of areas in the wildland urban interface is of particular concern because of communities at risk 

from destruction by wildland fire, such as Cooke City and West Yellowstone, Montana. Strategic 

placement of fuels treatments can affect the intensity and pattern of wildland fires. The same number of 

acres can be mechanically treated for fuels under the selected alternative as under current management. 

The Application Rule allows up to nearly five miles of road to be temporarily built for fuels treatment in 

a subunit at one time. This is more than adequate to treat fuels within 11⁄2 miles of structures or 

communities. 

Access management. From 1986 through 2002, over 1,400 miles of road were decommissioned in the six 

Greater Yellowstone Area national forests, with less than 400 miles of road being constructed—a net 

reduction of over 600 miles of road inside the Primary Conservation Area and 400 miles outside the 

Primary Conservation Area. These tended to be roads in excess of what was needed for management or 

recreational activities, were difficult or expensive to maintain, or both. 

The trend for road decommissioning inside the Primary Conservation Area has slowed, with only 13 

miles decommissioned from 2000 to 2002, as opportunities are limited for more decommissioning. 

Outside the Primary Conservation Area, opportunities still exist for road decommissioning. 

Some respondents were concerned more roads could be closed with the selected alternative—restricting 

access—while other respondents felt more road closures were necessary to improve habitat for the 

grizzly bear. 

The selected alternative will not change access, current use, traffic patterns, and road standards from 

current management. The secure habitat standard requires secure habitat be maintained at 1998 levels, 

which allows access and use to continue at those levels. Proposals to permanently increase the 

transportation system in the Primary Conservation Area will not occur unless mitigation is met, as 

described in the Application Rules. We believe the current level of access is reasonable for the 

enjoyment of the recreating public. Not increasing the access will “keep it the way it is”; that is, the six 

Greater Yellowstone Area national forests will maintain their primitive settings for the nation to enjoy, 

with the grizzly bear an integral part of the landscape. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 29
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 23 

Minerals management 

There are no active oil and gas leases inside the Primary Conservation Area. Under current management, 

oil and gas development could occur but surface occupancy is allowed on only 3 percent of the National 

Forest System lands inside the Primary Conservation Area. Leasing decisions have yet to be made for the 

Gallatin National Forest and a small portion the Bridger-Teton National Forest inside the Primary 

Conservation Area. 

Many respondents were concerned oil and gas leasing would increase if Alternative 2 were implemented 

and the grizzly bear delisted. The respondents felt this could lead to increased oil and gas development in 

the Greater Yellowstone Area. Some respondents wanted to prohibit all oil and gas development in the 

Primary Conservation Area or even larger areas in the Greater Yellowstone Area. 

Areas available for surface occupancy will not change under the selected alternative because of the low 

potential and mitigation necessary. Oil and gas development inside the Primary Conservation Area will 

be even more unlikely with the selected alternative because of the mitigation necessary under the 

developed site and secure habitat standards. New proposals inside the Primary Conservation Area will 

need to be mitigated by closing out other types of developed sites, consolidating dispersed camping sites, 

or closing motorized routes to maintain the 1998 levels of developed sites and secure habitat. The 

Gallatin and Bridger-Teton National Forests’ future oil and gas decisions will be constrained by the 

direction in the selected alternative 

Alternative 4 was developed in response to the concern for limiting oil and gas development. It allowed 

us to look at the tradeoffs of not allowing any new oil and gas leases in not only the Primary 

Conservation Area but in a larger area as defined by Alternative 4. Not allowing any new oil and gas 

leases is unnecessary at this time. Outside the Primary Conservation Area, the likelihood for oil and gas 

development is basically the same as current management. 

Even with consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under Alternative 1, proposals for 

development would likely proceed, as a jeopardy opinion8

 is highly unlikely due to the current status of 

the grizzly bear population. Surface occupancy for oil and gas is allowed on approximately 37 percent of 

the short-term secure habitat in the area considered as the best estimate of the biologically suitable 

habitat outside the Primary Conservation Area. Much of this area has a very low to moderate potential 

for occurrence and there are only eight active leases and no active oil and gas wells. We will continue 

with individual leasing decisions for the six Greater Yellowstone Area national forests. 

3.3 Principal reason 3 - federal, state, local, and tribal governments work together to 

monitor and adapt management to changing conditions and new science 

We recognize the uncertainty in estimating precisely how many bears are needed and how much and 

what kind of habitat is required to support the grizzly bear population. This is especially difficult in 

relationship to potential changes in habitat due to climate change, fluctuations in annual food availability, 

and associated dynamics of grizzly bear social structure at various bear densities. The best approach to 

ensure a healthy grizzly bear population is to monitor both population and habitat parameters closely and 

respond with adaptive management. While the management direction in this amendment provides a firm 

foundation for grizzly bear habitat management, habitat management is dynamic and new information is 

constantly being developed. The selected alternative embraces this adaptive management approach—as 

conditions change, so will management direction. Future changes, based on monitoring and evaluation, 

will involve public collaboration. 

For more than 30 years, federal, state, and other governments have been committed to the recovery of the 

grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Since 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee has 

coordinated management and research actions for recovery of the grizzly bear nationwide. A 

subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee, 

 

8

 A jeopardy opinion is issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when an activity or project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a species. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 30
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 24 

coordinates efforts specific to the Greater Yellowstone Area. The Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee 

is comprised of representatives of the Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, county governments, and tribes. At the 

Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee’s biannual meetings, the public is invited to observe the 

proceedings and share comments and information about bear conservation. The Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Study Team, created in 1973, provides scientific information from monitoring and other research that is 

used by the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee for 

adapting management and sustaining the recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 

With delisting of the grizzly bear, the Conservation Strategy, state grizzly bear management plans, 

National Park Service management plans, and this amendment provide the direction for coordinated and 

adaptive management of the grizzly bear and grizzly bear habitat. 

The Forest Service has signed the Memorandum of Understanding detailing agency agreements to 

implement the Conservation Strategy. By signing the Memorandum of Understanding, we agree to: 

• Use our authorities to maintain and enhance the recovered status of the grizzly bear in the 

Greater Yellowstone Area by implementing the regulatory mechanisms, interagency 

cooperation, population and habitat management and monitoring, and other provisions of the 

Conservation Strategy 

• Be members of the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee 

• Support and be part of the adaptive management process as identified in the Biology and 

Monitoring Review section of the Conservation Strategy 

Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee 

As agreed upon in the Conservation Strategy, management of the delisted grizzly bear population will be 

coordinated by a new committee that will replace the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee. We (forest 

supervisors of the six Greater Yellowstone Area national forests) will be members of the new committee, 

which will be called the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee. The Yellowstone Grizzly 

Coordinating Committee is the body that will coordinate management, promote the exchange of 

information about the Yellowstone grizzly bear population, and adapt to changing conditions and new 

science. The Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee will inform the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee about the Yellowstone grizzly bear population for the benefit of grizzly bear conservation 

and management. 

As part of the adaptive management process and within our authorities within the Yellowstone Grizzly 

Coordinating Committee, we will revise or amend the Conservation Strategy based on the best biological 

data and the best available science. Any such amendments will be subject to public review and comment. 

Participation in Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee activities related to adaptive management 

includes: 

• Ensuring population and habitat data are collected annually by the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Study Team, as specified in the Conservation Strategy, and evaluated to assess the current status 

of the grizzly bear population 

• Sharing information and implementing management actions in a coordinated fashion 

• Identifying management, research, and financial needs to successfully implement the 

coordinated Conservation Strategy 

• Implementing a Biology and Monitoring Review as necessary and submitting a petition for 

relisting as appropriate to ensure agency responsiveness to changing circumstances of the grizzly 

or its habitat in the Greater Yellowstone Area 

Under the Conservation Strategy, a Biology and Monitoring Review is a process carried out by the 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. A Biology and Monitoring Review examines management of 

habitat, populations, or efforts of participating agencies to complete their required monitoring. Biology 

and Monitoring Reviews will be undertaken after the annual summary of monitoring information 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 31
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 25 

presented to the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee and in response to deviations from 

required population or habitat standards. Any Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee member 

agency can request a Biology and Monitoring Review be considered. Such consideration would be a 

topic for discussion by the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee and the review would be 

initiated based on the decision of the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee. The Biology and 

Monitoring Review process would be completed within six months and the resulting written report 

presented to the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee and made available to the public. Two of 

the purposes of a Biology and Monitoring Review related to adaptive management are: 

• To identify the reasons why particular demographic or habitat objectives have not been achieved 

and to recommend modifications to the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee for 

changes as necessary 

• To consider and establish a scientific basis for possible changes in management due to changed 

conditions in the ecosystem and make those recommendations to the Yellowstone Grizzly 

Coordinating Committee 

The Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee will respond to the Biology and Monitoring Review 

in written form, through either the minutes of the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee meeting 

or in specific Biology and Monitoring Review response documents, as necessary. The purpose of the 

Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee response is to address the issue(s) raised in the Biology 

and Monitoring Review with an explanation or management changes as necessary. 

When habitat management changes have been identified through the Biology and Monitoring Review 

process, we (forest supervisors of the six Greater Yellowstone Area national forests) will use the forest 

plan amendment process to establish new direction or guidance for grizzly bear habitat to maintain the 

recovered grizzly bear population. 

All action alternatives incorporate this adaptive management process to ensure continued coordination in 

sustaining the recovered grizzly bear population. Alternative 2-Modified goes beyond the direction in the 

Conservation Strategy by providing direction for coordination with states in implementing state 

management plans for grizzly bear occupancy outside the Primary Conservation Area. Additionally, the 

selected alternative provides direction for local public involvement in implementing food storage 

regulations in the areas determined to be biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bears 

outside the Primary Conservation Area. Additional monitoring added to the selected alternative outside 

the Primary Conservation Area will help provide a better picture of habitat conditions for grizzly bears in 

the Greater Yellowstone Area for adaptive management decisions by the Yellowstone Grizzly 

Coordinating Committee. 

Alternative 4 provides direction for grizzly bear habitat outside the Primary Conservation Area. The 

strict requirements allow little room for flexibility in accommodating other uses and local considerations. 

The adaptive management approach described above, when coupled with using best available science in 

decision making, will ensure a timely response if conditions change for the grizzly bear. We will be able 

to make necessary adjustments in habitat monitoring and management in order to sustain a recovered 

grizzly bear population. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 32
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 26 

Part 4 Implementation 

This forest plan amendment will be implemented no sooner than five (5) working days after the Final 

Rule delisting the Yellowstone grizzly population has been published in the Federal Register. If the 

grizzly bear is not delisted, existing forest plan direction for grizzly bears will remain in place. 

The Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines and management situations as defined in the 1986 Guidelines 

no longer apply (except for Management Situation 3 on the Targhee National Forest). 

If litigation occurs, implementation of the standards and guidelines depends on whether the court issues 

an injunction. Should the delisting of the grizzly bear be overturned, existing forest plan direction for 

grizzly bears would remain in place. 

The Conservation Strategy emphasizes the importance of continued coordination and cooperative 

working relationships among management agencies to continue application of best available science and 

maintain effective actions to benefit the coexistence of grizzly bears and humans in the ecosystem. 

Through membership in the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee, the Forest Service will work 

cooperatively with state wildlife management agencies and the National Park Service to meet the 

population goals identified in the Conservation Strategy and occupancy goals for biologically suitable 

and socially acceptable habitats as identified in the state grizzly bear management plans. The Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department has identified the biologically suitable and socially acceptable area for 

grizzly bears outside the Primary Conservation Area in Wyoming. Idaho’s and Montana’s state grizzly 

bear management plans have not yet identified specific areas that are socially acceptable for grizzly bear 

occupancy outside the Primary Conservation Area and will likely only do so on a case-by-case basis. 

Further direction in special orders, cooperative agreements, and the Forest Service directives system will 

be followed; regional supplements to Forest Service Manual 2600, chapter 2670, will be approved before 

the grizzly bear is delisted and will include direction designating the grizzly bear as a sensitive species in 

Forest Service Regions 1 (Northern Region), 2 (Rocky Mountain Region), and 4 (Intermountain Region). 

As forest plans are revised under the 2005 Forest Service planning regulations, the grizzly bear is 

expected to be designated a species of concern. The Forest Service provided the following statements to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on March 23, 2006: 

After delisting, grizzly bears will be managed as a sensitive species on the six Yellowstone area 

National Forests under their amended land management plans. Under future revisions of these plans, 

we expect that grizzly bears will be designated as a “species of concern” (FSH 1909.12.43.22b (5)). 

This will ensure that components of the revised land management plans will provide the appropriate 

ecological conditions (i.e., habitats) necessary to continue to provide for a recovered population 

(FSM 1921.76c). In this way, the intent of the habitat standards in the Conservation Strategy and the 

amended land management plans will be perpetuated in future plans as they are revised. 

Transition to the direction in this amendment 

This decision does not affect or apply to existing occupancy and use authorized by permits, contracts, or 

other instruments implementing approved projects and activities. Using the monitoring items described 

in the appendix of this Record of Decision, ongoing projects other than those authorized by permits, 

contracts, or other instruments will be evaluated for compliance with the new direction. Any projects not 

in compliance with this direction will be mitigated using the Application Rules. All future projects will 

comply with the direction in this amendment. 

4.1 Delisting 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population under 

the Endangered Species Act and published the Proposed Rule to remove the Yellowstone Distinct 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 33
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 27 

Population Segment from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife in the Federal Register 

on November 17, 20059

. 

After reviewing comments, the Final Rule regarding the proposal to delist the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population will be published in the Federal Register. The Final Rule will address the status of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population according to the five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered 

Species Act. These factors include population and habitat status and the existence of adequate regulatory 

mechanisms, as described in the Conservation Strategy and other appropriate direction. This analysis will 

result in a determination by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service whether to delist the Yellowstone 

population or maintain protection under the Endangered Species Act. If the determination is that the bear 

no longer meets the Endangered Species Act’s definition of threatened or endangered, the publication of 

the Final Rule will change the status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population—the population will no 

longer be a listed species. 

Part 5 Public involvement and issues 

5.1 Public involvement process 

The scoping period began when a Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was 

published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2003. The Notice of Intent asked for public comment on the 

proposal from July 16 through August 15, 2003. On August 12, 2003, a revised Notice of Intent was 

published, extending the comment period to September 2, 2003. Additionally, as part of the public 

involvement process, a description of the proposed action was: 

• Mailed to 3,577 individuals, organizations, and agencies in July 2003 

• Published in news releases in local Greater Yellowstone Area newspapers 

• Posted on the Web at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/igbc/Subcommittee/yes/YEamend/gb_internet.htm 

• Listed on each forest’s quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions report beginning in the summer 

of 2003 

Briefings were held with individuals and organizations, as requested. An email address was established 

to receive comments electronically. Nearly 55,000 responses were received, including 396 original 

responses and 54,505 organized campaign responses. 

The Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal 

Register on August 13, 2004. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was available on the Web and 

was mailed to 872 individuals, organizations, and agencies. Five open houses were held throughout the 

Greater Yellowstone Area. The 90-day comment period ended November 12, 2004. The Forest Service 

received 675 original responses and 44,984 organized campaign responses. 

5.2 Summary of public comment 

Public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was far-reaching, often highly detailed, 

and represented a wide range of values and perspectives with respect to grizzly bear management and 

area management in general. 

Respondents expressed different views regarding the proposed forest plan amendment in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. In general, people took one of two positions: preservation management 

as an objective of the Forest Service with support for continued federal protection of grizzly bears, or 

 

9

 Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 221. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears as a 

Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly Bears from the 

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 34
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 28 

multiple use management of national forests with support for delisting grizzly bears as this is seen as a 

positive step toward more state and local management of public lands. 

Many respondents felt Alternative 2 was the best option for grizzly bears and the Greater Yellowstone 

Area because it allowed for multiple use management of public lands. These writers assert that the Forest 

Service, as mandated in the National Forest Management Act, should manage for “sustained yields of 

multiple use.” A number of respondents valued motorized recreational use of public lands and felt 

Alternative 2 adequately accounted for this recreational activity. Additional multiple uses of value 

included livestock grazing rights and natural resource development. Other writers suggested Alternative 

2 is supported by science and maintains consistency with other Forest Service plans. As one respondent 

stated, “More restrictive policies and standards are not required for grizzly management,” and “The 

recovered population is no longer threatened or endangered.” 

Others believed that Alternative 1 is the best option because current forest plans provide suitable and 

adequate amounts of habitat for recovery of a viable grizzly bear population; what is not broken does not 

need to be fixed. “The current plans are working—they brought about the recovery.” There is a 

perception that Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would impose more restrictions on multiple use of public lands. 

On the other hand, a number of respondents viewed Alternative 4 as the best alternative, given its 

emphasis on protected grizzly bear habitat. These writers state that Alternative 4 is the environmentally 

preferred option and is the only option to provide adequate protection for long-term grizzly bear survival. 

A number of others mentioned the Forest Service should prohibit resource development and livestock 

grazing on public lands in the interest of preserving natural wildlife and wild and pristine areas. One 

respondent described the Forest Service as the “stewards of our natural, national heritage.” Still another 

respondent expressed the philosophy of many preservation management respondents that limitations on 

human uses are a worthwhile sacrifice “in order for the grizzly to survive and continue its protection.” 

These different views frame the significant number of requests made by the public. Respondents 

submitted many requests for modification of alternatives regarding grizzly bear management and the 

proposed management of the Greater Yellowstone Area. These numerous requests relative to specific 

areas of management, in conjunction with all other concerns raised by the public, reveal how important 

Yellowstone grizzly bears and the Greater Yellowstone Area are to the public. 

5.3 Government consultation 

No American Indian reservations are located within the Primary Conservation Area. Several tribes have 

trust and treaty responsibilities and interests in the Greater Yellowstone Area. 

Forest supervisors consulted with the Crow, Nez Perce, Northern Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne, Salish 

Kootenai, Shoshone, and Shoshone-Bannock tribes to initiate consultation regarding this forest plan 

amendment. Tribes were given the opportunity to provide input during the scoping period and during 

development of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. 

5.4 Issues 

As a result of the public participation process; review by other federal, state, tribal, and local government 

agencies; and internal reviews, significant issues were identified and are described in detail in chapter 1 

in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Some issues were used as a basis for developing 

alternatives. Other issues were used in development of mitigation measures, incorporated into 

management direction and guidance, or used to analyze effects. 

Issue 1—adequate habitat standards 

Many respondents requested more restrictive habitat standards or an extension of habitat standards to 

lands outside the Primary Conservation Area, or both, to provide additional protection for the grizzly 

bear, including habitat connectivity within the Greater Yellowstone Area. Some respondents requested 

the elimination of temporary changes in secure habitat, no new developed sites, mandatory phase out of 

sheep grazing, and establishing road density standards. Some felt logging would degrade habitat for the 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 35
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 29 

bear. Others felt habitat standards should be extended to areas outside the Primary Conservation Area. 

Others requested fewer restrictions, including omitting the Plateau Bear Management Unit from habitat 

standards. Many respondents had concerns about 1998 as a baseline for resource management. Although 

the grizzly bear population achieved all demographic recovery targets by 1998 with this management 

regime in place, some respondents felt the baseline could be adjusted to allow either more management 

flexibility or increased protections for the grizzly bear. Some respondents mentioned key roadless areas 

for maintaining secure habitat. 

Issue 2—changes in the Primary Conservation Area boundary 

There were concerns about the size of the Primary Conservation Area. Some felt the size of the Primary 

Conservation Area is adequate because it has allowed the grizzly bear population to achieve all 

demographic recovery targets. Others felt the Primary Conservation Area is too small as habitats outside 

the Primary Conservation Area have been occupied by grizzly bears and contributed to the recovery of 

the grizzly bear. Others felt the Primary Conservation Area should be smaller and the numbers of bears 

reduced. 

Issue 3—recreation opportunities 

Many respondents had concerns that the habitat standards would result in reduced motorized recreation 

opportunities and in closing more roads. Some respondents were concerned about public safety while 

recreating in grizzly bear habitat. Although not part of the proposed action, concerns about food storage 

requirements were expressed and some respondents felt that black bear baiting should be restricted in 

grizzly bear habitat. There were concerns about the effects to special use permitted resorts, ski areas, and 

lodges if developed sites were limited to 1998 levels. Additionally, some respondents felt information 

and education could play an important role in how to recreate in bear country. 

Issue 4—social and economic effects 

Some respondents were concerned with the effects on income, employment, and lifestyle changes related 

to livestock operations, ranches, people associated with the timber industry, and recreation-related 

businesses. Some counties have passed resolutions banning the presence of grizzly bears and are 

concerned about the social and economic well being of their areas. Some expressed that reduced grazing 

could accelerate the breakup of ranches into subdivisions in the Greater Yellowstone Area if ranching 

were not economically viable. 

Issue 5—vegetation, fuels, and access 

Some respondents, including land managers, were concerned the standards would be too restrictive and 

would affect the ability to manage hazardous fuels; programs such as the Healthy Forests Initiative 

would be compromised and treatment of fuels in the wildland urban interface could be affected. 

Managers were concerned the proposed action (Alternative 2) would limit the administrative use of roads 

and motorized trails and the construction of roads and motorized trails—this potentially influences 

activities such as timber harvest, wildfire suppression, administrative management activities, and other 

uses associated with Forest Service roads and motorized trails. 

Issue 6—minerals 

Some respondents were concerned the habitat standards would limit oil and gas and mining and 

exploration programs because of limitations on developed sites and secure habitat. Others felt additional 

restrictions should be imposed on these programs. 

Issue 7—food source stability 

Some respondents said threats to food sources are not fully understood and must be further studied, 

suggesting major foods for bears, such as army cutworm moths, spawning cutthroat trout, whitebark pine 

nuts, and wild ungulate carcasses may not be available in future years because of disease or other threats. 

Some said fire prevention is a prime factor in the decline of whitebark pine. Some respondents felt that 

due to the uncertainty of the loss of these major foods, a larger area should be managed for grizzly bears. 

Issue 8—connectivity and linkage between the six Greater Yellowstone Area national forests 

Some respondents felt the ability for bears to move between important habitats in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area should be addressed. They suggested the Forest Service should increase efforts to 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 36
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 30 

make the landscape in these linkage areas less lethal for bears through implementation of food storage 

requirements, elimination of domestic sheep, and habitat maintenance and restoration of degraded areas. 

Issue 9—commercial livestock grazing 

Some respondents were concerned about how much impact the habitat standards would have on livestock 

grazing, and in particular, what the effects would be from phasing out sheep grazing. Grizzly 

bear/livestock conflicts were also a concern, as well as changes in livestock operations. 

Part 6 Alternatives considered 

6.1 Alternatives considered in detail in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 1—no action 

Alternative 1 was the no action alternative. National Environmental Policy Act regulations require the 

Forest Service to identify the no action alternative and use it as a baseline for comparing the 

environmental consequences of the other alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14(d), and Forest Service Handbook 

1909.15 Environmental Policy and Procedures, 14.1). 

Under Alternative 1, current forest plans would continue to guide management of grizzly bear habitat in 

the recovery zone. Further direction in special orders, biological opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, cooperative agreements, and Forest Service manual and handbook direction would be 

followed. 

The grizzly bear would retain its protected, threatened status under the Endangered Species Act and all 

forests would continue to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on all actions authorized, 

permitted, or carried out by the Forest Service. 

Alternative 2—proposed action and preferred alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 2 was presented as the proposed action during the scoping period and the preferred 

alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of this alternative was to 

implement the appropriate habitat standards and monitoring protocols as documented in the Conservation 

Strategy. 

This alternative would provide additional programmatic direction in the form of habitat standards and 

guidelines for management of grizzly bear habitat security, developed sites, nuisance grizzly bear 

management, and livestock grazing within the Primary Conservation Area. All standards applied only to 

the Primary Conservation Area. 

Standards were based on 1998 human activity levels. By 1998, all demographic recovery criteria were 

met. The assumption was the levels of habitat security and other habitat conditions in 1998 provided the 

base environment that led to the recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 

Alternative 2-Modified—selected alternative 

Alternative 2-Modified was developed in response to comments received on the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. A key concern was the lack of direction outside the Primary Conservation Area for 

grizzly bear habitat management. Alternative 2-Modified is similar to Alternative 2 but adds direction 

and guidance for management of grizzly bears related to livestock grazing, food storage, food sources, 

and monitoring of secure habitat, both inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area. Standard 4 of 

Alternative 2, stating that guidelines and management situations would no longer apply, was dropped 

because that direction will be described in this decision document. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 was developed in response to comments suggesting the Forest Service provide more 

restrictive habitat protection for the grizzly bear inside the Primary Conservation Area. The purpose was 

to address the potential loss of major bear foods and further reduce the potential for grizzly bear/human 

conflicts and bear mortality inside the Primary Conservation Area. This alternative maintained the size of 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 37
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 31 

the area where management direction would favor grizzly bears with more restrictive standards. The 

major differences between Alternatives 2 and 3 are that: 

• No permanent or temporary reduction in secure habitat would be allowed and secure habitat 

would be increased 

• Proposed increases in developed sites or capacity of developed sites could not be mitigated and 

would not be allowed 

• Sheep grazing inside the Primary Conservation Area would be eliminated within three years, 

rather than phased out 

Alternative 3 would require additional restrictions to resolve grizzly bear/human conflicts and protect 

important food sources, restrict off-road travel (except over-the-snow use) to designated routes, eliminate 

over-the-snow use in grizzly bear denning areas, and not allow new oil and gas leases. 

Standards were based on 1998 human activity levels. The secure habitat and developed site standards 

would apply to each of the Bear Management Unit subunits on National Forest System lands inside the 

Primary Conservation Area. 

Alternative 4—environmentally preferred 

This alternative was developed in response to comments suggesting the Forest Service extend grizzly 

bear habitat protection beyond the Primary Conservation Area. The purpose was to address the potential 

future loss of major bear foods, increase the probability of habitat connectivity with other ecosystems, 

improve linkage and connectivity between key habitats within the six Greater Yellowstone Area national 

forests, and further reduce the potential for grizzly bear/human conflicts and bear mortality throughout 

the Greater Yellowstone Area. 

This alternative increased the size of the area where management direction would favor grizzly bears 

with the more restrictive standards described for Alternative 3. For Alternative 4, the boundary outside 

the Primary Conservation Area and the standards and guidelines were developed using information 

obtained from scoping. Existing evaluations of suitable habitat and linkage areas for grizzly bears within 

the six Greater Yellowstone Area national forests were used as the basis for delineation of this boundary 

(Walker and Craighead 1997, Willcox and Ellenberger 2000, Merrill and Mattson 2004). 

Standards were based on 1998 human activity levels inside the Primary Conservation Area and 2003 

levels in areas outside the Primary Conservation Area. The secure habitat and developed site standards 

would have applied to each of the Bear Management Unit subunits and analysis areas on National Forest 

System lands inside this delineated area. 

6.2 Alternatives not considered in detail 

Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 proposed implementation of the appropriate habitat standards and monitoring protocols as 

documented in the Conservation Strategy (similar to Alternative 2), plus less restrictive habitat direction 

for areas outside the Primary Conservation Area. These areas were described in the state management 

plans. The interdisciplinary team initiated detailed study of this alternative until determining it was 

similar to Alternative 4. Alternative 5 would extend habitat standards outside the Primary Conservation 

Area to nearly the same area as Alternative 4. Standards would be less restrictive than Alternative 4. A 

complete analysis was unnecessary because effects would have been within the range of effects for 

Alternatives 2 and 4. 

Alternative 6 

This alternative was developed in response to public comments suggesting the Forest Service reduce the 

area of habitat protection and the amount of restrictions for the grizzly bear. In particular, the Plateau 

Bear Management Unit would be removed from the Primary Conservation Area. This alternative was not 

given further detailed study because it did not meet the purpose and need for action, which is to ensure 

conservation of habitat to support continued recovery of the grizzly bear population in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area national forests. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 38
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 32 

During the planning process to revise the Targhee Forest Plan, public comments were received 

suggesting that the Plateau Bear Management Unit be removed. This suggestion was made based on the 

perception that the Plateau Bear Management Unit was poor quality habitat and had low grizzly bear use. 

During 1993 and 1994, a technical committee appointed by the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee 

conducted a study to evaluate habitat capability and grizzly bear use in the Plateau Bear Management 

Unit. Results and recommendations from that study are summarized in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (section 2.2.2). 

Other alternatives 

Many public comments included variations on providing additional habitat protection for the grizzly bear 

through extension of habitat standards beyond the Primary Conservation Area. Some of the reasons were 

to address the potential future loss of major bear foods and increase the probability of habitat 

connectivity with other ecosystems. Some comments called for extending habitat standards either to 

occupied grizzly bear habitat, or to inventoried roadless areas, or to all National Forest System lands in 

the Greater Yellowstone Area. These alternatives were combined and are represented by Alternative 4. 

Another suggestion was termination or removal of existing oil and gas leases as one variation of 

Alternative 4. The variation was not considered in detail because the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management have limited opportunities to implement this alternative. For more discussion, see section 

2.2.3 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Part 7 Legally required findings 

7.1 National Environmental Policy Act 

Consideration of long- and short-term effects 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement considered current effects to the significant issues and other 

resources and projected effects from 10 to 25 years. 

Unavoidable adverse effects 

Decisions made on this forest plan amendment do not represent irreversible or irretrievable commitments 

of resources. Any proposed disturbance to resources cannot occur without further analyses and decision 

documents. For a detailed discussion of effects, see chapter 3 of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

Environmentally preferable alternative(s) 

Regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act require agencies to specify “the 

alternative or alternatives which are considered to be environmentally preferable” (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). 

The environmentally preferable alternative causes the least damage to the biological and physical 

environments and best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources. Based 

on the description of the alternatives considered in detail in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and this Record of Decision, we have determined that Alternative 4 best meets the goals of Section 101 

of the National Environmental Policy Act and is therefore the environmentally preferable alternative for 

this proposed federal action. 

7.2 National Forest Management Act 

We find that this amendment is not significant under the National Forest Management Act regulations, 

based on our evaluation of the four factors described below. This finding is made pursuant to the 1982 

National Forest Management Act regulations as allowed for by the 2005 National Forest Management 

Act regulations at 36 CFR 219.14(d)(2). 

The 1982 National Forest Management Act regulations direct that “based on an analysis of the 

objectives, guidelines, and other contents of the Forest Plan, the Forest Supervisor shall determine 

whether a proposed amendment would result in a significant change in the plan. If the change resulting 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 39
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 33 

from the proposed amendment is determined to be significant, the Forest Supervisor shall follow the 

same procedure as that required for development and approval of a Forest Plan [i.e., conduct a plan 

revision]. If the change resulting from the amendment is determined not to be significant for the purposes 

of the planning process, the Forest Supervisor may implement the amendment following appropriate 

public notification and satisfactory completion of National Environmental Policy Act procedures” (36 

CFR 219.10(f) (1982). The test we are using to determine significance for the forest plan amendment 

includes four factors. 

Timing 

Identify when the change is to take place. Determine whether the change is necessary during or after the 

plan period (the first decade) or whether the change is to take place after the next scheduled revision of 

the forest plan. 

Figure 7 displays the approval dates for the forest plans for the six forests as well as the proposed 

completion dates for their revisions. The amendment takes place late in the life of the plans and 

according to the FSH 1909.12, chapter 5.32, “the later the change, the less likely it is to be significant for 

the current forest plan.” Although this amendment occurs late in the lifespan of the forest plans, these 

changes are necessary to ensure conservation of habitat to sustain the recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population. 

Location and size 

Determine the location and size of the area involved in the change. Define the relationship of the affected 

area to the overall planning area. 

In reviewing the Final Environmental Impact Statement, we concluded that although the six Greater 

Yellowstone Area national forests (the planning area) include a very large area—approximately 13 

million acres—the standards and some guidelines apply only to the Primary Conservation Area, which is 

28 percent of the planning area. Other guidelines will apply to areas determined to be socially acceptable 

and biologically suitable for grizzly bears, which could include an additional 50 percent of the planning 

area outside the Primary Conservation Area. 

Goals, objectives, and outputs 

Determine whether the change alters long-term relationships between the levels of goods and services 

projected by the forest plan. Consider whether an increase in one type of output would trigger an 

increase or decrease in another. Determine where there is a demand for goods or services not discussed 

in the forest plan. 

Amendment of the plans for grizzly bear habitat conservation as outlined in Alternative 2-Modified will 

not alter the level of goods and services provided on the six national forests in the Greater Yellowstone 

Area. We have considered effects on key goods and services that are provided by the Greater 

Yellowstone Area national forests, including recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvest, fire 

management, and minerals. We determined the levels of goods and services can continue at present 

levels and the amendments will not alter long-term relationships between the levels of goods and 

services projected by the forest plan. 

Management prescription 

Determine whether the change in a management prescription is only for a specific situation or whether it 

would apply to future decisions throughout the planning areas. Determine whether the change alters the 

desired future condition of the land and resources or the anticipated goods and services to be produced. 

This action does not change management prescriptions or alter management area boundaries. It does not 

alter the desired future condition of the land and resources or the anticipated goods and services to be 

produced. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 40
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 34 

Figure 7. Land and resource management plans to be amended. 

National 

forest 

Forest 

Service 

region 

Land and resource management 

plan to be amended 

Year plan 

approved 

Year scheduled 

for plan revision 

completion1

BeaverheadDeerlodge Region 1 Beaverhead Forest Plan 1986 2006 

Bridger-Teton Region 4 Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan 1990 2007 

CaribouTarghee Region 4 1997 Revised Forest Plan—Targhee 

National Forest 1997 2010 

Custer Region 1 

Custer National Forest and Grasslands 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

(amendment applies only to the 

Beartooth Ranger District) 

1986 2009 

Gallatin Region 1 Gallatin National Forest Plan 1987 2009 

Shoshone Region 2 Shoshone National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan 1986 2007 

1

 USDA Forest Service 2005d. 

7.3 Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act creates an affirmative obligation “. . . that all federal departments and 

agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened (and proposed) species” of fish, wildlife, and 

plants. This obligation is further clarified in a National Interagency Memorandum of Agreement (August 

30, 2000) which states our shared mission to “. . . enhance conservation of imperiled species while 

delivering appropriate goods and services provided by the lands and resources.” 

Based upon a consultation agreement with the USFWS and in accordance with Forest Service direction 

for listed species, we completed biological assessments for all listed species. For all listed species, except 

the grizzly bear and the gray wolf, we determined the preferred alternative would have “no effect” on 

these species. The determination for the gray wolf was that the preferred alternative was “not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence” of the gray wolf. The determination for the grizzly bear was “not 

likely to adversely effect.” Biological assessments were submitted to the USFWS as a courtesy, but are 

not required for “no effect” determinations. The USFWS provided written review as required by Section 

7 of the ESA for the gray wolf and grizzly bear. 

7.4 National Historic Preservation Act 

This forest plan amendment is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. 

Projects undertaken in response to the direction in the amendment will comply fully with the laws and 

regulations that ensure protection of cultural resources. 

It is our determination that the forest plan amendment complies with the National Historic Preservation 

Act and other statutes that pertain to the protection of cultural resources. 

7.5 Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112) 

Executive Order 13112 directs federal agencies not to authorize any activities that would increase the 

spread of invasive species. The forest plan amendment is a programmatic action and does not authorize 

site-specific activities. 

We have determined the forest plan amendment complies with Executive Order 13112. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 41
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page 35 

7.6 Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) 

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and 

low-income populations. 

We have determined from the analyses disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement that the 

forest plan amendment complies with Executive Order 12898. 

7.7 Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land 

We have determined from the analyses disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement that prime 

farmland, rangeland, and forest land will not be affected because the selected alternative is a 

programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. 

7.8 Equal Employment Opportunity, Effects on Minorities, Women 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement describes the impacts to social and economic factors in 

chapter 3. The selected alternative will not have a disproportionate impact on any minority or lowincome communities. We have determined the selected alternative will not differentially affect the civil 

rights on any citizens, including women and minorities. 

7.9 Wetlands and Floodplains (Executive Orders 11988 and 11990) 

The selected alternative is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. We have 

determined the selected alternative will not have adverse impacts on wetlands and floodplains and will 

comply with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. 

7.10 Other policies 

The existing body of national direction for managing national forests remains in effect. 

Part 8 Administrative review 

This decision is subject to review pursuant to 36 CFR 217.3. Any appeals must be postmarked or 

received by the Appeal Reviewing Officer within 45 days of the date the legal notice is published in the 

Cody Enterprise, the lead newspaper of record. Courtesy notices will be published in other newspapers, 

but the publication date in the Cody Enterprise determines the appeal period. 

Appeals must be sent to: 

Regional Forester 

Intermountain Region USFS 

324 25th Street 

Ogden, UT 84401 

Appeals may be hand-delivered to the above address during regular business hours, 8:00 am to 4:30 pm 

Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; or sent by fax to 801.625.5277; or by email to appealsintermtn-regional-office@fs.fed.us. Emailed appeals must be submitted in rich text format (.rtf) or Word 

(.doc) and must include the project name in the subject line. 

Any notice of appeal must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 217.9 and include at a minimum: 

• A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR Part 217 

• The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant 

• Identify the decision to which the objection is being made 

• Identify the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject, date of the 

decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 42
Appendix G

Appendix G - 43
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-1 

Appendix—Forest plan amendment for grizzly bear habitat conservation 

This Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation amends forest plans on the six 

Greater Yellowstone Area national forests: the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, 

Custer, Gallatin, and Shoshone National Forests. 

This is 

• Amendment Number 10 to the 1986 Beaverhead Forest Plan 

• Amendment Number 8 to the 1990 Bridger-Teton National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

• Amendment Number 3 to the 1997 Revised Forest Plan—Targhee National Forest 

• Amendment Number 42 to the 1987 Custer National Forest and Grasslands Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

• Amendment Number 27 to the 1987 Gallatin National Forest Plan 

• Amendment Number 2006-001 to the 1986 Shoshone National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan 

Introduction 

The goal, standards, guidelines, and monitoring described in this amendment provide management 

direction to ensure conservation of grizzly bear habitat to support the recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area. 

The purpose and need for this amendment is to: 

• Ensure conservation of grizzly bear habitat to support the recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population 

• Update the management and monitoring of grizzly bear habitat to incorporate recent interagency 

recommendations and agreements, as described in the Final Conservation Strategy for the 

Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area 

• Improve consistency among Greater Yellowstone Area national forests in managing grizzly bear 

habitat 

• Ensure the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms for grizzly bear habitat protection upon delisting 

as identified in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 

The Forest Service, as a signee of the Memorandum of Understanding detailing agency agreements to 

implement the Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area 

(Conservation Strategy), uses its authorities to maintain and enhance the recovered status of the grizzly 

bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area. This includes implementing the regulatory mechanisms, 

interagency cooperation, population and habitat management and monitoring, and other provisions of the 

Conservation Strategy. The Forest Service is a member of the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating 

Committee and is part of the adaptive management process as identified in the Biology and Monitoring 

Review section of the Conservation Strategy. 

Further direction in special orders, cooperative agreements, and the Forest Service directives system will 

be followed; regional supplements to Forest Service Manual 2600, chapter 2670, will be approved before 

the grizzly bear is delisted and will include direction designating the grizzly bear as a sensitive species in 

Forest Service Regions 1 (Northern Region), 2 (Rocky Mountain Region), and 4 (Intermountain Region). 

As forest plans are revised under the 2005 Forest Service planning regulations, the grizzly bear is 

expected to be designated a species of concern. The Forest Service provided the following statements to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on March 23, 2006: 

After delisting, grizzly bears will be managed as a sensitive species on the six Yellowstone area 

National Forests under their amended land management plans. Under future revisions of these plans, 

we expect that grizzly bears will be designated as a “species of concern” (FSH 1909.12.43.22b (5)). 

This will ensure that components of the revised land management plans will provide the appropriate 

ecological conditions (i.e., habitats) necessary to continue to provide for a recovered population 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 44
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-2 

(FSM 1921.76c). In this way, the intent of the habitat standards in the Conservation Strategy and the 

amended land management plans will be perpetuated in future plans as they are revised. 

While the management direction in this amendment provides a firm foundation for grizzly bear habitat 

management, the Forest Service recognizes that habitat management is dynamic and that new 

information is constantly being developed. The direction in this amendment embraces an adaptive 

management approach—as conditions change, so will management direction. Future changes, based on 

monitoring and evaluation, will involve public involvement and collaboration and will incorporate best 

available science. 

How this amendment is organized 

This amendment is organized into four parts. 

Part 1 describes the grizzly bear habitat conservation goal, standards and Application Rules, guidelines 

and Application Rules, and monitoring. 

Part 2 describes the 1998 baseline values for habitat standards inside the Primary Conservation Area and 

habitat effectiveness. 

Part 3 is the nuisance bear standards from the 2003 Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in 

the Greater Yellowstone Area. 

Part 4 includes the following figures: 

• Figure A-1. Criteria and definitions used in this amendment. 

• Figure A-2. Map showing Bear Management Units and subunits in the Primary Conservation 

Area. 

• Figure A-3. General Bear Management Unit subunit information inside the Primary 

Conservation Area. 

• Figure A-4. The 1998 baseline values for secure habitat, OMARD >1 mile per square mile and 

TMARD >2 miles per square mile for 40 Bear Management Unit subunits in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area. Includes Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, state, county, and 

private motorized access routes. 

• Figure A-5. The 1998 baseline values for secure habitat, OMARD >1 mile per square mile and 

TMARD >2 miles per square mile for 40 Bear Management Unit subunits in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area. Includes only private roads and state and county highways. 

• Figure A-6. Acres and national forest/national park overlap when applying the 1 percent rule. 

• Figure A-7. The 1998 baseline for numbers of developed sites. 

• Figure A-8. Number of mining claims as of 1998. 

• Figure A-9. Number of commercial livestock grazing allotments and sheep animal months in 

1998. 

• Figure A-10. 1998 Cumulative Effects Model habitat effectiveness values by season. 

Amendment part 1—Goal, standards, guidelines, and monitoring 

Within the Primary Conservation Area, there are 18 Bear Management Units and 40 Bear Management 

Unit subunits totaling 5,894,000 acres (Figures A-2, A-3, and A-4). The major land management 

agencies include six national forests and two national parks. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation goal 

Manage grizzly bear habitat within the Primary Conservation Area to sustain the recovered Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population. Outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in state grizzly bear 

management plans as biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, 

accommodate grizzly bear populations to the extent that accommodation is compatible with the goals and 

objectives of other uses. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation standard for secure habitat 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, maintain the percent of secure habitat in Bear Management Unit 

subunits at or above 1998 levels. Projects that change secure habitat must follow the Application Rules. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 45
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-3 

Application Rules for changes in secure habitat 

Permanent changes to secure habitat. A project may permanently change secure habitat if secure habitat 

of equivalent habitat quality (as measured by the Cumulative Effects Model or equivalent technology) is 

replaced in the same Bear Management Unit subunit. The replacement habitat must be maintained for a 

minimum of 10 years and be either in place before project implementation or concurrent with project 

development. Increases in secure habitat may be banked to offset the impacts of future projects of that 

administrative unit within that subunit. 

Temporary changes to secure habitat. Projects can occur with temporary reductions in secure habitat if all 

the following conditions are met: 

• Only one active project per Bear Management Unit subunit can occur at any one time. 

• The total acreage of active projects within a given Bear Management Unit does not exceed 1 

percent of the acreage in the largest subunit within that Bear Management Unit (Figure A-6). 

The acreage of a project that counts against the 1 percent limit is the acreage associated with the 

500-meter buffer around any gated or open motorized access route or recurring low level 

helicopter flight line, where the buffer extends into secure habitat. 

• To qualify as a temporary project, implementation will last no longer than three years. 

• Secure habitat must be restored within one year after completion of the project. 

• Project activities should be concentrated in time and space to the extent feasible. 

Acceptable activities in secure habitat. Activities that do not require road construction, reconstruction, 

opening a permanently restricted road, or recurring helicopter flight lines at low elevation do not detract 

from secure habitat. Examples of such activities include thinning, tree planting, prescribed fire, trail 

maintenance, and administrative studies/monitoring. Activities should be concentrated in time and space 

to the extent feasible to minimize disturbance. Effects of such projects will be analyzed in the National 

Environmental Policy Act process. 

• Helicopter use for short-term activities such as prescribed fire ignition/management, periodic 

administrative flights, fire suppression, search and rescue, and other similar activities do not 

constitute a project and do not detract from secure habitat. 

• Motorized access routes with permanent barriers, decommissioned or obliterated roads, nonmotorized trails, winter snow machine trails, and other motorized winter activities do not count 

against secure habitat. 

• Project activities occurring between December 1 and February 28 do not count against secure 

habitat. 

• Minimize effects on grizzly habitat from activities based in statutory rights, such as access to 

private lands under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the 1872 General 

Mining Law. Where the mitigated effects exceed the 1998 baseline within the affected subunit, 

compensate secure habitat to levels at or above the 1998 baseline, in this order: 1) in adjacent 

subunits, or 2) nearest subunits, or 3) in areas outside the Primary Conservation Area adjacent to 

the subunit impacted. 

• Honor existing oil and gas and other mineral leases. Proposed Applications for Permit to Drill 

and operating plans within those leases should meet the Application Rules for changes in secure 

habitat. New leases, Applications for Permit to Drill, and operating plans must meet the secure 

habitat and developed site standards. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation standard for developed sites 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, maintain the number and capacity of developed sites at or below 

1998 levels, with the following exceptions: any proposed increase, expansion, or change of use of 

developed sites from the 1998 baseline in the Primary Conservation Area (Figure A-7) will be analyzed 

and potential detrimental and positive impacts on grizzly bears will be documented through biological 

evaluation or assessment. Projects that change the number or capacity of developed sites must follow the 

Application Rules. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 46
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-4 

Application Rules for developed sites 

Mitigation of detrimental impacts must occur within the affected subunit and be equivalent to the type 

and extent of impact. Mitigation measures must be in place before implementation of the project or 

included as an integral part of the completion of the project. 

• New sites must be mitigated within that subunit to offset any increases in human capacity, 

habitat loss, and increased access to surrounding habitats. Consolidation and/or elimination of 

dispersed campsites is adequate mitigation for increases in human capacity at developed 

campgrounds if the new site capacity is equivalent to the dispersed camping eliminated. 

• Administrative site expansions are exempt from human capacity mitigation expansion if such 

developments are necessary for enhancement of management of public lands and other viable 

alternatives are not available. Temporary construction work camps for highway construction or 

other major maintenance projects are exempt from human capacity mitigation if other viable 

alternatives are not available. Food storage facilities and management, including camp monitors, 

must be in place to ensure food storage compliance. All other factors resulting in potential 

detrimental impacts to grizzly bears must be mitigated as identified for other developed sites. 

• To benefit the grizzly bear, capacity, season of use, and access to surrounding habitats of 

existing developed sites may be adjusted. The improvements may then be banked to mitigate 

equivalent impacts of future developed sites within that subunit. 

• Minimize effects on grizzly habitat from activities based in statutory rights, such as the 1872 

General Mining Law. Where the mitigated effects exceed the 1998 baseline within that subunit, 

provide mitigation to levels at or below the 1998 baseline in this order: 1) adjacent subunits, or 

2) the nearest subunit, or 3) in areas outside the Primary Conservation Area adjacent to the 

subunit impacted. Mitigation for Mining Law site impacts must follow standard developed site 

mitigation to offset any increases in human capacity, habitat loss, and increased access to 

surrounding habitats. 

• Honor existing oil and gas and other mineral leases. Proposed Applications for Permit to Drill 

and operating plans within those leases should meet the developed site standard. New leases, 

Applications for Permit to Drill, and operating plans must meet the developed site standard. 

• Developments on private land are not counted against this standard. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation standard for livestock grazing 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, do not create new active commercial livestock grazing allotments, 

do not increase permitted sheep animal months from the 1998 baseline (Figure A-9), and phase out 

existing sheep allotments as opportunities arise with willing permittees. 

Application Rule for livestock grazing standard 

Allotments include both vacant and active commercial grazing allotments. Reissuance of permits for 

vacant cattle allotments may result in an increase in the number of permitted cattle, but the number of 

allotments must remain at or below the 1998 baseline. Allow combining or dividing existing allotments 

as long as acreage in allotments does not increase. Any such use of vacant cattle allotments resulting in 

an increase in permitted cattle numbers could be allowed only after an analysis to evaluate impacts on 

grizzly bears. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation guideline for livestock grazing 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, cattle allotments or portions of cattle allotments with recurring 

conflicts that cannot be resolved through modification of grazing practices may be retired as 

opportunities arise with willing permittees. Outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in 

state management plans as biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, 

livestock allotments or portions of allotments with recurring conflicts that cannot be resolved through 

modification of grazing practices may be retired as opportunities arise with willing permittees. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 47
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-5 

Application Rule for livestock grazing guideline 

Permittees with allotments with recurring conflicts will be given the opportunity to place livestock in a 

vacant allotment outside the Primary Conservation Area where there is less likelihood for conflicts with 

grizzly bears as these allotments become available. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation standard for nuisance bears 

Coordinate with state wildlife management agencies to apply Conservation Strategy nuisance bear 

standards. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation standard for food storage 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts using food storage, 

information and education, and other management tools. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation guideline for food storage 

Outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in state management plans as biologically 

suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, emphasize proper sanitation techniques, 

including food storage orders, and information and education, while working with local governments and 

other agencies.

Grizzly bear habitat conservation guideline for winter motorized access 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, use localized area restrictions to address conflicts with winter use 

activities, where conflicts occur during denning or after bear emergence in the spring. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation guideline for food sources 

Inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in state management plans as 

biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, maintain the productivity, to the 

extent feasible, of the four key grizzly bear food sources as identified in the Conservation Strategy. 

Emphasize maintaining and restoring whitebark pine stands inside and outside the Primary Conservation 

Area.

Grizzly bear habitat conservation monitoring for secure habitat and motorized access 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, monitor, compare to the 1998 baseline, and annually submit for 

inclusion in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Annual Report: secure habitat, open motorized 

access route density (OMARD) greater than one mile per square mile, and total motorized access route 

density (TMARD) greater than two miles per square mile in each subunit on the national forest. Outside 

the Primary Conservation Area in areas identified in state management plans as biologically suitable and 

socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, monitor, and submit for inclusion in the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team Annual Report: changes in secure habitat by national forest every two years. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation monitoring for developed sites 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, monitor, and annually submit for inclusion in the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team Annual Report: changes in the number and capacity of developed sites on the 

national forest, and compare with the 1998 baseline. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation monitoring for livestock grazing 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, monitor, compare to the 1998 baseline, and annually submit for 

inclusion in the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Annual Report: the number of commercial 

livestock grazing allotments on the national forest and the number of permitted domestic sheep animal 

months. Inside and outside the Primary Conservation Area, monitor and evaluate allotments for recurring 

conflicts with grizzly bears. 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation monitoring for habitat effectiveness 

Inside the Primary Conservation Area, monitor, and every five years submit for inclusion in the 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Annual Report: changes in seasonal habitat effectiveness in each 

Bear Management Unit and subunit on the national forest through the application of the Cumulative 

Effects Model or the best available system and compare outputs to the 1998 baseline. Annually review 

Cumulative Effects Model databases and update as needed. When funding is available, monitor 

representative non-motorized trails or access points where risk of grizzly bear mortality is highest. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 48
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-6 

Grizzly bear habitat conservation monitoring for whitebark pine 

Monitor whitebark pine occurrence, productivity, and health inside and outside the Primary Conservation 

Area in cooperation with other agencies. Annually submit for inclusion in the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Study Team Annual Report: results of whitebark pine cone production from transects or other 

appropriate methods, and results of other whitebark pine monitoring. 

Amendment part 2—The 1998 baseline 

The 1998 baseline values for habitat standards inside the Primary Conservation Area 

The 1998 baseline represents an estimate of the habitat standards within the Primary Conservation Area 

as of 1998. That estimate relied on the best data available of what was known to be on the ground at the 

time. Baseline data establish a set of information against which future improvements and /or impacts can 

be assessed. As new information is available, the database will be adjusted and will serve as a tracking 

system for monitoring improvements and evaluating habitat conditions and the need for mitigation 

measures in the future. Any feature(s) not included in this 1998 baseline will be reviewed to determine 

its status in 1998. If the feature was present in 1998, it will be added to the baseline tables or maps, 

otherwise the feature will be subject to the standards and Application Rules identified in this amendment. 

Secure habitat and motorized access route density within the Primary Conservation Area for each Bear 

Management Unit subunit 

Using Geographic Information System databases created by each administrative unit, the percent secure 

habitat, OMARD greater than one mile per square mile, and TMARD greater than two miles per square 

mile were estimated as of 1998 for each Bear Management Unit subunit (Figure A-4). OMARD is 

evaluated for each of two seasons, as access routes may be restricted in one season and not another. 

TMARD and secure habitat are single values by definition and do not vary by season. The contribution 

of private roads and state and county highways was also evaluated for each Bear Management Unit 

subunit (Figure A-5). These values represent a minimum percent for OMARD and TMARD, and a 

maximum percent for secure habitat even if all motorized access features administered by the Forest 

Service were obliterated or decommissioned on National Forest System lands. A standardized program 

(AML) that runs in the ARC/INFO software environment was used to make the calculations. The buffer 

command in ARC/INFO is used to buffer all relevant motorized access features by 500 meters. The area 

outside of this buffer is secure habitat. Motorized access route density is calculated using a moving 

windows process with 30-meter cells and a one-mile square window. 

Developed sites on public lands within the Primary Conservation Area 

Developed sites include all sites on public land developed or improved for human use or resource 

development such as campgrounds, trailheads, lodges, administrative sites, service stations, summer 

homes, restaurants, visitor centers, and permitted resource development sites such as oil and gas 

exploratory wells, production wells, plans of operation for minerals activities, work camps, etc. 

Developed sites on public lands are currently inventoried in existing Geographic Information System 

databases and are an input item to the Cumulative Effects Model. Figure A-7 displays the number of 

developed sites for each administrative unit by Bear Management Unit subunit as of 1998. 

Livestock grazing on public lands within the Primary Conservation Area 

There were 100 commercial livestock grazing allotments inside the Primary Conservation Area in 1998 

and 23,090 permitted sheep animal months (Figure A-9). Allotments with less than 100 acres inside the 

Primary Conservation Area were not included. Where several allotments are managed as one, this was 

counted as a single allotment. Sheep animal months are calculated by multiplying the permitted number 

of sheep times the months of permitted use. In many cases, actual use by sheep may have been less than 

the permitted numbers identified for 1998. 

Habitat effectiveness 

Habitat effectiveness outputs from the Cumulative Effects Model as of 1998 are presented in Figure A10. Habitat effectiveness is a relative measure of that part of the energy potentially derived from the area 

that is available to bears given their response to humans. The higher the number the greater the habitat 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 49
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-7 

effectiveness. The high values in the estrus period are associated with cutthroat trout spawning streams, 

high values in early hyperphagia are a result of moth aggregation sites, and high values in late 

hyperphagia are primarily due to whitebark pine. Habitat effectiveness is calculated using the ICE9 

software, which evaluates information contained in several Geographic Information System and tabular 

databases. The databases include digital maps of vegetation, ungulate winter ranges, and point, linear and 

dispersed human activities; coefficient tables that categorize the relative values of vegetation and human 

activities; and tables that identify the type, intensity, and duration of the human activities. 

Amendment part 3—Nuisance bear standards 

Nuisance bear standards from the 2003 Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area10 

The focus and intent of nuisance grizzly bear management inside and outside the Primary Conservation 

Area are predicated on strategies and actions to prevent grizzly bear/human conflicts. It is recognized 

that active management aimed at individual nuisance bears will be required in both areas (inside and 

outside the Primary Conservation Area). Management actions outside the Primary Conservation Area 

will be implemented according to state management plans in coordination with landowners and land 

management agencies. These actions will be compatible with grizzly bear population management 

objectives for each state for the areas outside the Primary Conservation Area. 

General criteria 

Location, cause of incident, severity of incident, history of bear, health/age/sex of bear, and the 

demographic characteristics of animals involved will all be considered in any relocation or removal. 

Removal of nuisance bears will be carefully considered and consistent with mortality limits for the 

Greater Yellowstone Area as described in the Conservation Strategy. Recognizing that conservation of 

female bears is essential to maintenance of a grizzly population, removal of nuisance females will be 

minimized. 

Within the Primary Conservation Area 

Within the Primary Conservation Area, management of nuisance bears will be addressed according to the 

following standards: 

• Bears displaying food conditioning and/or habituation behaviors may be either relocated or 

removed based on specific details of the incident. State wildlife agencies, following consultation 

with other appropriate management authorities, and national parks will make this judgment after 

considering the cause, location, and severity of the incident or incidents. 

• Bears may be relocated as many times as judged prudent by management authorities. No bear 

may be removed for any offense, other than unnatural aggression, without at least one relocation 

unless representatives of affected agencies document the reason in writing. All relocations 

outside the Primary Conservation Area will be governed by state management plans. 

• Bears may be preemptively moved when they are in areas where they are likely to come into 

conflicts with site-specific human activities, but only as a last resort. Such preemptive moves 

will not count against the bear as nuisance moves. 

• Bears preying on lawfully present livestock (cows, domestic sheep, horses, goats, llamas, etc.) 

on public lands will be managed according to the following criteria: 

o No grizzly bear involved in livestock depredations inside the Primary Conservation 

Area shall be removed unless it has been relocated at least one time and continues to 

cause livestock depredations. This does not apply to depredations occurring in sheep 

allotments inside the Primary Conservation Area in areas that were designated 

Management Situation 111 under the 1986 Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines. 

 

10 This section is included from the March 2003 Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area and is for reference only. The Conservation Strategy is subject to interagency review and 

updating. Readers should check for the most recent version of the document. 

11 Management Situation 1 areas are described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 50
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-8 

o Grizzly bears will not be removed or relocated from sheep allotments on federal land 

inside the Primary Conservation Area in areas that were designated Management 

Situation 1 under the 1986 Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines. 

• Before any removal, except in cases of human safety, management authorities will consult by 

telephone or in person to judge the adequacy of the reason for removal. 

• Bears displaying natural aggression are not to be removed, even if the aggression results in 

human injury or death, unless it is the judgment of management authorities that the particular 

circumstances warrant removal. 

• Bears displaying unnatural aggression will be removed from the population. 

• Decisions will be based on criteria for relocation and removal inside the Primary Conservation 

Area for management of nuisance bears in the Conservation Strategy and best biological 

judgment of authorities. 

o Authorized National Park Service authorities will implement removals and relocations 

within Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park. 

o Authorized state authorities outside Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton 

National Park will implement other removals and relocations. 

o State wildlife agencies, in coordination with the appropriate federal agencies, will 

predetermine adequate and available sites for relocations. Relocation sites should be 

agreed upon before the need for relocation occurs. In order to deal with problem bears 

more efficiently, managers should have full access to relocation sites without having to 

conduct individual consultation for each relocation. 

o Livestock damage prevention and compensation are addressed in individual state 

management plans. 

• Management of all nuisance bear situations will emphasize removal of the human cause of the 

conflict, when possible, or management and education actions to limit such conflicts. Relocation 

and removal of grizzly bears may occur if the above actions are not successful. 

Specific criteria for removals 

Captured grizzly bears identified for removal may be given to public research institutions or public 

zoological parks for appropriate non-release educational or scientific purposes as per regulations of states 

and national parks. Grizzly bears not suitable for release, research, or educational purposes will be 

removed as described in appropriate state management plans or in compliance with national park rules 

and regulations. 

Outside of national parks, individual nuisance bears deemed appropriate for removal may be taken by a 

legal hunter in compliance with rules and regulations promulgated by the appropriate state wildlife 

agency commission, as long as such taking is in compliance with existing state and federal laws, and as 

long as mortality limits specified for the Greater Yellowstone Area as described in the Conservation 

Strategy are not exceeded. This could include licensed hunters or property owners or their agents who 

have obtained appropriate permits from the state. Licensed hunters will be allowed to possess bear parts 

for bears that are legally harvested under a state permit. 

Monitoring protocol 

All nuisance bear control actions, and grizzly bear/human and grizzly bear/livestock conflicts will be 

summarized annually in the Annual Report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. This report will 

detail the cause and location of each conflict and management action and display an annual spatial 

distribution of conflicts that can be used by managers to identify where problems occur and to compare 

trends in locations, sources, land ownership, and types of conflicts. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 51
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-9 

Amendment part 4—Figures 

Figure A-1. Criteria and definitions used in this amendment. 

Criteria Definition 

Motorized access 

routes 

Motorized access routes are all routes having motorized use or the potential for motorized use 

(restricted roads) including motorized trails, highways, and forest roads. Private roads and 

state and county highways are counted. 

Restricted road A restricted road is a road on which motorized vehicle use is restricted seasonally or yearlong. 

The road requires effective physical obstruction, generally gated. 

Permanently restricted 

road 

A permanently restricted road is a road restricted with a permanent barrier and not a gate. A 

permanently restricted road is acceptable within secure habitat. 

Decommissioned or 

obliterated or 

reclaimed road 

A decommissioned or obliterated or reclaimed road refers to a route which is managed with 

the long-term intent for no motorized use, and has been treated in such a manner to no longer 

function as a road. An effective means to accomplish this is through one or a combination of 

several means including recontouring to original slope, placement of logging or forest debris, 

planting of shrubs or trees, etc. 

Secure habitat 

Secure habitat is more than 500 meters from an open or gated motorized access route or 

recurring helicopter flight line. Secure habitat must be greater than or equal to 10 acres in 

size12. Large lakes (greater than one square mile) are not included in the calculations. 

Project 

A project is an activity requiring construction of new roads, reconstructing or opening a 

permanently restricted road, or recurring helicopter flights at low elevations. Opening a gated 

road for public or administrative use is not considered a project as the area behind locked, 

gated roads is not considered secure habitat. 

Temporary project To qualify as a temporary project under the Application Rules, project implementation will 

last no longer than three years. 

Opening a permanently 

restricted road Removing permanent barriers such that the road is accessible to motorized vehicles. 

Permanent barrier A permanent barrier refers to such features as earthen berms or ripped road surfaces to create 

a permanent closure. 

Removing motorized 

routes 

To result in an increase in secure habitat, motorized routes must either be decommissioned or 

restricted with permanent barriers, not gates. Non-motorized use is permissible. 

Seasonal periods 

Season 1 – March 1 through July 15 

Season 2 – July 16 through November 30 

Project activities occurring between December 1 and February 28 do not count against secure 

habitat. 

Developed site 

A developed site includes but is not limited to sites on public land developed or improved for 

human use or resource development such as campgrounds, trailheads, improved parking 

areas, lodges (permitted resorts), administrative sites, service stations, summer homes 

(permitted recreation residences), restaurants, visitor centers, and permitted resource 

development sites such as oil and gas exploratory wells, production wells, plans of operation 

for mining activities, work camps, etc. 

Vacant allotments 

Vacant allotments are livestock grazing allotments without an active permit, but could be 

restocked or used periodically by other permittees at the discretion of the land management 

agency to resolve resource issues or other concerns. 

Recurring conflicts Recurring grizzly bear/human or grizzly bear/livestock conflicts are defined as three or more 

years of recorded conflicts during the most recent five-year period. 

 

12 Secure habitat in this amendment does not include areas open to cross country off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 52
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-10 

Figure A-2. Bear Management Units and subunits inside the Primary Conservation Area. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 53
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-11 

Figure A-3. General Bear Management Unit (BMU) subunit information (thousands of acres) inside the Primary Conservation Area. 

Subunit name BMU # Acres Land management agencies 

Bechler/Teton 18 341.8 Caribou-Targhee NF, Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP Boulder/Slough #1 4 180.5 Custer NF, Gallatin NF Boulder/Slough #2 4 148.5 Custer NF, Gallatin NF, Yellowstone NP Buffalo/Spread Creek #1 17 142.1 Bridger-Teton NF, Grand Teton NP Buffalo/Spread Creek #2 17 325.1 Bridger-Teton NF Crandall/Sunlight #1 6 83.2 Gallatin NF, Shoshone NF Crandall/Sunlight #2 6 202.2 Gallatin NF, Shoshone NF Crandall/Sunlight #3 6 142.1 Shoshone NF Firehole/Hayden #1 10 217.0 Yellowstone NP Firehole/Hayden #2 10 113.3 Yellowstone NP Gallatin #1 2 81.9 Yellowstone NP Gallatin #2 2 99.2 Yellowstone NP Gallatin #3 2 139.5 Gallatin NF Hellroaring/Bear #1 3 118.4 Gallatin NF, Yellowstone NP Hellroaring/Bear #2 3 146.6 Gallatin NF, Yellowstone NP Henrys Lake #1 12 128.6 Caribou-Targhee NF Henrys Lake #2 12 97.9 Caribou-Targhee NF, Gallatin NF Hilgard #1 1 128.6 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, Gallatin NF Hilgard #2 1 90.2 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, Gallatin NF Lamar #1 5 192.0 Yellowstone NP Lamar #2 5 115.8 Yellowstone NP Madison #1 11 145.3 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, Gallatin NF Madison #2 11 100.5 Gallatin NF Pelican/Clear #1 8 69.1 Yellowstone NP 

Appendix G - 54
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-12 

Subunit name BMU # Acres Land management agencies 

Pelican/Clear #2 8 164.5 Yellowstone NP Plateau #1 13 183.0 Caribou-Targhee NF, Gallatin NF, Yellowstone NP Plateau #2 13 268.8 Caribou-Targhee NF, Yellowstone NP Shoshone #1 7 78.1 Shoshone NF Shoshone #2 7 84.5 Shoshone NF Shoshone #3 7 90.2 Shoshone NF Shoshone #4 7 121.0 Shoshone NF South Absaroka #1 16 104.3 Shoshone NF South Absaroka #2 16 122.2 Shoshone NF South Absaroka #3 16 222.7 Shoshone NF Thorofare #1 15 175.4 Bridger-Teton NF, Yellowstone NP Thorofare #2 15 115.2 Bridger-Teton NF, Yellowstone NP Two Ocean/Lake #1 14 310.4 Bridger-Teton NF, Yellowstone NP Two Ocean/Lake #2 14 91.5 Bridger-Teton NF, Yellowstone NP Washburn #1 9 113.9 Yellowstone NP Washburn #2 9 92.2 Yellowstone NP 

Appendix G - 55
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-13 

Figure A-4. The 1998 baseline values for secure habitat, OMARD >1 mile per square mile, and TMARD >2 miles per square mile for (BMU) subunits in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Includes Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, state, county, and private m

is shown in thousands of acres1. 

Subunit name BMU # OMARD % > 1 mi/sq mi TMARD % >2 mi/sq mi % secure habi

S1 S2 

Bechler/Teton 18 12.7 12.7 4.7 78.1 Boulder/Slough #1 4 2.2 2.2 0.1 96.6 Boulder/Slough #2 4 1.0 1.0 0 97.7 Buffalo/Spread Creek #1 17 10.1 10.2 4.1 88.3 Buffalo/Spread Creek #2 17 13.3 14.5 10.4 74.3 Crandall/Sunlight #1 6 11.9 16.2 4.0 81.1 Crandall/Sunlight #2 6 13.6 14.6 8.9 82.3 Crandall/Sunlight #3 6 12.8 16.6 8.2 80.4 Firehole/Hayden #1 10 6.3 6.3 1.2 88.4 Firehole/Hayden #2 10 6.3 6.3 0.9 88.4 Gallatin #1 2 1.6 1.6 0.1 96.3 Gallatin #2 2 7.8 7.8 3.8 90.2 Gallatin #3 2 41.5 42.5 16.9 55.3 Hellroaring/Bear #1 3 20.8 21.5 13.5 77.0 Hellroaring/Bear #2 3 0.6 0.6 0.2 99.5 Henrys Lake #1 12 44.7 44.7 25.9 45.4 

Appendix G - 56
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-14 

Subunit name BMU # OMARD % > 1 mi/sq mi TMARD % >2 mi/sq mi % secure habi

S1 S2 

Henrys Lake #2 12 46.1 46.1 28.1 45.7 Hilgard #1 1 25.1 25.1 12.5 69.8 Hilgard #2 1 16.0 16.0 10.3 71.5 Lamar #1 5 7.0 7.0 3.3 89.4 Lamar #2 5 0 0 0 100 Madison #1 11 24.2 24.5 10.2 71.5 Madison #2 11 31.7 31.7 22.3 66.5 Pelican/Clear #1 8 1.3 1.3 0.4 97.8 Pelican/Clear #2 8 3.0 3.0 0.2 94.1 Plateau #1 13 19.0 19.2 9.8 68.9 Plateau #2 13 6.1 6.1 2.4 88.7 Shoshone #1 7 1.5 1.5 0.9 98.5 Shoshone #2 7 1.1 1.1 0.4 98.8 Shoshone #3 7 3.4 3.4 1.3 97.0 Shoshone #4 7 3.9 4.6 2.0 94.9 South Absaroka #1 16 0.4 0.4 0 99.2 South Absaroka #2 16 0 0 0 99.9 South Absaroka #3 16 2.1 2.1 2.3 96.8 

Appendix G - 57
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-15 

Subunit name BMU # OMARD % > 1 mi/sq mi TMARD % >2 mi/sq mi % secure habi

S1 S2 

Thorofare #1 15 0 0 0 100 Thorofare #2 15 0 0 0 100 Two Ocean/Lake #1 14 1.8 1.8 0.1 96.3 Two Ocean/Lake #2 14 0 0 0 100 Washburn #1 9 12.4 12.4 2.9 83.0 Washburn#2 9 3.6 3.6 0.7 92.0 Mean for PCA/total acres 10.4 10.7 5.3 85.6 1 Lakes >1 mile in size were removed from subunit totals, OMARD, TMARD, and secure habitat calculations. Numbers in parentheses a

these lakes. 

Appendix G - 58
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-16 

Figure A-5. The 1998 baseline values for secure habitat, OMARD >1 mile per square mile, and TMARD >2 miles per square mile for (BMU) subunits in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Includes only private roads and state and county highways2. Size is shown in thousa

Subunit name BMU # OMARD % > 1 mi/sq mi TMARD % >2 mi/sq mi % secure habit

S1 S2 

Bechler/Teton 18 0 0 0 99 Boulder/Slough #1 4 2 2 0 97 Boulder/Slough #2 4 0 0 0 100 Buffalo/Spread Creek #1 17 0 0 0 99 Buffalo/Spread Creek #2 17 2 2 0 95 Crandall/Sunlight #1 6 6 6 1 92 Crandall/Sunlight #2 6 8 8 1 89 Crandall/Sunlight #3 6 5 5 1 93 Firehole/Hayden #1 10 0 0 0 100 Firehole/Hayden #2 10 0 0 0 100 Gallatin #1 2 0 0 0 99 Gallatin #2 2 1 1 0 99 Gallatin #3 2 16 16 8 81 Hellroaring/Bear #1 3 9 9 4 91 Hellroaring/Bear #2 3 0 0 0 100 Henrys Lake #1 12 31 31 16 67 

Appendix G - 59
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-17 

Subunit name BMU # OMARD % > 1 mi/sq mi TMARD % >2 mi/sq mi % secure habit

S1 S2 

Henrys Lake #2 12 14 14 7 85 Hilgard #1 1 6 6 2 91 Hilgard #2 1 2 2 3 92 Lamar #1 5 2 2 1 97 Lamar #2 5 0 0 0 100 Madison #1 11 6 6 3 94 Madison #2 11 8 8 4 90 Pelican/Clear #1 8 0 0 0 100 Pelican/Clear #2 8 0 0 0 100 Plateau #1 13 2 2 1 95 Plateau #2 13 0 0 0 99 Shoshone #1 7 1 1 0 99 Shoshone #2 7 0 0 0 99 Shoshone #3 7 1 1 0 98 Shoshone #4 7 1 1 0 96 South Absaroka #1 16 0 0 0 99 South Absaroka #2 16 0 0 0 100 South Absaroka #3 16 0 0 0 100 

Appendix G - 60
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-18 

Subunit name BMU # OMARD % > 1 mi/sq mi TMARD % >2 mi/sq mi % secure habit

S1 S2 

Thorofare #1 15 0 0 0 100 Thorofare #2 15 0 0 0 100 Two Ocean/Lake #1 14 0 0 0 100 Two Ocean/Lake #2 14 0 0 0 100 Washburn #1 9 0 0 0 100 Washburn#2 9 0 0 0 100 Mean for PCA/total acres 3 3 1.3 96 1 Lakes >1 square mile in size were removed from subunit totals, OMARD, TMARD, and secure habitat calculations. Numbers in parent

without these lakes. 

2 These motorized features are not subject to Forest Service management. The values in this table represent a minimum percent for OMA

maximum percent for secure habitat even if all motorized access features administered by the Forest Service were obliterated or decomm

Appendix G - 61
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-19 

Figure A-6. Acres (in thousands) and national forest/national park overlap when applying the 1 percent rule1. 

BMU # Largest BMU subunit 1% rule acres2 National forest(s) within the BMU N

18 Bechler/Teton #1 3.4 Targhee Ye

4 Boulder/Slough #1 1.8 Custer, Gallatin Ye

17 Buffalo/Spread Creek #2 3.3 Bridger-Teton Gr

6 Crandall/Sunlight #2 2.0 Gallatin, Shoshone 

10 Firehole/Hayden #1 2.2 Ye

2 Gallatin #3 1.4 Gallatin Ye3 Hellroaring/Bear #2 1.5 Gallatin Ye

12 Henrys Lake #1 1.2 Gallatin, Targhee 

1 Hilgard #1 1.3 Beaverhead, Gallatin Ye5 Lamar #1 1.9 Custer, Gallatin Ye

11 Madison #1 1.5 Gallatin Ye

8 Pelican/Clear #2 1.6 Ye

13 Plateau #2 2.7 Gallatin, Targhee Ye

7 Shoshone #4 1.2 Shoshone 

16 South Absaroka #3 2.2 Shoshone 15 Thorofare #1 1.2 Bridger-Teton Ye14 Two Ocean/Lake #1 2.4 Bridger-Teton Ye

9 Washburn #1 1.1 Ye

PCA Total 1% rule acres 34.4 

 Total 1% rule acres—BMUs with national parks only 4.9  Total 1% rule acres—BMUs with national forests only 6.6 

Total 1% rule acres—BMUs with national forests plus national parks 22.9 

1 The 1 percent rule is based on the size of the largest BMU subunit. When BMU boundaries include more than one national forest and/o

administrative units will need to coordinate to ensure the 1 percent rule is not exceeded. 2 Large lakes not included in 1 percent rule acre calculations. 

Appendix G - 62
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-20 

Figure A-7. The 1998 baseline for numbers of developed sites on public lands within each of the Bear Management Unit subunits in t

Area. 

Subunit Administrative units 

Permitted 

summer 

home 

complexes1

Developed 

campgrounds2 Trailheads 

Major 

developed 

sites and 

lodges 

Administrative 

or maintenance 

sites 

d

Bechler/Teton 

Targhee NF Yellowstone NP Grand Teton NP 

0 0 0 

1 0 8 

5 2 3 

2 0 1 

4 2 3 

Boulder/Slough #1 

Custer NF Gallatin NF 

0 0 

0 1 

1 7 

0 0 

0 1 

Boulder/Slough #2 

Gallatin NF Yellowstone NP 

0 0 

0 1 

0 3 

0 0 

2 2 

Buffalo/Spread Creek #1 

Bridger-Teton NF Grand Teton NP 

0 0 

1 0 

1 7 

0 2 

0 2 

Buffalo/Spread Creek #2 Bridger-Teton NF 1 4 3 3 4 Crandall/Sunlight #1 

Shoshone NF Gallatin NF 

0 0 

2 1 

5 2 

1 0 

1 0 

Crandall/Sunlight #2 

Shoshone NF Gallatin NF 

0 0 

5 1 

4 0 

1 0 

2 0 

Crandall/Sunlight #3 

Shoshone NF Wyoming Game and Fish 

0 0 

2 2 

3 0 

0 0 

1 1 

Firehole/Hayden #1 Yellowstone NP 0 1 5 1 6 Firehole/Hayden #2 Yellowstone NP 0 1 3 1 2 Gallatin #1 Yellowstone NP 0 0 3 0 1 Gallatin #2 Yellowstone NP 0 2 5 1 12 Gallatin #3 Gallatin NF Yellowstone NP 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 

Appendix G - 63
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-21 

Subunit Administrative units 

Permitted 

summer 

home 

complexes1

Developed 

campgrounds2 Trailheads 

Major 

developed 

sites and 

lodges 

Administrative 

or maintenance 

sites 

d

Hellroaring/Bear #1 

Gallatin NF Yellowstone NP 

0 0 

5 0 

12 

1 

1 0 

1 0 

Hellroaring/Bear #2 

Gallatin NF Yellowstone NP 

0 0 

0 0 

1 0 

0 0 

1 2 

Henrys Lake #1 Targhee NF 2 3 1 0 3 Henrys Lake #2 Targhee NF Gallatin NF 0 6 0 3 1 4 0 0 1 0 Hilgard #1 Beaverhead NF Gallatin NF 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 3 2 Hilgard #2 Gallatin NF Yellowstone NP 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 Lamar #1 

Yellowstone NP Gallatin NF Shoshone NF Custer NF 

0 0 0 0 

1 2 0 0 

5 5 0 1 

0 0 0 0 

3 6 0 0 

Lamar #2 Yellowstone NP 0 0 0 0 4 Madison #1 Gallatin NF Yellowstone NP 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 Madison #2 Gallatin NF Yellowstone NP 8 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 6 2 Pelican/Clear #1 Yellowstone NP 0 0 2 0 0 Pelican/Clear #2 Yellowstone NP 0 1 4 1 4 Plateau #1 

Targhee NF Gallatin NF Yellowstone NP 

1 0 0 

0 0 0 

0 1 0 

0 0 0 

0 0 1 

Plateau #2 Targhee NF Yellowstone NP 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 Shoshone #1 Shoshone NF 1 2 0 0 0 

Appendix G - 64
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-22 

Subunit Administrative units 

Permitted 

summer 

home 

complexes1

Developed 

campgrounds2 Trailheads 

Major 

developed 

sites and 

lodges 

Administrative 

or maintenance 

sites 

d

Shoshone #2 Shoshone NF 0 0 1 1 0 Shoshone #3 Shoshone NF 2 0 1 1 0 Shoshone #4 Shoshone NF 3 3 3 6 0 South Absaroka #1 Shoshone NF 0 0 0 0 0 South Absaroka #2 Shoshone NF 0 0 0 0 2 South Absaroka #3 Shoshone NF 1 3 4 1 1 Thorofare #1 Bridger-Teton NF Yellowstone NP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Thorofare #2 Bridger-Teton NF Yellowstone NP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Two Ocean/Lake #1 

Yellowstone NP Bridger-Teton NF Grand Teton NP 

0 0 0 

2 1 0 

3 0 1 

1 0 0 

3 0 0 

Two Ocean/Lake #2 

Yellowstone NP Bridger-Teton NF 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

2 1 

Washburn #1 Yellowstone NP 0 2 8 2 7 Washburn #2 Yellowstone NP 0 1 6 0 1 Primary Conservation Area 

All 25 68 164 29 115 

1 Single permitted recreation residences are classified as other developed sites in this table. 2 Four trailheads on the Bridger-Teton National Forest are combined with the associated campgrounds and are considered a single develo3 Includes community infrastructure sites and other miscellaneous facilities. 4 Mining claims with plans of operation are considered developed sites for this baseline. Currently, not all sites have active projects. 5 Includes one mineral materials site with an outside contractor. 

Appendix G - 65
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-23 

Figure A-8. Number of mining claims as of 1998 in Bear Management Unit subunits in the Primary Conservation Area1. 

Subunit Gallatin NF Custer NF Caribou-Targhee NF Shoshone NF 

Boulder/Slough #1 8 144 --- --- 

Buffalo/Spread Creek #1 --- --- --- --- Buffalo/Spread Creek #2 --- --- --- --- 

Hellroaring/Bear #1 653 --- --- --- 

Henrys Lake #1 --- --- 5 --- Henrys Lake #2 --- --- 3 --- 

Lamar #1 429 42 --- --- 

Shoshone #3 --- --- --- 16 

South Absaroka #2 --- --- --- 28 South Absaroka #3 --- --- --- 6 

Total 1,090 186 8 50 

1 Activities based in statutory rights, such as oil and gas leases and mining claims under the 1872 General Mining Law are also tracked as 

monitoring effort. Mining claims and or oil and gas leases do not in and of themselves constitute a site development, but have the potentiin the future. There were no oil and gas leases inside the Primary Conservation Area as of 1998, and 1,354 mining claims in ten subunits Conservation Area. It is important to note that one mining claim does not necessarily mean a potential for one operating plan. Claims are 

mineral deposits to protect the original claim, and operating plans can sometimes encompass hundreds of claims. In addition, there are alfiled that, after detailed exploration, do not prove to have enough mineralization to be economically developed. Claims or claim groups wplans are included in the developed site baseline (Figure A-7). 

Appendix G - 66
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-24 

Figure A-9. Number of commercial livestock grazing allotments and sheep animal months (AMs) inside the Primary Conservation Ar

Cattle allotments Sheep allotments 

Administrative unit 

Active2 Vacant3 Active1 Vacant3

Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF 2 3 0 0 Bridger-Teton NF 9 0 0 0 Caribou-Targhee NF 9 1 7 4 Custer NF 0 0 0 0 Gallatin NF 24 9 2 3 Shoshone NF 24 0 2 0 Grand Teton NP 1 0 0 0 Total in PCA 69 13 11 7 1Since 1998, five of the seven active sheep allotments on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest and the two active sheep allotments on the 

within the Primary Conservation Area have been closed. As of 2004, there are only four active sheep allotments in side the Primary Cons7,130 AMs. 

2 One of the active cattle allotments on the Bridger-Teton National Forest was closed in late 2003. 3Vacant allotments are those without an active permit but could used periodically by other permittees at the discretion of the land manage

resource issues or other concerns. 

Appendix G - 67
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-25 

Figure A-10. 1998 Habitat effectiveness (HE) values by season from the Yellowstone grizzly bear Cumulative Effects Model for each 

Area grizzly Bear Management Unit subunits1. 

Subunit 

Spring 

(March 1 - May 15) 

HE 

Estrus 

(May 16 - July 15) 

HE 

Early hyperphagia 

(July 16 - August 31) 

HE 

Bechler/Teton#1 116 64 44 2Boulder/Slough#1 105 105 119 8Boulder/Slough#2 123 112 111 5Buffalo/Spread Cr#1 79 86 78 2Buffalo/Spread Cr#2 58 98 125 8Crandall/Sunlight#1 53 94 78 8Crandall/Sunlight#2 52 82 124 3Crandall/Sunlight#3 53 50 156 2Firehole/Hayden#1 96 189 162 2Firehole/Hayden#2 45 843 66 3Gallatin#1 139 144 198 6Gallatin#2 104 97 105 5Gallatin#3 78 69 89 5Hellroaring/Bear#1 85 74 95 6Hellroaring/Bear#2 117 99 98 6

Appendix G - 68
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-26 

Subunit 

Spring 

(March 1 - May 15) 

HE 

Estrus 

(May 16 - July 15) 

HE 

Early hyperphagia 

(July 16 - August 31) 

HE 

Henrys Lake#1 41 39 32 1Henrys Lake#2 41 41 33 2Hilgard#1 99 68 91 6Hilgard#2 81 97 132 9Lamar#1 127 118 136 5Lamar#2 132 167 180 7Madison#1 53 115 227 3Madison#2 41 60 147 6Pelican/Clear#1 103 324 105 5Pelican/Clear#2 105 2253 203 9Plateau#1 26 49 36 1Plateau#2 75 81 56 4Shoshone#1 39 50 115 2Shoshone#2 51 56 1424 3Shoshone#3 65 57 583 4Shoshone#4 57 78 327 3

Appendix G - 69
Record of Decision—Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation Page A-27 

Subunit 

Spring 

(March 1 - May 15) 

HE 

Estrus 

(May 16 - July 15) 

HE 

Early hyperphagia 

(July 16 - August 31) 

HE 

South Absaroka#1 55 57 392 3South Absaroka#2 41 45 339 2South Absaroka#3 46 73 303 5Thorofare #1 84 488 298 9Thorofare #2 79 82 295 5Two Ocean/Lake#1 115 1300 64 4Two Ocean/Lake#2 117 2401 107 1Washburn#1 121 110 126 4Washburn#2 99 86 85 2

1 Weaver et al. 1986, Bevins 1997, Dixon 1997. HE values are based on productivity coefficients depicting an average year (Mattson et a

number the greater the HE. 

Appendix G - 70
Appendix G

Appendix G - 71
USDA 

Forest 

Service 

National Forests in 

Montana, and parts of 

Idaho, Wyoming, and 

Utah 

March 2007 

Northern Rockies 

Lynx Management 

Direction 

Record of Decision 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 72
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and 

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (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 to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider 

and employer. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 73
Record of Decision 

 Table of contents 

Summary of the decision................................................................................................. 1

Background ....................................................................................................................... 1

 Purpose and need .......................................................................................................... 2

 Risks to lynx and lynx habitat ..................................................................................... 2

Public involvement........................................................................................................... 4

 Issues ............................................................................................................................... 5

 Alternatives considered in detail ................................................................................ 5

 Other management direction considered .................................................................. 7

The decision....................................................................................................................... 7

 Management direction related to vegetation ............................................................ 8

 Objectives for vegetation management............................................................................... 8

 Standards and guidelines relating to quantitiy of winter snowshoe hare habitat........ 8

 Standards and guidelines relating to qualtiy of winter snowshoe hare habitat ........... 11

 Standards and guidelines relating to denning habitat ..................................................... 14

 Consideration of fuel treatment projects ............................................................................ 18

 FWS findings related to the vegetation management direction...................................... 21

 Management direction related to grazing.................................................................. 21

 Management direction related to human uses.......................................................... 22

 Over-the-snow recreation ..................................................................................................... 22

 Developed recreation............................................................................................................. 25

 Minerals and energy.............................................................................................................. 26

 Forest roads............................................................................................................................. 26

 Management direction related to linkage areas........................................................ 27

 Use of standards and guidelines ................................................................................. 28

 Where to apply the decision ........................................................................................ 29

 Incorporation of terms and conditions....................................................................... 29

 Consideration of conservation recommendations.................................................... 30

 Canada lynx recovery outline...................................................................................... 31

i 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 74
Record of Decision - Table of contents 

Findings required by laws, regulations and policy..................................................... 35

 National Environmental Policy Act............................................................................ 35

 National Forest Management Act ............................................................................... 37

 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................... 42

 National Historic Preservation Act............................................................................. 43

 Clean Air Act.................................................................................................................. 43

 Clean Water Act............................................................................................................. 43

 Invasive Species ............................................................................................................. 43

 Environmental justice ................................................................................................... 43

 Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land .......................................................... 44

 Equal Employmnet Opportunities, Effects on Minorities and Women ................ 44

 Wetlands and Floodplains ........................................................................................... 44

 Other policies ................................................................................................................ 44

Implementation and appeal provisions ........................................................................ 44

Further information and contact person ....................................................................... 45

References.......................................................................................................................... 49

Attachment 1 – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

ii 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 75
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

1

Summary of the decision 

We have selected Alternative F, Scenario 2 as described in the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (pp. 35 to 40), 

with modifications. We modified Alternative F, Scenario 2 and incorporated the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Terms and Conditions (USDI FWS 2007), where 

applicable, into the management direction – see Attachment 1- hereafter called the 

selected alternative. We determined the selected alternative provides direction that 

contributes to conservation and recovery of Canada lynx in the Northern Rockies 

ecosystem, meets the Purpose and Need, responds to public concerns, and is consistent 

with applicable laws and policies. In the FEIS we analyzed six alternatives in detail and 

two scenarios for Alternative F. Of those, we determined Alternative F Scenario 2 is the 

best choice. With this decision, we are incorporating the goal, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines of the selected alternative into the existing plans of all National Forests in the 

Northern Rockies Lynx Planning Area – see Figure 1-1, FEIS, Vol. 1 Tables 1-1 and 1-2. 

The direction applies to mapped lynx habitat on National Forest System land presently 

occupied by Canada lynx, as defined by the Amended Lynx Conservation Agreement 

between the Forest Service and the FWS (USDA FS and USDI FWS 2006). When National 

Forests are designing management actions in unoccupied mapped lynx habitat they 

should consider the lynx direction, especially the direction regarding linkage habitat. If 

and when those National Forest System lands become occupied, based upon criteria 

and evidence described in the Conservation Agreement, the direction shall then be 

applied to those forests. If a conflict exists between this management direction and an 

existing plan, the more restrictive direction will apply. 

The detailed rationale for our decision, found further in this document, explains how 

the selected alternative best meets our decision criteria. Those decision criteria are: 1) 

meeting the Purpose and Need to provide management direction that conserves and 

promotes the recovery of Canada lynx while preserving the overall multiple use 

direction in existing plans; 2) responding to the issues; and 3) responding to public 

concerns. 

Background 

The FWS listed Canada lynx as a threatened species in March 2000, saying the main 

threat was “the lack of guidance for conservation of lynx and snowshoe hare habitat in 

National Forest Land and Resource Plans and BLM Land Use Plans” (USDI FWS 2000a). 

Following the listing, the Forest Service (FS) signed a Lynx Conservation Agreement 

with the FWS in 2001 to consider the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy 

(LCAS) during project analysis, and the FS agreed to not proceed with projects that 

would be “likely to adversely affect” lynx until the plans were amended. The 

Conservation Agreement (CA) was renewed in 2005 and added the concept of occupied 

mapped lynx habitat. In 2006 the CA was amended to define occupied habitat and to 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 76
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

2

list those National Forests that were occupied. In 2006 it was also extended for 5 years 

(until 2011), or until all relevant forest plans were revised to provide guidance 

necessary to conserve lynx (USDA FS and USDI FWS 2000, 2005, 2006a, 2006b). The 

plan direction in this decision fulfills our agreement to amend the plans. The 

management direction provided in this decision is based upon the science and 

recommendations in: 

• Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States (Ruggiero et al 2000), which 

summarizes lynx ecology; 

• Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS) (Ruediger et al 2000), which 

recommends conservation measures for activities that could place lynx at risk by 

altering their habitat or reducing their prey; and 

• Numerous publications cited in the FEIS and found listed in the References section of 

this ROD and in the FEIS, pp. 381 to 396. 

Purpose of and Need for action 

The Purpose and Need is to incorporate management direction in land management 

plans that conserves and promotes recovery of Canada lynx, by reducing or eliminating 

adverse effects from land management activities on National Forest System lands, while 

preserving the overall multiple-use direction in existing plans (FEIS, Vol. p. 1). 

Risks to lynx and lynx habitat 

The overall goals of the LCAS were to recommend lynx conservation measures, provide 

a basis for reviewing the adequacy of Forest Service land and resource management 

plans with regard to lynx conservation, and to facilitate section 7 conferencing and 

consultation under ESA. The LCAS identified a variety of possible risks to lynx and 

lynx habitat. 

The LCAS identified risk factors affecting lynx productivity (pp. 2-2 to 2-15) as:

 Timber management 

 Wildland fire management 

 Livestock grazing 

 Recreational uses 

 Forest backcountry roads and trails 

 Other human developments 

These are the typical types of activities conducted on federal land administered by the 

FS, and the FS has the authority to manage and regulate them. As such, the 

management direction analyzed in the Lynx FEIS and incorporated into the forest plans 

with this Record of Decision (ROD) focus on these types of activities. 

The LCAS identified risk factors affecting mortality (pp. 2-15 to 2-17) as:

 Trapping 

 Shooting 

 Predator control 

 Highways 

 Predation by other species 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 77
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

3

These factors can directly cause lynx deaths. Trapping of lynx is no longer permitted in 

the planning area, although incidental trapping of lynx could still occur. Incidental or 

illegal shooting can also occur, but trapping and hunting is regulated by state agencies. 

Predator control activities are conducted by USDA Wildlife Services. Since the factors 

of trapping shooting and predator control are outside the authority of the FS to manage 

or regulate, this ROD does not include management direction related to them. 

Highways (generally high-speed, two lane) are a known source of direct mortality 

(LCAS, pp. 2-16 to 2-17). Depending on the situation, this risk factor may fall under the 

authority of the FS. Therefore, it is addressed in the FEIS, and management direction 

concerning highways is incorporated into the Forest Plans through this ROD. 

Other predators may affect lynx. Lynx have a competitive advantage in places where 

deep, soft snow tends to exclude predators in mid-winter, the time when prey is most 

limiting. Certain activities, such as certain types of winter recreation, may provide 

access to other predators (LCAS, pp. 2-6 to 2-15). The FEIS and ROD addresses this 

concern. 

The LCAS identified risk factors affecting movement (pp. 2-17 to 2-19) as:

 Highways and associated development 

 Private land development 

Lynx are known to disperse over wide areas. Highways and the developments 

associated with them may affect lynx movement (LCAS, p. 2-17). The FS has only 

limited authority to address highways, and has no authority to manage activities on 

private land. Based on the limited authority the FS has in this area, only a few 

guidelines address these risk factors. 

After the LCAS was issued the FWS published a Clarification of Findings in the Federal 

Register (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P), commonly referred to as the Remand Notice. In the 

Remand Notice the FWS states, “We found no evidence that some activities, such as 

forest roads, pose a threat to lynx. Some of the activities suggested, such as mining and 

grazing, were not specifically addressed [in the Remand Notice] because we have no 

information to indicate they pose threats to lynx” (p. 40083). Further on in the Remand 

Notice they state, “Because no evidence has been provided that packed snowtrails 

facilitate competition to a level that negatively affects lynx, we do not consider packed 

snowtrails to be a threat to lynx at this time” (p. 40098). In regards to timber harvest the 

FWS states, “Timber harvesting can be beneficial, benign, or detrimental to lynx 

depending on harvest methods, spatial and temporal specifications, and the inherent 

vegetation potential of the site. Forest practices in lynx habitat that result in or retain a 

dense understory provide good snowshoe hare habitat that in turn provides good 

foraging habitat for lynx” (p. 40083). These findings by FWS narrow the focus from the 

concerns first published in the LCAS (discussed above) about what management 

direction is needed to maintain or improve Canada lynx habitat. We considered this 

information in the development of the selected alternative, and in our decision. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 78
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

4

Public involvement 

We involved the public in the development of the plan direction from the very 

beginning. In order to determine the scope of the public’s interest in developing lynx 

direction the FS and BLM started with a notice published in the Federal Register (Vol. 66, 

No. 176, pp. 47160 to 47163) on September 11, 2001. Originally, the scoping period was 

scheduled to end on October 26, 2001, but we extended it to December 10, 2001. The FS 

and BLM gave people more time to comment, both in response to several requests for 

extensions, and because of the general disruption stemming from the September 11th

terrorist attacks. In December 2006, the BLM elected to not be a cooperating agency in 

this planning effort and to undertake changes to BLM plans through a separate 

planning process. 

We created an official website at www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx.html. The website 

continues to provide information, including the information used to develop the 

Proposed Action, the DEIS, and FEIS. 

During scoping we held numerous open-house meetings to provide a better 

understanding of the lynx proposal and to gain an understanding of public issues and 

concerns (FEIS, Vol. 1, p. 18). We mailed out more than 6,000 letters about the proposal 

and upcoming meetings to a mailing list of people interested in land management 

issues. By December 17, 2001 we had received 1,890 public responses to the scoping 

notice. We then evaluated and summarized those responses in a report entitled 

Summary of Public Comments (see the Scoping section of the Project Record). Responses 

received after December 17, 2001, but before the release of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) in January 2004 were also considered. A summary of these 

comments can also be found in the Scoping section of the Project Record. In mid-May 

2002 we mailed an eight-page update to the more than 2,000 addresses of those who 

responded to the scoping notice. 

We decided to prepare an EIS because of the level of interest expressed during scoping. 

On August 15, 2002, we published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement in the Federal Register (Vol. 67, No. 158, pp. 53334 to 53335). There 

were five responses to the Notice of Intent, which we also considered. 

On January 16, 2004, a Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published in the Federal 

Register (Vol. 69, No. 11, p. 2619). This notice began a 90-day public comment period. 

At that time, we sent copies of the DEIS (either paper or CD versions), or the summary 

of the DEIS to a variety of interested parties (FEIS, Vol. 1 p 19). The documents are also 

available on the web site: www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx.html. 

We hosted open-house meetings in February and March of 2004 to provide the public 

with a better understanding of the DEIS and its alternatives. Over 380 people attended 

the open houses which were held in four states and 25 communities. We accepted 

public comments on the DEIS either sent through the mail or via E-mail. The public 

comment period ended on April 15, 2004, with the agency receiving well over 5,000 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 79
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

5

comments. We used those comments, as well as late comments, to help formulate 

Alternative F, to help clarify and add to the analysis, to correct errors in the DEIS, and 

to update the FEIS. We responded to all of the comments on the DEIS in the Response 

to Comments (FEIS, Vol. 2). 

Issues 

As a result of the public participation process; review by other federal, state, tribal, and 

local government agencies; and internal reviews, we identified five primary issues, 

which are described in detail in the FEIS, Vol. 1, Chapter 2. The issues were used as a 

basis for developing the management direction in the alternatives, and were used to 

analyze effects. The issues are: 

1. Over-the-snow recreation. The effects of limiting the growth of designated over-thesnow routes on opportunities for over-the-snow recreation. 

2. Wildland fire risk. The effects of the management direction on the risks to 

communities from wildland fire. 

3. Winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests. The effect on lynx of allowing 

projects in winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests. 

4. Precommercial thinning. The effects of limiting precommercial thinning on restoring 

tree species and forest structures that are declining. 

5. FWS Remand decision. The appropriate level of management direction applied to 

activities that the FWS remand notice found were not a threat to lynx populations. 

Alternatives considered in detail 

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative. Analyzing a no-action alternative is a 

requirement of NEPA at 40 CFR 1508.14(d), and of FS planning procedures. The 

analysis of the effects of Alternative A in the FEIS considers the effects of the forest 

plans as they currently exist, including any previous amendments. In this case, “no 

action” means no amendment to the already existing plans, and no additional specific 

direction to conserve Canada lynx. While the FS has been following the Conservation 

Agreements signed with the FWS and has considered the LCAS when evaluating 

projects, the LCAS measures have not been incorporated as plan direction. A decision 

to adopt Alternative A would not adopt the measures of the LCAS into the plans, but 

also would not void the existing Conservation Agreements or the consultation 

requirements of ESA. A decision to not adopt some of the lynx management direction 

in any of the action alternatives would have been a decision to select a part of 

Alternative A. 

Alternative B, the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action was developed from 

conservation measures recommended in the LCAS. (See Appendix A in the FEIS, pp. 

401 to 438 for a crosswalk from the LCAS, to the proposal as written in the scoping 

letter; the Proposed Action, Alternative B, found in the Draft and Final EISs; and 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 80
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

6

Alternative F in the FEIS.) Alternative B addresses activities on National Forest System 

lands that can affect lynx and their habitat. The exact language of the goal, objectives, 

standards, and guidelines for Alternative B and all the other action alternatives can be 

found in the FEIS (Table 2-1, pp. 41 to 69). 

Alternative C. Alternative C was designed to respond to issues of over-the-snow 

recreation management and foraging habitat in multistoried forests, while providing a 

level of protection to lynx comparable to Alternative B, the Proposed Action. 

Alternative C would add direction to the plans similar to the LCAS, but would have 

fewer restrictions on new over-the-snow trails and more restrictions on management 

actions in winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests. The exact language of 

the goal, objectives, standards, and guidelines for Alternative C and all the other action 

alternatives can be found in the FEIS (Table 2-1, pp. 41 to 69). 

Alternative D. Alternative D was designed to address the issues of managing over-thesnow recreation and multistoried forests, similar to Alternative C. Alternative D also 

allows some precommercial thinning in winter snowshoe hare habitat, while still 

contributing to lynx conservation. Alternative D would add direction to the plans 

similar to the LCAS, but having fewer restrictions on new over-the-snow trails and 

precommercial thinning, and more restrictions than the LCAS (Alternative B) on 

management actions in winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests, but less 

than Alternative C. The exact language of the goal, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines for Alternative D and all the other action alternatives can be found in the 

FEIS (Table 2-1, pp. 41 to 69). 

Alternative E, the DEIS preferred alternative. Alternative E addresses the issue of 

wildland fire risk while contributing to lynx conservation. It also responds to 

statements made in the Remand Notice (USDI FWS, 2003) that FWS has no information 

to indicate grazing or snow compaction are threats to lynx at this time. This was done 

by changing the grazing and human uses standards to guidelines. Alternative E would 

add direction to the plans similar to the LCAS, but has fewer restrictions on new overthe-snow trails and on fuel reduction projects proposed in a collaborative manner, and 

more restrictions on management actions in winter snowshoe hare habitat in 

multistoried forests. The exact language of the goal, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines for Alternative E and all the other action alternatives can be found in FEIS 

(Table 2-1, pp. 41 to 69). 

Alternative F, the FEIS preferred alternative. Alternative F was developed from 

public comments on the DEIS and by pulling together parts of the other alternatives. 

Since it was developed from the other alternatives, the effects of Alternative F is within 

the scope of the effects of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS. 

Alternative F addresses many comments about problems and concerns with 

Alternatives E, the DEIS preferred alternative. In particular many people and FWS felt 

Alternative E would not meet the purpose and need because it did not provide the 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 81
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

7

regulatory mechanisms to adequately address lynx needs. Alternative F was designed 

to provide adequate regulatory mechanisms for those risk factors found to be a threat to 

lynx populations – specifically those factors related to the quantity and quality of lynx 

habitat as discussed in the FEIS, Vol. 1, section Management direction considered. 

Alternative F addresses comments about where to apply the management direction. 

Many comments suggested the management direction should only be applied to 

occupied habitat. Therefore, Alternative F is evaluated under two scenarios: (1) 

management direction would be incorporated into all forest plans and would apply to all 

mapped lynx habitat, whether or not occupied; and (2) management direction would be 

incorporated into all forest plans but would only apply to occupied habitat. Under 

Scenario 2, the direction should be “considered” for unoccupied units, but would not 

have to be followed until such time as lynx occupy the unit. The Nez Perce, SalmonChallis, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Ashley, and Bighorn NFs, and the disjunct 

mountain ranges on the Custer, Gallatin, Helena, and Lewis and Clark NFs are 

unoccupied based on the best scientific information available at this time (USDA FS, 

USDI FWS 2006a). 

Other management direction considered 

Comments on the DEIS identified a variety of suggestions for management direction. 

Some of the suggestions were incorporated into the selected alternative, others were 

not. The FEIS, Vol. 1 pp. 71-102 provides a thorough discussion of these comments and 

our considerations. The following section includes discussion of some these comments 

and how they were considered, but not all of the suggestions considered. 

The decision 

The management direction in Alternative F, Scenario 2 modified (referred from now on 

as the selected alternative, see - Attachment 1) is amended into all Forest Plans in the 

planning area. The management direction incorporates the terms and conditions FWS 

issued in their biological opinion (USDI FWS 2007). This management direction 

includes a goal, objectives, standards, and guidelines related to all activities (ALL), 

vegetation management (VEG), grazing management (GRAZ), human uses (HU), and 

linkage (LINK). Goals are general descriptions of desired results; objectives are 

descriptions of desired resource conditions; standards are management requirements 

designed to meet the objectives; and guidelines are management actions normally taken 

to meet objectives. Guidelines provide information and guidance for project and 

activity decision-making (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 8). The Forest Service and FWS developed the 

selected alternative in a collaborative manner (Project File/Coordination/with FWS, 

and Project File/Alternatives/FEIS alternatives). 

The selected alternative provides a balance of meeting the purpose and need, and 

addressing the five primary issues, including other public comments. Alternative B 

does not provide the management direction necessary for winter snowshoe hare habitat 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 82
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

8

in multistoried forests. Alternative C, may be best for lynx, but does not address any 

other issues. Alternative D addresses the need to restore tree species in decline, but we 

have determined it may allow too much activity in winter snowshoe hare habitat and 

result in more extensive adverse effects. Alternative E address wildfire risk to 

communities, but based on our analysis and comments from FWS and the public, may 

not provide the necessary direction to contribute to conservation and recovery of lynx. 

We determined, through our analysis and with concurrence from FWS, the selected 

alternative contributes to conservation and recovery of lynx, while allowing some 

activities to occur in lynx habitat that may have some adverse effects on lynx. We 

determined it was important and acceptable to restore tree species in decline and 

address wildland fire risks to communities. This decision allows some possible adverse 

effects on 6.5 percent of lynx habitat (through a combination of fuels treatment in the 

wildland urban interface (WUI) and precommercial thinning). However, all vegetative 

standards remain applicable to 93.5 percent of lynx habitat. 

The following describes the risk factors, what the LCAS proposed (Alternative B), issues 

related to the proposed action, what Alternative E (the DEIS preferred alternative) 

included, comments we received on the DEIS, consideration of new information, and 

finally what was incorporated into the selected alternative and why. 

Management direction related to vegetation 

Lynx require certain habitat elements to persist in a given area. Lynx productivity is 

highly dependent on the quantity and quality of winter snowshoe hare habitat. Winter 

snowshoe hare habitat may be found in dense young regenerating forests – where the 

trees protrude above the snowline and in multistoried forests where limbs of the 

overstory touch the snowline, in addition to shorter understory trees that provide 

horizontal cover. Certain activities, such as timber harvest, prescribed burning and 

wildfires, can affect the amount and distribution of these habitat elements, which can in 

turn affect lynx productivity. Timber harvest can be beneficial, benign, or detrimental 

depending on the harvest method, the spatial and temporal occurrence on the 

landscape and the inherent vegetation potential of the site (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P). 

Objectives for vegetation management 

Objectives define desired conditions for lynx habitat. The LCAS identified four primary 

objectives which are reflected in Alternative B as Objectives VEG O1, VEG O2, VEG O3, 

and VEG O4. These objectives essentially remain the same among all alternatives. 

Objectives VEG O1, VEG O2 and VEG O4 were clarified in the selected alternative 

based on comments on the DEIS, but their intent is the same as the in LCAS. 

Standards and guidelines relating to quantity of winter snowshoe hare habitat 

Standard VEG S1. In order to provide a distribution of age classes, the LCAS 

recommended that an lynx analysis unit (LAU) (an area the size of a female lynx home 

range) not have more than 30 percent of the lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition, and 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 83
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

9

if an LAU was at 30 percent then vegetation management projects should not create 

more. Lynx habitat in an unsuitable condition includes those forests in a stand 

initiation structural stage that are too short to provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. 

These conditions are created by stand-replacing wildfires, prescribed burns that remove 

all of the vegetation, or regeneration timber harvest. This recommendation is reflected 

in Alternative B Standard VEG S1. 

Some people felt the 30 percent criterion was too high and others said it was too low 

based on how fires burn in lynx habitat. In addition, some people felt that constraining 

the 30 percent criterion to a single LAU was too restrictive, as fires burn across vast 

areas. Fire is the most common disturbance in lynx habitat. Generally, large stand 

replacing fires burn every 40 to 200 years and smaller low intensity fires burn in the 

intervals between stand replacing fires (FEIS, Vol. 1, p. 72 and 213-214). The 30 percent 

criterion was based on a way to maintain lynx habitat over time (Brittel et al. 1989). 

None of the alternatives change the 30 percent criterion. However, Alternatives C, D, 

and E change the area the standard would be considered from an LAU to a larger 

landscape. Alternatives C and E apply the standard to an LAU or in a combination of 

immediately adjacent LAUs; Alternative D applies the standard to a subbasin or 

isolated mountain range. Some people liked the idea of applying the standard to a 

larger area, others did not. In their comments on the DEIS FWS recommended the 

standard be applied to a single LAU in order to maintain a good distribution of lynx 

habitat at the scale of a lynx home range. 

The selected alternative applies the management direction to a single LAU to ensure a 

variety of structural stages are provided within the home range. In addition, the 

selected alternative was reworded to clarify what “unsuitable habitat” entails and what 

types of vegetation projects create this condition. 

Standard VEG S2. The LCAS also recommended that timber harvest not change more 

than 15 percent of lynx habitat to an unsuitable condition (stand initiation structural 

stage that is too short to provide for winter snowshoe hare habitat) over a decade. The 

purpose of this standard was to limit the rate of management induced change in lynx 

habitat (FEIS p. 74). This recommendation is reflected in Alternative B Standard VEG S2. 

In 2003, the effect timber harvest historically had on creating “unsuitable habitat” on 

Forest Service lands in Region 1 (Hillis et al. 2003) was analyzed. The analysis was 

based on hydrologic unit codes (HUC) (similar to the size of a lynx home range). This 

analysis found only 2.5 percent of the HUCs exceeds the 15 percent criterion. Since this 

criterion was rarely exceeded in the past, and the amount of regeneration harvest the 

agency does now has been dramatically reduced over the past decade (Project 

File/Analysis/Vegetation/FEIS/Data), Standard VEG S2 was changed to Guideline 

VEG G6 in Alternative C, and dropped as a standard or guideline in Alternatives D and 

E. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 84
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

10

FWS comments on the DEIS said that dropping Standard VEG S2 could allow 

potentially negative effects to lynx to accumulate. Removal of the standard could result 

in reducing the amount of lynx habitat over a short period of time. Based on these 

comments, Standard VEG S2 was included in the selected alternative. In addition, the 

standard was reworded to clarify that it only applies to timber management practices 

that regenerate a forest (clearcut, seed tree, shelterwood, group selection). 

Guideline VEG G1. The LCAS also recommended creating forage (winter snowshoe 

hare habitat) where it was lacking. This is reflected as Guideline VEG G1 in Alternative B. 

This guideline is retained in the selected alternative. The wording clarifies that the 

priority areas for creating forage should be in those forests that are in the stemexclusion, closed canopy structural stage to enhance habitat conditions for lynx and 

their prey. Basically it says we should focus regeneration efforts in pure lodgepole 

stands, with little understory, especially where forage is lacking. 

Other related comments. Other comments we received on the DEIS relating to the 

amount or spatial distribution of winter snowshoe hare habitat were in regards to 

including a standard to limit type conversion, and limiting the size of clearcuts and 

other regeneration harvest units (FEIS Vol. 1 p. 75-76 and FEIS Vol. 2 27-27, 56-57, 59-

60). Neither of these standards were recommended in the LCAS. 

Objectives VEG O1, VEG O2, VEG O3 and VEG O4 describe the desired conditions of 

lynx habitat and all are consistent with the intent to minimize habitat conversions. 

Projects and activities should be designed to meet or move towards objectives; therefore 

a standard for type conversion was not necessary. 

Openings created by even-aged harvest are normally 40 acres or less. Creating larger 

openings requires 60-day public review and Regional Forester approval, with some 

exceptions (R1 Supplement Forest Service Handbook 2400-2001-2; R2 Supplement 2400-

99-2). Koehler (1990) speculated that openings created by regeneration harvest, where 

the distance-to-cover was greater than 325 feet, might restrict lynx movement and use 

patterns until the forest re-grows. While it is assumed lynx would prefer to travel 

where there is forested cover, the literature contains many examples of lynx crossing 

unforested openings (Roe et al. 2000). 

Larger openings can often more closely resemble vegetative patterns similar to natural 

disturbance events (e.g. fire, windthrow, and insect outbreaks) (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix 

P). A disturbance pattern characterized by a few large blocks may be desirable if large 

areas of forested habitat are a management goal, or if the predation and competition 

that occur at the edges between vegetation types is a problem (Ruggiero et al. 2000, p. 

431). While it is true lynx may not use large openings initially, once they have re-grown 

and can provide cover, generally after ten to 30 years, such areas may be important to 

lynx (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P, p. 40092). 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 85
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

11

The selected alternative already contains direction to consider natural disturbances and 

maintain habitat connectivity. Based on this management direction and evaluating the 

information in the Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States (Ruggiero et al. 

2000) and the LCAS, we decided that a standard limiting the size of openings was 

unnecessary to improve lynx conservation. 

Standards and guidelines relating to quality of winter snowshoe hare habitat 

Snowshoe hare are the primary prey for lynx. Winter snowshoe hare habitat is a 

limiting factor for lynx persistence. Snowshoe hare habitat consists of forests where 

young trees or shrubs grow densely. In addition to dense young regenerating forests, 

multistory forests that have trees whose limbs come down to snow level and have an 

abundance of trees in the understory, also provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. 

During winter, hare forage is limited to twigs and stems that protrude above the snow 

and the hares can reach. The LCAS recommended management direction to address 

winter snowshoe hare habitat in relation to precommercial thinning. Alternative B, the 

proposed action, splits the management direction to address actions occurring in winter 

snowshoe hare habitat in young regenerating forests (Standard VEG S5) and actions 

occurring in winter snowshoe hare habitat found in multistory forests (Standard VEG 

S6). 

Standard VEG S5. The LCAS recommended no precommercial thinning that reduces 

winter snowshoe hare habitat in the stand initiation structural stage. This is reflected in 

Alternative B Standard VEG S5. Precommercial thinning within 200 feet of 

administrative sites, dwellings, or outbuildings has been allowed under current 

practices because it was found to have no effect to lynx due to location near structures. 

Some people said this standard should apply to all vegetation management projects, not 

just precommercial thinning. Precommercial thinning is the primary activity that 

occurs in young regenerating forests. On occasion, other activities such as fuel 

treatments or prescribe burning, could occur. Alternatives C and D were expanded to 

apply to all vegetation management projects. Alternative E, the DEIS preferred 

alternative, only applied it to precommercial thinning projects. 

Only a few comments were received on the DEIS saying the standard should apply to 

all type of projects. FWS did not comment on the more narrow application of the 

standard. 

Standard VEG S5 in the selected alternative only applies to precommercial thinning 

because it is the predominate activity in young regenerating forests and it is has been 

identified as the risk factor for reducing winter snowshoe hare habitat (LCAS, Ruggiero 

et al. 2000, USDA FS and USDI BLM 2000, USDI FWS 2000a, 2000b, USDI FWS 2003). 

As noted earlier in the issues section, some people said precommercial thinning should 

be allowed to restore tree species in decline or to encourage future large trees. 

Alternative D addresses this issue by allowing precommercial thinning of planted 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 86
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

12

western white pine, whitebark pine, aspen, and larch, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole 

pine in certain situations. Alternative E, the DEIS preferred alternative, only allowed 

precommercial thinning adjacent to structures, for research or genetic tests, or for fuel 

treatment projects identified in a collaborative manner. 

Several comments on the DEIS said the allowances for precommercial thinning in 

Alternative D should be incorporated into the final alternative. Several comments said 

that some allowance for adaptive management should be incorporated and that 

thinning should be allowed where it could be done to promote or prolong winter 

snowshoe hare habitat. 

FWS comments on the DEIS said thinning adjacent to administrative sites, dwellings, or 

outbuildings and for research and genetic tests would have little effect on lynx or their 

habitat. In addition, they said the following thinning activities would have 

cumulatively little effect upon lynx habitat and, in some cases, advance natural 

ecological conditions. These include: (1) daylight thinning of planted rust-resistant 

western white pine where 80 percent of winter snowshoe hare habitat is maintained; (2) 

thinning within whitebark pine stands; (3) western white pine pruning; and (4) thinning 

for Christmas trees. 

We evaluated the comments and incorporated the following elements into the selected 

alternative: 

• Since Standard VEG S5 is concerned with reduction of winter snowshoe hare 

habitat, western white pine pruning and thinning for Christmas trees can occur if 

winter snowshoe hare habitat is not reduced. Generally these activities are done on 

an individual tree basis and do not change the characteristics of the habitat. 

• Precommercial thinning can be done adjacent to administrative sites, dwellings, or 

outbuildings and for research and genetic tests since these would have benign 

effects on lynx. 

• Precommercial thinning can be done for planted rust-resistant western white pine, 

whitebark pine, and aspen. Thinning to enhance whitebark pine and aspen would 

benefit other wildlife species and effects only limited acres in lynx habitat (FEIS, Vol. 

1 Lynx section). Daylight thinning will be allowed around individual planted rustresistant western white pine where 80 percent of the winter snowshoe hare habitat is 

retained. This may reduce some habitat effectiveness, but since this tree species has 

declined 95 percent across its range, we determined it was important to allow a 

limited amount of thinning to retain the species on the landscape. 

Under these exceptions, about 64,000 acres could be precommercial thinned in occupied 

lynx habitat over the next decade – assuming full funding. This is likely to affect less 

than 2 percent of winter snowshoe hare habitat (FEIS Vol. 1 p. 188, USDI FWS 2007). 

We also considered allowing precommercial thinning in vast areas of young 

regenerating forests where precommercial thinning could be done to prolong winter 

snowshoe hare habitat. We also considered precommercial thinning in young 

regenerating forests composed primarily of western larch with more than 10,000 trees 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 87
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

13

per acre – where larch would be removed to favor other species that provide better 

winter snowshoe hare habitat. In both these situations the general belief is that these 

activities may be beneficial to lynx in the long term, but information is not available at 

this time to support that hypothesis. So, the standard was modified to provide an 

avenue to consider new information that may in the future prove or disprove these 

hypotheses. The criterion provided in the selected alternative states: 

Based on new information that is peer reviewed and accepted by the regional level of 

the Forest Service and the state level of FWS, where a written determination states: 

a. that a project is not likely to adversely affect lynx; or 

b. that a project is likely to have short term adverse effects on lynx or its habitat, but 

would result in long-term benefits to lynx and its habitat. 

This criterion allows incorporation of new peer reviewed information, but requires 

agreement by FWS before it may be utilized. 

Standard VEG S6. The LCAS recommended no precommercial thinning that reduces 

winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory forests. This is reflected in Alternative B

Standard VEG S6. Precommercial thinning within 200 feet of administrative sites, 

dwellings or outbuildings has been allowed under current practices because it was 

found to have no effect to lynx due to location near structures. The LCAS did not 

contain a recommendation related to other management actions.

As noted in Issue #3 some people said the management direction should preclude all 

activities that reduce winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistory forest. Alternatives C, 

D, and F would apply the management direction to all vegetation management 

activities in multistory forests that provide winter snowshoe hare habitat. Each 

alternative has different allowances for vegetation management. Alternative E, the 

DEIS preferred alternative, changed the management direction from a standard to 

Guideline VEG G8. The intent of the guideline was to direct vegetation projects to 

provide winter snowshoe hare habitat through time. 

Multistory forest structures can develop from natural processes, such as insects and 

diseases and fire, or management actions like timber harvest that create small openings 

where trees and shrubs can grow. 

Comments on the DEIS suggested that management direction for multistory forests 

should be in the form of a standard. FWS suggested the agencies review the latest 

information or research on lynx use of forests in multistoried structural stages prior to 

developing a final preferred alternative. 

Recent research in northwest Montana demonstrates that mature multistoried forests 

provide important winter snowshoe hare habitat and are more important than younger 

stands (FEIS, Vol. 1, p. 22). In fact, the researchers questioned whether or not the LCAS 

would provide for lynx viability and recovery if only precommercial thinning were 

precluded. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 88
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

14

Based on this new information we retained Standard VEG S6 in the selected alternative, 

but we preclude all vegetation management activities that reduce winter snowshoe hare 

habitat in multistory forests, not just precommercial thinning as recommended in the 

LCAS. We would allow minor reductions in winter snowshoe hare habitat for 

activities within 200 feet of structures, research or genetic tests, and for incidental 

removal during salvage harvest (associated with skid trails). Fuel treatment projects 

within the WUI are also exempt from this standard (see fuel treatment discussion 

further in this decision). We also allow timber harvest in areas that have the potential to 

improve winter snowshoe hare habitat but presently have poorly developed 

understories. 

We believe and FWS concurred that protecting winter snowshoe hare habitat in 

multistoried forests will further retain and promote important lynx habitat components. 

Standards and guidelines relating to denning habitat 

Woody debris – piles of wind-thrown trees, root wads, or large down trees – provides 

lynx denning sites. Large woody debris gives kittens an escape route from predators, as 

well as cover from the elements. During the first few months of life, when kittens are 

left alone while the mother hunts, denning habitat must be available throughout the 

home range (Bailey 1974). The LCAS recommended two standards and two guidelines 

related to denning habitat. These are reflected in Alternative B as Standards VEG S3 and 

VEG S4 and Guidelines VEG G2 and VEG G3. 

In Alternative B Standard VEG S3 defers vegetation management projects in places with 

the potential to develop into denning habitat if an LAU contains less than ten percent 

denning habitat. Standard VEG S4 limits salvage harvest in some situations. Guideline 

VEG G2 says when more denning habitat is desired to leave standing trees and coarse 

woody debris. Guideline VEG G3 says to locate denning habitat where there is a low 

probability of stand-replacing fire. 

Development of alternatives for the DEIS

Some people said that den sites can be found in old regenerating forests and the agency 

should be allowed the flexibility to create denning habitat in regeneration units, 

especially since denning habitat should be located in or adjacent to forage. In Maine, 17 

den sites were located in a variety of stand types, including 10-20 year old clearcuts 

adjacent to residual stands (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P). 

After reviewing the literature, we determined it was reasonable to have an alternative 

that allows for flexibility to mitigate or create denning habitat, especially when there is 

less than 10 percent denning habitat. Alternatives D and E modify Standard VEG S3 to 

say where there is less than 10 percent denning habitat either: 1) defer management, or 

2) move towards 10 percent by leaving standing dead trees or piles of coarse woody 

debris. This combined the guidance in Alternative B, Guideline VEG G2 with the 

Standard VEG S3. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 89
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

15

Some people said salvage harvest should not be singled out because it is not the only 

management action that removes denning habitat. Standard VEG S4 limits salvage 

harvest after a disturbance kills trees in areas five acres or smaller – if there is less than 

10 percent denning habitat. 

We evaluated whether other management actions, such as prescribed burning, 

chipping, piling and burning, etc. should be precluded. Salvage harvest is the primary 

management action that removes denning habitat because it removes dead and down 

timber; therefore we determined other actions did not need to be constrained. 

However, we determined that Standard VEG S4 should be a guideline in Alternatives D 

and E because it provides guidance on how to design projects. The guideline says when 

there is less than 10 percent denning habitat, then units should consider retaining small 

areas of dead trees. As noted in Alternatives D and E, Standard VEG S3, units can 

mitigate when there is less than 10 percent denning habitat. It is possible to create 

denning habitat or retain pockets, but units should be allowed to evaluate denning 

needs on a site specific basis. 

The intent of Alternatives D and E, is where denning habitat is lacking, units should 

recognize it, retain large and small patches and/or mitigate, especially if it denning 

habitat can be created in or near new forage areas. In most areas denning habitat is 

likely not limiting because it is found in such a variety of stand conditions and ages. 

Considerations for alternatives in the FEIS

In comments on the DEIS some people said there was no basis for retaining ten percent 

denning habitat – they wanted the standard dropped altogether. Others wanted more 

denning habitat required. Some people asked for an alternative to prohibit harvest in 

old growth or mature timber to protect denning habitat. Others said that all old growth 

should be protected by management direction because some administrative units do 

not meet old growth standards. 

Some people said allowing salvage logging in disturbed areas smaller than five acres 

lacked a scientific basis and that all salvage harvest should be deferred. Most comments 

on the DEIS said that management direction for denning habitat should be in the form 

of standards. 

In their comments on the DEIS FWS supported Standard VEG S3, including conditions 

1 and 2 in Alternative E, but was concerned about changing Standard VEG S4 into 

Guideline VEG G7. FWS recommended development of a standard that: 1) maintains 

ten percent denning habitat within an individual LAU; 2) is randomly/evenly 

distributed across the LAU; and 3) ensures recruitment of future denning habitat. 

Based on these comments, we reconsidered the management direction for denning 

habitat. We held discussions with the researchers, lynx biology team and FWS to further 

explore denning habitat – where it is found, how to measure it, and how to ensure plans 

provide the appropriate level of management direction. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 90
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

16

Where denning habitat is found: Since 1989 researchers have discovered that lynx 

denning habitat is found in a variety of structural stages from young regenerating 

forests to old forests. The integral component of lynx den sites appears to be the 

amount of downed, woody debris, not the age of the forest stand (Mowat, et al. 2000). 

Research by Squires (pers. com. Oct. 30, 2006) has found that of 40 den sites in 

northwest Montana most were located under large logs, but “jack-strawed” small 

diameter wind thrown trees, root wads, slash piles, and rock piles were also used (FEIS, 

Vol. 1 p. 172-173). These structural components of lynx den sites can often be found in 

managed (logged) and unmanaged (e.g. insect damaged, wind-throw) stands. 

How to measure denning habitat: Retaining ten percent denning habitat is based on 

maintaining lynx habitat over time (Brittel et al. 1989). Brittel recommended a balance 

of conditions – 30 percent forage, 30 percent unsuitable that would grow into forage, 30 

percent travel, and ten percent denning. 

We evaluated how to measure 10 percent denning based on where the habitat can be 

found. We evaluated using mature and over-mature forests as a first approximation of 

denning habitat. Generally mature and over-mature forests contain a component of 

dead and down trees which lynx use. If these two components were used then all units 

would show much more than ten percent denning habitat as all forests have at least 

twenty percent of their forest in mature stand structures (Project 

file/Analysis/Forests/FEIS/Data). In addition, these stand structures do not account 

for all the stand conditions where denning habitat can be found because denning 

habitat can be found in young forests with slash piles, lodgepole forests with insect and 

disease outbreaks, areas recently burned in wildfires, as well as variety of other forest 

conditions. Based on these discussions, we decided, with agreement from FWS, that 

using stand structures as a proxy would show an abundance of denning habitat; 

therefore the requirement to retain ten percent was found not to be a useful measure. 

How to provide for denning habitat: 

We considered restricting harvest in mature forests and old growth. The important 

component for all lynx den sites appears to be the amount of down woody debris 

present, not the age of the forest (Mowat et al. 2000, Appendix P). Old growth and 

mature forests can provide denning habitat, but based on review of research a variety of 

forest structures also provide denning habitat. We considered prohibiting timber 

harvest in old growth but dismissed this from detailed consideration because denning 

habitat is found in a variety of forest structures (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 81). 

We considered restricting salvage harvest. Standard VEG S4 in Alternatives B and C limits 

salvage harvest after a disturbance kills trees in areas five acres or smaller – if there is 

less than 10 percent denning habitat. The standard was changed to a guideline in 

Alternatives D and F. The guideline says that when there is less than 10 percent 

denning habitat, then units should consider retaining small areas of dead trees. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 91
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

17

Salvage harvest can remove denning habitat. However, den sites are found in areas 

with large logs, “jack-strawed” small diameter wind thrown trees, root wads, slash 

piles, and rock piles. These areas need not be extensive – they are generally small areas 

that provide sufficient cover for lynx den sites. 

We reevaluated whether or not denning habitat is a limiting factor for lynx. Based on 

discussions with research, we reaffirmed that denning habitat is found in a variety of 

forest conditions, they are found in small pockets scattered across an area and are 

generally found across the landscape, and lynx denning sites are not believed to be a 

limiting factor (J. Squires, pers. com. Oct. 30, 2006). In addition, management actions 

can create denning habitat by strategically leaving piles of woody debris, or leaving 

residual trees where denning habitat is lacking. 

Therefore, we determined that restricting salvage harvest was not necessary, but that 

projects should consider the abundance and distribution of denning habitat in their 

project design and leave den site components (piles of down wood, or standing dead 

trees) where it is lacking. 

We considered management direction in the form of standards vs. guidelines. We determined 

management direction for denning habitat should be incorporated into one set of 

management direction. Incorporating all the direction into one standard or guideline 

reduces the potential for conflicts between directions, focusing on the important 

components of denning habitat. 

We determined a guideline would be best suited for this management direction because 

denning habitat can be found in a variety of forest structures and in small areas, is not a 

limiting factor for lynx, and the management direction would provide design features 

for projects. Therefore we developed Guideline VEG G11 in the selected alternative. 

The guidance is to: 1) have denning habitat distributed across an LAU (in the form of 

pockets of large woody debris, either down logs or root wads, or large piles of jackstrawed trees); and 2) if denning habitat is lacking, projects should be designed to retain 

coarse woody debris – by leaving piles or retaining residual trees that can become 

denning habitat later. 

Objectives VEG O1, VEG O2, VEG O3, and VEG O4 and Standards VEG S1, VEG S2, 

and VEG S6 also indirectly promote the development and retention of the structure 

needed for denning habitat through vegetation management that promotes a mosaic of 

forest conditions across the landscape (USDI FWS 2007). Based on the above, FWS 

determined that projects were unlikely to reduce denning structure to levels that result 

in adverse effects to lynx (USDI FWS 2007). 

In addition, the Lynx Biology Team (the team responsible for the LCAS) is in the 

process of updating the LCAS denning habitat recommendations based on this new 

information about where denning habitat is found and its distribution. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 92
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

18

Consideration of fuel treatment projects 

Most lynx habitat consists of high-elevation spruce/fir and lodgepole pine forests, but 

some lynx habitat may be found in mixed conifer forests. Generally, forests in lynx 

habitat are close to historic conditions, meaning the long fire return interval has not 

been affected to any large degree by more recent fire suppression as is the case in dryer 

forests with short fire return intervals. However, some stand conditions are conducive 

to extreme fire behavior because of insect and disease mortality or the amount of tree 

limbs that provide ladder fuels. Fuel treatments designed to reduce ladder fuels 

and/or reduce the potential size (Finney 2001) and severity of wildland fires may be 

proposed in lynx habitat. 

After the 2000 wildfire season, which burned a substantial amount of acreage, the Forest 

Service began to set goals for wildfire management. Several documents serve to 

provide a national prioritization system for the selection of hazardous fuel treatments 

on Federal lands with close coordination among the Federal, State, and other agencies, 

as well as Tribes and communities. The criteria for prioritizing lands for hazardous 

fuels treatment generally correspond to: (1) closest proximity to communities at risk in 

the WUI; (2) strategic areas outside the WUI that prevent wildland fire spread into 

communities or critical infrastructure; (3) areas outside of WUI that are in Condition 

Classes 2 or 3; and (4) other considerations (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 215). 

The LCAS did not specifically address fuel treatments. During scoping we identified 

wildland fire risk as an issue, issue # 2 (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 21-22). We developed a range of 

alternatives to address this issue. 

In Alternative A, there would be no change in existing plan direction on the treatment 

of fuels. 

Alternative B would allow fuel treatments to go forward if they: 

• Meet the 10 percent denning standard (Standard VEG S3 and S4) 

• Meet 30 percent unsuitable habitat standard (Standard VEG S1) or 15 percent 

unsuitable habitat created by timber harvest standard (Standard VEG S2) 

• Use methods other than precommercial thinning in winter snowshoe hare habitat 

(Standards VEG S5 and VEG S6) 

Alternatives C and D would not allow any type of fuel reduction project that reduced 

winter snowshoe hare habitat – except within 200 feet of structures. 

Alternative E, the DEIS preferred alternative would not apply the vegetation standards 

(Standards VEG S1, S3, and S5) to fuel treatments developed in a collaborative manner, 

as described in the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (USDA FS 2001). 

This exception was used because a multi-party Memorandum of Understanding was 

signed in 2003 by the FS, BLM, and FWS (USDA FS et al. 2003) concerning fuel 

treatments and collaboration. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 93
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

19

Many comments were received on the DEIS regarding fuel treatments. Some people 

suggested there be no exemptions for fuel treatments. Several groups suggested that 

only fuel treatments within 500 yards of human residences and other structures be 

allowed because these areas are generally not appropriate to restore lynx anyway. 

Others felt the exemptions should only apply to the WUI and that the agencies should 

define the WUI. Others liked the exemptions as they were written in Alternative E. 

FWS cautioned against exempting a broad range and unknown number of actions from 

plan direction. They felt, as currently worded in Alternative E, the exemption was 

sufficiently vague that it did not allow an adequate analysis of potential effects upon 

lynx or lynx habitat and it could result in extensive adverse effects to lynx. 

FWS suggested Standard VEG S5 be modified to restrict precommercial thinning to 

within one mile of structures. They did not believe any exemptions were needed for 

Standards VEG S1 or S2 since so very few LAUs were near the thresholds identified in 

these standards. They felt very few proposals would be constrained by the standards. 

They also questioned why Condition Class 1 forests were not specifically excluded from 

the exemptions. Condition Class 1 forests include areas where fires have burned as 

often as they did historically; the risk of loosing key ecosystem components is low; and 

vegetation composition and structure is intact and functioning. The FWS went on to say 

they recommended that processes, actions, or types that would be exempt be clearly 

identified. 

We reviewed and discussed the comments with FWS and decided to modify the fuel 

treatment exemption for the selected alternative. We thoroughly discussed the issue of 

how to allow for fuel treatments to reduce the hazard to communities – while providing 

for the conservation and recovery of lynx (Project File/Alternatives/FEIS alternatives). 

Based on our discussions we decided none of the vegetation standards will apply to 

fuel treatment projects within the WUI as defined by the Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act (HFRA), within a certain limit. We constrained the number of acres that do not 

meet the standards to 6 percent of lynx habitat within a National Forest, and we added 

the FWS term and condition that fuel treatment projects can cause no more than 3 

adjacent LAUs to not meet standard VEG S1. 

In addition we added Guideline VEG G10 which says fuel treatment projects within the 

WUI should be designed considering Standards VEG S1, S2, S5, and S6. The intent in 

adding this guideline is that although these vegetation standards do not apply to fuel 

treatment projects within the WUI as defined by HFRA, these projects should still 

consider the standards in the development of the proposal. In many cases projects can 

be designed to reduce hazardous fuels while providing for lynx needs. This guideline 

ensures lynx are considered in the project design – but allows for the flexibility of not 

meeting the standards in situations where meeting the standards would prevent the 

project from reducing the hazardous fuels in the WUI. 

The following describes some of the considerations in the development of this direction. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 94
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

20

Application to Standards VEG S1 and S2: Under Standards VEG S1 and S2 it is likely very 

few projects would exceed the 30 percent and 15 percent criteria because many fuel 

treatment projects are not regeneration harvest. If regeneration harvest is applied it is 

likely to be done to create a fuel break adjacent to communities or to break up the 

continuity of fuels (Finney 2001). Since part of our direction under the Healthy Forests 

Initiative is to look for ways to expedite fuel reduction projects we determined that we 

did not want to have to amend forest plans for the few cases where not meeting the 

standards may be necessary. 

Application to Condition Class 1: Many forests in lynx habitat are in Condition Class 1, 

meaning these forests have not missed a fire cycle because large, stand-replacing fire 

only occurs every 100 to 200 years. However, some of these Condition Class 1 forests 

can still be a threat to communities. An example is lodgepole pine forests which are at 

the age of being susceptible to mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Regenerating lodgepole 

pine, adjacent to a community, may be needed to reduce the severity and size of a 

wildland fire. Fire is a natural process in these ecosystems; but there is a need to 

balance the natural process with the risk of fire destroying homes; therefore we did not 

limit the standard to particular condition classes. 

What locations should be exempted: We evaluated various options regarding where the 

standards should be applied and we used a variety of criteria to evaluate which option 

to carry forward for detailed consideration. The criteria included: 1) is there a defined 

area; 2) can effects be meaningfully evaluated; 3) would it provide for community 

protection; and 4) does it meet the purpose and need. (For further detail see FEIS, Vol. 1 

pp. 85-86 which summarizes the options and considerations and the Project 

File/Alternatives/FEIS Alternatives/documents July 29, 2004 through February 24, 

2005). 

Based on comments, national direction regarding fuel treatments, and the effects on 

lynx, we decided exempting fuel treatment projects within the WUI, within limits 

would be a reasonable balance. We decided to use the definition established by 

Congress in the HFRA as it established a national procedure for determining the extent 

of the WUI (USDI, USDA FS 2006). 

What limit(s) should be applied: We elected to put a limit on the amount of fuel treatment 

projects that could exceed the vegetation standards, since WUI has not been mapped on 

all units. We evaluated the WUI based on a mile of where people live (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 

217). A one mile buffer from communities was used because HFRA describes WUI as 1⁄2 

mile or 1 1⁄2 miles depending on certain features. One mile splits this difference and is 

easy to approximate. Based on this analysis, we found that about 6 percent of lynx 

habitat is within 1 mile of communities; therefore we limited the amount of acres that 

can exceed the standards to 6 percent of each National Forest. 

In addition, FWS identified two terms and conditions (TC) to minimize impacts of 

incidental take of lynx due to fuel treatment projects. TC 1 (6 percent limit) was already 

incorporated as described above; TC 2 says fuel treatment projects shall not result in 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 95
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

21

more than three adjacent LAUs exceeding the standard. This TC has been incorporated 

into the management direction – see Attachment 1. 

Summary: Exempting fuel treatment projects within the WUI provided a defined area, 

as requested by FWS; we could evaluate the effects (FEIS, Vol. 1 Lynx section); it 

provides for community protection by reducing delay; and meets the purpose and need 

by constraining the area where adverse effects could occur. In addition we compiled 

information from each forest’s 5 year fuel treatment program to evaluate effects – FEIS, 

Vol. 1, Lynx section and Appendix M, and USDI FWS 2007. This information was not 

available for the DEIS. We found that although we would limit adverse effects to 6 

percent of lynx habitat, it is more likely only 1.4 percent or less of lynx habitat would 

have adverse effects. This is because the fuel treatment program of work within the 

WUI only amounts to 1.4 percent of lynx habitat and many projects can be designed to 

meet the vegetation standards. Regardless, the vegetation standards would apply to 

fuel treatments on 94 percent of lynx habitat. 

In addition, by addressing the exemption and putting a limit on where adverse effects 

could occur this allowed us to take a cumulative look at the effects planning area wide 

vs. amending standards project-by-project. 

FWS findings related to the vegetation management direction 

The vegetation management direction set forth in the selected alternative conserves the 

most important components of lynx habitat: a mosaic of early, mature, and late 

successional staged forests, with high levels of horizontal cover and structure. These 

components ensure the habitat maintains its inherent capability to support both 

snowshoe hare prey base and adequate lynx foraging habitat (and denning habitat) 

during all seasons. These standards are required for all vegetation management actions 

on at least 93.5 percent of lynx habitat in the planning area. Areas within the WUIs 

(totaling six percent of lynx habitat) are exempt from these standards; however VEG 

G10 would apply and at least requires some consideration of the standards in designing 

fuel reduction treatments. Precommercial thinning, allowed under the exceptions, may 

affect an additional 0.5 percent of lynx habitat. Where these standards are applied to 

vegetation management projects, we anticipate few, if any, would have adverse effects 

on lynx. Collectively, application of these standards for vegetation management is 

expected to avoid adverse effects on lynx and promote the survival and recovery of 

lynx populations (USDI FWS 2007). 

Management direction related to grazing 

Livestock grazing may reduce or eliminate foraging habitat in areas that grow quaking 

aspen and willow in riparian areas (LCAS). These localized changes in habitat may 

affect individual lynx; however, no information indicates that grazing poses a threat to 

overall lynx populations (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P, p. 40083). Appropriate grazing 

management can rejuvenate and increase forage and browse in key habitats such as 

riparian areas. Grazing was not mentioned in the original listing decision as a threat to 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 96
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

22

lynx, nor is it discussed in the Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States 

(Ruggiero et al. 2000). In addition, FWS noted that they have found no research that 

provides evidence of lynx being adversely affected by grazing within the planning area 

or elsewhere, or of lynx movements within home ranges being impeded by grazing 

practices (USDI FWS 2007). 

The LCAS recommended four standards for grazing management. These are reflected 

in Alternative B. Standards GRAZ S1, GRAZ S2, GRAZ S3, and GRAZ S4 provide 

management direction for grazing in fire and harvest created openings, aspen stands, 

riparian areas and willow carrs, and shrub-steppe habitat. Alternatives C and D retain 

the management direction as standards. Alternative E changes the management 

direction to Guidelines GRAZ G1, GRAZ G2, GRAZ G3, and GRAZ G4 because neither 

the Remand Notice nor the Ecology of Conservation of Lynx in the United States recognized 

grazing as a threat to lynx. 

Many people commented on Alternative E, the preferred alternative in the DEIS, and 

said the guidelines should be standards in the final alternative. Others said grazing 

should not be allowed at all, while two said the grazing guidelines should be retained. 

The FWS did not comment on the level of grazing management direction in Alternative 

E. We considered these comments in the FEIS Vol. 1 pp. 86-87, as well as Vol. 2, 75-76. 

We decided the management direction for grazing in the selected alternative should be 

in form of guidelines, Guidelines GRAZ G1 through GRAZ G4 because there is no 

evidence grazing adversely affects lynx. These guidelines provide project design 

criteria for managing grazing in fire and harvest created openings, aspen, willow, 

riparian areas, and shrub-steppe habitats. The guidelines are designed to minimize 

potential adverse effects and improve habitat conditions. FWS found that with the 

application of these measures in most cases, there would be no effects or discountable 

effects to lynx (USDI FWS 2007). In addition, the Lynx Biology Team is in the process of 

updating the LCAS grazing recommendations. 

Management direction related to human uses 

Over-the-snow winter recreation 

Lynx have very large feet in relation to their body mass, providing them a competitive 

advantage over other carnivores in deep snow. Various reports and observations have 

documented coyotes using high elevation, deep snow areas (Buskirk et al. 2000). 

Coyotes use open areas because the snow is more compacted there, according to 

research conducted in central Alberta (Todd et al. 1981). In another study in Alberta, 

coyotes selected hard or shallow snow more often than lynx did (Murray et al. 1994). 

The LCAS recommended two objectives and two standards relating to winter dispersed 

recreation. These are reflected in Alternative B, Objectives HU O1 and HU O3, and 

Standards HU S1 and HU S3. In Alternative B, Standard HU S1 would maintain the 

existing level of groomed and designated routes. All action alternatives contain 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 97
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

23

Objectives HU O1 and HU O3 that discourage expanding snow-compacting human 

activities. Alternatives B, C, and D contain Standard HU S1 that would allow existing 

over-the-snow areas to continue but not expand into new, un-compacted areas. 

Alternative E, the DEIS preferred alternative, contains Guideline HU G11 that 

discourages the expansion of designated over-the-snow routes and play areas into 

uncompacted areas. All alternatives would allow existing special use permits and 

agreements to continue. 

In comments on the DEIS some people asked that no dispersed over-the-snow use be 

allowed off groomed or designated trails and areas, saying the no net increase in 

groomed or designated routes did not go far enough. Others said the management 

direction should be in the form of a standard, not a guideline. 

Some people said standards related to over-the-snow use should be removed. They 

said there is no evidence to show that coyotes and other predators use packed snow 

trails to compete with lynx for prey, and the amount of compaction created by 

snowmobiles is insignificant compared to the compaction created naturally by the 

weather. They were particularly concerned that if such language was introduced into 

plans, it could be difficult to change, incrementally restricting the places where 

snowmobiling is allowed. Others wanted an allowance made to increase use. These 

comments were considered for management direction – see FEIS Vol. 1 pp. 90-93. 

In their comments on the DEIS the FWS agreed it is prudent to maintain the status quo 

and restrict expansion of over-the-snow routes until more information is available 

because of the possibility that, over time, unregulated expansion could impair further 

conservation efforts. They also said current, ongoing research in Montana may shed 

some information on the effects of snow compaction on lynx. They suggested careful 

consideration of the most recent information and the reality of possible impairment of 

options for the future. They suggested considering language that could provide more 

guidance on conditions where the expansion of over-the-snow routes would be 

warranted and acceptable. 

We reviewed the results of research conducted since the DEIS was released. In 

northwestern Montana (within the northern lynx core area) Kolbe et al. (in press) 

concluded there was “little evidence that compacted snowmobile trails increased 

exploitation competition between coyotes and lynx during winter on our study area.” 

Kolbe et al. (in press) suggested that compacted snow routes did not appear to enhance 

coyotes’ access to lynx and hare habitat, and so would not significantly affect 

competition for snowshoe hare. They found that coyotes used compacted snow routes 

for less than 8 percent of travel, suggesting normal winter snow conditions allowed 

access by coyotes, regardless of the presence or absence of compacted snow routes. 

Kolbe was able to directly measure relationships between coyotes, compacted snow 

routes and snowshoe hare in an area that also supports a lynx population (USDI FWS 

2007). In this study coyotes primarily scavenged ungulate carrion that were readily 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 98
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

24

available while snowshoe hare kills comprised only three percent of coyote feeding sites 

(Kolbe et al. in press). 

In the Uinta Mountains of northeastern Utah and three comparative study areas (Bear 

River range in Utah and Idaho, Targhee NF in Idaho, Bighorn NF in Wyoming) Bunnell 

(2006) found that the presence of snowmobile trails was a highly significant predictor of 

coyote activity in deep snow areas. 

From track surveys it was determined the vast majority of coyotes (90 percent) stayed 

within 350 meters of a compacted trail and snow depth and prey density estimates 

(snowshoe hares and red squirrels) were the most significant variable in determining 

whether a coyote returned to a snowmobile trail (Bunnell 2006). Of the four study areas 

recent lynx presence has only been documented on the Targhee NF. Bunnell indicated 

that “circumstantial evidence” suggested the existence of competition. 

To date, research has confirmed lynx and coyote populations coexist, despite dietary 

overlap and competition for snowshoe hare, the primary prey of lynx, and alternate 

prey species. In some regions and studies, coyotes were found to use supportive snow 

conditions more than expected, but none confirm a resulting adverse impact on lynx 

populations in the area. The best scientific information (Kolbe’s study) is from an 

occupied core area within our planning area. Radio-collared lynx and coyotes were 

monitored in this study, unlike the Bunnell study. This area is occupied by both lynx 

and coyotes and the study concludes coyotes did not require compacted snow routes to 

access winter snowshoe hare habitat. 

Based on this information, we reevaluated management direction related to over-thesnow activities. An alternative to prohibit all snow-compacting activities or to limit 

dispersed use was evaluated, but not considered in detail because current research 

indicates this level of management direction is unwarranted (USDI FWS 2000a; FEIS, 

Vol. 1, Appendices O and P). 

An alternative to drop all direction limiting snow compaction was not developed in 

detail because there is evidence competing predators use packed trails, suggesting a 

potential effect on individual lynx. We decided it was prudent to maintain the status 

quo and not let over-the-snow routes expand. However, we also decided it was 

reasonable to retain the direction as a guideline in the selected alternative which can be 

used in project design. The intent is to follow the management direction in guidelines. 

However, there may be some cases where expansion of over-the-snow routes would be 

warranted and acceptable, or where research indicates there would be no harm to lynx. 

Guidelines are better suited to adaptive management. 

There is also no basis to establish any particular threshold of allowable increases. 

However, the selected alternative allows expanding winter recreation in some places 

where heavy public use existed in 1998, 1999, or 2000 – see Guideline HU G11. 

The FWS concluded the Objectives HU O1 and O3, and Guideline HU G11 would be 

sufficient to maintain habitat effectiveness for lynx by limiting the expansion of 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 99
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

25

compacted snow routes and this conclusion would be tested through monitoring 

required in this decision. The best information available has not indicated compacted 

snow routes increase competition from other species to levels that adversely affect lynx 

populations, and under the selected alternative the amount of areas affected by snow 

compacted routes would not substantially increase (USDI FWS 2007). 

Developed recreation 

The LCAS identified risk factors associated with ski areas, including short-term effects on 

denning, foraging, and diurnal security habitat and long-term effects on movement 

within and between home ranges (LCAS, p. 2-10). Ski areas may eliminate habitat and 

pose a threat to movements; but most were constructed before lynx became a 

conservation issue (Hickenbottom et al. 1999, p. 70). Mitigation measures can be 

developed at the project level to lessen the effects of existing developments. 

The LCAS recommended various objectives, standards, and guidelines in relation to 

developed recreation, specifically ski areas. These are reflected Alternative B, Objectives 

ALL O1, HU O2, HU O3, and HU O4; Standards ALL S1 and HU S2; and Guidelines HU G1, 

HU G2, HU G3, and HU G10. Objectives and standards (LINK O1 and LINK S1)

regarding habitat connectivity also address concerns about developed recreation. These 

objectives, standards, and guidelines provide management direction about ski area 

development, expansion, and operations to provide for lynx movement, security, and 

habitat needs. 

The alternatives retain similar management direction as Alternative B, except 

Alternatives C, D, and E changed Standard HU S2 to Guideline HU G10. Standard HU 

S2 requires diurnal habitat to be maintained, if needed. There is no evidence that 

diurnal security habitat is required by, or where it occurs on ski areas is used by lynx 

(USDI FWS 2007). Since the need to provide diurnal habitat is questionable, we 

determined it was better suited as a guideline. 

In commenting on the DEIS some people said ski areas should be removed or at least 

prevented from expanding. Others recommended the final preferred alternative retain 

Standard HU S2. There are 24 existing down hill and cross country ski areas in 

occupied habitat in the planning area, which affect about 17,500 acres out of the 12.5 

million acres of occupied habitat. Eight down hill ski areas are planned for expansion. 

One new ski area is proposed. Most of the ski areas are located on individual mountain 

ranges, not several together as in other areas in the west (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 285). There is 

no indication these ski areas affect lynx travel because these ski areas are spread across 

the planning area. There is no information that indicates removal of ski areas is 

warranted, nor is limiting their expansion, as long as lynx needs are considered. The 

selected alternative includes standards to provide for lynx habitat connectivity, and 

includes guidelines to be use in the development of ski area expansion. Many adverse 

effects of developed recreation will be minimized under the selected alternative (USDI 

FWS 2007). 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 100
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

26

Minerals and energy 

The LCAS said the main risk factors associated with minerals and energy development 

is related to the potential for plowed roads to provide access for lynx competitors. 

These recommendations are reflected in Alternative B, Objectives ALL O1, HU O1, and 

HU O5, Standards ALL S1 and HU S3, and Guidelines HU G4, and HU G5 which provide 

management direction for mineral and energy development. All except standard HU 

S3 remain essentially the same in all alternatives. Standard HU S3 says to keep mineral 

and energy development to designated routes. This standard was changed to Guideline 

HU G12 in Alternative E and in the selected alternative to be consistent with the 

application of management direction regarding over-the-snow routes discussed above. 

In commenting on the DEIS some people said lease stipulations identifying constraints 

on developing oil and gas, coal, or geothermal resources should be one of the decisions 

made as a part of the management direction. This comment is addressed in the FEIS, 

Vol. 1 p. 94-95. FWS did not comment on the management direction related to minerals 

and energy development. 

Forest roads 

Lynx are known to have been killed by vehicle-collisions in Colorado (reintroduced 

population; paved, high-speed highways), in Minnesota (paved, high-speed highways) 

and in Maine (high-speed, relatively straight gravel roads on flatter terrain). The best 

information suggests that the types of roads managed by the Forest Service do not 

adversely affect lynx (USDI FWS 2007). Lynx mortality from vehicle strikes are 

unlikely, and to date none have been documented on National Forest System lands 

within the planning area, given the relatively slow speeds at which vehicles travel on 

these roads (due to topography and road conditions) and generally low traffic volumes. 

Roads may reduce lynx habitat by removing forest cover. Along less-traveled roads 

where the vegetation provides good hare habitat, sometimes lynx use the roadbeds for 

travel and foraging (Koehler and Brittell 1990; LCAS, p. 2-12). A recent analysis on the 

Okanogan NF in Washington showed lynx neither preferred nor avoided forest roads, 

and the existing road density does not appear to affect lynx habitat selection (McKelvey 

et al. 2000; USDI FWS 2000a, p. 39). 

Although many species of wildlife are disturbed when forest roads are used (Ruediger 

1996), preliminary information suggests lynx do not avoid roads (Ruggiero et al. 2000) 

except at high traffic volumes (Apps 2000). In denning habitat, when roads are used 

during summer, lynx may be affected if they move their kittens to avoid the disturbance 

(Ruggiero et al. 2000; LCAS, p. 2-12). 

The LCAS recommended several guidelines to address potential impacts of forest 

roads, including upgrading, cutting and brushing, and public use. These guidelines 

generally discourage improving access for people or reduce the likelihood people 

would see lynx near roads. These guidelines are reflected in Alternative B, Guidelines 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 101
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

27

HU G6, HU G7, HU G8, and HU G9. All the alternatives, including the selected 

alternative retain these guidelines. 

In commenting on the DEIS some people said more restrictions on roads were needed 

to conserve lynx. They wanted new road construction halted, road densities identified 

and existing roads closed or eliminated, or they wanted the roads guidelines turned 

into standards. Other people said there should be no road-related standards or 

guidelines, saying no evidence exists that roads harm lynx. Some people said Guideline 

HU G9 should be deleted because there are no compelling reasons to close roads. The 

FEIS, Vol. 1, pp. 95 to 96 describes how these were considered in the development of the 

management direction. FWS had no comments related to these guidelines. 

Based on our review we found no information indicating road building should be 

banned or that further restrictions were needed. The guidelines adequately address the 

known risks associated with roads. We determined guidelines were the appropriate 

level of management direction because guidelines provide information and guidance 

for project design and decision-making. Some guidance on how to design projects is 

warranted because roads may affect individual lynx. 

Management direction related to linkage areas 

Highways and connectivity 

Highways impact lynx by fragmenting habitat and impeding movement. As traffic 

lanes, volumes, speeds, and rights-of-way increase, the effects on lynx are increased. As 

human demographics change, highways tend to increase in size and traffic density. 

The LCAS recommended one objective, two standards, and a guideline directly or 

indirectly related to highways and connectivity. These are reflected in Alternative B, 

Objective ALL O1, Standards ALL S1 and LINK S1, and Guideline ALL G1. Objective ALL 

O1 and Standard ALL S1 are intended to maintain connectivity. Standard LINK S1 is 

intended to provide a process for identifying wildlife crossings across highways. 

Alternatives C, D, E and the selected alternative have the same objective and standards. 

In comments on the DEIS some people said more should be done than just identifying 

highway crossings. FWS did not comment on management direction related to 

highways. 

The LCAS recommended project standards for highways. It says to “Identify, map and 

prioritize site-specific locations, using topographic and vegetation features, to 

determine where highway crossings are needed to reduce highway impacts on lynx and 

other wildlife”. Alternatives B, C, D, E and the selected alternative include Standard 

LINK S1 which reflects the intent of the LCAS recommendations. In addition, 

Guideline ALL G1 says “Methods to avoid or reduce effects on lynx should be used 

when constructing or reconstructing highways or forest highways across federal land. 

Methods could include fencing, underpasses or overpasses.” 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 102
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

28

As noted in Chapter 3, Transportation Section, portions of three highways are likely to 

be reconstructed in linkage areas in the next ten years. State agencies in Wyoming, 

Idaho, and Montana are incorporating wildlife crossings into their highway design 

packages (Wyoming Department of Transportation, 2005; Idaho Transportation 

Department 2004; Montana DOT, FHWA, Confederated Kootenai and Salish Tribes 

2006). Therefore no further management direction regarding wildlife crossings in the 

form of standards was found to be warranted. 

Other considerations in linkage areas 

Coordination among different land management agencies is important to the recovery 

of lynx because lynx have large home ranges and may move long distances. The LCAS 

recommended guidance for working with landowners to pursue solutions to reduce 

potential adverse effects. This recommendation is reflected in Alternative B, Objective 

LINK O1. This objective is the same among all alternatives, including the selected 

alternative. 

In addition, it is important to mention the Forest Service is a lead member in the 

interagency Lynx Steering Committee and the Lynx Biology Team (FEIS, Vol. 1 Chapter 

4), and played a key coordination role for the Lynx Science Team. These efforts 

facilitate relationships with other Federal and non-Federal landowners, including the 

States and provide a source for non-Federal land management guidance, through 

products such as the LCAS and Forest Plans. The Steering Committee would also 

provide a forum to build and sustain cooperative efforts with Canada to maintain lynx 

connectivity across the international border, if and when the need arises (USDI FWS 

2007). The Forest Service also led the interagency effort to identify linkage areas. 

Use of standards and guidelines 

The selected alternative incorporates standards for those risk factors found to threaten 

lynx populations. Standards are management requirements used to meet desired 

conditions. Standards were used in those situations where we wanted to provide 

sideboards for project activities. Guidelines were used for those risk factors that may 

have possible adverse affects on individual lynx. Guidelines are management actions 

normally taken to meet objectives. They provide design criteria to meet lynx objectives. 

We expect guidelines to be followed in most cases, however based on site-specific 

conditions there may be reason not to follow a guideline. 

FWS found guidelines would be implemented in most cases and adverse effects would 

not always occur where guidelines are not implemented. Effects would be based on 

site-specific conditions, with compliance with Section 7 consultation for each project. 

The FWS does not expect adverse effects as a result of changes of LCAS standards to 

guidelines to reach levels that impact lynx populations. Changes from standards to 

guidelines occurred when the best available information indicated the action was not 

likely to adversely affect lynx, or not likely to adversely affect lynx in most cases (i.e. 

where no conclusive or reliable information supported the standard in the LCAS). 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 103
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

29

Application of the standards, and for the most part guidelines, in core and occupied 

secondary areas substantively reduce the potential for adverse effects on lynx over the 

existing plans (USDI FWS 2007). 

In addition, we will monitor the application of guidelines to see if our assumption they 

are normally applied is correct. Annually we will review the monitoring results to 

determine if further consideration is warranted. 

Where to apply the decision 

The selected alternative is incorporated into all forest plans in the planning area (FEIS, 

Vol. 1, Table 1-1 p. 5 and Figure 1-1). However, the management direction only applies 

to occupied lynx habitat. Those National Forests (the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, 

Nez Perce in Region 1; the Bighorn in Region 2; and the Ashley, and Salmon-Challis in 

Region 4), or isolated portions of National Forests (the Custer, Gallatin, Helena and 

Lewis and Clark in Region 1), that presently are unoccupied by Canada lynx should 

consider the management direction that is now incorporated into their Forest Plans 

when developing projects, but are not required to follow the management direction 

until such time as they are occupied by Canada lynx. 

According to the Conservation Agreement (USDA FS, USDI FWS 2006a), an area is 

considered occupied when: (1) there are at least 2 verified lynx observations or records 

since 1999 on the national forest, unless they are verified to be transient individuals; or 

(2) there is evidence of reproduction on the national forest. 

This direction is in keeping with the current Conservation Agreement which only 

applies to projects and activities in occupied habitat. The FWS species lists on those 

forests and portions of forests that are unoccupied do not show lynx as a species for 

consideration. However, as noted in the Biological Opinion, the FWS said, and we 

agree that lynx detection is needed to assess whether further management direction is 

warranted (USDI FWS 2007). Therefore, we agree to work with the FWS to develop and 

complete an acceptable protocol to survey currently unoccupied lynx habitat in 

secondary areas as described in the Biological Opinion, Term and Condition #4. 

Incorporation of terms and conditions 

On March 16, the FWS issued its Biological Opinion on the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction (USDI FWS 2007). In the opinion the FWS concluded that the 

management direction would overall be beneficial, but that some adverse effects to lynx 

would still be anticipated. It determined the management direction would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of lynx. The opinion also provides an incidental take 

statement which specifies the impact of any incidental taking of lynx. It also provides 

reasonable and prudent measures that are necessary to minimize the impacts of the take 

and sets forth terms and conditions which must be complied with in order to 

implement the reasonable and prudent measures. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 104
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

30

The opinion identified three reasonable and prudent measures (RPM) with four 

associated terms and conditions (TC). We incorporated TC 1 through 3 into the 

management direction. The TCs are shown in italics in Attachment 1. TC #4 is agreed 

to as described below. 

RPM #1: Minimize harm from fuels management by ensuring the acres impacted are 

not concentrated in a geographic area or several adjacent LAUs 

Ensure fuels management projects conducted under the exemptions from Standards 

VEG S1, S2, S5 and S6 in occupied habitat: 

TC 1. do not occur in greater than 6 percent of lynx habitat on any forest; and 

TC 2. do not result in more than 3 adjacent LAUs not meeting the VEG S1 

standard. 

TC 1 was already part of the management direction. TC 2 has been added to Standard 

VEG S1. 

RPM #2: Minimize harm from precommercial thinning and vegetation management by 

ensuring that LAUs either retain sufficient foraging habitat, or do not substantially 

reduce foraging habitat. 

TC 3. In occupied habitat, precommercial thinning and vegetation management 

projects allowed per the exceptions listed under VEG S5 and S6, shall not occur in 

any LAU exceeding VEG S1, except for projection of structures. This requirement 

has been added to Standards VEG S5 and VEG S6. 

RPM #3: On those Forests with currently unoccupied lynx habitat, lynx detection is 

needed to assess whether further management direction is warranted, including 

application of the management direction. 

TC 4. Within 18 months of the date of the Biological Opinion, the Forest Service 

shall work with the Service to develop and complete an acceptable protocol to 

survey currently unoccupied lynx habitat in secondary areas. We agree to work 

with the FWS to develop and complete the protocol in unoccupied secondary areas. 

The FWS also identified several monitoring and reporting requirements related to the 

above terms and conditions. We have incorporated these elements in the selected 

alternative – see Attachment 1, page 9. 

Consideration of conservation recommendations 

The FWS also identified three conservation recommendations which are discretionary 

agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed 

species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery programs, or to develop 

information. 

Recommendation 1. The FS should ensure to the extent possible, that unoccupied 

habitat continues to facilitate and allow dispersal of lynx into the future. Therefore the 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 105
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

31

FWS recommends the management direction regarding linkage areas and connectivity 

by applied in the unoccupied areas (ALL O1, ALL S1, ALL G1; LINK O1, LINK S1 and 

LINK G1). The Forest Service already considers and applies this management direction 

in our current program of work; therefore we have decided to not apply the direction in 

unoccupied areas until such time the areas are occupied. 

Habitat connectivity is considered in the design of permanent developments and 

vegetation management. Few, if any, vegetation projects affect habitat connectivity. 

Most, if not all units, have some level of riparian area protection requirements in their 

existing plans. This direction facilitates movement of lynx through riparian areas. 

The greatest risk to impeding connectivity is in relation to roads and highways. The 

Forest Service already works with the State and Federal Highway agencies and is part 

of the steering team that produced the document Eco-logical: An Ecosystem Approach to 

Developing Infrastructure Projects (USDOT, 2006), FEIS Transportation Section. Also 

noted in this section is the highway work planned and projected in all lynx habitat and 

how the states have incorporated wildlife crossings into the design of those future 

projects. The FEIS p. 198 evaluated the effects of not applying the management 

direction to unoccupied areas and discloses that there would be minimal effects, 

especially to linkage areas because similar management direction or the intent of the 

direction already exists. 

Recommendation 2. The Forest Service should coordinate with the Service to develop, 

within 18 months a method to monitor the amount and condition of lynx habitat in 

unoccupied secondary habitat. The Forest Service agrees to this recommendation. 

Recommendation 3. The Forest Service should continue to be a leader in lynx 

conservation and understanding. The Forest Service agrees to this recommendation. 

Canada Lynx Recovery Outline 

On September 12, 2005 the FWS issued a Recovery Outline for Canada lynx (USDI FWS 

2005). The outline is to serve as an interim strategy to guide and encourage recovery 

efforts until a recovery plan is completed. In the Recovery Outline, FWS categorized 

lynx habitat as: 1) core areas; 2) secondary areas; and 3) peripheral areas. The areas with 

the strongest long-term evidence of the persistence of lynx populations within the 

contiguous United States are defined as “core areas.” As we discuss below and 

illustrated on the enclosed map (Figure 1-1), we have two core areas in the analysis 

area. Core areas have both persistent verified records of lynx occurrence over time and 

recent evidence of reproduction. According to FWS, focusing lynx conservation efforts 

on these core areas will ensure the continued persistence of lynx in the contiguous 

United States by addressing fundamental principles of conservation biology (USDI FWS 

2007). The Recovery Outline says “Recovery of lynx will be achieved when conditions 

have been attained that will allow lynx populations to persist long-term within each of 

the identified core areas.” (USDI FWS 2005). 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 106
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

32

At this time, the role of areas outside of these core areas in sustaining lynx populations 

is unclear. The fluctuating nature of lynx population dynamics and the ability of lynx to 

disperse long distances have resulted in many individual occurrence records outside of 

core areas, without accompanying evidence of historic or current presence of lynx 

populations. Areas classified as “secondary areas” are those with historical records of 

lynx presence with no record of reproduction; or areas with historical records and no 

recent surveys that document the presence of lynx and/or reproduction. We have one 

area of secondary habitat in the analysis area (Figure 1-1). Much of the secondary 

habitat is unoccupied. FWS hypothesizes that secondary areas may contribute to lynx 

persistence by providing habitat to support lynx during dispersal movements or other 

periods, allowing animals to then return to “core areas.” 

In “peripheral areas” the majority of historical lynx records are sporadic and generally 

corresponds to periods following cyclic lynx population highs in Canada. There is no 

evidence of long-term presence or reproduction that might indicate colonization or 

sustained use of these areas by lynx. However, some of these peripheral areas may 

provide habitat enabling the successful dispersal of lynx between populations or 

subpopulations. We have four areas of peripheral habitat in the analysis area (Figure 1-

1). At this time, FWS does not have enough information to clearly define the relative 

importance of secondary or peripheral areas to the persistence of lynx in the contiguous 

United States (USDI FWS 2005, USDI FWS 2007). 

In the Recovery Outline, FWS presented four preliminary recovery objectives. Below, 

we summarize FWS findings (USDI FWS 2007) of how the selected alternative meets the 

recovery objectives. 

Preliminary recovery objective 1: Retain adequate habitat of sufficient quality to support the 

long-term persistence of lynx populations within each of the identified core areas.

FWS concludes the selected alternative fulfills this objective and adequately manages 

the two core areas within the planning area to support lynx recovery. The selected 

alternative supports the long-term persistence of lynx populations within the 

Northwestern Montana/Northeastern Idaho and Greater Yellowstone core areas, which 

constitutes one third of the core areas nationwide (USDI FWS 2007). 

Preliminary recovery objective 2: Ensure that sufficient habitat is available to accommodate 

the long-term persistence of immigration and emigration between each core area and adjacent 

populations in Canada or secondary areas in the United States. 

FWS concludes the selected alternative contributes to this recovery objective in part. 

Lynx have the ability to move great distances, through varied terrain and habitat. 

Dispersing lynx use a variety of habitats and prey resources compared to lynx 

attempting to establish a home range and territory (USDI FWS 2007). 

Connectivity between the United States and Canada appears intact thus far, as the 

Northwestern Montana/Northeastern Idaho core area is directly adjacent to Canada 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 107
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

33

and includes Glacier Park along its northeastern edge. The selected alternative provides 

and conserves core area lynx habitat directly adjacent to and contiguous with lynx 

habitat in Canada. Such habitat should accommodate both immigration of lynx from 

Canada and emigration from core areas to secondary areas or Canada. 

The selected alternative applies to all core areas and occupied secondary areas. The 

direction includes objectives, standards, and guidelines to actively maintain or restore 

lynx habitat connectivity in and between linkage areas and LAUs (lynx home ranges). 

Because these measures apply in both core and occupied secondary areas, the selected 

alternative clearly meets the recovery objective of accommodated long-term 

connectivity across these broad areas. 

The selected alternative is less clear in its effects in unoccupied secondary areas 

between the Northwestern Montana/Northeastern Idaho and Greater Yellowstone core 

areas. The management direction will not be applied to these areas until they become 

occupied. In the meantime existing plan direction will be followed. 

Information indicates the likely impact of projected vegetation management on 

connectivity in this area may not be excessive. Fuel treatment projects in unoccupied 

habitat would likely occur in no more than two to three percent of all lynx habitat on 

any forest in secondary areas (FEIS Vol. 1, p. 195, USDI FWS 2007). In unoccupied areas 

precommercial thinning could occur on about 67,000 acres (about 1 percent) with full 

funding and 23,000 acres (0.4 percent) or less with projected funding. Timber harvest in 

unoccupied areas could result in creating stand initiation openings in more than 30 

percent of an LAU. However, very few LAUs exceed this amount now and those that 

were in excess were in that condition due to past wildfires (FEIS, Vol. p. 155). 

Information regarding projected timber harvest was not available, but based on the past 

harvest history (Project File/Forests/FEIS/Data) it is unlikely regeneration harvest will 

occur to the same levels it did historically (1970s and 1980s). Based on this, FWS found 

vegetation management, under existing plan direction, would not preclude connectivity 

or opportunistic foraging conditions (USDI FWS 2007). 

Development is another factor that may impede lynx movement. Four ski areas, 

affecting about 3,800 acres occur on National Forest System lands, in unoccupied 

secondary habitat; two of the four are planning expansions. None of these ski areas 

impede connectivity of lynx habitat at this time (USDI FWS 2007). 

Connectivity for lynx could be more impacted by development such as highway 

expansions. Under existing plans and national efforts, methods to provide for safe 

wildlife crossings are currently being researched by all state highway departments and 

are being incorporated into highway improvements (FEIS, Vol. 1 p. 294-295). 

In secondary unoccupied habitat, units should consider the management direction until 

such time the area becomes occupied. Given the estimates of projected impacts and the 

best information available regarding lynx dispersal movements, FWS concluded that 

under existing plan direction, these unoccupied secondary areas would reasonably be 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 108
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

34

expected to provide adequate connectivity and opportunistic foraging habitat for lynx 

to allow dispersal (USDI FWS 2007). 

Preliminary recovery objective 3: Ensure habitat in secondary areas remain available for 

continued occupancy by lynx.

FWS found the selected alternative contributes to this recovery objective in part. 

The recovery outline discusses the relative importance of core and secondary areas to 

lynx recovery. The selected alternative will fully provide management direction in 

occupied lynx habitat – both core and secondary. This measure ensures habitat in 

currently occupied secondary habitat remains available for continued occupancy by 

lynx. 

The forests should consider the management direction in currently unoccupied 

secondary habitat. As noted in Objective 3, management actions could adversely affect 

unoccupied secondary lynx habitat. If and when lynx attempt to establish home ranges 

in secondary areas, individual lynx could be affected. It is also important to note that 

about 70 percent of unoccupied secondary lynx habitat in the planning area is in 

roadless or wilderness status where forest management actions are minimal and natural 

processes predominate. 

Occupancy could occur if lynx populations in core areas were to expand, as periodically 

happens in lynx populations in Canada. However, given the projected impacts 

described in Objective 3, non-developmental areas, and existing habitat conditions, 

FWS believes it is reasonable to expect some lynx would occupy these secondary areas 

despite lack of mandatory direction in plans, but at a lower density than core. Further, 

if detected, once lynx occupy a previously unoccupied area, the management direction 

will apply. In the meantime, our vegetation management actions may degrade lynx 

habitat, but resulting conditions are typically temporary, not permanent. The risks of 

most vegetation management actions, such as timber harvest, precommercial thinning 

and other modifications of habitat, are reversible since typically forests regenerate 

overtime, with or without active restoration. Based on this FWS found lynx habitat on 

National Forests System lands in secondary areas will likely remain available for 

recovery of lynx over time (USDI FWS 2007). 

The Opinion goes on to say the selected alternative does not fulfill Objective 3 entirely, 

as it lacks requirements for further or continued monitoring or surveying of unoccupied 

secondary areas for the amount and condition of lynx habitat and lynx presence, as 

recommended in the recovery outline. 

However, through this decision we agree to work with the FWS to develop and 

complete a protocol to survey and to develop a method to monitor the amount and 

condition of lynx habitat in unoccupied secondary habitat. Our agreement to these 

items will aid in fulfilling Objective 3. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 109
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

35

Preliminary recovery objective 4: Ensure threats have been addressed so that lynx 

populations will persist in the contiguous United State for at least the next 100 years. 

FWS found that although plans do not apply for 100 years and thus cannot directly 

fulfill this objective, the selected alternative will allow lynx populations to persist on 

lands within core areas in the planning area within the foreseeable future. The selected 

alternative addresses the threat to the distinct population segment (DPS), inadequate 

regulatory measures, within core areas in the planning area by limiting, reducing or 

avoiding major adverse impacts of federal land management on lynx, as well as several 

other impacts or influences that do not rise to the level of a threat to the DPS. Further, a 

large portion of lynx habitat within the planning area (67 percent) remains in nondevelopmental status, where natural processes predominate. Finally, unoccupied lynx 

habitat within secondary and peripheral lynx areas is likely to retain habitat that 

provides opportunistic foraging habitat and connectivity adequate for dispersal of lynx, 

despite the lack of specific direction for lynx habitat management (USDI FWS 2007). 

Findings Required by Laws, Regulation, and Policies 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires analysis of decisions to ensure 

the anticipated effects on the environment within the analysis area are considered prior 

to implementation (40 CFR 1502.16). The analysis for the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Management Direction followed the NEPA guidelines as provided by the Council on 

Environmental Quality. Alternatives were developed based on the Purpose and Need, 

the primary issues, public comments, lynx needs as identified by the LCAS, research, 

and other publications. A total of six alternatives were considered in detail, including 

the No Action Alternative as required by NEPA (FEIS, pp. 26 to 69 and 107 to 134). 

Additional management direction was considered but eliminated from detailed study 

(FEIS, pp. 71 to 106). The range of alternatives is appropriate given the scope of the 

proposal, the public issues expressed, and the Purpose and Need for action (FEIS, 

Chapter 1). 

Unavoidable adverse effects 

The selected alternative does not represent an irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources. Any disturbance to resources cannot occur without further site-specific 

analyses, section 7a consultation required under ESA and decision documents. For a 

detailed discussion of effects of this decision, see Chapter 3 of the FEIS (pp. 135 to 350). 

Environmentally preferable alternative(s) 

Regulations implementing NEPA require agencies to specify “the alternative or 

alternatives which are considered to be environmentally preferable” (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). 

The environmentally preferable alternative causes the least damage to the biological 

and physical environments and best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 110
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

36

cultural, and natural resources. Based on the description of the alternatives considered 

in detail in the FEIS and in this ROD, we determined the selected alternative best meets 

the goals of Section 101 of the NEPA, and is therefore the environmentally preferable 

alternative for this proposed federal action. 

FWS found timber harvest can be beneficial, benign, or detrimental depending on 

harvest method, and the spatial and temporal occurrence on the landscape (FEIS, Vol. 1, 

Appendix P). The vegetation standards in the selected alternative ensure the timber 

management program is beneficial to lynx. Standard VEG S1 limits the amount of lynx 

habitat that is in the stand initiation stage to 30 percent of each LAU at any time, 

ensuring a continuous rotation of all forest stages through time that supply lynx habitat 

in each LAU (FEIS, Vol. 2, p. 60). Standard VEG S2 allows no more the 15 percent of the 

lynx habitat to change to the stand initiation stage through timber harvest in a 10-year 

period. This limits the rate of change within an LAU to ensure sufficient habitat for 

lynx through time. 

Precommercial thinning can impact lynx habitat. Standard VEG S5 precludes 

precommercial thinning except in certain situations that FWS has determined would 

have little effect upon lynx or their habitat, but would advance natural ecological 

conditions (FWS comment letter on the DEIS, pp. 8 and 9). While these exceptions have 

little effect on lynx (0.5 percent of lynx habitat) they have important positive impacts on 

other resources and situations such as maintaining aspen, western white pine, and 

whitebark pine, and fuel reduction near buildings. 

Since the LCAS was published it has become clear that multistory mature stands with 

dense horizontal cover are important to lynx. In the selected alternative, Standard VEG 

S6 is instrumental in maintaining winter snowshoe hare habitat in multistoried forests 

which will aid in lynx persistence. 

The selected alternative allows for management of fuels in the WUI under Guideline 

VEG G10, rather than standards. Under VEG G10 fuel reduction projects in the WUI 

should consider the VEG standards, but may deviate from them, up to a cap of 6 

percent of the lynx habitat on each National Forest. Lynx habitat is still considered; 

however, if the fuel reduction needs are such that any of the four VEG standards cannot 

be met while at the same time meeting fuel treatment objective, the project may proceed 

under Guideline VEG G10. Fuel treatment actions in 94 percent of the lynx habitat must 

follow the VEG standards, while at the same time fuel treatment projects in the WUI 

can protect other valuable resources. 

The selected alternative contains guidelines for the various activities on National Forest 

System land that may have possible adverse affects on individual lynx. Standards were 

changed to guidelines when the best available information indicated the action was not 

likely to adversely affect lynx, or not likely to adversely affect lynx in most cases (i.e. 

where no conclusive or reliable information supported the standard in the LCAS). 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 111
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

37

The selected alternative contributes to lynx conservation and recovery on National 

Forest System lands, but allows for management of other resources. Considering all 

this, the selected alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative because it 

causes the least damage to the biological and physical environments and best protects, 

preserves, and enhances natural resources. 

National Forest Management Act 

Significance determination: The purpose of this proposal is to incorporate management 

direction into plans for the conservation and recovery of Canada lynx. 

In January 2005, the Forest Service removed the November 9, 2000 National Forest 

System Land and Resource Management Planning Regulations at 36 CFR 219, subpart 

A and replaced them with newly adopted regulations. The new regulations set forth a 

process for land management planning, including the process for developing, 

amending, and revising land management plans (36 CFR 219.1). These regulations also 

incorporate effective dates and transition periods. Section 219.4(e) says “Plan 

development, plan amendments or plan revision initiated before the transition period 

(starting January 5, 2005) may continue to use the provisions of the planning 

regulations in effect before November 9, 2000” – in this case the 1982 regulations. This 

proposal was initiated on September 11, 2001, which is before the transition period; 

therefore it is being completed under the requirements of the 1982 regulations. 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) provides that forest plans may be 

amended in any manner, but if the management direction results in a significant change 

in the plan, the same procedure as that required for development and approval of a 

plan shall be followed. The 1982 regulations at 36 CFR 219.10(f) requires the agency to 

determine whether or not a proposed amendment will result in a significant change in 

the plan. If the change resulting from the amendment is determined not to be 

significant for the purposes of the planning process, then the agency may implement 

the amendment following appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion of 

NEPA procedures. 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1920, section 1926.5 (Jan. 31, 2006) identifies factors to 

consider in determining whether an amendment is significant or non-significant for 

those plans using planning regulations in effect before November 9, 2000. 

Changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from: 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for longterm land and resource management. 

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions 

resulting from further on-site analysis. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 112
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

38

Examples of significant changes include: 

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of 

multiple-use goods and services originally projected. 

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or 

affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the 

planning period. 

The selected alternative will change in plans similar to examples of non-significant 

changes #1 and #3. The effects of this decision are not similar to either example of 

significant plan changes. These findings are discussed in further detail below. 

Under the selected alternative the management direction will only apply to occupied 

habitat. At this time the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Nez Perce, Salmon-Challis, 

Ashley and Bighorn NFs are unoccupied; therefore these units should consider the 

management direction but will not have to apply it. Several mountain ranges on the 

Custer, Gallatin, Helena, and Lewis and Clark NFs are also unoccupied and the 

management direction will not have to be applied in these areas until lynx occupy the 

site. However, since the selected alternative could be applied to all units at some point 

in time, the following analyzes the effects on the planning area as a whole. 

Changes in standards and guidelines are minor

The selected alternative adds one goal to forest plans; conserve Canada lynx. This goal 

is consistent with other goals in existing plans and other legal requirements to provide 

for habitat needs for threatened and endangered species. The selected alternative adds 

several objectives to the plans. These objectives require consideration of natural 

ecosystem process and functions, and consideration of lynx habitat needs. The 

additional objectives provide more species-specific guidance but do not alter the overall 

objectives to provide for habitat needs for threatened and endangered species. The 

proposal does not change any Management Area (MA) designation. 

The selected alternative adds seven standards and twenty-four guidelines. The 

addition of these new standards and guidelines are minor as discussed below. 

Changes would not significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use 

goods and services originally projected. 

The management direction would not substantially alter outputs for grazing, minerals, 

energy, transportation systems, developed recreation areas, such as ski areas or winter 

recreation. These activities will not be prohibited by the management direction; 

however, habitat needs for lynx will need to be considered when managing these 

resources. The new direction will also not substantially alter timber outputs, even 

though it may affect growth and yield. 

The selected alternative limits precommercial thinning in winter snowshoe hare habitat 

in young regenerating forests, with some exceptions – see Standard VEG S5. 

Precommercial thinning is allowed to restore aspen, whitebark pine and planted rustAppendix G

Appendix G - 113
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

39

resistant western white pine. Precommercial thinning will also be allowed if new 

research indicates it will benefit or only have short-term adverse effects to lynx. 

Precommercial thinning is not allowed in young regenerating lodgepole pine forests, 

unless new research indicates it is beneficial or benign. Limiting precommercial 

thinning in lodgepole pine forests could affect growth and yield, and the potential to 

produce some products in the future, because these forests tend to stop growing if not 

thinned; however overall cubic foot volume would not be affected. 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge and the Bridger-Teton are the only units that have a 

majority of their precommercial thinning identified over the next ten years in lynx 

habitat and in lodgepole pine; therefore they are the only units that could see a 

reduction to growth and yield (FEIS, Vo1. 1, Appendix K-5). Under current programs, 

the units only have accomplished a portion of their thinning program (approximately 

34 percent) due to budgets, so it is difficult to tease out the effects from the management 

direction in this proposal from effects of budgets. In addition, Standard VEG S5 allows 

for consideration of new information. Over the next ten to fifteen years information 

may become available that indicates some precommercial thinning in lodgepole pine 

forests may be beneficial to snowshoe hare (see DEIS comment letter #505). 

Limiting precommercial thinning is unlikely to affect long-term sustained yield (LTSY), 

as defined by NFMA and FSH 1909.12, Chapter 60.5, because the cubic foot volume on 

the site does not substantially change. The volume is spread among more, smaller trees 

without thinning versus fewer, larger diameter trees with thinning. In addition, some 

precommercial thinning may be allowed in the future if new information becomes 

available. Timber outputs have never been at the level of LTSY over the life of these 

plans, so changes in LTSY are unlikely to lead to changes in outputs, especially if 

outputs are measured in cubic feet, which is the appropriate measure of LTSY. 

In addition, the ASQ should not be affected on any units because the management 

direction does not preclude timber harvest. Standards VEG S1 and S2 may defer 

regeneration harvest in some areas, but Guideline VEG G1 encourages projects creating 

winter snowshoe hare habitat where it is lacking. It is likely there would be no change 

in overall timber outputs, but there may be changes in what material is harvested and 

where. 

Changes would not have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect land 

and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period. 

There are approximately 38.5 million acres within the 18 National Forests in the 

planning area. Of this, approximately 18 million acres or 48 percent has been mapped 

as lynx habitat (see table 3.1). Of the 18 million acres of mapped lynx habitat, 

approximately 8 million acres are in land allocations that allow for management actions. 

Therefore the management direction only potentially affects about 20 percent of the 

planning area. The most noticeable effects are likely to be the location and amount of 

precommercial thinning. The potential acreage that could be affected is between 11,000 

to 15,000 acres per year. This is less than one percent of the planning area. It should be 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 114
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

40

noted that precommercial thinning is not constrained on an additional 18,000 acres per 

year outside lynx habitat (FEIS, Vol. 1 p 247-248). 

Summary: Considering the three factors, we determined this management direction is 

not a significant change under NFMA to the 18 forest plans because it imposes minor 

changes over a limited area of these national forests. 

While this amendment is not significant, the planning process necessary for significant 

amendments is ongoing or will begin soon on most units affected by this decision. In 

particular interest to the precommercial thinning discussion on the previous page, both 

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Bridger-Teton National Forests are being revised. The 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge should complete the revision process in 2007. Their DEIS for the 

Forest Plan recognizes the cumulative contribution the Northern Rockies Lynx 

Amendment may have on reducing growth and yield (DEIS, page 326). The BridgerTeton should complete its revision in 2008. 

Viability determination: This management direction is being adopted in accordance 

with the 1982 NFMA regulations for amending land and resource management plans.

Plan amendments initiated before January 5, 2005 may proceed using the provisions of 

these regulations. The transition period to regulations implementing the 2005 planning 

rule ends on a unit’s establishment of an Environmental Management System, or no 

later than January 7, 2008. 

According to the 1982 NFMA regulations, fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to 

maintain viable populations of Canada lynx in the planning area (36 CFR 219.19, 2000). 

For the purpose of this decision, the planning area is the range of lynx encompassed by 

the national forests subject to this decision. This is based on a biological delineation of 

the Northern Rockies made in the LCAS. 

A viable population is, “one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well-distributed in the 

planning area.” It is not possible to reliably predict future population demographics for 

lynx, and continued existence of lynx may be dependent on threats that exist outside of 

the planning area (health of Canadian populations, or linkage across other ownerships). 

The national forests subject to this new direction will provide habitat to maintain a 

viable population of lynx in the Northern Rockies by maintaining the current 

distribution of occupied lynx habitat, and maintaining or enhancing the quality of that 

habitat. Based on the best scientific information available, and for the specific reasons 

provided below, this management direction will provide habitat to support persistence 

of lynx in the Northern Rockies in the long-term. 

The LCAS was used as the basis for developing the selected alternative. The FWS 

Remand Notice (FEIS, Vol. 1, Appendix P), and other new information and research 

were also evaluated, and became the basis for updating standards and guidelines based 

upon the current state of knowledge regarding threats to lynx since the LCAS was 

compiled. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 115
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

41

The greatest threats to lynx persistence and reproduction are from changes in 

vegetation structures that provide snowshoe hare habitat during summer and winter. 

Standards were developed under the selected alternative to provide direction for a 

variety of vegetation management activities that are most likely to affect lynx habitat 

(fuel treatments, precommercial thinning, timber harvest, etc.). These include standards 

for connectivity (ALL S1), habitat mapping (LAU S1), regeneration harvesting (VEG S2), 

precommercial thinning (VEG S5), and management of multistory mature and late 

successional forests (VEG S6). These standards are equal to or more protective than 

similar recommendations provided in the LCAS. In the Seeley Lake area of Montana, 

mature, spruce-fir forests with high horizontal cover are particularly important as 

winter foraging habitat and are more important than younger stands (Squires pers. 

com., Oct. 30, 2006) and the LCAS provides no specific management recommendations 

for these vegetative conditions within lynx habitat. 

All of the core and secondary lynx habitat (100%) as defined in the Recovery Outline 

(USDI FWS 2005) that is occupied by lynx as defined in the Occupied Mapped Lynx 

Habitat Amendment to the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement (USDA FS and USDI FWS 

2006a) will be managed to conserve lynx. 

The value of secondary habitat is unclear. The Recovery Outline (UDSI FWS 2005) states 

“Compared to core areas, secondary areas have fewer and more sporadic current and 

historical records of lynx and, as a result, historical abundance has been relatively low. 

Reproduction has not been documented.” There currently is no evidence that suggest 

that unoccupied secondary habitat is considered necessary for a viable population of 

lynx. Secondary, unoccupied lynx habitat will have management direction 

implemented to conserve lynx if and when those administrative units become occupied. 

These National Forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Salmon-Challis and Nez 

Perce) which have secondary, unoccupied lynx habitat account for only about 30 

percent of the total acres of core and secondary lynx habitat. 

Even though the 6 percent limit (reflected in the vegetation standards) does not 

currently apply to unoccupied lynx habitat, those unoccupied forests would treat an 

average of 3.2 percent of lynx habitat within the WUI for fuel reduction over the next 

ten years (FEIS, Vol. 1, Lynx Section, and Appendix M). This is well below the 6 percent 

cap provided in the Biological Opinion (USDI FWS 2007). Overall fuel treatments, in 

and outside the WUI, in lynx habitat, average 5 percent within lynx habitat on these 

Forests. 

In addition, The FWS Biological Opinion (2007) concluded that the proposed action is 

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of lynx within the contiguous United 

States DPS. It also found the selected alternative will allow lynx populations to persist 

on lands in occupied core and secondary areas within the foreseeable future, and 

unoccupied secondary and peripheral habitat is likely to retain habitat that provides 

opportunistic foraging habitat and connectivity adequate for dispersal of lynx, despite 

the lack of specific direction for lynx management. The opinion goes on to say the 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 116
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

42

incorporation of the management direction over the large geographic area occupied by 

lynx within 12 of the 18 National Forests (12,150,000 acres) contributes to the landscape 

level direction necessary for the survival and recovery of lynx in the northern Rockies 

ecosystem. 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act creates an affirmative obligation “. . . that all federal 

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and threatened species” of 

fish, wildlife, and plants. This obligation is further clarified in a National Interagency 

Memorandum of Agreement (August, 2000) which states our shared mission is to “. . . 

enhance conservation of imperiled species while delivering appropriate goods and 

services provided by the lands and resources.” 

We completed biological assessments (BAs) for all listed species; one for wildlife and 

fish, and one for plants. For all listed species, except for Canada lynx, we determined 

the preferred alternative would have “no effect” or would be “not likely to adversely 

affect” them. The determination for Canada lynx was that, while the management 

direction in selected alternative would improve lynx conservation, the plans amended 

by selected alternative would still be “likely to adversely affect” lynx because 

individuals could be adversely affected as a result of the exemptions and exceptions to 

the vegetation standards for fuel treatments projects and precommercial thinning. The 

BAs were submitted to the FWS. The FS consulted with the FWS on the determinations 

and they concurred with the “no effect” and “not likely to adversely affect” 

determinations. The FWS provided written review as required by Section 7 of the ESA 

(USDI FWS 2007). 

FWS issued a Biological Opinion on the “likely to adversely affect” determination on 

lynx (USDI FWS 2007). The opinion acknowledges the beneficial and adverse effects of 

the selected alternative. The opinion states that given the large number of acres covered 

by the proposed action, the existing plan language, and the beneficial effects of the 

management direction in the balance of these acres, the selected alternative is likely to 

have overall beneficial effects to lynx by addressing the primary threat identified at the 

time of listing: the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Even 

acknowledging some adverse effects could still occur, primarily due to the allowance 

for fuel treatment projects and precommercial thinning, the opinion found the selected 

alternative is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Canada lynx. The 

Opinion identifies incidental take and reasonable and prudent measure, with associated 

terms and conditions to reduce take. These measures have either been incorporated 

into the management direction (TC 1, 2, and 3) or agreed to in this decision (TC 4). 

Further section 7a consultation will occur on future site-specific projects and activities if 

they result in adverse affects to lynx. Future consultation will reference back to the BO 

issued on this decision to ensure the effects of the specific projects are commensurate 

with the effects anticipated in the opinion issued on this decision (USDI FWS 2007). 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 117
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

43

Critical habitat 

On November 9, 2006, FWS published the final rule for the designation of Canada lynx 

critical habitat (Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 217, pp. 66008 to 66061). National Forest 

System lands were not included in the critical habitat designation. There is no adverse 

modification to designated critical habitat from implementation of selected alternative. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

This decision is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. 

Projects undertaken following the management direction will comply fully with the 

laws and regulations that ensure protection of cultural resources. It is our 

determination this plan direction complies with the National Historic Preservation Act 

and other statutes that pertain to the protection of cultural resources. 

Clean Air Act 

This decision is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. 

Projects undertaken following the management direction will comply fully with the 

laws and regulations that ensure protection of air quality. It is our determination this 

plan direction complies with the Clean Air Act and other statutes that pertain to the 

protection of air quality. 

Clean Water Act 

This decision is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. 

Projects undertaken following the management direction will comply fully with the 

laws and regulations that ensure protection of water quality. It is our determination 

this plan direction complies with the Clean Water Act and other statutes that pertain to 

the protection of water quality. 

Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112) 

Executive Order 13112 directs federal agencies not to authorize any activities that 

would increase the spread of invasive species. This decision is a programmatic action 

and does not authorize site-specific activities. We determined this plan direction 

complies with Executive Order 13112. 

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) 

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, 

any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority populations and low-income populations. We determined from the analyses 

disclosed in the FEIS that this plan direction complies with Executive Order 12898. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 118
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

44

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land 

We determined from the analyses disclosed in the FEIS that prime farmland, rangeland, 

and forest land will not be affected by this decision because the selected alternative is a 

programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific activities. 

Equal Employment Opportunity, Effects on Minorities, Women 

The FEIS describes the impacts to social and economic factors in Chapter 3. The 

selected alternative will not have a disproportionate impact on any minority or lowincome communities. We determined the selected alternative will not differentially 

affect the civil rights of any citizens, including women and minorities. 

Wetlands and Floodplains (Executive Orders 11988 and 11990) 

The selected alternative is a programmatic action and does not authorize site-specific 

activities. We determined the selected alternative will not have adverse impacts on 

wetlands and floodplains and will comply with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. 

Other policies 

The existing body of national direction for managing National Forest System lands 

remains in effect. 

Implementation and appeal provisions 

The management direction will become effective 30 days after publication of the notice 

of availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register. Requests to stay implementation of 

the amended plans shall not be granted pursuant to 36 CFR 217.10. 

This decision is subject to review pursuant to 36 CFR 217.3 (available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx.html). Any appeals must be postmarked or 

received by the Appeal Reviewing Officer within 45 days of the date the legal notices 

are published in the The Missoulian, the newspaper of record. 

Appeals sent through the US Postal Service must be sent to: 

USDA Forest Service 

Attn: EMC Appeals 

Mail Stop 1104 

1400 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20250-1104 

Appeals sent through FedEx, UPS, or a courier service must be sent to: 

USDA Forest Service 

Ecosystem Management Coordination 

Attn: Appeals 

Yates Bldg., 3CEN 

201 14th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20250 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 119
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

45

Appeals may be hand-delivered to the above address during regular business hours, 

8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; or sent by fax to (202) 

205-1012; or by email to appeals-chief@fs.fed.us. Emailed appeals must be submitted in 

rich text format (.rtf) or Word (.doc) and must include the decision name in the subject 

line. Any notice of appeal must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 217.9 and include at a 

minimum: 

• A statement that the document is a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR 

Part 217; 

• The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant; 

• Identify the decision to which the objection is being made; 

• Identify the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject, 

date of the decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer; 

• Specifically identify the portion(s) of the decision or decision document to which 

objection is made; 

• The reasons for the appeal, including issues of fact, law, regulation, or policy 

and, if applicable, specifically how the decision violates law, regulation, or 

policy; and 

• Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks. 

Further information and contact person 

The Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction FEIS, the Summary, this ROD and 

the FWS Biological Opinion, as well as other background documents are available on 

the Web at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx.html. 

For further information regarding the FEIS, ROD, or the plan direction for Canada lynx 

contact: 

Timothy Bertram, Lynx Coordinator 

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region 

P.O. Box 7669 

Missoula, MT 59807 

Telephone: (406) 329-3611 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 120
Appendix G

Appendix G - 121
Appendix G

Appendix G - 122
Appendix G

Appendix G - 123
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

49

References Cited 

Apps, C.D. 2000. Space-use, diet, demographics and topographic associations of lynx in the 

southern Canadian Rocky Mountains: a study. Pages 351-371. Chapter 12. In Ruggiero, 

L.F., K. B. Aubry, S. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires, 

tech, eds. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of 

Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 p. Brittel, J.D., R.J. Poelker, S.J., Sweeney, and G.M. Koehler. 

1989. “Native cats of Washington. ” Unpublished report, Washington Department of 

Wildlife. Olympia, WA 169 p. 

Bailey, T.N. 1974. Social organization in a bobcat population. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:435-446 

Buskirk, S.W., L.F. Ruggiero, and C.J. Krebs. 2000. Habitat fragmentation and interspecific 

competition: implications for lynx conservation. Pages 83-100. Chapter 4. In Ruggiero, L. 

F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. 

Squires (Tech. Eds.). Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University 

Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 p. 

Bunnell, K. D., J. T. Flinders and M. L. Wolfe. 2006. Potential impacts of coyotes and 

snowmobiles on lynx conservation in the Intermountain West. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

34(3):828-838. 

Finney, M.A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire 

growth and behavior. For. Sci. 47(2):201-228. 

Hickenbottom, J. R., B. Summerfield, J. Aardahl, G. Halekas, M. Hilliard, L. Jackson, D. 

Prevedel, J. Rupe. 1999. Biological assessment of the effects of National Forest land and 

resource management plans and bureau of land management land use plans on Canada 

lynx. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden Utah. 149 p. 

Hillis, M., A. Jacobs and V. Wright. 2003. U. S. Forest Service region one Canada lynx 

assessment. Prepared by the National Fire Plan Cohesive Strategy Team. U.S. Forest 

Service, Northern Region. Missoula, Montana. 29 p. 

Idaho Transportation Department. 2004. Truck drivers, motorists, dignitaries and wildlife 

celebrate completion of U.S. 95 (Copeland) project. The Transporter. Idaho Transportation 

Department. 2 pp. 

Koehler, G.M. and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe 

hares. J.Forestry 88:10-14. 

Kolbe, J. A., J. R. Squires, D. H. Pletscher and L. F. Ruggiero. In press. The effect of 

snowmobile trails on coyote movements within lynx home ranges. J. Wildlife Management. 

McKelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, and Y.K. Ortega. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the 

contiguous United States. Pages 207-264. Chapter 8. In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. 

Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires (Tech Eds). Ecology and 

conservation of lynx in the United States. Univ. Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 p. 

Montana Department of Transporation, Federal Highway Administration, and 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. 2006. US 93 Ninepipe/Ronan Improvement 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 124
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

50

Project DSEIS and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. 574 pp – specifically reference pages 3-8 

to 3-18 which discuss wildlife crossings 

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/docs/eis_ea/eis_ninepipe.pdf 

Mowat G., K.G. Poole, and M. O’Donoghue. 2000. Ecology of lynx in northern Cascades and 

Alaska. Pages 265-306. Chapter 9. In Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. 

Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and J. R. Squires (Tech. Eds.). Ecology and 

conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 

p. 

Murray, D. L., S. Boutin and M. O’Donoghue. 1994. Winter habitat selection by lynx and 

coyotes in relation to snowshoe hare abundance. Can. J. Zool. 72:1444-1451. 

Roe, N.A., K.G. Poole and D.L. Day. 2000. “A review of lynx behavior and ecology and its 

application to ski area planning and management.” Unpublished report. IRIS Environmental 

Systems. Calgary, Alberta. 62 p. 

Ruediger, B. 1996. The relationship between rare carnivores and highways. Pages 24-38. In G. 

Evink, D.Zielger, P. Garret, and J.Berry (eds). Transportation and wildlife: reducing wildlife 

mortality/improving wildlife passages across transportation corridors. Proc. TransportationRelated Wildlife Mortality Seminar. 30 April- 2 May 1996, Orlando, FL. Florida Dept. 

Trans./Fed. Highway Admin. 

Ruediger, 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 (LCAS). USDA Forest Service, USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park 

Service. Publication Number R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 p. 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. 

Squires, tech. eds. 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University 

Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO. 480 pp. 

Squires, J. 2006. Wildlife Research biologist, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula MT. 

Todd A. W., L.B. Keith and C.A. Fischer. 1981. Population ecology of coyotes during a 

fluctuation of snowshoe hares. J.Wildl. Manage. 45:629-640. 

USDA Forest Service, 1998. Northern Region overview---summary and detailed report. 

Northern Region, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, MT. 263 p. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. A collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to 

communities and the environment. 10-year comprehensive strategy. August 2001. U.S. 

Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington DC. 21 p. 

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Park Service, the National Association of State Foresters and the National 

Association of Counties. 2003. Memorandum of Understanding for the development of a 

collaborative fuels treatment program. USFS Agreement #03-MU-11132001-023. 5 p. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Canada lynx conservation 

agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU-11015600-013. Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 12 p. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Canada Lynx conservation 

Agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU-11015600-013. Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 9 p. 

Appendix G

Appendix G - 125
Record of Decision – Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction 

51

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Occupied mapped Lynx 

habitat Amendment to the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement. Unpublished. 5 pp. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Canada Lynx Conservation 

Agreement. USFS Agreement #00-MU-11015600-013. Missoula, MT. Unpublished. 13 p. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Biological opinion on the effects of National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plans and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans 

on Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) in the contiguous United States. USDI, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Denver, Colorado. 70 p. + appendix. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Endangered and threatened animals and plants; 

determination of threatened status for the contiguous U.S. distinct population segment of 

the Canada lynx and related rule. Federal Register March 24, 2000. Vol. 65, No. 58, pages 

16051-16086. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; notice 

of remanded determination of status for the contiguous United States distinct population 

segment of the Canada lynx; clarifications of findings; final rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal 

Register Vol. 68, No. 128. pp 40076-40101. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery Plan Outline: Contiguous United States 

distinct population segment of the Canada lynx. Unpublished. Montana Field Office, 

Helena, Montana. 21 pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Northern 

Rockies Lynx Amendment on the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of Canada lynx (Lynx 

Canadensis) in the contiguous United States. Unpublished. Montana Field Office, Helena, 

Montana. 85 pp. 

USDI, USDA Forest Service. 2006. Protecting People and Natural Resources; A Cohesive Fuels 

Treatment Strategy. 59 pp. 

USDOT Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Eco-logical: An ecosystem approach to 

developing infrastructure projects. 99 p. 

(http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/ecological.pdf) 

Wyoming Department of Transportation. 2005. Statewide Long-range Transportation Plan. 

Wyoming Department of Transportation. 84 pp.

Appendix G

Appendix G - 126
APPENDIX H – KEY WATERSHEDS 

Chapter 3 of this Plan lists specific Goals, Objectives and Standards for 56 fish key 

watersheds and 15 restoration key watersheds. These watersheds are listed in the table 

below. The purpose and method for selection were different between fish key 

watersheds and restoration key watersheds. This is discussed below the table. Key 

watersheds will often receive priority over non-key watersheds for watershed 

analyses and restoration work, but not always. As watershed analysis and subsequent 

restoration projects are completed restoration watersheds may be removed from the 

list and others added 

Table 1. Key Watersheds Identified for this Planning Period 

Key Watershed Resource Emphasis District 

Blacktail fish Butte 

Columbus Gulch fish Butte 

German Gulch fish Butte 

Andrus fish Dillon 

Bear-Lima fish Dillon 

Buffalo fish Dillon 

Fox fish Dillon 

Nicholia Low fish Dillon 

Painter fish Dillon 

Reservoir fish Dillon 

Boulder Low fish Jefferson 

Boulder Up fish Jefferson 

Halfway fish Jefferson 

Little Boulder Up fish Jefferson 

Whitetail Up fish Jefferson 

Burnt fish Madison 

California fish Madison 

Greenhorn fish Madison 

Horse fish Madison 

Idaho fish Madison 

Indian-Tobaccoroot fish Madison 

Soap fish Madison 

Wall fish Madison 

Bielenberg fish Pintler 

Carpp fish Pintler 

Copper-AP Wild fish Pintler 

Copper-Boulder fish Pintler 

Cottonwood fish Pintler 

E F Rock Up fish Pintler 

Appendix H -1 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Key Watershed Resource Emphasis District 

Falls Fork fish Pintler 

Foster fish Pintler 

Fred fish Pintler 

Lower Willow Cr fish Pintler 

Meadow-Philipsburg fish Pintler 

M F Rock fish Pintler 

M F Rock Low fish Pintler 

N F Rock Low fish Pintler 

N F Rock Up fish Pintler 

Racetrack fish Pintler 

Rock Up fish Pintler 

Ross fish Pintler 

Sand Basin fish Pintler 

S Boulder fish Pintler 

S F Ross fish Pintler 

S F Willow fish Pintler 

Stony fish Pintler 

Twin Lakes fish Pintler 

Warm Springs fish Pintler 

W F Rock fish Pintler 

Harvey Creek fish Pintler 

Doolittle fish Wisdom 

Plimpton fish Wisdom 

Cherry Pioneers fish Wise River 

Deep fish Wise River 

Jerry Up fish Wise River 

Squaw-Pioneers fish Wise River 

Girard Gulch restoration Butte 

Birch restoration Dillon 

Lost-Pioneer restoration Dillon 

Saginaw restoration Dillon 

Willow Lower restoration Dillon 

Willow Upper restoration Dillon 

Beaver (Little Boulder) restoration Jefferson 

Hells Canyon restoration Jefferson 

Little Boulder Low restoration Jefferson 

North Fk Little Boulder restoration Jefferson 

Freezeout restoration Madison 

South Willow restoration Madison 

Appendix H - 2 
Appendix H 

Key Watershed Resource Emphasis District 

Moosehorn restoration Wisdom 

Seymour restoration Wisdom 

Sullivan restoration Wise River 

Methods for selecting Fish Key Watersheds 

Management in Fish Key Watersheds emphasizes conservation of westslope cutthroat 

and bull trout by protecting and restoring components, processes, and landforms that 

provide quality habitat. The objective for selecting Fish Key Watersheds was to 

prescribe this management direction to a well distributed group of the strongest 

populations across the Forest. The length of stream occupied by a population was 

used as the primary indicator for population strength. Watersheds with cutthroat 

populations which are, or nearly are, genetically pure, tended to receive greater 

consideration than those with lower percentages of purity. Achieving an adequate 

distribution was important. For this reason, some key watersheds were selected which 

have less robust populations than some others on the Forest. Maintaining migratory 

life histories is an important element of conservation. Thus, where connected habitats 

were important in sustaining populations, groups of watersheds were selected. The 

result was the clumping of key watersheds in the Rock Creek drainage. 

Methods for selecting Restoration Watersheds 

Management in Restoration Key Watersheds emphasizes restoration of integrated 

ecological processes at the watershed scale. A paper in the project file details methods 

and data used to identify priority restoration watersheds, “A Method to Identify 

Priority Restoration Watersheds for Use in the Region 1 Integrated Restoration and 

Protection Strategy,” Bryce A. Bohn, Hydrologist, Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, 2007. 

The method was developed for Region One use and implemented on the BDNF 

based on modifying a procedure developed by Winters et al. (2004d) titled, 

“Conceptual framework and protocols for conducting multiple scale aquatic, 

riparian, and wetland ecological assessments for the USDA Forest Service Rocky 

Mountain Region, Reports 1 and 2.” 

Watersheds were prioritized by identifying, evaluating, and ranking anthropogenic 

activities known to influence watershed condition. This assumes more activity in or 

near streams translates to a higher risk to watershed function. The table below 

identifies the activities and measurements used to rank watersheds. 

Table 2. Metrics used to assess watershed risk 

Activity Evaluation Criteria Applied within the Drainage Polygon 

Transportation Miles of roads within 300’ of stream channel/stream mile 

Number of stream crossings/stream mile 

Mineral Extraction Number of current and historic mines 

Number of mines within 300’ of stream channels 

Vegetation Management Percent of key watershed within an active grazing allotment 

Percent of suitable range within 300’ of stream channel (more than 10% 

of watershed must be within an active allotment) 

Appendix H - 3 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Appendix H - 4 

Percent of HUC with more than 60% crown removal within last 20 years 

Administrative 

Designation 

Miles of 303(d) listed stream/miles of stream channel 

The analysis process is summarized as follows: 

1. Anthropogenic activities in each watershed are evaluated. The watershed is 

assigned a ranking value (0 to 4) based on the relative contribution a given 

anthropogenic activity has had within the watershed (e.g., roads). 

2. Quartile ranking values for all activities are totaled for each watershed (e.g., 

rank sum). Rank sum values could range from a minimum of 0 (if the key 

watershed had none of the 8 activities) to a maximum 32 (if the key 

watershed had the top rank for each of the 8 activities). 

3. The distribution of the rank sums for all watersheds is divided into quartiles. 

Group 1 identifies those watersheds within the lowest quartile of cumulative 

rankings. Group 2 identifies watersheds within the 25th-50th percentiles of 

cumulative rankings. Group 3 identifies those watersheds within the 50th-75th

percentiles of cumulative rankings. Group 4 identifies those watersheds 

within the highest quartile of cumulative rankings. 

4. The distribution of these additive effects groups is mapped using GIS. 

5. The watersheds in Group 4 are then identified as having the highest risk of 

degraded conditions. This conclusion is then validated by district and forest 

staff members for restoration priority. 

This analysis was applied to the 348 watersheds on the BDNF which contained at 

least 10% National Forest System land. Fifteen were selected to focus watershed 

restoration activities on, in the next planning cycle. Not all of the watersheds, 

however, were selected from the 4th Quartile. For example, preference was given to 

Quartile 3 watersheds adjacent to important westslope cutthroat trout population if 

improved conditions would facilitate connectivity or aid viability. Similarly, 

preference was given to watersheds where integrated restoration opportunities 

compatible with watershed restoration were available. An attempt was made to 

distribute key restoration watersheds across landscapes and districts. Key watersheds 

will usually receive priority over non-key watersheds for analyses and restoration 

work. 
APPENDIX I - TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

FOR PROTECTION OF WOLVES 

Source: Extracted from US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion, 9/23/08, 

the Effects of the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (2008) For the 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest on Gray Wolves. 

This appendix will be revised to reflect the most current consultation in accordance 

with 50 CFR 402.16. 

Action area, as defined by the Act, is the entire area to be affected directly or 

indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the 

action. For the purposes of this biological opinion, we have defined the action area to 

be the area on the Forest where gray wolves are listed as endangered. Gray wolves 

that occur in the northern portions of the Forest west of I-15 and north of I-90 are 

within the northwest Montana Recovery Area and are listed as endangered. This 

encompasses portions of the Butte, Jefferson and Pintler Ranger Districts. For many 

years, the Forest has been conducting effects analyses under the assumption that 

wolves may be present in this area. 

Figure 1. Montana Wolf Management Areas 

Appendix I -1 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

Appendix I - 2 

Terms and conditions 

These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary: 

1. To proactively decrease the risk of wolf depredations, encourage allotment 

permittees to use non-lethal deterrents such as fladry and/or electric night pens. 

2. Include a clause in grazing permits that occur within the action area requiring 

the permittee to notify the Forest of any wolf depredation on livestock or 

conflicts between wolves and livestock, even if the conflict did not result in the 

loss of livestock, within 24 hours of discovery. The Forest shall work with 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Wildlife Control personnel to determine 

appropriate follow-up action(s). 

3. Include a clause in all grazing permits that occur within the action area 

requiring the permittee to notify the Forest of any livestock losses, regardless of 

the cause, within 24 hours of discovery. Agency personnel and the permittee 

would then jointly determine how to properly treat or dispose of livestock 

carcasses so as to eliminate any potential attractant for wolves. 

Reporting Requirements – to demonstrate compliance with the terms and conditions 

the Forest shall: 

1. Maintain an up-to-date record for the action area including but not limited to 

the following: 

a) Description of wolf conflicts and depredations; 

b) What was implemented to try to minimize conflicts (fladry, etc); 

c) Did conflict result in the lethal removal of a wolf or wolves 

2. Complete a report with this information and submit it to the Service’s Montana 

Field Office by March 1 of each year for the preceding calendar year. 

3. The Forest shall notify the Service’s Montana Field Office if a change in the 

status of sheep grazing on the Forest is being considered. 

4. The Forest shall notify the Service’s Montana Field Office, within 72 hours of 

any livestock depredation by wolves or the management removal or humancaused death of a wolf. 
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Beaverhead-Deerlodge

National Forest

420 Barrett Street

Dillon, MT 59725

406 683-3900

 Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

File Code: 1920

Date: August 22, 2013

Forest Planning Participants

Leaf will

turn this text

white so it won't 

print

dillon, MT 59725

Dear Forest Plan Revision Participant:

Please insert the enclosed “Forest Plan Errata” sheet at the beginning of your printed copies of 

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Plan. Then replace Forest Plan pages 45-48 and 287-

288. These corrections are administrative changes to the Forest Plan including correction of 

clerical errors and changes to other contents in the plan as described in 36CFR 219.13(c) and 

219.7(f). 

This letter serves as public notice of the administrative changes described in the errata sheet (36 

CFR 219.16(c)(6)). The enclosed corrections to the Forest Plan become effective tomorrow. 

An electronic copy of the Forest Plan (with corrected pages) is available on the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest webpage at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/bdnf/forest-plan. An 

electronic copy of this letter and the enclosed corrected pages are available at the same site. 

Please click “Link to Environmental Impact...” at the bottom of the page. 

Thank you for your continued interest in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. If you have 

any questions about the attached documents or this letter, please call Peri Suenram at 406/683-

3900 or Jan Bowey at 406/842-5432. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Timothy Garcia

TIMOTHY GARCIA

Acting Forest Supervisor

 
This page blank so the following pages print front-to-back in the right order assuming your printer has 

the capacity to print on both sides. 
Corrections to the Forest Plan

Forest Plan Errata - 1

August 23, 2013

CORRECTED FOREST PLAN 

REPLACEMENT PAGES

This package of replacement pages provides administrative changes for the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Please 

insert the errata pages as the first two pages in printed copies of the Forest Plan and replace 

Forest Plan pages 45-48 and 287-288.

The Forest Plan has been updated on the web at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/bdnf/forestplan and the corrected pages are also posted separately at the bottom of the list of Forest 

Plan sections.

ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

Page 45

• The titles for Wildlife Habitat Goals addressing “Wildlife Secure Areas and 

Connectivity” and “Wildlife Security” were switched when the Forest Plan was 

published in 2009. These titles are now associated with the correct goal.

• The Wildlife Habitat Goal “Wildlife Security” is associated with the density of 

roads and trails open to motorized use year-round by landscape as displayed in 

Table 13. When the Forest Plan was published in 2009, the title of Table 13 and 

column header previously included the word “summer”. Since this goal applies to 

motorized road and trail use year-round, the word summer has been removed from 

the title and column header of Table 13.

Page 46

• The word “summer” has been removed from the column header at the top of Page 

46 for the reason previously described for Page 45.

• The footnote on Table 13 previously read “This does not include roads available for 

permitted or administrative use”. This footnote originated with a table of values in 

the DEIS analysis displaying a preliminary data run of existing condition and 

represented only a portion of the interdisciplinary team analysis conducted. The 

footnote was inappropriately and inadvertently copied to Table 13. Open motorized 

road and trail density goals displayed in Table 13 were intended to include ALL 

motorized routes. The footnote words “does not include” have been replaced with 

the word “includes”.

Page 47

The footnote on Table 14 previously read as described above for Page 46. The footnote 

words “does not include” have been replaced with the word “includes” for the same reason.
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Forest Plan Errata - 2

August 23, 2013

Page 48

• No changes.

Page 288

• The term “Elk Security Area” as defined in the glossary was considered in the 

analysis of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) in the Corrected FEIS for the 

Forest Plan. This concept, however, was not selected as the methodology to be used 

in the Forest Plan as reflected in the Selected Alternative (Alternative 6 Modified) 

in the 2009 ROD. Unfortunately, much of the glossary from the FEIS was copied to 

the Forest Plan and inadvertently included a definition for Elk Security Area; a

concept not used in the Forest Plan. Rather, “Wildlife Security” as described on 

page 45 is the applicable concept as it addresses density of open motorized roads 

and trails that can affect a number of wildlife species including, but not limited to, 

elk. The definition for Elk Security Area has been removed from the Forest Plan 

glossary.

Page 289

• The term “Elk Habitat Effectiveness,” as previously defined in the glossary was 

also considered in the analysis of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) in the 

FEIS for the Forest Plan and inadvertently copied in the same way “Elk Security 

Area” was. The definition for Elk Habitat Effectiveness has been removed from the 

Forest Plan glossary for the same reason described above for page 288.
Chapter Three

Forestwide Direction

Corrected - 45

August 23, 2013

WILDLIFE HABITAT

Goals

Habitat: Cover and forage for animals is provided by a mosaic of species and age classes of 

native trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs. See Vegetation Goals for details.

Grizzly Bear Conflicts: Conflicts between grizzly bears and humans or human activities in 

occupied grizzly bear habitat, are managed such that the removal of a bear is not necessary.

Connectivity: Forest management contributes to wildlife linkages between landscapes, 

unless landscape isolation is determined to be beneficial. Linkage areas are those areas 

identified for large carnivores and ungulates through multi-agency coordination. Options 

may include, but are not limited to:

• Maintaining Forest Service ownership at highway and road crossings,

• Consolidating ownership at approach areas to highway and road crossings 

substantiated by empirical data as necessary to facilitate wildlife movement, 

and

• Providing secure habitat at the landscape scale to facilitate large animal 

movement.

Sage Grouse: Sagebrush habitat supports sage grouse and pygmy rabbit populations by 

providing suitable sage grouse brood-rearing habitat on at least 40% of the sagebrush habitat

within 18 kilometers of documented active or inactive sage grouse leks and the area mapped 

as potential pygmy rabbit habitat. 

Wildlife Secure Areas and Connectivity: Secure areas and connectivity for ungulates and 

large carnivores are provided, while recognizing the variety of recreational opportunities. 

Grizzly Bear Security: The Gravelly Landscape is maintained to achieve 60% or greater 

secure areas (Scale - Gravelly Landscape).

Wildlife Security: Manage density of open motorized roads and trails by landscape yearround, except fall rifle big game season, to achieve levels at or below the following (Scale -

Landscapes):

Table 13. Density of Roads and Trails Open to Motorized Use by Landscape

Landscape Desired Open Motorized Road and 

Trail Density 

Miles per Sq. Mile*

Big Hole 1.2

Boulder River 1.9

Clark Fork - Flints 1.9

Gravelly 0.7

Jefferson River 1.6

Lima Tendoy 1.0
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Corrected - 46

August 23, 2013

Landscape Desired Open Motorized Road and 

Trail Density 

Miles per Sq. Mile*

Madison 0.0

Pioneer 1.5

Tobacco Roots 1.3

Upper Clark Fork 2.0

Upper Rock Creek 0.9

*This includes roads available for permitted or administrative use.

Elk Security: Elk security is managed to provide quality elk habitat, provide a variety of 

recreational hunting opportunities, and provide support for Montana’s fair chase emphasis.

Manage open motorized road and trail density by MTFWP hunting units as of 2006 - on 

National Forest lands during the fall rifle big game season, to achieve levels at or below the 

following: (Scale - Hunting Unit)

Table 14. Hunting Season Open Motorized Road/Trail Densities by Hunting Unit

Hunting Unit Desired Fall Open Motorized Road and Trail Density

Miles per Sq. Mile*

210 0.9

211 0.5

212 1.4

213 1.4

214 1.6

215 1.5

216 0.8

300 0.6

302 1.0

311 0.0

318 1.8

319 0.6

320 0.8

321 1.1

323 0.5

324 0.4

327 0.8

328 0.8

329 1.1

330 0.7

331 1.5

332 0.8
Chapter Three

Forestwide Direction

Corrected - 47

August 23, 2013

Hunting Unit Desired Fall Open Motorized Road and Trail Density

Miles per Sq. Mile*

333 0.9

340 1.4

341 0.5

350 1.3

360 0.0

362 0.0

370 1.0

*This includes roads available for permitted or administrative use.

Objectives

Grizzly Bear Conflicts: Implement food storage and sanitation orders in areas classified as 

occupied grizzly bear habitat. 

Road and Trail Densities by Hunting Unit: From October 15 to December 1, reduce the 

open motorized road and trail densities in hunting units 215 to 1.5; 300 to 0.6; 302 to 1.0; 

318 to 1.8; 333 to .9; 341 to .5; and 350 to 1.3 miles per square mile or less.

Road and Trail Densities by Landscape: Reduce the open motorized road and trail 

densities from May 16 to December 1 in the Boulder River Landscape to 1.9 and Jefferson 

River Landscape to 1.6 miles per square miles or less.

Management Indicator Species: Maintain habitat conditions for elk security and winter 

habitat integrity for wolverine and mountain goat as reflected by changes in abundance of 

these Management Indicator Species (MIS).

Sage Grouse: Maintain or improve sagebrush height, and canopy and grass-forb canopy of 

sagebrush habitat, emphasizing habitat within 18 kilometers of documented active or inactive 

sage grouse leks and the area mapped as potential pygmy rabbit habitat.

Snags: Snags and woody debris are well distributed by vegetation category and size class 

over time.

Sensitive and Federally Listed Species: Information in the following sources should be

considered when designing projects that may affect sensitive species or federally listed 

species.

 Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana 

 Northern Region Conservation Assessment for Northern Goshawk, Black-backed 

Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, and Pileated Woodpecker (March 2006)

 Montana Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

 Grizzly Bear Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (GYA)

 Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Recovery Plan
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Corrected - 48

August 23, 2013

 Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. (refer to the State conservation plan or other 

appropriate plan.)

Standards 

Standard 1: From October 15 to December 1 Hunting Units that exceed the open motorized 

road and trail density objective will have no net increase in designated open motorized road 

and trail mileage (Scale - Hunting Units on National Forest lands).

Standard 2: Landscapes that exceed the open motorized road and trail objective will have no 

net increase in designated open motorized road and trail mileage (Scale – Landscapes on 

National Forest System Lands).

Standard 3: Mechanical vegetation treatments will:

Retain all snags greater than 20” dbh (except for hazard trees).

In addition, do not reduce the number of snags greater than 15.0” dbh per acre in 

treatment units below the levels shown in the Table 12, calculated as an average for the 

total treatment unit acreage in a project area. This calculation allows variability among 

treatment units which produces a more natural clumpy distribution.

If there are insufficient snags in treatment units, live trees in the same size class must be 

retained and counted towards the snag requirement. These would be in addition to any 

requirements of Standard 4. 

These per acre requirements do not apply to the treatment units if analysis shows the 

levels of snags will be met for the project area as a whole.

If, in the project area as a whole, there are insufficient live trees and/or snags greater than 

15.0” dbh, the standard is deemed complied with by retention of the existing live trees 

and/or snags greater than 15.0” dbh in the treatment units.

Table 12. Minimum average snags per acre to be retained, calculated for the total treatment unit acreage in a 

project area.

Vegetation Category

Minimum average snags per acre to retain

Snags > 15.0” dbh

Warm 3.6

Cool 8

Cold 5

PICO 6.4

Standard 4: Do not reduce the number of live trees greater than 10.0” dbh per acre in 

regeneration harvest treatment units (to provide future snags) below the levels shown in 

Table 13 on the next page.
Glossary

Corrected - 287

August 23, 1003

Disturbance: Any event, such as wildfire or timber harvest that alters the structure, 

composition, or function of an ecosystem.

Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities 

and species within the area covered by a land and resource management plan.

Dominance Types for the BDNF: 

• If the dominance type is single species, the species comprises greater than or 

equal to 60%.

• If the dominance type is two species, the 1st species comprises roughly 40-80%

• If the dominance type is three species, the 1st species comprises roughly 20-

60%.

• If no three species can be assigned, the 1st species is a MIX, for BDNF this is 

either tolerant mix (TASH) or intolerant mix (IMIX).

E

Economics: The study of allocation of limited resources, goods, and services among 

competing uses.

Ecosystem: A naturally occurring, self-maintained system of varied living and nonliving interacting parts that are organized into biophysical and human dimension 

components.

Ecosystem Integrity: A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are 

sustained over time and where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, 

such that goals for uses, values, and services of the ecosystem are met.

Ecosystem Management: Scientifically based land and resource management that 

integrates ecological capabilities with social values and economic relationships, to 

produce, restore, or sustain ecosystem integrity and desired conditions, uses, 

products, values, and services over the long term.

Ecosystem Structure: The biological and physical attributes that shape ecological 

systems. Biotic attributes include: population size, structure, and range, foliage 

density and layering, snags, large woody debris, or the size, shape, and spatial 

relationships of cover types within a landscape. Physical attributes include: soil and 

geologic substrate variables, slope and aspect, or stream gradient.

Encroach: Plant succession in the absence of disturbance, in areas the plant type is 

not desired. 

Eligibility (for Wild and Scenic Rivers): A river is eligible for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic River System if it is free flowing and has at least one riverrelated value that is considered outstandingly remarkable.
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Corrected - 288

August 23, 1003

Endangered Species: Designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and animal 

or plant that has been given federal protection status because it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its natural range.

Energy Transmission Facility: Pipelines or power lines and associated structures 

and equipment used to transmit bulk electricity, crude oil, natural gas, refined 

petroleum products, or hydrogen from generation or collection points to distribution 

points. Electric transmission lines are generally larger than 66 KV. Transmission 

facilities do not include smaller distribution lines serving residential or commercial 

end use. Transmission facilities do not include oil and gas field production, gathering, 

or collection lines or facilities.

Entrenchment Ratio: Entrenchment describes the relationship of the river to its 

valley and landform features. Entrenchment is qualitatively defined as the vertical 

containment of a river and the degree to which it is incised in the valley floor 

(Kellerhals et al. 1972). The term entrenchment ratio, the vertical containment of the 

river, has been quantitatively defined (Rosgen 1994) to provide a consistent method 

for field determination. The entrenchment ratio is the ratio of the width of the floodprone area to the surface width of the bankfull channel. Ratios of 1-1.4 represent 

entrenched streams; 1.41-2.2 represent moderately entrenched streams; and ratios 

great than 2.2 indicate rivers only slightly entrenched, (Rosgen, 1996) 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): A detailed statement prepared by the 

responsible official for a major federal action, which significantly affects the quality 

of the human environment. Alternatives to the proposed action are provided, and 

effects analyzed.

Even-Aged Management: The application of a combination of actions that results in 

the creation of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. 

Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed tree cutting produce even-aged stands of essentially 

the same age.

Extent of Concern: The portion of a travel route for which a Scenic Concern Level 

has been assigned. The extent of concern for sites is not listed, but can be described as 

the perimeter of developed or heavily used areas. The extent of concern provides the 

general location for project analysis viewpoints and visibility mapping.

F

Facilities: Picnic tables, toilets, hardened campsites, campground, other buildings or 

structures.

Fire-Dependent Ecosystem: Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically 

composed of species that evolved with and are maintained by periodic fire.
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest 

Dear Forest Plan Revision Participant: 

420 Barrett Street 

Dillon, MT 59725 

406 683-3900 

File Code: 1920 

Date: September 12, 2014 

Please-inseFt-tht>-enclosed-"Fmest I'-lan-Errata''-sheet-as tht>-third-page-~behind Forest-Elan-Errata---

! and 2) in printed copies of the Forest Plan and replace Forest Plan pages 295-296. Adding a 

definition to the glossary is an administrative change to the Forest Plan as described in 36 CFR 

219.13(c). 

This letter serves as public notice of the administrative change described in the errata sheet (3.6 

CFR 219.16(c)(6)). The enclosed correction to the Forest Plan becomes effective tomorrow. 

An electronic copy of the Forest Plan (with corrected pages) is available on the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest webpage at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/bdnf/forest-plan. An 

electronic copy of this letter and the enclosed corrected pages are available at the same site 

(scroll to bottom of the page). 

This letter also informs you of the availability of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS) to Comply with a District of Montana Court Order (Temporary Roads) and 

the court ordered Explanation of Prior Decision. These documents explain why the definition for 

"Open Motorized Road and Trail Density" is being added to the Forest Plan glossary. The 

FSEIS ancLExplanation.are electronically available at the abovewebpage. Scrollto_the_bottom 

of the page and click on "Link to environmental impact statement..." These are not large 

documents and should readily download to most computers. 

Thanks you for your continued interest in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. If you 

have questions about the attached docQment or this letter, please-call-f'eri-Suenram at 406/683-

3900 or Jan Bowey at 406/842-5432. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosures 

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

Forest Plan Errata - 3

September 12, 2014

Corrections to the Forest Plan

CORRECTED FOREST PLAN

REPLACEMENTPAGES

This package of replacement pages provides administrative changes for the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Please 

insert this errata page as the third page (behind Forest Plan Errata 1 and 2) in printed 

copies of the Forest Plan and replace Forest Plan pages 295-296.

The Forest Plan has been updated on the web at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/bdnf/forest- plan and the corrected pages are also posted 

separately at the bottom of the list of Forest Plan sections.

ADMINISTRATIVE

CHANGES

Page 295

• A definition for Open Motorized Road and Trail Density (OMRTD) has been 

added to the Forest Plan Glossary.

Page 296

• No changes.

Glossary

Corrected - 295

September 12, 2014

N

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as amendments to the Forest

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act that requires the preparation of regional and 

forest plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

requires environmental analysis and public disclosure of federal actions.

National Forest Scenic Byway: A road on National Forest System Land that has been 

designated by the Chief of the Forest Service for its exceptional scenic, historic, cultural, 

recreational, or natural resources.

National Forest System Road: A forest road other than a road which has been authorized by a 

legally documented right-of-way held by a state, county, or other local public road authority. (36 

CFR 212.1; 36 CFR 251.51; 36 CFR 261.2) 

Natural Appearing Landscape Character: Landscape character resulting from human 

activities, yet appears natural, such as historic conversion of native forests into farmlands, 

pastures, and hedgerows that have reverted back to forests through reforestation activity or 

natural regeneration. 

O

Objective - A concise, time-specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to preestablished goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps to 

be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified goals (36 CFR 219.3).

Occupied Grizzly Bear Habitat: Areas where there is high likelihood person will encounter a 

grizzly bear with her cubs of the year. 

Occupied mapped Lynx Habitat: All mapped lynx habitat on an entire national forest is 

considered “occupied” by lynx when:

1-There are at least 2 verified lynx observations or records since 1999 on the national forest 

unless they are verified to be transient individuals; or

2-There is evidence of lynx reproduction (dens) on the national forest.

Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV). Any motorized vehicle designed for or capable of cross-county 

travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural 

terrain. (36 CFR 212.1; FSM 2353.05)

Old Growth: The definition of Old Growth as found in Green, et. al., Old-Growth Forest Types 

of the Northern Region, R-1 SES 4/92: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT 

59807. 

Open Motorized Road and Trail Density (OMRTD): A measurement of motorized routes 

open to use, measured at the completion of project implementation in miles per square mile. It 

consists of motorized roads and trails that fall within the external forest boundary and are (1) 

open to public motorized use, (2) open for permitted and/or administrative use and remain on the 

landscape, (3) temporary unless obliterated at project completion, and (4) motorized routes on 

private inholdings.
Glossary

Corrected - 296

September 12, 2014

Outstandingly Remarkable Value: Characteristic of a river segment that is judged to be a rare, 

unique, or exemplary feature that is significant at a regional or natural scale. Values can be 

recreational, scenic, geological, historical, cultural, biological, botanical, ecological, heritage, 

hydrological, paleontological, scientific, or research-related.

P

PSU Dominance Type: 

If the dominance type is single species; the species comprises >= 60%,

If dominance type is 2 species, the 1st species comprises roughly 80-40%, 

If the dominance type is 3 species, the 1st species comprises roughly 60-20%

If no 3 species can be assigned, the 1st species is a MIX, For the BDNF this is either tolerant 

mix (TASH), or intolerant mix (IMXS)

Pastoral Landscape Character: Landscape character that is the result of human activities, 

containing positive cultural elements such as historic conversion of native forests into farmlands, 

pastures, and hedgerows, plus some remnants of native forests.

Pattern: The spatial arrangement of landscape elements (patches, corridors, matrix) that 

determines the function of a landscape as an ecological system.

Play: A known or possible accumulation of oil or gas sharing similar geologic properties.

Prescribed Fire: Any fire ignited by management action to meet specific objectives. All 

prescribed fires are conducted in accordance with prescribed fire plans.

Properly Functioning Condition (PFC): Ecosystems are in PFC when they function within 

their historic range of variability.

Proposed Action: A project or set of activities that a federal agency intends to implement, as 

defined in NEPA regulations.

Public Involvement: Any process designed to broaden the information base upon which agency 

decisions are made by informing the public about Forest Service activities, plans, and decisions 

to encourage public understanding about and participation in the planning processes which lead 

to final decision-making.

Q 

R

Rangeland: Land on which the potential natural plant community is predominantly grass, grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing.

Reach: A segment of stream. Segment length will vary based on resource values being 

considered. For example, if trout over-wintering habitat is a consideration for analysis and overwintering pools are confined to 1⁄4 mile of stream; the reach analyzed for fisheries may be defined 

as 1⁄4 mile. Similarly, if hydrologic function of the channel is being evaluated on a stream with 

1.5 miles of the same type of channel conditions, the reach analyzed for hydrology may be 1.5 

miles.
Greater Sage Grouse Record of Decision for Idaho and Southwest Montana, Nevada and Utah | 73 

APPROVAL

Based upon my review of all the alternatives, I approve the attached LMP amendments for the 

identified NFS lands in Idaho and Southwest Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming (Attachments A, 

B, C and D). This ROD and the LMP amendments become effective on the date this ROD is signed.

This decision is not subject to appeal; it constitutes final agency action and no further 

administrative remedies are available. 

Approved by:
 74 | Greater Sage Grouse Record of Decision for Idaho and Southwest Montana, Nevada and Utah

CONTACT PERSON

For additional information concerning this decision, contact:

Chris Iverson,

Deputy Regional Forester

Intermountain Region

Ogden, Utah

civerson@fs.fed.us

801-625-5605.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS – 

LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS 

Attachment A – Idaho and Southwest Montana GRSG Land 

Management Plan Amendment

Attachment B – Nevada GRSG Land Management Plan Amendment

Attachment C – Utah GRSG Land Management Plan Amendment

Attachment D – Wyoming GRSG Land Management Plan Amendment

Monitoring and Mitigation (applies to all plan amendments)

Appendix A - Monitoring Framework 

Appendix B - Mitigation Strategy

Adaptive Management Plan (applies to NV, UT and ID plan amendments)

Appendix C - Adaptive Management 
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 75 

ATTACHMENT A – GREATER SAGE-GROUSE IDAHO AND 

SOUTHWEST MONTANA PLAN AMENDMENT

Forest Service Plan Components1

Desired condition – A description of specific social, economic, and/or ecological characteristics of 

the plan area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which management of the land and resources 

should be directed. Desired conditions must be described in terms that are specific enough to allow 

progress toward their achievement to be determined but do not include completion dates. 

Objective – A concise, measurable, and time-specific statement of a desired rate of progress toward 

a desired condition or conditions. Objectives should be based on reasonably foreseeable budgets. 

Standard – A mandatory constraint on project and activity decision making established to help 

achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions; to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects; or 

to meet applicable legal requirements. 

Guideline – A constraint on project and activity decision making that allows for departure from its 

terms so long as the purpose of the guideline is met. Guidelines are established to help achieve or 

maintain a desired condition or conditions; to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects; or to meet 

applicable legal requirements. 

The direction in the following standards and guidelines will be applied consistently with applicable 

valid existing rights, laws, and regulations.

General Greater Sage-grouse 

GRSG-GEN-DC-001-Desired Condition – The landscape for the greater sage-grouse encompasses 

large contiguous areas of native vegetation, approximately 6-to-62 square miles in area, to provide 

for multiple aspects of species life requirements. Within these landscapes, a variety of sagebrushcommunity compositions exist without invasive species, which have variations in subspecies 

composition, co-dominant vegetation, shrub cover, herbaceous cover, and stand structure to meet 

seasonal requirements for food, cover, and nesting for the greater sage-grouse. 

GRSG-GEN-DC-002-Desired Condition – Anthropogenic disturbance is focused in non-habitat

areas outside of priority, important, and general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas.2 Disturbance in general habitat management areas is limited, and there is little to no 

disturbance in priority and important habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas except 

for valid existing rights and existing authorized uses. 

 

1 Plan component definitions are based on generally accepted meanings under the 1982 rule and the Forest Service Plan Wording Style 

Guide 2009, http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5260265.pdf. 

2 Priority management areas and general management areas may contain non-habitat, but management direction would not apply to 

those areas of non-habitat. However, management direction would apply to all areas within sagebrush focal areas including non-habitat. 
 76 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

GRSG-GEN-DC-003-Desired Condition – In all greater sage-grouse habitat, including all seasonal 

habitat, 70% or more of lands capable of producing sagebrush have from 10 to 30% sagebrush 

canopy cover and less than 10% conifer canopy cover. In addition, within breeding and nesting 

habitat, sufficient herbaceous vegetation structure and height provides overhead and lateral 

concealment for nesting and early brood rearing life stages. Within brood rearing habitat, wet 

meadows and riparian areas sustain a rich diversity of perennial grass and forb species relative to 

site potential. Within winter habitat, sufficient sagebrush height and density provides food and 

cover for the greater sage-grouse during this seasonal period. Specific desired conditions for the 

greater sage-grouse based on seasonal habitat requirements are in table 1. 

Table 1. Seasonal Habitat Desired Conditions for Greater Sage-grouse at the Landscape Scale.

ATTRIBUTE INDICATORS DESIRED CONDTION

BREEDING AND NESTING1,2,3 (Seasonal Use Period from March 1 to June 15) 

Apply 6.2 miles from active leks. 4

Lek Security 

Proximity of trees5 Trees or other tall structures are absent to 

uncommon within 1.86 miles of leks.6,7

Proximity of sagebrush to leks6 Adjacent protective sagebrush cover within 328 

feet of lek.6

Cover

Seasonal habitat extent7 (Percent of 

seasonal habitat meeting desired 

conditions)

>80% of the breeding and nesting habitat. 

Sagebrush canopy cover6,7,8 15 to 25%.

Sagebrush height7

 Arid sites6,7,9

 Mesic sites6,7,10

12 to 32 inches. 

16 to 32 inches.

Predominant sagebrush shape6 >50% in spreading. 11

Perennial grass canopy cover6,7

 Arid sites7,9

 Mesic sites7,10

>10%.

>15%.

Perennial grass height6,7,8 Provide overhead and lateral concealment from 

predators.7,15

Perennial forb canopy cover6,7,8

 Arid sites9

 Mesic sites10

>5%.6,7

>10%.6,7

BROOD-REARING/SUMMER1 (Seasonal Use Period from June 16 to October 31) 

Cover Seasonal habitat extent7 (Percent of 

seasonal habitat meeting desired 

conditions) >40% of the brood-rearing/summer habitat. 

Sagebrush canopy cover6,7,8 10 to 25%.

Sagebrush height7,8 16 to 32 inches. 

Perennial grass and forb canopy cover7,8 >15%.

Riparian areas/mesic meadows Proper functioning condition.12 

Upland and riparian perennial forb 

availability6,7

Preferred forbs are common with several 

preferred species present 13

Sagebrush cover adjacent to riparian 

areas/mesic meadows6 Within 328 feet.
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 77 

ATTRIBUTE INDICATORS DESIRED CONDTION

WINTER1 (Seasonal Use Period from November 1 to February 28)

Cover and Food 

Seasonal habitat extent6,7,8 (Percent of 

seasonal habitat meeting desired 

conditions.)

>80% of the winter habitat. 

Sagebrush canopy cover above snow6,7,8 >10%. 

Sagebrush height above snow6,7,8 >10 inches.14

1Seasonal dates can be adjusted; that is, start and end dates may be shifted either earlier or later, but the local unit cannot lengthen or 

shorten the amount of days.

2 Doherty, K. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating Science with Conservation Planning to Reduce Impacts. University of 

Montana. Missoula, MT.

3 Holloran and Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-grouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush habitats. Condor 

107:742-752.

4 Buffer distance may be changed only if 3 out of 5 years if peer-reviewed and published telemetry studies indicate the 6.2 miles is not 

appropriate.

5 Baruch-Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P Severson, D.E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski. C.A. Hagen, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving 

sage-grouse from trees: A proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate species. Biological Conservation 167: 233-241.

6 Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl, eds., 2015. Sage-Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A 

Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference 6710-1. BLM and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, Colorado. 

7 Connelly, J., M. A. Schroweder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and its habitat. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 28 (4): 967-985.

8 Connelly, J., K. Reese, and M. Schroder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. Station Bulletin 80, Contribution 

979. University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources Experiment Station. Moscow, ID.

9 10–12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver et al. 

2015).

10 >12 inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type site (Stiver et al. 2015).

11 Sagebrush plants with a spreading shape provide more protective cover than sagebrush plants that are more tree- or columnar shaped 

(Stiver et al. 2015). 

12 Existing LMP desired conditions for riparian areas/wet meadows (spring seeps) may be used in place of properly functioning conditions, 

if appropriate for meeting greater sage-grouse habitat requirements.

13 Preferred forbs are listed in Table III-2 (Stiver et al. 2015). Overall total forb cover may be greater than that of preferred forb cover since 

not all forb species are listed as preferred in Table III-2.

14 The height of sagebrush remaining above the snow depends upon snow depth in a particular year. Intent is to manage for tall, healthy 

sagebrush stands.

GRSG-GEN-ST-004-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do 

not issue new discretionary written authorizations unless all existing discrete anthropogenic 

disturbances cover less than 3% of the total greater sage-grouse habitat within the Biologically 

Significant Unit and the proposed project area, regardless of ownership, and the new use will not 

cause exceedance of the 3% cap. Southwestern Montana will use a 3% disturbance cap until the 

State of Montana Strategy, which uses a 5% disturbance cap for all lands and all disturbances, is 

fully implemented. The BLM in Montana has developed conditions to be met before the change in 

the disturbance cap. Discretionary activities that might result in disturbance above 3% (5% in 

Montana when fully implemented) at the Biologically Significant Unit and proposed project area 

would be prohibited unless approved by the forest supervisor with concurrence from the regional 

forester after review of new or site-specific information that indicates the project would result in a 

net conservation gain at the Biologically Significant Unit and proposed project area scale. Within 

existing designated utility corridors, the 3% disturbance cap may be exceeded at the project scale if 

the site specific NEPA analysis indicates that a net conservation gain to the species will be achieved. 
 78 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

This exception is limited to projects that fulfill the use for which the corridors were designated (e.g., 

transmission lines, pipelines) and the designated width of a corridor will not be exceeded as a 

result of any project co-location. Consider the likelihood of surface disturbing activities as a result 

of development of valid existing rights when authorizing new projects in priority habitat 

management areas.

GRSG-GEN-ST-005-Standard – In priority, general, and important management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, only allow new authorized land uses if, after avoiding and minimizing 

impacts, any remaining residual impacts to the greater sage-grouse or its habitat are fully offset by 

compensatory mitigation projects that provide a net conservation gain to the species, subject to 

valid existing rights by applying beneficial mitigation actions. Any compensatory mitigation will be 

durable, timely, and in addition to what would have resulted without the compensatory mitigation 

as addressed in the Mitigation Framework (Appendix B).

GRSG-GEN-ST-006-Standard – Do not authorize new surface disturbing and disruptive activities 

that create noise at 10dB above ambient measured at the perimeter of an occupied lek during 

lekking (from March 1 to April 30) from 6 p.m. to 9 a.m. Do not include noise resulting from human 

activities that have been authorized and initiated within the past 10 years in the ambient baseline 

measurement.

GRSG-GEN-GL-007-Guideline – During breeding and nesting (from March 1 to June 15), surface 

disturbing and disruptive activities to nesting birds should be avoided. 

GRSG-GEN-GL-008-Guideline – When breeding and nesting habitat overlaps with other seasonal 

habitat, habitat should be managed for breeding and nesting desired conditions in table 1. 

GRSG-GEN-GL-009-Guideline – Development of tall structures within 2 miles from the perimeter 

of occupied leks, as determined by local conditions (e.g., vegetation or topography), with the 

potential to disrupt breeding or nesting by creating new perching/nesting opportunities for avian 

predators or by decreasing the use of an area, should be restricted within nesting habitat. 

Adaptive Management

GRSG-AM-ST-010-Standard – If a hard trigger is identified, management direction applying to 

priority habitat management areas will be applied to important habitat management areas within 

the Conservation Area in Idaho, and the Sage-Grouse Implementation Task Force will evaluate 

available and pertinent data and recommend additional potential implementation level activities to 

the appropriate Forest Service line officer in both Idaho and Southwest Montana (Appendix C). 

GRSG-AM-ST-011-Standard – If a soft trigger is identified, the Forest Service will review available 

and pertinent data in coordination with the Sage-grouse Implementation Task Force, which may 

recommend potential implementation level activities to the appropriate agency line officer

(Appendix C). 
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 79 

Lands and Realty 

Special-use Authorizations (non-recreation)

GRSG-LR-SUA-O-012-Objective – In nesting habitat, retrofit existing tall structures (e.g., power 

poles, communication tower sites) with perch deterrents or other anti-perching devices within 2 

years of signing the ROD. 

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-013-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, restrict issuance of new lands special-use authorizations for

infrastructure, such as high-voltage transmission lines, major pipelines, distribution lines, and 

communication tower sites. Exceptions may include co-location and must be limited (e.g., safety 

needs) and based on rationale (e.g., monitoring, modeling, or best available science) that 

explicitly demonstrates that adverse impacts to the greater sage-grouse will be avoided by the 

exception. If co-location of new infrastructure cannot be accomplished, locate it adjacent to 

existing infrastructure, roads, or already disturbed areas and limit disturbance to the smallest 

footprint or where it best limits impacts to the greater sage-grouse or its habitat. Existing 

authorized uses will continue to be recognized.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-014-Standard – In general habitat management areas, new lands special-use

authorizations may be issued for infrastructure, such as high-voltage transmission lines, major 

pipelines, distribution lines, and communication tower sites, if they can be located within 

existing designated corridors or rights-of-way and the authorization includes stipulations to 

protect the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. Existing authorized uses will continue to be 

recognized. 

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-015-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize temporary lands special-uses (i.e., facilities or activities) 

that result in loss of habitat or would have long-term (i.e., greater than 5 years) negative impact 

on the greater sage-grouse or its habitat.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-016-Standard – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, require protective stipulations (e.g., noise, tall structure, guy 

wire removal, perch deterrent installation) when issuing new authorizations or during renewal, 

amendment, or reissuance of existing authorizations that authorize infrastructure (e.g., highvoltage transmission lines, major pipelines, roads, distribution lines, and communication tower 

sites). 

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-017-Standard – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, locate upgrades to existing transmission lines within the 

existing designated corridors or rights-of-way unless an alternate route would benefit the 

greater sage-grouse or its habitat. 

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-018-Standard – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, when a lands special-use authorization is revoked or 

terminated and no future use is contemplated, require the authorization holder to remove 

overhead lines and other infrastructure in compliance with 36 CFR 251.60(i). 
 80 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

GRSG-LR-SUA-GL-019-Guideline – In priority management areas and sagebrush focal areas, 

outside of existing designated corridors and rights-of-way, new transmission lines and pipelines 

should be buried to limit disturbance to the smallest footprint unless explicit rationale is 

provided that the biological impacts to the greater sage-grouse and its habitat are being avoided. 

If new transmission lines and pipelines are not buried, locate them adjacent to existing 

transmission lines and pipelines. 

GRSG-LR-SUA-GL-020-Guideline – The best available science and monitoring should be used to 

inform infrastructure siting in greater sage-grouse habitat.

Land Ownership Adjustments

GRSG-LR-LOA-ST-021-Standard – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not approve landownership adjustments, including land 

exchanges, unless the action results in a net conservation gain to the greater sage-grouse or it 

will not directly or indirectly adversely affect greater sage-grouse conservation. 

GRSG-LR-LOA-GL-022-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas with minority federal ownership, consider landownership 

adjustments to achieve a landownership pattern (e.g., consolidation, reducing fragmentation) 

that supports improved greater sage-grouse population trends and habitat.

Land Withdrawal

GRSG-LR-LW-GL-023-Guideline – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, use land withdrawals as a tool, where appropriate, to withhold an area 

from activities that will be detrimental to the greater sage-grouse or its habitat.

Wind and Solar

GRSG-WS-ST-024-Standard – In priority management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not 

authorize new solar and wind utility-scale and/or commercial energy development except for onsite power generation associated with existing industrial infrastructure (e.g., mine site).

GRSG-WS-GL-025-Guideline – In important habitat management areas, new solar and wind 

energy utility-scale and/or commercial development should be restricted. If development cannot be 

restricted due to existing authorized use, adjacent developments, or split estate issues, then ensure 

that stipulations are incorporated into the authorization to protect the greater sage-grouse and its

habitat. 
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 81 

Greater Sage-grouse Habitat

GRSG-GRSGH-O-026-Objective – Every 10 years for the next 50 years, improve greater sagegrouse habitat by removing invading conifers and other undesirable species based upon the 

number of acres shown in table 2. 

Table 2. Treatment Acres per Decade.1

ACRES

FOREST MECHANICAL2 PRESCRIBED FIRE3 GRASS RESTORATION4

Boise 1000 2000 0

Caribou-Targhee-Curlew 3000 2000 3000

Salmon-Challis 5000 1000 0

Sawtooth 7000 1000 7000

Beaverhead-Deerlodge 0 0 0

1

These are estimates of treatments required to achieve and/or maintain desired habitat conditions over a period of 10 years. There are many 

dynamic and highly variable disturbances that may happen over that period of time that could have a significant effect on the amount, type, 

and timing of treatment needed. Those disturbances are factored into the 10-year simulation using stochastic, not deterministic, techniques.

Probabilities of events such as large wildfires are used in the model to make the simulation as realistic as possible, given empirical data about 

such events in the past, but the results of the simulation cannot be used to predict the future occurrence of such events, including their timing, 

size, or location, which are essentially random.

2

Removal of conifers that have invaded sagebrush including phase-one juniper that is 10% or less and reducing sagebrush cover in areas over 

30% canopy cover. 

3

Acres are those that are greater than 30% sagebrush canopy cover and/or invaded by 10% or greater conifer.

4

Acres presently dominated by annual grasses that could be improved by herbicide application and seeding of perennial vegetation.

GRSG-GRSGH-ST-027-Standard – Design habitat restoration projects to move towards desired 

conditions (table 1).

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-028-Guideline – When removing conifers that are encroaching into greater 

sage-grouse habitat, avoid persistent woodlands (i.e., old growth relative to the site or more than 

100 years old). 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-029-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas 

and sagebrush focal areas, actions and authorizations should include design features to limit the 

spread and effect of undesirable non-native plant species.

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-030-Guideline – To facilitate safe and effective fire management actions, in 

priority, important, and general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, fuel 

treatments in high-risk areas (i.e., areas likely to experience wildfire at an intensity level that might 

result in movement away from greater sage-grouse desired conditions in table 1) should be 

designed to reduce the spread and/or intensity of wildfire or the susceptibility of greater sagegrouse attributes to move away from desired conditions (table 1). 

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-031-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas 

and sagebrush focal areas, native plant species should be used, when possible, to maintain, restore, 

or enhance desired conditions (table 1).
 82 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-032-Guideline – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, vegetation treatment projects should only be conducted if they maintain, 

restore, or enhance desired conditions (table 1).

Livestock Grazing

GRSG-LG-DC-033-Desired Condition – In priority and general habitat management areas, 

sagebrush focal areas, and within lek buffers, livestock grazing is managed to maintain or move 

towards desired conditions (table 1).

GRSG-LG-ST-034-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and sagebrush

focal areas, do not approve construction of water developments unless beneficial to greater sagegrouse habitat.

GRSG-LG-GL-035-Guideline – Grazing guidelines should be applied in each of the seasonal habitat

in table 3. If values in table 3 guidelines cannot be achieved based upon a site-specific analysis using 

Ecological Site Descriptions, long-term ecological site potential analysis, or other similar analysis, 

adjust grazing management to move towards desired habitat conditions in table 1 consistent with 

the ecological site potential. Do not use drought and degraded habitat condition to adjust values.

Grazing guidelines in table 3 would not apply to isolated parcels of National Forest System lands

that have less than 200 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat.

Table 3. Grazing Guidelines for Greater Sage-grouse Seasonal Habitat.

SEASONAL HABITAT GRAZING GUIDELINES

Breeding and 

nesting 1 within 6.2 miles 

of occupied leks

Perennial grass height:2

When grazing occurs during breeding and nesting season (from March 1 to June 15) manage 

for upland perennial grass height of 7 inches.3,5 Measure average droop height, assuming 

current vegetation composition has the capability to achieve these heights. Heights will be 

measured at the end of the nesting period (Connelly et al. 2000).

When grazing occurs post breeding and nesting season (from June 16 to October 30) manage 

for 4 inches5,6 of upland perennial grass height. 

Brood rearing and 

summer 1 

When grazing occurs post breeding and nesting season (from June 16 to October 30), retain 

an average stubble height of 4 inches for herbaceous riparian/mesic meadow vegetation in 

all7 greater sage-grouse habitat.8,9

Winter 1 <35% utilization of sagebrush.

1 For descriptions of Seasonal Habitat and Seasonal Periods of the greater sage-grouse, see table 1.

2 Grass heights only apply in breeding and nesting habitat with >10% sagebrush cover to support nesting. 

3 Holloran et al. 2005. Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming. 

5 Hagen C., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus nesting and broodrearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13(1): 42-50.

6 Stubble height to be measured at the end of the growing season. 

7 All GRSG habitat with greater than 10% sagebrush cover irrespective of lek buffers and designated habitat management areas. 

8 In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage-grouse prefer the lower vegetation (5–15 cm vs. 30–50 cm; Oakleaf 1971, Neel 1980, Klebenow 

1982, Evans 1986) and succulent forb growth stimulated by moderate livestock grazing in spring and early summer (Neel 1980, Evans 

1986); moderate use equates to a 10-cm residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges and 5-cm for Kentucky bluegrass (Mosley et 

al. 1997, Clary and Leininger 2000) (Crawford et al. 2004. Ecology and Management of sage-grouse grouse habitat).

9 Stubble height to be measured in the meadow areas used by greater sage-grouse for brood-rearing (not on the hydric greenline). These 

meadows typically have sagebrush within 328 feet of the meadow.
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 83 

GRSG-LG-GL-036-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, when grazing permits are waived without preference or obtained through 

permit cancellation, consider the agency’s full range of administrative authorities for future 

allotment management, including but not limited to allotment closure, vacancy status for resource 

protection, establishment of forage reserve, re-stocking, or livestock conversion as management 

options to maintain or achieve desired habitat conditions (table 1).

GRSG-LG-GL-037-Guideline – Bedding sheep and placing camps within 1.2 miles from the 

perimeter of a lek during lekking (from March 1 to April 30) should be restricted. 

GRSG-LG-GL-038-Guideline – During the breeding and nesting season (from March 1 to June 15), 

trailing livestock through breeding and nesting habitat should be minimized. Specific routes should 

be identified; existing trails should be used; and stopovers on active leks should be avoided. 

GRSG-LG-GL-039-Guideline – Fences should not be constructed or reconstructed within 1.2 miles 

from the perimeter of occupied leks unless the collision risk can be mitigated through design 

features or markings (e.g., mark, laydown fences, or other design features). 

GRSG-LG-GL-040-Guideline – New permanent livestock facilities (e.g., windmills, water tanks, 

corrals) should not be constructed within 1.2 miles from the perimeter of occupied leks.

Fire Management 

GRSG-FM-DC-041-Desired Condition – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, protect sagebrush habitat from loss due to unwanted wildfires or 

damages resulting from management-related activities while using agency risk management 

protocols to manage for firefighter and public safety and other high priority values. In all fire 

response, first priority is the management of risk to firefighters and the public. Greater sage-grouse 

habitat will be prioritized as a high value resource along with other high value resources and assets. 

GRSG-FM-ST-042-Standard – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, do not use prescribed fire in 12-inch or less precipitation zones unless 

necessary to facilitate restoration of greater sage-grouse habitat consistent with desired conditions 

in table 1 or for pile burning.

GRSG-FM-ST-043-Standard – In priority, important, and general management habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, if it is necessary to use prescribed fire for restoration 

of greater sage-grouse habitat consistent with desired conditions in table 1, the associated National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis must identify how the project would move towards greater sagegrouse desired conditions, why alternative techniques were not selected, and how potential threats 

to greater sage-grouse habitat would be minimized.

GRSG-FM-GL-044-Guideline – In wintering or breeding and nesting habitat, sagebrush removal or 

manipulation, including prescribed fire, should be restricted unless the removal strategically 

reduces the potential impacts from wildfire or supports the attainment of desired conditions.
 84 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

GRSG-FM-GL-045-Guideline – In planned fuels management activities or part of an overall 

vegetative management strategy to mitigate the impacts of wildfire in priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when reseeding in fuel breaks, fire-resistant native 

plant species should be used if available, or consider using fire-resistant non-native species if 

analysis and/or best available science demonstrates that non-native plants will not degrade greater 

sage-grouse habitat in the long-term. 

GRSG-FM-GL-046-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, fuel treatments should be designed to maintain, restore, or enhance greater 

sage-grouse habitat.

GRSG-FM-GL-047-Guideline – Locating temporary wildfire suppression facilities (e.g., incident 

command posts, spike camps, helibases, mobile retardant plants) in priority and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas should be avoided. When needed to best provide for 

firefighter or public safety or to minimize fire size in greater sage-grouse habitat, impacts to the 

greater sage-grouse should be considered and removal of sagebrush should be limited.

GRSG-FM-GL-048-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, cross-country vehicle travel during fire operations should be restricted. 

When needed to best provide for firefighter or public safety or to minimize fire size in greater sagegrouse habitat, impacts to the greater sage-grouse should be considered and removal of sagebrush 

should be limited.

GRSG-FM-GL-049-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, use fire management tactics and strategies that seek to minimize loss of 

existing sagebrush habitat. The safest and most practical means to do so will be determined by 

fireline leadership and incident commanders.

GRSG-FM-GL-050-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, prescribed fire prescriptions should minimize undesirable effects on 

vegetation and/or soils (e.g., minimize mortality of desirable perennial plant species and reduce 

risk of hydrophobicity).

GRSG-FM-GL-051-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, roads and natural fuel breaks should be incorporated into planned fuel-break 

design to improve effectiveness and minimize loss of existing sagebrush habitat. 

GRSG-FM-GL-052-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, where practical and available, all fire-associated vehicles and equipment 

should be inspected and cleaned using standardized protocols and procedures and approved 

vehicle/equipment decontamination systems before entering and exiting the area beyond initial 

attack activities to minimize the introduction of invasive annual grasses and other invasive plant 

species and noxious weeds.

GRSG-FM-GL-053-Guideline – Unit-specific greater sage-grouse fire management-related 

information should be added to wildland fire decision support systems (currently, the Wildland 

Fire Decision Support System); local operating plans and resource advisor plans to be used during 
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 85 

fire situations to inform management decisions; and aid in development of strategies and tactics for

resource prioritization. 

GRSG-FM-GL-054-Guideline – Localized maps of priority and general habitat management areas 

and sagebrush focal areas should be made available to fireline, dispatch, and fire support personnel. 

GRSG-FM-GL-055-Guideline – In or near priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, a greater sage-grouse resource advisor should be assigned to all 

extended attack fires. 

GRSG-FM-GL-056-Guideline – On critical fire weather days, protection of greater sage-grouse 

habitat should receive high consideration, along with other high values, for positioning of 

resources. 

GRSG-FM-GL-057-Guideline – Line officers should be involved in setting pre-season wildfire 

response priorities and prioritizing protection of priority and general habitat management areas 

and sagebrush focal areas, along with other high values. During periods of multiple fires or limited 

resource availability, fire management organizational structure (local, regional, national) will 

prioritize fires and allocation of resources in which greater sage-grouse habitat is a consideration 

along with other high values.

GRSG-FM-GL-058-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, consider using fire retardant and mechanized equipment only if it is likely to 

result in minimizing burned acreage, preventing the loss of other high value resources, or 

increasing the effectiveness of other tactical strategies. Agency administrators, their designee, or 

fireline leadership should consider fire suppression effects while determining suppression strategy 

and tactics; the use of fire retardant and mechanized equipment may be approved by agency 

administrators, their designee, or fireline leadership.

GRSG-FM-GL-059-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas, to 

minimize sagebrush habitat loss, consider using the full range of suppression techniques to protect

unburned islands, doglegs, and other greater sage-grouse habitat features that may exist within the 

perimeter of wildfires. These suppression objectives and activities should be prioritized against 

other wildland fire suppression activities and priorities.

Wild Horse and Burro

GRSG-HB-GL-060-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, wild horse and burro populations should be managed within established 

appropriate management levels to maintain, restore, or enhance greater sage-grouse desired 

habitat conditions (table 1). 

GRSG-HB-GL-061-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, consider adjusting appropriate management levels, consistent with

applicable law, if greater sage-grouse management standards are not met due to degradation that 

can be at least partially be attributed to wild horse or burro populations.
 86 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

Recreation

GRSG-R-DC-062-Desired Condition – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, recreation activities are balanced with the ability of the land to 

support them while meeting greater sage-grouse seasonal habitat desired conditions (table 1) and 

creating minimal user conflicts.

GRSG-R-ST-063-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, do not authorize temporary recreation uses (i.e., facilities or activities) that result in 

loss of habitat or would have long-term (i.e., greater than 5 years) negative impacts on greater sagegrouse or its habitat. 

GRSG-R-GL-064-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, terms and conditions that protect and/or restore greater sage-grouse habitat 

within the permit area should be included in new recreation special-use authorizations. During 

renewal, amendment, or reauthorization, terms and conditions in existing permits and operating 

plans should be modified to protect and/or restore greater sage-grouse habitat. 

GRSG-R-GL-065-Guideline – In priority and important habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, new recreational facilities or expansion of existing recreational facilities (e.g., roads, 

trails, campgrounds), including special-use authorizations for facilities and activities, should not be 

approved unless the development results in a net conservation gain to the greater sage-grouse or 

its habitat or the development is required for visitor safety.

Roads/Transportation

GRSG-RT-DC-066-Desired Condition – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas within the forest transportation system and on roads and trails 

authorized under a special-use authorization, the greater sage-grouse experiences minimal 

disturbance during breeding and nesting (from March 1 to June 15) and wintering (from November 

1 to February 28) periods.

GRSG-RT-ST-067-Standard – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, do not conduct or allow new road or trail construction (does not apply to 

realignments for resource protection) except when necessary for administrative access to existing 

and authorized uses, public safety, or to access valid existing rights. If necessary to construct new 

roads and trails for one of these purposes, construct them to the minimum standard, length, and 

number and avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts. 

GRSG-RT-ST-068-Standard – Do not conduct or allow road and trail maintenance activities within 

2 miles from the perimeter of active leks during lekking (from March 1 to April 30) from 6 p.m. to 9 

a.m. 

GRSG-RT-ST-069-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, do not allow public motor vehicle use on temporary energy development roads.
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 87 

GRSG-RT-GL-070-Guideline – In priority and important habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, new roads and road realignments should be designed and administered to reduce 

collisions with the greater sage-grouse. 

GRSG-RT-GL-071-Guideline – In priority and important habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, road construction within riparian areas and mesic meadows should be restricted. If not 

possible to restrict construction within riparian areas and mesic meadows, roads should be 

designed and constructed at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings, unless 

topography prevents doing so. 

GRSG-RT-GL-072-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, when decommissioning roads and unauthorized routes, restoration activity 

should be designed to move habitat towards desired conditions (table 1). 

GRSG-RT-GL-073-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, dust abatement terms and conditions should be included in road-use 

authorizations when dust has the potential to affect the greater sage-grouse.

GRSG-RT-GL-074-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, road and road-way maintenance activities should be designed and 

implemented to reduce the risk of vehicle- or human-caused wildfires and the spread of invasive 

plants. Such activities include but are not limited to the removal or mowing of vegetation a carwidth off the edge of roads; use of weed-free earth-moving equipment, gravel, fill, or other 

materials; and blading or pulling roadsides and ditches that are infested with noxious weeds only if 

required for public safety or protection of the roadway.

Minerals

Fluid Minerals – Unleased

GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-075-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas, any 

new oil and gas leases must include a No Surface Occupancy stipulation. There will be no 

waivers or modifications. An exception could be granted by the authorized officer with 

unanimous concurrence from a team of agency greater sage-grouse experts from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and state wildlife agency if: 

• There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the greater sage-grouse or its 

habitat; or 

• Granting the exception provides an alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby 

parcel; and 

• The exception provides a clear net conservation gain to the greater sage-grouse. 

GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-076-Standard – In general habitat management areas, any new leases must 

include appropriate controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations to protect the 

greater sage-grouse and its habitat.
 88 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-077-Standard – In sagebrush focal areas, there will be No Surface 

Occupancy and no waivers, exceptions, or modifications for fluid mineral leasing. 

Fluid Minerals – Leased

GRSG-M-FML-ST-078-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, when approving the Surface Use Plan of Operation portion of the 

Application for Permit to Drill on existing leases that are not yet developed, require that 

leaseholders avoid and minimize surface disturbing and disruptive activities consistent with the 

rights granted in the lease. 

GRSG-M-FML-ST-079-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, when facilities are no longer needed or leases are relinquished, require 

reclamation plans to include terms and conditions to restore habitat to desired conditions as 

described in table 1.

GRSG-M-FML-ST-080-Standard – In general habitat management areas, authorize new 

transmission line corridors, transmission line right-of-ways, transmission line construction, or 

transmission line-facility construction associated with fluid mineral leases with stipulations

necessary to protect the greater sage-grouse and its habitat, consistent with the terms and 

conditions of the permit.

GRSG-M-FML-ST-081-Standard – Locate compressor stations on portions of a lease that are 

non-habitat and are not used by the greater sage-grouse and if there would be no direct, indirect, 

or cumulative effects on the greater sage-grouse or its habitat. If this is not possible, work with 

the operator to use mufflers, sound insulation, or other features to reduce noise consistent with 

GRSG-GEN-ST-006-Standard. 

GRSG-M-FML-ST-082-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, when authorizing development of fluid mineral resources, work with the 

operator to minimize impacts to the greater sage-grouse and its habitat, such as locating 

facilities in non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable habitat. 

GRSG-M-FML-GL-083-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, operators should be encouraged to reduce disturbance to 

greater sage-grouse habitat. At the time of approval of the Surface Use Plan of Operation portion 

of the Application for Permit to Drill, terms and conditions should be included to reduce 

disturbance to greater sage-grouse habitat where appropriate and feasible and consistent with 

the rights granted to the lessee. 

GRSG-M-FML-GL-084-Guideline – On existing federal leases in priority and important habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, when surface occupancy cannot be restricted due 

to valid existing rights or development requirements, disturbance and surface occupancy should 

be limited to areas least harmful to the greater sage-grouse based on vegetation, topography, or 

other habitat features.
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 89 

GRSG-M-FML-GL-085-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is 

in non-federal ownership, coordinate with the mineral estate owner/lessee to apply appropriate 

stipulations, conditions of approval, conservation measures, and required design features to the 

appropriate surface management instruments to the maximum extent permissible under 

existing authorities.

Fluid Minerals – Operations

GRSG-M-FMO-ST-086-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize employee camps.

GRSG-M-FMO-ST-087-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, when feasible, do not locate tanks or other structures that may be used as 

raptor perches. If this is not feasible, use perch deterrents. 

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-088-Guideline – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, closed-loop systems should be used for drilling operations with no 

reserve pits, where feasible.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-089-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, during drilling operations soil compaction should be minimized 

and soil structure should be maintained using the best available techniques to improve 

vegetation reestablishment.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-090-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, dams, impoundments, and ponds for mineral development 

should be constructed to reduce potential for West Nile virus. Examples of methods to 

accomplish this include the following: 

• Increase the depth of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is discharged. 

• Build steep shorelines (greater than 2 feet) to reduce shallow water and aquatic vegetation 

around the perimeter of impoundments to reduce breeding habitat for mosquitoes. 

• Maintain the water level below that of rooted aquatic and upland vegetation. Avoid flooding 

terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low-lying areas. 

• Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down-slope seepage or overflow by digging 

ponds in flat areas rather than damming natural draws for effluent water storage or lining 

constructed ponds in areas where seepage is anticipated.

• Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock or use a 

horizontal pipe to discharge inflow directly into existing open water.

• Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock and construct the spillway with steep sides.

• Fence pond sites to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates. 
 90 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

• Remove or re-inject produced water. 

• Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the 

surface.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-091-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, to keep habitat disturbance at a minimum, a phased 

development approach should be applied to fluid mineral operations wherever possible, 

consistent with the rights granted under the lease. Disturbed areas should be reclaimed as soon 

as they are no longer needed for mineral operations.

Coal Mines – Unleased

GRSG-M-CMUL-ST-092-Standard – When consenting to new underground coal leases, include a 

lease stipulation prohibiting the location of surface facilities in priority and important habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas. 

Coal Mines – Leased

GRSG-M-CML-ST-093-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, do not authorize new appurtenant facilities related to existing 

underground mines unless no technically feasible alternative exists. If new appurtenant facilities 

associated with existing mine leases cannot be located outside of priority and important habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas, locate them within any existing disturbed areas, if 

possible. If location within an existing disturbed area is not possible, then construct new 

facilities to minimize disturbed areas while meeting mine safety standards and requirements as 

identified by the Mine Safety and Health Administration mine-plan approval process and locate 

the facilities in an area least harmful to greater sage-grouse habitat based on vegetation, 

topography, or other habitat features. 

GRSG-M-CML-GL-094-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, when coal leases are subject to readjustment, additional 

requirements should be included in the readjusted lease to conserve, enhance, and restore the 

greater sage-grouse and its habitat for long-term viability.

Locatable Minerals

GRSG-M-LM-ST-095-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, only approve Plans of Operation if they include mitigation to protect the 

greater sage-grouse and its habitat, consistent with the rights of the mining claimant as granted 

by the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended. 

GRSG-M-LM-GL-096-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas 

and sagebrush focal areas, to keep habitat disturbance at a minimum, a phased development 

approach should be applied to operations consistent with the rights granted under the General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended. Disturbed areas should be reclaimed as soon as they are no 

longer needed for mineral operations.
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 91 

GRSG-M-LM-GL-097-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas 

and sagebrush focal areas, abandoned mine sites should be closed or mitigated to reduce 

predation of the greater sage-grouse by eliminating tall structures that could provide nesting 

opportunities and perching sites for predators. 

Non-energy Leasable Minerals 

GRSG-M-NEL-GL-098-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, at the time of issuance of prospecting permits; exploration 

licenses and leases; or readjustment of leases, the Forest Service should provide 

recommendations to the BLM for the protection of the greater sage-grouse and its habitat. 

GRSG-M-NEL-GL-099-Guideline – In priority, important, and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, the Forest Service should recommend to the BLM that 

expansion or readjustment of existing leases avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects to the 

greater sage-grouse and its habitat.

Mineral Materials

GRSG-M-MM-ST-100-Standard – In priority management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do 

not authorize new mineral material disposal or development.

GRSG-M-MM-ST-101-Standard – In priority and important habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, free-use mineral material collection permits may be issued and expansion 

of existing active pits may be allowed, except from March 1 to April 30 between 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. 

within 2 miles from the perimeter of occupied leks, within the Biologically Significant Unit and 

proposed project area if doing so does not exceed the disturbance cap. 

GRSG-M-MM-ST-102-Standard – In priority, important, and general habitat management areas 

and sagebrush focal areas, any permit for existing mineral material operations must include 

appropriate requirements for operation and reclamation of the site to maintain, restore, or 

enhance desired habitat conditions (table 1).
 92 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AS USED IN THIS PLAN

Active lek – Any lek that has been attended by the male greater sage-grouse during the most recent 

strutting season.

Adjacent – Installation of new linear improvements parallel, near, or next to existing linear 

improvements.

Administrative access – Access for resource management and administrative purposes such as 

wildfire suppression, cadastral surveys, permit compliance, law enforcement, and military in the 

performance of their official duty, or other access needed to manage National Forest System lands

or uses.

Allotment – A designated area of land in which one or more livestock operators graze their 

livestock. An allotment may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock numbers and periods 

of use are specified for each allotment.

Ambient (noise level) – Sometimes called background noise level, reference sound level, or room 

noise level; the background sound pressure level at a given location, normally specified as a 

reference level to study a new intrusive sound source.

Anthropogenic disturbances – Human-created features including but not limited to paved 

highways; graded gravel roads; transmission lines; substations; wind turbines; oil and gas wells and 

associated facilities; geothermal wells and associated facilities; pipelines; landfills; agricultural 

conversion; homes; grazing-related facilities and structures; and mines.

Appurtenant (minerals) – A piece of equipment (e.g., pump jack, separator, storage tank, 

compressor station, metering equipment, etc.) necessary for production.

Authorized use – An activity (i.e., resource use) occurring on public lands that is either explicitly or 

implicitly recognized and legalized by law or regulation. The term may refer to activities occurring 

on public lands for which the Forest Service has issued a formal authorization document (e.g., 

livestock grazing permit, special-use authorization, approved plan of operation, etc.). Formal 

authorized uses can involve both commercial and non-commercial activity, facility placement, or 

event. These authorized uses are often spatially or temporally limited. Unless constrained or 

bounded by statute, regulation, or an approved forest plan decision, legal activities involving public 

enjoyment and use of the public lands (e.g., hiking, camping, hunting, etc.) require no formal Forest 

Service authorization.

Baseline condition – The pre-existing condition of a defined area and/or resource that can be 

quantified by an appropriate metric(s). During environmental reviews, the baseline is considered 

the affected environment that exists at the time of the review's initiation and is used to compare 

predictions of the effects of the proposed action or a reasonable range of alternatives.

Biologically Significant Unit – A geographical/spatial area within greater sage-grouse habitat that 

contains relevant and important habitat that is used as the basis for comparative calculations to 

support evaluation of changes to habitat. A Biologically Significant Unit or subset of the unit is used 
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 93 

in the calculation of the anthropogenic disturbance threshold and in the adaptive management 

habitat trigger. Specifically, in Idaho, a Biologically Significant Unit is considered all of the modeled 

nesting and delineated winter habitat, based on 2012 data, within priority and/or important

habitat management areas within a Conservation Area. In Montana, a Biologically Significant Unit is 

defined as all of the priority and sagebrush focal management areas.

Co-location – Installation of new linear improvements (i.e., communication towers, electrical lines, 

other rights-of-way, or designated corridors) in, on, or adjacent to existing linear improvements.

Communication tower site – Sites that include broadcast types of uses (e.g., television, AM/FM 

radio, cable television, broadcast translator) and non-broadcast uses (e.g., commercial or private 

mobile radio service, cellular telephone, microwave, local exchange network, or passive reflector).

Compensatory mitigation – Compensating for the residual impact of a certain action or parts of an 

action by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments(s).

Compensatory mitigation projects – The restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or 

preservation of impacted resources, such as on-the-ground actions to improve and/or protect 

habitat (e.g. chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, conservation easements, etc.). 

Conservation Area – Areas determined to be necessary to monitor population objectives to 

evaluate the disturbance density and adaptive regulatory triggers and engage adaptive 

management responses. Conservation Areas may contain priority, important, and general habitat 

management areas and sagebrush focal areas. Specifically, these areas are Mountain Valleys, Desert, 

West Owyhee, and Southern and Southwestern Montana.

Controlled surface use – A category of moderate constraint stipulations that allows some use and 

occupancy of public land while protecting identified resources or values and is applicable to fluid 

mineral leasing and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., truck-mounted drilling 

and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of wells and/or pads, 

etc.). 

Corridor – A tract of land varying in width forming passageway through which various 

commodities such as oil, gas, and electricity are transported. 

Disruptive activities – Land resource uses/activities that are likely to alter the behavior, displace, 

or cause excessive stress to the greater sage-grouse population occurring at a specific location 

and/or time. Actions that alter behavior or cause the displacement of individuals such that 

reproductive success is negatively affected or an individual's physiological ability to cope with 

environmental stress is compromised. 

Distribution line – An electrical utility line with a capacity of less than 100kV or a natural gas, 

hydrogen, or water pipeline less than 24” in diameter. 

Diversity (biological) – The number and distribution of plant and animal species within a 

specified geographic area. For purpose of the National Forest Management Act, the geographic area 

is a national forest or grassland unit. 
 94 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

Durable (protective and ecological) – The administrative, legal, and financial assurances that 

secure and protect the conservation status of a compensatory mitigation site and the ecological 

benefits of a compensatory mitigation project, for at least as long as the associated impacts persist.

Enhance – The improvement of habitat by increasing missing or modifying unsatisfactory 

components and/or attributes of the habitat (e.g., road commissioning) to meet greater sage-grouse 

objectives.

Exception (minerals) – A case-by-case exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation 

continues to apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria apply. The 

authorized officer (any employee of the Forest Service to whom has been delegated the authority to 

perform the duties described in the applicable Forest Service manual or handbook) may grant an 

exception if an environmental record of review determines that the action, as proposed or 

conditioned, would not impair the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent 

seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of the greater sage-grouse.

Feasible – see technically/economically feasible. 

Fluid minerals – Oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources.

Forage reserve – Designation for allotments on which there is no current term permit obligation 

for some or all of the estimated livestock grazing capacity and where there has been a 

determination made to use the available forage on the allotment to enhance management flexibility 

for authorized livestock use (FSH id_2209.13-2007-1).

Forest transportation system – Roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle use that 

provide access to National Forest System lands for both motorized and non-motorized uses in a 

manner that is socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable over the long-term;

enhances public enjoyment of National Forest System roads; and maintains other important values 

and uses.

General habitat management areas – National Forest System lands that are occupied seasonally 

or year-round habitat outside of priority habitat management areas where some special 

management would apply to sustain the greater sage-grouse population. The boundaries and 

management strategies for general habitat management areas are derived from and generally 

follow the preliminary general habitat boundaries.

Habitat – An environment that meets a specific set of physical, biological, temporal, or spatial 

characteristics that satisfy the requirements of a plant or animal species or group of species for part 

or all of its life cycle.

Hard trigger – A threshold indicating that immediate action is necessary to stop a severe deviation 

from greater sage-grouse conservation objectives set forth in the land and RMP. 

High-voltage transmission line – An electrical power line that is 100 kilovolts or larger. 

Holder – An individual or entity that holds a valid special-use authorization.
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 95 

Impact – The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint caused by an action.

Important habitat management areas – High value habitat and populations that provide a 

management buffer for the priority and sagebrush focal management areas and connect patches of 

priority and sagebrush focal management areas. The areas encompass areas of generally moderateto-high conservation value habitat and/or populations and in some Conservation Areas, include 

areas beyond those identified by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as necessary to maintain redundant, 

representative, and resilient populations. The areas are typically adjacent to priority and sagebrush 

focal management areas but generally reflect somewhat lower greater sage-grouse population 

status and/or reduced habitat value due to disturbance, habitat fragmentation, or other factors. No 

important habitat management areas are designated within the Southwestern Montana 

Conservation Area. 

Indicators – Factors that describe resource condition and change and can help the BLM and the 

Forest Service determine trends over time.

Invasive species (invasives plant species, invasives) – An alien species whose introduction does 

or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. The species must 

cause or be likely to cause harm and be exotic to the ecosystem it has infested before considered

invasive. 

Isolated parcel – An individual parcel of land that may share a corner but does not have a common 

border with another parcel.

Landownership adjustment – Land adjustments to National Forest System lands by purchase, 

exchange, interchange, or conveyance under authority delegated by law to the Secretary of 

Agriculture. 

Landscape – A distinct association of land types that exhibit a unique combination of local climate, 

landform, topography, geomorphic process, surficial geology, soil, biota, and human influences. 

Landscapes are generally of a size that the eye can comprehend in a single view.

Lease – A contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified period in exchange for 

a specified rent or other form of payment; a type of special-use authorization (usually granted for 

uses other than linear rights-of-way) that is used when substantial capital investment is required 

and when conveyance of a conditional and transferable interest in National Forest System lands is 

necessary or desirable to serve or facilitate authorized long-term uses and that may be revocable 

and compensable according to the terms.

Leasable minerals – Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral Leasing 

Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947. These include 

energy-related mineral resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, and geothermal and some nonenergy minerals, such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and sulfur. Geothermal resources are also 

leasable under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. 

Lek – A courtship display area attended by the male greater sage-grouse in or adjacent to 

sagebrush-dominated habitat. For management purposes, leks with less than five males observed 
 96 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

strutting should be confirmed active for 2 years to meet the definition of a lek (Connelly et al. 2000;

Connelly et al. 2003, 2004). 

Lessee – A person or entity holding record title in a lease issued by the United States; a person or 

entity authorized to use and occupy National Forest System lands under a specific instrument 

identified as a lease. 

Livestock conversion – To change the kind of livestock authorized to graze on National Forest 

System lands (e.g., a change from sheep to cows).

Locatable minerals – Mineral disposable under the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, that 

was not excepted in later legislation. These include hardrock, placer, and industrial minerals and 

uncommon varieties of rock found on public domain lands.

Major pipeline – A pipeline that is 24 inches or more in outside-pipe diameter (Mineral Leasing 

Act of 1920, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 181; 36 CFR 251.54(f)(1)).

Mineral – Any naturally formed inorganic material; solid or fluid inorganic substance that can be 

extracted from the earth; any of various naturally occurring homogeneous substances (e.g., stone, 

coal, salt, sulfur, sand, petroleum, water, or natural gas) obtained usually from the ground. Under 

federal laws, considered as locatable (subject to the general mining laws), leasable (subject to the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended), and salable (subject to the Materials Act of 1947).

Mineral materials – Common varieties of mineral materials such as soil, sand and gravel, stone, 

pumice, pumicite, and clay that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can be 

acquired under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended.

Minimization mitigation – Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action 

and its implementation.

Mitigation – Includes specific means, measures, or practices that could reduce, avoid, or eliminate 

adverse impacts. Mitigation can include avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain 

action or parts of an action; minimizing the impact by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action 

and its implementation; rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected 

environment; reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance 

operations during the life of the action; and compensating for the impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments.

Modification (oil and gas) – A fundamental change to the provisions of a lease stipulation either

temporarily or for the term of the lease. A modification may include an exemption from or 

alteration to a stipulated requirement. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may 

or may not apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria applied.

Native plant species – A plant species that occurs naturally in a particular region, state, ecosystem, 

and habitat without direct or indirect human actions.

Net conservation gain – The actual benefit or gain above baseline conditions. Actions which result 

in habitat loss and degradation include those identified as threats which contribute to GRSG 
 Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 97 

disturbance as identified by the USFWS in its 2010 listing decision (75 Federal Register 13910) and 

shown in Table 2 in the Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework (Appendix A). 

No Surface Occupancy – A major constraint where use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid 

mineral exploration or development and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., 

truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, construction 

of wells and/or pads) are prohibited to protect identified resource values. Areas identified as No 

Surface Occupancy are open to fluid mineral leasing, but surface occupancy or surface-disturbing 

activities associated with fluid mineral leasing cannot be conducted on the surface of the land. 

Access to fluid mineral deposits would require horizontal drilling from outside the boundaries of 

the No Surface Occupancy area.

Occupied lek – A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the prior 10 

years.

Permit — A special-use authorization that provides permission, without conveying an interest in 

land, to occupy and use National Forest System lands or facilities for specified purposes and which 

is both revocable and terminable.

Permit cancellation – Action taken to permanently invalidate a term grazing permit in whole or 

part.

Persistent woodlands – Long-lived pinyon-juniper woodlands that typically have sparse 

understories and occur on poor substrates in the assessment area.

Plan of Operation – A Plan of Operation is required for all mining activity conducted under the 

General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, if the proposed operations will likely cause significant 

disturbance of surface resources. The Plan of Operation describes the type of operations proposed 

and how they would be conducted; the type and standard of existing and proposed roads or access 

routes; the means of transportation to be used; the period during which the proposed activity will 

take place; and measures to be taken to meet the requirements for environmental protection (36 

CR 228.4).

Prescribed fire – Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, 

approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and National Environmental Policy Act requirements, 

where applicable, must be met before ignition.

Priority habitat management areas – National Forest System lands identified as having highest 

habitat value for maintaining sustainable greater sage-grouse populations. The boundaries and 

management strategies for priority habitat management areas are derived from and generally 

follow the preliminary priority habitat boundaries. Priority habitat management areas largely 

coincide with areas identified as priority areas for conservation in the Conservation Objectives 

Team report. 

Prohibit – To forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority; no authorizations will be issued, 

meaning no authorization will be granted.
 98 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

Reclamation plans – Plans that guide the suite of actions taken within an area affected by human 

disturbance, the outcome of which is intended to change the condition of the disturbed area to meet 

pre-determined objectives and/or make it acceptable for certain defined resources (e.g., wildlife 

habitat, grazing, ecosystem function, etc.).

Residual impacts – Impacts from an implementation-level decision that remain after applying 

avoidance and minimization mitigation; also referred to as unavoidable impacts. 

Restoration – Implementation of a set of actions that promotes plant community diversity and 

structure that allows plant communities to be more resilient to disturbance and invasive species 

over the long-term. The long-term goal is to create functional, high quality habitat that is occupied 

by the greater sage-grouse. The short-term goal may be to restore the landform, soils, and 

hydrology and increase the percentage of preferred vegetation, seeding of desired species, or 

treatment of undesired species. 

Restriction/restrict – A limitation or constraint, not a prohibition, on public land uses and 

operations. Restrictions can be of any kind but most commonly apply to certain types of vehicle use, 

temporal and/or spatial constraints, or certain authorizations.

Right-of-way – Land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, operation, 

maintenance, and termination of a project or facility passing over, upon, under, or through such 

land. 

Road or trail – A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National 

Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, 

and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources.

Sagebrush focal areas – Areas identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that represent 

recognized “strongholds” for the greater sage-grouse that have been noted and referenced as 

having the highest densities of greater sage-grouse and other criteria important for the persistence 

of the species. 

Soft triggers – An intermediate threshold indicating that management changes are needed at the 

implementation level to address habitat or population losses.

Special-use authorization – A written permit, term permit, lease, or easement that authorizes use 

or occupancy of National Forest System lands and specifies the terms and conditions under which 

the use or occupancy may occur.

Stipulation (general) – A term or condition in an agreement, contract, or written authorization.

Stipulation (oil and gas) – A provision that modifies standard lease rights and is attached to and 

made a part of the lease. Lease stipulations include No Surface Occupancy, Timing Limitations, and 

Controlled Surface Use. 

Surface disturbing activities – Actions that alter the vegetation, surface/near surface soil 

resources, and/or surface geologic features beyond natural site conditions and on a scale that 

affects other public land values. Examples of surface disturbing activities may include operation of 
Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 99 

heavy equipment to construct well pads, roads, pits, and reservoirs; installation of pipelines and 

power lines; maintenance activities; and several types of vegetation treatments (e.g., prescribed 

fire, etc.). Surface disturbing activities may be restricted, not allowed, or not authorized. 

Surface occupancy – Placement or construction on the land surface of semi-permanent or 

permanent facilities requiring continual service or maintenance. Casual use is not included.

Surface use – Activities that may be present on the surface or near-surface (e.g., pipelines) of 

public lands. When administered as a use restriction (e.g., No Surface Occupancy), this phrase 

prohibits all but specified resource uses and activities in a certain area to protect particular 

sensitive resource values and property. This designation typically applies to small acreage sensitive 

resource sites (e.g., plant community study exclosure, etc.) and/or administrative sites (e.g., 

government ware-yard, etc.) where only authorized agency personnel are admitted.

Tall structures – A wide array of infrastructures (e.g., poles that support lights, telephone, and 

electrical distribution; communication towers; meteorological towers; high-tension transmission 

towers; and wind turbines) that have the potential to disrupt lekking or nesting birds by creating 

new perching/nesting opportunities and/or decreasing the use of an area. A determination as to 

whether something is considered a tall structure would be based on local conditions such as 

vegetation or topography.

Technically/economically feasible – Actions that are practical or feasible from the technical and 

economic standpoint and using common sense rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of 

the applicant. It is the Forest Service’s responsibility to determine what actions are technically and 

economically feasible based on a review of the applicant’s rationale and the available best science. 

The Forest Service will consider whether implementation of the proposed action is likely given past 

and current practice and technology; this consideration does not necessarily require a cost-benefit 

analysis or speculation about an applicant’s costs and profit.

Temporary special-use permit – A type of permit that terminates within 1 year or less after the 

approval date. All other provisions applicable to permits apply fully to temporary permits. 

Temporary special-use permits are issued for seasonal or short-duration uses involving minimal 

improvement and investment.

Term permit – An authorization to occupy and use National Forest System lands other than rightsof-way for a specified period that is both revocable and compensable according to its terms.

Timely – The conservation benefits from compensatory mitigation accruing as early as possible or 

before impacts have begun.

Timing Limitations – A moderate constraint, applicable to fluid mineral leasing, on all activities 

associated with fluid mineral leasing (e.g., truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration 

equipment off designated routes; construction of wells and/or pads); and other surface disturbing 

activities (i.e., those not related to fluid mineral leasing). Areas identified for Timing Limitations are 

closed to fluid mineral exploration and development; surface-disturbing activities; and intensive 

human activity during identified timeframes. This stipulation does not apply to operation and basic 

maintenance activities, including associated vehicle travel, unless otherwise specified. Construction, 
100 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

drilling, completions, and other operations considered to be intensive in nature are not allowed. 

Intensive maintenance, such as workovers on wells, is not permitted. Timing Limitations can 

overlap spatially with No Surface Occupancy and Controlled Surface Use, as well as with areas that 

have no other restrictions.

Transmission line – An electrical utility line with a capacity greater than or equal to 100kV or a 

natural gas, hydrogen, or water pipeline greater than or equal to 24” in diameter. 

Utility-scale and/or commercial energy development – A project that is capable of producing 20 

or more megawatts of electricity for distribution to customers through the electricity-transmissiongrid system.

Valid existing rights – Documented legal rights or interests in the land that allow a person or 

entity to use said land for a specific purpose and that are still in effect. Such rights include but are 

not limited to fee title ownership, mineral rights, and easements. Such rights may have been 

reserved, acquired, granted, permitted, or otherwise authorized under various statutes of law over 

time. 

Vegetation treatments – Management practices that are designed to maintain current vegetation 

structure or change the vegetation structure to a different stage of development. Vegetation 

treatment methods may include managed fire, prescribed fire, chemical, mechanical, and seeding.

Waived without preference – A permittee waives a term grazing permit to the United States 

without identifying a preferred applicant (i.e., a third party that has purchased either permitted

livestock, base property, or both).

Waiver (oil and gas) – Permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer 

applies anywhere within the leasehold.

West Nile virus – A virus that is found in temperate and tropical regions of the world and most 

commonly transmitted by mosquitoes. West Nile virus can cause flu-like symptoms in humans and 

can be lethal to birds, including the greater sage-grouse.

Wildfire suppression – An appropriate management response to wildfire or prescribed fire that 

results in curtailment of fire spread and eliminates all identified threats from the particular fire. 

Withdrawal (land) – Withholding an area of federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry

under some or all of the general land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing laws, for the 

purpose of limiting activities under those laws to maintain other public values in the area or for 

reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program.
Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 101

Map 1. GRSG Habitat on National Forest System Lands in Idaho/SW Montana. 
102 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

Map 2. GRSG Habitat on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.
Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 103

Map 3. GRSG Habitat on the Boise National Forest.
104 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

Map 4. GRSG Habitat on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 105

Map 5. GRSG Habitat on the Curlew National Grassland.
106 | Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment

Map 6. GRSG Habitat on the Salmon-Challis National Forest.
Greater Sage Grouse Idaho & Southwest Montana Plan Amendment | 107

Map 7. GRSG Habitat on the Sawtooth National Forest.