United States Department of Agriculture

Biennial Monitoring Evaluation 

Report Overview 

for the Salmon-Challis National Forest 

July 2022

Forest Service Salmon-Challis National Forest 
For More Information Contact: 

Jeff Hunteman

1206 S Challis

Salmon, ID 83467

208-756-5246 or Jeffrey.hunteman@usda.gov

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal 

or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not 

all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA 

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

3 

Introduction

Purpose 

The purpose of the biennial monitoring evaluation report is to help the responsible official determine 

whether a change is needed in forest plan direction, such as plan components or other plan content that 

guide management of resources in the plan area. The biennial monitoring evaluation report represents 

one part of the Forest Service’s overall monitoring program for this national forest unit. The biennial 

monitoring evaluation report is not a decision document—it evaluates monitoring questions and 

indicators presented in the Plan Monitoring Program chapter of the forest plan, in relation to 

management actions carried out in the plan area. Appendix A displays the monitoring plan 

modification that was required by statute. 

Monitoring and evaluation are continuous learning tools that form the backbone of adaptive 

management. For this reason, we will produce an evaluation report every two years. This report 

indicates whether a change to the forest plan, management activities, monitoring program or forest 

assessment may be needed based on the new information. The full 2022 biennial monitoring report for 

the Salmon-Challis National Forest is available at

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/scnf/landmanagement/planning in the quick links section. 

Objectives

There are several objectives for this report and may include the following: 

• Assess the current condition (i.e., status) and trend of selected forest resources. 

• Document implementation of the Plan monitoring Program including changed conditions or 

status of key characteristics used to assess accomplishments and progress toward achievement 

of the selected Land and Resource Management Plan components. 

• Evaluate relevant assumptions, changed conditions, management effectiveness, and progress 

towards achieving the selected desired conditions, objectives, and goals described in the Forest 

Plan

• Assess the status of previous recommended options for change based on previous monitoring 

& evaluation reports. 

• Document any scheduled monitoring actions that have not been completed and the reasons and 

rationale why it has not. 

• Present any new information not outlined in the current plan monitoring program that is 

relevant to the evaluation of the selected monitoring questions.

• Present recommended change opportunities to the responsible official. 

How to Use the Report

This report is a tool and a resource for the Forest Service to assess the condition of forest resources in 

relation to Forest Plan direction and management actions. It is also a tool and a resource for the public 

to learn more about how the Forest Service is managing forest resources.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

4 

The biennial monitoring evaluation report is designed to help the public, as well as Federal, State, 

local government, and Tribal entities anticipate key steps in the overall monitoring program. These 

steps include upcoming opportunities for public participation and how the public will be informed of 

those opportunities, and how public input will be used as the monitoring program progresses. The 

biennial monitoring evaluation report is also intended to help people better understand reported results 

in relation to past monitoring reports, future monitoring reports and the broader-scale monitoring 

strategy that is issued at the Forest Service Regional level.

The Importance of Public Participation

We informed the public of the availability of the biennial monitoring report for the Salmon-Challis 

National Forest, through the web at https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/scnf/landmanagement/planning in 

the quick links section. This forum and others used with Plan revision efforts will be used to 

encourage and solicit public feedback on the effectiveness of the Forest Plans. Additionally, 

throughout the year the Forest works with State, County, and Local Governments, interested groups 

and people, regulatory agencies, permit and contract holders, along with others to discuss many 

matters some of which directly inform the Forest on Plan effectiveness. 

About Our Forest Plan Monitoring Program 

Roles and Responsibilities 

The Forest Plan Monitoring Program requires a coordinated effort of many people, from the people 

who collect the data, to the people outside the Forest Service who provide feedback and assistance, to 

the decision maker.

The Salmon-Challis National Forest Supervisor is the responsible official for the forest and plan is 

presented the biennial reports along with the determinations for consideration. If warranted, the 

responsible official may based on this make amendments or revisions to the forest plan, change 

management activities, and/or change the monitoring program.

How Our Plan Monitoring Program Works 

Monitoring and evaluation requirements have been established through the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) at 36 CFR 219. Additional direction is provided by the Forest Service in 

Chapter 30 – Monitoring – of the Land Management Handbook (FSH 1909.12). 

The Salmon-Challis National Forest monitoring program was updated in May of 2016 for consistency 

with the 2012 planning regulations [36 CFR 219.12 (c)(1)]. The Salmon-Challis Forest Plan was 

administratively changed to include the updated monitoring program See Appendix A. Monitoring 

questions and indicators were selected to inform the management of resources on the plan area and not 

every plan component was determined necessary to track [36 CFR 219.12(a)(2)]. See the Plan 

Monitoring Program in Appendix A for discussion on how the monitoring questions were selected to 

be consistent with the 2012 planning regulations 36 CFR 219.12. 

Providing timely, accurate monitoring information to the responsible official and the public is a key 

requirement of the plan monitoring program. The biennial report is the vehicle for disseminating this 

information. 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

5

In the context of forest planning there are three main monitoring goals:

• Are we implementing the Forest Plan implemented properly? Are we meeting our management 

targets and project guidelines? (implementation monitoring) 

• Are we achieving our Forest Plan management goals and desired outcomes? (effectiveness

monitoring) 

• Does our hypothesis testing indicate we may need to change the Forest Plan? (validation

monitoring)

Implementation monitoring is important for tracking progress and accomplishments. However, it is 

effectiveness and validation monitoring that drive and support the adaptive management process. 

Effectiveness monitoring evaluates condition and trend relative to desired conditions. Validation 

monitoring tests hypotheses and provides information that might necessitate changes to desired 

conditions in the plan (e.g. is what we think the desired state should be really accurate?). Providing 

timely, accurate monitoring information to the responsible official and the public is a key requirement 

of the plan monitoring program. 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

6 

Appendix A 

Challis and Salmon National Forest LRMP Monitoring 

Plan Modification

Introduction 

The 2012 planning rule, which is found at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219, guides 

forest plan monitoring across the Forest Service. The planning rule at 36 CFR 219.12 (c) (1) 

requires the responsible official to modify the monitoring program to meet the requirements 

of the 2012 planning rule by May 2016. The Salmon-Challis National Forest conformance 

strategy focuses on addressing the purpose of the forest plan monitoring program as described 

in 36 CFR 219.12(a)(1), which includes the need for monitoring information that enables the 

responsible official to determine if a change in plan components in the plan area may be 

needed. 

In addition, each forest plan monitoring program must contain one or more monitoring 

questions and associated indicators addressing each of the following eight requirements, 

which are noted at 36 CFR 219.12(a)(5): 

1. The status of select watershed conditions. 

2. The status of select ecological conditions including key characteristics of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems. 

3. The status of focal species to assess the ecological conditions required at 36 CFR 219.9. 

4. The status of a select set of the ecological conditions required under 36 CFR 219.9 to 

contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve 

proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each species of 

conservation concern. 

5. The status of visitor use, visitor satisfaction, and progress toward meeting recreation 

objectives. 

6. Measurable changes on the plan area related to climate change and other stressors that may be 

affecting the plan area. 

7. Progress toward meeting the desired conditions and objectives in the plan, including for 

providing multiple use opportunities. 

8. The effects of each management system to determine that they do not substantially and 

permanently impair the productivity of the land (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C)). 

The purpose of forest plan monitoring and evaluation is to evaluate, document, and report 

how well the forest is implementing the forest plan, how well the forest plan is working, and 

if the forest plan purpose and direction remain appropriate. Monitoring determines actual 

conditions and circumstances and compares them with assumptions and expected or desired 

results. Monitoring information should enable the responsible official to determine is a change 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

7

in plan components or other plan content that guide management of resources on the plan area 

may be needed. 

Types of Monitoring 

The monitoring identified in this forest plan is not all of the monitoring conducted on a 

national forest. Other forms of monitoring, which address other laws, policies, and sitespecific decisions are also ongoing. Three categories of monitoring (see Forest Service 

Manual 1925.21) comprise both forest plan and individual project monitoring: 

• Implementation Monitoring – Used to determine if plans, prescriptions, projects, and activities 

were implemented as designed and in compliance with the forest plan; 

• Effectiveness Monitoring – Used to determine if plans, prescriptions, projects, and activities 

are effective in accomplishing Plan goals, and objectives, and moving toward desired 

conditions; and 

• Validation Monitoring – Used in cases of uncertainty to determine if initial data, assumptions, 

and coefficients used to predict outcomes in the development of the Plan are correct. 

Most monitoring at the national forest level is in the first two categories. Emphasis of the 

forest plan monitoring program under the 2012 planning rule is the second category.

Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation 

The proposed monitoring program for the Salmon-Challis National Forest is presented below 

in a set of tables, each related to one of the eight required items listed above. For clarity, 

monitoring questions for terrestrial ecosystems and aquatic ecosystems are presented in 

separate tables. In the tables, each row represents a single monitoring question and associated 

indicators. Rows begin with selected desired conditions and objectives that lead to the 

monitoring question. Next, the monitoring question and associated indicators are listed. The 

desired conditions are generally complex statements that cannot be fully monitored. 

Therefore, the monitoring questions and indicators focus on some core aspect of the desired 

condition that we are capable of monitoring and will provide information for the forest 

supervisor to use to determine if changes to the plan or management actions are needed. 

Some monitoring questions and indictors may address more than one of these required topics. 

Monitoring questions and indicators that address more than one of the eight required items are 

repeated for each such item. Questions and indicators are based on one or more desired 

conditions, objectives, or other components in the plan, but not every plan component has a 

corresponding monitoring question. 

The monitoring questions and associated indicators are designed to inform the management of 

resources on the plan area, including by testing relevant assumptions, tracking relevant 

changes, and measuring management effectiveness and progress toward achieving or 

maintaining the plan’s desired conditions or objectives, as defined in the 2012 planning rule. 

Both the questions and indicators use the best available science to provide relevant 

information regarding the conditions across the national forest and for individual resources. 

The entire monitoring program must be within the financial and technical capability of the 

forest, augmented by broader-scale monitoring by the Region, if needed, and other monitoring 

with partners. 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

8 

We expect to achieve monitoring and evaluation per the proposed program. We also expect 

that partnerships can be developed to accomplish more in monitoring and evaluation. Details 

of the plan monitoring program, including monitoring and analysis protocols, will be part of a 

separate monitoring guide. 

Challis National Forest LRMP Monitoring Plan

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Provide developed outdoor 

recreation opportunities for the 

general public.

How is the Forest’s developed 

recreation program meeting 

visitor needs and providing for 

public health and safety at Forest 

facilities?

• Level of visitor satisfaction 

• Recreation facility condition 

• Recreation use at developed 

sites 

• Number of passing and 

failing tests per water 

system

• Number of public water 

systems (ex. campground) in 

use or decommissioned 

Emphasize dispersed area 

recreation over developed site 

recreation.

Provide a broad spectrum of 

dispersed recreation opportunities.

How is the Forest’s dispersed 

recreation program meeting 

visitor needs?

• Level of visitor satisfaction 

• Trail miles 

maintained/improved to 

standard 

• Miles of new trail 

constructed 

• Trail miles meeting standard 

Identify, protect, interpret and 

manage the significant cultural 

resources on Forest lands.

Are heritage resources being 

protected and are mitigation 

measures sufficient to prevent 

damage to heritage resources 

from federal actions, looting, 

environmental disturbance, and 

other actions? 

• Number of historic 

properties recorded and 

evaluated for the National 

Register

• Number of eligible historic 

properties being impacted 

by federal actions, looting, 

environmental disturbance, 

and other actions

Preserve and protect Wilderness 

as an example of natural 

ecosystems for future generations.

What is the condition of 

campsites within of designated 

Wilderness areas?

What is the amount, distribution, 

and potential conflicts among 

Wilderness visitors?

• Condition of upland and 

river campsites

• Number of motorized and/or 

mechanized intrusions

Manage special areas consistent 

with the intent in which they were 

established.

Do water resource projects meet 

criteria established in the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act?

• Impacts to Outstandingly 

Remarkable Wild and 

Scenic River Values from 

projects within river 

corridors
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

9 

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Provide habitat to ensure viability 

and recovery of Threatened and 

Endangered and Forest Service 

Sensitive plants and animals.

How are forest management 

activities and/or natural events 

affecting ecological conditions 

that contribute to the recovery of 

federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, conserve 

proposed and candidate species?

• Quality of aquatic habitat 

for salmonid presence 

and/or distribution, 

spawning, and other cold 

water aquatic life

• Compliance with state water 

quality sediment, turbidity, 

and temperature standards 

and maintenance of 

beneficial uses

• Effects of management 

activities on maintenance 

and protection of watershed 

health (e.g. sediment)

• Anadromous and resident 

salmonid redd count trends

• Water temperature

• Changes in number of fish 

barriers

• Changes in stream channel 

morphology

• Sage-grouse habitat 

suitability and condition

Maintain or improve the current 

productivity level of wildlife and 

fish habitat.

How are forest management 

activities and natural events 

affecting the ecological conditions 

of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems? 

• Ground and vegetation cover 

and species composition in 

non-forested communities

• Water temperature 

• Function and condition of 

lentic riparian systems 

• Changes in riparian 

vegetation composition

• Forested ecosystem 

condition- species 

composition, disturbance, 

extent 

• Aspen stand condition

Maintain a high quality allotment 

administration program

Manage all allotments to maintain 

suitable range in satisfactory 

(rangeland which is in an 

ecological state of fair or better 

and with and upward or stable 

trend) condition, and improve 

suitable range that is in less than 

satisfactory condition.

Riparian areas condition and trend 

will slowly improve within 

allotments.

Are current allotment 

management strategies effective 

in meeting or moving toward 

desired conditions? 

• Sage-grouse habitat 

suitability and condition

• Ground and vegetation cover 

and species composition in 

non-forested communities

• Changes in stream channel 

morphology

• Function and condition of 

lentic riparian systems

• Changes in riparian 

vegetation composition 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

10

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Maintain noxious weed control 

program at or above current level.

Are our management actions 

reducing the occurrence of 

invasive species?

• Acres of invasive plant 

infestations

• Number of acres treated for 

invasive plants 

Meet needs of local dependent 

mills and allow for moderate 

growth in demand.

Fuel wood offered will meet local 

demand throughout the planning 

period.

Maintain or provide for increase 

in livestock grazing to maintain 

local ranching economy.

Ensure that locatable, common 

variety, and energy minerals are 

developed in environmentally 

acceptable ways and in concert

with other resources and in 

compliance with current laws and 

regulations.

Are goods and services being 

provided in accordance with 

forest plan goals, objectives, and 

desired conditions?

• Total timber sale program 

quantity

• Number of fuelwood cords 

sold

• Level of authorized livestock 

grazing

• Number of approved 

Locatable Plans of Operation 

(POOs) 

• Quantity of common variety 

mineral materials sold

Provide soil and water guidance to 

other resource activities to protect 

and improve water quality and 

soil productivity.

What are the effects of forest plan 

management activities to soil and 

water resources?

• Quality of aquatic habitat for 

salmonid spawning and cold 

water aquatic life

• Compliance with state water 

quality sediment, turbidity, 

and temperature standards 

and maintenance of 

beneficial uses

• Effects of management 

activities on maintenance 

and protection of watershed 

health (e.g. sediment)

• Changes in stream channel 

morphology 

• Function and condition of 

lentic riparian systems

• Changes in riparian 

vegetation composition 

• Effectiveness and 

applicability of current 

practices to maintain water 

quality

• Soil quality, productivity, 

and function
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

11

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Improve watershed condition on 

the Forest.

Are we effectively protecting and 

improving watershed conditions 

through forest plan management 

activities?

• Quality of aquatic habitat for 

salmonid spawning and cold 

water aquatic life

• Compliance with state water 

quality sediment, turbidity, 

and temperature standards 

and maintenance of 

beneficial uses.

• Effects of management 

activities on maintenance 

and protection of watershed 

health (e.g. sediment)

• Changes in stream channel 

morphology

• Riparian habitat condition 

• Changes in riparian 

vegetation composition 

• Effectiveness and 

applicability of current 

practices to maintain water 

quality

• Soil quality, productivity, 

and function

• Water quality chemistry 

analysis (select locations as 

needed)

Manage riparian areas according 

to the Riparian Standards and 

Guidelines. Protect or improve 

riparian dependent resources 

during management activities 

within or affecting riparian areas.

Are we effectively protecting and 

improving aquatic ecosystems and 

riparian conditions through forest 

plan management activities?

• Quality of aquatic habitat for 

salmonid spawning and cold 

water aquatic life

• Compliance with state water 

quality sediment, turbidity, 

and temperature standards 

and maintenance of 

beneficial uses

• Effects of management 

activities on maintenance 

and protection of watershed 

health (e.g. sediment)

• Changes in stream channel 

features 

• Changes in riparian 

vegetation composition 

Function and condition of 

lentic riparian systems 

• Effectiveness and 

applicability of current 

practices to maintain water 

quality
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

12

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Meet state air quality standards.

Meet federal and state ambient air 

quality and visibility standards 

and other applicable air quality 

direction. 

(FCRONRW)

To what degree are atmospheric 

pollutants changing natural 

ecosystems in the plan area?

• Changes in water chemistry 

related to air pollution

• Compliance with state air 

quality standards



Develop a well-planned and 

executed fire protection and fire 

use program that is cost efficient 

and response to land and resource 

management goals and objectives.

Are fires being managed to 

accomplish resource management 

and protection objectives?

• Total acres burned (forested 

and non-forested)

• Acres and number by type of 

fire (I-V) or by size class

• Acres identified for resource 

benefit

Use prescribed fire to accomplish 

resource management objectives.

Are fuels reduction projects 

protecting property, human health 

and safety, and reducing the 

potential for unwanted fire effects 

(in the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) and non-WUI)?

• Acres of hazardous fuels 

reduction in WUI and nonWUI

Salmon National Forest LRMP Monitoring Plan

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Improve the quality of recreation 

experience and increase the PAOT 

(Person At One Time) capacity of 

developed recreation sites in 

heavy use areas.

How is the Forest’s developed 

recreation program meeting 

visitor needs and providing for 

public health and safety at Forest 

facilities?

• Level of visitor satisfaction 

• Recreation facility condition 

• Recreation use at developed 

sites

• Number of passing and 

failing tests per water system

• Number of public water 

systems (ex. campground) in 

use or decommissioned 

Increase emphasis on managing 

dispersed recreation use in areas 

providing Semi primitive and 

Roaded Natural recreation 

opportunities and maintain the 

generally high quality of these 

settings.

Improve the condition of priority 

trails in designated wilderness 

management areas featuring semiprimitive recreation opportunities 

and nationally designated trails 

and maintain other high use 

system trails in a usable condition.

How is the Forest’s dispersed 

recreation program meeting 

visitor needs?

• Level of visitor satisfaction 

• Trail miles 

maintained/improved to 

standard 

• Miles of new trail 

constructed 

• Trail miles meeting standard 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

13

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Locate, determine the significance 

of, and where appropriate, 

preserve, protect, and interpret 

historical and archeological sites.

Are heritage resources being 

protected and are mitigation 

measures sufficient to prevent 

damage to heritage resources 

from federal actions, looting, 

environmental disturbance, and 

other actions? 

• Number of historic 

properties recorded and 

evaluated for the National 

Register. Number of eligible 

historic properties being 

impacted by federal actions, 

looting, environmental 

disturbance, and other 

actions.

Provide for a quality wilderness 

experience in the Salmon National

Forest portion of the Frank 

Church--River of No Return 

Wilderness

consistent with Frank Church--

River of No Return Wilderness

Management Plan objectives.

What is the condition of 

campsites within designated 

Wilderness areas?

What is the amount, distribution, 

and potential conflicts among 

Wilderness visitors?

• Condition of upland and 

river campsites 

• Number of 

motorized/mechanized 

intrusions

In accordance with guidelines in 

the approved Frank Church-River 

of No Return Wilderness

Management Plan and the 

approved Management Plan for 

the Salmon Wild and Scenic 

River, the Forest will encourage 

the County to develop and 

implement zoning of private 

riverside lands that is compatible 

with the Forest Management 

Guidelines. Where the County 

does not implement compatible 

zoning requirements, the Forest 

will schedule and acquire scenic 

easements to meet the objectives 

of the Plan.

Do water resource projects meet 

criteria established in the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act?

• Impacts to Outstandingly 

Remarkable Wild and Scenic 

River Values from projects 

within river corridors
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

14

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Provide National Forest portion of 

the habitat needed to meet 

Regional Wildlife and Fish 

Management objectives.

o Habitat for each vertebrate 

wildlife species on the 

Forest will be managed to 

insure viable or target 

populations.

o Place emphasis on 

improving key ecosystems 

including but not limited 

to: riparian, aspen, aquatic, 

snag, and old growth.

o Manage and provide 

habitat for recovery of 

endangered and threatened 

species as specified in the 

Species Management Plan 

for the Salmon National 

Forest.

How are forest management 

activities and/or natural events 

affecting ecological conditions 

that contribute to the recovery of 

federally listed threatened and 

endangered species, conserve 

proposed and candidate species, 

and maintain a viable population 

of each species of concern? 

• Quality of aquatic habitat for 

salmonid distribution, 

spawning, and other cold 

water aquatic life

• Compliance with state water 

quality sediment, turbidity, 

and temperature standards 

and maintenance of 

beneficial uses

• Effects of management 

activities on maintenance 

and protection of watershed 

health (e.g. sediment)

• Anadromous and resident 

salmonid redd count trends

• Water temperature

• Changes in number of fish 

barriers 

• Changes in stream channel 

morphology 

• Sage-grouse habitat 

suitability and condition 

Maintain adequate structural 

diversity of vegetation on Forest 

lands to ensure habitat for 

minimum viable or target 

populations of all wildlife species 

and to provide representations of 

the various ecological stages of 

endemic plant communities.

• Provide habitat diversity 

through vegetation 

treatments in conjunction 

with other resource activities 

designed to maintain or 

improve wildlife or fisheries 

habitat.

• Provide habitat for 

populations of all native 

vertebrate species of fish and 

wildlife.

How are forest management 

activities and natural events 

affecting the ecological 

conditions of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems?

• Ground and vegetation cover 

and species composition in 

non-forested communities

• Water temperature 

• Function and condition of 

lentic riparian systems 

• Changes in riparian 

vegetation composition 

• Forested ecosystem 

condition- species 

composition, disturbance, 

extent 

• Aspen stand condition
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

15

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Manage all allotments to maintain 

suitable rangelands that are 

presently in satisfactory condition 

and improve suitable rangelands 

that are in poor or fair condition.

• Improve and maintain 

environmental quality of 

NFS ranges by managing the 

grazing in harmony with the

needs of other resources and 

their uses.

• Search out and apply 

techniques to resolve 

livestock grazing problems 

or conflicts with other 

resource uses within riparian 

areas.

• Coordinate range 

improvement and 

management activities with 

wildlife habitat needs,

especially on key habitat 

areas such as winter ranges, 

calving areas, riparian areas, 

and sage-grouse leks.

• Maintain proper stocking 

and livestock distribution to 

protect riparian ecosystems.

Are current allotment 

management strategies effective 

in meeting or moving toward 

desired conditions? 

• Sage-grouse habitat 

suitability and condition

• Ground and vegetation cover 

and species composition in 

non-forested communities

• Changes in stream channel 

morphology

• Function and condition of 

lentic riparian systems

• Changes in riparian 

vegetation composition 



Control noxious weeds as needed 

to protect the value of other 

resources and comply with State 

law.

What management actions are 

being taken to address invasive 

species?

• Acres of invasive plant 

infestations

• Number of acres treated for 

invasive plants

Provide a continuous flow of raw 

material available to dependent 

manufacturing communities.

Provide a personal use and 

commercial firewood program to 

meet the demands of local Forest 

communities.

Contribute to the maintenance of 

viable rural economics by 

promoting stability of family 

ranches and farms.

Encourage the legitimate 

exploration and extraction of 

leasable and locatable minerals 

from National Forest lands while 

maintaining or improving other 

resource values.

Are goods and services being 

provided in accordance with 

forest plan goals, objectives, and 

desired conditions?

• Total timber sale program 

quantity

• Number of fuelwood cords 

sold

• Level of permitted livestock 

grazing

• Number of approved 

Locatable Plans of Operation 

(POOs) 

• Quantity of common variety 

mineral materials sold
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

16

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Maintain watershed conditions 

and water quality such that 

downstream beneficial uses are 

protected and compliance with 

State standards is achieved. 

• Maintain soil productivity, 

minimize man-caused soil 

erosion, and maintain the 

integrity of associated 

ecosystems.

What are the effects of forest plan 

management activities to the 

productivity of the land?

• Effectiveness and 

applicability of current 

practices to maintain water 

quality

• Soil quality, productivity, 

and function

Maintain watershed conditions 

and water quality such that 

downstream beneficial uses are 

protected and compliance with 

State standards is achieved. 

• Conduct management 

and resource 

development within 

riparian zones in a 

manner compatible with 

protection of water 

quality and fish habitat.

• Prevent stream channel 

instability, loss of 

channel cross-sectional 

areas, and loss of water 

quality resulting from 

activities that alter 

vegetative cover.

• Riparian zones will be 

managed in a manner 

compatible with 

protection of water 

quality and fish habitat.

• Search out and apply 

techniques to resolve 

livestock grazing 

problems or conflicts 

with other resource uses 

within riparian areas.

• Manage forest cover 

types in riparian areas to 

perpetuate tree cover and 

provide healthy stands, 

high water quality and 

wildlife and fish habitats.

Are we effectively protecting and 

improving aquatic ecosystems 

and riparian conditions through 

forest plan management 

activities?

• Quality of aquatic habitat for 

salmonid spawning and cold 

water aquatic life.

• Compliance with state water 

quality sediment, turbidity, 

and temperature standards 

and maintenance of 

beneficial uses

• Effects of management 

activities on maintenance 

and protection of watershed 

health (e.g. sediment)

• Changes in stream channel 

morphology

• Function and condition of 

lentic riparian systems

• Changes in riparian 

vegetation composition 

• Effectiveness and 

applicability of current 

practices to maintain water 

quality.

• Soil quality, productivity, 

and function

Meet state air quality standards. What are the effects of 

atmospheric pollutants to natural 

ecosystems?

• Changes in water chemistry 

related to air pollution.

• Compliance with state air 

quality standards.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

17

Plan Components Monitoring Question Monitoring Indicator

Provide a cost effective level of 

fire protection to minimize the 

combined costs of protection and 

damages, and prevent loss of 

human life.

Are fires being managed to 

accomplish resource management 

and protection objectives?

• Total acres burned (forested 

and non-forested)

• Acres and number by type of 

fire (I-V) or by size class

• Acres identified for resource 

benefit

Use prescribed fire to treat 

hazardous fuel conditions, 

accomplish range improvement, 

wildlife habitat improvement, and 

to create a diversified Forest 

condition when it is cost efficient.

Are fuels reduction projects 

protecting property, human health 

and safety, and reducing the 

potential for unwanted fire effects 

(in the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) and non-WUI)?

• Acres of hazardous fuels 

reduction in WUI and nonWUI

Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

19
United States Department of Agriculture

Biennial Monitoring Evaluation 

Report

Salmon-Challis National Forest 

Challis Land Resource Management 

Plan

Forest Service Salmon-Challis National Forest July 2022 
For More Information Contact: 

Jeff Hunteman

1206 S Challis

Salmon, ID 83467

208-756-5246 or Jeffrey.hunteman@usda.gov 

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal 

or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not 

all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA 

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

1 

Introduction

The 2012 planning rule, which is found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR 219, guides 

forest plan monitoring across the Forest Service. The Salmon-Challis National Forest conformance 

strategy focuses on addressing the purpose of the forest plan monitoring program as described in 36 

CFR 219.12(a)(1), which includes the need for monitoring information that enables the responsible 

official to determine if a change in plan components or other plan content that guide management of 

resources on the plan area may be needed. The Biennial Monitoring Report evaluates new information 

gathered through the plan monitoring program and relevant information from the broader-scale 

strategy and makes this information available to the public. The monitoring evaluation report must 

indicate whether or not a change to the plan, management activities, or the monitoring program, or a 

new assessment, may be warranted based on the new information. The biennial monitoring evaluation 

report is used to inform adaptive management of the plan area. Any testing of assumptions, another 

rule-stated purpose of monitoring, would be addressed where relevant to one of the four 

determinations to be made. 

This report presents monitoring information for 2020-21 and is organized in two main parts. The first 

part presents findings for each monitoring question in the monitoring plan and the data source and 

monitoring result for each indicator for each monitoring question. The monitoring questions and 

associated indicators address each of the eight requirements which are noted at 36 CFR 219.12(a)(5).

The second part is a discussion of four determinations from the which include whether or not a change 

to the plan, management activities, or the monitoring program, or a new assessment, may be warranted 

based on the new information. 

The Salmon-Challis National Forest is guided by the Challis Land and Resources Management Plan 

(LRMP) and the Challis LRMP. This report discusses the Challis LRMP. The Challis Forest Plan 

was completed in 1988 and revision is currently underway. Over the past 15 years there have been 

several amendments and corrections to the Forest Plan that are presented in Appendix B. 

Monitoring Evaluation 

Monitoring Question 1

How is the Forest’s developed recreation program meeting visitor needs and providing for public 

health and safety at Forest facilities? 

Indicator #1

Level of visitor satisfaction. 

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A 

Indicator #2 

Recreation facility condition 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

2

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A

Indicator #3

Recreation use at developed sites

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A 

Indicator #4

Number of passing and failing tests per water system

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A

Indicator #5

Number of public water systems (ex. campground) in use or decommissioned

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A

Monitoring Question 2

How is the Forest’s dispersed recreation program meeting visitor needs?

Indicator #1

Level of visitor satisfaction

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A

Indicator #2

Trail miles maintained/improved to standard

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A

Indicator #3

Miles of new trail constructed 

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

3 

Indicator #4 

Trail miles meeting standard 

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A

Monitoring Question 3

Are heritage resources being protected and are mitigation measures sufficient to prevent damage to 

heritage resources from federal actions, looting, environmental disturbance, and other actions? 

Indicator #1 

Number of eligible historic properties being impacted by federal actions, looting, environmental 

disturbance, and other actions.

Data Source: Project inventory reports and monitoring reports 

Monitoring Results: During the 2020-2021 reporting period 24 sites were monitored within the south 

zone of the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Ten sites showed signs of deterioration: four prehistoric, 

three historic, and three multi-use sites. Impacts were mostly due to cattle grazing, trailing, or 

trampling; however, other impacts included erosion and natural weathering, dispersed camping and 

recreational use, and road use. One site, the Cape Horn Guard Station was damaged in the spring 

2020 earthquake. 

Table 2. Sites monitored for impact from looting, environmental disturbance, and other actions.

Year # Sites 

Monitored

# Sites 

Deteriorated

% Sites 

Deteriorated

2020 9 5 55

2021 15 5 33

Indicator #2 

Number of historic properties recorded and evaluated for the National Register of Historic 

Places

Data source: Project inventory reports

Monitoring result: During the 2020-2021 reporting period a total of 126 sites were evaluated for the 

National Register of Historic Places (47 in 2020 and 79 in 2021). One site (Yankee Fork Dredge) was 

nominated and listed on the National Register. 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

4

Monitoring Question 4

What is the condition of campsites within designated Wilderness areas? What is the amount, 

distribution, and potential conflicts among Wilderness visitors?

Indicator #1

Condition of upland and river campsites

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A

Indicator #2

Number of motorized/mechanized intrusions 

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A

Monitoring Question 5

Are goods and services being provided in accordance with forest plan goals, objectives, and desired 

conditions?

Indicator #1

Impacts to Outstandingly Remarkable Wild and Scenic River Values from projects within river 

corridors 

Data Source

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A

Monitoring Question 6

How are forest management activities and/or natural events affecting ecological conditions that 

contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve 

proposed and candidate species?

Indicator #1

Quality of aquatic habitat for salmonid distribution, spawning, and other cold water aquatic life

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A

Indicator #2

Compliance with state water quality sediment, turbidity, and temperature standards and 

maintenance of beneficial uses
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

5 

Data Source: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho’s 2018/2020 Integrated Report

(published October 2020), a biennial report describing ongoing efforts to monitor, assess, track, and 

restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of Idaho waters 

(https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/monitoring-and-assessment/).

Monitoring result: States are required under Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water 

Act to maintain a list of impaired water bodies that do not meet beneficial uses. Stream segments are 

grouped into Assessment Units (AUs) for classification. AUs that do not support beneficial uses but 

have an approved TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) or do not require a TMDL are listed as 

Category 4. AUs that do not support beneficial uses and a TMDL is still needed are listed as Category 

5 (the 303(d) list of impaired waters). 

The 2018/2020 Integrated Report provides the most current assessment of compliance with State water 

quality standards. Out of 5159 stream miles on the Salmon National Forest, 2929 miles fully support 

beneficial uses, 1174 miles are not assessed, and 1056 miles are listed as impaired (Category 4 and/or 

5). Of the impaired streams, 292 miles are listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. The 303(d)-

listed streams are shown in the table below. No lakes on the Challis National Forest are listed as 

impaired (303(d) list).

Table 5. Impaired waters by assessment unit. 

Assessment Unit Name Assessment Unit ID

Stream 

miles 

on NFS 

lands

Parameter

Basin Creek - East Basin Creek to mouth ID17060201SL048_03 2.0 Physical Substrate 

Habitat Alterations

Bear Valley Creek - source to mouth ID17060205SL012_05 2.0 Temperature

Big Lost River - Burnt Creek to 

Thousand Springs Creek ID17040218SK024_02 26.5 Combined Biota/Habitat Bioassessments

Big Lost River - Summit Creek to and 

including Burnt Creek ID17040218SK025_02 18.1 Combined Biota/Habitat Bioassessments

Burnt Creek - source to Long Creek ID17060202SL024_02 6.4 Combined Biota/Habitat 

Bioassessments

Cherry Creek - confluence of Left Fork 

Cherry and Lupine Creeks to mouth ID17040218SK049_04 1.7 Escherichia coli

Corral Creek - source to mouth ID17040218SK041_02 18.0 Escherichia coli

East Fork Salmon River - Germania 

Creek to Herd Creek ID17060201SL103_02 16.5 Combined Biota/Habitat Bioassessments

Fall Creek - source to mouth ID17040218SK032_04 2.2 Combined Biota/Habitat 

Bioassessments

Knapp Creek - source to mouth ID17060205SL025_02 28.1 Combined Biota/Habitat 

Bioassessments

Muldoon Canyon Creek - source to 

mouth ID17040218SK037_02 26.0 Escherichia coli

Pass Creek - source to mouth ID17040218SK009_02 40.7 Combined Biota/Habitat 

Bioassessments

Pass Creek - source to mouth ID17040218SK009_03 4.0

Combined Biota/Habitat 

Bioassessments; 

Escherichia coli
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

6 

Assessment Unit Name Assessment Unit ID

Stream 

miles 

on NFS 

lands

Parameter

Patterson Creek - source to and including 

Inyo Creek ID17060202SL035_02 28.1 Combined Biota/Habitat Bioassessments

Right Fork Iron Bog Creek - source to 

mouth ID17040218SK055_02 16.3 Combined Biota/Habitat Bioassessments

South Fork Lawson Creek - source to 

mouth ID17060202SL005_02 3.1 Combined Biota/Habitat Bioassessments

Squaw Creek - source to mouth ID17040217SK023_02 3.5 Combined Biota/Habitat 

Bioassessments

Star Hope Creek - Lake Creek to mouth ID17040218SK035_02 17.1 Escherichia coli

Star Hope Creek - Lake Creek to mouth ID17040218SK035_04 7.6 Escherichia coli

Star Hope Creek - source to Lake Creek ID17040218SK036_02 20.4 Escherichia coli

West Fork Camas Creek - source to 

mouth ID17060206SL024_03 3.5 Combined Biota/Habitat Bioassessments

TOTAL 292

Indicator #3 

Effects of management activities on maintenance and protection of watershed health (e.g. 

sediment)

Data source: Salmon-Challis National Forest Watershed Monitoring Program – measurement of fine 

sediment at depth in spawning habitat, 2020 and 2021 data, trends, and analysis.

Monitoring result: A total of 14 sites were monitored in 2020 on the Challis National Forest. 

Percent fine sediment at depth in spawning habitat (particles less than 0.25 inches in diameter) ranged 

from 18.2% to 32.7%, with a median value of 24.9%. Two sites showed high levels of fine sediment 

(greater than 30%) in 2020. 

A total of 12 sites were monitored in 2021 on the Challis National Forest. Percent fine sediment at 

depth in spawning habitat ranged from 15.3% to 36.0%, with a median value of 25.1%. Three sites 

showed high levels of fine sediment (greater than 30%) in 2021. 

Fine sediment at depth is an indicator of the quality of spawning habitat for anadromous and resident 

fish species. Fine sediment in streams can also be an indicator of erosion and sedimentation that result 

from various land management activities as well as natural sources. Monitoring frequency for the 50 

active monitoring sites on the Challis National Forest ranges from 1 to 10 years, depending on the type 

of site and data needs, but is most commonly 5 years. Therefore, comparison of these data statistics 

from year to year do not indicate trends because different sites are sampled each year. Data trends for 

a particular site are generally fairly undefined, as a fair amount of variation occurs between sample 

years for a variety of reasons, and data continuity is limited at many sites. Examining trends over a 

longer time period, such as a rolling 10-year average, is more informative than examining year-to-year 

trends. Interpretation of depth fines values should also take into account analysis of watershed 

processes. 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

7

Preliminary analysis is provided in the 2020 Watershed Monitoring Report (draft) and the 2021 

Watershed Monitoring Report (in progress). Results of these preliminary analyses indicate that the 

factors that have the greatest influence on percent fines are channel type, stream gradient, and geology. 

Land use factors such as roads, grazing, and fire showed limited correlation with percent fines. The 

result of this monitoring has further focused the monitoring program. Further analysis to determine 

the relationship between land management activities and fine sediment in streams is forthcoming.

Indicator #4

Anadromous and resident salmonid redd count trends

Data Source: See Appendix A

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A

Indicator #5

Water temperature

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A

Indicator #6

Changes in number of fish barriers

Data Source: Forest Service INFRA and WIT databases

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A

Indicator #7

Changes in stream channel morphology

Data source: Salmon-Challis National Forest Watershed Monitoring Program – collection of channel 

type data, and general field observations.

Monitoring result: Channel type data have been collected for all 50 active monitoring sites on the 

Challis National Forest. Channel type data collected between 1993 and 2010 have been shown to have 

many errors. Collection of channel type data between 2015 and 2020 has helped to refine these data 

and provide baseline channel morphology information at these monitoring sites. The ability to detect 

changes in channel morphology at these sites is limited by data availability, but in some cases, the 

watershed monitoring program has provided a good assessment of short term channel morphology 

changes that occur following wildfire and post-fire flood events.

Qualitative observations collected as part of the Watershed Monitoring Program suggest that no major 

changes have occurred to channel morphology on streams on the Challis National Forest in 2020 and 

2021. Post-fire debris flows and other high flow events have been minimal during this timeframe. 

Some notable changes to channel morphology have occurred in locations associated with roads, 

culverts, and beaver activity. Channel morphology was returned to a more natural condition as a result 

of stream restoration activities on Eightmile Creek and the Yankee Fork at Bonanza.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

8

Indicator #8

Sage‐grouse habitat suitability and condition

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A

Monitoring Question 7

How are forest management activities and natural events affecting the ecological conditions of 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems?

Indicator #1

Ground and vegetation cover and species composition in non-forested communities 

Data Source: Forest Inventory Analysis, 2004 – 2017, Phase 2 Vegetation Subplot Species

Monitoring Results: The Salmon-Challis National Forest did not conduct any upland monitoring in 

non-forested vegetation types that would provide recent information on ground cover, vegetation cover 

or species composition. Information from previous reports is included here but as indicated, does not 

contain any updated information since 2017.

Based on FIA data collected through 2017, in mid and tall sagebrush communities, which comprise the 

majority of the non-forested acres on the Salmon-Challis National Forest, sagebrush species had an 

average cover of 18% but varied from 3 to 65% in plots where present. Bluebunch wheatgrass, which 

is considered a cornerstone species of most of the mid and tall sagebrush communities, had an average 

cover of 12%, but varied from 3 to 55% in plots where present. Idaho fescue, a common co-dominant 

in these vegetation types, had an average cover of 13% and varied from 3 to 40%. Cheatgrass occurred 

in 64 subplots, with an average cover of 11%, but varied from 3 to 50%. 

Indicator #2

Water temperature

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Question #6, Indicator #5

Indicator #3

Function and condition of lentic riparian systems

Data source: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) inventory.

Monitoring result: In 2019, the monitoring crew completed reconnaissance on 42 springs and 

recorded 23 systems using the GDE Level 1 methodology on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. 

Some of these sites were in the Pass Creek area on the Challis National Forest. This work greatly 

added to the Forest inventory of groundwater and karst systems.

Indicator #4

Changes in riparian vegetation composition
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

9

Data Source: Salmon-Challis National Forest Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM)

Monitoring Results: Long-term MIM or, in some cases, Windward greenline, monitoring is 

conducted at approximately 195 riparian designated monitoring areas (DMAs) across the SalmonChallis National Forest. These sites are read on a 5-year schedule, with approximately 20% of the 

sites being read each year. The long-term indicators that are collected in the MIM monitoring provide 

data to assess current condition and trend of streamside vegetation as well as streambanks and 

channels. They also help determine if local livestock management grazing management strategies and 

other land management actions are making progress toward achieving long-term goals and objectives 

for streamside riparian vegetation and aquatic resources (TR 1737-23, 2011).

Based on the most recent compilation of this data (September 2021) there are 153 DMAs that are in 

late seral (LS) or potential natural community (PNC) status. This equates to roughly 79%. Thirty-six 

DMAs, or 18%, are in mid-seral (MS) status and six DMAs, or 3%, are in early seral status. There are 

no DMAs at very early seral status. Under its riparian management strategy, the Forest has set a 

desired condition of Late Seral for riparian vegetation.

Although data was pulled from the PIBO dataset, the most recent data collected for the SCNF was 

2017. Inquiries regarding updated information indicate that an updated report may be available in 

May 2022. 

Indicator #5

Forested ecosystem condition- species composition, disturbance, extent

Data Source: FACTS, TIM, Project NEPA, Fire Stat, BARC (Burned Area Reflectance 

Classification), Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) See Appendix A

Monitoring Results: There was no forested ecosystem condition monitoring on the Forest in 2020 or 

2021 due to COVID.

Indicator #6

Aspen stand condition 

Data Source: Project NEPA, FACTS See Appendix A

Monitoring Results: There was no aspen stand condition monitoring on the Forest in 2020 or 2021 

due to COVID. 

Monitoring Question 8

Are current allotment management strategies effective in meeting or moving toward desired 

conditions?

Indicator #1

Sage-grouse habitat suitability and condition

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

10

Indicator #2 

Ground and vegetation cover and species composition in non-forested communities

Monitoring Results: See Indicator #1 under monitoring question # 7 

Indicator #3 

Changes in stream channel morphology

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7.

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7.

Indicator #4 

Function and condition of lentic riparian systems

Data source: See Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #3.

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #3.

Indicator #5 

Changes in riparian vegetation composition

Monitoring Results: See Indicator #4 under monitoring question # 7 

Monitoring Question 9

Are our management actions reducing the occurrence of invasive species?

Indicator #1 

Acres of invasive plant infestations 

Data Source: Salmon-Challis National Forest Geographic Information System library layer, 2022 

Monitoring Results: The following table indicates those acres which have been identified as 

having invasive species present, including lands within designated Wilderness. It is estimated that only 

15-20% of the Forest outside of Wilderness has been inventoried. Although not a listed noxious weed 

species in the State of Idaho, cheatgrass acreage has been included here as the Salmon-Challis 

National Forest has been completing aerial treatment of this invasive grass. Reported acres cover both 

the Salmon and Challis National Forests. 

Table 6. Inventoried acres containing invasive species

Species Infested Acres

Black henbane 355

Canada thistle 3,605

Cheatgrass 7,184

Common St. Johnswort 18
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

11

Dalmatian toadflax 147

Diffuse knapweed 9

Dyers woad 0

Field bindweed 57

Hoary alyssum 3,215

Houndstongue 2,095

Knotweed 5

Leafy spurge 1,153

Musk thistle 1,976

Oxeye daisy 362

Perennial pepperweed 0

Puncturevine 26

Rush skeletonweed 11,256

Russian knapweed 0

Salt cedar 1

Scotch thistle 1

Spotted knapweed 50,721

Sulphur cinquefoil 605

Whitetop 91

Yellow toadflax 538

TOTAL 83,420
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

12

Indicator #2 

Number of acres treated for invasive plants 

Data Source: Salmon-Challis National Forest GI interface with Forest Activity (FACTS) reporting 

database, FY20 and FY21. 

Monitoring Results: Gypsyflower in the treatment charts is the same as houndstongue in the 

inventory. Nodding plumeless thistle in the treatment charts is the same as musk thistle in the 

inventory. 

Acres treated are not keeping up with even that which is inventoried. Biological control agents are 

being released but they are a much smaller part of the treatment program. Aerial applications have 

increased treatment acres for some species such as cheatgrass and spotted knapweed, but a wide gap 

remains between inventoried and treated acreage. 

Table 7. Noxious Weed Acres treated by Fiscal Year 

Common Name FY20 FY21

Black henbane 2 410

Canada thistle 405 414

Cheatgrass 2219 6276

Common St. Johnswort 30 0

Dalmatian toadflax 76 0

Diffuse knapweed 0 6

Dyer's woad 0 0

Field bindweed 19 20

Gypsyflower (houndstongue) 212 272

Hoary alyssum 183 131

Knotweed 0 0

Leafy spurge 38 205

Nodding plumeless thistle (musk thistle) 59 490

Oxeye daisy 39 25

Perennial pepperweed 0 0

Puncturevine 76 3

Rush skeletonweed 431 289

Russian knapweed 0 0

Salt cedar 0 0

Scoth thistle 0 0

Spotted knapweed 2271 3154

Sulphur cinquefoil 11 47

Whitetop 0 0

Yellow toadflax 2 0

TOTAL 6,073 11,742
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

13

Monitoring Question 10 

Are goods and services being provided in accordance with forest plan goals, objectives, and desired 

conditions? 

Indicator #1 

Total timber sale program quantity

Data Source: Timber Information Management System (TIM)

Monitoring Results:

FY20: 

Contracts 3,784.00 ccf 

Firewood Permits 3,802.05 ccf (3,411.05 ccf was “sold” as free-use. No volume credit 

 awarded to the Forest) 

Post/Poles 730.00 ccf 

FY20 Total 8,316.05 ccf 

FY21: 

Contracts 2,735.00 ccf 

Firewood Permits 4,485.45 ccf (4,274.65 ccf was “sold” as free-use. No volume credit 

 awarded to the Forest)

Post/Poles 725.00 ccf 

FY21 Total 7,945.45 ccf

Indicator #2 

Number of fuelwood cords sold 

Data Source: Timber Information Management System (TIM)

Monitoring Results:

FY20: 

Firewood Permits 4,473 Cords 

Note: 4,013 cords were “sold” as free-use due to COVID 19. The total cords for FY20 may 

appear as an anomaly when compared to pre-COVID annual quantities. It is assumed this 

would be a big part of the reason.

FY21: 

Firewood Permits 5,277 Cords 

Note: 5,029 cords were “sold” as free-use due to COVID 19. The total cords for FY21 may 

appear as an anomaly when compared to pre-COVID annual quantities. It is assumed this 

would be a big part of the reason. 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

14

Indicator #3

Level of permitted livestock grazing

Data Source: The Forest Service’s Natural Resource Manager database was used to summarize forest 

wide information on grazing permits and permitted use. 

Monitoring Results: In 2020, there were a total of 107,070 HMs of cattle grazing, 693 HMs of horse 

grazing and 17,552 HMs of sheep grazing, for a total of 125,315 HMs of livestock grazing permitted 

on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. In 2021, the Forest permitted a total of 100,908 HMs of cattle 

grazing, 693 HMs of horse grazing and 10,055 HMs of sheep grazing for a total of 111,656 HMs of 

livestock grazing.

Indicator #4

Number of approved locatable plans of operations

2020 – 30

2021 - 42

Data Source: NRM Dashboard for Locatable Minerals and Mineral Materials.

Monitoring Results: In 2020 & 2021 respectively, seven new plans were approved for 

implementation each year.

Indicator #5

Quantity of common variety mineral materials sold

2020 – 22

2021 - 26

Data Source: NRM Dashboard for Locatable Minerals and Mineral Materials.

Monitoring Results: In 2020, 22 permits were sold and in 2021, 26 permits were sold.

Monitoring Question 11

What are the effects of forest plan management activities to soil and water resources?

Indicator #1

Quality of aquatic habitat for salmonid spawning and cold water aquatic life

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #1

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #1

Indicator #2

Compliance with state water quality sediment, turbidity, and temperature standards and 

maintenance of beneficial uses.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

15

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #2

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #2

Indicator #3

Effects of management activities on maintenance and protection of watershed health (e.g. 

sediment)

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #3

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #3

Indicator #4

Changes in stream channel morphology

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7

Indicator #5

Function and condition of lentic riparian systems

Data source: See Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #3.

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #3.

Indicator #6

Changes in riparian vegetation composition

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Indicator #4 under monitoring question # 7

Indicator #7

Effectiveness and applicability of current practices to maintain water quality 

Data source: Salmon-Challis National Forest Best Management Practice (BMP) Monitoring 

Program.

Monitoring result: BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring were not conducted at any

project sites on the Challis National Forest in 2020 or 2021. However, the results of past BMP 

implementation and effectiveness monitoring have indicated that project implementation is meeting 

the intent of the BMPs, and BMP monitoring has heightened awareness of BMPs and increased 

positive collaboration between Watershed staff and other resource specialists that are implementing 

projects.

Indicator #8

Soil quality, productivity, and function
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

16

Data source: No soil condition monitoring or pre- and post-disturbance soil monitoring were 

conducted on the Challis National Forest in 2020 or 2021.

Monitoring result: N/A

Monitoring Question 12

Are we effectively protecting and improving watershed conditions through forest plan 

management activities?

Indicator #1

Quality of aquatic habitat for salmonid spawning and cold water aquatic life.

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #1

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #1

Indicator #2

Compliance with state water quality sediment, turbidity, and temperature standards and 

maintenance of beneficial uses

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #2

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #2

Indicator #3

Effects of management activities on maintenance and protection of watershed health (e.g. 

sediment)

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #3

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #3

Indicator #4

Changes in stream channel morphology

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7

Indicator #5

Riparian habitat condition

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #1 and Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #4

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #1 and Monitoring Question #7, Indicator 

#4

Indicator #6

Changes in riparian vegetation composition
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

17

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Indicator #4 under monitoring question # 7

Indicator #7

Effectiveness and applicability of current practices to maintain water quality.

Data source: See Monitoring Question #11, Indicator #7

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #11, Indicator #7

Indicator #8

Soil quality, productivity, and function

Data source: See Monitoring Question #11, Indicator #8

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #11, Indicator #8

Indicator #9

Water quality chemistry analysis (select locations as needed)

Data source: See Monitoring Question #14, Indicator #1

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #14, Indicator #1

Monitoring Question 13

Are we effectively protecting and improving aquatic ecosystems and riparian conditions through 

forest plan management activities?

Indicator #1

Quality of aquatic habitat for salmonid spawning and cold water aquatic life.

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #1

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #1

Indicator #2

Compliance with state water quality sediment, turbidity, and temperature standards and 

maintenance of beneficial uses

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #2

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #2

Indicator #3

Effects of management activities on maintenance and protection of watershed health (e.g. 

sediment)

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #3
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

18

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #3

Indicator #4

Changes in stream channel features

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7

Indicator #5

Function and condition of lentic riparian systems

Data source: See Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #3.

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #3.

Indicator #6

Changes in riparian vegetation composition

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Indicator #4 under monitoring question # 7

Indicator #7

Effectiveness and applicability of current practices to maintain water quality.

Data source: See Monitoring Question #11, Indicator #7

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #11, Indicator #7

Monitoring Question 14

To what degree are atmospheric pollutants changing natural ecosystems in the plan area?

Indicator #1

Changes in water chemistry related to air pollution. 

Data source: Salmon-Challis National Forest air quality monitoring program, sampling of air quality 

indicators at Wilderness Lakes.

Monitoring result: The Salmon-Challis National Forest conducts long term monitoring of 

atmospheric pollutants in three lakes within the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. One of 

these lakes is located on the Challis National Forest (Crimson Lake). The air quality within this Class 

II airshed is generally excellent. However, no monitoring was conducted in 2020 or 2021, and any 

changes during this timeframe cannot be quantified. The last sampling at this lake occurred in 2015.

Indicator #2

Compliance with state air quality standards. 

Data source: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Air Quality Monitoring Program
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

19

Monitoring result: Idaho DEQ maintains a statewide monitoring network to measure the levels of 

five ambient air criteria pollutants identified by the federal Clean Air Act: particulate matter (PM10 

and PM2.5), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. No air quality monitoring 

stations are in close proximity to the Challis National Forest. The Forest Service does not actively 

monitor compliance with state air quality standards.

Monitoring Question 15

Are fires being managed to accomplish resource management and protection objectives?

Indicator #1 

Total acres burned (forested and non-forested).

Data source: Fire Stat and Wildcad

Monitoring result: Total acres burned in 2020 were 1329.98 and 89296.25 in 2021. 

Indicator #2 

Acres and number by type of fire (I-V) or by size class 

Data source: Fire Stat and Wildcad

Monitoring result: 

Table 9. Fire size by class

Challis N.F. Fires By Size Class

2020 2021

Size Class # Fires Acres

# 

Fires Acres

A 4 4.65 7 0.95

B 1 0.33 20 10.30

C 1 27 1 27

D 1 296 1 103

E 2 1002 1 472

F 0 0 0 0

G 0 0 2 88782

Total 9 1329.98 32 89396.25
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

20

Indicator #3 

Acres identified for resource benefit

Data source: FACTS and Wildcad

Monitoring result: One fire was managed for resource benefit in 2020 accounting for 628 acres, and 

in 2021 One fire was managed for resource benefit accounting for 103 acres. 

Monitoring Question 16

Are fuels reduction projects protecting property, human health and safety, and reducing the potential 

for unwanted fire effects (in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and non-WUI)?

Indicator #1 

Acres of hazardous fuels reduction in WUI and non- WUI 

Data Source: FACTS

Monitoring Results: 

Table 10. Acres of WUI and non-WUI fires

Challis NF Acres Treated 

2018 2019

WUI 956 1632

Non-WUI 72 885

Total 

Acres/Year 1028 2517 

Determinations 

Based on evaluations that were conducted, the following are the determinations for adaptive 

management, per 36 CFR 219.12(d)(2): 

NEED FOR CHANGING THE FOREST PLAN

The Salmon-Challis National Forest in July of 2018 completed the draft assessment and need for 

change. The Forest is currently determining if revising, amending, or retaining the current plans is 

appropriate. Copies of the assessment and need for change are available at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FSEPRD544724 

NEED FOR CHANGING MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

The Salmon-Challis National Forest in July of 2018 completed the draft assessment and need for 

change. The Forest is currently determining if revising, amending, or retaining the current plans is 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

21

appropriate. Copies of the assessment and need for change are available at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FSEPRD544724 

NEED FOR CHANGING THE MONITORING PROGRAM

The Salmon-Challis National Forest in July of 2018 completed the draft assessment and need for 

change. The Forest is currently determining if revising, amending, or retaining the current plans is 

appropriate. Copies of the assessment and need for change are available at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FSEPRD544724 

NEED FOR CONDUCTING AN ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE PRELIMINARY NEED TO 

CHANGE THE PLAN

The Salmon-Challis National Forest in July of 2018 completed the draft assessment and need for 

change. The Forest is currently determining if revising, amending, or retaining the current plans is 

appropriate. Copies of the assessment and need for change are available at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FSEPRD544724 

Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

23

Appendix A – Monitoring Items Not Evaluated in 

Detail 

Some Monitoring Question were not completed for this biennial report. The Forest lacked capacity to 

determine a response to the indicator in a timely fashion. For more information contact the Fisheries 

Program Lead Karryl Krieger at 208-756-5102 karryl.krieger@usda.gov, and Nick Schade at 208-756-

5115 nicholas.schade@usda.gov. 

Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

25

Appendix B: Amendments and Corrections to the 

Challis Forest Plan

Challis Forest Plan Amendments

Amendment #1 - Amend the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan to 

incorporate administrative action. 

Amendment #2 - Decision to not implement the 1992 Challis National Forest Travel Plan 

Amendment #3 through #8 - Amend Plan to add RNA

Amendment #10 - Amend the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan for 

outfitter and guide camp operations

Amendment #11 – Incorporation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing 

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PacFish)

Amendment #12 – Incorporation of Inland Native Fish Strategy (InFish)

Amendment #13 – Amendment to designate Big Hill as a communication site

Amendment #14 through #16 - Amend Plan to add RNA

Amendment #17 – Incorporates the revised Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness 

Management Plan

Amendment #18 – Amend the Management Indicator Species list

Amendment #19 – Amend the Forest Plan to incorporate changes from the 2009 decision to 

implement the Salmon-Challis National Forest Travel Planning and OHV Route Designation 

Project
United States Department of Agriculture

Biennial Monitoring Evaluation 

Report

Salmon-Challis National Forest 

Salmon Land Resource Management 

Plan

Forest Service Salmon-Challis National Forest July 2022 
For More Information Contact: 

Jeff Hunteman

1206 S Challis

Salmon, ID 83467

208-756-5246 or Jeffrey.hunteman@usda.gov 

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal 

or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not 

all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA 

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

1 

Introduction

The 2012 planning rule, which is found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 36 CFR 219, guides 

forest plan monitoring across the Forest Service. The Salmon-Challis National Forest conformance 

strategy focuses on addressing the purpose of the forest plan monitoring program as described in 36 

CFR 219.12(a)(1), which includes the need for monitoring information that enables the responsible 

official to determine if a change in plan components or other plan content that guide management of 

resources on the plan area may be needed. The Biennial Monitoring Report evaluates new information 

gathered through the plan monitoring program and relevant information from the broader-scale 

strategy and makes this information available to the public. The monitoring evaluation report must 

indicate whether or not a change to the plan, management activities, or the monitoring program, or a 

new assessment, may be warranted based on the new information. The biennial monitoring evaluation 

report is used to inform adaptive management of the plan area. Any testing of assumptions, another 

rule-stated purpose of monitoring, would be addressed where relevant to one of the four 

determinations to be made. 

This report presents monitoring information for 2020-2021 and is organized in two main parts. The 

first part presents findings for each monitoring question in the monitoring plan and the data source and 

monitoring result for each indicator for each monitoring question. The monitoring questions and 

associated indicators address each of the eight requirements which are noted at 36 CFR 219.12(a)(5).

The second part is a discussion of four determinations from the which include whether or not a change 

to the plan, management activities, or the monitoring program, or a new assessment, may be warranted 

based on the new information. 

The Salmon-Challis National Forest is guided by the Challis Land and Resources Management Plan 

(LRMP) and the Salmon LRMP. This report discusses the Salmon LRMP. The Salmon Forest Plan 

was completed in 1987 and revision is currently underway with resource assessments and need for 

change statements completed in July of 2018. Over the past 15 years there have been several 

amendments and corrections to the Forest Plan that are presented in Appendix B. 

Monitoring Evaluation 

Monitoring Question 1

How is the Forest’s developed recreation program meeting visitor needs and providing for public 

health and safety at Forest facilities? 

Indicator #1

Level of visitor satisfaction. 

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

2

Indicator #2

Recreation facility condition

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A 

Indicator #3

Recreation use at developed sites

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A 

Indicator #4

Number of passing and failing tests per water system

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A .

Indicator #5

Number of public water systems (ex. campground) in use or decommissioned

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A 

Monitoring Question 2

How is the Forest’s dispersed recreation program meeting visitor needs?

Indicator #1

Level of visitor satisfaction

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A 

Indicator #2

Trail miles maintained/improved to standard

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A 

Indicator #3

Miles of new trail constructed 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

3 

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A 

Indicator #4 

Trail miles meeting standard 

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A 

Monitoring Question 3

Are heritage resources being protected and are mitigation measures sufficient to prevent damage to 

heritage resources from federal actions, looting, environmental disturbance, and other actions? 

Indicator #1 

Number of eligible historic properties being impacted by federal actions, looting, environmental 

disturbance, and other actions.

Data Source: Project inventory reports and monitoring reports 

Monitoring Results: During the 2020-2021 reporting period 22 sites were monitored within the north 

zone (Salmon) of the Salmon-Challis National Forest. Four historic sites and one prehistoric site (none 

within the Middle Fork Salmon River corridor) showed signs of deterioration due to erosion and 

environmental impacts mostly, but other impacts included cattle grazing, road construction, mining 

developments, looting, and recreational use. 

Table 2. Sites monitored for impact from looting, environmental disturbance, and other actions. 

Year # Sites 

Monitored

# Sites 

Deteriorated

% Sites 

Deteriorated

2020 9 5 55

2021 15 0 0

Indicator #2 

Number of historic properties recorded and evaluated for the National Register of Historic 

Places

Data source: Project inventory reports

Monitoring result: During the 2020-2021 reporting period a total of 37 sites were evaluated for the 

National Register of Historic Places (16 in 2020 and 21 in 2021). 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

4

Monitoring Question 4

What is the condition of campsites within designated Wilderness areas? What is the amount, 

distribution, and potential conflicts among Wilderness visitors?

Indicator #1 Schade

Condition of upland and river campsites

Data Source: Personal communication with Wilderness Rangers and River Patrol. Wilderness 

Ranger hitch reports.

Monitoring Results: Visual inspection/monitoring of river and upland campsites within Wilderness 

has shown that there are few issues in regards to the amount and distribution of campsites and the 

conflicts among Wilderness visitors on the Salmon National Forest with the exception of the area 

surrounding the Big Horn Crags. 

Indicator #2

Number of motorized/mechanized intrusions 

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A 

Monitoring Question 5

Are goods and services being provided in accordance with forest plan goals, objectives, and desired 

conditions?

Indicator #1

Impacts to Outstandingly Remarkable Wild and Scenic River Values from projects within river 

corridors 

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A 

Monitoring Question 6

How are forest management activities and/or natural events affecting ecological conditions that 

contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve 

proposed and candidate species?

Indicator #1

Quality of aquatic habitat for salmonid distribution, spawning, and other cold water aquatic life

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

5 

Indicator #2 

Compliance with state water quality sediment, turbidity, and temperature standards and 

maintenance of beneficial uses

Data source: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho’s 2018/2020 Integrated Report

(published October 2020), a biennial report describing ongoing efforts to monitor, assess, track, and 

restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of Idaho waters 

(https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/surface-water/monitoring-and-assessment/). 

Monitoring result: States are required under Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act 

to maintain a list of impaired water bodies that do not meet beneficial uses. Stream segments are 

grouped into Assessment Units (AUs) for classification. AUs that do not support beneficial uses but 

have an approved TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) or do not require a TMDL are listed as 

Category 4. AUs that do not support beneficial uses and a TMDL is still needed are listed as Category 

5 (the 303(d) list of impaired waters). 

The 2018/2020 Integrated Report provides the most current assessment of compliance with State water 

quality standards. Out of 2824 stream miles on the Salmon National Forest, 1610 miles fully support 

beneficial uses, 818 miles are not assessed, and 396 miles are listed as impaired (Category 4 and/or 5). 

Of the impaired streams, 108 miles are listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waters. The 303(d)-listed 

streams are shown in the table below. Only one lake (Williams Lake) on the Salmon National Forest 

is listed under Category 4, and no lakes are listed as impaired (303(d) list). 

Table 4. Impaired waters by assessment unit.

Assessment Unit Name Assessment Unit ID

Stream 

miles on 

NFS lands

Parameter

Big Deer Creek - South Fork Big 

Deer Creek to mouth ID17060203SL005_03 3.0 Copper

Canyon Creek - source to diversion 

(T16N, R26E, Sec.22) ID17060204SL051b_03 5.8 Escherichia coli

Napias Creek - Arnett Creek to and 

including Moccasin Creek ID17060203SL024_03 5.5 Combined Biota/Habitat Bioassessments

Panther Creek - Big Deer Creek to 

mouth ID17060203SL002_05 13.0 Temperature

Panther Creek - Blackbird Creek to 

Napias Creek ID17060203SL011_04 5.5 Temperature

Panther Creek - Napias Creek to 

Big Deer Creek ID17060203SL010_05 6.1 Temperature

Panther Creek - Porphyry Creek to 

Blackbird Creek ID17060203SL014_03 1.9 Combined Biota/Habitat Bioassessments

Panther Creek - Porphyry Creek to 

Blackbird Creek ID17060203SL014_04 4.8 Temperature

Panther Creek - source to Porphyry 

Creek ID17060203SL017_03 11.6 Temperature

Salmon River - Carmen Creek to 

North Fork Salmon River ID17060203SL039_07 6.9 Temperature
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

6

Salmon River - Indian Creek to 

Panther Creek ID17060203SL029_07 17.9 Temperature

Salmon River - North Fork Sheep 

Creek to Indian Creek ID17060203SL032_07 11.8 Temperature

Salmon River - Panther Creek to 

Middle Fork Salmon River ID17060203SL001_07 11.8 Temperature

South Fork Big Deer Creek -

Bucktail Creek to mouth ID17060203SL007_02 0.5 Escherichia coli

West Fork Camas Creek - source to 

mouth ID17060206SL024_03 1.7 Combined Biota/Habitat Bioassessments

TOTAL 107.8

Indicator #3

Effects of management activities on maintenance and protection of watershed health (e.g. 

sediment)

Data source: Salmon-Challis National Forest Watershed Monitoring Program – measurement of fine 

sediment at depth in spawning habitat, 2020 and 2021 data, trends, and analysis.

Monitoring result: A total of 18 sites were monitored in 2020 on the Salmon National Forest. 

Percent fine sediment at depth in spawning habitat (particles less than 0.25 inches in diameter) ranged 

from 11.0% to 47.1%, with a median value of 19.7%. Five sites showed high levels of fine sediment 

(greater than 30%) in 2020. 

A total of 7 sites were monitored in 2021 on the Salmon National Forest. Percent fine sediment at 

depth in spawning habitat ranged from 12.8% to 23.9%, with a median value of 18.1%. None of these

sites showed high levels of fine sediment (greater than 30%) in 2021.

Fine sediment at depth is an indicator of the quality of spawning habitat for anadromous and resident 

fish species. Fine sediment in streams can also be an indicator of erosion and sedimentation that result 

from various land management activities as well as natural sources. Monitoring frequency for the 78

active monitoring sites on the Salmon National Forest ranges from 1 to 10 years, depending on the 

type of site and data needs, but is most commonly 5 years. Therefore, comparison of these data 

statistics from year to year do not indicate trends because different sites are sampled each year. Data 

trends for a particular site are generally fairly undefined, as a fair amount of variation occurs between 

sample years for a variety of reasons, and data continuity is limited at many sites. Examining trends 

over a longer time period, such as a rolling 10-year average, is more informative than examining yearto-year trends. Interpretation of depth fines values should also take into account analysis of watershed 

processes.

Preliminary analysis is provided in the 2020 Watershed Monitoring Report (draft) and the 2021

Watershed Monitoring Report (in progress). Results of these preliminary analyses indicate that the 

factors that have the greatest influence on percent fines are channel type, stream gradient, and geology. 

Land use factors such as roads, grazing, and fire showed limited correlation with percent fines. The 

result of this monitoring has further focused the monitoring program. Further analysis to determine 

the relationship between land management activities and fine sediment in streams is forthcoming.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

7

Indicator #4

Anadromous and resident salmonid redd count trends

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A 

Indicator #5

Water temperature

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A 

Indicator #6

Changes in number of fish barriers

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A 

Indicator #7

Changes in stream channel morphology

Data source: 

Monitoring result: See Appendix A 

Indicator #8

Sage‐grouse habitat suitability and condition

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A 

Monitoring Question 7

How are forest management activities and natural events affecting the ecological conditions of 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems?

Indicator #1

Ground and vegetation cover and species composition in non-forested communities 

Data Source: Forest Inventory Analysis, 2004 – 2017, Phase 2 Vegetation Subplot Species

Monitoring Results: The Salmon-Challis National Forest did not conduct any upland monitoring in 

non-forested vegetation types that would provide recent information on ground cover, vegetation cover 

or species composition. Information from previous reports is included here but as indicated, does not 

contain any updated information since 2017.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

8

Based on FIA data collected through 2017, in mid and tall sagebrush communities, which comprise the 

majority of the non-forested acres on the Salmon-Challis National Forest, sagebrush species had an 

average cover of 18% but varied from 3 to 65% in plots where present. Bluebunch wheatgrass, which 

is considered a cornerstone species of most of the mid and tall sagebrush communities, had an average 

cover of 12%, but varied from 3 to 55% in plots where present. Idaho fescue, a common co-dominant 

in these vegetation types, had an average cover of 13% and varied from 3 to 40%. Cheatgrass occurred 

in 64 subplots, with an average cover of 11%, but varied from 3 to 50%. 

Indicator #2

Water temperature

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A 

Indicator #3

Function and condition of lentic riparian systems

Data source: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) inventory. 

Monitoring result: In 2019, the monitoring crew completed reconnaissance on 42 springs and 

recorded 23 systems using the GDE Level 1 methodology on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. 

Most of these sites were in the Lemhi Valley on the Salmon National Forest. This work greatly added 

to the Forest inventory of groundwater and karst systems.

Indicator #4

Changes in riparian vegetation composition

Data Source: Salmon-Challis National Forest Multiple Indicator Monitoring (MIM)

Monitoring Results: 

Long-term MIM or, in some cases, Windward greenline, monitoring is conducted at approximately 

195 riparian designated monitoring areas (DMAs) across the Salmon-Challis National Forest. These 

sites are read on a 5-year schedule, with approximately 20% of the sites being read each year. The 

long-term indicators that are collected in the MIM monitoring provide data to assess current condition 

and trend of streamside vegetation as well as streambanks and channels. They also help determine if 

local livestock management grazing management strategies and other land management actions are 

making progress toward achieving long-term goals and objectives for streamside riparian vegetation 

and aquatic resources (TR 1737-23, 2011).

Based on the most recent compilation of this data (September 2021) there are 153 DMAs that are in 

late seral (LS) or potential natural community (PNC) status. This equates to roughly 79%. Thirty-six 

DMAs, or 18%, are in mid-seral (MS) status and six DMAs, or 3%, are in early seral status. There are 

no DMAs at very early seral status. Under its riparian management strategy, the Forest has set a 

desired condition of Late Seral for riparian vegetation.

Although data was pulled from the PIBO dataset, the most recent data collected for the SCNF was 

2017. Inquiries regarding updated information indicate that an updated report may be available in May 

2022.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

9

Indicator #5

Forested ecosystem condition- species composition, disturbance, extent

Data Source: FACTS, TIM, Project NEPA, Fire Stat, BARC (Burned Area Reflectance 

Classification), Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) See Appendix A

Monitoring Results: There was no forested ecosystem condition monitoring on the Forest in 2020 or 

2021 due to COVID.

Indicator #6

Aspen stand condition 

Data Source: Project NEPA, FACTS See Appendix A

Monitoring Results: There was no aspen stand condition monitoring on the Forest in 2020 or 2021 

due to COVID.

Monitoring Question 8

Are current allotment management strategies effective in meeting or moving toward desired 

conditions?

Indicator #1

Sage-grouse habitat suitability and condition

Data Source: 

Monitoring Results: See Appendix A 

Indicator #2

Ground and vegetation cover and species composition in non-forested communities

Monitoring Results: See Indicator #1 under monitoring question # 7

Indicator #3

Changes in stream channel morphology

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7.

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7.

Indicator #4

Function and condition of lentic riparian systems

Data source: See Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #3.

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #3.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

10

Indicator #5 

Changes in riparian vegetation composition

Monitoring Results: See Indicator #4 under monitoring question # 7 

Monitoring Question 9

Are our management actions reducing the occurrence of invasive species?

Indicator #1 

Acres of invasive plant infestations 

Data Source: Salmon-Challis National Forest Geographic Information System library layer, 2022 

Monitoring Results: The following table indicates those acres which have been identified as 

having invasive species present, including lands within designated Wilderness. It is estimated that only 

15-20% of the Forest outside of Wilderness has been inventoried. Although not a listed noxious weed 

species in the State of Idaho, cheatgrass acreage has been included here as the Salmon-Challis 

National Forest has been completing aerial treatment of this invasive grass. Reported acres cover both 

the Salmon and Challis National Forests. 

Table 6. Inventoried acres containing invasive species

Species Infested Acres

Black henbane 355

Canada thistle 3,605

Cheatgrass 7,184

Common St. Johnswort 18

Dalmatian toadflax 147

Diffuse knapweed 9

Dyers woad 0

Field bindweed 57

Hoary alyssum 3,215

Houndstongue 2,095

Knotweed 5

Leafy spurge 1,153

Musk thistle 1,976

Oxeye daisy 362

Perennial pepperweed 0

Puncturevine 26

Rush skeletonweed 11,256

Russian knapweed 0

Salt cedar 1
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

11

Scotch thistle 1

Spotted knapweed 50,721

Sulphur cinquefoil 605

Whitetop 91

Yellow toadflax 538

TOTAL 83,420

Indicator #2 

Number of acres treated for invasive plants 

Data Source: Salmon-Challis National Forest GI interface with Forest Activity (FACTS) reporting 

database, FY20 and FY21. 

Monitoring Results: Gypsyflower in the treatment charts is the same as houndstongue in the 

inventory. Nodding plumeless thistle in the treatment charts is the same as musk thistle in the 

inventory. 

Acres treated are not keeping up with even that which is inventoried. Biological control agents are 

being released but they are a much smaller part of the treatment program. Aerial applications have 

increased treatment acres for some species such as cheatgrass and spotted knapweed, but a wide gap 

remains between inventoried and treated acreage. 

Table 7. Noxious Weed Acres treated by Fiscal Year

Common Name FY20 FY21

Black henbane 2 410

Canada thistle 405 414

Cheatgrass 2219 6276

Common St. Johnswort 30 0

Dalmatian toadflax 76 0

Diffuse knapweed 0 6

Dyer's woad 0 0

Field bindweed 19 20

Gypsyflower (houndstongue) 212 272

Hoary alyssum 183 131

Knotweed 0 0

Leafy spurge 38 205

Nodding plumeless thistle (musk thistle) 59 490

Oxeye daisy 39 25

Perennial pepperweed 0 0

Puncturevine 76 3
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

12

Rush skeletonweed 431 289

Russian knapweed 0 0

Salt cedar 0 0

Scoth thistle 0 0

Spotted knapweed 2271 3154

Sulphur cinquefoil 11 47

Whitetop 0 0

Yellow toadflax 2 0

TOTAL 6,073 11,742

Monitoring Question 10 

Are goods and services being provided in accordance with forest plan goals, objectives, and desired 

conditions? 

Indicator #1 

Total timber sale program quantity

Data Source: Timber Information Management System (TIM)

Monitoring Results:

FY20: 

Contracts 1,470.00 ccf 

Firewood Permits 6,774.50 ccf (6,130.20 ccf was “sold” as free-use. No volume credit 

 awarded to the Forest)

Post/Poles 410.00 ccf 

FY20 Total 8,654.50 ccf 

FY21: 

Contracts 10,147.00 ccf 

Firewood Permits 7,812.35 ccf (7,734.15 ccf was “sold” as free-use. No volume credit 

 awarded to the Forest)

Post/Poles 330.00 ccf 

FY21 Total 18,289.35 ccf 

Indicator #2 

Number of fuelwood cords sold 

Data Source: Timber Information Management System (TIM)

Monitoring Results:

FY20: 

Firewood Permits 7,970.00 Cords 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

13

Note: 7,212 cords were “sold” as free-use due to COVID 19. The total cords for FY20 may 

appear as an anomaly when compared to pre-COVID annual quantities. It is assumed this 

would be a big part of the reason.

FY21:

Firewood Permits 9,191.00 Cords

Note: 9,099 cords were “sold” as free-use due to COVID 19. The total cords for FY21 may 

appear as an anomaly when compared to pre-COVID annual quantities. It is assumed this 

would be a big part of the reason.

Indicator #3

Level of permitted livestock grazing

Data Source: The Forest Service’s Natural Resource Manager database was used to summarize forest 

wide information on grazing permits and permitted use. 

Monitoring Results: In 2020, there were a total of 107,070 HMs of cattle grazing, 693 HMs of horse 

grazing and 17,552 HMs of sheep grazing, for a total of 125,315 HMs of livestock grazing permitted 

on the Salmon-Challis National Forest. In 2021, the Forest permitted a total of 100,908 HMs of cattle 

grazing, 693 HMs of horse grazing and 10,055 HMs of sheep grazing for a total of 111,656 HMs of 

livestock grazing.

Indicator #4

Number of approved locatable plans of operations

2020 – 30

2021 - 42

Data Source: NRM Dashboard for Locatable Minerals and Mineral Materials.

Monitoring Results: In 2020 & 2021 respectively, seven new plans were approved for 

implementation each year.

Indicator #5

Quantity of common variety mineral materials sold

2020 – 22

2021 - 26

Data Source: NRM Dashboard for Locatable Minerals and Mineral Materials.

Monitoring Results: In 2020, 22 permits were sold and in 2021, 26 permits were sold.
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

14

Monitoring Question 11

What are the effects of forest plan management activities to the productivity of the land? 

Indicator #1 

Effectiveness and applicability of current practices to maintain water quality

Data source: Salmon-Challis National Forest Best Management Practice (BMP) Monitoring 

Program.

Monitoring result: BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring were conducted at 4 project 

sites on the Salmon National Forest in 2020 and 2021 (Table 6).

Table 6. BMP monitoring locations and type. 

YEAR CATEGORY BMP NAME PROJECT DISTRICT

2020 Chem A Chemical Use Near 

Waterbodies

Moyer Creek Road Herbicide 

Application

SalmonCobalt

2020 Min D Reclamation of Mineral 

Operations

Beartrack Drilling 

Reclamation

SalmonCobalt

2020 Veg A Ground-based Skidding and 

Harvesting Granite South Timber Sale North Fork

2021 Road B

Completed Road or Waterbody 

Crossing Construction or 

Reconstruction

Colson Creek Road North Fork

The results of BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring have indicated that project 

implementation is meeting the intent of the BMPs. As in past years, BMP monitoring efforts in 2020 

and 2021 have heightened awareness of BMPs and increased positive collaboration between 

Watershed staff and other resource specialists that are implementing projects.

Indicator #2 

Soil quality, productivity, and function. 

Data source: No soil condition monitoring or pre- and post-disturbance soil monitoring were 

conducted on the Salmon National Forest in 2020 or 2021. 

Monitoring result: N/A

Monitoring Question 12

Are we effectively protecting and improving aquatic ecosystems and riparian conditions through 

forest plan management activities?

Indicator #1 

Quality of aquatic habitat for salmonid spawning and cold water aquatic life.

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #1

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #1 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

15

Indicator #2

Compliance with state water quality sediment, turbidity, and temperature standards and 

maintenance of beneficial uses

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #2

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #2

Indicator #3

Effects of management activities on maintenance and protection of watershed health (e.g. 

sediment)

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #3

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #3

Indicator #4

Changes in stream channel morphology

Data source: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #6, Indicator #7

Indicator #5

Function and condition of lentic riparian systems

Data source: See Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #3

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #7, Indicator #3

Indicator #6

Changes in riparian vegetation composition

Data source: See Indicator #7 under monitoring question # 4

Monitoring result: See Indicator #7 under monitoring question # 4

Indicator #7

Effectiveness and applicability of current practices to maintain water quality.

Data source: See Monitoring Question #11, Indicator #1

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #11, Indicator #1

Indicator #8

Soil quality, productivity, and function

Data source: See Monitoring Question #11, Indicator #2

Monitoring result: See Monitoring Question #11, Indicator #2
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

16

Monitoring Question 13

To what degree are atmospheric pollutants changing natural ecosystems in the plan area?

Indicator #1

Changes in water chemistry related to air pollution. 

Data source: Salmon-Challis National Forest air quality monitoring program, sampling of air quality 

indicators at Wilderness Lakes.

Monitoring result: The Salmon-Challis National Forest conducts long term monitoring of 

atmospheric pollutants in three lakes within the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. Two of 

these lakes are located on the Salmon National Forest (Harbor and Golden Trout Lakes). The air 

quality within this Class II airshed is generally excellent. However, no monitoring was conducted in 

2020 or 2021, and any changes during this timeframe cannot be quantified. The last sampling at these 

lakes occurred in 2012.

Indicator #2

Compliance with state air quality standards. 

Data source: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Air Quality Monitoring Program

Monitoring result: Idaho DEQ maintains a statewide monitoring network to measure the levels of 

five ambient air criteria pollutants identified by the federal Clean Air Act: particulate matter (PM10 

and PM2.5), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. The only air quality 

monitoring station in proximity to the Salmon National Forest is located in Salmon, Idaho. The Forest 

Service does not actively monitor compliance with state air quality standards.

Monitoring Question 14

Are fires being managed to accomplish resource management and protection objectives?

Indicator #1

Total acres burned (forested and non-forested).

Data source: Fire Stat and Wildcad

Monitoring result: Total acres burned in 2020 were 12.25 and in 21637.70 in 2021.

Indicator #2

Acres and number by type of fire (I-V) or by size class 

Data source: Fire Stat and Wildcad

Monitoring result: 

Table 7. Fire size by class
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

17

Salmon N.F. Fires By Size Class

2020 2021

Size Class # Fires Acres

# 

Fires Acres

A 11 1.55 22 3.9

B 1 10.70 14 22.8

C 0 0 1 11

D 0 0 2 272

E 0 0 1 472

F 0 0 0 0

G 0 0 1 20856 

Total 12 12.25 31 21637.70

Indicator #3 

Acres identified for resource benefit

Data source: FACTS and Wildcad

Monitoring result: Two fires was managed for resource benefit in 2020 accounting for 1.10 acres, 

and in 2021 Two fires were managed for resource benefit accounting for 5.10 acres. 

Monitoring Question 15

Are fuels reduction projects protecting property, human health and safety, and reducing the potential 

for unwanted fire effects (in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and non-WUI)?

Indicator #1 

Acres of hazardous fuels reduction in WUI and non- WUI 

Data Source: FACTS

Monitoring Results: 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

18

Table 8. Acres of WUI and non-WUI fuels treatments

Salmon NF Acres Treated 

2018 2019

WUI 4207 2716

Non-WUI 77 137

Total 

Acres/Year 4284 2853 

Determinations 

Based on evaluations that were conducted, the following are the determinations for adaptive 

management, per 36 CFR 219.12(d)(2): 

NEED FOR CHANGING THE FOREST PLAN

The Salmon-Challis National Forest in July of 2018 completed the draft assessment and need for 

change. The Forest is currently determining if revising, amending, or retaining the current plans is 

appropriate. Copies of the assessment and need for change are available at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FSEPRD544724 

NEED FOR CHANGING MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

The Salmon-Challis National Forest in July of 2018 completed the draft assessment and need for 

change. The Forest is currently determining if revising, amending, or retaining the current plans is 

appropriate. Copies of the assessment and need for change are available at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FSEPRD544724 

NEED FOR CHANGING THE MONITORING PROGRAM

The Salmon-Challis National Forest in July of 2018 completed the draft assessment and need for 

change. The Forest is currently determining if revising, amending, or retaining the current plans is 

appropriate. Copies of the assessment and need for change are available at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FSEPRD544724 

NEED FOR CONDUCTING AN ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE PRELIMINARY NEED TO 

CHANGE THE PLAN

The Salmon-Challis National Forest in July of 2018 completed the draft assessment and need for 

change. The Forest is currently determining if revising, amending, or retaining the current plans is 

appropriate. Copies of the assessment and need for change are available at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/scnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FSEPRD544724 

 
Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

19

Appendix A – Monitoring Items Not Evaluated in 

Detail

Some Monitoring Question were not completed for this biennial report. The Forest lacked capacity to 

determine a response to the indicator in a timely fashion. For more information contact the Fisheries 

Program Lead Karryl Krieger at 208-756-5102 karryl.krieger@usda.gov, and Nick Schade at 208-756-

5115 nicholas.schade@usda.gov. 

Salmon-Challis National Forest Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report

21

Appendix B: Amendments and Corrections to the 

Salmon Forest Plan

Salmon Forest Plan Amendments

Amendment #1 - Amend the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan to 

incorporate administrative action. 

Amendment #2 - Establish grazing monitoring procedures.

Amendment #3 - Amend the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan for 

outfitter and guide camp operations

Amendment #4 – Incorporation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing 

Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PacFish)

Amendment #5 – Change acreage of RNA (Management Area 6A) 

Amendment #6 - Allow for three timber sales to exceed standards and guidelines for Management 

Area 5B.

Amendment #7 – Establish a new management area (6.1) to manage the Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail 

Amendment #8 – Incorporate the Lemhi Pass National Historic Landmark Management Plan

Amendment #9 – Incorporates the revised Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness 

Management Plan

Amendment #10 – Amend the Management Indicator Species list