File Code: 1920 

Date: July 11, 2007 

 

Dear Forest User: 

I’m pleased to release the Lewis and Clark Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal 

Year 2006. This abbreviated report does not contain all 76 monitoring elements contained in 

the Forest Plan; it focuses on emphasis areas for Forest Plan monitoring. The report contains 

updates to previous monitoring reports for goshawk and old growth monitoring elements (last 

published in May 2004) with information collected during FY 2004-2006. It also includes soil 

and water quality monitoring information collected during FY 2003-2006, monitoring results 

from sanitation harvest, and information from winter travel plan monitoring collected during the 

winters of 2006 and early 2007. The reports are viewable on our website at 

www.fs.fed.us/r1/lewisclark. Click on Projects and Plans and go to the link to Forest Plan 

Monitoring Report. The 2006 report as well as previous monitoring results for goshawk and 

old growth are posted there. 

A few changes have occurred on the Forest since our last monitoring report. Tina Lanier is 

District Ranger at the Belt Creek Ranger District. Tina assumed her new role in November 

2006. Tim Benedict, District Ranger on the White Sulphur Springs Ranger District, has taken a 

position with the Eastside Timber Zone. Carol Hatfield, originally from the Helena National 

Forest, just recently assumed the role of White Sulphur Springs District Ranger. Recent court 

rulings on the 2005 Planning Rule may affect timeframes for Forest Plan revision for the Lewis 

and Clark Forest; initiation may be delayed until issues associated with the ruling are resolved. 

Development of an Environmental Management System (EMS), as part of the revision 

process, is being addressed at both the Regional and National level. 

Thank you for your continued interest in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. We hope to 

enjoin you in the management of your National Forest System lands. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Lesley Thompson 

LESLEY W. THOMPSON 

Forest Supervisor 
 

RECREATION 

A-6 Off-road Vehicle Damage and Travel Plan 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS 

TO BE MEASURED 

REPORTING 

PERIOD & 

FREQUENCY 

VARIABILITY WHICH WOULD 

INITIATE FURTHER EVALUATION 

Off-road vehicle damage Annually Conflicts with Forest Management 

Area goals. 

Travel Plan effectiveness Annually Increase of 20 or more situations or 

variances. 

METHODS 

This monitoring report documents the results of monitoring of a travel plan agreement for winter recreation on 

portions of the Little Belt Mountains developed through a settlement agreement with parties to an appeal of travel 

plan decisions in the Big Snowy Mountains. The agreement was the result of extensive dialog with parties to the 

appeal and called for an interim administrative order to implement the agreement until a final decision was made 

on travel planning for the Jefferson Division (Little Belt, Castles and north half Crazy Mountains). The agreement 

specified that the Lewis and Clark Forest would monitor winter use to help insure compliance with the travel plan 

provisions of the agreement. Monitoring was to consist of at least 6 field visits to verify snowmobile use and 

contact with snowmobile use groups. Representatives for the Montana Wilderness Association, Great Falls Cross 

Country Club, and Montana Snowmobile Association were to accompany Forest Service employees on these 

visits. Authority to implement the agreement was issued under Special Order LC 05-02 A and B signed on March 

9th, 2005. 

Actual on the ground monitoring of the agreement began February 2006. Although notified of planned monitoring 

trips, none of the monitoring trips conducted to date have had participation with other parties to the agreement. 

Neither the District nor Forest has been notified by other parties to the agreement to participate in monitoring they 

may initiate nor has the Forest been provided any information regarding motorized and non-motorized use in the 

closure areas by the other parties. 

 

Signs were purchased in March 2006 stating “AREA RESTRICTION/CLOSED TO SNOWMOBILES”. To date, 18 

signs have been posted in key locations in the O’Brien Creek, Jefferson Creek, Mizpah and Deadman closure 

areas. Maps outlining the closure areas and the signed Special Order LC 05-02 are posted at all exiting winter 

trailhead locations. 

Since development of the special order, the Jefferson Division Winter Recreation Technician has conducted a 

total of 14 monitoring trips, (8 monitoring trips in 2006 and 6 monitoring trips as of February 6, 2007) at various 

locations around the closure areas. Table A-6a outlines areas monitored and dates on which monitoring took 

place. 

Table A-6a Monitoring Areas and Dates Monitored 

Area 

Name 

Deadman Ranch 

Creek 

O’Brien 

Creek 

Silvercrest Jefferson 

Creek 

Middle 

Fork 

Big 

Snowies 

2006 

Monitoring 

2/4, 2/12, 

2/19, 2/26, 

2/28 

2/28, 3/2 2/12, 2/26, 

3/2 

2/4, 2/25, 

2/26 

2/19, 2/23, 

2/25, 2/26, 

3/02 

2/26 

2007 

Monitoring 

1/14 1/14, 1/21 1/14, 1/21, 

2/6 

1/14, 1/27, 

1/28, 2/2, 2/6, 

1/14, 1/21, 

1/27, 1/28, 

2/2, 2/6 

 

The Belt Creek Ranger District Winter Recreation Technician regularly makes contact with snowmobilers, 

snowmobile club members, and other users informing them of the area closures. The special order and area 

closure maps are also posted at trailhead locations and the District Office. These postings include four locations 

at the Snowmobile Parking Lot off Highway 89, one at the Deadman Trailhead, and at the O’Brien Trailhead. 
 

In the February 2007 Great Falls Snowmobile Club monthly newsletter, the club has advised all users of the 

existing motorized restrictions and area closures for the Jefferson Zone. 

Additional efforts to assist in informing the public of the Winter Recreation Agreement will include an updated 

2007 snowmobile user map that will display the restricted areas. 

Results of the last two years of monitoring indicated that some snowmobile violations into the non-motorized 

areas are occurring on a sporadic basis. This may be attributable to lack of signing/education and information of 

the restrictions in the specific area where the intrusions are occurring. Other noncompliance issues are 

attributable to variations in topography and vegetation and difficulties in correlating on-the-ground features to the 

closure boundary map. Areas where meadows and large openings in the forest, which are appealing to 

snowmobilers, are adjacent to the mapped closure boundary have experienced the greatest number of closure 

order violations. These are particularly apparent along the headwaters of the O’Brien Creek drainage and 

adjacent to the boundary of the O’Brien Creek closure and along the northeast boundary of the Deadman closure. 

The Middle Fork Judith has experienced some closure violations in the Sand Point and Big Deer Point areas 

where existing roads provide easy access into the Wilderness Study Area (WSA). 

Table A-6b summarizes the results of monitoring. 

 

Table A-6b Violations Summary 

Closure 

Area 

Violation Location 

Deadman Infractions observed in Sec.’s 11 & 12, T12N, R8E, adjacent to “A” trail and 

meadow. Snowmobile use evident along first 1/8 mile of Deadman cross-country 

ski trail. 

Ranch 

Creek 

Intrusions have been limited to the access points off Ranch Creek road where the 

closure area boarders “T” trail in sec’s 19 and 20 T12N, R8E 

O’Brien 

Creek 

Infractions observed adjacent to “A” trail and large meadow in sec. 29, T13N, R 8E. 

and adjacent to private land along the southeast boundary of the closure. 

Silvercrest Minor infractions occurring around the Winter Recreation Parking Lot and the 

Silvercrest Ski Trail System. 

Jefferson 

Creek 

No violations observed 

Middle 

Fork 

East of Musselshell warming hut into WSA in section 26, T12N, R9E. 

Violations observed off Sand Point RD 6418 into WSA in sec’s 14, 15, and 22, 

T12N, R9E. and Big Deer Point area in sec’s 19 and 20, T13N, R9E. 

Big 

Snowies 

No monitoring completed 

EVALUATION 

Efforts will continue to provide public information on and enforcement of travel management. The Forest 

anticipates issuing a travel plan decision for the Little Belt, Castles and northern portion of the Crazy Mountains in 

summer 2007. This decision will essentially supercede the interim administrative order. The Forest will continue 

to monitor travel plan effectiveness and off-road vehicle damage under the new travel plan. A motor vehicle use 

map will display routes and areas open to motor vehicle travel and will become the public information map for 

travel plan enforcement. 
 

WILDLIFE 

 C-8 Old Growth Habitat for Goshawk 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS 

TO BE MEASURED 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Old Growth Habitat 

(Goshawk): active nesting 

territories 

Annually Decrease of 10% or more in active nest territories 

as measured by a 100% annual sample of known 

goshawk nest territories 

The Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan (USDA 1986) identified northern goshawk as a Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) for old growth habitat. Forest-wide management standard C-5 provides that population levels of 

MIS be monitored and evaluated as described in the Forest Plan monitoring plan as shown in Chapter V of the 

Forest Plan. (USDA 1986, page 2-37) The Forest Plan monitoring plan item C-8 provides that for the goshawk 

“Old Growth Habitat” is monitored by sampling active nesting goshawk territories. 

 

This report is a June 2007 update to the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan Monitoring for item C-8, as 

described in Chapter V (USDA 1986, page 5-11. However, in addition to the Forest Plan monitoring item, the 

Forest Service has conducted many other studies and monitoring related to old growth and the goshawk. As 

such, this report discusses both old growth and goshawk monitoring information. Among other information, this 

update includes information from; a Regional Conservation Assessment for northern goshawk (Samson 2006); a 

habitat estimate for maintaining viable populations (Samson 2006); the results of a northern region survey 

(Kowalski 2006), 2004, 2005 and 2006 old growth surveys; 2004, 2005 and 2006 goshawk monitoring; and an 

analysis of Post Fledging Area (PFA) habitat types previously reported in the May 2004 update to this monitoring 

item. 

OLD GROWTH

OLD GROWTH MONITORING METHODS 

The Forest continues to use the 1993 “Lewis and Clark National Forest Old Growth Inventory and Allocation 

Process.” Forest Plan direction is old growth “stands will be identified as a part of resource program and project 

level wildlife inventories and evaluations” (USDA 1986, page 2-16). On the ground inventories are completed for 

timber compartments encompassing specific projects the Forest undertakes. As projects are planned in 

uninventoried compartments or stand conditions change, additional inventories are completed and the Forest 

database (Timber Stand Management Record System, TSMRS) updated. Furthermore, the Forest utilizes 

information gathered through the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) for a statistically valid estimate of old growth 

for the Lewis and Clark Forest. This is discussed in more detail below.

DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL FOREST LANDS 

Forest Plan direction states that a “minimum of 5 percent of the commercial forest land within a timber 

compartment should be maintained in an old growth forest condition” (USDA 1986, page 2-44, Management 

Standard E-4 (9)). Commercial forest land is defined in the Forest Plan as “Forest land that is producing or is 

capable of producing crops of industrial wood and (a) has not been withdrawn by Congress, the Secretary, or the 

Chief; (b) existing technology and knowledge is available to ensure timber production without irreversible damage 

to soils, productivity, or watershed conditions; and (c) existing technology and knowledge, as reflected in current 

research and experience, provides reasonable assurance that adequate restocking can be attained within 5 years 

after final harvesting (Forest Plan Glossary, p. 3-4). Forest land, on the other hand, includes all lands capable of 

producing timber, whether industrial or not, and does not have to meet the criteria identified for commercial forest 

land. In previous monitoring reports the acres of old growth were compared to the acres of forested lands, which 

include both commercial and non-commercial lands. 
 

Although the Forest Plan identified the number of acres of commercial land, no specific map of these lands was 

available for project planning. To remedy the lack of a map, the Forest developed a process in 2005 to identify 

commercial lands. The process is described in “Commercial/Non-commercial Forest Land, Logic and Process,” 

dated August 29, 2005. Since 2005, as projects are planned, commercial lands are identified in the timber 

compartments in which the project occurs. 

FINDINGS – OLD GROWTH COMMERCIAL FOREST LAND BY COMPARTMENT 

Table C-8a is a compilation of current old growth inventory data by compartment for the compartments in the 

Jefferson Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest where commercial lands are identified and old growth 

inventories have been completed. This data was obtained from a March 2006 query of TSMRS. The Forest has 

completed old growth surveys in 49 of the 123 compartments on the Jefferson Division, mostly within the Little 

Belt Mountains. The Plan notes that there is currently no inventory of all timber stands on the Forest that meets 

the old growth forest definition. “These stands will be identified as a part of resource program and project level 

wildlife inventories and evaluations.” (Forest Plan Forest-Wide Management Direction page 2-16). Generally, 

these surveys are completed during project development. Compartments within which no management actions 

are proposed may not have been surveyed, as no impacts to old growth are anticipated. 

Table C-8a. Old Growth Inventory Data by Compartment – Jefferson Division 

District Compartment NFS Acres in 

Compartment 

Inventoried 

Old 

Growth 

Acres * 

Acres of 

Commercial 

Lands * 

Old Growth 

Acres in 

Commercial 

Lands * 

% Old 

Growth in 

Commercial 

Lands 

D3 366 3858 498 1300 125 9.7 

 367 12182 2420 10013 2352 23.5 

 368 15478 1537 10719 1507 14.1 

 369 10627 1018 9267 843 9.1 

 370 13208 3295 10409 3282 31.5 

 371 7253 536 5926 527 8.9 

 372 13845 1846 11430 1846 16.2 

 373 11331 1994 10281 1982 19.3 

 374 5895 952 4344 674 15.5 

 375 8480 1722 6668 1671 25.1 

 376 13586 2429 11467 2394 20.9 

 377 14749 1248 11534 1248 10.8 

 380 14029 1499 12114 1499 12.4 

 387 8534 1340 7230 1340 18.5 

D4 446 4983 978 2751 979 35.6 

 449 12749 1692 8460 1648 19.5 

 450 11078 1086 10317 1056 10.2 

 451 14457 2011 10586 1935 18.3 

452 10390 3667 8264 3122 37.8 

453 11680 1380 7862 1380 17.6 

 454 11698 2208 8886 2208 24.9 

455 11456 2470 9129 2434 26.7 

 456 14262 4510 13552 4503 33.2 

457 16905 1881 13254 1873 14.1 

458 9645 472 6796 472 7.0 

 459 13819 2818 10157 2317 22.8 

460 21029 2279 11547 2049 17.8 

 461 9866 1011 6440 577 9.0 

 462 11942 1063 6467 850 13.2 

D6 601 5836 1476 5443 1446 26.6 

 602 5301 616 4554 616 13.5 

 603 2369 349 1778 349 19.6 

632 6212 435 3901 317 8.1 

633 9242 860 8172 747 9.1 

634 5110 546 1862 445 23.9 
 

Table C-8a. Old Growth Inventory Data by Compartment – Jefferson Division 

District Compartment NFS Acres in 

Compartment 

Inventoried 

Old 

Growth 

Acres * 

Acres of 

Commercial 

Lands * 

Old Growth 

Acres in 

Commercial 

Lands * 

% Old 

Growth in 

Commercial 

Lands 

 635 10797 950 8758 861 9.8 

 636 9054 1917 3586 1460 40.7 

 637 5903 878 3964 865 21.8 

 646 2190 765 1770 710 40.1 

D7 701 12741 685 6548 610 9.3 

 702 6712 1025 5255 841 16.0 

 703 8454 836 6057 712 11.8 

 704 8118 1367 6107 790 12.9 

 705 8325 1710 6418 1490 23.2 

 706 7332 225 5258 165 3.1 

 707 10340 344 7764 344 4.4 

 708 7873 133 4919 133 2.7 

 709 6830 337 5404 157 2.9 

 711 23349 1943 21160 1907 9.0 

* Variations in acreages from the May 2004 monitoring report are due to database corrections and/or updated inventories. 

The data show only two compartments with less than 5 % old growth. The mean for percent old growth in 

commercial forest land in the timber compartments surveyed is 17.4%. 

In the Rocky Mountain Division of the Forest (D1), few vegetation treatment projects have occurred. Therefore, 

old growth inventories have been minimal and commercial lands not yet identified. If vegetation treatment 

projects are planned on the Rocky Mountain Division, inventories of old growth will proceed and commercial lands 

will be identified. 

FIA – OLD GROWTH 

A Region One Estimate of Old Growth for the Northern Region and National Forests was released on November 

6, 2006 (Bush et. al) and is attached to this report. The report summarizes analysis conducted using Forest 

Inventory and Analysis data to estimate percentage of old growth on forested lands in the Region and on 

individual National Forests. 

FIA provides a statistically-sound representative sample designed to provide unbiased estimates of forest 

conditions at the broad- and mid- levels. The FIA sampling frame uniformly covers all forested lands, regardless 

of management emphasis. A difference between estimated means for the forest data from Table C-8a and that of 

FIA is that FIA is conducted on all forested land while the data in Table C-8a is by commercial forest land

within a timber compartment. 

For the Lewis and Clark Forest, FIA data estimates a mean of 13.3% old growth on forested lands forest-wide: a 

90% confidence interval results in an estimate of between 10.6% and 16.2%. Our May 2004 monitoring report on 

old growth habitat for goshawk (available on the Lewis and Clark website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/lewisclark/) 

provides a breakdown of estimates of old growth by commercial forest land across the Lewis and Clark Forest 

and by landscape areas. For the Little Belt Mountains, FIA estimates the 90% confidence intervals for old growth 

by commercial forest land between 6.91% and 17.89%. The estimates calculated with the data from Table C-8a 

(17.4%) fall within the FIA confidence intervals. 

GOSHAWK

CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT AND HABITAT ESTIMATES FOR MAINTAINING VIABLE POPULATIONS OF 

GOSHAWKS 

“A Conservation Assessment of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, Flammulated Owl, and 

Pileated Woodpecker in the Northern Region, USDA Forest Service” (Samson 2006) is based on peer-reviewed 

literature, master’s degree theses, doctoral dissertations, research reports, and Forest Service data. In this 

assessment, region-wide estimates of the amount of goshawk habitat were developed using vegetation 
 

information from Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data. Modeled habitat estimates (in hectares (ha)) for the 

Northern Region as a whole and the Lewis and Clark Forest are shown below: 

Table C8-b. Modeled Goshawk Habitat by Region and LCNF 

Nest Post Fledging Area 

Regional Province1 Regional Province

Foraging 

Region 829, 526 95,423 933,145 555,830 2,744,925

Lewis and Clark Forest 52,739 5,612 67,643 67,346 196,426 

1 The Ecological Province habitat estimates include only National Forest System Lands 

Assuming one to five nests are constructed by the northern goshawk within their home range, the Lewis and Clark 

Forest is estimated to have enough habitat to support between 94 and 468 nesting pairs (10 - 12 ha/nest site). 

Reynolds estimates the size of an area for post fledging habitat at 120 - 240 ha/pair. Using this estimate, the 

Lewis and Clark provides enough habitat for 280 - 518 pair. 

Samson concluded that, using 2/3 of the median dispersal distance of the bird, there are not isolated populations 

of goshawk, rather one population exists in the forested portion of the Northern Region that interact and that 

habitat is well-distributed throughout the Region; not a single nest site is isolated by more than 268 km to another 

nest. 

In Habitat Estimates for Maintaining Viable Populations of the Northern Goshawk, Black-backed Woodpecker, 

Flammulated Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten, and Fisher (Samson, 2006) Samson estimates a 

critical habitat threshold of 540 km2 for a minimum viable population for the single population of the northern 

goshawk in the Northern Region. Total estimated habitat on the Lewis and Clark is 1,276 km2

, certainly adequate 

alone to support a minimum viable population of northern goshawk. Studies (Hessberg et. al. 2003, Gallant et al. 

2004 and Hessberg et al. 2005) have shown that forested systems in the Northern Region are more extensive 

than in historic times (1800s) and there is no indication that forested ecosystems in the Northern Region is 

anywhere near a critical threshold of species habitat loss to 20-30% of historic range. 

Based on the determination of habitat region-wide the Conservation Assessment concluded the following: 

• Habitat for the goshawk is well distributed across the Northern Region and by Forest. There are not 

isolated populations of goshawk in Region 1, but rather one interconnected population. 

• Habitat is abundant for the goshawk in the Northern Region, by Ecological Province, and by National 

Forest. 

• No scientific evidence exists that the northern goshawk is decreasing in numbers. 

• Increases in the extent and connectivity of forested habitat have occurred since European settlement. 

• Level of timber harvest across the Northern Region does not have a significant effect on the amount of 

goshawk habitat available. 

• Suppression of fire as a natural ecological process continues to allow an increase in the amounts of 

northern goshawk habitat. 

REGIONAL GOSHAWK MONITORING 

During the spring and summer of 2005, the Northern Region conducted a field survey of goshawks across 

accessible portions of the Region (Kowalski, 2005). The purpose of the survey was to use a statistically based 

approach to (1) estimate the rate of goshawk occupancy (frequency of goshawk presence) within a grid that 

approximates the territory size for this species, and (2) better define and document the geographic distribution of 

goshawks across the Northern Region. The survey was conducted using the Northern Region Goshawk 

Bioregional Monitoring Design (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006, Hargis and Woodbridge 2006). Survey results 

found goshawk presence in 40 out of 114 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs), suggesting that during nesting periods 

goshawks were fairly common and widely distributed in the roaded (or more managed) portions of NFS lands in 

Region 1. This information, combined with goshawk nest information accumulated between 2000-2005, suggest 

that goshawk is a relatively common and well-distributed avian predator in the Northern Region. 
 

LEWIS AND CLARK GOSHAWK MONITORING AND INVENTORY 

METHODS 

The Forest Plan requires annual monitoring of all known goshawk territories. Monitoring methodology has varied 

from checking the known nests in a territory, walking suitable habitat near previous nests searching for signs of 

presence, or using broadcasted calls. In 2006, the Forest began using intensive nest searches and broadcast 

calls. For inventory, all proposed treatment areas, and one-half mile outside of treatment areas in suitable nesting 

habitat, were surveyed. In addition, habitat judged by the observer to be nesting habitat based on personal 

experience was also surveyed. For project level inventories and active nest area monitoring, survey protocols 

outlined in Woodbridge and Hargis (2006a) were incorporated, including survey transect details, survey timing, 

calling procedures, nest location procedures, and interpretation of goshawk responses. 

Terminology has changed some since the Forest Plan monitoring item was written. The term “active nesting 

territory” is no longer used as intended in the Forest Plan. Ongoing Northern Region overview work on northern 

goshawk define a territory as “an exclusive area defended by goshawks. An active nest is not an essential 

element of a territory”. The presence of an aggressive goshawk often leads to a more intensive survey, but does 

not always result in identification of a nest. Brewer defines an active nest area as “an area containing an active 

goshawk nest within the last 10 years...“ Breeding activity at an active nest area can include: defense of a nest by 

an adult, observation of eggs, young or fledglings in nest area, or presence of obvious signs of nest occupation 

(e.g. whitewash, prey remains). For the purposes of the Forest Plan monitoring element and in order to be 

consistent into the future, the Forest biologists agreed upon the following criteria in 2006 to define active nest 

areas: 

• An active nest area (consisting of a nest stand and PFA) occurs when: 

1. an active nest has been located within the last 10 years. 

2. recently fledged young that would still be in the nest vicinity are identified 

3. if nests are located more than 1 mile apart (nests located less than 1 mile apart will be considered 

the same territory unless both are active the same year (based on Reich et al. 2004) 

• To determine if a nest area is no longer active, monitoring must be conducted in 8 out of 10 consecutive 

years. 

• Other sightings of goshawks will be tracked. If aggressive (“territorial”) behavior is observed with 

individual sightings, a nest search will be conducted. 

 RESULTS 

Based on these criteria, the number of known active nest areas has changed since the May 2004 monitoring 

report. If a nesting area was monitored for at least 8 out of 10 years with no evidence of reproductive activity, the 

nesting area was reclassified from active to historic. Past monitoring may have identified the presence of a 

goshawk, but no nest site or evidence of reproduction was found. 

Table C-8c below details the results of goshawk monitoring since 1979 and displays activity identified at nest sites 

inventoried. It identifies those locations considered to meet the definition provided earlier for an active nest area. 

Ten “territories” have been reclassified as potential (for those which never had any evidence of reproduction) or 

historic. These locations are highlighted on the following table. Historical nest areas may receive incidental 

monitoring, but will no longer be monitored to comply with this Forest Plan monitoring item. Continued monitoring 

may result in reclassification of some nesting areas from active to historic. Sites that have not been monitored in 

at least 8 out of 10 years will continue to be monitored to determine their status. 

The table shows there were several new observations in 2005. Thirteen active and 8 new nest areas were 

identified in 2006. Five of the new nest areas were on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District, one on the Belt Creek 

Ranger District and two in the Blacktail Hills on the Judith Ranger District. Additional active nest areas will 

continue to be added to the monitoring program as they are discovered. 
 Table C-8c Lewis and Clark National Forest Goshawk Survey Results 

Count District year found 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 199219931994199519961997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20032004

1 1 1988 A2 I I I O 2 1 1988 A2 O I O I I 3 1 1991 O I I I 4 1 1992 O I 5 1 1994 A I I I I I 6 1 1992 A O I I I O I I 7 1 1993 A O O A O AF1 O 8 1 1992 O A AF1 I AF1 I I I 9 1 1999 AF2 O I I I I 

10 1 1998 AF1 O I I I I I 11 1 1999 A O AF1 12 1 2002 A O AF2 13 1 2002 AF2 I I 14 1 2000 O F1 I I 15 1 2005 16 1 2005 17 1 2006 18 1 2006 19 1 2006 20 3 1996 I I I AF1 O I I 21 3 1999 AF2 I I I I 22 3 2006 23 4 1979 O O F2 A A A I A O I I I O F2 A A I I 24 4 2005 25 4 2006 26 4 1990 A I I A I I A F2 O O I I 27 4 1990 O F2 A O I I I A F2 F1 A A F3 I 28 4 1998 F2 I F2 O I 29 4 1995 O A O F2 O I F1 I O 30 4 2001 A O I I 31 4 2002 A O I 32 4 2002 F1 O F1 33 4 2002 A I I 34 6 1988 F3 A O O A I F1 O O I I 35 6 1985 F3 F2 F2 F3 I I I A I I I I F2 F3 36 6 1986 F2 O A I A A A A A I 37 6 1986 F2 I I I O I F2 38 6 1986 F1 I I I I I 39 6 1987 F1 A A I I I I I I 40 6 1986 A F3 I I I I I I I I I I 41 6 1988 A A I I I I I I 42 6 1988 I I I I 43 7 1987 F3 AF1 I I I I I 44 7 1989 AF3 AF3 A2 I I I A I AF1 O I I 45 7 1992 AF3 I I F2 I I I I I 46 7 1992 AF2 O I I I I I 47 7 1992 F1 I I I I 48 7 1987 I I I I I I I O I O 49 7 2004 AF1 50 7 2005 

 = Prior to year found = Not Active I = Inactive (no birds found) O = Occupied (birds found, no nesting obs) A = Active nest (bird or young in nest) F# = 
 

Table C-8d below summarizes the results of Forest-wide monitoring each year since 1992. The 

number of active nest areas is based on the criteria described above for defining an active nest 

area, and has resulted in a change in numbers or percentages from those reported in previous 

monitoring reports. The figures show that a high percentage of active nest areas have been 

monitored each year. It has been difficult to monitor 100% of all active nest areas as access to 

nest areas during the spring nesting season is not always possible in many locations in the Little 

Belts. Manpower and other circumstances during the survey season in 2005-2006 resulted in 

fewer locations being surveyed during the nesting season. Monitoring efforts have focused on 

the Jefferson Division, particularly the Little Belts, where a majority of management actions have 

taken place. 

As of 2006, there are 40 known active nest areas, more than twice the number known when the 

Forest Plan monitoring item was developed. This trend is likely to continue. As described by 

Samson, habitat does not appear to be a limiting factor for goshawk. The barred owl represents 

a significant influence on northern goshawk abundance and distribution due to predation on 

young (Hanauska-Brown et al. 2003), and the great horned owl, which is a common species on 

the Forest, is also a predator of goshawk nests and fledglings. Reich (2003) found that territorial 

behavior and not habitat was setting the upper limit to northern goshawk population growth rate. 

Food availability (Salafsky et al. 2005) and lack of predation characterize high quality habitat 

(Squires and Kennedy 2006). 

Table C-8d. Goshawk Nest Areas Monitored * 

Year Active 

Nest 

Areas 

Number of 

Nest Areas 

Monitored (%) 

Number of 

Monitored 

Areas 

Occupied (%) 

Number of 

Monitored 

Areas with 

Active Nests 

(%) 

Change in % 

of active nest 

areas from 

previous year 

1992 19 11 (58%) 7 (64%) 6 (55%) ------ 

1993 20 8 (40%) 4 (50%) 3 (38%) -17% 

1994 21 10 (48%) 4 (40%) 3 (30%) -8% 

1995 21 8 (38%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) -30% 

1996 21 11 (52%) 5 (45%) 4 (36%) 36% 

1997 21 3 (14%) 1 (33%) 1 (33%) -3% 

1998 23 10 (43%) 8 (80%) 6 (60%) 27% 

1999 25 15 (60%) 9 (60%) 6 (40%) -20% 

2000 26 17 (65%) 8 (47%) 3 (18%) -22% 

2001 28 24 (86%) 14 (58%) 9 (38%) 20% 

2002 33 26 (79%) 16 (62%) 11 (42%) 5% 

2003 32 27 (84%) 9 (33%) 4 (15%) -27% 

2004 33 29 (88%) 6 (21%) 4 (14%) -1% 

2005 33 7 (21%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) -14% 

2006 40 24 (60%) 16 (67%) 13 (54%) 54% 

* This data was screened using the criteria reported above to define active goshawk nest areas; therefore, numbers are 

different than previously reported. 

Of the 40 known active nest areas; 16 of these occur on the Rocky Mountain Division and 24 

occur on the Jefferson Division. In the last 15 years, monitoring results indicate that the percent 

of occupied territories (territories that were monitored and goshawk presence was detected) has 

varied from zero to 80%, and the percent of active nesting areas has varied from zero to 60%. 

The Forest Plan monitoring item states that a decrease of 10% or more in active nest territories 
 

would initiate further evaluation. As shown in Table C-8d, the change in active territories has 

varied from an annual decrease of 30% to an increase of 54%. 

DISCUSSION 

As described in previous monitoring reports, the reasons for decreases in number of occupied or 

active nest areas are unknown. However, many recent studies have reported wide variance in 

the proportion of active nests and young fledged. Anderson et al. (2005) conducted a technical 

review of available information on northern goshawks and reported that annual productivity and 

nest success “are highly variable.” For example, Salafsky et al. (2005) reported that the 

proportion of territories with active nests varied from 18% in 2002 to 58% in 2000. Wiens et al. 

(2006) found that the proportion of pairs breeding varied from 8% to 97% in territories monitored 

from 1991 to 2004. Boal et al. (2005) found that nesting success varied from 37% to 83%. The 

results of monitoring efforts to date on the Lewis and Clark National Forest appear consistent with 

variations reported in the above research. 

Several recent reports have looked at the reasons for the high variability of occupancy and nest 

success. Anderson et al. (2005) reported that “(h)igh annual variability in reproduction appears to 

be characteristic of all goshawk populations studied to date and is associated with annual 

variation in weather and prey (Kostrzewa and Kostrzewa 1990, Keane 1999, Doyle and Smith 

2001).” Boal et al. (2005) reported that weather contributed to 35% of nesting failures in his study 

area. Fairhurst and Bechard (2005) found that colder February and March temperatures and 

increased rain in April were related to declines in occupancy of nesting territories by breeding 

goshawks. Keane et al. (2006) found that annual variation in the number of goshawk territories 

with active nests, successful nests, and number of young produced was associated with variation 

in late-winter and early-spring temperatures and Douglas squirrel abundance. Further, Reynolds 

et al. (2005) stated the “low detectability of nonbreeding goshawks (combined with uncertainties 

stemming from variations in breeding and use of alternate nests) made it difficult to categorize 

territories unequivocally as “unoccupied” by goshawks in non-egg-laying years.” Reynolds et al. 

(2005) further suggest that “(l)ow detectability, variations in breeding, and large samples require 

that demographic and habitat studies of goshawk employ intensive and repeated searches for 

goshawks in large study areas over at least 8 years.” Even research level monitoring is subject to 

the variety of reasons a territory may be determined “inactive” and variations in occupancy and 

breeding in any given year. 

Given the wide range in the percentage of active nests found on the Forest and evidence, 

supported by the literature, that weather and prey variability play a large role in breeding success, 

the variance identified for monitoring item C-8 (i.e. a decrease in 10% or more in active nest 

territories) does not appear to provide a reasonable threshold for further evaluation of 

management activities. 

As tables C8-c and C8-d show, new active nest areas are being found throughout the forest. The 

application of consistent monitoring protocols will also likely result in additional sightings. 

GOSHAWK HABITAT ANALYSIS 

The May 2004 update to Forest Plan Monitoring item C-8 displayed data on the vegetation types 

present in occupied post-fledging areas (PFAs) compared to a randomly placed PFA on the 

Forest landscape. A statistical analysis of the data was done, using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov 

(KS) test. The KS test is used to test the hypothesis that the means of two data sets are equal for 

small data sets that are not normally distributed around the mean. 

RESULTS 
 

The results of the analysis are shown in Table C-8e. For vegetation types grass/rock, 

seedling/clear cut, sapling, and old growth there is no statistical difference in the means for 

percentage of each vegetation type in the PFA around known nest sites and random sites. This 

means that goshawk are selecting for these vegetation types at the same rate as they occur on 

the landscape. For the mature forest vegetation type we can say with 95% confidence that the 

means are not equal. In other words, goshawk do not select mature forest vegetation type at the 

same level as it occurs on the Forest. For known nest sites, 69.1% of the area is in a mature 

forest vegetation type on average. For the random sites, 62.8% of the area is in a mature forest 

vegetation type on average. Therefore, the data indicates goshawk select mature forest at a 

higher percent than it occurs on the landscape. This was a relatively small sample size (n = 25 

for post fledging areas around occupied nest areas from 1990-2003 data), and additional data 

would be necessary to increase the confidence in the results. 

Table C-8e. - Comparison of habitat types in post fledging areas (PFA) 

around known nest sites and random sites within modeled nest habitat 

PFA around known 

nest sites 

Randomly placed 

PFA 

Kolmogorov 

– Smirnov 

test 

Result 

Vegetation 

type 

Mean 

(%) 

95% 

confidence 

interval 

Mean 

(%) 

95% 

confidence 

interval 

P value With 95% 

Confidence 

(α = 0.05) 

Grass / 

rock 

11.2 5.65 – 16.75 8.44 4.22 – 12.67 0.058 Accept that the 

means are equal 

Seedling / 

clear cut 

2.6 0.76 – 4.44 2.24 0.18 – 4.31 0.171 Accept that the 

means are equal 

Sapling 0.92 0.11 – 1.73 4.31 1.67 – 7.0 0.085 Accept that the 

means are equal 

Old 

growth 

13.7 7.64 – 19.72 22.1 16.82 – 27.35 0.171 Accept that the 

means are equal 

Mature 

conifer 

69.1 60.51 – 77.65 62.8 56.53 – 69.02 0.035 Reject that the 

means are equal 

DISCUSSION 

McGrath et al. (2003) compared the vegetation in concentric circles around nests. This study 

found that “the goshawk’s reliance on specific habitat conditions for nesting decreases as 

distance from the nest increase” (McGrath et al. 2003:48). Daw and Destefano (2001) 

recommended at the PFA scale to “maintain forest conditions intermediate between the high 

foliage volume and canopy cover of nest sites and more open foraging heights” (page 59). These 

studies and others such as Clough (2000) suggest that a mix of age structures in the PFA is 

important. 

The Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan was completed in 1986, with the northern goshawk 

chosen as Management Indicator Species for old growth. Recent studies indicate that northern 

goshawk do not depend solely on old growth for nesting, but do select mature and old growth 

forests disproportionately to their availability for nesting (Beier and Drennan 1997, Graham et al. 

1999, Daw and DeStefano 2001, Greenwald et al. 2005, McGrath et al. 2003, Mahon and Doyle 

2005, Wiens et al. 2006). Our analysis of known nests on the Lewis and Clark National Forest as 

reported in Table C-8c is consistent with these research findings with regard to mature forest, but 

in contrast found that old growth was used at the same rate as it occurs on the landscape. 

EVALUATION 
 

Monitoring Item C-8 indicates that a “decrease of 10% or more in active nesting territories.” would 

initiate further evaluation. The direction to conduct further evaluation when a 10% decrease is 

identified does not address any of the potential sources of the change that are discussed above. 

From the research and studies discussed above, it is evident that it is not unusual for active 

goshawk nesting to vary substantially due to weather, natural variability of occupancy and 

nesting, predation, and prey competition. Some variation may also be explained by survey 

methodology. The monitoring data show that active nest areas both increase and decrease, due, 

likely to a number of factors. 

The Forest continues to identify new nesting areas; the data do not show a decreasing trend over 

time. Evaluation of the data show that the variability experienced on the Forest is within the 

range of variances in goshawk nesting occupancy and success experienced under natural 

conditions, as documented in the literature. Management practices will continue and future 

monitoring will focus on goshawk nest areas near management activities compared to those that 

are not near management activities within the same landscape (as a control). Additional effort to 

monitor all known active nest areas will be undertaken during 2007 and further evaluations will be 

reported when that data is compiled. This addresses the further evaluation requirements of the 

Forest Plan. See pages 5-7and 5-8 of the Forest Plan). 
WATER AND SOIL 

F-1 Adequacy and Cumulative Effects of Best Management Practices 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

REPORTING 

PERIOD & 

FREQUENCY 

VARIABILITY WHICH WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Adequacy and cumulative effects of 

project Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) 

Annually – 100% 

Sample 

Projected deterioration of soil productivity or 

water quality 

METHODS 

Project reviews are conducted by resource specialists, forest and State Best Management Practices 

(BMP) audit groups, and occasionally by Regional Office crews. These reviews assess whether BMPs 

were applied as specified in environmental analyses and their effectiveness in mitigating impacts of 

management actions. State BMPs have been developed for a variety of practices, mostly those 

associated with timber harvest activities. The audit group or Forest specialists work as a team to 

assess compliance with and effectiveness of the application of these BMPs. Several treatment units 

were evaluated during 2004 – 2006 to assess BMP application and effectiveness, and soil quality 

effects as compared to Regional soil quality standards. 

FINDINGS 

Best Management Practice Reviews

An internal audit of the Black Ant Salvage Sale was conducted in September 2003. The sale 

comprised 133 acres and harvested 0.448 million board feet of timber and was conducted in 2001 

following the Ant Park fire. Logging method included tractor and rubber tired skidder with tree length 

yarding. Approximately 0.5 to 0.75 miles of temporary roads were constructed. Slash pile disposal was 

not completed at time of inspection. A small unnamed tributary to the North Fork of the Musselshell 

was located within 200 feet of the project area. No harvest was conducted within the Streamside 

Management Zone (SMZ). Natural soil erodibility was determined to be high. 

Two minor departures for inadequate road drainage were documented during the inspection. The 

bottom of a temporary road routed flow across a meadow to a draw below the main road. 

The Dry Wolf Stewardship Project was inspected in July 2004 as part of a State BMP audit. The 

interdisciplinary audit team consisted of a fisheries biologist, hydrologist, a representative of a 

conservation group, a road engineer, a soils scientist, and a non-industrial private forest landowner or 

logging professional, under the guidance of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation (DNRC), Forestry Division. The Dry Wolf Stewardship Project included timber harvest of 

approximately 0.8 million board feet on 145 acres. Method of harvest was tractor yarding of whole 

trees to landings. Approximately 1.57 miles of specified and temporary roads were constructed. Slash 

pile disposal was completed by pile landing and burning. Lyon Gulch, a tributary to Dry Wolf Creek, is 

within 200 feet of the harvest unit. No harvest was conducted within the SMZ. Natural soil erodibility 

was determined to be medium. 

Five minor BMP departures and one major departure were documented during the inspection. Two 

minor departures involved not having adequate length and size of culverts, as well as inadequate 

culvert cleaning. Two minor departures were noted for skid trail construction and maintenance. One 

of these departures was noted for use of tractor skidding on slopes that exceeded 40% where some 
rutting due to weak subsoil was noted. A minor departure was given for non-compliance with the 124 

permit. The permit called for 2-36 inch arched culverts. Two 18 inch culverts were used. A major 

departure from BMPs was given where a low spot directed sediment from a 50 foot section of road into 

Lyons Gulch. The audit team noted this departure could have been avoided by leaving compacted 

berms at the culvert location and balancing the road elevation. Filter fence or slash filter windrows at 

this location would also have been effective in controlling sediment to the drainage. Within one week 

of the inspection, the culvert was removed from this section of temporary road and banks were 

recontoured and seeded. 

The results of the State BMP audits for 2004 in general showed that BMPs were applied correctly 97% 

of the time (2004 Forestry BMP Audit Report, DNRC Forestry Division). None of the projects exhibited 

gross neglect of BMPs. Overall, adequate protection (BMP effectiveness) was provided 99% of the 

time, although of the 1,528 practices evaluated during the entire BMP audit, 22 practice departures 

resulted in resource impacts. The most prevalent departures were related to road drainage not being 

adequately filtered before entering live water. 

Internal audits were conducted on the Allan Park Salvage and the Highway 89 Fuels reduction 

projects in September 2005. Both operations were in progress to be completed later that fall. The 24 

acre Allan Park Salvage was a ground-based operation with whole tree yarding. Jackpot and landing 

pile burns were planned. Primary drainages in the area of the unit were Allan Creek and Indian Creek. 

The 8.7 acre Highway 89 Fuels Reduction project was a ground based forwarder operation with 

construction of approximately half mile of road. Treatment within riparian areas was not planned for 

either project. 

The inspection of Allan Park Salvage revealed four minor departures. Two departures were assessed 

for road surface drainage and inadequate culvert design and two departures were assessed for road 

maintenance. The review also determined that while skidding operations were intended to minimize 

soil compaction and displacement, minor and temporary impacts on soil and water resources were 

noted, indicating a somewhat reduced level of effectiveness. 

Highway 89 Fuels Reduction was assessed only one minor departure for mishandling and storage of 

hazardous substances. Small spills of oils and lubricants were noted at camp and on the forwarding 

routes. In one instance, practices on the ground exceeded BMPs where a planned temporary road 

was reduced to a two-track by use of a forwarder instead of a logging truck. The operation exceeded 

BMP requirements for use of suitable logging systems for topography, soil type, and season of 

operation, again due to use of a forwarder. 

Soil Quality Standard Reviews

Soil Impacts from Winter Harvest Following Wildfire: Three units were harvested under winter 

conditions in 2002/2003 following the Ant Park Fire of 2001. No previous harvest was known in the 

area. Trees were cut with tracked harvesters and whole tree yarded to landings using rubber tired 

skidders. Slash treatment was complete (slash piles burned) and temporary road rehabilitation had 

been initiated. Soil impacts were evaluated in July 2005 by a Regional Office crew. Their efforts led 

to a publication by Page-Dumroese et al (2006) titled “Monitoring Changes in Soil Quality from Postfire Logging in the Inland Northwest.” 

The methods for assessment are drawn from the above referenced publication: “In each post-fire 

logging unit, a 100 point systematic grid and a 100 point random transect were established from a 

fixed corner point. At each grid and transect point, we described the soil surface cover (e.g. rill 

erosion, forest floor, bare mineral soil, rocks etc.) and the presence or absence of platy structure in the 

underlying mineral soil in 1 meter squared plots. Once the soil surface had been described, we 

assigned a soil disturbance category to each plot, based on the classification systems of Howes 

(2001) and Heniger and others (2002). In addition to a visual classification, soil strength was 

determined at each sampling point using a RIMIK CP40 recording penetrometer...” 
The description of the soil condition classes are taken from the Page-Dumroese et al (2006) 

publication: 

Table F-1a. Soil Condition Classes Used in Page-Dumroese et al (2006) 

Condition 

Class 

Identifying Features 

0 Undisturbed forest floor 

1 

No evidence of past equipment operation, but records of harvesting. No wheel ruts. 

Forest floor intact. No mineral soil displacement. 

2 

Trail used by harvester (ghost trails). Faint wheel tracks and ruts. Forest floor intact. 

No mineral soil displacement and minimal mixing with forest floor. 

3 

Trail used by harvester and forwarder. Two track trails created by one or more 

passes. Wheel track are > 10 cm deep. Forest floor is missing/partially intact. 

4 

Skid trails existed prior to reentry and reused. Old skid trails from 20th century 

selective harvest. Recent operation had little impact on old skid trail. Trails have a 

high level of soil compaction. 

5 

Evidence of mineral soil displacement from trails. Old and new skid trails present. 

Mineral soil displacement from area between skid trails. Forest floor missing. 

 

The researchers determined from Region 1 Soil Quality Standards that a harvest unit is considered 

detrimentally disturbed if more than 15 percent of the unit is in disturbance classes 3, 4 or 5 as defined 

in the Table F-1a above. The results of the assessment are shown below. 

Table F-1b. Summary of Soils Assessment on Black Ant Salvage Units 

Unit 6, SW 1⁄4 Section 35, 

T12N, R9E 

(# points on transect in 

condition class) 

Unit 2, SW 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 

Section 35, T12N, R9E 

(# points on transect in 

condition class) 

Unit 5, NW 1⁄4 Section 35, 

SW 1⁄4 Section 26, T12N, 

R9E 

(# points on transect in 

condition class) 

Condition 

Class 

Random 

Transect 

Grid Random 

Transect 

Grid Random 

Transect 

Grid 

0 0 7 0 1 7 0 

1 87 61 91 87 48 71 

2 6 26 9 9 28 25 

3 1 0 0 2 16 3 

4 4 2 0 1 1 1 

5 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Totals 100 96 100 100 100 100 

Percent in 

Classes 3, 4 

or 5 

7 2 0 3 17 4 

The parent material of the soils of the harvest units is limestone and soil surfaces are silt loams. Much 

of the vegetative cover had been removed from these soils by the 2001 fire. Winter harvest was 

successful in minimizing impacts to these sensitive soils with the average percentage of detrimentally 

impacted soils in the three units being approximately 5.5. 

Soil Impacts from Harvest with Dry Soil Conditions: Three recently harvested timber sale units 

were evaluated for soil impacts in August and September 2006. The Allen Park Salvage unit followed 

a blowdown event that left a chaotic arrangement of down, broken and standing trees near the divide 

of the Little Belt Mountains. The Roberts Sanitation units (2 units) were harvest of a low elevation mix 

of drier, open timber types impacted by disease. Harvest activities occurred during periods of dry soils. 

Harvest methods were ground based mechanical with whole tree yarding. Harvest activities were 

completed through slash treatment. The methods used to evaluate soil impacts were a series of 100 

feet transects, random compass direction, with starting points approximately 200 feet apart randomly 
located across the units. Each linear foot of each transect was assigned a level of disturbance found 

in Table 3 below, with additional notes taken of soil surfaces and structure. Definitions of levels of 

disturbance follow Howes (2000), with an important clarification. Even though the disturbance class 

definitions found below in Table F-1c below were the basis for identifying the levels of disturbance, 

Region1 Soil Quality Standard (R1 SQS) definitions were woven into the process at several important 

points. First, detrimental displacement as defined by R-1 SQS is the removal of 1 or more inches 

(depth) of any surface soil horizon, usually the A horizon, from a continuous area greater than 100 

square feet. Because of this definition, the soil displacement portions of Classes 4, 5 and 6 were met 

when detrimental displacement exceeded this minimum area. 

A second important issue with Howes (2000) methods, R1 SQS and Forest Plan Standards is the 

detrimental soil impacts threshold. R1 Soil Quality Standards state that at lease 85 percent of an 

activity area (harvest unit in this situation) must have soil that is in satisfactory condition. Forest Plan 

Standards (Management Standard F-1(1) and F-3(11)) speak to protecting and sustaining soil and site 

productivity. For the activity area to meet R1 SQS and Forest Plan Standards, the amount of Class 3, 

4, 5, and 6 level disturbances must not exceed 15 percent. None of the three units evaluated for 

harvest under dry soil conditions met R1 SQS or Forest Plan Standards. Most of the detrimental 

impacts seemed to occur during whole-tree yarding operations. Effects of other harvest methods, 

such as cut-to-length, will be evaluated where utilized to compare impacts. 

Table F-1c. New Soil Disturbance (Howe 2000) 

Class Label Description 

Class 

0 

Undisturbed No evidence of past equipment operation. Soils are undisturbed or 

considered to be a natural state. 

Class 

1 

Slight 

Disturbance 

Site is virtually undisturbed. Litter and duff layers intact. Surface soil (A 

horizons) intact. Impressions of wheel tracks or slight depressions in 

surface soils may be present. No exposed surface soils (unless natural). 

No exposed subsoils. 

Class 

2 

Some 

Disturbance 

Litter and duff layers generally intact. Surface soil (A horizon) intact but may 

show some evidence of platiness. No evidence of surface soil removal or 

deposition. 

Class 

3 

Moderate 

Disturbance 

Litter and duff layers only partially intact or missing. Surface soil (A horizon) 

intact but show evidence of platiness or lack of structure. Equipment tire 

tracks or cleat marks evident. 

Class 

4 

High 

Disturbance 

Litter and duff layers totally removed. Surface soils (A horizons) partially 

removed or may be mixed with subsoil material. Surface soil structure 

destroyed (Large, thick plates instead of granular or crumb structure). Some 

shiny or slick appearing soil surfaces may be present. 

Class 

5 

Severe 

Disturbance 

Litter and duff layers totally removed. Surface soils (A horizons) nearly all or 

completely removed. Evidence of topsoil removal and/or gouging. Subsoils 

partially or totally exposed. 

Class 

6 

Altered 

Drainage 

Alteration of internal soil drainage characteristics by equipment operation. 

Results in permanently saturated soils of standing water. 

A summary of the assessments of the three harvest units is found in the following three tables. The 

average shown in the tables can be converted to percentage (i.e. 26.3 = 26.3%). 
Table F-1d. Allen Park Salvage, Unit A2, 27 acres, NE 1⁄4 NW 1⁄4 Sec PB41, Harvested 2005 

(distance (feet) within 100-foot transect in condition class) 

Transect Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6

1 0 29 11 8 52 0 0 

2 0 52 0 16 31 0 0 

3 0 4 0 35 61 0 0 

4 0 40 0 19 41 0 0 

5 0 0 0 29 31 40 0 

6 0 30 13 21 36 0 0 

7 0 24 0 43 33 0 0 

8 0 45 0 55 0 0 0 

9 0 51 0 37 12 0 0 

10 0 16 0 0 84 0 0 

Average 0 29.1 2.4 26.3 38.1 4.0 0 

Table F-1e. Roberts Sanitation, Unit 1, 145 ac, S 1⁄2 Sec 9, T11N, R14E, Harvested 2004 

(distance (feet) within 100-foot transect in condition class) 

Transect Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6

1 0 51 28 21 0 0 0 

2 0 33 36 31 0 0 0 

3 0 34 45 21 0 0 0 

4 0 46 34 20 0 0 0 

5 0 59 28 13 0 0 0 

6 0 28 47 25 0 0 0 

7 0 42 30 28 0 0 0 

8 0 42 58 0 0 0 0 

9 0 0 11 89 0 0 0 

10 0 47 31 22 0 0 0 

Average 0 38.2 34.8 27.0 0 0 0 

Table F-1f. Roberts Sanitation, Unit 3, 72 ac, SE 1⁄4 Sec 9, T11N, R14E, Harvested 2004 

(distance (feet) within 100-foot transect in condition class) 

Transect Class 0 Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6

1 0 24 33 43 0 0 0 

2 0 50 35 15 0 0 0 

3 0 34 48 18 0 0 0 

4 0 50 29 21 0 0 0 

5 0 20 30 50 0 0 0 

6 0 42 39 19 0 0 0 

7 0 54 36 10 0 0 0 

8 0 40 44 16 0 0 0 

9 0 0 12 8 19 61 0 

10 0 27 49 24 0 0 0 

Average 0 34.1 35.5 22.4 1.9 6.1 0 

Forest Plan standard F-1 calls for utilizing adequate soil and water practices to protect soil productivity 

and to control non-point water pollution from project development. The relationship of the disturbance 

classes to the Forest Plan standards and Regional Soil Quality Standards are shown below (Howes 

2000). 
• Class 0 soil disturbance is undisturbed and therefore represents the condition against which 

the other categories are compared. This category represents maximum potential productivity. 

• Class 1 soil disturbance is when subsoils are intact and not compacted. Infiltration and 

percolation rates are generally unimpeded except for only small, localized areas. Productivity 

is unaffected. Soil damaging criteria not met. 

• Class 2 soil disturbance is when subsoils are intact but may be slightly compacted. Some 

localized reduction in infiltration rates may occur, but generally no impact on percolation rates. 

Restoration work usually not required. Affected areas recover well naturally. Soil damaging 

criteria are not met. 

• Class 3 soil disturbance meets Regional and Forest Plan standards defining soil damage. 

Subsoils are intact, but may be compacted. Infiltration and percolation rates are reduced. 

Productivity reductions are below acceptable levels. Restoration work is warranted. 

• Class 4 soil disturbance meets Regional and Forest Plan standards defining soil damage. 

Subsoils are exposed and compacted. Drainage characteristics of soils are affected. 

Channeling of surface water may occur and cause erosion. Significant productivity reductions 

are likely. Normal restoration activities are effective in restoring productive potential. 

• Class 5 soil disturbance also meets Regional and Forest Plan standards defining soil damage. 

Subsoils are exposed or may be removed or compacted. Drainage characteristics of soils are 

affected. Channeling of surface water may occur and cause erosion and gully formation. 

Significant productivity reductions are highly likely. Restoration measures are difficult yet 

should be carried out. 

• Class 6 soil disturbance should be avoided if at all possible. Permanent standing water or 

altered internal drainage has resulted. Restoration to natural conditions is impossible or 

nearly so. 

Soil Impacts from Prescribed Burning in Harvest Units and Down Woody Debris Amounts 

Following Prescribed Burning: Four harvest units were evaluated in June 2004; one in the South 

Deadman Timber Sale and three in Daniels/Kinney Timber Sale. Treatment units had been broadcast 

burned in the fall of 2003 and spring of 2004 following earlier harvest under a variety of conditions. 

The purpose of monitoring was to visually assess the impacts of the broadcast burning on soils and to 

determine average amounts of down woody debris left following completion of harvest relative to 

Forest Plan Standard P-2: “Leave approximately 10 tons of fuel per acre, where available. This should 

be material over four inches in diameter, which is randomly scattered over the area. Material should 

touch the ground for faster decomposition.” This Forest Plan Standard addresses in part the 

recommended amounts of large down woody debris needed for long term soil productivity (Graham et 

al 1994). 

The percentages of burn severity in the units were estimated as part of a random traverse through the 

units. All aspects, slope classes and apparent past fuel loadings were considered. Coarse down 

woody debris (4 inch or greater diameter) amounts were determined using a modified Brown (1974) 

technique with a number of random 50-foot transects. Transect beginning points were randomly 

chosen across the units in representative portions and transect directions were random as well. 

Transect intensity was one for each 1-2 acres. 
Table F-1g. Summary of Prescribed Burning Monitoring 

Burn Severity as 

Percent of Unit 

 

Harvest Unit Size of 

Unit 

(acres) 

Habitat Type 

Low Mod Severe 

Recommended 

Amounts of 

Large DWD 

(tons/ac) 

(Graham et al 

1994) 

Average 

Measured 

Amount of 

Large DWD 

(tons/ac) 

South 

Deadman # 8 7-10 

Subalpine 

fir/pinegrass 65 25 5-10 10+ 10 

Kinney/Daniels 

# 18 29 

Douglas 

fir/pinegrass 

and Douglas 

fir/twinflower 

80 10 5-10 12-25 14.8 

Kinney/Daniels 

# 17 5 

Subalpine 

fir/pinegrass 85 10 5 10+ 26.3 

Kinney/Daniels 

# 24 12 

Subalpine 

fir/grouse 

whortleberry 

75-

80 

10 5-10 7-15 17.7 

R1 Soil Quality Standards (FSM 2500-99-1) define detrimentally burned soils: “Physical and biological 

changes to soil resulting from high-intensity burns of long duration are detrimental.” R1 Standards 

then refer to the Burned-Area Emergency Rehabilitation Handbook (FSH 2509.13) for additional 

description: white or red colored ashes over two inches deep, consumption of fuels greater than 3⁄4 

inch in diameter, nearly complete consumption of litter and baking of the soil surface all indicate 

severe burning. 

Units were evaluated for soil impacts from burning only. None of the units evaluated showed severe 

or detrimental burning over 10% of their area and therefore would not exceed R1 Soil Quality 

Standards or Forest Plan Standards on burning alone. All units evaluated did have amounts of coarse 

woody debris within or exceeding the recommended ranges which meets R1 Soil Quality Standards 

and Forest Plan Standards. 

Soil Impacts from Prescribed Burning of Natural Fuels: Approximately 200 acres of early spring 

burning was evaluated in late April 2003. Vegetation consists of Rough fescue/Idaho fescue and open 

canopy Douglas fir on the north edge of the Castle Mountains in the N1/2 Section 8, T9N, R8E. 

Elevations ranged from 5700 to just over 5800 feet on gentle slopes, mostly less than 35 percent. 

Recent past use on the area was limited grazing by fewer than 7-10 horses for 1-3 months in a year. 

The area was burned under cool conditions in mid to late April 2003. 

Several traverses were made through the burn on all possible aspects and through the elevation 

range with general observations made. The severity of the burn was low throughout with mostly black 

ash, partial consumption of litter and less than ten percent bare soil noted. Several spring snow 

showers and cold rains had occurred since the burn with very minor erosion noted. The burn had 

backed to the edge of Fourmile Creek on gentle slopes with no evidence of sediment reaching live 

water. Under the conditions of spring burning, cool conditions, low severity fire and gentle slope, little 

impact to soil and water resources occurred from the burn. 
F-4 Riparian Area, Floodplains, and Wetlands 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

REPORTING 

PERIOD & 

FREQUENCY 

VARIABILITY WHICH WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Activities in riparian areas, 

floodplains, and wetlands 

Annually – 50% 

of all projects 

Unacceptable results of an ID Team review 

METHODS 

A series of range decisions on the Lewis and Clark National Forest (LCNF) in recent years 

implemented new standards and monitoring plans for stream bank alteration in grazing allotments with 

riparian areas. The standards were intended to help range managers and permittees limit livestock 

impacts and improve conditions in those stream channels rated as non-functioning or at-risk due to 

grazing. Annual monitoring is a critical component of the adaptive management strategy. The results 

provide feedback information for annual operating plans as well as insight for related long-term 

monitoring programs. 

The protocols for monitoring bank alteration have evolved with new information and direction from a 

regional working group tasked with developing a more consistent approach to annual bank monitoring 

for east-side forests in Montana. A major objective of the regional protocol was to provide a simple 

and easy way for range staff and permittees to monitor and assess stream impacts during the grazing 

season so that grazing management adjustments could be made as appropriate. To be accepted, the 

protocol also needed to minimize variability among observers. Survey teams on the LCNF have 

adopted the final draft (2005) of the regionally-sponsored protocol in order to move forward with 

essential monitoring and promote recovery of degraded riparian areas. The regional protocol is a 

paced point-intercept sampling method, using a minimum transect length of 50 paces (about 250 feet) 

monitored in the most grazing-influenced section of the stream. However, LCNF teams try to 

complete four transects in a row (about 1000 feet) whenever time and location allow for it. The intent 

is to avoid over-estimating impacts due to small problem areas (trail crossings, fence lines, watering 

holes, etc.) encountered along the monitoring transect. 

Traditionally, annual monitoring has been viewed mostly as a tool to assess short-term (e.g., yearly) 

impacts. When conditions such as forage utilization exceed standards, annual operating plans can be 

adjusted, with the expectation that range condition will improve or fully recover in the next growing 

season. However, annual bank alteration monitoring can indicate a level of physical impact to stream 

channels that can require many years to recover. Trampling that shears off or fractures the stream 

bank causes long-term damage to water quality and aquatic habitats. Streams are unable to 

reestablish collapsed undercut banks or flush out excess sediment in a single year. In fact, recovery 

may require complete rest from grazing for multiple years. Results of bank monitoring can provide 

critical information on riparian condition and long-term trend. 

The Sheep Creek Range Analysis Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) (2004) elevated the 

importance of monitoring to ensure permittees are adjusting livestock management and moving cows 

to meet new bank alteration standards and improve degraded stream channels. Stream bank 

standards must be met at least three of five years or adjustments to cattle numbers will be instituted. 

The responsibility for bank monitoring has fallen largely on Forest and District staff, however. 

Consequently, only a small portion of the annual riparian monitoring obligations across the Forest 

have been met in recent years. 

In 2006, 75% of the bank monitoring conducted was on the White Sulphur Springs Ranger District, 

with primary focus on the Sheep Creek allotments because the new adaptive management strategy 
adopted in the Sheep Creek ROD. Nineteen sites were monitored in 2006, compared to 25 sites in 

2005. Of the 19 sites monitored, one (Lake Creek) was not in a grazing allotment, and only nine were 

monitored at end of season. This means that the other nine sites were measured before cattle were 

taken off allotments and may have received additional bank alteration. Seven of these nine sites 

exceeded bank alteration standards at the time of monitoring. 

The Sheep Creek Range Analysis Final EIS identified a number range improvements (tanks, 

exclosures, and fences) designed to reduce the amount of time cattle spend in riparian areas. Due to 

reduced budgets and other priority work, a number of these range improvements have not been 

constructed, making it difficult to meet bank alteration standards in some pastures. 

FINDINGS 

Bank alteration monitoring was completed on nine allotments. Additionally, four streams of special 

interest (South Fork Judith, Smith Creek, Allen Gulch and Lake Creek) were monitored to evaluate 

grazing management or aquatic resource concerns. Results for all 19 sites, listed by ranger district 

and stream, are presented below. Brief narratives for each site and some example photographs follow 

the table and graphs. 

Table F-4a. 2006 Bank Alteration Monitoring Results 

 Dist Stream 

EA/EIS 

Reach No. 

(Cond. 1) 

Date 

Monitored 

Livestock 

Status on 

Date 

Monitored 

Fish Species 2 

Present 

Bank 

Alteration 

Standard 

Bank 

 Alteration 

Measurement 

4 

S Fk Judith, 

upper R-8(AR) 11/17/06 

Off WC 30% 

11% 

4 Smith B-2(NF) 11/17/06 Off No Fish 30% 70% 

6 Whitetail, upper 37 (AR) 8/22/06 On EB 20%3 28% 

6 Whitetail, lower 37 (AR) 8/22/06 On EB 20%3 15% 

7 Pole 82 (AR) 8/17/06 On EB 20% 29%

7 Indian 92 (NF) 9/7/06 Off EB 20% 29%

7 

Smith Meadows 

Fourmile Spring 62 (NF) 8/3/06 On No Fish 30% 50%

7 Daniels, lower 114 (AR) 11/06/06 Off WC 10% 40% 

7 Allen Gulch 129 (AR) 11/06/06 Off No Fish 30% 21% 

7 Lake 195 (PF) 7/11/06 No Cows WC No use 2% 

7 N Fk Eagle 72 (AR) 8/9/06 On RB/EB 20% 31% 

7 Spruce 181 (AR) 8/2/06 On EB 20% 24% 

7 Miller, upper 168 (AR) 8/9/06 Off No Fish 30% 49% 

7 Miller, mid 167 (AR) 7/26/06 Off RB/EB 20% 47% 

7 Miller, lower 166 (AR) 8/24/06 On RB/EB 20% 26% 

7 Miller, lower 166 (AR) 10/13/06 Off RB/EB 20% 36% 

7 Whitetail 164 (AR) 8/8/06 On 30% 54% 

7 Newlan, lower 175 (AR) 10/13/06 Off RB/EB 20% 27% 

7 Studhorse 200 (NF) 9/7/06 On EB 20% 26% 

7 Geis 206 8/8/06 On EB 20% 15% 

1 Condition: PF = proper functioning, AR = at-risk, NF = non-functioning 2

 Fish Species: WC = westslope cutthroat trout, EB = eastern brook trout, RB = rainbow trout 

3 Per settlement agreement, bank alteration standard is known as bank alteration “indicator” 

 

Bank alteration standards are set for each site based on several considerations. Recent analyses and 

decisions for range allotment management established a 10-20-30 system for the LCNF: streams with 

westslope cutthroat trout in competition with introduced brook trout have a 10% bank alteration 

standard (i.e. a maximum of 10% of the stream bank transect can exhibit evidence of alteration from 

grazing impacts); all other fishery streams, including those having only westslope cutthroat trout, have 
a 20% standard; fish-less streams have a 30% standard. For those allotments where only Forest Plan 

riparian standards currently apply, the bank alteration standard is 30%. 

Monitoring indicated that grazing impacts at five sites did not exceed the applicable bank standard 

(green values in table). However, bank alteration exceeded the nominal standard at the majority 

(14) of the 19 monitored sites (red values). When a plus or minus 5% “margin of error” is applied to 

the monitoring data, 13-15 sites exceeded bank standards. Many sites exceeded standards by 15-40 

percentage points. The worst site was Smith Creek with 70% bank alteration, more than twice the 

standard. 

At all monitoring sites hoof print size, trailing patterns, current year cow stools and general lack of elk 

pellets confirmed that observed bank alteration was due primarily to livestock, not wildlife. Lake Creek 

(closed to grazing) on the White Sulphur Springs Ranger District showed use by deer and elk, but 

bank alteration was less than 5%. Permittees (or a representative) participated in bank monitoring on 

Whitetail and N. Fk. Eagle Creeks, where permittees joined the Forest Service observers. In 

scheduling monitoring trips and discussing results with District range managers, no indication was 

given by District staff that either they or permittees were using riparian condition monitoring as the 

deciding factor in livestock management. Instead, staff and permittees seemed to be focused 

primarily on authorized AUMs and designated off-dates. The chart below shows the low compliance 

rate for bank standards in 2006. 

Bank Alteration Compliance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

S. Fk. Judith

Smith

Whitetail, upper

Whitetail, lower

Pole

Indian

Smith

Meadows

Daniels, lower

Allen Gulch

Lake

N Fk Eagle

Spruce

Miller upper

Miller, mid

Miller, lower

Whitetail

Newlan, lower

Studhorse

Geis

% Bank Alteration

Exceeds

Standards

Within

Standards

Overall, differences between observers conducting monitoring bank alteration transects at the same 

sites have been small over the last two seasons. Field training that includes examples of the various 

types of bank alteration and thorough discussion of the methodology can produce a high level of 

consistency among staff and would facilitate reliable permittee monitoring as well. Once learned, the 

protocol is fast and can usually be completed in less than 30 minutes per site. 

Site Narratives

South Fork Judith River:: Very low utilization, good shrub vigor, snow and ice may have obscured 

some alteration (“hits”). The lower end of transect four had a higher level of bank disturbance, but this 

was likely due to the proximity to a drift fence. This area appears to have an improving trend overall. 

Average bank alteration – 11%; standard – 30%. 
Smith Creek: This area was scheduled for a riparian exclosure in 2006 but it was not completed; only 

the fence right-of-way was cleared. Heavy bank trampling and high grazing impact on this nonfunctioning reach provides a sharp contrast to the exclosure downstream. The stream suffers from 

long term cumulative grazing impacts: over-widened channel, very little woody shrub recruitment, high 

eroding banks, sedimentation and reduced flows. Average bank alteration – 70%; standard – 30%. 

Whitetail Creek, Upper Transects: Monitored Reach 37 above Whitetail camp with grazing 

permittees. Improving trend indicators such as vegetative recovery of raw banks and point bar 

formation are lacking. The channel is over-widened and the water table appears to be lower than it 

should be. Observed a 4-5 inch brook trout in the section even though pools are scarce. Average 

bank alteration – 28%; standard (indicator) – 20%. 

Whitetail Creek, Lower Transects: Also monitored Reach 37 below Whitetail camp with permittees. 

The upper two transects had slightly more bank alteration then the lower two transects. There is some 

re-colonization of the lower banks by young plants. Transects 1 & 2 were in meadow. Transects 3 & 

4 were more forested, with transect 4 showing the least use and lowest bank alteration. Average bank 

alteration – 15%; standard (indicator) – 20%. (VanSickle, Dobb, Cady, Cole) 

Pole Creek: Monitored Reach 82 about 1⁄2 mile above the private fence line. This part of Pole Creek 

has scattered spruce and willow along its banks. The lower portion of the reach above the private land 

is more open and has a higher average bank alteration. Grass utilization adjacent to monitored reach 

was 43%. Average bank alteration – 29%; standard – 20%. 

Indian Creek: Monitored Reach 92 just above the riparian fence on Reach 91 which was monitored 

last year. This reach has more willow and spruce than reach 91 but still came in well over standard. 

Average bank alteration – 29%; standard – 20%. 

Smith Meadows/Fourmile Spring: Monitored Reach 62 at the lower end of Smith Meadow across 

from the gravel pit where Fourmile Creek comes close to the road. 75-80 head of cattle were in the 

meadow at this time. Grass utilization ran 39% to 41%. Average bank alteration – 50%; standard – 

30%. 

Daniels Creek, Lower Transects: A 4.5 mile electric fence was built in 2005 to protect Daniels Creek 

and was expected to be effective for the 2006 grazing season. A high number of trees blew down on 

the fence during the 2006 grazing season allowing cattle to access the riparian area. Transects 1-3 

were linked together in the upper partial canopy/shrub meadow area. Transect four was downstream 

in the canopied area where major springs join the main channel. The reach overall had many areas of 

high utilization with abundant cow pies. Monitoring was conducted in November, long after grazing 

season ended. No elk pellets were noticed. Average bank alteration – 40%; standard – 10%. 

Allen Gulch: Utilization appeared to be low overall. Cow pies indicated areas of this year’s use. The 

banks are heavily “post holed” from past years trampling, but there are new willow sprouts and 

increased vigor of existing shrubs. A trend toward improving condition seems to be occurring. 

Average bank alteration – 21%; standard – 30%. 

Lake Creek: Reach 195 was monitored above beaver ponds. The damage from last year’s trespass 

is still evident. This section appears to be heading towards recovery. Sedges and grasses are recolonizing damaged areas, and undercut banks are starting to be reestablished. Bank alteration 

measured this year was caused by wildlife (deer). Average bank alteration – 2%. 

North Fork Eagle Creek: This section is Reach 72 downstream from Elmer Hanson’s property and is 

highly vulnerable to trampling. There are some signs of bank recovery (newly formed/untrampled 

point bars), but the overall condition trend is downward. There is a history of livestock trespass in this 

area, and it could be a factor in these results. Bank damage is persistent throughout this reach. The 

stream is over-widened and shallow. Woody shrubs are lacking. Cow stools were common and no 

elk pellets were observed. Average bank alteration – 31%; standard – 20%. 
Spruce Creek: Monitored Reach 181 at the lower end, just above the Studhorse Road. Cattle have 

trailed along the west edge of the creek. There were still cattle on this pasture but not in this area at 

the time. Average bank alteration – 24%; standard – 20%. 

Miller Gulch, Upper Transects: Transects were monitored in the upper end of Reach 168 where the 

small tributary springs come together. The uppermost portion of this reach is lined with sedges that 

appear to be providing some bank stability. The middle and lower portions of the reach contain old 

shrubs with very large boles. Similar to past years, level of alteration substantially exceeds the 

standard and there is no evidence of riparian recovery. Average bank alteration – 49%; standard – 

30%. 

Miller Gulch, Mid Transects: Reach 167 is in a vulnerable and unstable soil type. The upper three 

transects are located in a long grassy meadow. The lowest transect had a forested canopy, and the 

road edge was the bank for a fair distance. Without road fill forming the bank in the lowest transect, 

bank alteration would be higher for this reach. There was no evidence of a recovering trend. Average 

bank alteration – 47%; standard – 20%. 

Miller Gulch, Lower Transects: Monitored Reach 166 at the lower end of the reach across from the 

junction of the Miller Ridge and Miller Gulch Roads. This reach has a fair amount of willow which 

helps armor the stream banks. Average bank alteration – 26% midseason, 36% post-season; standard 

– 20%. 

Whitetail Creek: Monitored Reach 164 at its start below the holding pasture in the Copper Creek 

Allotment. The division fence between Whitetail and Decker Pastures is just South of the creek. 

Cattle trail along the edge of the creek and a lot of trampling of the spring where the creek starts. The 

creek dries up within a mile of this transect. Average bank alteration – 54%; standard – 30%. 

Newlan Creek, Lower Transects: Started on Reach 175 at the upper end where Newlan Creek 

enters the Sawmill Pasture. First transect was 49%. The willows got a lot denser and the second 

transect was 16%. Went to the lower end of the reach and ran two transects going up the creek. The 

first one was 29% and second was 15% with the willows getting denser further up the creek. Average 

bank alteration – 27%; standard – 20%. 

Studhorse Creek: Reach 200 is the first reach above the new exclosure. I started at the upper end 

of the reach near where the logging road turns into a jeep trail. Near the end of the fourth transect, the 

flow started to taper off. The lower 1⁄2 of this reach was dry. Average bank alteration – 26%; standard 

– 20%. 

Geis Creek: Started on Reach 206 where a two-track crosses the reach. Surveyed two transects 

above the crossing and one below. The heaviest use is close to the crossing. The stream is well 

armored with willows, trees and downfall 100 ft either side of the crossing. Average bank alteration – 

15%; standard – 20%. 

EVALUATION 

As mentioned, range improvements identified in the Sheep Creek range analysis and decision have 

not yet been fully implemented. 2006 represents the second grazing season following the Sheep 

Creek decision. It is anticipated that it may take until 2010 until all improvements are in place. Training 

permittees to conduct monitoring will be an ongoing process as well. Continued monitoring will 

provide additional data on riparian condition and trends and help determine whether current 

management is achieving desired conditions. 
Photo Appendix (may also depict cumulative effects)

Smith Creek (S. Fk. Judith) 

 

 “Post-holing”, bank trampling, bank shearing, loss of woody shrubs, over-widened channel (BA=70%) 
Whitetail Creek (Smith River) 

 

 Sedimentation, forage over-utilization, bank trampling, “post-holing” (BA=54%) 

Newlan Creek, Lower 

 Bank collapse, loss of shrubs, and over-widened channel (BA=22%)