United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Lewis and Clark 

National Forest 

Fiscal Year 1999 

aLEWIS AND CLARK 

NATIONAL FOREST PLAN 

Monitoring and Evaluation Report 

Fish Survey in Flagstaff Creek - Castle Mountains 
United States 

Department of 

Agri cu Itu re 

-4- 

-- 

- 

w. 

_- 

LEWIS AND CLARK 

NATIONAL FOREST PLAN 

Lewis and Clark 

Monitoring and Evaluation Report National ... Forest . 

..... 

Fiscal Year 1999 

Fish Survey in Flagstaff Creek - Castle Mountains 
United States 

Department of 

Aq ricu Itu re 

LEWIS AND CLARK 

NATIONAL FOREST PLAN 

Lewis and Clark 

National Forest 

Fiscal Year 1999 

Monitoring and Evaluation Report 

c 

Fish Survey in Flagstaff Creek - Castle Mountains 
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest Lewis and Clark 1101 15* Street North 

Service National Forest P.O. Box 869 

Great Falls, MT 59403-0869 

406 791-7700 

FAX 406 761-1972 

File Code: 1920 

Date: January 2001 

Dear Forest User: 

Enclosed for your review is the Fiscal Year 1999 Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan 

Monitoring and Evaluation Report. This report records our progress and 

accomplishments for our 13” year of Forest Plan implementation. 

Although monitoring has occurred on a continuing basis, our tast published report was 

for FY 1994. This report contains an update of information since time. It also contains 

resource specialists’ observations and recommendations based on 13 years of findings 

through site-specific analyses and other evaluations. Currently, “eastside” forests, 

including the Lewis and Clark, Helena, Gallatin, Custer, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge, 

are conducting an assessment of conditions and trends across a broad-scale to 

determine a need to change management strategies in light of changed conditions or 

new information. Monitoring results are being incorporated into this effort, which will lay 

the foundation for revising Forest Plans. 

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

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

RICK PRAUSA 

Forest Supervisor 

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper a- 
SUMMARY 

Lewis and Clark National Forest 

Forest Plan Monitoring Report 

Fiscal Year 1999 

SUMMARY 

This summary capsulated the full report 

of the Forest Plan Monitoring and 

Evaluation for the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest during fiscal year (FY) 

1999 (October 1998 through 

September 1999). Our last published 

monitoring report was released for the 

1994 fiscal year, so this report also 

provides information for fiscal years 

1995 through 1999. Our monitoring 

items are listed in Chapter 5 of the 

1986 Lewis and Clark National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan). Forest specialists 

monitor and report on 77 individual 

monitoring items. They evaluate their 

findings and make recommendations to 

the Forest Leadership Team. 

Detailed information for each of the 

monitoring items is disclosed in the full 

report. In the full report you will find 

three main sections. The Introduction 

includes a general discussion of the 

purpose of monitoring and outlines the 

amendments that have been made to 

the 1986 Forest Plan. The secohd 

section outlines, in general terms, the 

decisions made in the Forest Plan. 

And the third section details each 

monitoring item, including the methods 

used in our monitoring, the findings 

from our monitoring efforts, and any 

recommendations for improving 

implementation of the Forest Plan 

direction. 

MONITORING RESULTS 

Recreation: Developed recreation 

continues to increase annually, 

although accurate use figures are not 

presently available. A National 

Recreation Survey, scheduled to be 

initiated on the Lewis and Clark Forest 

in FY 2001, should provide more 

trackable use calculations. Use has 

been projected to be increasing in 

proportion to the increase in state 

population. Past annual estimates of 

recreation use may have been 

overestimated. Increased user 

conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized recreational use has been 

identified. Campgrounds appear to be 

adequate in capacity, but many need 

reconditioning. Trail and road 

maintenance has lagged due to 

inadequate funding. 

Heritage Resources: Tbe Forest 

continues to concentrate on 

inventorying and assessing potential 

impacts to heritage (cultural) resources 

on site-specific projects and in 

gathering ethnographic information to 

understand traditional uses across the 

Forest. Since 1995, 174 sites were 

identified, inventoried and evaluated; 

fifty-four of these evaluations were 

conducted in FY 99. Eligibility is being 

sought from the Keeper of the Historic 

Register on properties in the BadgerTwo Medicine area of the Rocky 

1 
SUMMARY 

Mountain District identified as having 

traditional cultural significance to the 

Blackfeet Nation. No projects were 

initiated without consideration of 

heritage resources 

Wilderness: Most prominent threats to 

preservation of Wilderness resource 

continue to be the spread of noxious 

weeds, degradation and overuse of 

popular trails and lakeside campsites, 

low numbers of naturally -occu rri ng 

fires, enforcement of grizzly bear 

sanitation regulations, use allocation, 

and increasing need for wilderness 

education. 

Wildlife: In FY99, the number of 

observed bears was at its lowest since 

the Forest began counting bears in 

1987, although sows with cubs 

continue to occupy all six Bear 

Management Units on the Rocky 

Mountain District. During the 1999 

season, a total of 18 bear fatalities 

occurred in the Northern Continental 

Divide Ecosystem. Two of these were 

from bear populations on or adjacent to 

the Lewis and Clark Forest. One sub 

adult male was killed by another bear 

while caught in a trap during a 

management action. A sub adult 

female was illegally shot on private 

land adjacent to the Forest. 

Enforcement of special Food Storage 

Orders resulted in a total of 80 reported 

incidents between 1995-99. A 

minimum of 101 nuisance bear 

incidents were reported between 1995- 

99. A majority of these were cases in 

which bears attempted to remove or 

damage property. 

The Sawtooth wolf pack met its demise 

in 1997 when the last of the remaining 

wolves were killed after they attacked 

and killed livestock. 

No bald eagle nests have been 

documented on the Forest to date. In 

1995, the Forest and the Peregrine 

Fund, Inc initiated a partnership to 

introduce peregrine back into the wilds 

of the Rocky Mountain Front. An 

artificial nest site was established and 

a total of 10 birds were successfully 

fledged between 1995-97. No wild 

nest sites have been found on the 

Rocky Mountain District to date, 

however. In 1999, one peregrine nest 

site was found on the Forest in the 

Smith River area. 

Elk population levels defined in the 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks management plan are being 

met. Season on either sex were 

lengthened to control populations in 

some areas of the Castles and Little 

Belts, while quotas on cow elk were 

reduced along the Rocky Mountain 

Front to build populations levels. 

Population monitoring of Rocky 

Mountain goat and bighorn sheep show 

population fluctuations; from a high of 

1,035 bighorn in 1987 to a low of 282 in 

1995, and from a high of 122 mountain 

goat in 1991 to a low of 10 in 1996. 

There has been no management 

implemented on NFS lands since 1987 

that would result in any decline or 

increase in populations; fluctuations 

appear to be related to natural events 

or hunting regulations. Goat 

populations continue to grow in the 

Highwood Mountains and their range 

has expanded in the Crazy Mountains. 

Nearly 175 miles of snow track surveys 

have been completed in the Little Belt 

2 
SUMMARY 

Mountains since 1995. There appears 

to be a good population of wolverine. 

Lynx appear in low numbers; only 4 or 

5 tracks have been recorded. Results 

of DNA analysis from hair snare study 

revealed only mountain lion and bobcat 

encounters. 

The Forest continues to inventory for 

old growth forest; approximately 28% 

of the Forest has been inventoried, 

mostly in the Little Belt and Little 

Snowy mountains. More than 26,600 

acres of old growth have been 

allocated for retention to meet Forest 

Plan standards. Although 100% 

monitoring of all known goshawk 

territories has not been accomplished 

during all years, additional nesting 

territories continue to be discovered. 

The Forest has marked snags on 750 

acres of cutting units since 1995. In 

1998, a resurvey of all burned areas on 

the Jefferson Division revealed on 

black-backed woodpecker in one 

burned unit. 

Through several large range analyses 

conducted over the past several years, 

additional aquatic habitats have been 

surveyed and inventoried. 

Approximately 41 0 miles of stream 

have been surveyed within allotments. 

At-risk or non-functional stream 

reaches have been identified, due in 

part to grazing impacts. New grazing 

plans are being phased in which 

incorporate measures such as reduced 

stocking or fencing to improve riparian 

conditions in these reaches. 

Monitoring of implementation of these 

plans and riparian conditions is crucial 

to ensuring progress toward fully 

functional stream systems and high 

quality fish habitat. 

Thirty-seven streams have been 

identified as supporting 100% pure 

strain westslope cutthroat trout. Fluvial 

grayling were introduced into the South 

and North Forks of Sun River in 1999. 

Surveys for harlequin duck continue on 

the Rocky Mountain Division. 

Sightings on Sun River and Badger 

Creek were made in 1999. 

A model has been developed using 

landtype information and known 

occurrences of sensitive plants to 

identify areas with high probability for 

the occurrence of sensitive plants. 

This information has been used in 

analyses of ground disturbing activities. 

Range: Grazing levels and structural 

improvements have continued within 

Forest Plan projection. The completion 

of range plans has increased and is 

expected to continue at levels higher 

than Forest Plan projections for the 

next five years. Nonstructural 

improvement outputs are at 54% of 

projected; this should increase with 

implementation of new range plans, but 

could lead to decreased forage 

conditions and/or livestock use if 

continued. Noxious weed control 

continues at levels above Forest Plan 

projections because of th% identification 

of more acres of infestation and 

increased noxious weed control 

budgets. No condition and trend 

studies have been monitored for 

several years, and reporting is currently 

provided as the status of range 

vegetation. The trend has been for 

acres of suitable livestock grazing to 

decline as more precise range 

analysis, encroachment and allotment 

closure. This trend is expected to 

continue, although range 

3 
SUMMARY 

improvements (water developments, 

prescribed burning) can curb this 

decline. More than the Forest Plan 

projection of 10% of allotment 

management plans are currently 

outdated (i.e. more than 15 years old). 

The current allotment management 

planning schedule has increased the 

number of .plan completed and the 

percent of outdated plans has been 

decreasing. 

Timber: Three formal interdisciplinary 

reviews of large timber sales 

(Deadhorse Bluff in 1995; Miller Gulch 

and Corridor, and DanieWKinney 

timber sales in 1999) were held during 

the FY95-99 period. Review of the 

Deadhorse Bluff, Miller and Corridor 

sales took place following the sale. 

Review of the DanieWKinney sale took 

place following layout but prior to 

harvest. The review groups felt that 

prescriptions were appropriate to meet 

management area goals. 

Several harvest units in the Coyote 

Salvage and Tenderfoot Experimental 

Forest sales exceeded the 40-acre 

clear-cut standard, but were consistent 

with fire salvage direction and 

management strategy for experiment 

and monitoring. The environmental 

analysis for these sales considered the 

effects of larger openings and Regional 

Forester approval was granted. ' 

- 

Harvest over the past five years has 

averaged about 69% of the Forest's 

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) of 12.1 

million board feet. Ninety-nine percent 

of all stands with final harvest since 

1986 are progressing toward adequate 

stocking or were certified as 

adequately stocked within 5 years of 

final harvest. Blowdown of seed trees 

in Douglas fir stands and invasion of 

heavy grasses after lodgepole pine 

harvest are primary reasons for poor 

stocking in areas that failed to meet 

regeneration goals. Fire has caused 

delayed regeneration in some cases. 

Through project analysis, land 

suitability classes, which identify stands 

suitable for timber production, have 

been refined. This has resulted in 

about a 6% reduction in lands deemed 

suitable for timber production, slightly 

above the Forest Plan variability 

threshold of 5%. 

Water and Soil: Monitoring shows that 

all projects with potential for impact on 

soil or water are being successfully 

reviewed to ensure adequate 

protection of soil and water resources, 

but it is suggested that monitoring 

items concentrate more on 

effectiveness monitoring of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs). BMP 

reviews have shown that, for the most 

part, BMPs are being implemented as 

planned and effective in limiting soil 

and water impacts. Improvements can 

be made with regard to providing 

adequate road drainage and filtration 

zones, and ensuring that road drainage 

is routed away from live water. Minor 

departures have been recGded with 

regard to maintaining appropriate 

Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) 

widths. 

The Forest has accomplished its 

backlog of soil and water improvement 

acres; a total of 561 acres were 

accomplished between 1995-1 999, 

with 139 acres accomplished in 1999. 

4 
SUMMARY 

Minerals: During FY99, 3 mining 

plans of operation and one mineral 

material proposal were reviewed. 

Environmental analyses were 

conducted for each. Mineral activity 

has slowed somewhat and is probably 

reflective of low metals prices, recent 

legislation, and closure of many mining 

operations throughout the state. 

Activity in recent years has centered on 

exploration in the Castle Mountains, 

although many mining claims in this 

area were relinquished in 1999. The 

majority of mineral operations have 

been conducted in accordance with 

approved plans. Reclamation needs to 

occur at one site. In addition, the 

Forest continues to work cooperatively 

with the Environmental Protection 

Agency to rehabilitate the Block P Mill 

Tailings site in the Little Belt 

Mountains. A draft plan is being 

reviewed. 

' 

In 1997, the Forest completed and 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision for oil and gas 

leasing on the Forest. Under the 

decision, no lands on the Rocky 

Mountain Division will be offered for oil 

and gas leasing during the next 

planning cycle (1 0-1 5 years). Leasing, 

with stipulations, will be allowed on the 

Jefferson Division, where it was shown 

that oil and gas activities are 

environmentally compatible with other 

resource values. 

Lands: The Forest surveyed 16 miles 

of landline, about 61 % of target. The 

Forest addresses land adjustment 

opportunities as they arise. An 

exchange of lands in the Tenderfoot 

area of the Little Belt Mountains is 

currently in progress. 

Facilities: In 1999, the Forest initiated 

an inventory ,of deferred maintenance 

needs on roads, trails, and other 

facilities and investments. Low funding 

levels for road maintenance has 

hampered the ability to address road 

condition problems. During 1999, 5.3 

miles of road were constructed and 12 

miles were reconstructed under the 

Capital Investment and Purchaser 

Credit programs. The amount of roads 

constructed or reconstructed falls 

below that projected in the Forest Plan 

(9 and 24, respectively). In 1999, 11 

miles of trail were reconstructed. This 

is also below the Forest Plan projection 

of 14 miles. 

Protection: Lodgepole pine was the 

dominant sawtimber on 56% of sale 

volume. The Forest Plan emphasized 

removal of timber at high risk to 

insects and disease, usually lodgepole 

pine. Recent information suggests 

that dry forest, mixed conifer stands 

may be higher priority as the Forest 

has never experienced epidemic 

populations of mountain pine beetle in 

lodgepole stands. Mountain pine 

beetle in ponderosa pine and 

lodgepole pine are present but with 

levels ranging from 500 to over 1,500 

acres; the highest year was in 1999 

with 1,633 acres of affected trees. 

Mortality is increasing in ponderosa 

pine dominated stands as they 

become overstocked, (653 acres in 

1999). Root rot is ever present with a 

high of 1,587 acres in 1995 to a low of 

272 acres in 1998. With the exception 

of mountain pine beetle in ponderosa 

pine stands, these insects and 

diseases are at endemic levels 

creating diversity and are not a threat 

to the forest resources at these levels. 

5 
SUMMARY 

The number of fuels acres treated by 

prescribed burning per year has 

increased from 2,200 to over 6,000 

acres as of 1999. The main increase is 

associated with prescribed burning of 

natural fuels to reduce potential 

intensity of wildfires and to improve 

forest health conditions. While there 

have been no reported complaints from 

prescribed burning, the potential for 

impacts is a concern to residents living 

near areas proposed for burning and 

there have been major smoke impacts 

from wildfires in Montana and Idaho 

over the past several years. 

, 

years has resulted in longer fire 

seasons. In 1999,l ,362 acres were 

burned from wildland fire. 

Suppression costs totaled nearly $1.2 

million. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers: No project 

level activities occurred along any of 

the nine eligible rivers or river 

segments which adversely impacted of 

degraded a river's qualifications and/or 

potential classification. A land 

exchange in progress in the Tenderfoot 

area would consolidate lands identified 

for potential.classification as scenic 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Record drought patterns across much 

of central Montana during the past 3 

6 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 . INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 ................. ...... 11 

II . FOREST PLAN DECISIONS ........................................................................................... 12 

111 . INDIVIDUAL MONITORING ITEMS ................................................................................. 13 

A . RECREATION 

A-1 ROS Setting .............................................................................................. 13 

A-2 Recreation Direction Meets Visitor Expectation ........................................ 14 

A-3 Recreation Use .......................................................................................... 15 

A-3a Developed and Dispersed Recreation Use Levels 1993-1 996 .................. 16 

A-4 Condition of Developed Sites .................................................................... 17 

A-5 Recreation Opportunity Guide ........................................................................ 18 

A-6 ORV Damage and Travel Plan .................................................................. 18 

A-7 Condition of Visual Resources .................................................................. 21 

A-8 

A-9 

A-1 0 

A-1 1 

A-12 

Cultural Resource Management (Identification & Protection) .................... 21 

Cultural Recourse Management (Effectiveness) ....................................... 22 

Cultural Resource Management (Interpretation) ....................................... 23 

Cultural Resource Management (Inspection) ............................................ 23 

Cultural Resource Management (Program Effectiveness) ........................ 24 

B . WILDERNESS 

B-1 

8-2 

8-3 

Quality of the Ecosystem ........................................................................... 25 

Bob Marshall-Great Bear-Scapegoat Management .................................. 25 

Change in Roadless Inventory .................................................................. 25 

C . WILDLIFE 

c-1 

C-1 a 

C-1 b 

c-lc 

C-1 d 

c-2 

C-2a 

c-3 

c-4 

C-4a 

C-4b 

c-5 

C-6 

c-7 

C-8 

C-8a 

C-8b 

C-8~ 

c-9 

C-9a 

C-9b 

c-9c 

C-9d 

c-10 

C-1 Oa 

T&E Species: Grizzly Bear Habitat ........................................................... 27 

Trend Info . for Grizzly Bear Management Units ........................................ 28 

RMRD Food Storage Order Incidents for 1995-1999 ................................ 29 

RMRD Nuisance Bear Incidents for 1995-1 999 ........................................ 30 

Nuisance Bear Incidents by Year and Month ............................................ 30 

National Bald Eagle Survey ....................................................................... 32 

Elk Winter Range Capacity ........................................................................ 33 

Bighorn Sheep & Mountain Goat ............................................................... 35 

Bighorn Sheep Population ....................................................................... 7: 35 

Mountain Goat Population ......................................................................... 36 

Other Big Game SpeCies ........................................................................... 37 

Small Game ............................................................................................... 37 

Furbearer .................................................................................................. 37 

Old Growth Habitat for Goshawk ............................................................... 39 

Acres Designated as Old Growth 1988-19 ................................................ 40 

Gray Wolf. Bald Eagle. Peregrine Falcon Habitat ..................................... 31 

Goshawk (Nesting Territories - Rocky Mountain Division) ........................ 41 

Goshawk (Nesting Territories - Jefferson Division) ................................... 41 

Special Interest Species ............................................................................ 41 

Golden Eagle (Nesting Terriorities - Rocky Mountain) ............................. P 42 

Golden Eagle (Nesting Territories - Rocky Mountain) ............................... 42 

Prairie Falcon (Nesting Territories - Rocky Mountain) .............................. 42 

Prairie Falcon (Nesting Territories - Jefferson) ......................................... 42 

Cavity Nesting Habitat ............................................................................... 43 

Monitoring Results for Snag Management on Kings Hill ........................... 44 

7 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

D . 

E . 

F . 

c-11 

C-1 la 

c-12 

C-12a 

C-12b 

c-l2c 

C-13 

C-14 

C-14b 

C-15 

C-14a 

Aquatic Habitat .......................................................................................... 44 

Habitat Improvement Outputs ............................................... : ................. i .. 46 

Wildlife Habitat Improvement ..................................................................... 48 

Wildlife Habitat Improvement ..................................................................... 48 

Oil & Gas Activity ....................................................................................... 49 

Sensitive Wildlife and Fish ......................................................................... 49 

Electrophloretic Testing Results for Cutthroat Trout .................................. 50 

Harlequin Duck (Minimum Brood Numbers on Rocky Mountain) .............. 51 

Sensitive Plant Program ............................................................................ 52 

Miles and Condition of Streams Surveyed by Range Analysis .................. 45 

FY99 Targets & Accomplishments Compared to Forest Plan ................... 47 

RANGE 

D-1 Range Outputs ...................................................................................................... 54 

D-1 a Range Accomplishments ........... : ........................................................................... 54 

D-2 Range Conditions and Trend ................................................................................ 55 

D-2a Range Condition and Trent (Each) ........................................................................ 55 

D-3 Supply ......................................................................................... ~~ ........................ 56 

D-3a Suitable Range (Thousand Acres) .......................................................................... 56 

D-4 Allotment Management Plan Status ....................................................................... 57 

D-4a Status of Allotment Management Plans .................................................................. 57 

TIMBER 

E-1 Silvicultural Prescriptions Meet MA Goals .............................................................. 59 

E-2 Prescription Selections ........................................................................................... 60 

E-3 Timber Openings .................................................................................................... 61 

E-4 Timber Offered/ASQ for a Decade ......................................................................... 62 

E-4a ASQ (Million Board Feet) ........................................................................................ 62 

E-4b Timber Program (Million Board Feet) ..................................................................... 63 

E-5 Restocking .............................................................................................................. 63 

E-6 Acres Harvested ..................................................................................................... 64 

E-6a Timber Under Contract and Volume & Acres Harvested ........................................ 65 

E-7 Thinning & Silvicultural Accomplishments .............................................................. 65 

E-7a Timber Stand Improvement .................................................................................... 66 

E-8 Even-Age Harvest ................................................................................................... 67 

E-9 Firewood Removal .................................................................................................. 67 

E-9a Commercial and Personal Use Firewood Removal ................................................ 68 

E-1 0 Suitable/Nonsuitable Lands .................................................................................... 68 

E-1 1 Projected Yields ...................................................................................................... 69 

E-1 laGrowth Plots (Numbers) .......................................................................................... 

WATER & SOIL . 

F-1 Adequacy & Cumulative Effects of BMPs ............................................................... 71 

F-2 Revegetation .............................................................................................................. 72 

F-2a FY9 Project List for Revegetation .......................................................................... 72 

F-3 Water Quality in Municipal Watersheds .................................................................. 76 

F-4 Riparian Areas. Flood Plains and Wetlands ........................................................... 78 

F-5 Other Effects ........................................................................................................... 81 

F-6 Water & Soil Backlog .............................................................................................. 81 

F-6a Restoration Projects Accomplished in FY9 ............................................................ 82 

F6b Soil & Water Restoration Accomplishments (acres) ............................................... 83 

F-7 

F-8 Stream Cover & Pools ............................................................................................ 85 

F-9 Public Health ........................................................................................................... 86 

Water and Stream Quality ...................................................................................... 84 

F-9a Frequency of Testing and Percent of Tests with Acceptable Results ..................... 86 

8 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

G 

J . 

L . 

P . 

W . 

1 . 

MINERALS 

G-1 Effect of Mining Activities ....................................................................................... 87 

G-1 a Fy9 Project List for Mining Activities ...................................................................... 89 

G-2 Geophysical Prospecting ........................................................................................ 90 

G-3 Drilling Effects ........................................................................................................ 91 

G-4 Rehabilitation ......................................................................................................... 92 

G-4a FY9 Project List for Rehabilitation of Disturbed Areas ........................................... 93 

G-5 Mineral Availability .................................................................................................. 94 

LANDS 

J-1 Compliance With Use Permits ................................................................................ 96 

J-la Special Use Permits ............................................................................................... 97 

J-2 Right-of-way Easements ....................................................................................... 98 

J-2a Easement Acquisitions ........................................................................................... 98 

J-3 Land Exchange (Acres) .......................................................................................... 98 

J-3a Land Exchange (Acres) .......................................................................................... 99 

J-4 Landline Location ................................................................................................... 99 

J-4a Landline Location Accomplishment (miles) ............................................................ 100 

FACILITIES 

L-1 Road & Trail Construction/Reconstruction ............................................................. 101 

L-1 a Miles Of Road Constructed .................................................................................... 102 

L-1 b Trail Accomplishments for FY 9 ............................................................................. 102 

-L-2 Miles of Road Open ............................................................................................... 103 

L-3 Road Decommissioning ......................................................................................... 104 

L-3a Road Decommissioning (miles) .............................................................................. 105 

L-2a Miles of Open Road by Management Area ............................................................ 104 

PROTECTION 

P-1 High Risk Stands . .................................................................................................... 106 

P-la Removal of High Risk Lodgepole Pine (percent) ................................................... 106 

P-2 AcresAlolume of Insect & Disease ......................................................................... 106 

P-3 Management Practices .......................................................................................... 107 

P-4 

P-5 Fuel Treatment Outputs ......................................................................................... 109 

P-5a Activity & Natural Fuel Accomplishment (Acres) .................................................... 109 

P-6 Wildlife ................................................................................................................ z 109 

P-6a Wildfire Area Burned (acres) .................................................................................. 110 

P-7 

Prescribed Fire & Air Quality .................................................................................. 108 

Suppression & Protection Costs ............................................................................. 110 

P-7a Suppression & Protection Cos% ............................................................................. 110 

WILD & SCENIC RIVERS 

W-1 Effects on Eligible Rivers ........................................................................................ 111 

GENERAL 

1-1 Costs & Values ....................................................................................................... 112 

1-2 Emerging Issues .................................................................................................... 112 

1-3 

I-3a Allocation of Management Areas and Acres .......................................................... 117 

1-4 Employmenthcome Projections ............................................................................ 118 

I-4a 

Allocation of Management Areas and Acres .......................................................... 117 

Employment & Income Comparisons ..................................................................... 118 

9 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

IV . COMPARISON OF OUTPUTS. ACTIVITIES. AND BUDGETS ......................................... 120 

TABLE I . Comparison of Projected OutputdActivities by Time Period ............................... 120 

TABLE 11 . Comparison of PI 199 ExpenditureslAccornplishments vs FP Projections vs . Outyear Requests ... 121 

V . LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................... 123 

VI . APPROVAL ................................................................................................................... 124 

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 125 

. 

. 

10 
I. INTRODUCTION 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The Lewis and Clark National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Plan) was approved in June 1986. Each 

year we monitor management decisions 

that have been implemented on the 

ground. This report summarizes the 

monitoring and evaluation findings for 

Fiscal Year 1999, but also reports findings 

since our last published monitoring report 

in 1994. 

The purpose of forest plan monitoring and 

evaluation is to determine how well we 

have met our Forest Plan objectives and 

how we have applied the management 

standards and guidelines in the Plan. Our 

monitoring and evaluation process is 

outlined in Chapter V of the Forest Plan. 

Using this process, resource specialists 

are currently reporting on 75 individual 

monitoring items. Monitoring items have 

been added, revised, or deleted as new 

information has become available. 

Within the last 13 years, twenty-one 

amendments have been made to the 

1986 Forest Plan. These changes have 

resulted from findings from our previous 

monitoring/evaluation reports and from 

several environmental analyses of sitespecific projects. Since our last 

monitoring report in 1994, Forest Plan 

Amendments 18, 19, 20 and 21 have 

been signed. These are outlined below: 

0 Amendment 18: Changed 

management area designation on 1591 0 

acres in the Running Wolf project area in 

the Little Belt Mountains. This change 

reduced the amount of suitable timber 

base (Management Area B) and 

expanded acreage designated for mining 

(Management Area L) and for 

maintenance of Forest resources 

(Management Area G). About 200 acres 

previously in Management Area H 

(developed recreation) were assigned to 

MA B. This amendment was 

implemented in 1995. 

Amendment 19: Changed 

management area designation on 40,492 

acres in the Castle Mountains as a result 

of environmental analyses conducted for 

the Castles Range Analysis. 

Management Areas C, D, E, G, H, and J 

were affected. It also established a new 

open road density of 2.5 miles per square 

mile for Management Area D in the 

Castles. This amendment was 

implemented in 1997. 

0 Amendment 20: Added the Big 

Snowies Research Natural Area. This reallocated 3,145 acres from Management 

Area F (semi-primitive recreation) to 

Management Area M (Research Natural 

Areas). This amendment was 

implemented in 1997. 

0 Amendment 21: This changed 

Forest-wide management standards and 

management area prescriptions resulting 

from the oil and gas leasing decision. 

Management standard G-2 identifies 

stipulations needed to provide resource 

mitigation measures with respect to oil 

and gas leasing. Analysis conducted in 

the Oil and Gas Leasing EIS refined, 

changed, or added to these standards. 

The Forest conducted a thorough review 

of our progress five years after the Plan 

implemented (1 992). This review 

identified findings, some of which resulted 

in a need to change the Forest Plan, 

11 
I. INTRODUCTION 

including Forest Plan monitoring items. 

This report contains recommendations by 

Forest specialists as a result of 13 years 

of monitoring and implementation. 

Recommendations were made as to 

whether the Forest Plan monitoring item 

provided an accurate measure of 

management prescriptions, outputs or 

effects, and if not, what would be a more 

accurate measure. Recommendations 

were made when monitoring resulted in 

identification of a need to change Forest 

Plan direction. The Forest is preparing to 

revise the Forest Plan. Currently, 

“eastside” forests, including the Lewis and 

Clark, Helena, Gallatin, Custer and 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge, are conducting 

an assessment of conditions and trends 

across a broad-scale to determine a need 

to change management strategies in light 

of changed conditions or new information. 

Monitoring results are being incorporated 

into this effort. 

II. FOREST PLAN DECISIONS 

The Forest Plan is a compilation of 

decisions that guide our management of 

the Forest. In general terms, it contains 

three types of decisions: 

0 Goals, Objectives and Desired 

Future Conditions (pages 2-2 through 2- 

22 of the forest Plan) provide general 

direction for managing Forest resources. 

0 Standards (pages 2-23 through 2- 

73) and Management Direction (Chapter 

111 of the Plan) tell us how to put the plan 

into practice or what conditions we must 

meet while we implement the Forest Plan. 

0 Management Areas (described in 

Chapter 111 of the Plan) delineate the 

Forest into areas that are suitable and 

available for different types of 

management and resource production. 

The Plan also includes a prediction of the 

average annual “outputs” produced by the 

Forest. These predictions are outlined in 

Table 2.1 (Plan page 2-1 0 and 11) and 

discussed in the Record of Decision for 

the Plan. 

The following pages contain reports for 

each monitoring item listed in the Lewis 

and Clark Forest Plan, as amended by 

subsequent monitoring and analysis. The 

items are reported sequentially, as they 

appear in Chapter V of the Forest Plan. 

12 
RECREATION 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Recreation Opportunity Annually +/- 10% of projected ROS 

Spectrum setting being setting 

implemented 

111. MONITORING RESULTS 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

No 

RECREATION 

A-I Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Setting 

FINDINGS 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

settings are being implemented in line 

with Forest Plan management area 

direction. The Forest Plan projected an 

increase by 73,000 acres of “Roaded 

Natural” lands, with a decrease in the 

same amount of “Semi-Primitive” lands 

over the next 50 years. Changes in ROS 

settings from one setting to a more 

developed setting are typically the result 

of either 1) new road construction in a 

semi-primitive ROS setting or 2) change 

in travel plan restrictions from exclusively 

non-motorized trail use to motorized use. 

Additionally, in developed recreation sites, 

e.g. campgrounds, the introduction of 

artificial materials may “push” a site 

towards a more developed ROS setting if 

.done on a large scale. - 

In the FY95-99 time period, new road 

construction averaged roughly 2 miles per 

year, according to Management 

Attainment Reporting. Most was 

associated with timber sale activity and 

occurred in areas already considered 

Roaded Natural, and, therefore, did not 

change existing ROS settings. Where 

construction occurred in Semi-primitive 

ROS settings, it changed the setting to 

Forest 

Plan? 

Roaded Natural. Such was fully 

anticipated in the Forest Plan, and is in 

line with the Forest Plan Management 

Area prescriptions for the areas of 

involved road construction. 

There have been little or no change in 

travel management wherein nonmotorized 

trails became designated motorized 

routes. Thus, existing ROS settings were 

maintained. 

Concrete picnic tables have been installed 

during reconstruction in Mortimer, Aspen, 

Jumping Creek, and Kings Hill 

campgrounds. Additionally, the Forest 

almost exclusively has used_ high quality 

concrete toilets over the last 10-15 years 

because of their low maintenance costs. 

While the use of these “non-native“ 

materials may be inconsistent with 

guidelines for Roaded Natural ROS 

settings, they were opted for because 

their low maintenance requirements met 

over-riding management needs. ROS 

settings were not changed by the use of 

these concrete facilities, but caution 

needs to always be taken to select 

materials that meet desired ROS settings. 

13 
RECREATION 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Direction meets 

expectation of visitor 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually Adverse comments or No No 

correspondence 

Successful implementation of an ROS 

setting requires the recognition of effects 

site improvements can have on a setting. 

Roads, trails, site furnishing in the built 

environment, gates, fences, and other 

range improvements should vary ,in finish, 

color, kind of material, and refinement of 

design to reflect the desired ROS settings. 

The Forest can improve in this area by 

identifying the existingdesired ROS 

settings whenever any changes in site 

improvements are planned. Upcoming 

national direction on how the built Forest 

Service environment should appear is 

forthcoming. Training on this direction is 

recommended for all Forest Service 

employees. 

A-2 Recreation Direction Meets Visitor Expectation 

FIND1 NGS 

Developed Sites: Significant 

campground rehabilitation over the last 

five years is beginning to improve the 

condition of the Forest's campgrounds. 

Campgrounds fixed in this time period 

include Mortimer, Aspen, Jumping Creek, 

Many Pines, and Kings Hill campgrounds. 

Publics using the Forest's existing, 

minimal development level campgrounds 

seem to generally be satisfied with the 

facilities and movement toward the lower 

end of the development scale, although 

we're not really seeing or hearing people's 

comments that don't use our facilities. 

Maintenance levels of older campgrounds 

are not always adequate to keep facilities 

in good condition and reflect funding 

shortages in maintenance and operations. 

There are occasional requests for more 

developed facilities. Campgrounds are 

adequate in capacity to support existing 

and future use levels for some time. 

There is good support for campground 

rehabilitation efforts, including the 

replacement of old smelly toilets. Most 

campground users accept Pack It In-Pack 

It Out policies. There is a desire by some 

campground users that the Forest provide 

firewood at those facilities. The cabin' 

rental program is popular. 

Road Maintenance: Complaints have 

been received about poor road 

maintenance and resultant chuckholes 

impacting recreationist vehicle's. Lack of 

adequate road maintenance funding has 

been the problem, and is especially felt by 

recreationists using roads to access 

campgrounds. Some believe that 

chuckholes and ruts should not be fixed 

on primitive roads in order that user use 

levels don't increase. 

Trail Maintenance: Lack of adequate 

trail maintenance funding has resulted in 

more trails needing reconstruction or 

heavy maintenance. We receive 

complaints from the public on washouts 

14 
RECREATION 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Actual use of developed 

and dispersed recreation 

compared with projected 

and ruts in our trails. We also receive 

complaints about damage to trails caused 

when stock and motorized vehicles use 

trails when the ground is wet and easily 

impacted. 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD' WOULD INITIATE . Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually +/- 25% variance yearly or Yes No 

+/- 10% over 1 5-year period. 

Travel Management: Mixed feelings 

exist within the public as far as how much 

and where motorized and nonmotorized 

use on .and off trails should be permitted. 

Complaints have been received about the 

impacts to trails by motorized use, 

especially during the wet season (trail 

tread damage) or during hunting season 

(when motorized use can conflict with 

nonmotorized users). There is reluctance 

by some within the Off Highway Vehicle 

community to accept restrictions on areas 

and trails where they could previously use 

their motorized vehicles. We've received 

complaints about allowing motorized use 

- within wilderness study areas. 

Other: Outfitter-guide services appear to 

be adequate to meet public demand. 

There is a desire among some to have 

more activity-specific brochures directing 

them to where they can pursue specific 

activities. 

Legal access to the Forest is in demand, 

but our right-of-way acquisition program is 

limited in its ability to obtain desired 

access. Where we have existing access, 

there remains opposition by some to the 

gating of Forest roads to protect existing 

resources. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Forest will continue to determine 

public expectations for our developed 

sites by learning both the desires and 

needs of the public that use and don't use 

our recreation sites or Forest. This could 

be accomplished with public meetings or 

with an "ad hoc" group of users we meet 

with occasionally. A revision of the travel 

plan is in process to identify any needs to 

change travel management to resolve 

resource concerns and conflicts between 

motorized and non-motorized 

recreationists. A review of the Forest 

access program is warranted to determine 

how it might be strengthened. Additional 

emphasis should be placed on trail and 

campground maintenance funding. 

Continue with the existing campground 

rehabilitation program. 

A-3 Recreation Use 

15 
RECREATION 

Recreation Forest 1993 1994 1995 

TY Pe Plan (MRVDs) (MRVDs) (MRVDs) 

Projection 

FINDINGS 

1996 

(MRVDs) 

The use numbers shown below are in 

Thousands of Recreation Visitor Days 

(MRVDs). They reflect the method 

employed by the Forest Plan in 

calculating these values. Previous year's 

calculations incorrectly accomplished this, 

and should not be used for any analysis. 

Figures are available only through 1996 

because of recent changes in use 

reporting. 

Developed 

Dispersed 

(MRVDs) 

189 237.3 333.8 377-.2 378.6 

793 61 8 642 71 9 736 

Wilderness) 

wilderness 

I (non101 58 64.2 65.1 65.6 

This information indicates that developed 

site usage is substantially greater than 

projected in the Forest Plan. Dispersed 

use levels are much closer to projected 

levels, while wilderness use is 

substantially below the projected level. 

It should be recognized that use figures 

are best estimates only, and are not the 

result of statistically valid sampling 

techniques. At best, the figures above 

suggest a consistent increase in 

developed recreation, which includes 

campgrounds, picnic grounds, recreation 

residences, downhill skiing, resorts, and 

organization camps. Similarly, dispersed 

recreation is increasing, but has not 

exceeded projected levels contained in 

the Forest Plan. Wilderness use has 

been relatively flat. 

recreation use of the Forest will become 

available after September of 2002. The 

figures will represent the first study done 

to accurately portray use on the National 

Forests. In the past, with some 

exceptions, little time has been dedicated 

to taking use estimates on this or other 

Forests. This is common across most 

national Forests. The agency recognizes 

the difficulty in collecting accurate use 

figures and is making an effort to provide 

better use figures to Congress through a 

consistent sampling technique. Use 

figures obtained so far on other forests 

show that use is roughly half of previous 

agency estimates. If this is also the case 

on the Lewis and Clark, it may be that use 

is increasing at a rate substantially less 

than shown by the above figures, and 

probably at a rate more in line with the 

state's annual increase in population. 

* 

A statistically valid Recreation Use Study 

will be conducted for all National Forests 

between FY 1999 and FY 2002. The 

Lewis and Clark National Forest will be 

surveyed in FY 2001. The figures for total 

16 
RECREATION 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

developed sites. 

Recreation condition of 

RECOMMENDATIONS recommended that the FY2001 

The variability that would initiate further 

evaluation is presently not possible to 

determine accurately for the Forest using 

past estimates of use. Instead, it is 

Recreation Use Study for the Forest be 

used to determine that year's use, and 

compare that with anticipated use figures 

contained in the Forest Plan to see if 

variability requires further evaluation. 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually Less than acceptable No No 

standards, public safety 

hazards not corrected by 

1990, poor conditions not 

corrected by 2005. 

A-4 Condition of Developed Sites 

FINDINGS 

The Forest was successful in obtaining 

funds to reconstruct many of its 

campgrounds between 1995 and 1999. 

These included Mortimer Campground on 

the Rocky Mountain Front, and the four 

fee campgrounds along Highway 89 

between Armington Junction and White 

Sulphur Springs. The Forest has installed 

more than 13 new concrete sweetsmelling toilets (SST) during the 1995- 

1999 monitoring period. We have had no 

identified public safety hazards within our 

developed sites, but there remains a large 

amount of maintenance and 

reconstruction work in campgrounds, 

most of which were constructed in the 

1960's. 

entire "backlog" of maintenance that has 

been deferred because of lack of 

resources. This four-year effort began in 

1999. One year of data has been 

entered. Once the inventory has been 

completed, it will be possible to document 

the kinds of facilities and the total amount 

of funds needed to maintain our 

developed sites to certain standards. 

These standards are based upon a 

national system entitled "Meaningful 

Measures". - 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Continue with the ongoing inventories of 

developed sites, as mandated by 

Congress. 

The Forest is participating in a national 

effort by the Forest Service to inventory its 

17 
RECREATION 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS 

TO BE MEASURED 

Recreation Opportunity 

A-5 Recreation Opportunity Guide. 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

EVALUATION 

Monitoring Forest 

Plan? 

REPORTING 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE FURTHER 

Annually Failure to complete by 1986 Yes No 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Off-road vehicle damage & Annually Conflicts with Forest No 

Travel Plan effectiveness 

Monitoring 

Item? 

Management Area goals. 

Increase of 20 or more 

situations or variances. 

FINDINGS 

Change 

Forest 

Pian? 

No 

The Forest elected to use other methods 

such as our Internet website, to reach a 

greater percentage of Forest users. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Delete this monitoring item, but provide 

more emphasis on developing "where to 

go" and "mountain range-specific" 

brochures or electronic information to 

ensure the public has access to 

information on Forest recreation 

opportunities. During the 1995-1 999 

monitoring period, the Forest completed 

several recreation brochures, including 

the C.M. Russell Auto Tour; Hidden Basin 

Wildflower Trail, Crystal Lake Interpretive 

Trail, Lewis and Clark Mountain Biking 

Guide; and the Highwood Mountains 

Recreation Map. 

A-6 Off-road Vehicle Damage and T,ravel Plan 

FINDINGS 

An analysis of off-highway vehicle use is 

currently being conducted for a 3-state 

area including National Forest and Bureau 

of Management lands in Montana, North 

and South Dakota. The Final EIS is 

expected to be released in 2001. The 

preferred alternative in the DElS would 

restrict OHV use to existing roads and 

trails. The Forest is presently revising its 

Travel Plan to address resource and user 

concerns. Some of those concerns are 

documented below. 

Off-road vehicle damage has increased 

significantly in the 1995-1 999 reporting 

period. An/ use is the fastest growing 

motorized recreation activity on the 

Forest. Motorcycle and 4x4/Jeep use is 

relatively stable. Reports of motorized 

vehicle damage; travel plan effectiveness; 

social conflicts; and law enforcement 

violations, by ranger district are provided 

below: 

18 
RECREATION 

Rocky Mountain R.D. 

Damaae: User created roads in Teton, 

Hannan, Home Gulch, Red Lake, McCarty 

Hill, and Willow Creek drainages from 4x4 

users. Snowmobiles topping trees when 

snow depth is inadequate. Incursions of 

snowmobiles into wilderness in the Teton 

River drainage have been noted. 

Travel Plan Effectiveness: Illegal 

snowmobile use in the wilderness as a 

result of improved capabilities of 

snowmobiles (more power, deeper cleats, 

etc.). Dual road use conflicts between 

snowmobiles and trucks on roadways 

during spring and fall. ATV and 

motorcycle use on roads is a safety issue 

where not permitted in Travel Plan. 

Social Conflict between users: Greatest 

conflicts occur in the Badger-Two 

Medicine between the various users. 

Remainder of conflicts occur along major 

roads into the district and involve speed 

and illegal use of ATVs and motorcycles 

on these roads. 

Law Enforcement Violations: The District 

reported 2 incidents and 2 warning 

notices regarding the use of Forest roads 

or trails and off-road vehicle use during 

1999. 

Judith R.D. 

Damaae: Heavy use of trails, as well as 

poor design of trails created decades ago, 

has resulted in erosion impacts along 

certain trails. They are not the result of 

illegal use in violation of the travel plan. 

Travel Plan Effectiveness: The travel plan 

seems to be working well in the 

Highwoods, with few complaints about 

illegal motorized use. This occurs during 

hunting season, when two or three 

complaints are received annually for the 

Shonkin area, where An/ use is reported. 

The Big Snowies generate more reports 

of ATV and motorcycle violations, and 

these occur primarily during the hunting 

season. In the Little Belts, the majority of 

Travel Plan violations occur in the Middle 

Fork Judith Wilderness Study Area. Userbuilt trails by ATVers are a problem. Arch 

Coulee trail, Lost Fork trail, and Morris 

Creek trail are repeatedly used illegally by 

ATVers, despite efforts to barrier the trails 

to their use. 

Social Conflict between users: Social 

conflict complaints are predominantly from 

the Middle Fork Judith Wilderness Study 

Area and the Big Snowy Wilderness 

Study Area. In the Middle Fork Judith, 

complaints are primarily from nonmotorized users complaining about 

motorized users using the same trail, 

especially along the Judith River, where 

both user types are concentrated on the 

same trail. Complaints have been made 

about motorized use in the Big Snowies 

violating the Travel Plan. ATVs and 

motorcycles violate the Travel Plan along 

the perimeter of the Big Snowies. In the 

Highwoods conflicts seem minimal, 

possibly because users know that other 

kinds of users will be presect. 

Law Enforcement Violations: No travel 

plan violations or incidents were noted on 

the Judith Ranger District during FY99. 

Musselshell R.D. 

Damaae: The district trail system has 

suffered from motorized use during the 

wet season, causing the need for one trail 

complex to be rebuilt after initial heavy 

investment in reconstruction. This has 

necessitated that the District place most 

19 
R EC R EATlON 

of its trail construction and maintenance 

efforts on just a few miles of badly 

impacted trails. User-built ATV trails are a 

concern and occur frequently. ATV 

impacts are a larger problem than those 

from motorcycles, but both contribute to 

resource problems. 

Travel Plan Effectiveness: It is being 

adhered to with the exception of the 

ATWmotorcycle problem of numerous 

user-built trails and use of these vehicles 

on wet trails, resulting in significant trail 

damage. Lack of personnel to enforce the 

Plan is a concern. The current Travel 

Plan allows cross-country travel in many 

locations, which can lead to user-built 

trails occurring in some areas. Closing 

trails to motorized use can be ineffective if 

the surrounding land is open to motorized 

use. 

Social Conflict between users: This is 

largely a hunting season issue between 

ATVs and foot traffic. Game retrieval with 

these machines, as well as incursion into 

non-motorized country during hunting 

season, creates conflict with 

nonmotorized hunters. 

Law Enforcement Violations: No travel 

plan violations or incidents were noted on 

the Musselshell Ranger District during 

FY99. 

Kinas Hill R.D. 

Damaae: Impact areas include the Deep 

Creek drainage (motorcycles and ATVs); 

Dry Fork Belt Creek drainage (ATVs and 

user-built roads); Castle Mountain trails 

(motorcycles); Moose Park and Higgins 

Park (user-built roads); Miller Gulch (userbuilt roads); Jefferson Creek (ATV use); 

and the Hoover Ridge area (motorcycles 

and ATVs). 

Travel Plan Effectiveness: Restrictions 

are not being adhered to in many areas, 

particularly in terms of closed roads and 

restricted trails. The large number of 

violators makes law enforcement that 

much more difficult, and law enforcement 

resources are sparse. Cross-country 

travel in areas open to such use can 

result in user-created trails. Concern has 

been expressed that the travel plan is 

difficult to read, or doesn't effectively 

portray Forest Plan goals and desired 

future recreation conditions. 

Social Conflict between users: ATV user 

conflicts occur during both the summer 

and hunting seasons and are centered in 

the Deep Creek drainage and the Pilgrim 

Creek drainage. Conflicts between 

motorcycle use and non-motorized users 

are limited mostly to the summer. Some 

hikers have expressed a desire for "quiet" 

trails. Some hunters perceive use of 

motorized equipment during hunting 

season as gaining an unfair advantage. 

SnowmobiIe/cross-country skier conflicts 

are centered in the area surrounding the 

Kings Hill Snowmobile Parking lot area. 

Dual use conflicts occur along the 

Strawberry Butte (Road 11 9) and Moose 

Creek (Road 204) areas and involve 

snowmobile and wheeled vehicle conflicts 

during the spring and the fall. 

Law Enforcement Violations: The District 

reported 5 incidents regarding the use of 

Forest roads or trails and off-road vehicle 

use during 1999. 

20 
RECREATION 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Condition of the visual 

resource meets objectives 

in Forest Plan 

A-7 Condition of Visual Resources 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually Deviation from approved No No 

VQOs, ID Team review of 

environmental analysis 

FIND1 NGS 

Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) are 

determined for all projects requiring NEPA 

analysis, and are being met in accordance 

with the Forest Plan. The Forest 

landscape architect is involved in any 

large timber sale proposals or other 

management activities, and helps ensure 

that the scenery resource receives 

adequate consideration. 

From 1995 through 1999,186 

regeneration harvest units (clearcuts, 

seed trees, shelterwoods, or final cuts) 

were cut across the Forest, according to 

ArcView GIS information. Only one 

occurred on the Rocky Mountain Ranger 

District. No regeneration units occurred in 

the Highwood Mountains, Big and Little 

Snowies, and the Castles. Three units 

were cut in the Crazy Mountains, and the 

remaining 182 units were harvested in the 

Little Belt Mountains. 

Of the 186 regeneration units, 97 

occurred in landscapes viewed from 

visually sensitive (Sensitivity Level 1) 

roads and trails viewpoints as described 

in the Forest Plan, Management Standard 

A-8. Many of these units were reviewed 

in the field before and after harvesting. 

Others have been reviewed indirectly from 

aerial photos to determine whether they 

met Visual Quality Objectives contained in 

the Forest Plan. No substantial deviation 

has been noted. 

A-8 Cultural Resource Management (Identification and Protection) 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS 

TO BE MEASURED 

Comparison between Forest 

projects which needed 

cultural resource 

consideration and Forest 

projects which received 

consideration of the cultural 

resources 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually 

VAR IABlLlTY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE FURTHER 

EVALUATION 

More than 10% of projects out 

of compliance. 

Change 

Monitoring 

item? 

No 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

21 
RECREATION 

FINDINGS 

Monitoring item A-8 requires a 

comparison between identified 

undertakings and the number of surveys 

conducted on an annual basis. Forest 

records indicate that from 1995 through 

1999 no projects were initiated without 

consideration of cultural resources. 

Forest project lists are compited annually 

and are reviewed by the Forest 

Archeologist. In addition, the NEPA 

quarterly report also lists proposed 

projects and the Forest Archeologist is 

regularly consulted on unplanned 

projects. Projects are considered by the 

Forest Archeologist to determine whether 

the proposed action constitutes an 

Undertaking (as defined in 36 CFR 800), 

whether the action requires survey for 

cultural resources, or whether the 

proposed action can be considered under 

the existing Programmatic Agreement for 

the management of cultural resources. 

Since 1995 no eligible properties have 

been nominated to the National Register 

of Historic Places, although a Formal 

Determination of Eligibility was sought 

from the Keeper of the Register in 1997 

for properties identified as having 

traditional cultural importance in the 

Badger-Two Medicine area. The Keeper 

requested that other considerations be 

taken into account prior to making a 

determination. This has been ongoing. 

From 1995 through 1999 one hundred 

and seventy-four sites were identified, 

inventoried, and evaluated (1 995 - 35 

sites; 1996 - 20 sites; 1997 - 32 sites; 

1998 - 33 sites; 1999 - 54). 

During fiscal years 1995 through 1999 

the effects of 263 projects on cultural 

resources were considered. These 

considerations resulted in 194 surveys 

for cultural sites, several documentation 

of no adverse effects, and one adverse 

effect consultation. The remaining 

projects were considered pursuant to 

the existing Montana Programmatic 

Agreement. One summary data 

collection report, one ethnographic 

overview, two monitoring report, and 

four Passport-In-Time projects were 

completed by Forest Cultural Resources 

staff during this time period. 

A review of the completed surveys and 

data input indicate that monitoring item 

A-8 was met for FY's 1995, 1996, 1997, 

1998, and 1999. 

A-9 Cultural Resource Management (Effectiveness) - 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS TO 

BE MEASURED 

Effectiveness of cultural 

resource mitigation proposed 

durina FY 

WOULD INITIATE FURTHER 

sites impacted 

Inspection of identified sites in project 

areas is required in monitoring item A-9. 

This requirement was met during fiscal 

years 1995 through 1999. During this 

period, ten sites, which had the potential 

. to be impacted, were located in project 

22 
RECREATION 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED * 

Interpreting, nominating, or 

protecting cultural resource 

sites 

areas. Inspection of these sites during 

and after project implementation 

indicated that the anticipated impacts 

were successfully mitigated. One 

adverse effect to historic mining tailings 

was also documented in 1997. 

Consultation with the Montana State 

Historic Preservation Officer and the 

Advisory Council On Historic 

Preservation, as well as site monitoring, 

mitigated the effects of this adverse 

action. 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

If sites have not been 

during the fiscal year 

Annually - 

100% sites interpreted, or protected 

Monitoring of previously recorded sites 

associated with proposed projects or in 

areas of completed projects was also 

conducted during the 1995 through 

1999 Fiscal Years. During this period, 

more than 83 cultural sites were 

inspected for impacts from natural 

causes (erosion) or cultural causes 

(illegal collection/excavation, project 

impacts, etc.). 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Inspect interpreted sites for 

impacts caused by 

increased public 

awareness and visitation 

A-1 0 Cultural Resource Management (Interpretation) 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

If an interpreted site was 

damaged as a result of 

interpretation 

Annually - 

20% of sites 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

No 

Change Change 

Item? Plan? 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

FINDINGS 

Currently there are 453 sites recorded techniques. Since 1995 nine historic, 

on the Forest. Of these, two have been 

interpreted, one has been listed on the 

National Register, one is a National 

Historic Landmark, two are currently 

being stabilized for interpretation, and 

several historic administrative sites have 

been maintained (preserved) using 

acceptable historic preservation 

administrative sites have been protected 

and two interpretive signs (interpreting 

Gibson lake trail) have been installed. 

Because several sites have been 

interpreted or preserved since 1995, the 

requirements of monitoring item A-1 0 

have been met. - 

A-I 1 Cultural Rekource Management (Inspection) 

23 
RECREATION 

FIND1 NGS awareness. In 1997 it was noticed that 

someone had caryed his or her initials into 

Since 1995, the Forest Archeologist has 

conducted annual inspections of 

interpreted sites on the Forest. To date, 

only one of these sites has sustained 

damage as a result of increased public 

one of the signs at 24TT006 (an 

interpreted pictograph panel in Sun 

Canyon). No additional impacts have 

occurred at this site since 1997. 

A-I 2 Cultural Resource Management (Program Effectiveness) 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Effectiveness of Heritage 

Program and 

implementation of Forest 

Plan (assessment of 

inventory methods used to 

identify cultural resources) 

FINDINGS 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually - 5% 

of surveys 

Since 1995, the Programmatic 

Agreement Regarding Cultural 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

If previously unidentified 

cultural resources are 

discovered in surveyed 

areas 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

No 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

received post project surveys; 4 out of 

the 36 surveys in 1998 received after 

Resources Management on the Forests 

in Montana has ensured compliance 

with monitoring item A-1 2. As part of 

project surveys; and 3 out of 42 surveys 

in 1999 received after project surveys. 

While the majority of post project 

the Programmatic Agreement, all 

prescribed burn areas over 100 acres in 

size will receive a 10% preburn sample 

survey and a 20% postburn sample 

survey. This survey methodology has 

been successfully utilized on the Forest 

from 1995 through 1999. In 1995, 35 

surveys for cultural resources werer 

conducted. Four of these received post 

project surveys; 3 of the 48 surveys in 

1996 received post project surveys; 1 of 

the 33 surveys conducted in 1997 

surveys were associated with prescribed 

fire, occasional survey transects were 

placed through other previously 

surveyed project areas. The result of 

these monitoring surveys between 1995 

and 1999 resulted in one previously 

undiscovered site. The post burn 

surveys conducted between 1995 and 

1999 have successfully met the 

requirements of monitoring item A-1 2. 

24 
WILDERNESS 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Wilderness - maintenance 

of existing quality of 

ecosvstem 

WILDERNESS 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually 

B-I Wilderness - Quality of Ecosystem 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

item? Plan? 

Degradation of environment deleted 

This monitoring item was deleted from the 

Forest Plan under Amendment No. 3 

because wilderness monitoring has been 

outlined in detail in the Bob Marshall, Great 

Bear, Scapegoat Wilderness Recreation 

Management Direction (Forest Plan 

Amendment NO. 1). 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Bob Marshall-Great Bear- Annually 

Scapegoat Management 

Division 

9-2 Bob Marshall-Great Bear-Scapegoat Management 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

item? Plan? 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Failure to meet timetable No No 

established in Appendix U of 

the Plan. 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Change in Roadless 

Inventory 

FIND1 NGS 

The monitoring results are presented in the 

annual Wilderness Reports in Appendix A 

were not able to do their normal monitoring 

in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 because of 

lack of budget. An analysis of the last five 

years of monitoring results is planned for 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually 

of this Monitoring Report for Fiscal Year 

1997. The Bob Marshall-Great BearScapegoat Wilderness Complex managers 

late 2000. 

8-3 Change in Roadless Inventory 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

+/- 10% of projected change 

in roadless inventorv 

Change Change 

Item? Plan? 

25 
WILDERNESS 

FINDINGS 

As noted in the 1993 monitoring report, 

10,860 acres were added to the 

inventoried roadless base as a result of 

the Galt land purchase in the Crazy 

Mountains. The 1994 monitoring report 

notes a net Roadless acreage of 

1,009,838 on the Forest. 

Since 1994, harvest activity authorized 

through the 1995 Running Wolf EIS and 

Record of Decision affected 1,600 acres 

in the Tollgate-Sheep Roadless Area. In 

1996 through 1999, there were no 

projects that resulted in a change in 

inventoried roadless acreage on the 

Forest. The new net acres of Roadless 

lands on the Forest is 1,008,238. (Note: 

as information is generated using GIS 

spatial information, acres are likely to be 

revised based on more specific 

delineations). 

The Forest Plan projected total 

inventoried roadless acres for the Forest 

for the first decade (1995) at 943,000. A 

10% change in roadless acres projected 

by the Forest Plan for 1995 would be +/- 

94,300 acres. Further evaluation would be 

initiated if the 1995 inventoried roadless 

acres fell below 907,932 or above 

1,096,532. Current roadless acres 

indicate no need for further evaluation. 

In October 1999, the Forest Service 

published a notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement 

addressing issues surrounding the 

protection of remaining roadless areas. 

Under the preferred alternative, road 

construction and reconstruction in 

remaining unroaded portions of 

inventoried roadless areas would be 

prohibited. Local managers would 

evaluate whether and how to protect 

roadless characteristics during forest plan 

revision. The rulemaking process is 

projected to be completed by December 

2000. 

c 

26 
W I LDLl FE 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (-I-/-) WHICH 

P R ESC R I PTlON , PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Grizzly Bear - Maintain Annually Any indication of downward No 

Occupied Habitat Capacity trend in grizzly bear 

population 

WILDLIFE 

C-1 T&E Species: Grizzly Bear Ha'bitat 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

OBJECTIVES 

Monitor the maintenance of suitable and 

occupied grizzly bear habitat to detect any 

indication of a downward trend in 

population. 

Follow the goals and objectives set forth 

in the Wildlife/Fisheries Program 

Document for the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest. 

METHODS 

Biological evaluations were developed 

based on the goals, standards, and 

guidelines contained in the Forest Plan 

(pages 2-32 to 2-34 and Appendix H, I, J, 

K, and L). 

Monitoring is conducted as recommended 

in the revised grizzly bear recovery plan. 

Population data collected includes female 

with young (2 or 3 year old) and females 

with cubs of the year. 

FINDINGS _. 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Efforts 

Monitoring efforts in accordance with the 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan we continue 

to record sows with young (2 or 3 year 

old) and cubs of the year. Results from 

1987 to 1999 have demonstrated 

occupancy by sows with cubs in all Bear 

Management Units (BMU) on the Rocky 

Mountain Ranger District (RMRD) except 

the Dearborn-Elk BMU (Table C-la). 

Whether the low count could be a result of 

the Canyon Creek fire of 1988 or the lack 

of surveying is unknown. The BIRTE 

(Birch Teton) and BADTW (Badger TwoMedicine) BMUs still continue to produce 

the most cubs, with the Tebn BMU being 

the 3rd best producer of cubs. 

27 
WILDLIFE 

TABLE C-la Trend Monitoring Information For Sows With Cubs or Young Grizzly 

FM = female grizzly 

YG =young grizzly (>lyr old) 

BADTW = Badger Two Medicine 

BlRTE = Birch Teton 

TETSU = Teton Sun 

SOUFO = South FoMBeaver Willow 

DEAEL = DearbomlElk Creek 

Cb = cub grizzly NORFO = North Fork 

Mortality-The other aspect to recovery 

effort is the tracking of mortality (loss) of 

bears. During the 1999 season, eighteen 

bears were lost in the Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem; two of 

these were lost from the population on or 

adjacent to the Lewis and Clark National 

Forest. One sub adult male was lost, 

killed by another bear while caught in a 

leg snare trap during a management 

action. This bear was lost on private land 

outside the recovery zone. One sub adult 

female was illegally shot on private land 

adjacent to the Forest boundary in Ford 

Creek. 

Law enforcement efforts continue todeter 

the illegal take of grizzly bears on the 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District and 

reduce the potential for food conditioned 

and habituated bears. The District's Law 

Enforcement Officer, wilderness and 

campground guards, and others 

completed summer and fall patrols that 

included grizzly protection goals as a 

major focus. 

The special Food Storage Order 

implemented on the Rocky Mountain 

Ranger District in 1992 was modified and 

then adopted by the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness Complex (BMWC) and a final 

signed in April 1998. This order governs 

the way food is stored in grizzly bear 

country on the Rocky Mountain Ranger 

District as well as the other Forests within 

the BMWC. Enforcement of this order 

and the previous order between 1995 and 

1999 resulted in a total of 80 reported 

food storage incidents, including issuance 

of 14 verbal warnings, 13 written 

warnings, and 9 violation notices (Table 

C-1 b). 

28 
WILDLIFE 

Data for 1999 do not indicate whether verbal warnings were issued when written warnings or citations were not issued. 

Nuisance Bear Actions - Nuisance bear 

incidents are defined in the RMRD 

Problem Bear Management Guidelines as 

follows: 

Sightings: observation of a bear 

not engaged in a human or 

property interactions made at 

greater than 5 yards from the 

bear. 

Repeat Sightings: subsequent 

sightings made within a 5-day 

interval within 1/4 mile of initial 

sighting. 

Encounter: observation of a bear 

not engaged in a human or 

property interaction from a site 

that is less than 5 yard from the 

bear. 

Threatening Encounter: bearhuman interaction in which the 

human perceives the bear to be 

in the initial stages of attack. 

Property Interaction: actual or 

attempted removal or damage of 

human property, excluding 

livestock, by a bear. 

Human Injury: death or bodily 

injury directly or indirectly 

produced by a bear. 

Livestock Depredation: death or 

injury of livestock directly or 

indirectly produced, by a bear. 

Between 1995 and 1999 there were a 

minimum of 101 nuisance bear incidents 

reported on the RMRD (Table C-lc). The 

majority of those reports (57) were 

property interactions, which may reflect 

the tendency of people to report damage 

rather than to report sightings or repeat 

sightings that do not involve harm to 

personal possessions or threats to life and 

safety. Many separate nuisance reports 

represented repeat incidents with 

individual bears. For example, one or two 

grizzly bears may have been responsible 

for up to 13 separate nuisance bear 

incidents in 1999. Most nuisance bear 

incidents were reported in July, August, 

and October (Table C-ld). This may 

reflect increased human presence on the 

forest during those monthsand therefore 

increased opportunities for encounter with 

bears, rather than reflecting patterns of 

bear activity. The reported incidents may 

underestimate the number of actual 

incidents occurring on the RMRD, as not 

all incidents are reported or recorded, and 

some may be reported directly to Montana 

Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MRNP) 

personnel who are responsible for any 

actions taken to aversively condition or 

remove off ending bears. 

29 
WILDLIFE 

Unk = Unknown 

Grizzly Bear Conservation Efforts 

Biological evaluations were completed in 

response to 7 Forest management 

activities within grizzly bear habitat 

(Management Situation 1) in 1998 and 

1999. The activities were either wildlife 

improvement projects or projects in 

support of other resource activities (eg. 

trail construction, small timber sales, 

range management plans). All projects 

resulted in a "not likely to adversely affect" 

or "No Effect" determination for the grizzly 

bear. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

None at this time. 

30 
W I LDLl F E 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE FURTHER f;le$yng 

EFFECTS TO BE EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Gray Wolf, Bald Eagle, Annually Deterioration or continuing Develop 

Peregrine habitat capacity disturbance on more than 5% consistent 

approach 

across 

Forests/ 

Regions 

of suitable unoccupied habitat M&E 

C-2 Gray Wolf, Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon Habitat 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

METHODS 

Evaluate Forest compliance with the gray 

wolf recovery plan (USFWS, 1987). 

Monitor suitable bald eagle nesting habitat 

for re-occupancy according to methods 

described in Montana Bald Eagle Working 

Group (1986); monitor the distribution of 

wintering bald eagles. Survey historic and 

potential peregrine aeries for occupancy. 

WOLF FINDINGS 

In 1989, the Lewis and Clark National 

Forest began a long-term study of wolf 

recolonization along the Rocky Mountain 

Front. The goal of the study is to reduce 

opportunities for wolf-livestock conflicts by 

gathering and sharing information on wolf 

activity. The study's basic premise is that 

ranchers have a right and a need to know 

how wolves are using their lands and 

adjacent federal lands and that the ifederal 

government has a responsibility to provide 

this information. By providing information 

on wolf movements, private ranchers and 

National Forest grazing administrators 

can devise grazing strategies that 

minimize opportunities for wolf 

depredations. 

Between 1989 and 1992, the project 

focused on establishing the level of wolf 

activity on the Rocky Mountain Front and 

developing an open and constructive 

dialogue between ranchers and federal 

agencies involved with wolf recovery. 

During this period, the only resident 

wolves were a lone male and a pack in 

Dupuyer Creek that disappeared in March 

1990. Numerous transient wolves were 

also confirmed. 

In 1993, a breeding pair was discovered 

using lands between Sun River and Elk 

Creek, primarily east of the Forest 

boundary. The male was radio collared in 

February. This pair produced four pups in 

April; two of these pups were radio 

collared in September. 

During the spring of 1994, aconfirmed 

depredation on a young calf occurred. 

This was followed by a probable 

depredation and 2 calves suffering broken 

legs due to cattle that were stampeded by 

the wolves. This prompted the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to remove 

and relocate two yearling wolves in 

Glacier National Park. Both of these 

wolves moved into Canada, one was 

legally shot in Alberta and one was legally 

trapped in Alberta. The alpha pair raised 

a litter of 6 pups during the summer of 

31 
WILDLIFE 

1994, bringing the pack size to 10 wolves. 

The alpha male wolf shed his radio collar 

during late June or early July. 

By the spring of 1995, the pack consisted 

of 6 wolves. Two additional yearlings 

were captured and radio collared to better 

track the packs activity. No pups were 

produced in 1995 even though there was 

activity at the den site. Reason for failure 

of production was not known. 

In the spring of 1996 the female denned 

and produced pups. It was uncertain for a 

while how many pups were produced. In 

August the pack was seen killing a calf. 

Action was taken against the pack on 

August 29. The alpha female was shot 

and four pups were captured and sent to 

Yellowstone National Park. On 

September 8, another control action was 

taken against the pack for livestock 

depredation. One female was killed, one 

adult female was captured and collared, 

and an additional 6 pups were caught and 

transported to Yellowstone National Park. 

At the time there were 4 more pups that 

were seen of which one was caught and 

collared. This indicated that there were 

14 pups raised in the pack this year. After 

Table C-2a National Bald Eaale Survev 

all the control action had taken place 

there were still 4 pups left in the pack. 

During the course of the winter of 1997 

two pups died. In the spring of 1997 the 

two remaining pups again attacked and 

killed livestock. Control action was taken 

and these remaining two wolves were 

killed, thus ending the Sawtooth pack. 

Survey work was completed in 1997 on 

the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. Most 

of the survey work was done in the 

wilderness. There was no confirmed 

evidence of wolves or pack activity. No 

specific work or surveys were conducted 

for wolves in FY 98 or FY 99. 

BALD EAGLE FINDINGS 

USFS biologists cooperatively assisted 

USFWS and MFWP biologists in 

completing bald eagle surveys during the 

month of January for the years 1995- 

1998. This survey route is part of the 

National Bald Eagle Survey to monitor the 

trend across the United States and the 

State of Montana. Table C-2.1 shows the 

results of the survey for the years of 1995- 

1998. 

The Forest continues to survey or follow 

up on leads of nests, but to date no bald 

eagle nest have been discovered on the 

Forest. The MFWP continues to monitor 

all known nest sites in the State and the 

Missouri river from Craig to Great Falls 

seems to be' the most used area for 

nesting that is within the vicinity of the 

Lewis and Clark National Forest. 

32 
WILDLIFE 

PEREGRINE FALCON FINDINGS 

In the spring of 1995, the Forest and the 

Peregrine Fund lnc. initiated a partnership 

to introduce the peregrine back into the 

wilds of the Rocky Mountain Ranger 

District. A hacking site (artificial nest box) 

was placed on a cliff above Wood Lake. 

This site would be used for the next 3 

years to release young birds, that were 

hand reared at the Fund's facility in Boise, 

into the wild. In 1995, six birds were 

placed in the hack box; five successfully 

fledged and departed from the hack site. 

In 1996, five birds were placed in the hack 

box with four successful fledglings. In 

1997, four birds were released; only one 

was accredited with successful fledging. 

The reasons for poor success the final 

year were unknown. However, there was 

an adult peregrine seen with leg bands at 

the hack site interacting with the young 

falcon. 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Elk; winter range capacity 

(population levels), sex and 

age ratios 

Elk; habitat effectiveness 

The hacking program has been completed 

and the Peregrine Fund no longer 

releases birds into the wild. The Forest is 

surveying for wild nest sites, but to date 

none have been found. 

Survey efforts have included a partnership 

with Ralph Rogers to survey the Smith 

River. This was completed in July 1995 

and again in 1997, with no success in 

locating any peregrine falcons. 

In 1999, Ralph Rogers again surveyed the 

Smith River area in conjunction with 

monitoring for the BLM. One peregrine 

falcon nest was found on Forest Service 

land and the nest produced 3 young. This 

is the first recorded peregrine nest site on 

the Lewis and Clark National Forest. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Continue to do survey work to determine 

where any new nest sites are located and 

monitor the production of the nest on the 

Smith River. 

C-3 Elk Winter Range Capacity 

REPORTING 1 VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PERIOD 

Annually 

- 

Annually 

WOULD INITIATE FURTHER 

EVALUATION 

Decrease of 5% or more in 

winter range capacity as 

measured by a 3 year running 

mean of elk population level, 

sex, and age ratios 

Decrease of 10% or more in 

habitat effectiveness in any 

timber compartment on the 

basis of a 100% annual 

sample. The goal is to 

complete habitat effectiveness 

calculations for all 

compartments prior to Forest 

Plan revision. 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

Develop 

consistent 

M&E 

approach 

across 

Forests/ 

Regions 

Develop 

consistent 

M&E 

approach 

across 

Forests1 

Regions 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

~~ ~ 

at 

revision 

at 

revision 

33 
WILDLIFE 

METHODS 

Information on elk population levels and 

sex:age ratios were obtained from MFWP 

progress reports, personal 

communications with MFWP biologists, 

and research reports. 

Elk habitat effectiveness ratings were 

calculated by the percent of the subcompartment in cover and the road 

density (miles of open road per square 

mile). 

FINDINGS FOR ELK POPULATIONS 

LEVEL 

Elk populations as defined by the state elk 

management plan are being met. The 

Department continued the either sex 

hunting season the last 9 days of the 

season in 1995, and it has been 

continued through to 1999. This season 

is targeted at reducing elk populations in 

some areas of the Little BelVCastle elk 

management unit. 

In 1998 the quotas on cow elk along the 

Rocky Mountain Front were reduced in 

order to build the population back to within 

the numbers that are required by the 

MFWP elk management plan. These 

same quotas remained in effect in 1999. 

In 1998 the MFWP, through a purchase of 

an additional ranch, increased the area of 

the Judith Elk Game Range in the Little 

Belt Mountains. This purchase increases 

the game range to a total of 10,000 acres. 

Most of the elk that winter on this game 

range summer on the adjacent National 

Forest lands. 

r 

FINDINGS FOR ELK HABITAT 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The Belt Creek Assessment was 

completed in March 1997. Elk security 

areas were examined for the area. The 

process that was established in previous 

years was applied. The area contains at 

least 30% security status with 

opportunities to increase this in some 

areas. 

The Tenderfoot Experimental Forest 

project was analyzed in 1998. This area 

falls within Hunting District 413. Elk 

security analysis was completed on this 

area and was determined to be at 68% of 

the area. Harvest activities conducted for 

research purposes would reduce this to 

67.8%. This reduction would not result in 

any adverse effects to the elk population 

for Hunting District 41 3. 

In 1998/1999, the Dry Fork of Belt Creek 

project area was analyzed. This area lies 

within Hunting District 432. An analysis of 

elk security was completed and the area 

was determined to be at 19% for the 

Hunting District, and 54% for4he Dry Fork 

project area. The project has not had a 

final decision made, so a final percentage 

has not been determined. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Continue to use the elk security model 

and incorporate it into the Forest Plan 

during the revision process. 

34 
WILDLIFE 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

C-4 Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Bighorn Sheep & Mountain 

Goat; Winter range 

capacity (population level), 

sex and age ratios 

Mountain 1987 

Range 

Rocky 908 

Mtn 

south of 

Teton 

Ewes 392 

lambs 133 

Rocky 127 

Mtn 

north of 

Teton 

Ewes 34 

lambs 23 

Total 1035 

Rocky 

Mtn 

Division 

METHODS 

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

582 1000 800 900 659 ND 630 142 425 345 434 432 

- 

--------- 

260 400 350 335 ND 168 90 141 197 

134 200 :250 176 ND 91 27 

73 79 90 115 104 ND ND 140 105 141 108 46 

~ 

25 29 37 60' 45 ND ND 70 53 76 51 23 

5 7 12 29 23 ND ND 27 31 29 31 13 

655 1079 890 1015 763 ND 630 282 530 486 542 478 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually 

Data was obtained from MWP progress 

reports, research summaries, and 

contacts with knowledgeable individuals. 

FIND1 NGS 

Decrease of 5% or more in 

winter range capacity as 

measured by a 3 year 

running mean of bighorn 

sheep and mountain goat 

population level, sex, and 

age ratios 

Develop 

consistent 

M&E 

approach 

across 

Forests/ 

Regions 

revision 7 

to be related to natural events or hunting 

regulations. 

Table C-4b displays the general 

population trends of the Rocky Mountain 

goat on the Rocky Mountain Division. 

There have been no actions implemented Table C-4a displays the general 

population trends of bighorn sheep on the 

Rocky Mountain Division. There have 

been no actions implemented by the 

Forest since 1987 that would result in any 

decline or increase in the populations. 

Therefore, population fluctuations appear 

by the Forest since 1987 that would result 

in any decline or increase in the 

populations. Therefore, population 

fluctuations appear to be related to natural 

events, hunting regulations or 

management actions by the MFWP. 

35 
WILDLIFE 

Mountain 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Range 

Rocky 33 28 46 43 32 18 ND ND 35 10 3 19 19 

Mtn 

HD 414 

Nannies 11 7 16 0 0 7 13 

Kids 7 2 5 0 0 3 6 

Rocky 56 52 73 58 90 77 ND ND 32 ND 24 9 26 

Mtn 

HD 415 

Nannies 23 18 31 44 I 48 34 17 11 4 16 

Total 89 80* 119 101 122 95 ND ND 67 10 27 28 45 

Rocky 

Mtn 

Division 

r 

Kids 13 19 11 7 I 17 22 4 5 4 3 

ND = No data 

.. 1996--lnComplete count. 

The above table was designed to track 

the goat populations on the RMRD that 

are within the two hunting districts that 

allow hunting. However, the MFWP has 

been counting goats south of the Teton 

River since 1994. The results of these 

surveys show that on an average there 

were 26 goats (range 12-43) counted 

inside of the Sun River Game Preserve, 

and 15 goats (range 2-29) counted 

outside of the Sun River Game Preserve. 

On the Jefferson Division of the Forest, 

the goat population continues to grow 

within the Highwood Mountains. This 

population was the result of goats 

expanding their range from Square Butte 

and Round Butte that lie to the east of the 

Highwood Mountains. In 1998, the first 

hunting season was conducted in the 

Highwood Mountains. Two permits for 

male goats were issued and both were 

filled. The minimum population in 1998 

was estimated at about 40 animals by the 

MFWP. 

The Big Snowies still support a small herd 

of goats. Population data are not 

available, however, the MFWP plans to 

collect population data in 2000. 

During the1995 to 1999 time period, goats 

appear to be expanding their range in the 

Crazy Mountains. Previously, the goats 

stayed on the Gallatin National Forest. 

However, there has been movement onto 

the Lewis and Clark National Forest and a 

legal goat was taken during the 1999 

hunting season. Population figures are 

not known at this time. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

This item needs to be reviewed and 

revised to reflect something meaningful in 

this data. It is difficult to project trends 

because the data is collected in an 

inconsistent manor and with varying 

degrees of effort. 

36 
WI LDLl FE 

Change Monitoring 

Item? OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WHICH WOULD 

EFFECTS TO BE INITIATE FURTHER 

MEASURED EVALUATION 

Distribution of lynx and Annually Develop 

wolverines based on consistent M&E 

annual sightings approach across 

Forests/ Region 

C-5 Other Big Game Species 

Change 

Forest 

Pian? 

at 

revision 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

Develop 

consistent 

M&E 

approach 

across 

Forests/ 

Region 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

revision 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Decrease of 10% or more in 

habitat capacity as 

measured by a 3 year 

running mean of mule deer 

harvest data and hunting 

success. 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Other Big Game Species: Annually 

Mule Deer population 

trend, sex and age ratios 

~ 

METHODS 

Data were obtained from MWP progress 

reports, research summaries, and 

contacts with knowledgeable individuals. 

Land and Cattle Company on the 

northwest corner of the Highwood 

Mountains. This ranch winters from 500- 

800 mule deer that then summer on the 

adjacent Forest Service system lands in 

the Highwood Mountains. 

FINDINGS 

In the past several years there has been a 

decline in the mule deer populations 

across.the state. However, there 

appears to be a steady increase in 

populations in some areas. This has 

mainly been due to some mild winters. A 

10,000 acre conservation easement was 

completed by the MFWP on the Harris 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Work with the State to see if there is any 

meaningful way to monitor and record this 

information. If there is not, then delete this 

element. 

C-6 Small Game 

This monitoring item was deleted from the 

Forest Plan by Amendment No. 3, dated 

1989. c 

C-7 Furbearers 

37 
WILDLIFE 

METHODS 

Data was obtained from reported 

sightings of these species by individuals 

(both private and public employees). 

Sightings are recorded in an electronic 

database and are used in analyzing 

effects of proposed projects on animal 

distribution, concentrations, and use. 

FINDINGS 

Snow track surveys have become a 

priority of field work for the winter months 

since 1995 on the Jefferson Division. 

150-175 miles of survey have been 

completed on the Jefferson Division. It 

appears that there is a good population of 

wolverine in the Little Belt Mountains. 

They were previously thought to be rare. 

Lynx appear in very low numbers in the 

Little Belt Mountains. Only 4 or 5 tracks 

have been recorded since 1995. 

In 1997 the MFWP established three longterm monitoring transects for furbearers 

on the Forest. Two were on the Rocky 

Mountain Ranger District; one on the 

Teton Road adjacent to the Teton Pass 

Ski Hill, the other in the South Fork of the 

Two Medicine River on Trail 101. The 

third transect was established in the Little 

Belt Mountains. These transects are run 

three times each winter; once each month 

from January to March. 

The Teton Road transect consistently has 

lynx tracks crossing it while the Two 

Medicine has some lynx and wolverine. 

Both of these routes are on groomed 

snowmobile trails. The Teton Road 

receives high use by snowmobiles. 

Based on these track recordings, it 

appears the Rocky Mountain Division has' 

a much better lynx population than in the 

Little Belt Mountains. 

The Little Belt Mountains transect is 17 

miles long and is in a high snowmobile 

use area. This. transect has revealed a 

high number of wolverine encounters and 

only one lynx track. 

The Lewis and Clark NF was included in a 

National Canada lynx hair snare study. In 

the fall of 1999, 25 hair snare transects 

were established in the Little Belt 

Mountains. Thirty-eight hair samples 

were collected in 1999 for DNA analysis. 

Results of the DNA revealed that the only 

feline encounters were of mountain lion 

and bobcat. Because this is a national 

survey, these transects will be repeated in 

2000 and 2001. 

All of the location information has been 

entered into a GIS database to be used 

for analysis and display purposes. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Continue collecting data via snow tracking 

surveys and camera sets. Work with the 

Regional Office to help coordinate a 

wolverine study. 

38 
WILDLIFE 

C-8 Old Growth Habitat for Goshawk 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Goshawk active nesting 

territories 

METHODS 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually 

The goal is to monitor all known goshawk 

nesting territories each year to establish 

occupancy and production, and compare 

the results of undisturbed territories (no 

high level of activity, i.e. logging, or oil and 

gas development) to territories with 

disturbance. 

A computer program has been developed 

to track all nest territories as to their 

occupancy, production, and nest site 

characteristics. 

Another program has been developed to 

interact with the Timber Stand Data Base 

and identify timber stands that correlate to 

specified aerial photo interpretation types. 

The timber stands identified by standard 

aerial photo reconnaissance are mapped 

and ground-truthed to determine whether 

they meet the definition of old growth 

forest, as defined in the Forest Plan 

(Glossary, page 14). As a result of'this 

process, more acres are examined per 

project area than are designated for 

retention as old growth stands. 

Old growth stands are selected to provide 

distribution across different habitat types 

and to maintain a minimum of 5% within a 

timber compartment. Using the 

parameters defined in the draft R-1 

Goshawk Habitat Suitability, lower 

VAR I AB I LlTY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Decrease of 5% or more in 

active nest territories as 

measured by a 100% annual 

sample of known goshawk 

nest territories 

Item? Plan? 

elevation Douglas-fir stands are prioritized 

and selected. Higher elevation timber 

stands are generally dominated by 

lodgepole pine with mixtures of alpine fir 

or spruce. These mixed stands are 

prioritized on the basis of their proximity to 

meadows, seeps, springs, streams, or 

other environmental factors which 

contribute to the diversity of plant and 

animal life beyond that visible in 

surrounding stands. 

FINDINGS 

Table C-8a is a compilation of all the old 

growth forest acres that have been 

surveyed and allocated since the 

development of a standardized process 

that defines old growth and how it will be 

inventoried on the Forest. This process 

was developed following the 5-year 

review of the Forest Plan. It incorporates 

the Regional definitions of old growth. 

Table C-8a also displays the progress the 

Forest has made in achieving Forest-wide 

old growth forest inventory. 28% of the 

total Forest acres has been examined. 

The Little Belt Mountains and the Little 

Snowies have been the focus of the 

inventory because that is where most of 

the timber harvesting has taken and will 

take place. When one compares the 

acres of those two mountain ranges 

39 
WILDLIFE 

(81 1,212 acres) to the acres of inventory, 

about 65% of these two mountain ranges 

have been examined. The Little Snowies 

have been inventoried in total and 

allocation of old growth completed. 

** Dryfork Belt Creek 40,700 4,672 

Belt Crk Assessmt 175,250 25,llC 

TOTAL 524475 62888 26641 

(1) Acres of forest that meet criteria for old growth 

(2) Acres of old growth allocated for retention to meet Forest Plan Standards via decision document 

**Dry Fork is still in decision making process 

Goshawk Nest Territories 

The result of the goshawk monitoring 

completed from FY 1987 through 1999 is 

summarized in Tables C-8b and C-8c. In 

1996, three additional goshawk territories 

were discovered on the Jefferson Division 

and by 1997, two additional territories had 

been recorded on the Rocky Mountain 

Division. In 1998, the Forest conducted 

computer modeling for goshawk habitat. 

In conjunction with the neotropical bird 

survey work, the Forest completed some 

goshawk calling surveys in the potential 

habitat as defined by the model. This was 

successful in discovering two new 

territories on the Jefferson Division in 

1998 and one new territory OR the Rocky 

Mountain Division. In 1999, three 

additional goshawk territories were 

identified on the Jefferson Division using 

the call playback method, and one new 

territory was discovered on the Rocky 

Mountain Division. 

40 
Active 

Produced 

Fledglings 

Unk = Unknown 

0 0 0 Unk Unk Unk 1 Unk Unk Unk 2 3 

* - Attempted to monitor, but data inconclusive 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Special Interest Species: 

Golden Eagle &. Prairie 

Falcon nesting territories 

The data are inconclusive as to total 

production and active territories because 

the 100% monitoring of all known 

territories has not been met during all 

years. As we continue to survey potential 

habitat, more territories being discovered. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

It is recommend that the computer model 

for predicting goshawk habitat be further 

developed and validated to better predict 

the potential habitat. Additional survey 

work should be completed to detect 

whether there are active territories 

present. 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

- 

3 years Decrease of 10% or more in Yes Yes at 

- revision active nest territories as 

measured by a 100% annual 

sample of selected nest 

territories 

C-9 Special Interest Species 

METHODS 

The goal is to inventory and annually 

monitor a minimum number of nest 

territories each year so that in a threeyear period all nests of each species have 

been monitored. By completing this 

monitoring, the Forest can obtain 

occupancy and nest production of all 

known sites. 

Biologists recorded and mapped the 

location and sightings of golden eagle and 

prairie falcon in order to identify activity 

41 
WILDLIFE 

Description 

Nesting 

Territories' 

Territoties Monitored 

centers for suspected nest sites. 

Knowledgeable individuals were 

contacted for information on known nest 

sites. Surveys were conducted in suitable 

nest habitat and around existing nest sites 

to determine whether new nest sites had 

been developed. Nest territories were 

visited during the nesting season to 

determine the number of active nest sites 

and nest production. 

1989 1990 1991 I 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 

11 0 13 2 12 Io lo lo lo 0 

FIND1 NGS 

The monitoring of these nest sites has 

been limited due to other priority work and 

limited funds. Generally these species 

nest on cliffs and little, if any, activity has 

taken place in the vicinity of these nest 

sites. They are generally undisturbed and 

require little monitoring to insure 

production or assess impacts. 

Description 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Nesting Territories 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

Territories Monitored 0 1 0 0 0 lo lo lo lo 

A summary of golden eagle nesting 

territories is as follows: 

Description 1989 1990 1991 I 1992 I 1993 I 1994 I 1995 I 1996 I 1997 I 1998 I 1999 

Nestlng Territories' 53 54 154 I54 154 154 I 54 154 154 154 

Territories Monitored 6 0 lo lo lo Io lo lo lo lo 

Description 1991 1992 1 993 I 1994 I 1995 I 1996 I 1997 I 1998 I 1999 

Nesting Territories' 20 20 20 120 I 20 I 20 I 20 I 20 I 20 

Territories Monitored 3 2 0 12 Io lo lo lo lo 

* - Data is incomplete prior to 1991 

Summary of prairie falcon nesting territories is as follows: 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

This information needs to be either 

collected or the monitoring item deleted if 

it is determined that these species need 

not be monitored. This need may be 

determined through the development of 

focal species throughout the region. 

42 
WILDLIFE 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

Develop 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Reduction in snags to below 

C-IO Cavity Nesting Habitat 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

At 

Northern Three-toed 

woodpecker - percent 

METHODS 

An annual Forest review of selected 

timber sales is conducted to determine 

effectiveness of snag management 

guidelines and timber sale administrative 

guidelines. Monitoring efforts focus on 

stands where snag densities may change 

due to management activities. 

Cavity dependant species habitat was 

measured by examining the gain, loss, or 

no change status of National Forest 

System acres of mature conifer stands. 

Breeding bird plots were used to 

determine the presence or absence of 

avian species. 

FINDINGS 

Retention of snags is still a concern within 

timber harvest units. Coordination at the 

Environmental Assessment phase is still 

important to insure snags are being 

marked during timber sale layout and how 

many is needed. In some cases the 

snags are marked with paint and in others 

they are signed with metal signs, 

designating them as wildlife trees. The 

forest has marked snags on 750 acres of 

cutting units over the past several years 

(7995-1999) after the completion of the 

numbers needed to 

maintain a vi,able population 

level of woodpeckers in any 

timber compartment as 

measured by a three year 

running mean compared to 

the existing percent 

oPtimum habitat 

consistent 

M&E 

approach 

across 

Forests/ 

Region 

revision 

timber sales. In the future these acres 

can be revisited to determine the attrition 

of snags post-timber harvest. 

Snag management is also being 

examined at the landscape level on the 

Forest. Table C-10 displays the total 

forested acres on the Jefferson Division 

and compares the amount of acres that 

have been harvested with acres burned 

by wildfire from the time period of 1940 to 

1999. The percentage of acres treated 

with timber harvest or wildfire is a very 

minor component of the land base within 

the Jefferson Division. Based on acres 

harvested versus acres of forested 

habitat, the timber program on the Forest 

has affected only 6.5% of the forested 

habitat. While timber harvest has 

removed all or a portion of the snag 

habitat, natural fire has created 35,000 

acres of snag habitat. These are gross 

acres and one cannot make a direct 

comparison of snags lost on 6.5% of the 

forest or snags gained on 4% of the 

forest. But it appears that the timber 

management on the Forest is having little 

affect on snag habitat on the Jefferson 

Division, therefore, very little effect to 

snag dependent species, especially when 

43 
WILDLIFE 

Division Acres Acres 

Forested Harvested 

Jefferson 880,000 58,000 

Rockv Mtn 470.000 

wildfire has created snag habitat during 

the same time period. 

In 1998, the Forest resurveyed all of the 

burns in the Jefferson Division for 

woodpecker use. This survey revealed 

the black-backed woodpecker in the 

Jefferson Division for the first time since it 

has been listed as a sensitive species. 

Until last year, it had not been seen or 

heard in any of our burns. However, it 

was only located in one burn area. All the 

others that were surveyed failed to find 

any black-backed woodpeckers. It is 

uncertain whether this is a repeatable 

occurrence. 

Acres % Acres Affected 

Burned by HarvesVBurn 

35,000 6.5% / 4% 

164.204 . 34% 

~~ ~~~~~~~ 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Aquatic Habitat 

1 Condition/Quality 

RECOMMENDATION 

It is recommended to continue to examine 

snags across the landscape and not on 

an acre basis. Try to figure out a better 

way to sample for snags so that a more 

reliable picture can be painted in regards 

to snag habitat and modeling that habitat. 

C-I 1 Aquatic Habitat 

(Cutthroat Trout, Brook 

Trout, Rainbow Trout) 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

3 years 

- 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Decrease of 5% or more in 

fish habitat capability based 

on predicted or actual 

changes in water quality or 

fish habitat parameters in 

any stream or lake. 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

Develop 

consistent 

M&E 

approachacross 

Forests1 

Forest 

Plan? 

METHODS 

Monitor impacts from management FINDINGS 

actions that take place on the Forest, 

such as timber sales, wildfire, prescribed 

fire, and grazing. 

Over the past 5 years (1 995-1 999) 

several large range analyses have been 

completed. In all of them, aquatic habitats 

were inventoried and evaluated, and fish 

distributions delineated. Condition of 

streambanks, riparian vegetation, channel 

44 
WILDLIFE 

substrate and other characteristics were 

evaluated to determine impacts from 

grazing and, more recently, to rate stream 

reaches according to the Proper 

Functioning Condition (PFC) 

methodology. Achieving functioning 

condition is essential to providing good 

fisheries habitat. However, the goal for 

fisheries will often be to move riparian 

zones toward later successional stages 

(beyond PFC) which provide the best 

habitat conditions. 

For the five range analysis areas, Table 

C11 a displays the miles of stream 

surveyed, miles of stream occupied by 

fish and species, and amount of habitat in 

an "at risk or "nonfunctional" condition, 

due in part to grazing impacts. Livestock 

grazing on the Forest has a significant 

effect on fisheries habitat, often limiting 

trout populations or favoring non-native 

species. Limited budgets for permit 

administration and maintenance of range 

improvement structures, along with the 

difficulties of controlling livestock use in 

sensitive riparian areas, are major 

challenges facing range managers across 

the Forest. 

36% (15 mi) 103 60% (6 mi) 

4 42 32.4 29% (9.3 mi) 8.5 27% (2.3 mi) 

4 49 28 ~ 37% (10.4 mi) 14.7 28%(4.1 mi) 

Castles 

Group 

North Little 

Belts Group 

Miles surveyed are typically those miles most accessible to livestock and vulnerable to grazing impacts. 

No WCT are present in this group but Yellowstone cutthroat trout are found in one stream:. 

information was not presented in similar format. 

2 WCT = westslope cuthroat trout (greater than 90% genetically pure). 

- 

In all of the above range analyses, 

alternatives were selected to improve 

riparian conditions in at risk or 

nonfunctional stream reaches and to 

maintain other reaches in functioning 

condition. The new grazing plans are 

being phased in and only limited 

monitoring has been conducted to date to 

determine new condition trends. 

However, fisheries surveys continue to 

monitor status of westslope cutthroat trout 

(WCT) populations in many of these 

streams and provide informal feedback to 

ranger districts regarding grazing impacts. 

In 1999 the Forest was required to 

complete a deferred maintenance 

inventory of all habitat investments. A 

major portion of this inventory involved the 

conditions of our riparian exclosures 

established since the 1980's. What this 

inventory displayed is that the Forest has 

put up about 46,752 feet of fence (barbed 

wire, electric or jackleg) protecting 35,782 

45 
WILDLIFE 

feet of stream or 1131 acres of riparian 

habitat. Some of these exclosures are on 

WCT streams, some are on other 

fisheries streams, and some are just 

riparian habitat protection for shrub 

dependent bird species and amphibians. 

RECOMMENDATION As new grazing riparian-dependent wildlife. 

plans are fully implemented across the 

Forest, more funding and effort will be 

needed to systematically monitor changes 

in the condition of riparian areas and 

aquatic habitats. This information will be 

crucial to ensuring progress toward 

achieving fully functional stream systems 

and high quality habitat for fish and other 

C-12 Habitat Improvement Outputs 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

T&E Habitat Improvement 

outputs 

Wildlife & Fish Habitat 

I m provemen t Out puts 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually 

Annually 

METHODS 

Analysis of data provided in the 

Management Attainment Report (MAR) 

which included: MAR 37.2, 66.2, 68.3, 

72.4, and 76.2. 

FINDINGS 

Most of the targets were met for FY 1999. 

However, there were several factors 

affecting the Forest's ability to accomplish 

the burning targets for both T&E species 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Identify a 10% decline in 

accomplishments in T&E 

habitat improvement outputs 

as measured over a 5-year 

average and compared with 

the level specified in the 

Forest Plan (p 5-1 1) 

Identify a 20% decline in 

accomplishments in wildlife 

and fish habitat 

improvement outputs as 

measured over a 5-year 

average and compared with 

the level specified in the 

Forest Plan (p 5-1 1) 

Change 

Monitoring 

item? 

Develop 

consistent 

M&E 

approach 

across 

Forests/ 

Region 

Develop 

consistent 

M&E 

approach 

across 

Forests/ 

Region 

~ 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

Yes 

- 

and other wildlife. One was a very short 

burning window. Shortly after burning 

was initiated, the Region shut down 

burning because of air quality impacts 

from other wildfires. These burning 

targets will be accomplished in FY 00, 

weather permitting. Table C-12a reflects 

FY99 targets and accomplishments. 

Table C-l2c reflects past year's 

accomplishments. 

46 
WILDLIFE 

Table C-12a FY 1999 Targets and Accomplishments Compared to Forest Plan 

MAR Description Unit of Forest Plan 1999 , Accomplishment 

Code Measure Target 

66.2 Wildl Hab Enhan- 01 Acres 600 1462 596 

66.2 Wildl Hab Enhan- 02 Acres 600 225 

66.2 Wildl Hab Enhan- 03 Acres 170 

66.2 Wildl Hab Enhan- Total Acres 2062 991 

37.2 Wildl Structures- 01 Structure 10 0 0 

37.2 Wildl Structures- 02 Structure 

37.2 Wildl Structures- 03 Structure 

68.3 In Fish Strm Res- 01 Miles No Measure 14 10 

68.3 In Fish Strm Res - 02 Miles in current 

68.3 In Fish Strm Res - 03 Miles plan 

37.2 Wildl Structures- Total Structure 0 

68.3 In Fish Strm Res - Total Miles 14 10 

72.4 TES Aqu Str Enh- 01 Miles No Measure 5 0 

72.4 TES Aqu Str Enh- Total Miles 5 0 

72.4 TES Aqu Str Enh- 02 Miles in current 

72.4 TES Aqu Str Enh- 03 Miles plan 

76.2 TES Terr Str Enh- 01 Acres 100 1 00 50 

76.2 TES Terr Str Enh- 02 Acres 100 

76.2 TES Terr Str Enh- 03 Acres 

76.2 TES Terr Str Enh- Total Acres 200 50 

01 = FS funds (non-Challenge Cost-Share) 

In FY95, the MAR items were changed 

both in description and unit of 

In examining Table C12b and C12c, one 

can track the accomplishments in relation 

measurement. Table C-12b reflects the 

old MAR items and units of measure and 

Table C-l2c reflects the new reporting 

MAR items. In the case of inland fish and 

TES aquatic items, there is no 

corresponding measure in the Forest 

Pian. At the time of Forest Plan 

development, these items were reparted 

as ‘number of structures developed’. 

Since then the unit of measure has been 

changed to ‘miles of habitat improved. 

to the Forest Plans projection. The Forest 

is meeting or exceeding the projected 

habitat improvement program with the 

exception of the wildlife structures. 

Opportunities for the construction of 

wildlife structures have not ‘met Forest 

Plan expectations. The Forest has 

instead chosen to emphasize the nonstructure part of the program and the 

benefits they contribute to wildlife. 

47 
WILDLIFE 

Description Forest 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 7year 

I Plan Average 

Non-Struct 600 1400 900 1117 450 555 765 960 878 

(Wildlife Acres) 

Non-Struct 5 0 10 16 0 40 71 20 22 

(Fish Acres) 

Non-Struct T&E 1 00 0 0 500 634 620 21 0 239 315 

Acres 

Wildlife Structures 10 0 3 2 7 8 3 8 4 

Fish Structures 25 19 11 19 23 30 18 6 18 

T&E Structures 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 1 

Description Forest 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 5 Yr 

Plan Average 

Wildlife Habitat 600 41 6 903 485 485 846* 627 

Restored/- 

Enhanced (Acres) 

Streams Restored/ has no mile 

Enhanced (miles) targets 

TES Terr Hab 100 0 200 250 250 17V 174 

Restore or 

Enhance (Acres) 

TES Aquatic Forest plan 9 0 3 3.5 0 3.1 

Enhance (miles) has no mile 

Wildlife Structures 10 2 1 0 1 0 .8 

T&E Structures 0 1 1 1 0 0 .6 

Inland Fish Forest plan 14 3 4.75 4.75 10 7.3 

targets 

RECOMMENDATION 

Continue to emphasize the non-structure 

habitat improvement program for WL and 

TES. The Forest Plan may need to 

change in order to reflect the miles of 

- 

stream habitat that can be improved or 

restored to native cutthroat trout versus 

the structure target that is currently in the 

plan. This could be done at revision time. 

48 
WILDLIFE 

VARIABILITY (+/-) 

WHICH WOULD 

INITIATE FURTHER 

EVALUATION 

Failure to record any 

' information within a 2 year 

~ period 

C-13 Oil and Gas Activity 

OUTPUT, 

MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Oil & Gas 

ActivityNVildlife 

Monitoring - Rocky 

Mountain Front 

METHODS 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually 

Examine major permitted activities in 

relation to the application of the Rocky 

Mountain Front Guidelines [(BLM, 1987) 

eg. gadoil development, timber harvest, 

seismic operations, new road 

construction]. 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH WOULD 

INITIATE FURTHER EVALUATION 

Display the number of guidelines 

applied or not applied to projects 

that were accomplished for the 

fiscal year. This data can then be 

used to determine the cause of any 

decreases in populations that the 

RMF Guidelines were developed to 

protect. 

FINDINGS 

No new oil and gas development projects 

were approved during the past 5 years on 

National Forest System lands. However, 

Change 

Monitoring 

item? 

Yes 

Change 

Forest 

Pian? 

Yes 

gadoil leasing analysis and decision, 

which determined that no new leases 

would be issued on the Rocky Mountain 

Division at this time. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

It is recommended that this monitoring 

item be dropped because there will be no 

activity on the Rocky Mountain Division, 

plus there is really no monitoring or 

research examining all the parameters 

in July of 1997 the Forest approved the 

plugging, abandonment and restoration of 

the 1-1 3 well in the Blackleaf Field. In 

1997, the Forest completed a Forest-wide 

necessary to determine whether it was the 

result of oil/gas activity or something else 

causing a population decline. 

- 

C-14 Sensitive Wildlife & Fish 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Determine distribution of 

sensitive wildlife & fish 

species on the Forest. 

Monitor annual trends in 

wildlife & fish habitat and 

species population 

R EPORTl NG 

PERIOD 

Annually 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

Develop 

consistent 

M&E 

approach 

across 

Forests/ 1 Region 

Change 

Forest 

Pian? 

49 
WILDLIFE 

METHODS 

This monitoring item, along with C-15, 

was added to the Forest Plan by 

Amendment No. 12. Surveys of the 

habitat are conducted to acquire 

population data on the species that are on 

the Lewis and Clark National Forest's 

sensitive species list. 

FINDINGS 

Sensitive Fish: For the past 5 years 

(1 995-1 999), a concentrated effort has 

been made to survey all Forest streams to 

determine the distribution of westslope 

cutthroat trout (WCT) and the genetic 

integrity of these populations. All of the 

information gathered to date has been 

entered into data bases and a GIS layer 

that displays the WCT distribution across 

the Forest. This information is being used 

in analysis of ongoing projects such as 

timber sales, revision of allotment 

management plans, road rehabilitation, 

habitat improvement programs, etc. The 

results of the genetic testing are shown in 

table C-14b. In the past 5 years the 

Forest has surveyed 71 stream sections, 

with a total of 957 genetic samples taken 

(includes replicate sampling of many 

streams). Based on laboratory testing of 

these samples to date, more than 50 

stream sections have been confirmed to 

support 90-1 00% pure WCT populations. 

In this same time period, the Forest has 

been very active on the technical and 

steering committees established to 

provide direction for both federal and state 

programs involved in WCT management. 

A conservation agreement has been 

developed and.signed in 1999 to protect 

all remaining WCT populations and begin 

restoration of imperiled populations 

throughout Montana. Projects to 

implement this agreement are now 

underway. 

In conjunction with the surveys, habitat 

protectiodimprovement work and 

inventory for additional habitat 

improvement work has taken place. 

Invertebrate surveys and disease testing 

have been conducted on 5 streams to 

facilitate headwater extensions of WCT 

populations. Headwater extensions of 

WCT populations have already taken 

place on two streams resulting in 6 miles 

of additional occupied habitat. 

- 

* Complete laboratory results not yet available 

50 
W I LDLl FE 

In 1996 a barrier was placed in 

Chamberlain Creek in the Little Belt 

Mountains. The purpose of the barrier 

was to block migration of competing nonnative brook trout into the stream. 

Subsequently, brook trout were removed 

from above the barrier by annual 

electrofishing. Monitoring has shown a 

dramatic increase in numbers of WCT in 

the absence of competition and predation 

by brook trout. Prior to the barrier, there 

were 43 WCT (>6 inches) per 550 yards 

of stream and 19 brook trout (>6 inches) 

per 550 yards of stream. After barrier 

construction and 4 years of brook trout 

removal by electrofishing, the WCT 

increased to 11 1 fish (>6 inches) per 550 

yards and brook trout decreased to 5 fish 

(>6 inches) per 550 yards. Plans are 

being developed for 4 new permanent fish 

barriers to protect genetically-pure WCT 

populations in other streams from 

competition and hybridization with nonnative trout. 

In 1999 the Forest provided logistical and 

technical support for the introduction of 

fluvial arctic grayling into’the South Fork 

and North Fork of the Sun River. This 

program was spearheaded by the MFWP 

and designed to meet the objectives of 

the Montana Fluvial Arctic Grayling 

Restoration Plan. The planting program 

will be continued in the years 2000 and 

2001. Monitoring the success of this 

introduction is being carried out by the 

MFWP. 

Sensitive Animals 

Harlequin suiveys continue to be 

conducted on the Rocky Mountain 

Division. The division has been divided in 

half and the Birch CreeWBadger complex 

is surveyed one year and then the Sun 

River drainage is surveyed the next year. 

The Teton River drainage has not been 

systematically surveyed since 1992. The 

results of the monitoring are displayed in 

table C-l4a. 

Incidental sightings; no systematic monitoring 

Snow track surveys have been completed 

for lynx, wolverine and fisher. See C-7 for 

this information. 

Amphibians, Reptiles and Lemmings 

In the summer of 1996, the Blackleaf area 

of the Rocky Mountain Front was 

surveyed by the Montana Heritage 

Program for amphibians, reptiles and bog 

lemmings. This was funded by the BLM, 

MFWP, and LCNF. A report was 

- 

produced. Species found in the survey 

were: tiger salamander, northern chorus 

frog, and Columbia spotted frog. Two 

reptiles were found: western terrestrial 

garter snake and the common garter 

snake. No bog lemmings were found and 

it appears that they are not present. 

From 1995 to 1999, 47 amphibian habitat 

surveys were conducted across the 

Forest by the biological staff. Additionally, 

88 incidental observations of amphibians 

51 
WILDLIFE 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually 

and reptiles were recorded during that 

same period. These surveys revealed 

that Columbia spotted frogs are the most 

common and widely distributed amphibian 

on the Forest, using a variety of 

streamside and lakeside habitats at 

elevations up to 7500 ft. Annual 

monitoring of key spotted frog-breeding 

sites in Belt Creek and SF Sun River 

drainages indicates stable populations of 

this species. The western terrestrial 

garter snake is also a very common 

riparian associate and the most abundant 

reptile across the Forest; it appears to be 

a frequent and effective predator of small 

fish in streams. The boreal toad, a 

sensitive species, has a limited 

distribution on the Forest, but successful 

breeding sites have been located most 

years in the Sheep Creek, Sun River and 

Teton River drainages. Because of 

concern over boreal toad declines in the 

western U.S., these breeding sites will be 

monitored annually to detect any die-offs 

or major population trends. Fisheries 

surveys have revealed the presence of 

several previously unrecorded populations 

of tailed frogs in streams along the Rocky 

Mountain Front. However, the species 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Failure to record any 

information in a two year 

period 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Determine distribution of 

sensitive plants on the 

Forest. Conduct 

demographic monitoring & 

taxonomic studies to 

assess population viability 

has yet to be found anywhere on the 

Jefferson Division, The northern leopard 

frog, another sensitive amphibian species, 

has declined or disappeared from much of 

its range in Montana. On this Forest, it 

has only been found in the Highwood 

Creek drainage, where the population 

appears to be low. Historical distribution 

of leopard frogs in west central Montana 

is poorly documented, and some evidence 

suggests the species does not usually 

overlap with Columbia spotted frogs, 

which are common throughout the Forest. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Continue to survey the Forest for 

distribution of sensitive species. This 

information needs to be added into the 

GIS system so that it can be readily used 

for analysis purposes in project planning. 

It is recommended that an access data 

base be designed and constructed to 

implement a monitoring program for 

amphibian breeding sites. 

C-I 5 Sensitive Plant Program 

I 

Change 

Monitoring 

item? 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No No 

52 
WI LDLl FE 

METHODS 

Conduct surveys of the habitat to acquire 

population data on the species that are on 

the Lewis and Clark National Forest's 

sensitive species list. 

FINDINGS 

Surveys for sensitive plants continue on 

all ground disturbing projects. Several 

things have occurred since the last 

reporting period. In FY 96 the 

conservation strategy for Goodyera 

repens was approved by the Forest 

Supervisor, Gloria Flora. Also, in 

conjunction with completing the oiVgas 

leasing analysis a sensitive plant model 

was developed by Wayne Phillips 

examining the known occurrences of 

plants in conjunction with landtype maps. 

This led to the Forest's capability to 

predict landtypes that had a low, 

moderate or high probability of supporting 

habitat for plants. This model is used to 

identify high potential areas for sensitive 

plants in regard's to ground disturbing 

activities. 

In 1999 a new Regional Forester sensitive 

species list was issued. The Forest's list 

of plants changed slightly. The old list 

issued in 1994 had 28 plants known or 

suspected to occur on the Forest; the 

1999 list has 28. The number of plants 

remained the same, but some plants were 

dropped and others added. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

It is recommended that the plant atlas be 

converted to GIS layers within the next 2 

years in order to make the information 

more readily available for project analysis. 

53 
RANGE 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Range Outputs 

RANGE 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually + / - 10% of tarqet Yes 

D-I Range Outputs 

Description 

Permitted 

Grazing Use (M 

AUM) 

Improvement - Nonstructural 

(M Ac) 

Improvement - Structural 

(Structures) 2 

Range Plans 

(Plans) 3 

Noxious Weed 

Control (M Ac) 

" ~~ 

Forest 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Plan 

71.1 70.5 72.3 72.4 71.9 71.2 70.3 69.5 72.7 72.4 72.5 73.7 73.3 68.7 

1.3 2.0 2.4 1.6 0.5 0.4 ' 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.5 

40 30 18 26 35 28 37 31 46 40 38 43 28 62 

10 5 4 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 17 23 24 11 

0.3 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.1 12 12 1.1 

Table D-la Ranae Accomdishments 

' M AUM =Thousand Animal Unit Month 

Unit is "Structure". Fence and water system miles are doubled (112 mi. = 1 structure) 

Range Plans are for the 158 livestock grazing allotments (excluding packer, special use and administrative allotments) 

FIND1 NGS 

Summary of Forest Plan 1 0-year average 

Range Management targets and actual 

accomplishments for FY 1987 through FY 

1999 are listed above. Outputs of 

Permitted Grazing Use and Structural 

Improvements have continued within 

Forest Plan projections. Completion of 

Range Plans has increased and is 

expected to continue at the higher level 

through the next five years, finally bringing 

this in line with Forest Plan projections 

(see D-4). Noxious Weed Control 

continues much higher than Forest Plan 

projections because of identification of 

more infested acres and increases in 

noxious weed control budgets. 

Nonstructural Improvement outputs have 

been much below projections in recent 

years. The 13:year average has been 

54% of projected. This underaccomplishment, if continued, will result in 

reductions in forage condition or in 

permitted livestock use. However, these 

outputs are expected to increase again as 

new range plans are implemented. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

There is no accurate method of 

accounting 'or reporting free recreation 

livestock use. In addition, no other range 

output is related to free use recreation 

livestock. It is recommended that free use 

recreation livestock be excluded from 

Permitted Grazing Use output figures. 

54 
RANGE 

Acres of range in fair or less 

condition that have not shown 

any improvement in condition 

D-2 Range Condition and Trend 

Yes Yes 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Description 

Forest Plan 

Range Condition 

Conditionnrend Allotments Monitored 

Range Trend 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

0 0 

28 12 

8 4 

4 2 

0 0 

Annually 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

Annually 

0 0 

2 1 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0 

0 0- 

0 0 

VARIABILITY (+ / -) WHICH I Change I Change 

WOULD INITIATE FURTHER I :;;?ring I zg;t 

EVALUATION 

score during the monitoring 

interval (1 0 years) 

Any acres in downward trend 

which were previously (at the 

last reading) stable or in an 

upward trend. Any acres in 

downward trend which still 

show a downward trend after 

another monitoring interval (1 0 

Yes Yes 

FINDINGS 

There are 277 condition and trend studies 

on the 239 total range allotments on the 

Forest. Most these are on the 158 

livestock grazing allotments rather than 

the packer, special use and administrative 

allotments. No condition and trend studies 

have been monitored for several years. 

There are also 37 permanent vegetation 

trend studies on 25 livestock grazing 

allotments to monitor effectiveness of 

noxious weed treatment. Of these, 4 were 

read in 1995, 2 in 1996, 1 in 1997, 1 in 

1998 and 1 in 1999. Monitoring results 

indicate that leafy spurge density is 

substantially reduced at beetle release 

sites. 

This monitoring report item should be 

changed because it does not reflect acres 

in condition or trend classes. 

55 
RANGE 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

It is recommended that this monitoring 

item be changed to Status of Range 

Vegetation Acres currently reported in 

range databases. This will require that the 

Forest Plan monitoring item and the 

variability which would initiate further 

evaluation be changed. Status of Range 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

Vegetation Acres consists of reporting the 

number of acres ,in each Qf 3 categories 

for All Vegetation and Riparian 

Vegetation. These categories are: 

vegetation acres 1) meeting 

objectives, 2) moving toward 

objectives, 3) neither meeting 

toward forest plan objectives. 

D-3 Supply 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+ / -) WHICH 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE FURTHER 

EVALUATION 

Annually More than 1% reduction in 

suitable range acres from 

previous year. Cumulatively, 

any reduction of 3% or more in 

Table D3a Suitable Ranae' 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

No 

forest plan 

forest plan 

nor moving 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

Yes 

' Suitable for grazing within allotments on National Forest land. 

FINDINGS 

Suitable range acres are for National 

Forest land within allotments (previous 

monitoring reports included waived private 

land). National Forest suitable range 

increased by more than 4,000 acres in 

1994 because of a land exchange. 

However, the trend has been for acres 

suitable for livestock grazing to decline as 

a result of more precise range analysis, 

natural succession from grassland or 

open trees to closed tree cover 

vegetation, and closure of some old 

sheep allotments where sheep grazing is 

no longer economical. This trend is 

expected to continue, as &e allotment 

management planning process brings the 

statistics up to date with existing 

conditions. Range improvements (water 

developments, prescribed burning, etc.) 

initiated 'through the allotment 

management planning process are 

expected to reduce the decline in suitable 

acres and the resulting declines in 

carrying capacity. 

56 
RANGE 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Allotment Management 

Plan Status 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+ / -) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE FURTHER Monitoring ‘Orest Item? Plan? EVALUATION 

5 Years More than 10% of the . No Yes 

allotment plans are outdated. 

Plans approved more than 15 

years ago are considered 

outdated. 

As the allotments are re-analyzed, the 

Forest Plan should be changed to more 

accurately account for acres suitable for 

livestock grazing. 

Description 

Allotments 

1 

Plans 

Outdated 

(Plans) 

Outdated 

(Percent) 

Plans 

D-4 AI lot men t Manage men t P Ian Stat us 

~ 

Forest 1987 1988 

Plan 

239 239 239 

24 153 157 

10% 64% 66% 

Table D-4a Status of Allotment Manaaement Plans 

Includes grazing, packer, special use and administrative allotments 

FINDINGS 

The data in Table D-4a shows a continual 

departure from the Forest Plan standard 

of less than 10 percent of allotment 

management plans outdated. To bring 

allotment planning into compliance with 

the Forest Plan, a new allotment 

management planning process and 

organization was implemented in 1991. 

The allotment management planning 

schedule was revised in 1995 and 

provided for revision of allotment 

management plans on all allotments by 

2005. The new process, organization and 

schedule has begun to be successful in 

increasing the number of plans completed 

and reducing the percentage of outdated 

plans. The planning process is currently 

on schedule. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Forest Plan establishes allotment 

management planning intervals of 10 or 

20 years depending upon the 

management area. For simplification, the 

monitoring report has used an average of 

15 years. The new allotment management 

planning process, based on planning for 

. 
RANGE 

large groups of allotments at the same management areas. It is recommended 

time, has been very successful. Planning that the Forest Plan be changed to have 

contiguous groups of allotments requires all allotments with the same planning 

planning for allotments that are in several interval of 15 years. 

c 

58 
TIMBER 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

TIMBER 

VARIABILITY (+ / -) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

E-I Silvicultural Prescriptions Meet MA Goals 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Assure silvicultural 

management prescriptions 

are best suited to 

management area goals 

with all resources 

considered. 

METHODS 

management area goals 

One timber sale is reviewed on the 

ground annually by an interdisciplinary 

team. 

FINDINGS 

During the period of 1995 to 1999, three 

formal interdisciplinary reviews were 

conducted on large timber sales. One 

review occurred in September 1995 on 

the Deadhorse Bluff Timber sale. The sale 

is located in Management Areas 6 and C. 

The silvicultural prescriptions called for 27 

clearcuts (646 acres) and 5 seed tree 

units (1 21 acres). Modification due to 

sensitive plants and windthrow resulted in 

620 acres of clearcut and 144 acres of 

seed tree cuts. The prescriptions, 

prepared by certified silviculturist, 

emphasized timber management whh 

modifications for retaining additional trees 

(excess needed for regeneration) for 

visual objectives and snags. The majority 

of the timber was decadent with 

unmerchantable material. There was 

consideration for down and woody debris, 

degree of soil disturbance and control of 

dwarf mistletoe. The review team felt that 

these prescriptions were appropriate to 

meet Management Areas B and C goals. 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

The second was held in June of 1999 to 

review treatments completed on the Miller 

Gulch and Corridor Timber Sales on the 

Kings Hill Ranger District. Prescriptions 

were found to be appropriate for 

management objectives, but one unit on 

Miller Gulch Timber Sale did not have 

enough snags marked to meet Forest 

Plan standards. Fuel loading following 

the treatment was higher than anticipated 

and the slash treatment was changed to 

prescribed burning. Another unit retained 

more small trees than was identified in the 

prescription. The prescription could have 

done a better job of addressing small 

trees and slash treatment. As a result, a 

more esthetic view was achieved at the 

expense of tree growth and increased risk 

of damage to seedlings from western 

spruce budworm. Other units, designed to 

be screened from highway 89, met all 

objectives for regeneration and esthetics. 

On Corridor Timber Sale, some access 

was limited to existing roads. As a result, 

several skid trails or temporary roads 

were constructed across draws. Because 

of the winter logging, there was very little 

disturbance. No water quality problems 

59 
TIMBER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

developed as a result of these 

prescriptions. 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+ / -) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

The third review was held in 1999 on the 

proposed DanieWKinney Timber Sale on 

the Kings Hill Ranger District. This project 

also emphasized regeneration cutting in 

older lodgepole pine stands, consistent 

with Forest Plan objectives for MA B. 

Prescriptions were written and layout 

supervised by a certified silviculturist. The 

review team felt that prescriptions were 

appropriate to meet objectives. Several 

boundary changes were recommended to 

meet riparian guidelines on westslope 

cutthroat streams. 

A more recent emphasis has been on 

overall ecosystem health and moving 

vegetative conditions over large areas 

towards conditions that are more resilient 

to large-scale disturbance. This has 

resulted in the planning of harvest and 

prescribed burn treatments not 

traditionally done on management areas 

not allocated to timber production. The 

treatments are planned recognizing the 

management area goals and integrates 

the concepts of ecosystem sustainability. 

An example is commercial thinning 

proposed in the Dry Fork of Belt Creek in 

MA- H, developed recreation emphasis. 

The treatment would maintain the 

recreation elements while improving 

ponderosa pine health and reducing fuel 

loadings. This action has been proposed 

but no decision has been made to 

implement it. The Belt Creek Landscape 

Assessment was prepared in 1996 to help 

in identifying opportunities to achieve 

healthier ecosystems within the context of 

the intended management area goals. 

E-2 Prescription Selections 

of greatest dollar return or 

METHODS 

Review of one large timber sale sold 

during the fiscal year(s). 

FINDINGS 

The Deadhorse Bluff Timber Sale review 

concluded that prescription choice was 

determined primarily by species 

composition and the decadent condition of 

the stands. Measures were taken which 

outputs against those 

predicted 

in fact reduced the cost effectiveness but 

enhanced long-term resources. This 

included the marking and long term 

retention of leave trees resulting in a 

direct cost to the government and a 

reduction of immediate volume obtained 

from the stands. 

A review of other larger timber sales 

indicated an economic analysis had been 

60 
TIMBER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Assure openings comply 

with size limits and are 

periodically evaluated for 

conducted and documented in NEPA 

documents as one measure for comparing 

alternatives. No actions were selected 

solely because they provided the most 

timber or dollar return. Instead, the line 

officer has selected the management 

actions based on the best mix of returns 

relative to all resources areas. For 

example, in the Running Wolf Timber 

Sales Record of Decision, 1995, the 

rationale for the Forest Supervisor's 

decision included the benefits that 

commercial thinning would have in 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+ / -) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually Unacceptable results of an No No 

ID Team Review 

creating a mosaic of vegetation patterns 

across the landscape and reducing 

catastrophic fires. Large diameter 

ponderosa pine were featured for leave 

trees with prescribed burning following 

harvest to restore fire processes. Neither 

of these activities maximizes volume nor 

revenues nor is least cost to the 

government, however they are considered 

the best action for managing these types 

of sites and does so in a cost efficient 

manner and provides wood products. 

E-3 Timber Openings 

METHODS 

One timber sale is reviewed on-theground annually by an interdisciplinary 

team. 

FINDINGS 

The 32 units in the Deadhorse-Bluff 

Timber Sale varied in size from 9 to 40 

acres (average 27 acres). The units were 

delineated based on timber type lines, 

past harvest, feasibility for tractor logging 

and were sensitive to visual and 

watershed values. They were consistent 

with the Forest Plan and Regional Guide 

direction for even-aged harvesting and 

keeping openings 40 acres or less. The 

timber sale review also noted the units are 

much smaller than the stands created by 

historic processes. The review team 

recommended that future sale design give 

greater consideration to larger units. 

The 28 sale units in the Daniels Kinney 

Timber Sale were all less than 40 acres. 

Many of these could not beenlarged 

because they fell next to previously 

harvestedregenerated stands. 

A review of Forest Supervisor authority 

sales sold from 1995 to 1999 shows units 

in Coyote Salvage and Tenderfoot Sale to 

have cutting units which exceeded the 40- 

acre limitation. In the case of the Coyote 

fire salvage, five openings were created 

which exceeded 40 acres after the 

harvest of timber burned in the Coyote 

fire, 1996, and existing clearcuts. The 

environmental analysis considered the 

61 
TIMBER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Assure timber offered does 

not differ from allowable 

sale quantity (ASQ) for 10- 

year period. 

effects of the larger openings. The public 

was notified and the decision to go with 

larger openings was consistent with 

direction for fire salvage as directed by 

the Forest Plan and Northern Regional 

Guide. 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+ / -) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually + / - 20% annually or + / - No Yes 

10% over a five year period. 

The Tenderfoot Timber Sale is located in 

the Tenderfoot Experimental Forest and 

was designed to test various management 

strategies in lodgepole pine. Two-story 

regeneration treatments were applied 

over large areas mimicking some of the 

Desuiption Forest 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

ASQ 12.1 72 9.1 6.3 8.3 15.7 22.9 7.3 1.7 1.4 8.5 12.5 6.6 

Plan 

past fire patterns on the landscape. 

Although these units will have a heavier 

leave tree component than generally seen 

with regeneration harvest, two-story 

management is an even aged silvicultural 

treatment. Four treatment mosaics 

exceed 40 acres, ranging from 102 to 191 

acres of harvest. The requirements of 

public notification and approval by the 

Regional Forester as directed by the 

Northern Regional Guide were met prior 

to a decision on this project. 

1999 

13.0 

The ASQ is compiled in an annual 

Regional Report. The volume figures are 

obtained from the Timber Cut and Sold 

Reports. 

FINDINGS 

National Forest, this is set at 12.1 mmbf on 

an annual basis. Not all harvest counts 

toward this total. A summary of the sold 

timber that counts toward ASQ for the 

period 1987 to 1999 is included below 

The allowable sale quantity'(ASQ) is the 

amount of timber that may be sold from 

suitable lands. For the Lewis and Clark 

Over the past 10 years, the Forest has 

sold about 81% of ASQ. Harvest over the 

past 5 years has averaged about 69% of 

ASQ. This is in part a reflection of 

harvesting on lands outside the timber 

base to accomplish other resource 

management objectives and salvage. The 

item remains valid as a monitoring tool 

primarily as an upper threshold, rather 

than as a target. Forest Plan should 

62 
TIMBER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+ / -) WHICH Change 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE FURTHER f;lEpg 

EFFECTS TO BE EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Assure restocking is in Annually Unacceptable results of an ID No - 

progress within 5 yrs Team Review ’ 

reflect the need to use harvesting in most 

management areas to achieve other 

resource objectives. 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

In addition to the ASQ, the Forest 

monitors its yearly timber program. The 

yearly timber program is an agreement 

between the Forest Supervisor and the 

Regional Forester based on yearly 

Congressional appropriations. The total I 

timber program for the Forest includes all 

timber products such as sawlogs, poles, 

posts, houselogs and firewood. Credit for 

meeting the yearly timber program 

includes the volume sold, volume offered 

for sale, and volume delayed because of 

appeals. During FY99, the Forest sold or 

offered 15.6 mmbf. Tenderfoot Timber 

Sale was originally planned to be sold in 

FY98 but was not sold until early FY 1999. 

About 5.8 mmbf did not sell when 

originally offered. Most of this was actually 

sold soon near the end of the fiscal year 

and awarded soon after the end of the 

fiscal year and actually sold normally. A 

summary of FYs 1987-1 999 timber 

program is as follows: 

A summary of FYs 1987-1 999 timber 

program follows: 

1/ FY92 target includes planned carry-over volume of 10.5 MMBF. 

I/ FY94 target includes carry-over volume of 6.0 MMFB for Smokey B. 

Differences in total volume figures are due to rounding. 

E-5 Restocking 

METHODS 

Stocking surveys are conducted on each 

District. 

FINDINGS 

Re-stocking of harvested areas has been 

successful throughout most of the Forest. 

Based on the 1999 Reforestation Indices, 

99.5% of all stands with a final harvest cut 

since 1986 are progressing towards 

adequate stocking or were certified as 

adequately stocked within 5 years of the 

final harvest. Of these units, there were 

no failures five or more years after the 

harvest. .Final harvests include clearcut, 

shelterwood or seed tree removal. A 

failure occurs when planned regeneration 

63 
TIMBER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+ / -) WHICH Change 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Assure timber acres 5 years + / - 10% deviation over a No - 

harvested are as projected. 

Monitoring 

Item? 

five year period. 

fails to provide adequate stocking and an 

alternate treatment is applied. 

Change 

Forest 

Pian? 

Yes 

The stands that have failed to meet the 

five-year time frame generally have 

required planting where natural 

regeneration had been the planned 

method. Blowdown of seed trees in 

Douglas-fir stands and the invasion of 

heavy grasses after lodgepole pine 

harvest are among the causes for all or 

portions of some units to have poor 

natural regeneration. When this occurs, 

there is a period from when the stocking 

survey indicates poor natural regeneration 

to the time necessary for procuring 

seedlings form the nursery that the fiveyear time period is exceeded. This is a 

low portion of the harvested units. With 

an extended regeneration time period, say 

10 years in lodgepole pine and 15 to 20 in 

dry Douglas-fir, the units would probably 

exhibit adequate natural regeneration. 

Additionally, events such a$ fires have 

caused a delayed regeneration period. 

There are 259 acres with harvests in 1992 

and 1993 which were not adequately 

stocked within five years due to fire 

occurrences. The first is the Turkey fire 

with post fire salvage that resulted in 

clearcut treatments in 1992. Planting was 

delayed to allow natural regeneration to 

occur in as much of the area as possible. 

Where it was not adequate, planting was 

planned and occurred from 1994 through 

1999. The Coyote fire of 1996 burned 

through some harvest units cut from 

1992-93 resulting in mortality to 

established seedlings. Where the seed 

sources were inadequate, planting was 

planned and implemented in 1999. The 

results of both of these fires delayed the 

regeneration time period although 

stocking is expected to be on track after 

planting. 

E-6 Acres Harvested 

METHODS 

Data on acres harvested are excerpted 

from the Timber Stand Management 

Record System (TSMRS) and from the 

Timber Cut and Sold Reports. 

FINDINGS 

About 883 acres were harvested in 1999 

for a volume of 5.4mmbf. The Forest Plan 

projected that annual harvest would be 

about 1,800 acres per year. Over the past 

5 years the area harvested has averaged 

1244 acres. Acres harvested are 

expected to remain below Forest Plan 

expectations. It remains a valid 

monitoring item to ensure that harvesting 

over the long term is at a sustainable 

level. The volume per acre harvested 

64 
TIMBER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Assure accomplishment of 

thinning and other 

silvicultural treatments as 

projected in plan. 

averaged 10.4 MBF/acre. The Forest 

Plan estimated about 7MBF/acre. With Plan levels. 

increases in intermediate treatments and 

two-aged treatments, the acreage 

harvested relative to the volume removed 

will likely increase approaching Forest 

A summary of FY 1987 through Fy 1999 

timber volume under contract, acres, and 

volume harvested is as follows: 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+ / -) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

5 years + / - 10% deviation over a No At 

five year period. revision 

E-6a Timber Under Contract and Volume & Acres Harvested 

(1) Data for Volume Under Contract for 1987 through 1990 has been adjusted to include estimates for per acre material (PAM). 

(2) Does not include personal firewood volume 

E-7 Thinning and Silvicultural Accomplishments 

METHODS 

Data for this monitoring item is obtained 

from the Regional Report from TSMRS. 

FINDINGS 

The following table indicates 

accomplishment of timber stand 

improvement (TSI) and other silvicultural 

treatments. 

65 
TIMBER 

Release acres 0 Io 11011631 0 Io Io 

Most reforestation on the Forest is 

accomplished by natural regeneration. 

Assumptions in the Forest Plan were that 

about 1740 acres would be reforested on 

suitable lands annually during the first 

decade. About 18% (324 acres) would 

require planting, with the remaining 1420 

acres being naturally regenerated. The 

experienced average for the past 13 years 

has been 187 acres of planting annually. 

Natural regeneration has been successful 

on an average of 750 acres. This equates 

to about 20% of lands regenerated were 

by artificial (planting) means. This is 

slightly above the expected rate. 

However, the acreage of regeneration 

needs are lower than that projected in the 

Forest Plan. 

The Forest Plan projects 200 acres of precommercial thinning in the first decade. 

Since 1987, the forest has averaged 298 

acres annually, which is above the 

projected level. This is expected to 

decline as a majority of the pre-1980s 

stands have now been thinned and other 

resource issues including the lynx 

conservation strategies affect thinning 

priorities. 

The annual prescribed burning for 

composition and stocking control was 

projected to be 20 acres in the Little 

Snowies to control stocking levels in the 

ponderosa pine (FP-EIS, p. 4-57). The 

need for this type of treatment for natural 

fuels reduction and forest health across 

other forest types has becomg a major 

issue in recent years. The Forest has 

accomplished about 100 acres from 1994 

to 1999 total, although planning is in 

progress for significantly more acres in 

future years. 

66 
TIMBER 

OUTPUT, 

MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Ensure harvest by evenage management is 

compatible with resource 

values. 

E- 8 Even-Age Harvest 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually Unacceptable results of an No No 

ID Team review 

OUTPUT, 

MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

METHODS 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

One timber sale is reviewed each year by 

an interdisciplinary team. 

MEASURED 

Firewood Removal 

FINDINGS 

Annually Use increase exceeds 10% No No 

The review of Deadhorse-Bluff and 

Daniels Kinney Timber Sales indicate that 

even-aged silvicultural systems were 

appropriate and met the objectives of 

Management Areas B and C. Clearcutting 

appeared to be optimum for units which 

were dominated by lodgepole pine and 

heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe. The 

review team agreed that in a number of 

cases, the prescription would better 

achieve resource values and provide 

greater biodiversity if there were more 

reserve trees retained both individually or 

in groups or patches. 

All timber sales have had interdisciplinary 

involvement as core planning team 

members or, in the case of small timber 

sales, review by affected resources. The 

analysis included the effects of 

silvicultural treatment including even-aged 

management. Although there are many 

trade-offs in how any particular piece of 

land is treated, the treatment selected by 

the deciding official was determined to 

best meet the goals. Where clearcutting 

was selected, it was also determined to 

be the optimum treatment by a certified 

silviculturist considering all land 

management goals. 

E- 9 Firewood Removal 

67 
TIMBER 

Description 

Personal Use Firewood 

Permits Sold 

Commercial and Personal Use 

Firewood volume Sold (mmbf) 

METHODS 

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

1487 1023 1401 1205 1193 1127 1210 1050 1116 1418 1045 734 902 

3.5 2.3 3.2 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.3 

Data is complied annually from the Timber 

Sale Cut and Sold Reports. 

FINDINGS firewood removal follows: 

In FY 1999, about .8mmbf of personal use 

firewood was removed from the Forest. A 

summary of FY 1987 through 1999 

OUTPUT, 

MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Evaluate availability of 

lands classified as 

suitable or unsuitable 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

5 years 

E-I 0 Suitable/Nonsuitable Lands 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

+ I - 5% change in acreage 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Pian? 

No No 

METHODS 

The evaluation of land suitability for 

tentatively suitable lands and the further 

division of these lands into suitable forest 

land available for timber harvests ongoing 

through project analysis and timber stand 

examinations. 

FIND1 NGS 

Project analyses have refined the land 

suitability classes which identifies stands 

that are tentatively suitable for timber 

production or non-suitable due to site 

conditions (ability to reforest etc). This 

information is maintained in TSMRS. 

Additionally, during NEPA analyses, 

management allocations are reviewed for 

appropriateness. Several projects have 

resulted in Forest Plan Amendments 

modifying the management area 

assignment. This has resulted in a 

reduction in lands deemed suitable for 

timber production. 

Suitable Acres identified in the Forest Plan 

Suitable Acres currently identified 

Change -1 6,558 acres (-5.9%) 

282,307 acres 

265,749 acres 

68 
TIMBER 

OUTPUT, 

MANAGEMENT 

PR ESCRl PTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Projected yields 

E-I1 Projected Yields , 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually Standard error of 10% at 1 NO No 

standard deviation 

METHODS FINDINGS 

Establishment and repeated measurement of 

growth plots. Summary of growth plot establishment 

and remeasurement is as follows: 

Growth plots are intended to evaluate how 

managed stands are growing over time; 

they are the primary tool we have for 

assessing the accuracy of yield tables 

used in forest planning. 

and remeasurement completed, have 

data only from one measurement. Two 

growth plots are planned for the initiating 

harvest in the Smokey B timber sale, 

planned harvest in 1999. 

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. 

Therefore, growth plots that have had 

their planned timber activity accomplished 

Growth plot information is managed for 

the Region as a whole with like forest 

conditions combined regardless of the 

National Forest the information was 

collected on. Measurements on plots 

which duplicate conditions on other 

69 
TIMBER 

Forests will not be continued as a result of 

Regional funding declines however 

previously collected data will be 

maintained for future use if needed. This 

will reduce the number of plots needed on 

the Lewis and Clark and projected by the 

Forest Plan. Currently, 12 plots are 

selected for continued measurement, and 

an additional 9 plots have data suitable for 

analysis but will not be re-measured. 

Over the next several years, it is 

anticipated that growth plot information, 

which has been collected will be analyzed 

for yield projections. 

70 
SOIL and WATER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Adequacy and cumulative 

Effects of Project BMPs 

SOIL and WATER 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually - Projected deterioration of soil Yes Yes 

1 0Ooh Sample productivity or water usability 

F-I Adequacy and Cumulative Effects of BMP's 

METHODS 

All proposed projects which have potential 

for impact on soil or water quality are 

monitored through review of the project 

environmental documentation. This 

review ensures that adequate best 

management practices (BMPs) have been 

prescribed to maintain and protect 

existing soil productivity and water quality 

conditions. In the case of significant 

vegetation removal, a cumulative effects 

analysis is also evaluated to predict 

increases in water and sediment yield as 

a result of the project. 

FINDINGS 

Soil and water resources were evaluated 

through the following environmental 

documents: Castle Mountains Range 

Analysis (1 997), North Little Belts Range 

Analysis (1 997), Sun Canyon Range 

Analysis (1 997), Belt Creek Range 

Analysis (1 998), Judith Range Anal'ysis 

(1 998), L&CNF Oil and Gas Leasing 

(1 997), Coyote Creek Fire Timber Sale 

(1 997), and Tenderfoot Creek 

Experimental Forest Vegetation 

Treatment Research Project (1 998). 

Impacts on soil and water resources were 

determined to be within established 

guidelines and laws for all preferred 

alternatives. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

This monitoring item is covered under the 

regulatory requirements of NEPA, NFMA 

and the Clean Water Act. All projects with 

the potential to impact soil and water 

resources are required to be evaluated 

through an Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement. Only 

alternatives that are not expected to 

significantly affect soil and water 

resources are chosen for implementation. 

This monitoring item does not provide any 

useful information beyond what is already 

produced through project level planning 

and analysis. Therefore, the 

recommendation is to drop this as a 

separate monitoring item during Forest 

Plan Revision. Revise Forest-wide 

management standards (pages 2-50 to 2- 

52) to reflect the above. 

71 
SOIL and WATER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Revegetation of temporarily Annually - 75% Unacceptable results of an Yes 

disturbed areas & roads sample 2 years ID Team Review 

within five years after 

Monitoring 

Item? 

termination 

F-2 Revegetation 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

Yes 

METHODS 

Revegetation efforts on temporarily 

disturbed areas and roads are monitored 

through Interdisciplinary Team reviews. 

These reviews are to be carried out on 

75% of the revegetation projects for the 

FINDINGS 

Table F-2a Proiect List for Reveaetation 

purpose of evaluating revegetation 

success and the need for additional 

revegetation efforts. The reviews occur 

within two years after project termination. 

f Scheduled f Review f Comments 

date of f . Completed 

Project Title .I 

3 f Completion i 

f Benchmark1 Salvage : 1997 L 

f Renshaw3 Salvage 

........................................................................... : .......................................... + ................................. j ........................................................................................ < 

........................................................................... .......................................... i 1997 f Project completed .......................................................................................................................... 1998 f Sale awarded 10/24/97, no activity I . 

i to date. -- ~ ~~ : ........................................................................... : .......................................... L .......................................................................................................................... < i Sale awarded 10/24/97, no activity 

i todate. 

f Whiskey2 Salvage 1998 

, : 1996 f 1997 i Sale completed and terminated. 

i 1 . Dead-Clyde : 1998 + i 1998 f ) Sale completed and terminated. 

i Deadhorse-Bluff 1996 i 1997 f Part of State BMP Audit in 1996 

i Divide Thinning .. 1998 i 2000 I Closed 

i Dry Gulch 1996 f ................................. 1997 i All contractual requirements met. i 

i :. Dry Pole Sale : 1996 j i ................................. 1997 i j All contractual requirements met. f 

i :. Hoover I 1997 d. L i 1998 i : Sale completed in 1998. ; 

i 1999 f Completed and closed 

i Russian Cr. 1995 i 1995 f Sale completed and terminated. 

: 1996 & i 1996 i j Completed and terminated. < 

i 1997 i All contractual requirements met. f 

f South Burley 

f Toll-gate Yogo 

i I... " Crosswind Salvage 1997 f 1997 i All contractual requirements met. i 

i Foothills Salvage 1997 i ................................. 1997 i All contractual requirements met. i 

...... i 1998 j All contractual requirements met. f 

f .......................................................................... 1997 f One unit dropped sale completed. i : .................................................................................................................... * 

i No logging at this time. 

1997 

'i Polecat 

1998 

i Smith Fire Salvage 

i Spring Basin 

i ................................. 1996 i All contractual requirements met. i 

i 1998 f Completed and terminated. 

f North half road construction in 1999. f 

1996 

i Upper Whitetail Cr. 

.i West Hopley 

f South half completed. 

............................................................................ : .......................................... L ................................. : ........................................................................................ : 

f .......................................................................... Clyde Park .......................................... p ......................................................................................................................... * 

........................................................................ .......................................... ................................. ....................................................................................... < 

: ........................................................................... : .......................................... L .......................................................................................................................... : 

........................ ................................................. : ..................................................................................................................................................................... < 

2 ............................................ - ........................... i .......................................... * ).......................................... ............................................. < 

......................................................................... .......................................... ......................................................................................... .......................................................................... ..................... ................... ................................. ........................................................................................ .......................................................................... .......................................... ......................................................................................................................... J : 1999 ! Running Wolf T.S. p < 

, .................................. " .......... i ............................ .......................................... G ................................. ) ........................................................................................ < 

.......................................................................... .......................................... ................................. ....................................................................................... ......................................................................... : .......................................... 1997 2 ......................................................................................................................... : 

.................................................................... i .......................................... * ................................. J ....................................................................................... < 

, ...........................-....... ..................................... i .......................................... 0 : ....................................................................................... c 

.. 

.................................................................... : .......................................... 1997 L ...................................................................................................................... -..: 

:. 1995 

i' Flat Whiskey T.S. ' 2000 

: ............................................ < 

j ........................................................................... i .......................................... I. ................................. j ........................................................................................ < 

5 ......................................... j : i 

...... .. ................................................................... : .......................................... L ......................................................................................................................... r 

........................................................................ ....................................................................................... 

: ........................................................................... ! .......................................... k ......................................................................................................................... : 

72 
SOIL and WATER 

, ....................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................... Project Title i Scheduled f Review f Comments 

date of : Completed f 

: ........................................................................... i Completion f 

f Absaroka II * f 1998 i Sale completed and terminated. 1996 

i , Coyote Cr. T.S. 1997 i 1997 f Completed and terminated. 

1996 - f 1999 f Sale completed and terminated. 

1996 f 1996 i Sale completed and terminated. 

f Lakota I 

i Little Moose T.S. 

i Moose Head Salvage 1997 1998 i Sale completed and terminated. 

i : Moose Park T.S. : 1996 c i 1996 i : Sale completed and terminated. i 

1997 i 1999 i Sale completed and terminated. 

f Corridor T.S. 1998 

f Miller Gulch T.S. 1998 i Currently logging. 

i ................................................................................................................... Coyote Salvage T.S. 1997 i 1999 i Sale completed and terminated. 

1997 

f Jefferson Salvage T.S. 

i Hangman Salvage T.S. 

i Tenderfoot Cr. T.S. 2000 

f I Anderson Select : 1998 i 1998 i Sale completed. 

i Eagle Post 2000 i 75% completed. 

f South Deadman 2001 i 99% completed. 

: ........................................................................... G ................. : ........................ : ............................................. : 

f Road completed; 113 logged. ....................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................... ! Hensley Cr. T.S. 1999 - ....................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... < 

.......................................................................... : .......................................... 0 .......................................................................................................................... < 

....................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... - ....................................................................................................................... " ......................................................................................................................... - ] .................................................................................................................... p .......................................................... ............................................................... < 

........................................................................... .......................................... ................................. ....................................................................................... ................................................................................................... ....................... ....................................................... ................................................................ i Logging completed; road 

i maintenance remains. 

Smokey B T.S. 

....................................................................................................................... " .......................................................................................................................... - , ........................................................................... : .......................................... ................................. > ........................................................................................ < 

] < ........................................................... ............................................................... < 

........................................................................... ........................................ .......................................................................................................................... : 1997 .& i 1997 f Sale closed. z 

....................................... ......................................................................................................................... I ............................................................................. - f 1997 f Sale closed. 

Roads built; logging completed. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... e 

........................................................................... .......................................... r, .......................................................... ............................................................... < 

: ........................................................................... : .......................................... 0 ................................. : ........................................................................................ i 

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 

An administrative review was conducted 

on the Deadhorse-Bluff Timber Sale on 

September 26-28, 1995. Part of this 

review evaluated BMP implementation 

and effectiveness. ' Specific management 

practices discussed included slash filter 

windrows, road surfacing adjacent to 

stream crossings, revegetation of 

disturbed areas and equipment operation 

in moist soil types (landtype 11). 

Observations indicate that BMP's were 

implemented as planned and were 

effective in reducing soil and water 

impacts. The only exception was one 

instance of improper discarding of waste 

oil. Recommendations include continue 

to use slash filter windrows, provide 

adequate cross drain spacing, and 

improve grass establishment by scarifying 

road surface and properly time seed 

applications. Additionally, moist soil 

conditions need to be adequately 

surveyed and documented through NFMA 

and NEPA analyses. 

During the 1996 field season, 61 miles of 

road and 34 harvest units were monitored 

for soil and water impacts and BMP 

effectiveness. Portions of 10 road 

segments and 9 harvest units had 

potential for causing unacceptable soil 

and water impacts and were reviewed 

again with District personnel in 1997. 

Three of these road segments were 

addressed through the Dry Fork 

Vegetation and Recreation Restoration 

EA as road obliteration proppsals. Except 

for two harvest units, all others appeared 

to provide adequate ground vegetation, 

slash and filter distance and do not 

contribute significant sediment or overland . flows to stream systems. Of the two units 

of concern, one was harvested just prior 

to the review, so revegetation had not yet 

begun. The other unit was revegetated, 

but harvested prior to establishment of 

State Streamside Management Zone 

(SMZ) guidelines and did not have 

adequate filtering capacity near two 

channels. This unit was incorporated into 

73 
SOIL and WATER 

the Districts soil and water improvement 

program and addressed in 1998 by 

placing down woody debris on contour, 

upslope from the two channels. 

During the 1998 field season, BMPs on 

six harvest units and adjacent road 

systems were evaluated by Forest 

personnel. For the most part, BMPs were 

implemented as planned and effective in 

limiting soil and water impacts. The 

exceptions were as follows: 

1. Two temporary roads could have been 

built to a lower standard. 

2. Drainage from one road segment was 

not adequate and did not provide 

adequate filtration zones. 

3. One temporary road could have been 

better rehabilitated by providing more 

outsloping and slash scattered on the 

roadbase. 

4. The terminal point of one section of 

road reconstruction, including one 

reconstructed crossing, appeared to be 

unnecessary. Road drainage and 

sediment is routed to the stream, however 

streamflow subsurfaces and is blocked by 

a natural earthen dam downstream. 

5. Two landings were located onhear 

ephemeral draws. - 

6. Minor deviations from required SMZ 

widths were noted in two units, although 

surface flows or sediment did not appear 

to be routed to streams. 

These exceptions resulted in minor 

deviations from standard application 

procedures and/or minor and temporary 

impacts to soil and water resources. 

An administrative review was conducted 

on the Spring Creek Sale on October 7, 

1999. This review evaluated BMPs in one 

harvest unit and the adjacent road 

system. For the most part, BMPs were 

implemented as planned and effective in 

limiting soil and water impacts. The 

exceptions were as follows: 

1. Drainage from one road segment was 

not adequate due to outsloping on 

relatively flat grade that created a berm on 

the shoulder which confined surface flow 

to the roadway. 

2. Road surface drainage was routed to 

two stream crossings. 

3. One culvert did not conform to natural 

streambed slope. 

4. The unit was prepped about the time 

the SMZ regulations were made law. An 

attempt was made to leave additional 

trees, but a few more should have been 

left in localized areas. 

Most of these exceptions only resulted in 

minor deviations from standard 

application procedures. Only one resulted 

in minor and temporary impacts to soil 

and water resources. 

During 1996 and 1998, BMPs were 

evaluated on the Forest as part of the 

State BMP Audit process. The 1996 audit 

was on unit 29 of the Deadhorse Bluff 

Timber Sale. Four BMPs had minor 

departures from standard applications, but 

still provided adequate protection for soil 

and water resources. Minor departures 

involved inadequate energy dissipaters at 

drainage structure outlets, equipment 

operation on steep slopes and inadequate 

SMZ width on slopes exceeding 35%. 

Two BMPs had minor departures from 

- 

74 
SOIL and WATER 

standard applications, and minor but 

temporary impacts to soil and water 

resources. One road segment 

intercepted subsurface flows which 

resulted in a soft roadbed requiring 

continual maintenance or improved 

drainage features. Equipment operation 

during slash treatment and site 

preparation did not minimize soil 

compaction and displacement because 

activities were not limited to dry or frozen 

soil conditions. 

The 1998 audit was on unit 2 of the 

Moose Park Timber Sale. One BMP had 

a minor departure from standard 

applications, but still provided adequate 

protection for soil and water resources. 

This departure involved excess road 

surface material being placed in a ditch 

before a stream crossing and likely 

occurred as a result of snow plowing. 

The 1998 State Audit also included a 

reaudit site on the Mill-Lion Timber Sale 

which was first audited in 1994. BMP 

departures noted in 1994 included minor 

sediment delivery to ephemeral streams 

from road surfaces and ditches and 

erosion resulting from poor stream 

crossing design and installation at one 

culvert. The 1998 re-audit identified that 

the road drainage problems had been 

fixed by maintenance actions, but the 

stream crossing problems were still 

evident. These problems could have 

been avoided by removing a large 

adjacent spruce tree during the initial 

construction activities. It was also noted 

that all six SMZ functions were preserved 

and no windthrow had occurred in the 

SMZ. 

During June 1999, Lewis and Clark 

resource specialists and district personnel 

convened to review portions of Miller 

Gulch and Corridor T.S. that had been 

harvested the previous winter. One 

objective of this review was to determine if 

soil and water protection measures 

(BMPs) were implemented and successful 

in protecting soil and water quality; 

specifically, stream crossing locations. 

Proper 124 permits were obtained for all 

stream crossings, although flow at these 

locations was intermittent. At the first 

crossing, fill over the pipe has since 

collapsed in part due to ice and snow 

incorporated in the fill material. The fill 

could have been raised over the pipe to 

encourage surface drainage away from 

the culvert location. However, no 

evidence of surface runoff was observed 

on the approaches to this crossing, nor 

evidence of sediment deposition 

downstream. The fine native material 

used is easily transported and will be 

difficult to clear from the channel when the 

pipe is removed. If this structure was to 

be left in place for more than a season, 

use of coarse rock hauled in from another 

source to cover the pipe could have 

reduced the risk of fine material entering 

the stream. Some coarse material 

armoring the fine material was placed at 

the outlet. 

At the second crossing, an 18'' cmp was 

placed in a dry channel the previous 

January. Fill over the pipe came from a 

nearby stream terrace. Even though the 

locations for the crossing and the fill 

excavation were marked in advance, a 

miscommunication between the purchaser 

and his operator resulted in the borrow pit 

being too close to the stream. This is a 

deviation from State SMZ guidelines that 

prohibit equipment operation within the 

SMZ, which in this case is 50 feet from 

the edge of the channel. However, only a 

small portion of the borrow pit is located 

75 
SOIL and WATER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+A) WHICH 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Water quality effects of Annually - all 

activities in municipal projects or violates water quality 

watersheds standards 

Adverse water quality affects 

within the SMZ and it has not resulted in 

any sediment reaching the stream. No 

soil movement from the borrow source 

was noted. Grass was sprouting from 

purchaser seeding. The material used as 

fill was coarser than the material used in 

the previous crossing and was well 

armored on the inlet. Again, this crossing 

could have been raised slightly to 

discourage runoff from draining to the 

culvert location. The culvert has been 

removed. 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

Yes 

At the last two crossing sites, the stream 

was dry or frozen when crossed last 

winter and generally have ephemeral flow 

which do not require 124 permits. No 

culvert was placed in the existing road. 

Upon completion of use, a cross drain 

was restored and the Purchaser had 

seeded the disturbed area. Because of 

the season of use, this was the best 

crossing option; better than placing a pipe 

and pulling it out later. At the other 

crossing, the stream was dry, but quite 

incised. Snow and some debris was used 

to fill the draw and then skid across. It 

was not crossed by trucks. There was 

concern last winter that this debris could 

dam up runoff and cause damage 

downstream. Once the snow melted, 

there was no debris dam to worry about. 

No water has flowed at the surface even 

during runoff. Native vegetation is 

sprouting through the debris in many, 

places. None of the stream crossings are 

expected to cause any impacts to 

downstream water resources. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

This monitoring item duplicates some 

information that may be documented 

under three other monitoring items F-3, 4 

and 5. Revegetation of disturbed areas is 

required on activities in riparian areas, 

floodplains, wetlands and municipal 

watersheds. It is also a basic BMP that is 

usually required for a variety of activities, 

i.e., harvest, road obliteration or closure, 

and mining or drilling activities. The 

recommendation is to combine this item 

with items F-3, F-4 and F-5, into one item 

titled Forest Projects - BMP Monitoring. 

This single item would cover 

implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring on all project specific BMPs 

covered under FSH 2509 which includes 

BMPs for watershed management, 

recreation, vegetation manipulation, 

timber harvest, roads, trails, facilities, 

minerals, range management, fire 

suppression and fuels management. 

Revise Forest-wide management 

standards (pages 2-50 to 2-52) to 

emphasize BMP application, effectiveness 

and monitoring, but drop narratives 

related to specific items of revegetation. 

F-3 Water Quality In Municipal Watersheds 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

Yes 

76 
SOIL and WATER 

METHODS 

Activities which take place in municipal 

watersheds are monitored through water 

quality predictions, administrative reviews, 

and water quality sampling. The purpose 

of these monitoring efforts is to assure 

that reasonable Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) were prescribed, 

implemented and effective in reducing 

water quality impacts. O'Brien Creek and 

Willow Creek are the two municipal 

watersheds within the Forest. 

FINDINGS 

A water quality station was established on 

O'Brien Creek in 1992 to evaluate the 

effects of upslope timber harvest and road 

building activities on water quality. 

Suspended sediment and discharge data 

was collected during the spring and 

summer months during 1992,1993 and 

1994. Analysis of the data and evaluation 

of the sampling methodology suggests 

that the data cannot be used to draw valid 

conclusions about the effects of these 

activities on water quality. The reasons 

for this are due to the complex 

interactions between 1) annual variations 

in precipitatiodrun-off rates resulting in 

variations in surface and instream erosion 

processes (magnitude, frequency and 

timing), 2) annual variations in sediment 

storage, transport and delivery rates, 3) 

dilution of suspended sediment by ,- 

tributary inflows, and 4) measurement 

uncertainty. Additionally, these complex 

interactions make it difficult, if not 

impossible, to differentiate between 

sediment related to present management 

from sediment related to past 

management and management related 

sediment from natural sediment. 

Suspended sed'iment sampling is 

generally not a cost effective methodology 

for detecting trends associated with non- . 

point pollution over time. Due to the 

temporal and spatial variability mentioned 

above, it is suggested that at least 5 to 10 

years of both, pre and post monitoring are 

likely to be necessary to reliably detect a 

sedimentary cumulative watershed effect 

(NCASI, 1999). Pre activity monitoring 

was not possible in O'Brien Creek since 

significant timber harvest and road 

construction already occurred prior to the 

start of monitoring in 1992. Suspended 

sediment sampling is better suited for 

detecting differences in 

upstream/downstream conditions for a 

specific localized activity with a known 

point source of sediment, or for comparing 

sediment loads of hydrologically 

equivalent watersheds for the same 

period of time (MacDonald and others, 

1991). 

On April 25, 1995, personnel from the 

Lewis and Clark N.F. met with the Mayor 

of Neihart to review data obtained from 

the monitoring station and to discuss the 

possibility to discontinue this station. In 

lieu of a water quality station on O'Brien 

Creek, it was agreed that on-site field 

reviews of recent activities i'n the drainage 

would be adequate to address the 

concern of water quality impacts. The 

station was discontinued after the 1994 

runoff season. 

On August 17,1995 Forest personnel met 

with the Mayor of Neihart to review recent 

management activities in the O'Brien 

Creek drainage and to discuss the 

potential implication of these activities on 

the municipal water supply for Neihart. 

Overall, there was agreement between all 

77 
SOIL and WATER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Activities in riparian areas, 

flood plains, and wetlands 

present, that these recent timber harvest 

and road activities were located far 

enough upslope so that any potential 

sediment produced from the activities 

would be filtered before reaching the 

municipal water supply reservoir near the 

bottom of O'Brien Creek. However, the 

Mayor did request that no more timber 

harvest occur in this drainage. 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually - 50% Unacceptable results of an Yes Yes 

of all projects ID Team review 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

See recommendations under F-1 , F-2 and 

F-7. Revise Forest Plan Management 

Area Descriptions for MA-J (pages 3-49 to 

3-52) to accurately define the MA-J 

boundary in O'Brien Creek and revise the 

direction to manage timber for the sole 

purpose of maintaining high quality water 

for municipal use. 

F-4 Riparian Areas, Flood Plains, and Wetlands 

METHODS 

Activities in riparian areas, flood plains, 

and wetlands are monitored through 

administrative reviews. The purpose of 

these reviews is to verify that the contract 

and Best Management Practices are 

implemented as prescribed, and that 

BMPs are effective. 

FINDINGS 

The Castle Mountains Range Analysis 

FElS identified four reaches that would be 

monitored to determine how effectiverthe 

planned changes in grazing management 

are in improving conditions of degraded 

riparian areas. Two of these reaches are 

located in the Checkerboard allotment, 

one within an exclosure and one 

immediately below the exclosure. 

Another reach is located in the Bonanza 

allotment and the last reach is located in a 

exclosure in the Blackhawk allotment. 

Both exclosures were built in 1995. 

Permanent cross-sections were 

established along each reach. Channel 

geometry and substrate data (pebble 

counts) were obtained at each crosssection site. Preliminary analysis of the 

data suggests some trends may be 

occurring as discussed below. However, 

additional statistical analysis of the data 

and data gathering in future ysars will be 

required to increase the certainty and 

statistical significance of these trends. 

South Fork Bonanza, Blackhawk 

allotment, reach 33, not grazed. Eighteen 

permanent cross-section sites were 

established in 1995. Riparian exclosure 

fence built prior to monitoring in 1995. 

The reach was resurveyed in 1997 and 

1999. 

Visual comparison of the cross-section 

plots for 1995 and 1999 suggest the 

following; bankfull width has decreased 

78 
SOIL and WATER 

and bankfull depth has increased at 39% 

of the cross-sections, bankfull depth alone 

has increased at 28% of the crosssections, bankfull width alone has 

decreased at 6% of the cross-sections 

and stable undercut banks alone have 

developed at 6% of the cross-sections. 

This accounts for 78% of the crosssections. Additionally, floodplain 

elevations have risen slightly at nine of 

the cross-sections previously listed, while 

stable undercut banks have developed at 

another five of the cross-sections 

previously listed. Where an increase in 

bankfull depth was observed, the increase 

was due not only to downcutting, but also 

to an increase in the elevation of the 

bank. These changes have likely occurred 

because excessive bank trampling and 

over utilization of riparian vegetation by 

livestock has been eliminated. Riparian 

vegetation has increased in vigor and 

density, thereby improving bank stability 

and armoring, resulting in less erosion 

during high flows. More vigorous and 

dense vegetation has also increased 

sediment trapping capability, resulting in 

increased bank building, narrower 

channels and elevated floodplains. 

Elevated floodplains may also be the 

result of increased leaf litter and organic 

soil layer, and reduced soil compaction. 

The formation of undercut banks, again 

indicates a more vigorous and dense 

vegetation and associated rootmass. 

These changes in cross-section geometry 

suggest that the stream is becoming more 

stable and moving towards its potential 

stream type, i.e., a properly function "E" 

type stream. In contrast to the above, no 

change was observed at 11% of the 

cross-sections, while the remaining 1 1 Yo 

indicated a major channel shift and the 

formation of a new channel. 

The substrate data indicates a noticeable 

shift towards more coarse material for 

particle sizes less than 8-9 millimeters 

between 1995 and 1997. A slight shift, 

again towards more coarse material, 

occurred between 1997 and 1999, but 

probably is not significantly different 

between the two years. A shift towards 

more coarse substrate is likely the result 

of 1) decreased sediment load due to 

more stable banks, 2) instream sediment 

loss through floodplain deposition and 

bank building, and 3) increased sediment 

transport capacity through the reach due 

to increased velocities associated with 

narrower channels. Again, these 

processes and conditions are 

characteristic of properly function "E" type 

streams. 

Bonanza Creek, Bonanza allotment, 

reach 38b - grazed. Eighteen permanent 

cross-section sites were established in 

1996. The reach was resurveyed in 1997 

and 1999. 

In contrast to the reach discussed above 

where livestock have been excluded from 

the riparian area, lower Bonanza Creek is 

still grazed. Management prior to the 

1998 season was under season-long 

management, while management in 1998 

changed to a variable season system; 59 

cow-calf pair for 30 days. Visual 

comparison of the cross-section plots for 

1996 and 1999 suggest the following; 

bankfull width and bankfull depth have 

increased at 39% of the cross-sections, 

bankfull depth alone has increased at 6% 

of the cross-sections and bankfull width 

alone has increased at 6% of the crosssections. Two percent of the crosssections exhibited significant channel 

change in the form of braided or shifted 

channels. Upper bank erosion and 

sloughing has occurred at 17% of 

79 
SOIL and WATER 

additional cross-sections not accounted 

for above. This accounts for 83% of the 

cross-sections. Additionally, floodplain 

elevations have lowered slightly at 24% of 

the cross-sections. Where an increase in 

bankfull depth was observed, the increase 

was due solely to downcutting and not an 

increase in the elevation of the bank. 

These changes have likely occurred 

because bank trampling and high 

utilization of riparian vegetation by 

livestock has continued to occur. High 

flows have likely also contributed to the 

observed erosion, especially on the 

unstable undercut banks. Riparian 

vegetation is not providing adequate bank 

armoring, resulting in more erosion during 

high flows. Instead of trapping sediment 

and building banks, exposed bank soils 

are a chronic source of sediment to the 

stream system. These characteristics 

suggest that the channel exhibits both 

excessive lateral movement and 

downcutting and is therefore highly 

unstable. 

A decrease in bankfull width and increase 

in bankfull depth was only observed at 

one cross-section. Undercut banks have 

developed at 33% of the cross-sections. 

However, in contrast to the South Fork 

reach discussed above, these undercut 

banks do not have root masses and are 

therefore unstable and continue to erode. 

The substrate data indicates a noticehble 

shift towards more fine material for 

particle sizes less than 30-40 millimeters 

between 1997 and 1999. Slight changes 

that occurred between 1996 and 1997 are 

probably not significant. A shift towards 

finer substrate could be the result of 1) 

less stable banks, 2) bank erosion due to 

high flows, and 3) decreased sediment 

transport capacity through the reach due 

to decreased velocities associated with 

wider, shallower channels. Again, these 

processes and conditions are 

characteristic of unstable sfreams 

systems. 

Checkerboard Creek, Checkerboard 

allotment, reach 50. Eighteen permanent 

cross-section sites were established in 

1996. The reach was resurveyed in 1997 

and 1999. Prior to 2000, the pasture was 

grazed for 3% months with 50 pair. The 

Castle Mountain EIS Decision was 

implemented in this allotment in 2000. 

This new management will consist of 180 

pair for 3 weeks. The pasture will be 

rested one out-of every five years. 

The only data that has been analyzed for 

this reach is substrate data. Cross-section 

data will be analyzed and included in the 

next monitoring report. 

The substrate data within and below the 

exclosure suggests a noticeable shift 

towards more coarse material between 

1997 and 1999 although the shift is most 

dramatic within the exclosure. Slight 

changes that occurred between 1996 and 

1997 are probably not significant. The 

reason for the shift towards more coarse 

material is not apparent at this time. A 

high intensity rain event that occurred 

within the Checkerboard Creek watershed 

in June 1997 and caused sigGficant 

flooding along this reach may have had a 

significant effect on substrate 

composition. Additional years of 

substrate sampling and analysis of the 

cross-section data will be required to 

determine what trends are occurring along 

this reach. 

Please referto Monitoring Item F-2, 

Revegetation, for further information on 

projects that have the potential to impact 

riparian areas, floodplains or wetlands. 

80 
SOIL and WATER 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Effects of other activities on 

watershed conditions 

Streamside Management Zone laws and 

regulations and Proper Function Condition 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually - 20% Unacceptable management Yes No 

of all projects practices of land productivity 

See recommendations under F-2. Revise 

discussions of riparian areas in the Forest 

Plan by including discussion of State 

Assessment methodology and related 

policy. 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Elimination of soil and 

water restoration backlog 

F-5 Other Effects 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

item? Pian? 

Five Years Less than 50% by 1990; less Yes Yes 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

than 100% by 1995 

METHODS 

Projects which are not located in a 

riparian zone or municipal watershed, or 

do not require revegetation, but still have 

potential to impact soil and water 

resources, are monitored through 

administrative reviews. The purpose of 

these reviews is to verify that the contract 

and BMPs are being implemented as 

specified, and that BMPs are effective. 

FINDINGS 

Please refer to Monitoring Item F-2, 

Revegetation, for information on other 

projects that have the potential to impact 

soil and water resources. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

See recommendations under F-2 , 

F-6 Water & Soil Backlog - 

' METHODS each District at the end of each fiscal 

year. 

Progress in reducing the soil and water 

restoration backlog is monitored by 

tracking the number of acres restored by 

81 
SOIL and WATER 

............................................................................. ............................ " ............................. Project Title Acres 

i N. Fk Ford Cr. 1 

i Willow Cr. 4 

FINDINGS 

.......................................................................... , .................. - ............ Comments 

Failed culvert removal. 

Wood drop structure, fence and seed. 

Table F-6a identifies the restoration 

projects that were accomplished on the 

Forest during FY 1995 through 1998. 

Table F-6b lists the acres accomplished 

by year. 

82 
SOIL and WATER 

............... ...................... 

Table F-6b Soil and Water Restoration Accomplishments (acres) 

Pre 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

1987 

21 26 10 109 57 50 94 50 129 133 61 116 112 139 

Total acreage improved between 1995 

and 1999 was 561 with 11 07 acres 

improved over the past 12 years. The 

Forest Plan goal of 100% accomplishment 

by 1995 has been met. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The soil and water restoration backlog 

identified during the Forest Plan analysis 

,in 1988 has been eliminated. This 

monitoring item should continue, but be 

re-titled as Soil and Water Improvement 

Accomplishments. Typically in the past, 

only soil and water improvement funds 

(NFSI) were tracked under this monitoring 

item. However, all accomplishments, 

regardless of funding source, should be 

included here, if they truly restore or 

improve soil and water resources. Revise 

the Forest Plan by droppingstatements 

related to soil and water backlog (pages 

2-7, 2-50) and include discussion on 

improving water quality in Water Quality 

Limited Streams. 

83 
SOIL and WATER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Water and stream quality 

as affecting fish habitat and 

other uses: validation of 

estimates of sediment 

F-7 Water and Stream Quality 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring 

Item? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually Not meeting State or Federal Yes 

water quality standards or 

significant (90% confidence) 

deterioration, by best 

available indexes. 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

METHODS 

Water quality as affecting fish habitat and 

other uses is to be monitored through 

water quality sampling of representative 

streams and intra-gravel sediment. This 

monitoring allows identification of 

deterioration in water quality, assurance 

of effectiveness of BMPs, as well as 

validation of estimates on sediment and 

water yield. 

FIND1 NGS 

Water quality stations were established on 

Whitetail Creek and the South Fork of the 

Judith River in 1992 to evaluate the 

effects of upslope timber harvest and road 

building activities on water quality. 

Suspended sediment and discharge data 

was collected during the spring and 

summer months from 1992 to 1995. 

Analysis of the data and evaluation of the 

sampling methodology suggests that -the 

data cannot be used to draw valid 

conclusions about the effects of these 

activities on water quality. The reasons 

for this are due to the complex 

interactions between 1) annual variations 

in precipitationhun-off rates resulting in 

variations in surface and instream erosion 

processes (magnitude, frequency and 

timing), 2) annual variations in sediment 

storage, transport and delivery rates, 3) 

dilution of suspended sediment by 

tributary inflows, and 4) measurement 

uncertainty. Although the data provided 

fair to good correlations between average 

daily discharge and suspended sediment 

loads (tondday), these complex 

interactions make it difficult, if not 

impossible, to differentiate between 

sediment related to present management 

from sediment related to past 

management, and management related 

sediment from natural sediment. 

Suspended sediment sampling is 

generally not a cost effective methodology 

for detecting trends associated with nonpoint pollution over time. Due to the 

temporal and spatial variability mentioned 

above, it is suggested that at least 5 to 10 

years of both, pre and post monitoring are 

likely to be necessary to reliably detect a 

sedimentary cumulative watershed effect 

(NCASI, 1999). Pre-activity monitoring to 

determine natural or baseline conditions 

was not possible in either Whitetail Creek 

or the South Fork since significant timber 

harvest, road construction, wildfire and 

grazing already occurred prior to the start 

of monitoring in 1992. Suspended 

sediment sampling is better suited for 

detecting differences in upstream vs. 

downstream conditions for a specific 

activity with a known point source of 

sediment, or for comparing sediment 

84 
SOIL and WATER 

t OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Riparian areas and Annually ' Significant (90% confidence) Yes 

streams: stream cover and 

pools 

Monitoris Forest 

Item? Plan? 

decline in condition 

loads of hydrologically equivalent 

watersheds for the same period of time 

(MacDonald and others, 1991). responsibilities. 

the station in 1992 and assumed all 

operation and maintenance 

Suspended sediment is just one part of 

the overall sediment yield within a 

watershed. Bedload is the other part and 

generally has the greatest channel impact 

and potentially the greatest, long-term 

water quality impact. Bedload may, or 

may not be correlated with suspended 

sediment and has similar inherent 

problems associated with data collection 

and analysis (NCASI, 1999). No intragravel sediment sampling was completed 

during the years 1995 through 1999. 

For the reasons disclosed above, 

suspended sediment sampling was 

discontinued at the Whitetail and South 

Fork Judith stations after the 1995 runoff 

season. However, stream discharge is 

still collected at the South Fork station. 

This gauging station was originally 

established by the U.S. Geological Survey 

and maintained by them from 1958 to 

1979. The Lewis and Clark N.F. restarted 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Due to the complexity and uncertainty 

involved in sediment monitoring and 

analysis, it is recommended that this item 

be dropped and replaced with project 

specific monitoring that includes such 

methods as channel cross-section 

geometry surveys, pebble counts and 

photo points. It should also include 

accomplishments of general 

reconnaissance stream surveys that 

collect more visual and subjective 

information such as channel and bank 

stability ratings, substrate composition, 

riparian vegetation types, and fisheries 

habitat information on pools and cover. 

Revise the Forest Plan by dropping 

statements related to water and sediment 

yield limits (page 2-7) and validation 

(page 2-50). 

F-8 Stream Cover and Pools 

Relevant monitoring activities for this item 

are included in the discussion of fish 

habitat in section C-11 , Aquatic Habitat. 

RECOMMENDATIONS This monitoring 

item duplicates what is reported under C11, Aquatic Habitat Condition. It is 

recommended that this item be dropped 

as a separate monitoring item and that 

accomplishments and results be reported 

under C-1 1 . 

85 
SOIL and WATER 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Public Health - Water 

Systems 

F-9 Public Health 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually - Violating State or Federal No No 

Monthly when drinking water standards 

YEAR PUBLIC WATER ROUTINE TESTS 

SYSTEMS OPEN REQUIRED 

1995 38 21 0 

1996 37 258 

1997 36 21 4 

1998 38 228 

METHODS 

ROUTINE TESTS PERCENT 

COMPLETED COLIFORM 

FREE 

190 91 Yo 

258 97% 

207 97% 

228 96% 

Public water systems are operated in 

accordance with State and Federal Safe 

Drinking Water Acts, which require routine 

testing for bacterial contamination. Table 

F-9 displays the total number of sites 

tested, the frequency of testing and 

percent of tests with acceptable results for 

the years 1995 through 1998. 

FINDINGS 

All required routine tests were completed 

for years 1996 and 1998. Testing was 

less than 100% of required for years 1995 

and 1997. Between 3 and 9 percent of RECOMMENDATIONS - 

samples tested positive for coliform 

bacteria over all years. Appropriate sjeps 

were taken for all positive samples 

including follow up sampling, chlorination 

and/or system shut down and signing. 

The recommendation is to keep this 

monitoring item as is. 

86 
MINERALS 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Adverse effect of Forest 

Service project on mineral 

activities or revision or 

departure from approved 

operating plan 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PR ESCR I PTlON, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Effect of Mining Activity 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

No 

MINERALS 

G-I Effect of Mining Activities 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually - 

100% of active 

operations on 

a monthly 

basis 

METHODS 

This item includes monitoring effects of 

mineral activities resulting from the approval 

of Notices of Intent or Operating Plans for 

mineral activities that were conducted during 

1999, and updates monitoring reporting since 

fiscal year 1995. It also includes monitoring 

the effects other Forest Service approved 

projects may have on mineral operations. 

According to the Forest plan monitoring 

requirements, 100% of all active operations 

are to be monitored on a monthly basis for 

either adverse effects of Forest Service 

projects on mineral activities or revisions or 

departures from an approved operating plan. 

FINDINGS 

A land exchange proposed in the Tenderfoot 

area includes land on which a mining claim is 

located. The Forest is attempting to resolve 

this issue through negotiations with both the 

claimant and the exchange proponent. It is 

desirable to have a consistent and equitable 

exchange of both surface and mineral rights 

on both acquired and exchanged lands. 

Prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities, 

a mining proponent is required to submit a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) or a Mineral Plan of 

Operation (POO). These instruments specify 

the nature of the proposed activities, the 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

location and timing of any surface disturbing 

activities, and any necessary reclamation 

measures. During FY 1999, 3 mining Plans 

of Operations and one mineral material 

proposal were received and reviewed. 

Environmental analyses were conducted for 

each proposals. All proposals were analyzed 

for compliance and consistency with Forest 

Plan goals, objectives, and management 

standards. Modifications or additions were 

made, if necessary, to ensure compliance 

with Forest Plan standards and to mitigate 

issues and concerns. In addition, some 

activities took place under Plans of 

Operations that were approved in a previous 

year during which the proposal was not 

completed. 

Mineral activity has slowed somewhat and is 

probably reflective of low metak prices and 

the fact that many companies are closing 

offices in Montana. In 1998, two Plans of 

Operation were submitted by Cominco 

American Inc. for a total of 14 exploratory 

drillholes in the Castle Mountains, 

Musselshell District. Seven of these holes 

were drilled in FY 1998. This is a continuation 

of exploratory activity that has taken place 

since 1993. No departures from the 

approved plan of operation were identified. 

These claims were relinquished in 1999, 

which reflects current low mineral economics. 

87 
MINERALS 

In July 1999, the Forest received a Plan of 

Operation for expansion at the Yukon Mine 

on the Judith Ranger District. The plan 

outlined 3 years of expansion at the existing 

underground operations, including 

stockpiling of waste and ore material near 

the mine portal. The Forest approved a 

portion of the proposed expansion and is 

currently conducting an environmental 

review of the remainder of the proposal. 

Issues include water quality concerns 

associated with sulfide mineralization in the 

rock. 

Mining is ongoing at the Vortex Mine near 

Yogo Creek on the Judith Ranger District. 

This is an underground sapphire mining 

operation. A Plan of Operation for 

continued underground operations and 

upgrades to surface facilities was submitted 

and approved in 1998. 

Mining claims were located on the Rocky 

Mountain Ranger District in the 

BlackleaWMuddy Creek area in 1996 and 

limited soil sampling and'hand-held 

resistivity surveys were conducted in 1996 

and 1997. No activity took place on these 

claims in 1998. In February 1999, Forest 

Service Chief Mike Dombeck announced a 

two-year moratorium on new mining claims 

on the Rocky Mountain Front, which 

included about 405,'OOO acres within the 

Lewis and Clark and Helena forests. The 

moratorium provides time for the Forest 

Service to complete an environmental study 

of a longer-term mineral withdrawal. In 

September 1999, the claims in 

Blackleaf/Muddy Creek were dropped. 

There are presently no existing mineral 

claims within the proposed withdrawal area. 

A proposal for removal of flagstone material 

was submitted to the Judith Ranger District 

in 1999. The area has been the site of a 

small-scale flagstone quarry for a number 

of years. The proponent proposes to 

remove the rock using mechanized 

equipment and haul the rock on pallets to a 

staging area for loading on larger transport 

vehicles. The District approved use of the 

site for both commercial and public use. 

The two types of uses were authorized in 

separate portions of the pit area. 

No other plans of operation were received 

during FY 1999, but monitoring of 

operations under continuing plans was 

accomplished. 

88 
MINERALS 

Table G-la - Project List for I 

I Proiect Title 

Rocky Mtn District D-1 

Judith Ranger District D-4 

1. Vortex Mining - Yogo Cr. 

2. Yukon Mine - Glen Davis 

3. Paul Davis - Miners Creek 

4. Bliss claims - Snow Creek 

5. Canoy claims - Yogo Peak 

Musselshell Ranger District D-6 

1. FY98/99: Cominco core drilling. 

In FY99 Cominco requests (a) 

change in location of two 

previously approved sites; and (b) 

drilling of two additional core holes 

on Castle Mtns claims 

I 

2.Administrative Use Mineral 

Materials 

3. Free Use Mineral Materials 

permit for building cornerstones. 

4. Cominco geophysical 

exploration in Castle Mtns 

ning Activities, FY95-99 

Status 

No mining activities 

Active under PO0 in 1999 

5-year PO0 approved in 1997. 

Amendment to plan submitted 

7/99. Additional proposed 

activites include underground 

expansion and stockpiling of 

waste rock and ore material 

onsite. 

Pick and shovel operation, but 

ad involved the use of a trailer 

n NFS lands 

Small scale placer operation 

Approved PO0 in 1998 

Claimant deceased; had 

?fused to submit NO1 or POO; 

imily has indicated interest in 

ontinuing activities on claims, 

o PO0 submitted yet 

7 exploratory holes drilled 

under approved PO0 in FY98. 

Additional drilling completed in 

FY99. Drilling completed and 

bqnd released by State Dept. 

of Environmental Quality for 

entire Castle Mountain project. 

1,000 CY from Kent pit & 

15,000 CY from High Park pit 

taken in N99 

Permit issued in 1997, 

ompleted 

Approved PO0 in 1997; 

ctivities completed 

Comments 

Mining claimos in Blackleaf area 

were dropped in September 

1999 

Development work conducted in 

compliance with approved POO. 

This is an underground 

operation; have been working 

with operators in regard to 

surface facilities necessary for 

operation; field visits to site in 

FY98 and IDT review in FY99. 

Claimant deceased; trailer and 

other equipment removed from 

site; bond to be released to next 

of kin 

Area reclaimed, bond released 

Ongoing hand pick & shovel 

work site visit in FY99 - no 

departure from plan. 

Need to determine appropriate 

urface use on claim(s) 

Cominco completed drilling 

operations, as specified in POO, 

in winter 1998/9!Z Reclamation, 

including plugging of water well 

for operations, was completed in 

1999 and bond released. 

Material used on Whitetail & 

Spring Creek Forest Roads 

Stones were hand-picked 

Operations conducted in accord 

with plan 

89 
MINERALS 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTSTOBE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Effect of Prospecting Annually - Adverse effect upon surface 

100% of active resources of departure from 

operations on conditions of the approved 

a biweekly permit 

basis 

Proiect Title 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? 

- 

Yes No 

5. Cominco core drilling/ 

geophysical exploration in Big 

Snowies 

6. Frankovich core drilling; Castle 

Mountains 

7. Administrative use mineral 

material 

8.' Frankovich core drilling; Castle 

Mountains 

9. Admin use mineral material 

Kings Hill Ranger District D-7 

1. Flinders - Villars Creek 

Status 

Approved PO0 in 1997; 

activities completed 

PO0 approved and completed 

in 1996 

260 cy shale removed from 

Bear Park pit in 1996 

PO0 approved and completed 

in 1995 

330 CY shale taken from pit in 

Kent Gulch - 1995 

PO0 approved in 1996 

Com m en ts 

Proposed 1995 as exploratory 

core drilling. Proposal within 

wilderness Study Area. Plan 

altered due to budgevother 

factors to geophysical work. 

Completed in accord with plan. 

No departure from plan 

Whitetail dispersed site; Park 

Summer Homes, Rd mtce 

NO departure from plan 

Used on Basin Ck FS bridge 

PO0 has expired; claimant sent 

certified notice to complete 

reclamation or submit new POO; 

no resDonse. 

G-2 Geophysical Prospecting 

This monitoring item includes effects from 

the issuance of prospecting permits 

(geophysical exploration). There have 

been no geophysical prospecting permits 

requested or issued for oil and gas 

exploration since 1987. Some interest was 

expressed in conducting a 3-D geophysical 

program along the eastern edge of the 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District, but no 

proposal was ever submitted. 

90 
MINERALS 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Effect of Drilling 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Oil and gas activities will not likely be 

emphasized as much during the next 

planning cycle due to the 1997 decision to 

not allow leasing on the Rocky Mountain 

Division. While geophysical activities are 

not precluded under that decision, the 

likelihood of continued geophysical activity 

is not as high as it has been. This may not 

need to be an emphasis item for monitoring 

during Forest Plan revision. 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually - Adverse effect upon surface Yes No 

100% of active 

operations on 

a weekly basis permit 

resources or departure from 

conditions of the approved 

G-3 Drilling Effects 

FIND1 NGS 

This monitoring item focuses primarily on oil 

and gas drilling proposals. 

The Final EIS on two exploratory drilling 

proposals (by Chevron USA and Fina Oil 

and Chemical Company) on the Rocky 

Mountain Division was completed in 

December 1990. Following a public review 

period, a Record of Decision was jointly 

signed by the Lewis and Clark National 

Forest Supervisor and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Great Falls Resource 

Area Manager approving, with conditions, 

Finals Application for Permit to Drill (APD). 

Fifty-three appeals were received on the 

decision to approve Finals APD. The 

Regional Forester upheld the decision to 

allow drilling on Finals lease. Appeals filed 

with the BLM prompted them to vacate their 

decision to allow drilling until a review of 

effects of drilling was conducted. This 

review was completed and a Record of 

Decision (ROD) approving the APD was 

issued January 14,1993 by the BLM. The 

- 

ROD received concurrence by the Assistant 

Secretary of Interior. 

A complaint was filed in U.S. District Court - 

Great Falls Division by a coalition of interest 

groups; in addition, the Secretary of Interior 

issued a one-year moratorium on all 

development activities, effective July 1, 

1993. This stay has been extended unti a 

review of historic property in the BadgerTwo Medicine area is completed pursuant 

to Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Proceedings under the 

lawsuit have also been administratively 

terminated, but may be reopened "for good 

cause" by any of the parties to the suit. 

No decision has been made on Chevron's 

APD. In February 1999, Chevron either 

reassigned or relinquished its leases in the 

Badger-Two Medicine area, including the 

acreage on which the APD was filed. The 

new lessee has not indicated their intention 

with regard to the drilling application. 

In October 1996, McMahon-Bullington 

submitted an APD for a drilling site in the 

Muddy Creek area on the Rocky Mountain 

91 
MINERALS 

Division. The proposed surface location for 

the well was outside the lease acreage, so 

a Special Use Application was filed with the 

Lewis and Clark National Forest for 

operations off -lease. The lease apparently 

transferred to Resource Management 

Associates (RMA) in 1998. RMA indicated 

they would assume responsibility for the 

drilling proposal. Additional information 

was requested in order for the BLM and 

Forest Service to analyze the drilling 

proposal. The information was not provided 

in the timeframes specified by the BLM, so 

the APD and Special Use Application were 

returned to RMA. The lease itself remains 

in effect. The lessee did not submit any 

additional information or requests in 1999. 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Rehabilitation of Disturbed 

Areas 

No drilling proposals were received during 

the 1995-99 period. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Oil and gas activities will not likely be 

emphasized as much during the next 

planning cycle due to the 1997 decision to 

not allow leasing on the Rocky Mountain 

Division. While current drilling proposals 

are not affected, the likelihood of 

subsequent oil and gas drilling proposals is 

low. This may not need to be an emphasis 

item for monitoring during Forest Plan 

revision. 

G-4 Rehabilitation 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually - 

100% of 

activity on a 

weekly basis 

during 

rehabilitation. 

A final 

inspection will 

be made within 

5 years after 

rehabilitation 

has been 

completed c 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Rehabilitation less than 90% 

of disturbed areas 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

No 

- 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

Requirements for reclamation were 

established for each mining proposal and 

made part of the approved operating plan. 

Reclamation bonds were established for 

proposals, based on the costs which would 

be incurred to rehabilitate the area of 

proposed activity. These bond amounts 

were collected prior to allowing any activity 

to take place, and retained until final 

reclamation standards are met. 

The Forest has been working cooperatively 

with the Montana Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and the Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) to address mine wastes at the Block 

P Mill Tailings site on the Kings Hill Ranger 

District in the Little Belt Mountains. Timecritical removal actions were taken by the 

Forest Service in 1995 to address 

92 
MINERALS 

Project Title 

Rocky Mtn. District D-1 

1. Blackleaf #1-13 gas well 

Judith District D-4 

1. Skunk Gulch - Setter 

claims 

1. Arsenic Creek AIM 

immediate concerns with the tailings 

impoundment and the threat of release of 

hazardous material from the site. These 

actions were designed to reduce overland 

flow of precipitation onto the tailings and to 

provide for additional storage capacity in 

the impoundments. The Doe Run 

Resources Company of Missouri has been 

identified as the responsible party for cleanup actions at the site. In 1998-99, the 

company conducted water quality 

assessments to determine the 

characteristics of surface and groundwater 

and the nature of associated metals 

contamination. An Administrative Order on 

Consent has been signed between Doe 

Run, the Forest Service and EPA for 

completion of an Engineering 

EvaluatiodCost Analysis (EE/CA) to 

identify long-term clean up actions at the 

site. A draft EWCA has been submitted for 

agency and public review. A final EWCA is 

Year 

Completed 

1997 

1996 

1997 

expected in winter 2000. The Forest 

Service and EPA, in conjunction with the 

Montana DEQ, will select an alternative for 

implementation. Final clean-up actions are 

anticipated to begin in the summer of the 

year 2001. 

Dates 

Reviewed 

10/97, 7/98, 

8/99 

97,98, 99 

7/98 

summer 1999 

1995-98 

1998 

Several abandoned or inactive mines have 

been reclaimed over the past few years, 

too. The Montana Bureau of Mines and 

Geology has conducted an abandoned 

mine inventory on portions of the Lewis and 

Clark Forest and this information, as well as 

continuing inventory, will be used to identify 

abandoned mine sites that pose a human 

health or safety hazard and require 

reclamation. 

Comments 

Natural gas well plugged and area 

reclaimed; reclamation complete 

Removal of old buildings, waste 

material from old mill site 

Removal of 50 tons of scrap metal, old 

buildings from abandoned mine site 

Removal of 2 truckloads of scrap from 

abandoned mine site 

Final reclamation accepted; bond 

released by State 

Reclamation complete; use of existing 

cabin authorized 

7 sites, open pitdshafts backfilled 

Mineral operations inspected for 

rehabilitation are listed in the following 

table. 

Musselshell District D-6 

1. Cominco - YANK claims 

2. Frankovich - Castles 

Table G-4a - FY95-99 Proiect List for Rehabilitation of Disturbed Areas 

1 2/99 

1994 

2. Sawmill Gulch AIM 1999 

3. Spring Creek Inactive I 1998 

93 
MINERALS 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Mineral Availability Annually - Denial of more than 10% of 

100% sample proposed projects 

Project Title 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? 

No No 

Mines 

4. Clara Burton Inactive 

Mines 

5. Basin Creek Inactive 

Mine 

6. Hamilton Creek Inactive 

Mine 

7. Lucky Boy Inactive Mine 

Kings Hill District D-7 

1. Flinders - Villars Crk 

2. Peterson Inactive Mine 

3. Green Mountain 

Year 

Completed 

1998 

1998 

1997 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1999 

Dates 

Reviewed 

1998 

1998 

1997-99 

1997-98 

am 

9/98 

(summer 2000) 

FINDINGS 

Final inspections and determination of 

reclamation success will need to be 

completed on the remaining activities listed 

above. 

Comments 

30 ft deep pit wl l-200 ft deep vertical 

shaft at bottom, mechanical contract 

Adit near dispersed campground; log 

cribbing door & fill closure 

Claim owner voluntarily reclaimed by 

dismantling/removing workshed, 2 

cabins, and other structures at FS 

request; finished 1999 

Vertical shaft was closed 1980's but 

settled out & reopened shaft; backfilled 

and leveled 

Final reclamation not complete; 

claimant sent certified letter notifying of 

need to reclaim 

Open adit near relocated road. 

Opening was mechanically collapsed 

and backfilled. Site visited in fall 1999 

and is stable. 

Numerous prospect pits and a collapsed 

shaft backfilled and revegetated 

G-5 Mineral Availability 

94 
MINERALS 

METHODS 

This item addresses the effect of renewable 

resource prescriptions and management 

direction on mineral resources and 

activities, including exploration and 

development. Denials of more that 10% of 

proposed mineral activities are to be 

reported. 

FINDINGS 

In 1997, the Forest completed an 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision for oil and gas leasing 

on the Forest. The Forest Supervisor 

decided not to offer oil and gas leases on 

the Rocky Mountain Division for the next 

planning period (10-1 5 years). Leasing, 

with stipulations, would be allowed in areas 

on the Jefferson Division where it was 

shown that oil and gas activities were 

environmentally compatible with other 

resource values. 

This decision was appealed through the 

Forest Service administrative appeal 

process and the decision upheld at that 

level. A suit was brought forth by the Rocky 

Mountain Oil and Gas Association and the 

Independent Petroleum Producers of 

America. (The case was heard in U.S. 

District Court in Helena in February, 2000, 

and the Forest Service decision wa9 again 

upheld; plaintiffs have now appealed to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). 

While lands on the Rocky Mountain Division 

remain available for oil and gas leasing, the 

no-lease decision of lands affects leasing of 

these lands for the next 10-1 5 years. 

Existing leases will continue, however, and 

proposals on those leases will be 

addressed. 

In 1998, one Application for Permit to Drill 

(APD) on an oil and gas lease on National 

Forest System lands in Muddy Creek was 

returned by the BLM for incompleteness. A 

Special Use Application submitted to the 

Forest Service for an off-lease location for 

surface drilling facilities associated with that 

APD was also returned to the applicant. 

The lease remains in effect and its terms 

havebeensuspended. 

The proposed Rocky Mountain Front 

mineral withdrawal would affect the 

availability of hardrock minerals during the 

withdrawal period (20 years). Little interest 

has been expressed in hardrock exploration 

on the Rocky Mountain Division, however. 

No actions proposed under the general 

mining laws were denied during Fiscal . 

Years 1995-1 999, although additional 

mitigation or other environmental 

requirements may have beenjmposed. 

Most mineral material requests were small 

scale and were also approved. 

95 
LANDS 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS TO 

BE MEASURED 

Compliance with use permits 

LANDS 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD 

Annually Unacceptable results or No No 

WOULD INITIATED FURTHER Monitoring Forest Item? Plan? EVALUATION 

deviation from permits 

J-1 Compliance With Use Permits 

METHODS 

The computerized Special Use Data 

System (SUDS) has been implemented 

on the Forest. This program is used 

primarily to prepare billings. It has not 

been as beneficial as the previous 

computer program (FLUR), but with each 

update, it seems to become a little more 

user friendly and useful in gathering 

information and records. Forms are now 

kept on the Internet and users go there to 

get the most recent forms rather than hard 

copy files that we used to use. 

FINDINGS 

The Forest Supervisor has delegated 

authority for issuance and administration 

of special use permits to the District 

Rangers to the extent allowed in the 

Forest Service Manual. 

The condition of facilities authorized 

through special use permits is generally 

‘satisfactory. Annually, the Rocky 

Mountain District inspects 25 percent of 

its recreation residences, and the Kings 

Hills District began inspecting their 

recreation residences in 1999 and intends 

to have inspections performed on a 

regular schedule also. Ski areas are 

inspected before and during the ski 

season. Outfitter camps are periodically 

inspected and are generally 

unannounced. For other special use 

permits, on-the-ground inspections are 

done primarily for health and safety issues 

and whenever specific problems arise. 

Special use permits are generally current 

and in conformance with federal policy. 

The electronic Special Use Data System 

(SUDS) is maintained and updated by 

both the Districts and the Resource 

Section in the Supervisor‘s Office. As we 

become more familiar with the program, 

maintenance and updates will be done at 

the district. All SUDS bills are prepared in 

the Supervisor’s Off ice, sent electronically 

to the districts for review, then completed 

in the Supervisor’s Office. 

The Lewis and Clark National Forest 

administers the following special use 

permits: 

96 
LANDS 

# 

1 

1 

Type of Permit 

Organization Camp 

Isolated Cabin 

165 

65 

Recreation 

Outfitter-Guide 

2 

2 

Winter Recreation Resort 

Cultivation 

34 

1 

Livestock Use Area (Pasture) 

Fence 

10 

2 

1 

1 

4 

1- 

2 

1 

3 I Water Conveyance Easement 

Corral 

Sign 

Solid Waste Disposal Site1 

Research Study 

Weather Station 

Military Training Area 

Cultural Resource 

Construction CamD 

97 

1 

1 

3 

3 

1 

3 

3 

2 

22 

1 

3 

3 

1 

Mineral Material Sale 

Oil and Gas Pipeline 

REA Powerline 

Powerline 

Railroad Right-of-way 

DOT Easement 

FRTA Easement 

FLPMA Easement 

FLPMA Permit 

Microwave-Common Carrier 

Microwave-Industrial 

Private Mobile Radio Service 

Broadcast Translator 

1 

2 

4 

1 

10 

Resource Monitoring Site 

Facility Manager 

Telephone Line 

Communication Improvement 

Irrigation Water Ditch 

1 

19 

Irrigation Water Pipeline 4 2" 

Water Transmission Pipeline e1 2 
LANDS 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Right-of-way Easements Annually - 

Accomplishment 100% Sample 

J-2 Right-of-way Easements I 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Less than 75% 

accomplishment of 5-Year 

Program 

1989 1990 1991 1992 

0 0 0 1 

2 1* I* 0 

1 0 0 0 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

1993** 

0 

9 

12* 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE FURTHER 

EVALUATION 

Less than 75% 

accomplishment of 5-Year 

Program 

T 

Change 

Monitoring - 

Item? 

No 

FINDINGS 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Land Ownership 

Adjustment 

AccomDlishment 

The Forest Plan does not specify a level 

of accomplishment for the acquisition of 

However, the monitoring section does 

refer to the Forest's 5-year ROW 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Annually - 

100% Sample 

rights-of-way (ROW) easements. program. 

Table J-2a EASEMENT ACQUISITIONS (Cases) 

I 1987 I 1988 

Conservation I o I 0 

Easements I I 

Road ROW I 31 1 

Acquired I I 

Trail ROW I 0' I 0 

Acauired I I I I I I 

'Corrections made to data reported in previous Annual M&E reports 

1994 

0 

3 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 

I I I 

0 

**5 Road & 9 Trail ww's were acquired through the Crazy Mountain L&WCF Purchase in FY93 

5-3 Land Ownership Adjustment 

FINDINGS 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

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. 

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 

98 
LANDS 

Description 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999, 

Fed'l 0 0' 491.91' 0.619' 0' 0' 704.34 0' 0.086 1.98 0 0 1152 

Lands 

Disposed 

Fed1 16.27' 0' 298.55' 0 0' 9,659.11' 10,074.72' 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lands 

Acquired 

National Forest System ownership are 

pursued as they develop. 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Landline Location Annually - 

Accomplishment 100% Sample 

The Forest Plan specifically states that 'I--- 

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 had no annual target with the 

Region in FY 1999 and no purchase, 

VARIABILITY (4) WHICH Change 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Less than 75% No 

accomplishment of 5-Year 

Prnoram 

Monitoring 

Item? 

donation, Small Tracts cases or 

exchanges were accomplished in FY 

1999. 

The forest is continuing to pursue a land 

for land proposal by The Bair Ranch 

Foundation in the Tenderfoot area of the 

Little Belt Mountains and expects 

completion in FY 2001. 

J-4 Landline Location 

FINDINGS 

The Forest Plan target for landline 

location is 26 miledyear. In FY 1999, the 

Forest was funded for 16 miles and 

accomplished 16 miles, about 61% of the 

Forest Plan target. For the first seven 

years of the Forest Plan's first decade, the 

Forest accomplished an average of 79% 

of its annual target. 

The Forest has a total of 1636 miles of 

property boundary. Of this, 449 miles 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

have been posted to standard, leaving 

11 87 miles not posted. If 26 miles per 

year were to be achieved until the entire 

boundary was posted, it would take 50 

years to complete the job. In the interim, 

many miles would need maintenance. 

The Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Resource Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) set 

the year 201 0 as a goal for completing the 

posting of all National Forest boundaries. 

99 
LANDS 

Description 

Landline 

Location 

For this to be achieved on the Lewis and 

Clark National Forest, an annual average 

of about 100 miles of accomplishment 

would be needed in the period 1999-2010. 

Consequences of failing to achieve 

property boundary targets create trespass 

problems for the recreating public and the 

abutting landowners. In addition, 

management decisions may at times be 

compromised for lack of a posted National 

Forest boundary. 'Also, by deferring 

property boundary posting, valuable 

physical evidence attesting to the original 

corner location is being obliterated or lost 

to the forces of man and nature. 

1987 

14 21* 26' 22' 23 24 17 22* 25 20 16 16 16 

1988 1989 1990 I 1991 I 1992 I 1993 [ 1994 I 1995 I 1996 I 1997 I 1998 1999 

Table J-4a LANDLINE LOCATION ACCOMPLISHMENT (Miles) 

*Corrections made to data reported in previous Annual M&E reports 

100 
FACILITIES 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Road And Trail 

Construction; Local Roads; 

Trails; ArteriaVCollector 

Roads 

FACILITIES 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring 

Item? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually - + / - 20% of programmed No 

100% Sample construction/reconstruction 

accomplished 

L-I Road & Trail Construction/Reconstruction 

FINDINGS 

Roads: The Forest Plan as originally 

printed (Table 2.1, Lewis and Clark 

National Forest Plan, June, 1986) 

indicated that the Forest would 

accomplish 3.6 miles of arterial road and 

13.0 miles of local road in the first decade 

of the plan. This is a typographical error. 

The figures were intended to indicate an 

annual figure relating construction and 

reconstruction. Further, these numbers 

were the miles anticipated to support the 

Timber Management Program in 1986 

only. 

The Forest Plan budget and projected 

targets were amended in April, 1989 

(Lewis and Clark Forest Plan Amendment 

No. 3) to include all miles, both 

construction and reconstruction, in 

support of all resources. The amended 

numbers are 9.0 miles of new 

construction and 24.0 miles of 

reconstruction annually under both Capital 

Improvement and Purchaser Credit 

Programs. 

In the period FY 1995-1999, the Forest 

constructed 13.1 miles and reconstructed 

55.8 miles of roads in service levels 2 and 

above, for a total of 68.9 miles under both 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

Capital Improvement and Purchaser 

Credit Programs. When considering the 

total miles reconstructed and newly 

constructed in FY 1999 under both 

programs, the total is 5.3 and 12.0 miles 

respectively, or 52% of the aggregate of 

Forest Plan construction and 

reconstruction miles. By work function 

(reconstruction or new construction) the 

percentages are 62% and 50% of 

projected Forest Plan levels, respectively. 

Referring to Table L-1 of this report, these 

totals fall outside of the range of variability 

at which further evaluation would occur. 

Even if the reconstruction of Sun River 

Road (7.1 miles) had proceeded as 

originally scheduled for 1999, the total 

work accomplished would have not 

reached the 80% of Forest Plan goals for 

road construction and reconstruction. A 

further review of this table also reveals 

that FY's 1987 and 1991 were the only 

two years in which the accomplished 

miles were within the variability standard. 

During 1999, the Forest used monies 

outside of the Capital Investment and 

Timber Purchaser Credit Programs to 

reconstructed 4.2 miles of road using nonappropriated 10% funding, and 

101 
FACl LIT1 ES 

Description 

L 

Capital 

Investmentl 

Purchaser 

Credit 

Consbud 

Capital 

Investmentl 

Purchaser 

Credit 

Reconstruct 

reconstructed 6.0 miles using non - 

agency disaster funds. Under all funding 

sources the total accomplished were 27.5 

miles, or 83% of forest plan target as 

amended. 

Forest 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 

Plan 

9.0 3.7 2.9 0 3.1 17.4 20.2 3.2 1.5 

24.0 29.7 20.3 17.9 9.8 13.4 22.6 1.3 14.1 ' 

The average accomplishment for the 

thirteen year period from 1987-99, (65.1 

miles of construction and 184.9 miles of 

reconstruction for a total of 250.0 miles) is 

58% of the aggregate total given in the 

forest plan. By work function 

(construction or reconstruction) the 

percentages are 56% and 59%, 

respectively of the forest plan targets as 

amended. The reasons for the under 

accomplishment are programmed timber 

sales that slipped behind anticipated 

schedules due to prolonged analysis, , 

appeals, and litigation; short falls in 

anticipated Capital Improvement Program 

allocations related to Regional 

prioritization; and reduced road 

construction funding allocated from the 

national headquarters level. 

Consequences of not meeting Forest Plan 

targets in this program area include: noncompliance with the Forest Plan; backlog 

of needed relocation and reconstruction of 

unstable and inadequate roads with 

continued soil and water quality impacts; 

transportation facility conditions continue 

to deteriorate; increased costs, and some 

service levels will continue to be 

inconsistent with that which was planned. 

The Forest Plan, as amended, projects an 

average of 14.0 miles of trail construction 

and reconstruction annually. In FY 1699, 

11 .O miles of reconstruction work 

occurred using appropriated fkds. 

Funding levels have also affected the 

amount of trail miles that can be 

constructed or reconstructed. 

Table L-1 b TOTAL TRAIL CONSTRUCTIOIVRECONSTRUCTION (miles) 

*Corrections made to data reported in previous Annual M&E reports 

Forest Plan I 1987 I 1988 I 1989 I 1990 I 1991' I 1992 I 1993 I 1994 I 1995 I 1996 I 1997 I 1998 I 1999 

14.0 I 8.5 1 10.0' I 12.0' I 14.0' I 11.0' I 9.0' I 13.6' I 22.1' I 12.5 I 11.5 I 2.1 I 1.4 I 11.0 

102 
FACILITIES 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Miles of Roads Open to 

Public Use 

L-2 Miles of Open Roads 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (4-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually - + / - 20% of target miles to Yes At 

100% Sample be open to public revision 

FINDINGS 

The Forest has 1,593 miles of system 

road. The total mileage has been 

declining as a result of road 

decommissioning and a continuing review 

of the road inventory. The Forest Plan 

identifies road management direction for 

various management areas. This 

includes defining whether an area will be 

managed for low, moderate, or high level 

of public access. Low level is defined as 

between 0.5 - 1.5 miles of open road per 

square mile of area, moderate as between 

1.5 - 3.0 miles of open road per square 

mile of area, and high level is greater than 

3 miles of open road per square mile. 

The following table shows a calculation of 

projected access level by management 

area, based on access direction and total 

square miles covered by that 

management area. For example, 

Management Area A covers 

approximately 66 square miles of the 

Forest. Road management direction for 

MA A is to achieve moderate public 

access (1.5 - 3.0 miles of open road per 

square mile of area), which calculates to 

between 99-198 miles of open road. As 

shown in the table below, in most cases, 

actual road miles open yearlong and 

seasonally are closer to the low end of 

Forest Plan open road densities. This is 

largely due to the fact that not all areas 

are suited to roaded use, and site-specific 

analyses have resulted in closures of 

some roads no longer needed. These 

numbers are subject to change as better 

inventory information becomes available. 

Roads analyses and travel and access 

planning will help determine appropriate 

service and use levels on Forest system 

roads. This may result in changes to the 

amount and level of use of the Forest 

road system. - 

1 03 
FACILITIES 

Management 

Area 

A 

B 

C 

Access LeveVmiles of Total Actual miles of 

open road open road (includes 

roads open yearlong 

and seasonally) 

M = 99-198 miles 84 

592 

L = 95-285 miles 258 

M = 71 1-1 422 miles 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

L = 21 -63 miles 8 

L = 134-403 miles 142 

minimum 97 

minimum 142 

H = >312 102 

J 

K 

minimum 3 

minimum 9 

L-3 Road Decommissioning 

- L H = 108 42 

M minimum 0 

N minimum 5 

0 minimum 31 

P minimum 0 

Q minimum 0 

R minimum - 

S H = >3 miles 2 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION - 

Public Use I 100% Sample I be closed to public I I J 

MEASURED 

Miles of Roads Closed to 

FINDINGS 

Annuallv - + / - 20% of taraet miles to Yes Yes 

The focus of the program is to accelerate 

decommissioning of roads no longer 

needed for the Forest Transportation 

System. Priorities are guided by the 

Clean Water Action Plan with emphasis 

placed on those roads having the most 

impact on watershed and fishery 

resources and will be accomplished under 

the Interim Forest Road Policy. 

Beginning in FY 1999, decommissioning 

occurred on the Kings Hill Ranger District, 

in three projects totaling 7.9 miles. Roads 

were closed using earthen berms, type 2 

1 04 
FACILITIES 

Description 

Road 

Decommissioning 

Forest Plan 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

0 0 0 0 0 7.9 

105 
PROTECTION 

Forest 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Plan 

14.0 70 90+ 80 90 67 64 89 70 79 66 36 54 

PROTECTION 

1999 

64 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

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 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

FINDINGS 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

P-1 High Risk Stands 

5 Years 

REPORTING 

PERIOD 

Introduction of new insect or No No 

disease or spread of an 

existing insect or disease. 

5 Years 

From 1995 to 1999, lodgepole pine was 

the dominant cover type on approximately 

56% of the stands harvested. This is 

below the Forest Plan goal emphasizing 

lodgepole pine removal, however all 

harvesting was effective in breaking up 

continuous forest cover reducing fuels 

accumulations. Additional lodgepole pine 

harvest will be planned as previously 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Unacceptable results of an 

ID Team review, or if less 

than 70% of timber volume is 

programmed from high risk 

mountain pine beetle stands 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

Yes 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

Yes 

harvested drainages recover. Recent 

analysis indicates that the dry forest, 

mixed conifer stands may be higher 

priority as the Forest has never 

experienced epidemic populations of 

mountain pine beetle in lodgepole stands. 

Harvest has been increasing in stands 

dominated by Douglas-fir and ponderosa 

pine. 

P-2 AcresNolume of Insect and Disease 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Acres and volume of insect 

and disease infestations 

106 
PROTECTION 

' Annually 

FINDINGS 

Based on the aerial detection surveys 

conducted each summer from 1995 

through 1999, there is a fairly constant 

presence of numerous insect and disease 

agents including Douglas-fir bark beetle, 

spruce beetle, and pine engraver, with 

generally less than 200 acres affected by 

each agent. Mountain pine beetle in 

ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine are 

present but with levels ranging from 500 

to over 1,500 acres; the highest year was 

in 1999 with 1,633 acres of affected trees. 

Mortality is increasing in ponderosa pine 

dominated stands as they become 

overstocked, (653 acres in 1999). Root 

rot is ever present with a high of 1,587 

acres in 1995 to a low of 272 acres in 

1998. With the exception of mountain pine 

beetle in ponderosa pine stands, these 

insects and diseases are at endemic 

levels creating diversity and are not a 

threat to the forest resources at these 

levels. 

Winter damage due to extremes in winter 

temperatures caused major damage to 

nearly 42,500 acres in 1997; this 

compares to the lowest year in 1996 with 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Management practices to 

ensure activities do not 

promote an increase in 

insect or disease 

organisms 

1,439 acres with moderate to heavy 

damage. Although full mortality did not 

occur on all acres affected, the trees are 

weakened and become more susceptible 

to secondary insect infections or an 

increase in fire risk. 

White Pine blister rust is known to occur 

in the whitebark pine and limber pine of 

the Forest although was not detected and 

acres affected have not been quantified. 

Blister rust poses a threat to the 

regeneration and overall health of future 

stands containing 5-needled pines. 

Additionally, defoliation of limber pine 

was noted for several years, although the 

causal agent, Dothistroma septospora 

was not identified until 1998. D. 

septospora is a needle blight fungus; and 

when coupled with blister rust poses a 

serious problem for the survival of both 

seedlings and established limber pine 

trees. Lodgepole pine in some areas of 

the forest continues to decline due to its 

age. The health of specific stands is 

impacted by heavy dwarf mistletoe as 

well. 

P-3 Management Practices 

REPORTING 

PERIOD ' 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Significant increase in insect 

and disease 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

No 

Change 

Forest 

Pian? 

No 

107 
PROTECTION 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Assure prescribed fire 

meets air quality standards 

FINDINGS 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Pian? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Annually + / - 10% beyond standard No No 

guidelines 

There has not been any significant 

increase in insect or disease agents as a 

result of management practices. Activities 

planned near root rot areas recognize the 

potential for root rot spread with partial 

cutting practices. There is a potential in 

areas of winter damage that deferring 

management may cause an increase of 

secondary insects or disease in the future. 

Monitoring will be necessary to determine 

if and when management practices are 

needed. 

P-4 Prescribed Fire & Air Quality 

FIND1 NGS 

As displayed under P-5 the number of 

fuels acres treated by prescribed burning 

per year has been increased from 2,200 

to over 6,000 acres as of 1999. The main 

increase had been associated with 

prescribed burning of natural fuels. These 

burns are used to reduce potential 

intensity of wildland fires, to control when 

burning takes place and to improve forest 

health conditions, (i.e. burn when fuels 

condition can be treated by underburning) rather than waiting too long, 

when thinning or mechanical treatment 

will be needed before under-burning can 

be used to maintain lower fuel is loadings. 

Air quality standards as monitored byr 

Montana DEQ and coordinated by the 

Montana State Airshed Group, are used 

to manage the prescribed burning 

process. This group issues burning 

restrictions when smoke dispersion is 

poor or smoke accumulations may exceed 

air quality standards. All burning is 

coordinated 24 hours in advance and the 

decision to issue burn restrictions is made 

by the program coordinator a working 

meteorologist and Montana DEQ. 

There have been no reported complaints 

from prescribed burning, however during 

the past several years there has been 

some major smoke impacts from wildfires 

in Montana and Idaho which have 

affected the visibility, air quality and 

potential health of Forest users and local 

communities. During this su6mer the MT 

DEQ developed a forest fire smoke index 

to advise the public of health effects of 

smoke and when to take precautions. 

They issued 21 “very unhealthy” and 19 

“hazardous” advisories for communities 

from Hamilton to Kalispell, Butte to 

Helena. 

108 
PROTECTION 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-).WHICH Change 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Fuel Treatment Outputs Annually - + / - 25% of programmed No 

Monitoring 

Item? 

100% Sample targets 

P-5 Fuel Treatment Outputs 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

Description Forest 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Activity 1,470 1713 1,201 1,053 737 533 328 833 385 393 429 187 525 

Fuels 

Natural 700 665 863 1025 675 860 1,108 972 1,215 1189 2300 2517 760 

Fuels 

Plan 

FIND1 NGS 

1999 

361 

6009 

Much of the change in the fuels program, 

from the late 1980’s to the present, is a 

result of projects being developed to 

respond to forest health objectives rather 

than to meet timber harvest objectives. 

The acres of activity fuels treatment have 

declined, however much of the need to 

break up large concentrations of heavy 

forest fuels or to remove high risk 

lodgepole pine or Douglas-fir stands is still 

evident. 

OUTPUTMANAGF~VIENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) Wm Change Change 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

TO BE MEASURED FURTHER EVALUATION 

Wildfire Acres Burned Annually - + / - 25% above projected No No 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? 

100% Sample average annual wildfire 

I burned acres 

As a result of coordinating with private 

landowners, adjacent communities and a 

newly developed National Fire Plan, 

(requested by congress) there will be 

focus efforts and funding to reduce future 

wildland fire risk through fuels reduction 

actions. Coordination efforts with county 

officials, Montana DNRC, other agencies 

and local communities will be used to 

identify communities at risk from wildland 

fire. The community, fire protection 

agencies and individuals who need to 

protect their private property will develop 

potential fuels treatment actions and 

funding needs. 

P-6 Wildfire 

FINDINGS 

There has been a record drought pattern 

across much of central Montana during 

the past four years, this has resulted in a 

longer fire season, above normal fire 

109 
PROTECTION 

10-yr 

497 

Avg 

occurrence and increased fire behavior 

resulting in large fires, which exceeded 

initial attack resources. On the average 

there have been one or two project fires 

per year requiring the assistance of an 

Incident Management Teams to control 

these complex fires. Any time fires 

exceed initial attack capabilities and 

require added personnel and equipment 

for control the costs quickly escalate and 

can easily surpass the normal or average 

suppression costs. The fire suppression 

funding for the L&C NF has been at 

approximately 65% to 70% of the most 

efficient level as analyzed through the 

NFMAS model. For the past 3 years 

protection expenditures have ranged 

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

37 174,162 13 32,013 795 25 1 3,918 7 3747 13 234 1,362 

between $800,000 and $900,000 for the 

Forest fire suppreSsion organization. 

Suppression costs have ranged from 

$1 7,000 in 1997 to $1,382,000 in 1999. 

The major cost for 1999 resulted from 2 

fires which required an Incident 

Management Team. The Burned Point 

fire west of Augusta cost approximately 

$745,000, and the Spring Creek fire 

southeast of Showdown cost $51 0,000. 

In 1999, the Lucy Park fire just east of 

Neihart started on private land and 

required assistance from the Forest 

Service, including smokejumpers, 

retardant and two Montana Indian 

Firefighting crews. This fire cost about 

$55.000. 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Cost of Suppression and 

Protection Organization 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

5 Years + / - 5% increase in real No No 

costs 

P-7 Suppression and Protection Costs 

1O-Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Average 

$590 $379 $6361 $273 $1684 $2648 $484 $520 $773 $517 $3543 $818 $1197 $2253 

110 
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Project-level effects on 100% Sample 

eligible rivers qualifications Annually 

(free-flowing and 

"outstanding remarkable" 

resource values) and 

assigned potential 

classification (wild, scenic, 

recreational) 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

Any action that would No 

adversely impact or degrade 

an eligible river's qualification 

and/or potential classification 

Monitoring 

Item? 

W-1 Effects on Eligible Rivers 

FI NDlNGS 

No project-level activities occurred along 

any of the nine eligible rivers or river 

segments which adversely impacted or 

degraded a river's qualifications and/or 

potential classification. This 

determination was made by comparing 

activities that were implemented in or 

along eligible rivers with Forest Plan goal 

#11 and Forest Plan management 

Standard W-1 (wild potential 

classification), W-2 (scenic potential 

classification), and W-3 (recreational 

potential classification). The rivers 

monitored for project-level activities were: 

Smith River, North Badger Creek, North 

and South Fork Sun River, Dearborn 

River, North Fork Birch Creek, Green Fork 

of Straight Creek, Tenderfoot Creek', and 

Middle Fork Judith River. 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

Under the Tenderfoot Land Exchange, the 

Forest proposes to acquire private lands 

along the Tenderfoot Creek (T14N, R4E, 

sections 21 , 22, and 23) adjacent to 

segments of the creek identified as 

eligible for scenic river classification. 

Acquisition of these lands will ensure that 

scenic values can be maintained. 

Through the oil and gas leasing analysis, 

stipulations were developed to ensure 

protection of eligible rivers, consistent with 

Forest Plan direction. 

Through site-specific analysis, additional 

information on identified anz potentially 

eligible rivers is collected. A river 

suitability study may be completed as part 

of Forest Plan revision. 

111 
GENERAL 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, EFFECTS 

TO BE MEASURED 

GENERAL 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 1 FURTHER EVALUATION 

1-1 Costs and Values 

Effects of emerging issues or 

changing social values 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTS TO BE 

MEASURED 

Validation of costs and 

values used in Forest Plan 

Continuously If issues cannot be dealt 

with under the Forest 

Communications Plan 

R EPORTl NG 

PERIOD 

VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

WOULD INITIATE 

FURTHER EVALUATION 

5 Years - 

100% Annual 

Sample 

In general, + / - 25%; 

however, very large cost 

items such as stump-truck 

costs would have a smaller 

degree of acceptable 

variability. 

Change 

Monitoring 

Item? 

Yes 

Change 

Forest 

Plan? 

No 

FIND1 NGS 

The 1995 Forest monitoring report recommended deleting this monitoring item, since the 

only available tracking system for validating costs/values is designed solely for the timber 

resource 

1-2 Emerging Issues 

FIND1 NGS 

Public interest in the management of the 

Lewis and Clark National Forest continues 

to play a major role in the implementation 

of the Forest Plan. In addition to new 

projects and issues, several ongoing 

projects carried through fiscal years 1995- 

1999. While each Ranger District was 

involved with several smaller scale 

projects requiring public involvement, the 

key projects necessitating more extensive 

efforts because of the sensitivity of the 

issues involved were: Forest-wide 

Analysis for Oil and Gas Leasing, Forestwide Range Inventory and Analysis, 

Rocky Mountain Front Mineral 

Withdrawal, Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail Interpretive Center, and, as 

always, the Timber Sale Program. 

Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Plan? 

Change 

Item? I 

Minerals: 

Lewis and Clark National Forest Oil 

and Gas Leasing EIS: See item G-5 

Chevron/Fina EIS: See item-G-3 

Big Snowies Exploratory Core Drilling: 

In July 1995, Cominco American, Inc., 

submitted a mineral plan of operation for 

core drilling from one to six exploratory 

holes in Swimming Woman Canyon, Big 

Snowy Mountains. Proposed access 

would be via existing roadways, and 

proposed drill sites would be on existing 

roads. Some road maintenance was 

proposed to accommodate drill truck 

access. The proposed sites were within 

112 
GENERAL 

the 1977 Big Snowy Montana Wilderness 

Study Act area. A public field trip was 

taken to the area in September 1995. 

Because of the Wilderness Study status, 

the Forest Service consulted with the 

Office of General Council as to the legality 

of this proposal. In August 1997, 

Cominco decided to withdraw their drilling 

proposal due to lack of exploration funds. 

Rocky Mountain Front Mineral 

Withdrawal: On February 3, 1999, Mike 

Dombeck, Chief, USDA Forest Service, 

announced a two-year moratorium on 

locatable mineral entry (hard rock mining) 

of 429,000 acres of National Forest 

System lands (NFS) in the Lewis & Clark 

and Helena National Forests to preserve 

the area for traditional cultural purposes 

by Native Americans, protection of 

threatened and endangered species, and 

preservation of outstanding scenic values 

and roadless character. The lands 

proposed for the withdrawal include all 

NFS lands in the Rocky Mountain division 

of the Lewis and Clark National Forest 

outside of existing Wilderness east of the 

Continental Divide and NFS lands on the 

Lincoln Ranger District of the Helena 

National Forest east and outside of the 

Scapegoat Wilderness. A notice was filed 

in the Federal Register February 3, 1999, 

which prevented the staking of new 

mining claims while an environmental 

analysis is completed to evaluate closing 

the area to entry under the United States 

mining laws for 20 years. The lands 

remain open to all other activities 

consistent with applicable forest plans and 

those related to the exercise of valid 

existing rights. 

During a 90-day public comment period 

following Chief Dombeck's 

announcement, nearly 700 individuals, 

groups or agencies wrote concerning the 

two-year moratorium. These names and 

addresses were included on the mailing 

list for the proposal to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

remove NFS lands along the Rocky 

Mountain front from new mining claims for 

up to 20 years. A Notice of Intent to 

prepare an EIS was filed in the Federal 

Register June 4, 1999, which listed public 

meetings and a 30-day comment period 

on the 20-year proposal. Two public 

meetings were held - Choteau (38 in 

attendance) and Lincoln (1 4 in 

attendance). Nearly 300 comments were 

received by the end of the comment 

period, July 6, 1999. A final EIS is 

expected to be released in 2000. 

Block P: See item G-4 

Range: 

Forest-wide Range Inventory and 

Analysis: In January 1991, the concept 

of "block" or "ecosystem" range inventory 

and analysis for updating or revising 

Allotment Management Plans was 

approved by the Lewis and Clark Forest 

leadership team. Allotments were 

combined into study areas and prioritized 

for action. 

The Castle Mountains comprised the first 

analysis area. The Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) on grazing in the 

Castle Mountains was released August 

11,1995. The Section 8 process under 

the Public Rangeland Improvement Act 

was initiated under which a target group 

of specialists representing the University 

of Montana, the State of Montana, and 

Montana Riparian Association reviewed 

Forest Service information on the 

proposed action and associated issues. 

The Final EIS and ROD were released 

February 1997. Two appeals were 

113 
GENERAL 

received from permittees. The decision 

was administratively upheld and was 

implemented in the 1997 field season. 

A second environmental analysis on 

grazing for multiple allotments in the north 

Little Belt Mountains was initiated in June 

1996. The Environmental Assessment 

(EA) for north Little Belt Mountains was 

released in August 1997. A Decision 

Notice for the EA was released in March 

1998. Three appeals were received on 

the decision. The appeals were 

withdrawn following negotiations between 

the Deciding Official and appellants. 

The third multiple-allotment analysis was 

initiated in the fall of 1996 for the Sun 

Canyon area. The EA for Sun Canyon 

was released June 1997, and the decision 

was signed in September. An appeal of 

the District Ranger's decision was filed by 

a permittee. The Forest Supervisor heard 

an oral presentation by the permittee, and 

the appeal was resolved. 

The fourth environmental study of grazing 

allotments began in September 1997, for 

the Belt Creek area. The EA was 

released in February 1998. The Decision 

Notice was issued in June. 

Another environmental study of grazing 

allotments in the Judith River area in the 

central Little Belt Mountains was initiated 

in April 1998. Nearly all of the Middle 

Fork Judith Wilderness Study Area is 

within the analysis area. An EA was 

released July 2, 1998, and the Decision 

Notice was issued in September. 

An environmental study of grazing 

allotments within the Musselshell drainage 

of the Little Belt Mountains was initiated in 

June 1999. 

Timber Sale Proqram 

Smoky-Corridor Timber Sales - 

Environmental Impact Statement: The 

Final Smoky-Corridor Timber sales EIS 

was released in January 1994. Twenty 

appeals were received on the final 

decision, of which, two were dismissed. 

The Appeals Deciding Officer reviewed 

the appeal record and affirmed the Forest 

Supervisor's decision. 

On May 12, 1994, the Forest Service 

received a Notice of Intent to sue from 

several of the appellants. The complaint 

was filed July 18, 1994. A temporary 

injunction was issued on Smokey B 

Timber Sale December 22,1994. A 

hearing on the injunction was held 

January 12,1995, where attorneys 

presented oral arguments concerning the 

Smokey Corridor EIS. Judge Hatfield 

issued a ruling August 21, 1996, 

upholding the Forest Service on all 

counts. Litigants in the case appealed the 

ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of appeals 

and requested a stay of activities. On 

July 7, 1997, the Forest Service was 

notified that 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 

affirmed Judge Hatfield's ruling. 

Running Wolf Timber Sales - Final 

Environmental Impact Statement: The 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Running Wolf Timber Sales was 

available for public review and comment 

in September 1994. The DEE described 

five alternatives for management within 

the project area in the north central Little 

Belt Mountains. A Final EIS was released 

in May 1995. The EIS was appealed, 

however, the Regional Forester upheld 

the Forest Supervisor's decision. 

114 
GENERAL 

Dry Fork Vegetation and Recreation 

Restoration - Environmental 

Assessment: As a result of information 

gathered through a landscape 

assessment of the Belt Creek drainage, 

the Forest, in 1998, proposed timber 

harvest, prescribed burning and 

recreation site improvements in the Dry 

Fork drainage of Belt Creek. The 

objectives of the proposal were to improve 

tree stand structure and age class, using 

harvest and prescribed burning; to provide 

wood products while emphasizing 

ecosystem health; to reduce impacts to 

water and aquatic resources from roads 

and intense recreation use next to 

streams; and to provide a level of 

dispersed and developed recreation 

opportunities compatible with other 

resources. A scoping letter was sent to 

376 individuals, interested groups and 

tribal officials, and two public field trips 

were conducted to the project area. An 

EA was released in September 1999, but 

in response to public requests, additional 

time was allowed for comment. Several 

meetings were held with local community 

members to discuss the proposal. 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 

Interpretive Center: Using the $300,000 

federal appropriation received in 1995, the 

Forest Service contracted with CTA 

Architects for architectural design and 

construction documents for the 

Interpretive Center building. By the- Fall of 

1995, partnership funds were raised and 

matching funds from Congress were 

appropriated. Construction of the Lewis 

and Clark National Historic Interpretive 

Center was completed in the fall 1997. A 

Grand Opening event was held on July 4, 

1998. By May 5, 1999, the 100,000 visitor 

had been counted at the Center. Some 

remodeling occurred to improve safety 

conditions and the ADA accessibility to 

the facility. 

Programming at the Center has expanded 

with special tribal speakers and music 

programs provided on a regular basis. 

The education program has served 

approximately 6000 students from across 

the state. 

A contract for the construction of a 

demonstration area along the banks of the 

Missouri River was completed and 

officially opened with interpretive 

demonstrations in early August 1999. 

Total visitation for FY 99 was 

approximately 90,000. 

Forest Plan Revision: In preparation for 

Forest Plan revision, the Lewis and Clark 

Forest, along with other “eastside” forests 

(including the Helena, Gallatin, Custer, 

and Beaverhead-Deerlodge) has been 

compiling data related to issues common 

to the forests in the broad geographic 

area. The forests will identify existing and 

historic conditions and trends related to 

water issues, vegetation, terrestrial wildlife 

species, recreation uses, and social and 

economic factors in order to identify 

resource concerns, opportunities, and 

determine need for change in 

management strategy. Depending on 

available funding, the Lewis-and Clark 

Forest may enter into the formal Forest 

Plan revision process in FY2002. 

Big Snowy Mountains Access: Public 

meetings were held in Lewistown and 

Billings in FY94 to discuss the appropriate 

level of public access to and within the Big 

Snowy Mountains. A total of 85 people 

attended the two meetings. In FY95, 

Montana Wilderness Association 

contacted the Chief of the Forest Service 

protesting a Decision Memo by the District 

115 
GENERAL 

Ranger which allowed the improvement of 

access and the development of a 

trailhead in Cottonwood Creek of the Big 

Snowies. In the spring of 1995, a second 

round of public meetings were held in 

Lewistown and Billings. One hundred 

people attended these meetings. Also, 

ranger district personnel conducted 

summer field trips to show proposed 

access routes and recreational 

improve men ts . 

Gallatin Range Consolidation And 

Protection Act: This Act authorized and 

directed the Forest Service to acquire 

inholdings within the Gallatin National 

Forest north of Yellowstone National Park. 

The Forest Service and the owner 

reached agreement on an exchange 

containing a mix of assets in Montana, 

including national forest lands, national 

forest timber and Bureau of Land 

Management lands. A series of public 

meetings were held concerning the 

proposal. The environmental analysis 

was completed and a report was 

submitted to Congress in September 

1997. The exchange contribution from 

the Lewis and Clark National Forest was 

11 51 acres of land in Meagher and 

Cascade counties. The Forest Service 

notified permittees and adjacent land 

owners who may be affected by the 

exchange. 

Bair Land Exchange: In 1996, the Gwis 

and Clark National Forest, University of 

Montana and Bair Company entered into 

a 3-party agreement to share information 

and develop courses of action to meet the 

goals of both the National Forest and the 

Bair Company for checkerboard 

ownership sections of land in the Lower 

Tenderfoot drainage, a tributary of the 

Smith River. The University provided 

information and analyzed tools to predict 

future vegetative and other resource 

trends in the drainage; research and 

educational oppodunities were provided 

for the school. Another part of the 

agreement was directed at a potential 

land exchange or purchase of Bair lands, 

as well as management opportunities. 

In August 1997, public scoping was 

opened to gather concerns and issues of 

the potential exchange. Public concerns 

and issues will be incorporated into an 

environmental assessment. 

South Fork-Sun River Burn: The Rocky 

Mountain Ranger District proposes 

introducing management ignited fire into 

approximately 10,000 acres of the 

Scapegoat Wilderness over five years. 

The proposal would accomplish two 

objectives - to create a more defensible 

Wilderness boundary to control wildfire 

and to restore the natural role of fire in the 

Wilderness complex. An initial public 

comment period began October 17,1997. 

An interdisciplinary team included public 

concerns in the environmental analysis, 

expected to be released in early 2001. 

Tenderfoot Experimental Forest: The 

Lewis and Clark Forest has been working 

with Forest Research to implement a 

research project in the Tendegoot 

Experimental Forest. The proposal 

involves watershed management after 

vegetative treatment including logging and 

prescribed burning. Scoping for this 

proposal began in May 1997. An EA was 

completed in February 1998. Four 

appeals were received on the decision; 

two were dismissed. The Appeal 

Deciding Officer upheld the Forest 

Supervisor decision on the remaining 

appeals 

116 
GENERAL 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT 

PRESCRIPTION, 

EFFECTSTOBE 

MEASURED 

Evaluate lands identified as 

not meeting physical or 

biological characteristics 

used initial allocations 

1-3 Land Allocations 

REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH Change Change 

PERIOD WOULD INITIATE Monitoring Forest 

Item? Plan? FURTHER EVALUATION 

Continuous All changes will be evaluated No No 

annually 

FINDINGS 

Ground truthing and site-specific analyses 

conducted during implementation of the 

Forest Plan examines the findings of 

consistency for timber management and 

other decisions made in the Plan. Forest 

Plan Amendment #18 resulted in a 

change of management area designation 

on 15,910 acres in the Running Wolf 

project Area. Forest Plan Amendment 

#19 changed management designation on 

Table I-3a Allocations of Manac 

(Forest Plan, page 3-2) 

Management Area 

Management Area A 

Management Area B 

Management Area C 

Management Area D 

Mgnagement Area E 

Management Area F 

Management Area G 

Management Area H 

Management Area I 

Management Area J 

Management Area K 

Management Area L 

Management Area M 

Management Area N 

Management Area 0 

Management Area P 

Management Area Q 

Management Area R 

Management Area S 

Management Area T 

Total Forest Acres 

40,492 acres in the Castle Mountains as a 

result of findings in the Castle Mountains 

Range Analysis EIS. Forest Plan 

Amendment #20 designated 3,145 areas 

in the Big Snowies as Research Natural 

Areas. 

The following table shows the 

management area changes made as a 

result of project implementation analysis. 

!merit Areas and Acres 

1987 Acres 

16,261 

330,838 

11 1,664 

24,456 

1 16,519 

352,746 

247,644 

31,778 

37,867 

11,100 

9,125 

16,112 

3,281 

41,838 

22,702 

384,407 

51,834 

33,225 

0 

0 

1,843,397 

Net Change 

+13,582 

-41,476 

-51,261 

+17,997 

+13,113 

-554 

+30,242 

-3,270 

-79 

-238 

-1,209 

+610 

+7089 

No Change 

No Change 

No Change 

+96 

+2,600 

-580 

+12,980 

130,924 

1999 Acres 

29,843 

289,362 

60,403 

42,453 

129,632 

352,192 

277,886 

- 28,508 

37,788 

10,862 

7,916 

16,722 

10,370 

41,258 

22,702 

384,407 

51,834 

33,321 

2,600 

12,980 

1,843,397 

117 
GENERAL 

OUTPUT, MANAGEMENT REPORTING VARIABILITY (+/-) WHICH 

PRESCRIPTION, PERIOD WOULD INITIATE 

EFFECTS TO BE FURTHER EVALUATION 

MEASURED 

Validation of employment 5 Years 

and income projections changes 

+ / - 20% of predicted 

Land allocation adjustments totaling 

130,924 acres have been made during 

implementation of the Forest Plan. This 

represents about a 7% change in land 

allocation and are considered a minor 

modification. The changes in 

management areas have reduced the 

suitable forest acres (those acres 

managed for scheduled MMBF). 

timber harvest) by 16,558 (from 287,307 

to 265,749). This'is about a 6% reduction 

of the total suitable forest land identified in 

the Forest Plan for forest production. This 

small change has not affected the annual 

allowable sale quantity (12.1 MMBF), nor 

has it had much effect on the long-term 

sustained yield of the Forest (23.8 

Change Change 

Monitoring Forest 

Item? Pian? 

No No 

1-4 Employmenfflncome Projections 

Currently, the Forest only has the ability to 

validate employment and income 

projections for the timber resource. The 

following table shows the employment 

and income projections used in the Forest 

Plan and the actual jobs and income from 

the timber program (Table 3, TSPIRS). 

Table 1 -4a EmDlovment and Income ComDarisons .- 

Forest 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 

Plan 

-7,700 

Income in thousands and in FY 1999 dollars 

The 13-year average job (339) and 

+ 

21,251 11,266 

I I 

10,811 12,800 13,986 9,492 22,875 7,322 11,767 

employment measured in terms of fullincome ($1 1,067) projections are above 

the variability predicted in the Forest Plan. 

The 13-year averages are somewhat 

skewed due to the higher volume of 

timber harvested on the Forest in FY 1992 

(23.3 MMBF) and in 1998 (18.9 MMBF). 

NOTE: For 1992 and earlier, the IMPIAN 

model used 1985 county level data, with 

time equivalents. The IMPlAN model 

was updated with the more current mill 

survey information in 1992. At the same 

time, the model was also made more 

comprehensive in terms of the definition 

of the timber industry, with the inclusion of 

woods workers that were not identified in 

the earlier model, and the inclusion of 

118 
GENERAL 

county roads and schools that receive 

funds from the 25% Fund payments to 

counties. These adjustments increased 

the employment and income figures per 

million board feet of timber harvest when 

compared to the information reported in 

TSPIRS in years prior to j992. 

119 
IV. COMPARISON OF OUTPUTS, ACTIVITIES, AND BUDGETS 

IV. COMPARISON OF OUTPUTS, ACTIVITIES, AND BUDGETS 

The following two tables compare the outputs, activities, and budgets with those projected 

in the Forest Plan. 

Table I - ComDarison of Prok 

Output of Activity 

Developed Use 

Dispersed Use 

Wilderness 

Non-wilderness 

Wldlf Habitat Imp 

Fish Habiit Imp 

TBE Habitat Imp 

Wldil Structures 

Fish Structures 

T8E Structures 

Permit Grzing Use 

Range lmprovmnt 

Nonstructural 

Structural 

AMPs 

Nox Weed Control 

Total Vol. Sold 

Silviculture Exams 

Reforest-Appro$ 

Reforest-Other' 

TSI-Amrooriated' 

TSI-~ ' 

Soil Inventory 

Soiwater ~mprv. 

Minerals Mgmt 

Land Exchange 

Landline Location 

Road Construction 

Road Reconstruct 

Trail Constructionl 

Reconstruction 

Fuels MgmtBD 

Fuels Mgmt-FFP 

- 

Unit of 

Measure 

M RVD 

M RVD 

M RVD 

Acres 

Acres 

Acres 

Structures 

Structures 

Structures 

M AUM 

Acres 

Structures 

Plans 

Acres 

MMBF 

M Acres 

Acres 

Acres 

Acres 

Acres 

Acres 

Acres 

Cases 

Acres (net) 

Miles 

Miles 

Miles 

Miles 

Miles 

Acres 

Acres 

FP 1st 

Decade 

189" 

86 

164 

600 

5 

100 

10 

25 

0 

71.1 

1329 

40 

10 

600 

14 

28.0 

54 

270 

200 

0 

2000 

45 

160 

60 

26 

9.0 

24.0 

14.0 

1470 

700 

I 

1987 

541 

64 

581 

300 

2 

0 

0 

16 

70.5 

1999 

30 

5 

772 

7.9 

45.3 

21 7 

1108 

563 

125 

0 

29 

154 

16 

14 

3.7 

29.7 

8.5 

1713 

665 

- 

- 

__ 

__ 

- 

:ted 

1988 

179 

42 

384 

1400 

0 

0 

0 

19 

72.3 

2433 

18 

4 

616 

10.7 

33.9 

225 

829 

568 

12 

0 

10 

134 

0 

21'' 

2.9 

20.3 

10.0' 

1201 

863 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Out 

1989 

205 

60 

1392 

10 

0 

6' 

11 

72.4 

1607 

26 

4 

636 

6.9 

28.2 

92 

927 

502 

0 

0 

109 

250 

-193 

26" 

0 

17.9 

12" 

1053 

1025 

- 

450 

- 

- 

1utsI 

1990 

241 

64 

416 

1262' 

16 

500 

4' 

34' 

71.9 

562 

35 

0 

10.5 

37.3 

117 

603 

340 

0 

0 

71 

108 

0 

22'' 

3.1 

9.8 

14.1 

737 

675 

- 

- 

472 

- 

Lcth 

~ 

1991 

271 

63 

535 

450 

0 

634 

7 

33' 

71.2 

402 

28 

2 

17.9 

35.4 

38 

487 

334 

0 

25000 

50 

94 

0 

23 

17.4 

13.4 

11'' 

533 

860 

- 

- 

- 

ties 

1992 

296 

59 

568 

1221' 

40 

6301 

8 

30 

70.3 

550 

37 

1 

1261 

25.6 

14.6 

245 

371 

186 

24 

46Ooo 

94 

38 

9659 

24 

20.2 

22.6 

9' 

328 

1108 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

%I 

1993 

23710 

618" 58 

779 

71 

210 

9 

20 

69.5 

110 

31 

1 

1265 

12.1 

9.4 

151 

612 

216 

111 

49000 

50'O 

37 

9371 

17 

3.2 

1.3 

13.6'' 

833 

972 

- 

- 

- 

ne F 

334' 

64 

642' 

1035' 

20 

120 

20 

6 

72.7 

453 

32 

0 

1515 

6.3 

9.3 

253 

914 

178 

140 

30000 

129' 

38 

0 

22'' 

1.5 

14.1 

22.1'' 

384 

1215 

1994 

- 

- 

NA = Not Available at time of publication 

' Number differs from Table C-1% because KV accomplishments included in this table's total 

'Total of planVSeed and Site Prep. Natural Appropriated, see Table E-7a ' Reforest-other is the sum of PlanVSeed and Site Prephorn KV, Trust Funds, and Purchaser Work, see Table E-7a 

' Total of Release Acres and Thinning TSI Appropriated, see Table E-7a 

'Total of Release Acres and Thinning TSI KV, see Table E-7a 

Management Attainment Reporting (MAR) items changed in 1995; now reflects acres restored 

' New MAR item reflects miles of inland fish habitat restored'enhanced - no Forest Plan output ' New MAR item reflects miles of TES aquatic habtat enhanced - no Forest Plan output ' New MAR item reflects # of TBE structures - no Forest Plan output 1o Corrections made to previous report 

eric 

1995 

337 

65 

719 

1 4' 

0 

2 

9" 

72.4 

100 

40 

0 

1100 

3.4 

NA 

148 

526 

348 

127 

0 

133 

31 

0 

25 

1 .o 

22.4 

12.5 

393 

1184 

- 

w 

10 

- 

- 

I 

1996 

379 

66 

736 

90s" 

3' 

200 

1 

0' 

72.5 

100 

38 

17 

1100 

10.0 

NA 

373 

740 

98 

0 

0 

61 

28 

-2 

20 

3.0 

9.6 

11.5 

429 

2300 

- 

1' 

- 

~ 

1997 

NA 

NA 

NA 

485' 

4.75' 

250 

0 

3' 

73.7 

0 

43 

23 

1200 

15.0 

NA 

134 

140 

85 

0 

0 

116 

19 

0 

16 

1.5 

8.1 

2.1 

187 

2517 

- 

1' 

- 

- 

- 

__ 

1998 

NA 

NA 

NA 

E?- 

4.75' 

250 

1 

3.5' 

l9 

73.3 

300 

28 

24 

- 

1200 

5.6 

NA 

59 

400 

525 

0 

0 

112 

26 

- 

0 

16 

2.3 

3.7 

1.4 

525 

760 

- 

- 

- 

1999 

NA 

NA 

NA 

- 

w 

10' 

1 70 

0 

d 

68.7 

500 

62 

11 

9.8 

NA 

304 

578 

15 

0 

0 

139 

37 

1152 

5.3 

12.0 

11.0 

361 

6009 

0' 

1100 

16 

- 

120 
IV. COMPARISON OF OUTPUTS, ACTIVITIES, AND BUDGETS 

Total Budget 

The following table shows the budget identified in the Forest Plan to implement Forest Plan 

direction, and the Forest’s actual 1999 budget allocation. All dollars are reported in 1999 

8794 

dollars. 

Table II - ComDarison of F 

Activity 

General Administration 

Land Management Planning 

Inventory & Monitoring 

Fire and Fuels 

Timber 

Range 

Minerals 

Recreation 

Wilderness 

Heritage 

Wildlife and Fish 

Soil, Air, Water 

Facility Maintenance 

Landsmeal Estate Mgmt 

Land Acquisition 

Landline Location 

Road Maintenance 

Trail Maintenance 

Co-op Law Enforcement 

Reforestation- Approp 

TSI-Appropriated 

Tree Improvement 

KV (Trust Fund) 

CWFS-Other (Trust Fund) 

Timber Salv. Sale (Perm) 

Brush Disposal (Perm) 

Range Improvement 

Recreation Construction 

Engr Const Support 

’ 1999 Budget Allocations vs F 

Budget in Forest Plan 

1447 

(was spread among other line items) 

(was spread among other line items) 

495 

878 

604 

664 

780 

(included in Recreation) 

(included in Recreation) 

703 

239 

168 

164 

232 

135 

574 

424 

61 

85 

44 

11 

150 

35 

48 

35 

73 

* 69 

676 

The budget in the Lewis and Clark 

National Forest Plan (June 1986) was an 

estimate of the funds needed to 

implement the activities proposed in the 

Plan. Since that time many of the costs 

used in the Plan have changed. New 

activities and/or emphasis items, although 

authorized by the Plan, have changed or 

rest Plan Projections 

Actual 1999 Allocation 

770 

49 

246 

1470 

793 

826 

181 

782 

166 

62 

334 

183 

264 

50 

23 

97 

327 

228 

(no longer allocated to Forest) 

161 

0 

0 

210 

115 

31 5 

21 

32.4 

61 

302 

8068 

The Forest Service budget process has 

changed significantly in recent year as 

well but in all cases, when Congress 

passes the Appropriation Bill, the dollars 

and targets are disaggregated to the 

forest level and the forest is left with a 

budget allocation and targets to execute. 

This “Actual Allocation” may or may not 

expanded. Since the development of the 

Forest Plan we have additional and more 

accurate information on the real costs of 

resource support to timber, for example. 

resemble our budget request. There are 

several reasons why the budget allocation 

we receive differs from the program we 

requested in the out-year process. The 

121 
IV. COMPARISON OF OUTPUTS, ACTIVITIES, AND BUDGETS 

main reason for the difference is that 

Congress' decision on budgets and 

targets is influenced by more than just the 

President's budget submission. The 

following are examples of influences on 

Congress; committee member's' interest, 

successful lobbying efforts, the overall 

size of the budget (and deficit), and the 

popularity or unpopularity of certain items 

in the budget. When this budget comes to 

us in the form of an Appropriation Act (a 

law) we are required to execute it as 

Congress has specified. 

122 
LIST OF PREPARERS 

NAME 

Bonnie Dearing 

Harvey HergetVMarilyn Woods 

V: LIST OF PREPARERS 

FUNCTIONAL RESOURCE AREA 

Public Information Officer 

Engineer (Roads and Facilities) 

The following individuals contributed to the development of the Monitoring and Evaluation 

Report for the Lewis and Clark National Forest for Fiscal Year 1999. 

NAME 

Rick Prausa 

FY 1999 Monitoring and Evaluation Team 

FUNCTIONAL RESOURCE AREA 

Forest Supervisor 

George Weldon 

Mike Munoz 

William Fortune 

David Whittekiend 

Mike Enk 

Don Godtel 

Arlyss Hagen 

Guy Schmidt 

Tammy Cherullo 

Mark Nienow 

Eldon Rash 

Robin Strathy 

Jane Weber 

Ronald Yates 

Steve Martin 

Lee Clark 

Deputy Forest Supervisor 

District Ranger, Rocky Mountain District 

District Ranger, Judith and Musselshell Districts 

Acting District Ranger, Kings Hill District 

Fisheries Biologist 

Wildlife 6 iologist 

Resource Specialist 

Transportation Planner 

Archeologist 

Hydrologist 

Range Conservationist 

Land Management Planning/Minerals 

Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center Director 

Landscape ArchitecVRecreation 

Timber ManagemenVSilviculturist 

Fire Management Specialist 

Jenny Scheer I NEPA CoordinatorNVriter-Editor 

In addition, the report was reviewed by the following individuals: 

123 
APPROVAL 

VI. APPROVAL 

I have reviewed the annual Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report for Fiscal Year 

1999 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 the Forest Plan (Chapter V), Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, and 36 CFR 219. 

This rep-pprwqd: 

Forest Supervisor 

1 24 
.. 

APPENDIX A 

1 0 I 0 

APPENDIX A 

0 I 0 

1997 ROCKY MOUNTAIN RANGER DISTRICT 

BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS REPORT 

2 

I. TRAIL ENCOUNTERS: 

A. Planned Frequency: 

25 5 I 2 92 

As a minimum, trail encounters in Opportunity Classes 3 & 4 will be monitored annually. An 

intermediate level of monitoring requires that each trail segment be monitored at least twice 

per month in July and August and once per month September through November. Campsite 

encounters will be monitored on the same schedule. 

3 

4 

B. Actual Frequency: 

Monitoring occurred on a very limited basis in most OP Class 111 and IV areas primarily 

because of a lack of field personnel during August and September. Op Class I & I1 areas had 

very limited monitoring, most areas if monitored at all was once for the year. 

1 ~ _- 

40 31 7 83 

44 90 12 73 

Rocky Mountain Ranger District 

oc I #Days Monitored I Encounters I Days Violated I % of Probability 

OC III known trails that are often out of standard, Moose Creek and Wall were only 

monitored once each for the season. Trails, Dearborn River and Straight Creek were new 

trails that were constantly out of standard. It is believed the popularity of the CDNST caused 

to be consistently out of standard. 

OC IV South Fork Sun and West Fork Sun trails continue to be above standard every time 

monitored in July, August, and-early September. 

- 

125 
APPENDIX A 

oc Campsite Index Rating 

1 50 

C. Standard: 

Barren Core Standard 

> 100 sauare feet 

OC 1 - 80% of encountering no other party. 

OC 2 - 80% probability of no more than 1 other party. 

OC 3 - 80% probability of no more than 3 or less parties. 

OC 4 - 80% probability of no more than 5 or less parties. 

~~~~ 

2 50 > 500 square feet 

3 50 > 1000 sauare feet 

oc # Sites High Index % High 

Visited Rating 

1 0 0 0 

2 0 2 0 

3 3 14 3 

4 5 54 5 

# Sites Exceeding # Sites 

BC Violation Exceeding 

BC 

0 0 

0 0 

21 14 

9 7 

~~ 

4 I 50 I > 2000 square feet I 

D. Inventory Results: Non-accomplished 

II. CAMPSITE ENCOUNTERS: 

A. Monitoring Frequency: 

As a minimum, campsite encounters in OC 3 & 4 will be monitored annually. An 

intermediate level of monitoring requires that each trail segment be monitored at least twice 

per month July-August, and once per month September-November. Campsite - encounters in 

OC 1 & 2 will be monitored as workload permits. 

- B. Standard: 

Number of other parties camped within site or continuous sound of an occupied site: 

OC 1 - 80% probability of no other parties. 

OC 2 - 80% probability of no other parties. 

OC 3 - 80% probability of no other parties. 

OC 4 - 80% probability of no more than 3 other parties. 

126 
APPENDIX A 

oc # Campsites Monitored 

1 0 

2 0 

3 14 

4 32 

C. Monitoring Results: 

# Campsites Standard 96 

Exceeded Probability 

0 0 

0 0 

1 93 

3 91 

oc Campsite Index Rating 

1 50 

2 50 

3 50 

4 50 

m. CAMPSITE INVENTORY: 

Barren Core Standard 

>lo0 square feet 

>500 square feet 

>lo00 square feet 

>2000 sauare feet 

A. Planned Frequency: Inventory the entire area every 5 years (20% per year). 

oc #Sites High Index 5% High # Sites 

Visited Rating Exceeding 

BC Violation 

1 0 0 0 

2 0 0 0 

3 0 0 0 

4 0 0 0 

B. Actual Frequency: Lack of field personnel in August & September prevented any 

reinventoring. 

% 

Exceeding 

BC 

0 

0 

0 

0 

C. Standards: 

1. Identify campsites with site index ratings 50 or higher as Highly Impacted for all 

opportunity classes. 

2. Identify campsites with Barren Core rating violations by opportunity class. 

D. Inventory Results: Non-accomplished - 

127 
APPENDIX A 

oc 

1 

2 

3 

4 

IV. HIGH IMPACTED SITE RE-INVENTORY: 

A. Planned Frequency: Re-inventory Highly Impacted Sites annually. 

B. Actual Frequency: 

OC 1 & 2 - no known sites in these Oc’s. 

OC 3 - 3 known sites, all were inventories & inspected in either 94 or 95. 

OC 4 - 5 known sites, all were inventories & inspected in either 94 or 95. 

C. Standard: Same as Section III, site index 50. 

# Sites # Sites # Sites High % High # Sites % Improved 

Visited Improved 

0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 2 0 0. 0 0 

3 14 3 21 2 14 

5 54 5 9 4 7 

Area 

Moose Creek 

Glenn creek 

Reef Creek 

Windfall 

Red Shale 

V. BARREN CORE SITES RE-INVENTORIED: 

A. Planned Frequency: Re-inventory Barren core violations annually. 

B. Actual Frequency: No inventory was accomplished. 

C. Standard: Same as for Section 111, C, 2, Barren Core Standards 

D. Problem Areas: 

oc Moderate High 

3 0 -2 

4 1 0 

47 0 1 

4 0 0 

3 1 0 

I Upper W. Fork Sun 3 I 1 1 I 

128 
APPENDIX A 

OG 

VI. NUMBER OF HUMAN IMPACTED SITES640 ACRE AREA: 

Number of Human Impacted Sites Permitted/640 Acre Area 

A. Standard: 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 permitted 

2 permitted 

3 permitted 

6 permitted 

oc 

B. Results of Inventory: No inventory conducted but from visual observations. 

# 640 Acre Areas Exceeding Standard 

2 

3 

4 

0 

0 

0 

OC 3 - Red Shale, Halfmoon Park and Moose Creek continue to have impacted sites. 

OC 4 - West Fork Sun was the only area that did not show improvement. 

VII. NUMBER OF HUMAN IMPACTED SITES ABOVE A PARTICULAR CONDITION 

CLASS/640 AC: 

A. 

B. 

Standard: 

OC 1 - No moderately or highly impacted sited640 acres. 

OC 2 - No more than (1) moderately impacted site and (0) highly impacted sited640 acre 

area. 

OC 3 - No more than (2) moderately impacted site and (0) highly impacted sited640 acre 

area. - 

OC 4 - No more than (3) moderately impacted sites and (1) highly impacted sited640 acre 

area. F 

Results of Inventory: No inventory conducted but from visual observation. 

129 
APPENDIX A 

Area oc 

Moose Creek 3 

Glenn Creek 4 

Reef Creek 4 

Windfall 4 

Red Shale 3 

UDDer W. Fork Sun 3 

Moderate High 

0 2 

1 0 

0 1 

0 0 

1 0 

1 1 

VIII NEWCAMPS: 

A. Standard: Sites not previously identified in the inventory process as having received use. 

B. Results of Inventory: 

Fires of 1988 still show a definite change in use patterns on North Fork Sun, which may 

be due to the extensive areas of blow down. This does not seem to be true in the Scapegoat 

where the timber is not nearly as large. The old favorite campsites are all being used regardless if 

the area burned or not. Several new sites were also not along CDNST also in the Scapegoat. 

M. NATURALIZED/NO LONGER DISCERNIBLE CAMPSITE: 

A. Definition: 

A campsite recuperated to the point where most visitors would not be able to distinguish 

that the site had been camped at. If the site still has a fire ring, visible pile of black coals, or 

evidence of tree damage, it should not be considered naturalized. 

B. Results of Monitoring: None accomplished. 

- 

X. RANGE 

A. Degree of Forage Utilization: 

OC 1 - No more than 20% of key species forage utilized. 

OC 2 - No more than 20% of key species forage utilized. 

OC 3 - No more than 50% of key species forage utilized except on big game winter range 

OC 4 - Same as OC 3. 

and grizzly bear habitat. 

130 
APPENDIX A 

B. Results of Inventory: 

OC 1 - No known areas exceeding standard. 

OC 2 - No known areas exceeding standard. 

OC 3 - Moose Creek, Upper West Fork Sun and Halfmoon Park had sites that exceeded 

standard. 

OC 4 - Lower West Fork - 3 sites, Forks of West & South Sun River, 2 sites and Windfall 1 

site exceeded standard. 

XI. SUMMARY: 

Trail and campsite encounters monitoring were scheduled bi-monthly in OC I11 and IV, however, this 

was not accomplished because of lack of field personnel in August & September. Known problem areas 

continued to exceed standards nearly every time monitored. 

The 1988 fire area continues to influence use of campsites on North Fork of Sun River, however, this 

doesn't seem to be true in the Scapegoat. CDNST is also appearing to influence use patterns particularly 

in the Scapegoat. Barren Core is not a problem and rehab work or a season of rest seems to correct the 

problem. 

Human impact sites appear to be associated with the heavy use area and loop including South Fork Sun, 

West Fork Sun and Chinese Wall. Fragile Alpine plants and poorly drain erosive soils also contribute to 

the impacted sites under the wall. 

XII. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS: 

Continue the aggressive "NO" horses in campsite " signs in popular campsites along the three forks of 

Sun River. Encourage the use of only hardened sites in Alpine areas near the Chinese Wall. 

The District will have to increase monitoring and patrol along CSNST as use continues to increase as it 

has in the past 2 years. - 

Weed spraying EA for the wilderness hasreduced weed infestation along south & west forks of the Sun, 

but need to continue working with Range personnel to rid area of weeds. 

Do everything possible to keep experienced people patrolling and monitoring in high use time period 

Jun 15 - September 15 annually. 

131