United States 

Department of Agriculture 

Lewis and Clark 

National Forest 

P.O. Box 871 

Great Fak. MT. 59403 

Fiscal Year 1987 

LEWIS AND CLARK 

NATIONAL FOREST PLAN 

Monitoring and Evaluation Report 

Belt Creek Canyon below Monarch in the Little Belt Mountains. 
United States Forest Lewis &I Clark NF 

Department of Service 

Agriculture 

REPLY TO: 1950 Date: March 21, 1988 

SUBJECT: FY-1987 Monitoring and Evaluation Report 

TO: Forest Plan Participant 

Enclosed for your review and use is the first 'Monitoring and Evaluation Report' for the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest Plan. 

The Forest Plan describes a new phase of integrated resource management. Integrated management of 

resources as defined by the Northern Region is, 'where all resources are considered together for the 

same area of land. Planned activities are designed to work toward a desired further condition of the land 

to achieve a common good.' 

Overall, I believe the transition from several resource management plans into one integrated Forest-wide 

Plan has been a smooth one. As shown by the report, output and activity levels for the Forest have 

generally met or exceeded those in the Forest Plan. When there is a significant difference, the report 

explains why. 

Although the overall budget to implement the Forest Plan has been lower than envisioned, some 

funding elements, such as land line location, tree improvement and trail maintenance, have been fully 

met, Through the outyear programming process the actual Forest budget is being moved towards those 

elements that are emphasized in the Forest Plan. 

As we have gone through the first year of monitoring the Forest Plan we have found that most 

monitoring items have worked like we had envisioned. However, in some cases the Interdisciplinary 

Team has recommended a change to strengthen or improve the understanding of the monitoring 

requirements. In some cases there is a need for the Forest to improve its recordkeeping so that the 

necessary monitoring items can be tracked at the end of the year. These cases are discussed in the 

report and will be accomplished by amending the Forest Plan. 

Evaluation of the monitoring results showed that while the goals, objectives, standards and management practices are generally being implemented as detailed in the Forest Plan, there is a need to 

strengthen our management in some specific areas. For example, we must increase our emphasis on 

range allotment management planning and wildlife habitat improvement. Our first year of monitoring 

showed that there was also need to strengthen our reporting procedures in some areas. 

Resolving the 13 Forest Plan appeals is still a major concern. One appeal has been withdrawn and one 

appeal has been dismissed. The other 11 appeal records have been closed and we are awaiting a 

decision by the Chief of the Forest Service who is reviewing the appeals. 
Page 2 

STATUS OF THE LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL FOREST APPEALS 

American Rivers Conservation Council - Withdrawn 

Daniel J. Funsch - Record Closed 

Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance - Record Closed 

Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance-Badger Chapter - Record Closed 

Intermountain Forest Industry Association - Record Closed 

Montana Wilderness Association, et al. - Record Closed 

Montana Wildland Coalition - Record Closed 

Dexter M. Roberts - Record Closed 

Bill Stewart - Record Closed 

John R. Swanson - Dismissed 

Town of Judith Gap - Record Closed 

Western Environmental Trade Association - Record Closed 

Robert J. Yetter, et al. - Record Closed 

Again, I want to thank you for your interest in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Please contact us if 

you have any questions on the Forest Plan or the Monitoring and Evaluation Report. 

JOHN D. GORMAN 

Forest Supervisor 
FOREST PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT 

FISCAL YEAR 1987 

LEWIS AND CLARK NATlONAL FOREST 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. 

II. 

111. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

INTRODUCTION 

GOALS 

FOREST PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Elements: 

Recreation (A) 

Wilderness (6) 

Wildlife and Fish (C) 

Range (D) 

Timber (E) 

Water and Soil (F) 

Minerals (G) 

Lands (J) 

Facilities (L) 

Protection (P) 

All (I) 

Comparison of Outputs and Activities with those Projected in the Forest 

Plan 

Comparison of the Actual Budget Received in FY 1987 with the Forest 

Plan Projected Annual Budget 

PLANNED ACTIONS 

RESEARCH NEEDS 

AMENDMENTS 

APPENDICES 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

APPROVAL 
I. 

FOREST PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT I 

LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL FOREST 

FISCAL YEAR 1987 

INTRODUCTION 

The Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Lewis and Clark National Forest 

was approved by the Regional Forester on June 4, 1986. Part of the process was a commitment to 

monitor and evaluate how well the Forest Plan was being implemented. A commitment was also 

made to consider modifications in the Forest Plan based on the monitoring and evaluation efforts. 

This report summarizes results of Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation conducted during Fiscal 

Year 1987 (October 1, 1986 through September 30, 1987), the first year of implementing the Forest 

Plan for the Lewis and Clark National Forest. 

The significance of the results of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1987 monitoring and evaluation program 

have been analyzed by the Forest Interdisciplinary (ID) Team and have been reviewed for action by 

the Forest Management Team. 

This report summarizes the results of the Forest's monitoring effort and provides the rationale for 

the modifications, if necessary, that will be made in the Forest Plan in the form of amendments. 

Any changes in the Forest Plan will follow the process outlined in Chapter V and will include 

appropriate public notification and completion of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures. This report also provides a communication link with the public and other levels of Federal, 

State, private industry, and other interest groups to document the status on implementing the 

Forest Plan. 

The regulations in 36 CFR 219 describe the purpose for evaluation of the Forest Plan. These 

regulations are summarized below: 

--To determine if conditions or demands in the area covered by the Forest Plan have 

changed significantly enough to require any revision to the Forest Plan (36 CFR 21 - 9.1 O(g)); 

--To determine if budgets have significantly changed the long-term relationship between 

levels of multiple-use goods ancCservices enough to create a need for a 'significant amendment' (36 CFR 21 9.1 O(e)); 

--To determine how well the stated objectives of the Forest Plan are being met (36 CFR 

21 9.12(k)); 

--To determine how closely Forest-Wide Management Standards in Chapter I1 of the Forest 

Plan have been followed (36 CFR 21 9.12(k)); and 

-To determine how the Forest is satisfying the requirements for Monitoring and Evaluatiofi' 

(36 CFR 219.12(k)). 

3 
II. GOALS 

The goals for monitoring and evaluating the Forest Plan are to determine: 

--How well the Forest is meeting its planned goals and objectives; 

--If existing and emerging public issues and management concerns are being adequately 

addressed; 

--How closely the Forest Plan’s management standards ,are being followed; 

--If outputs and services are being provided as projected; 

--If the effects of implementing the Forest Plan are occurring as predicted, including significant changes in the productivity of the land; 

--If the costs of implementing the Forest Plan are as predicted; . 

--If implementing the Forest Plan is affecting the land, resources, and communities adjacent 

to or near the Forest; 

--If activities on nearby lands managed by other Federal or other governmental agencies, or 

under the jurisdiction of local governments, is affecting management of the Forest; 

--If research is needed to support the management of the Forest, beyond that identified in 

Chapter II of the Forest Plan; and 

--If there is a need to amend or revise the Forest Plan. 

Ill. FOREST PLAN MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Forest Plan management activities were monitored and evaluated as outlined in Table 5.1 Forest 

Plan Monitoring Requirements, to determine how well objectives were met and how closely 

management standards were applied. The document resulting from the use of the Decision Flow 

Diagram constitutes the evaluation report. As applicable, the following will be included in the 

evaluation report: .. 

--A quantitative estimate of performance - comparing outputs and services with those projetted by the Forest Plan; 

--Documentation of measured effects, including any change in productivity of the land; 

--Unit costs associated with carrying out the planned activities as compared with unit costs 

estimated during Forest Plan ,development; 

4 
--Recommendations for changes; 

--A list of needs for continuing evaluation of management systems and for alternative 

methods of management; 

--A list of additional research needed to support the management of the Forest; and 

--Identification of additional monitoring needs to facilitate achievement of the monitoring 

goals. 

The results of the evaluation report have been summarized and are discussed on the following 

pages. Each monitoring item lists: (1) what is being measured; (2) frequency of measurement; (3) 

reporting period; (4) variable which would initiate further evaluation; and (5) the results of the 

monitoring. They are grouped by resource area and follow the monitoring requirements in the 

Lewis and Clark Forest Plan Fable 5.1). 

RECREATION 

A-1 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum setting being implemented. 

Frequency of Measurement 100%/10 years. 

Reporting Period: October 1. 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: f 10% of projected Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) setting. 

The Forest Plan provides for management of 436,000 acres in a primitive setting as Wilderness. 

Currently the Forest has 384,000 acres in Wilderness and the Forest Plan proposes an additional 

52,000 acres. The final decision is dependent on Congressional action. Current Wilderness bills 

which have been introduced provide for considerably more Wilderness than recommended in the 

Forest Plan. However, no change actually occurred in FY 1987. 

The Forest Plan also provides for 933,000 acres to be managed in a semi-primitive condition and 

457,000 acres to be managed in a roaded natural setting during the first decade. No significant 

change occurred in these settings during FY 1987. The only activities conducted which.would 

affect these settings were timber sales sold, totalling 3,500 acres. These sales were all located in 

presently roaded areas where the recreation setting is roaded, natural. Therefore, the recreation 

setting is consistent with Forest Plan direction. 

P 

The monitoring plan suggests measuring this item only at ten-year intervals and requires no 

additional evaluation unless the setting deviates plus or minus 10% from the planned recreation 

settings. Therefore, no additional evaluation is required. 

e5 
A-2 Direction meets expectation of visitor. 

Frequency of Measurement: 10% sample annually 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Adverse comments or correspondence. 

This particular item is difficult to measure in an objective way. At almost any point in time, some 

people’s expectations would be met and the expectations of others would not be met. The 

measurement is through visit or contacts, inspections, and plans. In this report the assumption is 

made that the Forest Plan direction is satisfactory unless strong public complaints have been 

received and/or major issues have developed which indicate that the direction is not correct. 

One measure of the effectiveness of recreation direction was the recreation program review 

conducted in FY 1987 by the recreation staff group from the Regional Office. Issues which 

surfaced in that review have been addressed with an action plan in FY 1988 and accomplishment 

will be reported in the FY 1988 monitoring and evaluation report. The major findings of this review 

as they relate to visitor expectations are as follows: 

A. The Forest Plan budget as proposed is inadequate to meet all of the recreation goals. This 

finding is based on a Regional analysis of Forest Plan budgets and related workloads. The Forest 

Plan budget needs to be corrected. 

EL The coordination between timber management activities and snowmobile/cross country ski 

activities in the Kings Hill area needs to be strengthened. 

C. Several issues about signing were surfaced during the recreation program review and are 

as follows: 

-Signing is not adequate on the Forest to direct recreationists to the opportunities which 

exist; 

--In some cases signing is negative and focuses on regulations without providing useful 

visitor information; 

--In many cases it is difficutt to identify access routes to the Forest; 

-Signing on some of the winter sports trails also needs to be improved; and 

--The new Travel Plan will need to be signed on the ground to be effectively implemented. 

These issues led to a Forest objective in FY 1988 to correct these signing problems. 

D. A major issue highlighted in the review is the need to obtain reasonable public access to ).. 

the National Forest. The Forest Plan identifies most of the rights-of-way needed to provide this 

access. However, progress on obtaining these access points has been slow and protracted 

6 
negotiations with landowners has been the rule. A need exists to more efficiently acquire the 

identified rights-of-way. The action proposed to meet this need is to focus efforts in a given 

mountain range or area until the job is complete. This approach is being initiated in the Highwood 

Mountains in FY 1988. Access needs in the Highwoods were given high priority because of their 

proximity to recreation users in Great Falls. Coordination with other public agencies, particularly 

the counties, is also being strengthened. 

E. Another issue identified in the review is the need to improve planning for recreational 

opportunities on an 'area' basis and to use this planning to identify appropriate recreation facilities. 

This planning must be based on the recreation setting in the Forest Plan and be coordinated with 

recreation users. 

F. Another issue is to develop a policy towards providing outfitter services on the Forest. An 

interim policy was developed in FY 1987 and is currently being followed. However, a more 

definitive policy will be developed and implemented in FY 1988. The Forest Plan currently has little 

direction in this area, except in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. 

In addition to issues identified in the recreation program review, other issues were generated by 

the public. Several issues were generated and resolved through the Travel Planning process, 

particularly issues related to motorized versus non-motorized forms of travel on the Forest. For 

example, several complaints were received about off trail travel by All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) 

during the 1987 hunting season. Use by this class of vehicles was minimal when the Forest Plan 

was developed. However, the new Travel Plan specifically recognizes AWs as a separate class of 

vehicle and establishes rules for their use. The direction in the new Travel Plan appears to provide 

an appropriate mix of recreation opportunities and has refined the direction in the Forest Plan to 

meet present user demands and issues. 

A strong internal and public issue is the ability of the Forest to provide adequate law enforcement 

to implement the new Travel Plan. This issue is being addressed in an updated Workforce 

Management Plan for the Forest which will be completed in FY 1988. Public acceptance and 

support for the recreation direction in the Travel Plan will depend on adequate enforcement. 

The only other issue appears to be the question of Wilderness classification. The Forest Plan 

provides specific direction in this regard. However, Wilderness bills have been introduced in 

Congress which would change this direction. This, of course, is a question for the Congress. In the 

interim people on both sides of the issue are expressing differing opinions about the current 

recreation management direction in areas being considered for Wilderness. No changgwill occur 

in the Forest Plan direction until (and unless) Congress completes action on Wilderness legislation. 

A-3 Actual use of developed and dispersed recreation as compared with projected use levels. 

Frequency of Measurement: Annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1 , 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: +_25% variance yearly or _+IO% over a 5-year 

period. . 

7 
The Forest Plan projects that total recreation use will average 869,000 visitor days in the first 

decade. This is broken down as follows: (1) Developed recreation - 169,000 visitor days; (2) 

non-wilderness dispersed recreation - 614,000 visitor days; and (3) wilderness use - 86,000 visitor 

days. 

The use reported in FY 1987 was as follows: (1) Developed recreation - 145,000 visitor days (86% 

of the Forest Plan level); (2) non-wilderness dispersed recreation - 581,000 visitor days (95% of the 

Forest Plan level); and (3) wilderness use - 54,000 visitor days (63% of the Forest Plan level). 

Fee receipts indicate that developed site use declined slightly from FY 1986 to FY 1987. Use 

figures indicate that dispersed recreation outside Wilderness increased somewhat over FY 1986, 

but that Wilderness use declined considerably. The level of use in developed sites and dispersed 

areas outside Wilderness also is below the projected Forest Plan level, but by less significant 

margins. However, the trend will need to be monitored for validity because Forest Plan projections 

show a steady rate of increase through the planning period. 

A4 Condition of developed sites. 

Frequency of Measurement: Annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Less than acceptable standards, public 

safety hazards not corrected by 1990, poor conditions not corrected by 2005. 

The condition of developed sites generally improved in FY 1987. Most Ranger Districts were able 

to focus at least some attention on replacing worn-out or damaged improvement; such as, tables, 

fire rings, and so forth in FY 1987. This was particularly true on the Rocky Mountain Ranger 

District. 

The Forest has identified recreation rehabilitation projects by priorii through the year 2000 based 

on Forest Plan budget level. All developed site water and sanitation systems have been brought up 

to proper standard in the past few years (the last ones were completed in FY 1987). Public, health 

and safety hazards are corrected at all sites. Poor site conditions will be corrected by 2005 as 

projected in the Forest Plan, provided that recreation funds are received as programmed 

- 

A-5 Recreation Opportunity. 

Frequency of Measurement: Annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would lnitlate Further Evaluation: Failure to complete by 1986. 

This standard is measured by the status of Recreation Opportunity Guides (ROG) on each Ranger ,. 

District. Further evaluation is triggered by a failure to complete these guides on all Ranger Districts 

by FY 1986. Currently the guides have been completed on the Rocky Mountain Division, but are 

8 
not complete for the Jefferson Division of the Forest. This has resulted in a Forest objective in FY 

1988 to complete key ROG for specific areas in the Jefferson Division. The total ROG for the 

Jefferson Division will not be complete in FY 1988, but completion will continue to be a priority over 

the next 2-3 years. 

A-6 Off-road vehicle damage and Travel Plan effectiveness. 

Frequency of Measurement: Annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1 , 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: 

Off -road vehicle damage - Conflicts with Forest Management Area goals. 

Travel Plan effectiveness - Increase of 20 or more citations or variances yearly. 

This standard is monitored by two items. The first item is the status of the Forest Travel Plan as it 

relates to Forest Plan goals. As stated earlier, the Travel Plan was revised in FY 1987 specifically to 

bring it into compliance with Forest Plan standards and to implement the recreation settings in the 

Forest Plan. The new Travel Plan also addressed several issues; such as, All Terrain Vehicles 

which have surfaced since 1984. 

The second monitoring item is the number of travel plan citations issued and the number of travel 

plan variances granted. These are summarized below along with a short narrative response 

concerning problems experienced by the Ranger Districts. 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 

A total of 28 complaints were received from the public and employees. Of this total of 28 

investigations, 3 violation notices were issued and 2 verbal warnings were given by Forest Service 

employees. An issue expressed by Ranger District personnel is that they are informed of less than 

50 % of total violations for travel plan infractions, even though patrol effort was increased. 

Judith Ranger District 

A total of 25 Travel Plan variances were documented in the patrol efforts by Ranger District 

personnel. Of this total, a total of 4 violation notices and 1 warning notice were issued. 

Enforcement of the Travel Plan was difficult because of a lack of uniform, easy-to-read signs. This 

problem was also identified during the Recreation Activrty Review and is being corrected as part of 

the signing initiative. Signing is particularly critical inside area closures, so that designated open 

routes are clearly identified, while non-designated 'wheel tracks' are clearly closed. 

- 

Musselshell Ranger District 

A total of 20 Travel Plan variances were investigated by Ranger District personnel. Of this total, 1 

violation notice was issued. Most variances were not found until after the offense had occurred and 

liile information was available upon which to build a successful law enforcement case. A particular 

problem on the Musselshell Ranger District is illegally cleared 'bypass' routes which allow motorized use behind road restriction gates and barriers. 

9 
Kings Hill Ranger District 

A total of 4 Travel Plan variances were investigated by Ranger District personnel. No violation 

notices or warning notices were issued. Problems identified by the Ranger District personnel was 

the need to get better law enforcement coverage on the ground. 

Forest-Wide Summary 

Overall, Ranger District personnel felt that Travel Plan law enforcement was inadequate at the 

current level. The biggest problems occurred during hunting season and special effort was 

focused during this period on all Ranger Districts. However, a higher level of enforcement effort 

appears necessary. The enforcement job will become significantly larger when the new Travel Plan 

is implemented in FY 1988, as more area, road, and trail restrictions will be in effect. This job can 

be facilitated by improved signs. 

Even though more effort appears to be needed, the number of variances investigated was 

significantly higher than in FY 1986 .(exceeds the variability allowed without further evaluation). This 

indicates that the level of enforcement was higher or the number of violations was higher, or both. 

Indications are that an increased level of enforcement was primarily responsible for the increased 

number of investigations. While this exceeds the variability established in the Forest Plan, it 

appears to be a positive trend in Forest Plan implementation. If appropriate attention is given to 

Travel Plan law enforcement in the future, it is likely that initially the number of investigations and 

violation notices will be significantly higher. 

A-7 Condition of visual resource meets objectives in plan. 

Frequency of Measurement: 25% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Deviation from approved Visual Quality 

Objectives determined by Interdisciplinary Team review. 

This item is measured by taking a 25% sample of environmental assessments completed in FY 

1987. The Visual Quality Objective was met in all of the project environmental assessments 

sampled. Therefore, there was no deviation from approved Visual Quality Objectives established in 

the Forest Plan. - 

It is recommended that the Data Source column of Table 5.1 of the Forest Plan be changed from 

'Forest Plan data base VQO Inventory' to 'EA'S reviews by ID teams.' 
A-8 Cuttural Resource Protection. 

Frequency of Measurement: Selected sites - Once/5 years. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would initiate Further Evaluation: Less than 10% accomplishment/year. 

Socty-six projects were field inventoried in FY 1987. This resulted in cultural inventory of over 5,700 

acres. Almost half of the projects inventoried had cuttural sites located within their boundaries. A 

total of 40 cuttural sites were identified, of which 30 sites were newly recorded in FY 1987. Most of 

these inventoried sites were archaeologically tested and Determinations of Eligibility (DOE) were 

made. 

An eligibility determination is a helpful management tool, as it resolves the status of site, so that a 

'reassessment' is not needed in the future. If no eligibility determination is made, then project 

activities must avoid sites, regardless of their significance. Also, attention is diverted from sites 

which are truly significant. 

About two-thirds of the tested sites were determined by the State Historic Preservation Officer to 

be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The eligibility of eight sites was left 

unresolved due to lack of funds and time for testing. 

A few sites inventoried in FY 1987 appear to be quite significant, including the Roosevelt Memorial 

(Rocky Mountain Ranger District), North Fork Dupuyer tipi rings (Rocky Mountain Ranger District), 

Hoover Springs lithic site (Judith Ranger District), and the large lithic scatter on Sage Creek (Judith 

Ranger District). 

Significant progress has also been made in developing a procedure with the Blackfeet Tribe to 

recognize and protect Blackfeet religious practices on the Forest. This has helped to meet Forest 

Service responsibilities under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and to meet the 

standards in the Forest Plan which relate to Blackfeet traditional use. A procedure has been 

agreed with the Tribe to provide appropriate consultation regarding traditional practices. In addition, several meetings have been held with traditional leaders to exchange information and share 

concerns. .. 

There is a need to develop a monitoringschedule for sites that are listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places. 

11 
WILDERNESS 

5-1 Maintenance of existing quality of ecosystem. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Inltlate Further Evaluation: Degradation of environment. 

The monitoring for the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex is outlined in detail in the Forest Plan 

amendment approved in 1987. The amendment provided recreation management direction and a 

monitoring plan based on the concept of Limits of Acceptable Change. The four Forests involved 

in management of the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex all adopted an identical Forest Plan 

amendment and monitoring plan. The monitoring which was completed on the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest is detailed in Appendix A. The number of people encounters on trails and at 

campsites were within the identified standards, except for the trails leading into the Sun River 

drainage from Benchmark Trailhead (South Fork Sun River Trail #202 and West Fork Sun River 

Trail #203), the Headquarters Pass Trail #I65 and the North Fork Sun River Trail #201. Encounters were exceeded during the summer on the first two trails and during the hunting season 

on trail #201. The most serious concern was the South Fork Sun River Trail leading from 

Benchmark Trailhead. This is a very popular entrance to the Bob Marshall Wilderness because of 

the proximity to the Chinese Wall. Management actions may be necessary in the future if this trend 

continues. 

No monitoring was documented concerning forage utilization by pack stock, however, campsite 

inspections included an inspection of forage use. When use reached the moderate impact level, 

the campsites were closed. No range analysis was conducted to inventory range vegetation. 

Likewise, no range condition and trend monitoring was done on the range allotments. The limited 

monitoring reflects the funding for range management and recreation activities which was less 

than identified in the Forest Plan. 

8-2 Bob Marshall-Great Bear-Scapegoat Management Direction. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Failure to meet time table established in 

Appendix U. 

The time table was dropped from the final Forest Plan. There is a need to revise this reporting item. 

As indicated above, new recreation management direction was completed for the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness Complex in April 1987 and each of the four Forest Plans were amended to include this 

direction. *' 

12 
.After the revised management direction was completed, an assessment of trail reconstruction 

needs was completed for the entire Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. This information will be 

used to address trail construction/reconstruction needs and priorities throughout the Complex. 

The Forest Plan budget needs to be amended to include proper funding for this construction/reconstruction effort. 

8-3 Change in Roadiess Inventory. 

Frequency of Reporting: 1 OO%/lO year. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: 21 0% projected change in roadless inventory. 

This item is only measured at ten-year intervals. However, no significant change-occurred in the 

roadless inventory in FY 1987. Timber sales sold in FY 1987 were all in existing roaded areas and 

no other management activities occurred which would alter the present inventory. 

WILDLIFE AND FISH 

C-1 Threatened and Endangered Species: Grizzly Bear-Maintain occupied habitat capacity. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Any indication of downward trend in grizzly 

bear population. 

The grizzly bear population appears to be stable or increasing. Four biological evaluations were 

completed (Marias Pass recreation project, Waldron Creek, a seismic operation, and revision of the 

Forest Travel Plan). The first three biological evaluations showed no effect on the grizzly bear, and 

the biological evaluation for the Forest Travel Plan showed a beneficial effect for the bear. The 

cumulative effects model was developed and is operational (Forest Plan, Appendix L).”The vegetation mapping was completed for two bear management units. A draft recovery monitoring 

strategy was completed for the Grizzly Bear Recovery Pian and includes information on reproduction and mortality. The interagency monitoring and evaluation program document was 

completed and approved (Forest Plan, Appendix I). Law enforcement efforts were increased in 

Geographic Unit RM-1. 

13 
C-2 Threatened and Endangered Species: Gray Wolf, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon - Maintain 

suitable, unoccupied habitat. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reportlng Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variabillty Which Would Inltlate Further Evaluation: Deterioration or continuing disturbance on 

more than 5% of suitable unoccupied habitat. 

No projects were approved which would cause a deterioration or continuing disturbance to 

suitable unoccupied habitat for the gray wolf, bald eagle, or peregrine falcon. 

Management of gray wolf habitat on the Forest is currently limited to the Rocky Mountain Division. 

Habitat management has included identifying travel plan restrictions limiting public access to 

reduce disturbing human activities on deer and elk winter ranges. The decrease in disturbance is 

expected to benefit wintering animals as well as potential gray wolf wintering areas. Vehicle access 

restrictions on grizzly bear spring range are expected to help maintain existing habitat for grizzly 

bear as well as potential habitat for gray wolf. 

The Forest is coordinating with the Region on direction for implementing the recently completed 

gray wolf recovery plan (USFWS 1987). 

No wolves were detected on the Lewis and Clark National Forest in any surveys in FY 1987. It 

appears the gray wolf is extending its range to the east side of the Rocky Mountains as evidenced 

by the recent control actions on the Blackfeet Reservation. 

There are currently no known active bald eagle or peregrine falcon nest sites on the Forest. The 

interagency monitoring and evaluation program for the Rocky Mountain Front was completed and 

included guidelines on bald eagle and peregrine falcon habitat. Bald eagles were again seen 

foraging over broad areas of private rangeland and on the Forest during the winter. Management 

practices that could potentially affect wintering bald eagles were reviewed. Forest biologists 

cooperatively assisted Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks biologists in monitoring 

one active bald eagle nest located between the Rocky Mountain and Jefferson Divisions. 

The Forest again participated in the National Bald Eagle survey in January 1987. Mid-winter 

sightings of bald eagles were recorded regularly for base line information on habitat. use. No 

surveys were conducted on historic peregrine falcon sites during FY 1987. 

All projects possibly affecting any known Federally listed Threatened or Endangered Species were 

reviewed. 

x 

14 
C-3 Elk: Winter range capacity (population level), sex, age ratios, and habitat effectiveness. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Varlability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: 

Winter range capacity, sex, and age ratios: Decrease of 5% or more in 3 year running means. 

Habitat effectiveness: Decrease of 10% or more in habitat effectiveness in any timber compartment. 

Elk Population Level and Sex Age Ratios 

Elk populations trends (winter range capacity) are stable to increasing Forest-wide. The 3 

year running mean for the period from 1980-1 986, of the total elk counted on winter ranges 

within or adjacent to the Forest range from a low of 2,522 to a high of 2,918 for the Jefferson 

Division and from 2,558 to 2,774 for the Rocky Mountain Division. In both Divisions, the high 

count has come in the last three years. 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks provided updates on results of radio 

telemetry data on elk movements and relative numbers in the Jefferson Division. The 

information was considered in the selection of alternatives on several timber harvest and 

road construction actions. 

Elk Habitat Effectiveness 

On the Rocky Mountain Division guidelines were completed for elk. These guidelines were 

considered in the evaluation of land management activities. 

On the Jefferson Division the emphasis was placed on analyzing timber compartments in 

which road construction and timber harvest actions are planned and in which changes in 

elk habitat effectiveness values are most likely to occur. The following sub-compartments 

were examined. South Fork Complex sales: 449-001, 002, 003, 005, 006, 007, and 009; all 

sub-compartments in 450; 451 -001 and 005. Mill-Lion Timber Sale: 631 -006; 632b01, 002, 

003, and 632-006. Central Park Timber Sale: 781-001, 002, 003, and 004. All actions 

approved by the Forest Supervisor exceed the minimum effective cover level specified in the 

Forest Plan (pages 2-30 and 3-16). 

Elk habitat in the south end of Belt Park was monitored in response to a 1985 Congressional 

Inquiry on the effect of a change in road location on a known elk calving area. The FY 1987 

evaluation showed the same relative level of continued use of the area by elk for calving and 

securlty cover. 

15 
C-4 Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat: Winter range capacity (population level), sex, and age 

ratios. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would lnitlate Further Evaluation: Decrease of 5% or more in 3 years running 

means. 

Occupied bighorn sheep habitat on the Forest is limited to the Rocky Mountain Division. Bighorn 

sheep in the Sun River area continued to show high reproduction and recruitment following the 

1983-84 die-off. Data indicates lamb survival in August of 1986 was 54 young per 100 females. A 

winter and spring survey showed 44 and 56 lambs per 100 ewes, respectively. It was felt that the 

late date of the spring survey, April, may have showed artificially high recruitment rates because 

some ewes had separated from the larger groups and were isolated in a lambing area. The survey 

indicates a high over-all survival rate of lambs. 

On the Jefferson Division, over the last 10 years, occasional reports have been received of bighorn 

sheep in the lower Tenderfoot and Smith River areas. No bighorn sheep were detected in the 

Jefferson Division in FY 1987. 

The mountain goat populations in the Rocky Mountain Division appear to be stable and within the 

range of past counts based on Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks helicopter survey 

counts. The population is stable, however, 1987 was one of the highest production years (60 

kids100 adult females) in several years. Mountain goats are limited to the Big Snowy Mountains 

within the Jefferson Division. Forest Service trail maintenance contractors reported seeing mountain goats in late June 1987 in the Crystal Lake area. Based on Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks Region 5 summary reports, no formal surveys were conducted for mountain 

goats in the Big Snowy Mountains during FY 1987. 

On the Rocky Mountain Division the Interagency Rocky Mountain Front wildlife monitoring/evaluation program was completed and included guidelines for bighorn sheep and mountain 

goats. These guidelines were considered in the evaluation of land management activities and are 

consistent with the Forest Plan. 

.. C-5 Other Big Game Species: Mule Deer, Whitetail Deer, Black Bear, Mountain Lfon, population trend, sex, and age ratios. - 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

variability Which Would initiate Further Evaluation: Decrease of 10% or more in 3 year running 

means. 

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks recommended changes in hunting seasone 

regulations which were supported by the Forest. Restrictions on vehicle use on selected roads as 

well as area vehicle restrictions for elk management are felt to also benefit deer, black bear, and 

mountain lion. 

.. 

16 
An interagency monitoring and evaluation program document for the Rocky Mountain Division was 

completed and approved which includes guidelines for mule deer management. 

It is recommended that only mule deer be monitored. The reason being that if the Forest is 

managing the habitat for elk and mule deer, the requirements will also benefit black bear and 

mountain lion. The monitoring requirements for mule deer should not be limited to population 

figures but also to harvest data and hunter success. 

Population data for these species was not summarized. 

C-6 Small Game (Blue Grouse): Harvest level. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: 3 years (FY 1989). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Decrease of 20% or more in average harvest 

from previous reporting period. 

The Forest Pian requirement is to report this activity every three years. The item was not monitored 

in FY 1987 due to the high natural turnover rate. It is recommended that the monitoring item be 

deleted. Data on broad observations have been discontinued by the Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife, and Parks (MDFWP) and the Forest Service. Harvest data is now reported for the entire 

MDFWP Region. The hunting season regulations have been basically the same for the past 10-1 5 

years. The current management philosophy on hunter harvest is that it is insignificant, regardless 

of the population level. 

C-7 Furbearer (Beaver & Bobcat) Special Interest (Lynx & Wolverine): Harvest level. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: 3 years (FY 1989). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Decrease of 10% or more in average trapper 

take from previous reporting period. 

The Forest Plan requirement is to report this activity every three years. The item was not monitored 

in FY 1987. This data is only available from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

and is lumped for private and public lands. It is therefore recommended that this monitoring item 

be eliminated. 

- 

17 
C-8 Old Growth Habitat (Goshawk): Active nesting territories. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Decrease of 10% or more in active nesting 

territories. 

On the Rocky Mountain Division the Interagency Rocky Mountain Front wildlife monitoring/evaluation program was completed and included guidelines for goshawk. These guidelines 

were considered in the evaluation of land management activities. 

On the Jefferson Division the draft Region 1 Goshawk Habitat Suitability model was used as a 

guide. Old growth stands were field checked to validate the model. A total of 1, 5, and 8 goshawk 

nest territories (active at least one year) on the Forest were reported in FY 1985, 1986, and 1987, 

respectively. Emphasis was placed on identifying new territories while protecting the habitat 

around known nest territories. A contract survey was designed to detect active goshawk nest 

territories in prospective timber sale areas. Three nest territories were also monitored by contract. 

The results of these contracts were the identification of one new nest territory and the monitoring 

of three known nest territories. A contract was completed which reviewed the Missouri Breaks 

Audubon Society members field notes and contact with knowledgeable individuals. At least 15 

suspected goshawk nest territories and three additional great gray owl sightings, as well as several 

other raptor nest sites were identified. Field examinations of the locations are needed. Forest 

Service biologists also surveyed several prospective timber sale areas and field checked various 

reported raptor nest sites. 

C-9 Special Interest Species (Golden Eagle, Prairie Falcon): Nesting territories. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample of selected nesting territories annually. 

Reporting Period: 3 years (FY 1989). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Reduction in occupied nesting territories of 

10% or more from previous reporting period. 

The Forest Plan requirement is to report this activity every three years. The item was not monitored 

in FY 1987. - 

On the Rocky Mountain Division the Interagency Rocky Mountain Front wildlife monitoring/evaluation program was completed and included guidelines for golden eagles and prairie 

falcons. These guidelines were considered in the evaluation of land management activities. 

.. 

One new prairie falcon eyrie was detected on the Kings Hill Ranger District through a Forest 

Service contract. Another contract was completed which accomplished the review of the Missouri 

Breaks Audubon Society members field notes, and contacts with knowledgeable individuals. At 

least 5 suspected golden eagle nests and three prairie falcon eyries, as well as several other raptorx 

nest sites were identified. Field examinations of the locations are needed to verify nesting birds. 

18 
C-10 Cavity Nesting Habitat (Northern 3-Toed Woodpecker): Percent optimum habitat. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Perlod: 5 years (FY 1991). 

Variability Which. Would initiate Further Evaluation: Reduction in snags to below numbers 

needed to maintain minimum viable population level in any timber compartment. 

The Forest Plan requirement is to report this activity every five years. The item was not monitored 

in FY 1987. 

The following progress was established toward the monitoring objective. A complete assessment 

of the non-wilderness timber stand data base will be available in FY 1991. Stand delineation, strata 

designation, and stand examination are ongoing and several compartments in the ‘B” Management Areas are complete. This information will permit queries of the.data base for existing snag 

densities. 

The impact of commercial woodcutting on snag management was evaluated. The majority of 

woodcutting activity occurred on the Kings Hill Ranger District. Administrative changes in commercial woodcutting on the Kings Hill Ranger District have improved options for managing snags. 

Policies on commercial woodcutting were modified in FY 1987 to restrict cutting to a specified sale 

area and to require operators to purchase a minimum of 40 cords. The number of commercial 

cutters decreased from over 100 in FY 1986 to 28 in FY 1987. The existing policy of allowing 

woodcutters to cut standing dead trees is thought to have had a cumulative adverse effect on 

snag recruitment, a reduction in snag diameter, and the removal of snags from roaded areas. 

Year-long vehicle restrictions on roads have improved the potential post-timber sale snag retention 

and management. 

C-1 1 Aquatic Habitat Condition (Cutthroat Trout, Brook Trout, Rainbow Trout): Habitat quality 

(Coordinate with F-1 and F-2; Should be F-7 and F-8). 

Frequency of Measurement 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: 3 years (FY 1989). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Predicted decrease of 5% or more (below 

planned level) in fish habitat capability-based on predicted or actual changes in water quality or 

fish habitat parameters in any stream or lake. 

Measures of effects on habitat quality have been made by sampling 4 streams for intragravel 

sediment (also reported in item F-7) and by use of the COWFISH model on 2 streams in FY 1987 

and 12 streams in FY 1986 (also reported in item F-8). Additional years of data are necessary to 

indicate relative change in condition. 

. 

19 
C-12 Threatened and Endangered Habitat Improvement Outputs. Wildlife & Fish Habitat Improvement Outputs. 

Forest Plan 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: 

FY 1987 Actual Forest 

Threatened and Endangered Habitat Improvement: Accomplishment 10% below Forest Plan level 

over 5-year average. 

680 Acres 

5 Acres 

10 Structures 

25 Structures 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat Improvement Outputs: Accomplishment 20% below Forest Plan level over 

5-year average. 

300 Acres 44% 

2 Acres 40% 

2 Structures 20% 

16 Structures 64% 

Summary of Forest Plan wildlife habitat improvements and actual accomplishment for FY 1987 are 

as follows: 

I I I Percent of 

Description 

Habitat Improvement(WiIdIife/Fish) 

Non-structural (WL) 

Non-structural (F) 

StructuralOFJ or TE) 

Structural (F) 

All targets except structural habitat improvement, are outside of the allowable variance stated in 

the Forest Plan. The main reason for this variance is the lack of funding and targets. However, this 

is the first year of the five year reporting period addressed in the Forest Plan. In order to be within 

the allowable variance increased funding and targets will be necessary. 

C-13 Oil and Gas Activity/Wildlife Monitoring Rocky Mountain Front. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

r 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Any indication of downward population trend 

in speciedmanagement guidelines related to oil and gas activity. 

For discussion on the selected species see monitoring items: C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and C-9 in 

this report. 

There were two projects on the Rocky Mountain Front this past year: Mobil's testing of gas well 1-13.- 

and Texaco's seismic exploration that was permitted along the Rocky Mountain Front on private, 

Bureau of Land Management, and National Forest lands. 

20 
In both cases the guidelines were followed to regulate the timing of the activities. In the case of the 

seismic permit, the most critical habitats that would be affected were raptor nest sites, and grizzly 

bear habitat. The raptor guidelines were the most restrictive and were followed thereby causing no 

disturbance to the potential or active nest sites. The testing of the well was within grizzly bear 

spring range. No known raptor nest sites were within 1/2 mile of the well site. The grizzly bear 

spring range restriction bas used in conjunction with the recommendation from the State of 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to not allow work at the well site until after July 1. 

Because the guidelines were followed and because of the small size of the oil and gas program, 

there was no affect on animal populations along the Rocky Mountain Front due to the oil and gas 

program in FY 1987. 

RANGE 

D-1 Range Outputs. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: f 10% of target. 

Summary of Forest Plan range improvements and actual accomplishment for FY 1987 are as 

follows: 

UNIT OF MEASURE RANGE OUTPUT FOREST 

PLAN 

Permitted Grazing Use M AUM 71.1 

Range Improvement 

Nonstructural 

Structural 

Acres 

Structures 

1329 

40 

Range Resource Plans Plans 

(allotment management 

plans) 

10 

Noxious Weed Control Acres 

(chemical and mechanical) 

M = Thousand measure AUM = Animal Unit Month 

300 

FY 1987 ACTUAL 

70.5 

1999 

30 

5 

772 

PERCENT 

EST PLAN 

OF FOR99 

149. 

75 

50 

257 

Except for permitted grazing use, all of the range outputs in FY 1987 are outside of the Forest Pia; 

variability limit. Reasons for these deviations are as follows. 

21 
Nonstructural Range lmprovement - The over accomplishment in prescribed fire used for range 

improvement reflects the scheduling of logical burning units. For example, much of the acreage 

burned in FY 1987 is to implement the Management Plan for the Highwood Allotment. This plan 

provides a five-year burning program with rather large acreages. Over the ten-year planning period 

these high years will be compensated for by years of lower burning acreages. 

Structural Range lmprovement - The under accomplishment in structural range improvements 

reflects the lower budget in FY 1987 than is scheduled in the Forest Plan. Continued funding at 

this level will result in under accomplishment in range improvement. Without these investments 

during the first decade of Forest Plan implementation, it is unlikely that the increase in permitted 

grazing use that is scheduled in the second decade of the Forest Plan will be possible. 

Range Resource Plans - The under accomplishment in allotment management plans is a result of a 

range budget that is below the Forest Plan level. The Region did not assign allotment management 

plan targets to the Forest in FY 1987 at this budget level. 

Funding for range management must increase to the Forest Plan level in order for allotment 

planning to reach the priority to accomplish the Forest Plan target level of 10 allotment management plans per year. See monitoring item D-4 for further evaluation and discussion. 

Noious Weed Control - The over accomplishment in noxious weed control is a reflection of the 

increased program of noxious weed control that resulted from the 1986 Environmental Impact 

Statement for a five year noxious weed control program for the Lewis and Clark National Forest. 

This increased program is the result of better information on weed infestations on the Forest. The 

budget in the Forest Plan needs to be revised to meet this increased need. 

D-2 Range Conditions and Trend. 

Frequency of Measurement: 25 allotments per year which will allow all Forest allotments to be 

sampled every 10 years. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: 

Condition - Acres of range in fair or less condition that have not shown any improvgment in 

condition score during the monitoring interval (1 0 years). 

Trend - Any acres in downward trend Which were previously (at the last reading) stable or in an 

upward trend. 

Trend - Any acres in downward trend which still show a downward trend after another monitoring 

interval. 

There are 276 condition and trend studies established on the 243 grazing allotments of the Lewis 

and Clark National Forest. Most, if not all, of these studies are on the 173 'A' type allotments 

(livestock grazing allotments). 

There were no range condition and trend transects monitored on the Forest in FY 1987. The last 

year that transects were monitored was in 1983, when 8 transects were monitored on 3 allotments. 

*c 

22 
Data from these studies show two areas that were in fair condition when the studies were 

established in 1965 had improved to good condition. The balance of the studies were in good 

condition when established, and had remained in good condition. 

The data available from the last monitored studies indicates range condition and trend within the 

Forest Plan standards. However, the sample is very small and far outside the frequency of 

measurement standards in the Forest Plan. At the current rate of monitoring (8 studies per 5 years) 

it would take over 172 years to monitor all of the 276 existing studies, or 288 years to monitor all of 

the type 'A' allotments only once. This level of condition and trend monitoring does not meet the 

intent of the Forest Plan or the monitoring standards in the allotment management plans. 

Funding for range management in FY 1987 was 80% of the Forest Plan level. However, low funding 

can only partially explain the lack of condition and trend monitoring. There needs to be an 

increased awareness and commitment to monitoring range condition and trend on the Forest from 

the line officers, range conservationists, and range technicians. Training needs to be conducted in 

the new ecodata plot monitoring methods. Careful prioritization of allotments and existing studies 

needs to be done so that the monitoring efforts are applied to the most cost effective areas. 

D-3 Supply. 

Frequency of Measurement: Annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: More than 1% reduction in suitable range 

acres from previous year. Cumulatively, any reduction of 3% or more in suitable range acres over a 

5-year period. 

Suitable Range Acres: 

FY 1986 250,607 

FY 1987 249,200 

DIFFERENCE -1,407 PERCENT CHANGE -0.56% - 

The level of suitable range acreage qupplied in FY 1987 is within the acceptable Forest Plan 

variability of 1%. 

D4 Allotment Management Plan status. 

Frequency of Measurement 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: 5 years (FY 1991). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: More than 10% of the allotment plans are 

outdated. 

.- 

23 
Considering all allotment types, there are 154 allotments, or 64% of all allotments, that are now 

either without an Allotment Management Plan (AMP) or have outdated AMPs. If only the higher 

priority type 'A' allotments (livestock grazing allotments) are considered, there are 94, or %%, of 

the 'A' allotments that are either without an AMP or have outdated AMPs. Within the balance of the 

first decade of the Forest plan (through 1996) another 49 allotments (approved 1973-1981) will 

become outdated. All but 3 of these AMPs are on 'A' allotments. 

This data shows that there is currently a major departure from the Forest Plan standard of 'less 

than 10% of AMPs outdated'. To correct this situation within the first decade of Forest Plan 

implementation (through 1996) will require 20 AMPs per year, including 10 new AMPs and 10 

revisions per year. If only the highest priority 'A' allotments are considered to be essential, then 14 

AMPs (3 new and 11 revisions) must be completed per year to stay within the Forest Plan standard 

by the end of the first decade. This is the recommended approach, since the Annual Range 

Allotment Management Status Report from Forest Service Range Management Information System 

considers only type 'A' allotments. 

The projected outputs in the Forest Plan is 10 AMPs per year. At this level of allotment planning 90 

'A' allotments would have AMPs by the end of the decade, but 50, or 29%, of 'A' allotments would 

remain unplanned or have outdated AMPs. 

In FY 1987 the Forest accomplished 5 AMPs. At this rate 45 more AMPs would be accomplished to 

the end of the decade, leaving 95 'A' allotments (55%) unplanned or with outdated AMPs. Range 

management funding in FY 1987 was $291,000, or 80% of the Forest Plan budget of $361,000 

adjusted to FY 1987 dollars. 

It is apparent from this evaluation that to meet the Forest Plan monitoring standard (no more than 

10% of AMPs outdated) will require a higher level of allotment planning than is now targeted in the 

Forest Plan, or currently being programmed. Funding for range management must be increased 

above the current Forest Plan level in order to meet this objective. Allotments must be carefully 

selected by priority to insure that the backlog is reduced. Only type 'A' allotments that are 

unplanned, or currently have plans approved before 1982, will contribute to reducing the backlog 

of outdated AMPs. 

TIMBER 

E-1 Assure silvicultural management prescriptions are best suited to management area goals 

with all resources considered. - 

Frequency of Measurement: One sale annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: A departure from management prescription. 

The scheduled sale review (Pasture Gulch on the Musselshell Ranger District) was postponed until 

FY 1988 due to major forest fires that occurred in Regions 5 and 6 which occupied key personnelduring the scheduled review dates. The Williams Mountain sale was briefly reviewed as part of a 

Regional Off icemmber Zone Organizational Review held in August, 1987. Silvicultural prescriptions 

24 
reviewed by members of the team were found to be adequate in all resource areas. Other sales 

were informally reviewed by appropriate specialists throughout the year for specific items; such as, 

site preparation and reforestation. Informal reviews are generally unscheduled, concentrating on a 

specific area; such as, reforestation. 

E-2 Assure prescription not primarily chosen on basis of greatest dollar return or greatest 

timber output. 

Frequency of Measurement: One sale annually. 

Reporting Period: 5-years (FY 1991). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Test management area outputs against 

those predicted. 

During sale reviews on the Forest, it was determined that other resource values besides timber and 

subsequent dollar returns were considered. Other values included recreation viewing, cultural, 

wildlife, soil, and water resources. Size of cutting units were smaller than the 40 acre limitation, 

which accommodated both the viewing and wildlife resources. Timing of site preparation work was 

monitored to minimize soil and water disturbance. Recreation opportunities and cultural values 

were protected. 

Evaluation will be done during the FY 1991 review. 

E-3 Assure openings comply with size limits and are periodically evaluated for appropriateness. 

Frequency of Measurement: One sale annually. 

Reporting Perlod: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Unacceptable results of an Interdisciplinary 

Team review. 

Sale reviews on the Forest revealed all cutting units within size limitations. ,No biol6gical justifications for exceeding the 40 acre limitation were necessary. 

E4 Assure timber soid does not differ from allowable sale quantity for 10-year period. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: +20% annually or 510% over a 5-year period. x 

25 
FY 1987 TIMBER SALE PROGRAM 

Volume Sold: 

Regular Program 

Live Timber 

A. Chargeable 

6. Nonchargeable 

Mortality Timber 

A. Chargeable 

B. Nonchargeable 

Total Sold Volume 

Volume Offered but not Sold: 

Regular Program 

Live Timber 

A. Chargeable 

6. Nonchargeable 

Total Volume not Sold 

Total Volume FY 1987 

7 / (MMBF) million board feet 

FOREST PLAN 

(MMBF) 

11.0 

1 .o 

1 .o 

1 .o 

14.0 

I 

1987 TARGET 

(MMBF) 1/ 

9.4 

.5 

1.2 

.5 

11.6 

- 

14.0 I 11.6 

1987 ACTUAL 

(MMBF) 

6.1 

.3 

1 .o 

.5 

7.9 

4.4 

__ 

4.4 

12.3 

The Forest timber sale program of 14.0 million board feet (MMBF) was adjusted downward in FY 

1987 to 11.6 MMBF because of stays of three timber sales which were granted by the Chief of the 

Forest Service in response to appeals on the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan. The Forest 

offered for sale 12.3 MMBF of which 7.9 was sold. Of the remaining 4.4 MMBF, 1.9 MMBF was 

advertised but not sold and 2.5 MMBF withdrawn because of an appeal. The FY 1987 sell program 

was 88 percent of the Forest Plan. Therefore, no further evaluation is required. 

E-5 Assure restocking is in progress within 5 years. 

Frequency of Measurement: 1, 3, and 5 years. 

- 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Unacceptable results of an Interdisciplinary 

Team review. 

c 

Stocking surveys conducted on 3,568 acres in FY 1987 revealed regeneration was progressing 

satisfactorily. Some of the drier high elevation sites are typically regenerating slowly. Howevec; 

stocking levels are improving each year and planned seedling numbers are expected to be 

reached within the certification time period. 

26 
E-6 Assure timber acres harvested are as projected. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: 5-years (FY 1991). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: +_ 10% deviation over a 5-year period. 

At the start of FY 1987, there was 37.8 million board feet of timber under contract. Volume 

harvested during FY 1987 was 16.9 million board feet. The estimated acres harvested was 2,000. 

The projected Forest Plan annual acreage harvest is 1,800. At the end of FY 1987, there was 25.2 

million board feet of timber under contract. 

Evaluation will be done during the FY 1991 review. L 

E-7 Assure accomplishment of thinning and other silvicultural treatments as projected in plan. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: 5-years (FY 1991). 

variability Which Would initiate Further Evaluation: + - 10% deviation over a 5-year period. 

The Forest Plan projected 200 acres thinned annually. In FY 1987, 483 acres were thinned with 

another 205 receiving release work. Many of the young plantations that were created in the late 

1960s and early 1970s are now ready for stocking control, also portions of the Cross Creek burn of 

1970 are now ready for stocking control, segments of which were thinned last year. The Forest 

program will show a variance beyond the 10 percent during the first half of the planning period 

then should taper off slightly, but may exceed the 10 percent variance for the planning period. 

No planting was done in FY 1987. Some planting is proposed during this planning period (1 0-1 5 

years), however, the plan recommends natural regeneration for almost all of the Forest regeneration harvests. 

Evaluation will be done during the FY 1991 review. 

- 

E-8 insure harvest by even-age management is compatible with resource values. 

Frequency of Measurement: One sale annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1 , 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would initiate Further Evaluation: Unacceptable results of an Interdisciplinary 

Team review. r 

27 
Williams Mountain sale on the Kings Hill Ranger District was reviewed in FY 1986 by the Forest 

Management Team and again in FY 1987 by a Region timber program review team. Even-age 

management was practiced throughout this sale due to the pure mature and overmature lodgepole pine types. Even-aged management was determined to be compatible with wildlife, fisheries, 

and watershed values for this sale. 

E-9 Firewood removal. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would lnltlate Further Evaluation: Use increase exceeds 10% per year. 

In 1987, 3.5 million board feet of personal use firewood was sold and harvested. During FY 1986, 

4.1 million board feet was sold and harvested and in FY 1985, 4.9 million board feet was sold and 

harvested. The trend is a reduction in the use of personal use firewood. 

E-10 Evaluate availability of lands classified as suitable/unsuitabie. 

Frequency of Measurement: 5-years. 

Reporting Period: 5-years (FY 1991). 

Variability Whlch Would Initiate Further Evaluation: 2 5% change in acreage. 

This item is ongoing through area and timber stand analysis, determining at that time the suitability 

of timber land. Data is being entered in the Timber Stand Management Record System data base 

which will be the data source for this monitoring item. 

Evaluation will be done during the FY 1991 review. 

E-1 1 Projected yields. (Growth Plots) 

Frequency of Measurement: 5-years (FY 1991). 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Standard error of 10% at 1 standard deviation. 

There are a total of 27 growth plots established during FY 1979 through FY 1985 located on the 

Forest throughout an array of habitat types. Two additional plots are scheduled to be installed. The 

Forest is in a remeasurement mode which started in FY 1986 and will continue indefinitely. Eleven, 

plots have been remeasured through September 30, 1987. 

28 
Efforts during the planning period (10-15 years) will be to continue the remeasurement so that at 

least each Growth Plot is remeasured on a 5-year interval in order to establish a base data file. The 

Forest is on schedule to accomplish the remeasurement program. 

At this time there is insufficient data available to run any type of comparison between the Growth 

Plot data and the projected yields of the Forest Plan. 

When these Growth Plots were established, they were to be installed in stands that were scheduled for a timber activity within the next five years, other than a regeneration harvest (Example: 

thinning, precommercial or commercial). Therefore, Growth Plots that have had their planned 

timber activrty accomplished and remeasurement completed have data only from one remeasurement. 

Evaluation will be done in FY 1991. 

SOIL, WATER, AND AIR 

F-1 Adequacy and Cumulative Effects of Project Best Management Practices. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Projected deterioration of soil productivity or 

water usabilrty. 

Each proposed project with a potential for impact on soil or water quality is reviewed to determine 

the adequacy of the project's Best Management Practices (BMP's) before it is approved to ensure 

soil productivity and water usability. At least eight projects were evaluated in FY 1987 to provide 

detailed BMPs required to protect soil and water quality. In addition, cumulative effects on water 

yield and sediment were evaluated on four projects where the potential impact included significant 

soil disturbance or vegetation removal, as required by Forest-wide Management Standard F3, #4. 

All of these projects provided adequate BMPs to meet water quality goals and State water quality 

standards. These standards require that all reasonable land, soil, and water conservation practices 

are used. The cumulative effects analyses indicated, in each case, that reasonable use of conservation practices would protect the beneficial uses and goals for the water resource and prevent 

deterioration of the soil or water. Wapr yield and sediment yield increases for three projects 

involving timber harvest ranged up to 10% to 15% above natural levels for some alternatives; these 

increases are acceptable according to available guidelines and are within the general increases 

resulting from previous activity, before recovery. The fourth project involved only new road construction across a watershed and would have less than 2 percent increase in sediment, an amount 

too small for measurement by ordinary means, and therefore showing no important cumulative 

impact on the water resource. 

29 
F-2 Revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas and roads within 5 years. 

Frequency of Measurement: 75% sample 2 years after termination. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: unacceptable results of an interdisciplinary 

Team review. 

Projects completed under the Forest Plan with temporarily disturbed areas and roads are required 

to be revegetated within 5 years. A review 2 years after completion would demonstrate the 

effectiveness of seeding required by the project. All previously-closed projects have been informally reviewed; however, projects completed under the Forest Plan have not been closed for 2 

years for the formal review as stated. 

F-3 Water quality effects of activities in municipal watersheds. 

Frequency of Measurement: All projects. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Adverse water quality e..xts or violates 

water quality standards. 

No activities were proposed or conducted in either of the two municipal watersheds on the Forest 

in FY 1987. Any projects to be conducted in municipal watersheds, as required by law, are first 

reviewed by the State Water Quality Bureau. 

F-4 Activities in riparian areas, flood plains, and wetlands. 

Frequency of Measurement: 50% of all projects. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). - 

variability Which Would Initiate Furthq Evaluation: Unacceptable results of an Interdisciplinary 

Team review. 

Riparian areas include flood plains and wetlands, and activities conducted in them pose an added 

risk to water-related resources and to water quality. No projects were reviewed that impacted 

riparian areas. 

30 
F-5 Effects of other activities on watershed conditions. 

Frequency of Measurement: 20% of all projects. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Unacceptable management practices or land 

productivrty . 

Activities not in municipal watersheds nor in riparian areas may also have impacts on soil or water 

quality. There have been no Interdisciplinary Team reviews of activities indicating unacceptable 

management practices on soil, land productivity, or water quality. 

F-6 Elimination of soil and water restoration backlog. 

Frequency of Measurement: Annually. 

Reporting Period: 5-years (FY 1991). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Less than 50% by 1990; less than 100% by 

1995. 

Direction is that the backlog of soil and water restoration needs be eliminated by the year 1995. 

The Forest Plan identified a backlog of 373 acres of these restoration needs. Only 26 acres of this 

backlog were restored in FY 1987 for a total of 47 acres over the last 3 years. An average of 54 

acres per year is now necessary in order to meet this objective. 

F-7 Water and Stream Quality as affecting fish habitat and other uses: validation of estimations of sediment. 

Frequency of Measurement: Seasonal-continuous and annual. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). .. 

Variability Which Would Initiate Furtwr Evaluation: Not meeting State or Federal water quality 

standards or significant (90% confidence) deterioration, by best available indexes. 

Water quality monitoring did not identify any significant deterioration which would require immediate action. State or Federal water quality standards are met when all reasonable land, soil, 

and water management or conservation practices, Best Management Practices (BMP’s), have been 

applied. The adequacy of these BMP’s is determined through monitoring item number F-1 , and the 

application and effectiveness of these BMP’s monitored in items numbered F3, F-4, and F-5. Data 

is required to validate estimates of sediment and to determine if water quality or fish habitat might 

deteriorate where estimates of effects are incorrect. Methods and intensity of validation andevaluation of sediment are still in a state of development. Nevertheless, sampling of representative 

streams by available techniques has been conducted over the last two years and will continue next 

31 
year. The sampling in FY 1987 included five stations with regular (automated) sampling of suspended sediment along with a continuous record of streamflow and four streams sampled for 

intragravel sediment. Twelve streams were evaluated in FY 1986. Full analysis of results will require 

at least one more year of data, as annual variability requires at least 3 seasons of data. 

F-8 Riparian areas and streams: stream cover and pools. 

Frequency of Measurement: High-impact annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Significant (90% confidence) decline in 

condition. 

Inventory of the condition of riparian areas and streams is presently conducted using the COWFISH model. Two streams were evaluated in FY 1987, and twelve were evaluated in FY 1986. 

Additional analysis and additional years of data are necessary to indicate relative change in 

condition. Indication of further riparian condition requires classification. This is being done in 

cooperation with the Montana Riparian Association to provide a basis of ecodata plots for emphasis in development of range allotment management plans. Riparian areas and stream monitoring did not identify any significant decline which would require immediate action. 

F-9 Public Health. 

Frequency of Measurement: Monthly when in use. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Violates State or Federal drinking water 

standards per year. 

All water systems maintained by the Forest Service were sampled monthly while in use. During FY 

1987, 41 Forest systems and 7 special use systems were opened for use. All were tested and 

operated in accordance with State and Federal Safe Drinking Water Acts. 

- 

MINERALS - 

G-1 Effect of Mining Activities. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% annually of active operations on a monthly basis. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would lnltlate Further Evaluation: Adverse effect of Forest Service project onx 

mineral activities or revision or departure from approved operation plans. 

32 
.Reviews of Forest Service activities showed that no mining activities were effected by these 

projects. 

All proponents of mining type prospecting and development proposals are required to submit a 

Notice of Intent and in some cases an operating plan prior to any surface disturbance. Four 

operating plans were reviewed during the 1987 field season. The proposals were reviewed in the 

field by District resource specialists. An environmental analysis was prepared on each proposal. 

Approval and modification of the proposal were subject to mitigation and application of the surface 

operating standards in the Forest Plan. 

During the summer of 1987 shallow drilling requests were made by a mining company in the 

vicinity of Black Butte - Iron Butte area on the Kings Hill Ranger District. An analysis was conducted 

on the application and specific mitigation included: 

--Construction was limited to the actual drill sites, no access road construction; 

--A plan for prevention of noxious weed introduction was established; and 

--A reclamation plan was agreed to in advance and a performance bond was established. 

A Cultural Resource Inventory was completed. 

G-2 Effect of Prospecting. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% of active operations on a biweekly basis. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Adverse effect upon surface resources or 

departure from conditions of the approved permit. 

During FY 1987, the Rocky Mountain Ranger District received and permitted a geophysical 

prospecting permit application from Texaco, USA. Two permits approved 1 -1/2 miles of helicopter 

supported porta-drill seismic exploration in the Deep Creek Reservoir North Further Planning area 

and 4-1/2 miles of the same type of exploration in the Teton/Ear Mountain area. - 

The conditions of the permits required that all seismic holes be plugged with Forest Service 

approved materials. They also required that all explosives be stored and handled in compliance 

with Federal, State, and local rules and regulations. No loaded holes were to be left unprotected 

(meaning having cap or lead wires exposed) and helicopter flight routes were established. The 

initiation of the project was timed so as to avoid conflicts with potential raptor nest sites as outlined 

in the Interagency Guidelines. A fire plan was included as part of the permit and inspections made 

on crews and equipment to ensure that proper and adequate fire suppression equipment was 

available. An inspection of the explosive magazines was made by the Regional blaster to ensure 

that it was in conformance with State and Federal regulations. 

Numerous inspections of the operation were made throughout the period of the permit. These 

were documented on permit diary forms. These inspections served to identlfy any departure from 

r” 

33 
the approved permit and reconcile the situation prior to any adverse effect on surface resources. 

Drill hole cuttings were required to be raked to a depth of 1 inch, as specified in the permit. 

Random inspection of the holes drilled showed that the permit specifications were complied with. 

The application of the Interagency Wildlife Guidelines effectively prevented adverse effects upon 

raptors. 

G-3 Effect of Drilling. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% of active operations on a weekly basis. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Adverse effect upon surface resources or 

departure from conditions of the approved permit. 

An Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared on two pending Applications for Permit to 

Drill in the North End Geographic Unit, on the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. There were no 

permits issued in FY 1987, and therefore no monitoring. 

G-4 Rehabilitation of disturbed areas. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% of activity on a weekly basis during rehabilitation. A final 

inspection will be made within 5 years after rehabilitation has been completed. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Rehabilitate less than 90% of disturbed 

areas. 

Rehabilitation was completed on all disturbed areas. Four mineral related proposals were reviewed 

and prior to any permit issuance, reclamation standards were established. Reclamation bonds 

were collected to cover the cost of each project, and retained until final reclamation standards are 

met. In addition, the entire Jefferson Division was reviewed and prioritized to develop a detailed 

rehabilitation plan and submit long term budget requests to rehabilitate past disturbed areas. 

0 

G-5 Mineral Availability. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Denial of more than 10% of proposed 

projects. 

Table on page 2-13 of the Forest Plan displays land status as a result of designated wilderness,x 

recommended wilderness, laws such as the Threatened and Endangered Species Act and those 

listed species, Executive Orders, and special resources which require special stipulations. Any 

34 
changes in these laws and Forest Service requirements for resources requiring special stipulations 

are monitored and subsequent effects on land status as shown on this table. In FY 1987, no 

changes have been made which would affect the mineral availability. No projects have been 

denied. 

LANDS 

J-1 Compliance with use permits. 

Frequency of Measurement: As needed. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Unacceptable results or deviation from 

permits. 

The special use permits on the Forest are generally up to date and are in conformance with 

current policy. In 1987, the National Forest Service policy for several major classes of permits was 

changed or proposed for change, including such permits as recreation residences, electronic 

sites, road uses, etc. Many of these changes have been proposed in the Federal Register, but no 

final decision has been made concerning implementation. This has resulted in additional permit 

workload and uncertainty by Forest Service personnel, as well as the public. Even so, the permits 

have generally remained up to date and questions from the public have been answered. The 

automation of the permit preparation and billing system has been in large part responsible for 

meeting these challenges. 

The administration of special use permits on the ground has been focused on health and safety 

problems and on permits which are under definite tenure. The continuing low level of funding for 

administration of non-recreation special uses reduces the number of special use inspections which 

would be desirable. However, the condition of special use facilities on the ground is generally 

acceptable. 

Forest personnel, together with personnel from Glacier National Park, resolved a long-standing 

status/special use permit problem related to the Burlington Northern Railroad line which forms the 

boundary between the Lewis and Clark National Forest and Glacier National Park. Extensive 

research was necessary into records of the Park, the Forest, and the Railroad to est3blish the 

current land status and the status of special use permits to the railroad. 

Recommendations were also completed in 1987 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

concerning license conditions for a proposed hydropower installation at Gibson Dam on the Sun 

River. This completed a process which has spanned two years and provides proper environmental 

safeguards for the project. Action on the license is now pending before the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. 

- 

35 
5-2 Right-of-way Easements Accomplishment. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Less than 75% accomplishment of 5-year 

Program. 

The Forest Plan does not specify a level of accomplishment for the acquisition of rights-of-way 

easements. However, the Monitoring Section does refer to the Forest's 5-year rights-of-way program. The rights-of-way program for FY 1987, as specified in the Forest Supervisor's 1950/5460 

April 23, 1987 letter to the Regional Forester, contains four road easements and one trail easement. 

Three road easements and a trail easement were acquired in FY 1987 for an 80% accomplishment. 

This is within the acceptable limits of variabilty. A road easement on the existing Dry Fork of the 

Belt Creek Road #I20 was scheduled but not acquired. Acquiring this easement is scheduled in 

FY 1988. 

5-3 Land Ownership Adjustment Accomplishment. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987) 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Less than 75% accomplishment of 5-year 

Program. 

It is recommended that this monitoring item be deleted from further review. The Forest Plan does 

not specify a rate of accomplishment for this item except in the Monitoring Section where a 

reference is made to the Forest's 5-year Program. However, the Forest does not have an established Land Exchange Program but rather relies on opportunities that are forwarded by proponents. Other opportunities to acquire tracts which are desirable for National Forest System 

ownership are pursued as they develop. 

The Forest Plan specifically says that '----it is not the intent of the Forest Service to pursue this 

direction (land exchange) except on a willing grantor basis.' For this reason, it would be very 

difficult to 'lock-in' on targets for accomplishments. 

. 

The Forest's annual target with the Region is 60 acres. In FY 1987 no lands were exchanged. The 

Forest is currently working on exchanging approximately 200 acres of Federal land which will 

probably be completed in FY 1988. 

36 
FACILITIES 

L-1 Road and Trail Construction/Reconstruction; Trails; Arterial/Coliector Roads; Local 

Roads. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluatlon: 220% of programmed construction/reconstruction accomplished. 

The Forest Plan programs an average of 10 miles of trail construction/reconstruction annually. In 

FY 1987, a total of 6.5 miles of trail was reconstructed and a new trail pack bridge was built over 

the Dearborn River (the cost of this bridge would be equivalent to approximately 2 miles of trail 

reconstruction). Therefore, the accomplishment was 85% of the projected goal. This compares 

favorably to the funding received in FY 1987, which was approximately 75% of the Forest Plan 

budget level. 

A review of the trail construction needs of the Forest in FY 1987 showed these shortcoming in the 

Forest Plan. First, the completion of the trail assessment in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex 

identified a larger job for trail construction/reconstruction than was shown in the Forest Plan. 

Second, no funding was identified in the Forest Plan to deal with advance planning, design, and 

administration of trail construction projects. Third, no funding was specifically identified to provide 

for rights-of-way negotiation and acquisition where trail rights-of-way are needed. Therefore, the 

Forest Plan output for trail construction/reconstruction should be increased to 14 miledyear and 

the Forest Plan budget should be increased to meet the newly identified needs. 

The Forest Plan (Table 2.1) indicates that the Forest would build 3.6 miles of arterial and collector 

roads and 13.0 miles of local roads. In FY 1987 the Forest constructed 3.7 miles and reconstructed 

29.7 miles for a total of 33.4 miles under the Capital Investment Program (Congressional Appropriated Funding). No miles were constructed or reconstructed under the Timber Management 

Program. 

The following errors have been noted in the Forest Plan: - 

--Funding for Capital Investment Roads and Timber Purchaser Roads (Appendix T) was 

reversed; 

--The Forest Plan does not iake any distinction between 'construction' and 

'reconstruction'; and 

--The Forest Plan projected targets did not include reconstruction of arterial and collector 

roads. 

37 
The Forest Plan should be amended to reflect these changes. 

L-2 Miles of roads open to public use. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample. 

Reporting Period: Annually. 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: +20% of target miles to be left open to 

public. 

The Forest Travel Plan was revised in the 1987/1988 and the outcome of the decision resulted in 

the following summation of road restrictionslclosures. On the Jefferson Division, approximately 230 

miles of road are restricted either yearlong or seasonally to some forms of motorized public use. 

On the Rocky Mountain Division, approximately 23 miles of road are restricted either yearlong or 

seasonally to some forms of motorized public use. 

It is estimated that there are approximately 1,480 miles of roads left open to the public. 

The Forest Plan did not establish any target miles to be left open to the public. This item should 

only be monitored when there is a significant change in the Forest Travel Plan. 

PROTECTION 

P-1 Assure harvest emphasizes the removal of high risk stands for mountain pine beetle 

attack and that timber sales are located to break-up continuous natural fuel accumulations. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: 5 years (FY 1991). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Unacceptable results of an Interdisciplinary 

Team review, or if less that 70% of timber volume is programmed from high risk mountain pine 

beetle stands. .. 

In FY 1987, over 90 percent of the timber sold on the Lewis and Clark National Forest was high risk 

lodgepole pine. Reviews of timber sale location showed the Forest is continuing to breakup large 

concentrations of natural fuels. Future planning is also emphasizing removal of high risk lodgepole 

pine. The Forest has started to breakup the large areas of dead trees (red belt) in the Little Belt 

Mountains by building a temporary low standard road into a large area to provide firewood access. 

38 
P-2 Acres and volume of insect and disease infestations. 

Frequency of Measurement: Once annually. 

Reporting Period: 5 Years (FY 1991). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: introduction of new insect or disease or 

spread of an existing insect or disease. 

Insect and disease surveys conducted during the summer of 1987 showed no significant change 

in insect and disease infestation on the Forest. However, mountain pine beetle activty has 

increased on the adjacent Helena National Forest. 

P-3 Management practices to ensure activities do not promote an increase in Insect and 

disease organisms. 

Frequency of Measurement: Continuous. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: Significant increase in insect and disease 

organisms. 

No significant increase in insect and disease organisms has been observed. Post sale reviews 

showed that the Forest may be leaving a larger amount of untreated slash than was necessary to 

provide shade for new seedlings. This could increase insect and disease organisms. Fire Management Officers have been instructed to insure timber slash treatments meet regional standards. 

P-4 Assure prescribe fire meets air quality standards. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30 1987 (FY 1987). . 

variability Which Would Initiate Furthq Evaluation: 10% beyond standard guidelines. 

In 1987 the Forest treated 4,276 acres with prescribed fire. All projects were within State established guidelines and within the conditions of Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences Burning Permit (#MOB#87-1). The Forest did not receive any complaints about 

air quality being affected by prescribed fire from Forest projects. 

39 
P-5 Fuel treatment outputs. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: ~25% of programmed targets. 

In FY 1987 the Forest treated 1,813 acres of activity fuels and 665 acres of natural fuels. The Forest 

Plan shows a target of 1,470 acres of activity fuels and 70.0 acres of natural fuels per year. The 

natural fuels target in the Forest Plan is in error. The correct figure should be 700 acres per year. 

The annual accomplishment is within the limit of variability, therefore no further evaluation is 

required. 

P-6 Wildfire acres burned. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: October 1, 1986 - September 30, 1987 (FY 1987). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: 225% above projected average annual 

wildfire burned acres. 

In FY 1987, wildfires burned 37 acres which is well below the 497 acre projected average annual 

acreage. The season was unusual in that it was very dry in the spring, wet in July and August and 

unusually dry in the fall. The Forest took action on 37 fires: 14 lightning and 23 person caused. The 

number of person caused fires was up significantly due to the long, dry fall. The Forest allowed two 

unplanned ignitions to burn under fire management prescriptions in the Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Complex. These fires covered 125 acres. 

(Acreage) 

- 

40 
P-7 Cost of Suppresslon and Protection Organization. 

Frequency of Measurement: Once annually. 

Reporting Period: 5 years (FY 1991). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: +5% increase in total costs. 

The total cost of fire protection in FY 1987 was $379,000. This is below the 10-year average of 

$590,000 because most of the wildfires occurred in the fall when burning conditions were low 

resulting in less burned acreage. 

(Thousand Dollars) 

GENERAL 

1-1 Validation of cost and values used in the Forest Pian. . 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: 5 years (FY 1991). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: In general, _+25%; however, very large cost 

items such as stump-truck costs would have a smaller degree of acceptable variability. 

The Forest is reviewing and updating all costs and values in the Forest Plan. This project should 

be completed by July 1, 1988. 

.. 1-2 Effect of emerging issues or changing social values. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: Continuous. 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: If issue cannot be dealt with under the Forest 

Information and Involvement Plan. 

The Forest recognizes the public interest in management of the National Forest lands. Three 

projects involved extensive scoping and public involvement efforts during FY 1987. While other c 

41 
projects involved public involvement efforts on a smaller scale, the three projects necessitating 

more extensive efforts because of the sensitivity of the issues involved were: Chevron Environmental Impact Statement, Crazy Mountains Land Exchange Environmental Assessment, and 

revision of the Forest Travel Plan. 

Chevron Environmental Impact Statement: During the scoping stages of the Environmental 

Impact Statement, public comment revealed a issue for the social and economic implications of the 

proposed oil and gas exploration project. The Interdisciplinary Team felt that a social assessment 

in the local communities should be prepared. A team consisting of a social scientist, and anthropologist/archaeologist and a public involvement specialist conducted unstructured interviews 

with forty residents from the communities of Browning, Heart Butte, East Glacier Park, and Cut 

Bank. Their findings are summarized in a Social Assessment Report, April 1987. The purpose of 

the report was to provide information regarding social values, perceptions, and attitudes of those 

residents most likely to be influenced by oil and gas exploration and/or development, particularly 

with regard to the exploratory well proposal made by Chevron. 

Opinions and sentiments about the social impacts of the proposal differ. Some feel oil and gas 

development would bolster the economic condition on the reservation and the local communities. 

They feel the National Forest lands should be managed for multiple use purposes, oil and gas 

development being one of those uses. Others are supporting protection of the area. The range of 

protection varies from those who support a recreation-based management concept to those .who 

support Wilderness classification. Some of the Blackfeet traditionalists believe that the area needs 

protection to allow for the practice of the traditional Blackfeet religion. Wilderness classification is 

seen as a way to achieve this protection. 

The Social Assessment Report (April 1987) is being used by the Interdisciplinary Team to address 

the environmental impacts for the Chevron Environmental Impact Statement. 

Crazy Mountains Land Exchange: A land exchange proposed by a private landowner in the 

Crazy Mountains has been the focus of concern for publics having an interest in both the Lewis 

and Clark and Gallatin National Forests. The checkerboard land ownership pattern in the mountain 

range has made management of the National Forest lands difficult for the Forest Service and 

sometimes confusing for the Forest visitor. Scoping meetings were conducted in Harlowton, 

Livingston, and Billings. Access to the National Forest lands was identified as the key issue during 

the scoping period. Also expressed was the issue that the Forest lands involved in the exchange 

may be more valuable for wildlife than those lands to be acquired. 

The comments received during the scoping period are being used by the Interdisciplinary Team in 

the analysis of the land exchange proposal. 

.. 

Travel Plan Revision: The Forest undertook a public review of the 1984 Forest Travel Plan during 

FY 1987. This review was undertaken with the idea of actively involving the users of the Lewis and 

Clark National Forest so that the final Travel Plan provided an appropriate mix of recreation 

opportunities and met as many of the needs of people as possible. A series of Advisory Groups 

were formed to help work with the Forest Service in the development of a draft revision which then 

received wide public review. Nine Advisory Groups were formed in all. Seven of these groups 

provided direct input into the Travel Plan for the Jefferson Division, the remaining two concentrated 

on the Rocky Mountain Division. r 

42 
Each of the groups was composed of a cross-section of users, representing snowmobilers, 

crosscountry skiers, hikers, horsemen, outfiiers, motorcyclists, all terrain vehicles users, and 

representatives from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. A large number of 

alternatives were considered and discussed at the Advisory Group meetings. These alternatives 

ranged from suggestions to retain the current Travel Plan to a variety of suggestions for adding or 

deleting restrictions to the current map. 

The following are the major issues raised by the public during the travel planning process: 

--The Forest decided to address the issue of All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) use as a distinct class 

of vehicle on the National Forest. Determination of where AN use was appropriate became 

a key issue. 

--User conflicts in the Tenderfoot-Deep Creek area made travel management decisions 

difficult. Disagreement over motorized versus nonmotorized use. created some polarization 

between user group. A compromise was reached in the final decision, but several user 

groups continue to remain dissatisfied with the outcome. AN use in the Tenderfoot-Deep 

Creek area proved to be most sensitive. 

--The use of llamas on five trails on the Rocky Mountain Division became an issue between 

outfiiers and llama users. The five trails under consideration for prohibiting llama use are 

recognized as difficult trails, having steep, winding turns with limited passing clearance. The 

outfitters contended that the llamas presented a safety hazard to their riders. The llama 

owners felt that llama use should not be discriminated against. 

--Travel management in the Badger-Two Medicine area on the northern portion of the Rocky 

Mountain Division was an issue of both motorized and nonmotorized recreationists. As 

discussed with the Chevron topic, some feel that the area should be classified as Wilderness and motorized use prohibited. Snowmobiling and motorcycling are popular activities in the area, and restricting future motorized use is unpopular with these users. 

A final decision of the Travel Plan was made on December 30, 1987. The decision is currently 

undergoing a 45-day administrative review period. 

Other Issues: Other issues on the Forest include the following: 

Two timber sales on the Jefferson Division were appealed by the American Wilderness Alliance. In 

the Central Park Timber Sale, the appeJant contended that failure to prepare and environmental 

assessment was a violation of the NEPA process; that cumulative effects were not analyzed; and 

that the cost benefit analysis was inadequate. In the Smith Flat timber sale, the appellants 

contended that the cost-benefit analysis was flawed; that the analysis process used the Forest 

Plan direction as a primary evaluation criteria; and that the cumulative effects analysis was 

incomplete: 

. 

Management of the Badger-Two Medicine area remains sensitive with the Blackfeet people and the 

Wilderness advocates. Protection of the lands is a key issue with traditional Blackfeet practitioners. 

Interpretation of the Tribal rights retained by the Blackfeet in the Agreement of 1896 continue tor 

cloud management decisions. Specifically, some members of the Tribe feel they have retained 

rights to the leasable minerals in the Badger-Two Medicine area of the National Forest. Other 

43 
related rights issues include: the right to freely access the area with motorized vehicles, the rights 

to the grazing, and the rights to hunt and fish without government restrictions. 

1-3 Evaluate lands Identified as not meeting physical or biological characteristics used in Initial 

allocation. 

Frequency of Measurement: 100% sample annually. 

Reporting Period: Continuous. 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: All changes will be evaluated annually. 

The Forest is updating it’s timber stand inventory. As of January 29, 1988, 288,970 acres of the 

Forest total acres of 1,843,397, or 16 percent, has been inventoried. 

Following is a summary by Ranger Districts: 

Ranger Districts I Total National Forest Acres I Inventoried Acres 

Rocky Mountain 

Judith 

Musselshell 

Kings Hill 

Total 

776,259 

362,841 

267,415 

436,882 

1,843,397 

36,812 

97,144 

48,439 

106,575 

288,970 

This inventory program is scheduled for completion by the end of FY 1991. Project level Environmental Analysis produced in FY 1987 found no variation in allocation from the Forest Plan. 

1-4 Validation of employment and income projections. 

Frequency of Measurement: 5 years (FY 1991). 

Reporting Period: 5 years (FY 1991). 

Variability Which Would Initiate Further Evaluation: 520% of projected changes. 

This is a 5 year frequency measurement and will be validated in FY 1991. 

. 

The following tables compare the outputs, activities, and budgets with those projected in the 

Forest Plan. 

44 
TABLE I 

COMPARISON OF OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES WITH THOSE PROJECTED IN THE FOREST 

PLAN 

Projected Outputs and Activities by Time Period (Average Annual Units) 

1987 

-1 45 

54 

51 8 

300 

2 

0 

16 

2CTW 

71 .O 

1999 

20 

5 

772 

0 

160 

- 12.3 

30.6 

0 

1064 

563 

125 

14 

1813 

665 

3.7 

29.7 

33.4 

8.5 

~~ ~ 

First Decade 

.c 

Unit of 

Measure Target Item Output or Activity 

Recreation 

TO1 

TO2 

M RVD 

M RVD 

M RVD 

Developed Use . 

Dispersed Use 

Wilderness 

Non-wilderness 

169 

86 

61 4 

Wildlife and 

Fish 

TO3 

TO4 

TO5 

T29 

T30 

Acres 

Acres 

Acres 

Structures 

Structures 

Wildlife Habitat Improvement 

Fish Habitat Improvement 

T&E Habitat Improvement 

Wildlife Habitat Structures 

Fish Habitat Structures 

600 

5 

100 

10 

25 

Range 

TO6 

TO7 

TO8 

TO9 

M AUM 

Acres 

Structures 

Plans 

Acres 

71.1 

1329 

40 

10 

300 

Permitted Graze Use 

Range Improvement 

Nonstructural 

Structural 

Range Resource Plans 

(Allotment Mgt Plans) 

Noxious Weed Control 

Soil 

T10 Soil Inventory Acres 2000 

Minerals 

T12 Minerals Management Cases 90 

MM BF 

M Acres 

Acres 

Acres 

Acres 

Acres 

Miles 

Acres 

Timber 

T13 

T15 

T16-17 

T18-19 

T20 

T21 

T22 

T44 

Total Volume Offered 

Silvicultural Exams 

Reforest-Approp 

Reforest-KV 

Timber Stand Imp-Approp 

Timber Stand Imp-KV 

Landline Location 

Fuels Management-BD 

- 

14 

15.5 

54 

270 

200 

0 

26 

1470 

Protection 

T23 Fuels Management-FFP Acres 700 

Facilities 

T81-82 

T83 

Road Construction 

Road Reconstruction 

Trail Construction 

/Reconstruction 

Total 

Miles 

Miles 

Miles 

Miles 

9.0 

24.0 

33.0 

10.0 

I 
TABLE II 

COMPARISON OF THE ACTUAL BUDGET RECEIVED IN FY 1987 WITH THE FOREST PLAN 

PROJECTED ANNUAL BUDGET: 

~ ~~ 

Funding Item 

00 

01,02 

03-05 

06,07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

12 

13-15 

42,43 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

23 

26-28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

24,38 

Budget Activity 

General Administration 

Fire and Fuels 

Timber 

Range 

Minerals 

Recreation 

Wildlife and Fish 

Soil, Air, Water 

Facility Maintenance 

Lands/Land Management 

Planning 

Landline Location 

Road Maintenance 

Trail Maintenance 

Co-op Law Enforcement 

Reforestation - Appropriated 

TSI - Appropriated 

Tree Improvement 

KV (Trust Fund) 

CWFS - Other (Trust Fund) 

Timber Salv. Sales (Perm.Fund) 

Brush Disposal (Perm. Fund) 

Range Improvement 

Recreation Construction 

Facility Construction - FA&O 

Engineering Construction Support 

Const. - Capital Investment Roads 

Trail Construction/Reconstruction c 

Total Budget 

Timber Purchaser Road Construction 

Total Cost ’ 

Forest Plan 

Projected Budget FY87 Dollars 

Thousand $ 

$983 

$437 

$653 

$487 

$451 

$522 

$472 

$1 63 

$1 47 

$111 

$1 97 

$92 

$292 

$1 58 

$42 

$58 

$29 

$8 

$1 03 

$21 

$32 

$24 

$85 

$27 

$0 

$306 

$453 

$94 

$6,447 

$1 58 ~ ~~ 

$6,605 

1987 ACtual 

Budget 

FY87 

Dollars 

Thousand 

$ 

$920 

$325 

$589 

$344 

$242 

$33 1 

$222 

$111 

$43 

$48 

$87 

$233 

$1 50 

$26 

$26 

$62 

$1 0 

$1 60 

$1 5 

$62 

$77 

$42 

$1 0 

$0 

~ $347 

$64 

* 

$567 

$5,113 

$0 

$5,113 

* not a budget item 
IV. PLANNED ACTIONS 

These planned action items have been identified in this report. They are in addition to the routine 

actions listed in Chapter V Implementation section of the Forest Plan. 

Planned Action 

A. 

B. 

C. 

D. 

E. 

F. 

G. 

H. 

1. 

J. 

K. 

L. 

M. 

N. 

0. 

There is a need to update the Forest Plan budget (Appendix T) (A-2 and 8-2). 

There is a need to strengthen the law enforcement program on the Jefferson Division (A-6). 

There is a need to revise the wildlife monitoring requirements (C-5; C-6; and C-7). 

There is a need to revise C-11 reference from: Coordinate with F-1 and F-2 to Coordinate 

with F-7 and F-8 (C-11). 

There is a need to increase the program and budget for noxious weed control (D-l), 

There is a need to increase awareness and commitment to monitoring range condition and 

trend (D-2). 

There is a need to place greater emphasis on range management planning (Allotment 

Management Plans) (D-4). 

There is a need to establish a process for obtaining an accurate timber harvest acre figure 

by fiscal year (E-6). 

There is a need to place greater emphasis on elimination of soil and water restoration 

backlog (F-6). 

It is recommended that Item J-3 be removed from the list of items to be monitored (J-3) 

There is a need to increase the trail constructionheconstruction program to 14 miledyear. 

There is also a need to increase the trail budget to reflect this increase and for rights-of-way 

negotiation and acquisition (L-1). 

There is a need to correct the miles of road construction/reconstruction neede3 to implement the Forest Plan (L-1). 

There is a need to correct the Forest Plan natural fuels target acres from 70 to 700 fP-5). 

- 

There is a need to continue to validate costs and values used in the Forest Plan (1-1). 

Need to correct specific wording in Table 5.1 (A-6, A-7, 8-2, C-1 1 , E-4, L-1, L-2, P4, and 

P-7). 

47 
V. RESEARCH NEEDS 

The following additional research needs have been identified: 

A. Initiate written recommendations for research on the percent effectiveness of restricting 

vehicle access on existing open or newly constructed roads. 

B. Coordinate research in cavity 'dependent wildlife on the Tenderfoot Experimental Forest. 

Review transects previously established in the Tenderfoot Experimental Forest as a possible 

base line on cavity dependent wildlife populations. 

VI. AMENDMENTS 

The following amendments have been made to the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan: 

A. Bob Marshall, Great Bear, and Scapegoat Wilderness Recreation Management Direction 

(Replaces Appendix U, April 1987). 

VII. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A - Lewis and Clark National Forest Wilderness Monitoring Report (B-1). 

VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS 

The following individuals contributed to the development of the Monitoring and Evaluation Report 

for the Lewis and Clark National Forest for Fiscal Year 1987. 

Name Functional Resource Area 

William Duryee 

James Eakland 

Roger Evans 

Chuck Frey 

Donald Godtel 

Cynthia Hamlett 

Valdon Hancock 

Ronald Meyers 

Wayne Phillips 

Jerry Reese 

Donald Sasse 

Dick Smith 

AI Underwood 

Len Walch 

Jane Weber 

Staff Officer Engineer/Lands 

Forester - Planning 

Wildlife Biologist 

Staff Officer Soil/Water/Air/Minerals 

Wildlife Biologist 

Archaeologist 

Hydrologist 

Civil Engineer 

Range Conservationist 

Staff Officer Range/Wildlife/Recreation 

Wildlife Biologist 

Staff Officer Land Management Planning/Fire 

Zone Timber (Silviculturist) 

Zone Fisheries Biologist 

Public Information Officer 

. 

Y 

48 
In addition, the report was reviewed by the following individuals: 

John Gorman 

Paul Threlkeld 

Lloyd Swanger 

Jerry Dombrovske 

Carl Fager 

Victor Standa 

Forest Supervisor 

Staff Officer Administration 

District Ranger, Rocky Mountain Ranger District 

District Ranger, Judith Ranger District 

District Ranger, Musselshell Ranger District 

District Ranger, Kings Hill Ranger District 

IX. APPROVAL 

I have reviewed the annual Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 1987 for 

the Lewis and Clark National Forest that was prepared by the Forest Interdisciplinary Team. I am 

satisfied that the Monitoring and Evaluation effort meets the intent of both the Forest Plan (Chapter 

V) and 36 CFR 219. I have also considered the recommendations of the Interdisciplinary and 

Management Teams on proposed changes to the Forest Plan and will process the necessary 

Amendment after appropriate public notification. 

This report is approved: 

L -a2 

JOHN D. GORMAN 

Forest Supervisor 

Date 

49 
APPENDIX A 

LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL FOREST WllDERNESS MONITORING REPORT (B-1) 

June to labor Day 1987 

South Fork Sun River Trail #202 and Preiry Prairie 

Monitors: Heidi Froke and Ray Mills. 

Times Monitored: 16, including both trail and campsite encounters. 

Opportunity Class: IV. 

Trail Encounters: 80% probability of 5 or fewer encounters per day. 

Campsite Encounters: 80% probability of 3 other camps within sight or continuous sound of 

each other. 

Trail Encounters: Of the 16 days monitored 5 days exceeded 5 encounters, or only 69% of 

the time was this standard not exceeded. 11% of the time it was exceeded. 

Campsite Encounters: Of 16 days monitored 4 days exceeded the standard or 75% of the 

time this standard was not exceeded. 5% of the time it was exceeded. 

West fork Sun River Trail #203 

Monitor: Heidi Froke. 

Times Monitored: 8 

Trail Encounters: Exceeded the 5 encounters twice or 75% of the time this standard was not 

exceeded; 5 % of the time it was exceeded. 

Campsite Encounters: Did not exceed the standard. However, 3 days it did reach the 

maximum standard for Opportunity Class IV. 

North fork Sun River (Wilderness Boundary to Gates) 

Monitors: Jim Forrest and Joel Varland. 

Times Monitored: 15 

Trail Encounters: Exceeded standard one day or 94% the standard was not exceeded. 

Campsite Encounters: Equaled but did not exceed standard on three occasions. 

Other Areas, Opportunity Class 111 : None exceeded standards. 

Area 

North t? South Wall Trail 

Moose Creek Trail #131 

Rock Creek Trail #111 

Bear Creek Trail #222 

Hoadley Trail #226 

Route Creek Trail #lo8 

Upper Sun River #110 

Open Fork Trail #116 

Lick Creek Trail #151 

Red Shale Trail #130 

Dearborn River 

Straight Creek 

#175 '- 

. Times Monitored 

6 

8 - Equaled encounters twice6 

8 

4 

6 

4 

12 - Trail Construction Crew 

6 r 

8 

8 

8 

Upper South Fork Sun River Trail #202 4 
Opportunlty Class 111 area that did exceed standards was Headquarters Pass Trail #165. Monitored 

by Ray Mills and Jim Forrest; 14 days of which four days exceeded standards, or 71% of the time 

within standard and 9% of time exceeded standard. 

Opportunlty Class II areas were monitored twice during the summer, but none exceeded standards. 

Self-registering trail registers along Trails #165 and #202 were tabulated, estimating that 60% of 

hikers and 20% of horse users register. 

Headquarters Trail, June 1 to Labor Day, 443 hikers and 193 horsemen registered, while at 

Benchmark (Trail 202) 403 hikers and 313 horsemen registered. Considering these figures, there is 

little doubt that the trail and camp encounters exceed the Limits of Acceptable Change standards 

for these two areas. 

Summer campsites, despite the heavy use, remained within the standards except at the mouth of 

Headquarters Creek and Gates Creek. When they had received moderate impact, the sites were 

closed and alternate sites with low impact were offered to the users. . 

Hunting Season, Labor Day to November 30, 1987 

Scapegoat Area: Monitored by Kelly Hirsch 10/23 to 11/10. Area did not exceed any of the 

standards. 

Windfall (South fork Sun River) : Patrolled 8 times during the five-week season. Trail encounters 

averaged one per day, or did not exceed Opportunlty Class IV standard. It did, however, on two 

occasions have three camps within sight and hearing of each other. 

North Fork Sun River Trail #201 and #I10 : October 22 to November 28. 23 actual days of actual 

monitoring the entire drainage, of which 15 days of monitoring was in the heavy use area of Circle 

Creek to Biggs Flats. 

On 5 days the trail encounters exceeded the standard for Opportunity Class IV of 5 encounters, or 

66% of time within standard or 14% of time the standard was exceeded. This usually occurred 

when outfitters were changing parties; and private hunters were also on the trail. 

On three days the camp encounters met the upper limit but did not exceed the standard for 

Opportunity Class IV. This occurred on Bridge Creek, Cabin Creek, Grouse Creek and Circle Creek 

during the first week of the season, and on Cabin Creek again the last week of the season. 

Camps on Bridge Creek and Circle Creek were closed November 12 to prevent the sites from 

exceeding the moderate impact standard. 

It should be noted that the private hunting camps and hunters were down from the fall of 1986 by 

24%. 

x