MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

AND CONSERVATION

STATE FOREST LAND
MANAGEMENT PLAN

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RECORD OF DECISION

MAY 30, 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ROD-1

A. The Decision To Be IVIade ROD-1

B. Authority For The Decision ROD-1

II. Decision ROD-1

III. Rationale For The Decision ROD-4

A. Selection Criteria Listed in the EIS ROD-4

B. Legal Framework ROD-5

C. Other Reasons For The Decision ROD-6

IV. Other Alternatives Considered ROD-7

V. Implementation of the Plan ROD-10

A. Managing the Plan ROD-10

B. Resource Management Standards ROD-1 2

Biodiversity ROD-1 2

Silviculture ROD-1 5

Road Management ROD-1 8

Watershed ROD-21

Fisheries ROD-26

Threatened and Endangered Species ROD-29

Sensitive Species ROD-31

Big Game ROD-33

Grazing on Classified Forest Lands ROD-34

Weed Management ROD-36

C. Management Direction ROD-38

D. Categorical Exclusions ROD-40

VI. Project Record ROD-42

VII. Signature of Deciding Official ROD-42

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

I INTRODUCTION will make site-specific decisions more efficient

by

Montana's forests are an integral part of the
economic, recreation and aesthetic values of
the state. The many different forest
landowners in Montana reflect the spectrum
of philosophies used in managing those forest
lands. This management plan applies to the
662,000 acres of forested lands of the total
5.2 million acres of school trust lands
administered by DNRC.

A. The Decision to Be Made

The Trust Land Management Division of
DNRC will implement the following State
Forest Land Management Plan (Plan) to
provide field personnel with consistent policy,
direction, and guidance for the management
of state forested lands.

The Department also adopts a list of types of
actions that qualify for categorical exclusion
from the preparation of an EA or EIS, unless
extraordinary circumstances occur. The list
of adopted Categorical Exclusions is
presented in section V of this Record of
Decision (for more detailed information, see
Chapter V of the FEIS).

This is a programmatic plan; it provides
policies and guidelines for managing state-
owned forest lands. It contains the general
philosophies and management standards that
will provide the framework for our project-level
decisions. It does not address site-specific
issues, make specific land use allocations or
identify precise future output targets for
individual resources.

The Plan provides a guiding framework for
proposing and analyzing site-specific
projects. This Plan and the corresponding
FEIS will be useful reference documents that

ROD - 1 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

helping us remain consistent witin our overall
management philosophy, and by saving
needless repetition of the reasoning behind
policy decisions that have already been
made. However, neither the EIS nor the Plan
will substitute for public involvement and
proper analysis and documentation in future
project-specific decisions.

B. Authority for the Decision

As the Director of the Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation, I have
decision-making authority for the State Forest
Land Management Plan.

All state school trust lands are under the
direction and control of the State Board of
Land Commissioners which consists of the
governor, superintendent of public instruction,
auditor, secretary of state, and attorney
general. (Article X, section 4, 1972 Montana
constitution) The Land Board will vote to
approve implementation of the Plan.

II. DECISION

I have selected alternative Omega to be the
management philosophy of DNRC for the
management of state forested trust lands.
Omega provides the best opportunity for
meeting the trust mandate while contributing
to the health and diversity of state forest
lands.

Omega

Our premise is that the best way to produce
long-term income for the trust is to manage
intensively for healthy and biologically diverse
forests. Our understanding is that a diverse
forest is a stable forest that will produce the
most reliable and highest long-term revenue
stream. Healthy and biologically diverse

forests would provide for sustained income
from both timber and a variety of other
potential uses. They would also help
maintain stable trust income in the face of
uncertainty regarding future resource values.
In the foreseeable future timber management
will continue to be our primary source of
revenue and primary tool for achieving
biodiversity objectives. By promoting
biodiversity we will protect the future income-
generating capacity of the land by maintaining
or restoring healthy and productive
ecosystems.

We would take a 'coarse filter' approach to
biodiversity by favoring an appropriate mix of
stand structures and compositions on state
lands. A coarse filter approach "assumes that
if landscape patterns and process (similar to
those species evolved with) are maintained,
then the full complement of species will
persist and biodiversity will be maintained"
(Jensen and Everett, 1993). A diversity of
stand structures and compositions provides a
broad range of current and prospective trust
revenue opportunities including a sustained
yield of timber, maintenance of forest health
and biodiversity, and other outputs, while
reducing risks of catastrophic fires and insect
or disease attacks.

The coarse filter approach supports diverse
wildlife habitat by managing for a variety of
forest structures and compositions, instead of
focusing on habitat needs for individual,
selected species. Because we cannot ensure
that the course filter approach will adequately
address the full range of biodiversity, we
would also employ a 'fine filter' approach for
threatened, endangered, and sensitive
species. The fine filter approach focuses on
single species' habitat requirements.

Within areas of large, blocked ownership, we
would manage for a desired future condition

ROD -2

RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

characterized by the proportion and
distribution of forest types and structures
historically present on the landscape. Our
typical analysis unit would be a third order
drainage wherein we would focus on
maintaining or restoring the forest conditions
that would have naturally been present given
topographic, edaphic and climatic
characteristics of the area. Any particular
combination of site, topography and climate
has an associated disturbance regime and
range of possible forest conditions. Among
the forest conditions we will consider are
successional stage, species composition,
stand structure, patch size and shape, habitat
connectivity and fragmentation, disturbance
regime, old-growth distribution and
composition, and habitat type. Timber
harvests would be designed to promote long-
term diversity and an appropriate
representation of forest conditions across the
landscape. Where our ownership contains
forest structures made rare on adjacent lands
due to the management activities of others,
we would not necessarily maintain those
structures in amounts sufficient to
compensate for their loss when assessed
over the broader landscape. However, if our
ownership contains rare or unique habitat
elements occurring naturally (e.g, bog,
patches of a rare plant), we would manage so
as to retain those elements.

On areas of smaller and/or scattered
ownership we would not frequently be in a
position to provide for appropriate
representation of forest conditions across the
broader landscape level. Our activities would
still be based on restoring a semblance of
historic conditions within our ownership. We
would consider management of our lands to
contribute to the diversity of forest conditions
over the larger landscape. Where our
ownership contains forest structures made
rare on adjacent lands due to others'
management activities, we would not

necessarily maintain those structures in
amounts sufficient to compensate for their
loss when assessed over the broader
landscape. However, if our ownership
contains rare or unique habitat elements
occurring naturally (e.g, bog, patches of a
rare plant), we would manage so as to retain
those elements.

In both types of ownership, timber harvest
would play the dual role of generating
revenue while also serving as our primary tool
for producing the desired range of stand
structures and distributions. The relative
market value of timber, the existence of a
manufacturing and marketing infrastructure,
and our own technical expertise and long
experience give us an advantage for using
timber management as the primary tool to
achieve biologically diverse forests. We would
maintain an up-to-date inventory of our forest
sites. We would compile a list of timber sales
that contribute to the goals of biodiversity and
offer the highest near-term income potential.
We would manage so as to meet annual
sustained yield levels identified in the study
mandated by HB 201 (§ 77-5-221 through
223, MCA). That study will incorporate both
the philosophy and standards of this
alternative. Fundamental to this philosophy is
the concept that managed forests should
reflect historic distributions and patterns of
forest types and successional stages. We will
re-evaluate our annual sustained yields at
least once every 10 years, as required by §
77-5-221 through 223, MCA.

Each land office would have annual goals
including a timber sale target as well as goals
for marketing other uses. Many of these
goals would include the use of timber harvest
as a tool. For example, forests dominated by
immature second-growth timber might be
thinned to produce small logs and pulpwood,
while reducing stand stress levels and
hastening development of old-growth features

ROD -3

RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

and high-value forest products. In areas with
considerable old-growth, some stands might
be managed on long rotations to perpetuate
old-growth, while others might be managed
on shorter rotations to produce high yields of
timber.

Management for forest health and biodiversity
would provide us with a consistent basis from
which to develop action alternatives at the
project level. Within the landscape, reference
to a historical condition supplies us with an
estimate of future risk and an ecologically
defensible desired state.

Prescribed fire will play a larger role in
Omega than in any of the other alternatives.
Restoration of historical forest conditions to
the landscape requires that prescribed
burning be among the management tools
available. For centuries, fire was the
predominant disturbance agent on the
landscape. The last several decades have
seen timber harvest replace fire as the
primary disturbance agent in our forests. This
has caused shifts in species compositions
and the representation of various forest cover
types.

Within this alternative, fire may be prescribed
as an underburn treatment in some types of
stands, or as a post-harvest treatment in
other types. We would continue to suppress
wildfire, however. The Biological Diversity
Strategies for Forest Type Groups attachment
(see Appendix RMS) would serve as a
guideline describing situations where we may
use prescribed fire.

We would actively seek ways to minimize the
amount of new roads needed to support
management activities. We would promote
cooperative road management planning
among adjacent landowners as one way to
minimize roads. We would consider

obliterating roads that are not primary access
routes. We would close most new roads
following use in order to minimize open road
mileage, unless they provide planned public
access or regular administrative access.

We would pursue other income opportunities
as guided by changing markets for new and
traditional uses. These uses may replace
timber production when their revenue
exceeds

long-term timber production revenue
potential. Where we pursue non-timber uses,
we may not comply with the biodiversity
elements of this alternative. Opportunities
might include development rights on a parcel
of waterfront land with high recreation
potential; homesite development; leasing an
entire drainage with substantial low-elevation
old-growth to a coalition of environmental
groups; or a land exchange program
designed to increase the average income-
producing value of our holdings. However,
because we expect these other income
opportunities to occur on a minor amount of
the forest acreage, these uses would not
compromise the overall fundamental premise
of managing for biodiversity.

III. RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

Omega represents a management philosophy
that promotes the purposes of these trust
lands, yet recognizes the changing variety of
interests in and uses of these forest lands. I
have considered all of the alternatives and
have chosen Omega based on the selection
criteria listed in the EIS for determining the
most appropriate management philosophy. In
addition to those criteria, federal and state
laws were also considered. These factors are
discussed below:

A. Selection Criteria Listed in EIS

B. Legal Framework

ROD -4

RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

C. Other Reasons for My Decision

A. Selection Criteria Listed in EIS

The following selection criteria were identified
in the EIS:

1) monetary return to the school trust;

2) long term health of our forest resource;
and

3) effect on the biological and physical
environment.

It is my opinion that two of the alternatives,
Gamma and Zeta, are seriously deficient
according to one or more of the criteria
above. Gamma and Zeta ranked at the
bottom of the expected share of total school
funding and net present value. They did fair
better when net present value was added to
the remaining timber asset. However, the low
harvest levels of Gamma and Zeta indicate
that there would be increased risk of mortality
due to declines in forest health.

The remaining five alternatives. Alpha, Beta,
Delta, Epsilon, and Omega, do satisfy all of
the criteria to varying degrees. This is
demonstrated in the effects assessment
presented in Chapter IV of the FEIS. Of the
remaining five, I selected Omega.

In terms of the selection criteria. Omega is
predicted to provide the second highest
economic return (NPV) of all of the
alternatives. This prediction is based on the
harvest level scenarios with which we
conducted our effects assessment. The
actual harvest levels will be determined
through the sustainable yield study
commissioned by § 77-5-221 through 223
MCA (HB 201 1995). That study will use the
management philosophy and RMS of the final
alternative to determine what will be our
legislatively mandated sustainable harvest.

In addition. Omega allows flexibility for the
pursuit of income opportunities other than
timber when their revenue potential meets or
exceeds that of long-term timber potential.
This will allow us to respond to changing
markets for new and traditional uses and
products, thus meeting our trust mandate.

I believe that Omega will provide an
opportunity to meet our trust mandate, while
also ensuring the health and diversity of state
forest lands. The biodiversity management
philosophy of Omega, similar to those
philosophies used nationwide by other natural
resource managers, will allow us to manage
the proportion and distribution of forest types
and structures that were historically present
on the landscape. As a result, we will be able
to provide for the long-term health of the
forest by reducing risks of catastrophic fires,
and insect or disease attacks.

I have reviewed the environmental
assessment for all of the alternatives. Omega
will have a mid-range impact on biological
and physical resources, when compared to
the other alternatives. However, I believe that
the Resource Management Standards
developed for Omega will provide sufficient
mitigation measures to protect Montana's
resources.

On balance, when I evaluated how each of
the alternatives met the selection criteria, I
judged that Omega best met the combination
of the three selection criteria.

B. Legal Framework

Trust Mandate

The Enabling Act of 1889 (25 STAT 679)
granted the state of Montana Sections Wand
36 in each township (or other lands in lieu of
those sections) "for the support of common

ROD -5

RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

schools. " While all trust lands are considered
state-owned, they may only be managed to
fulfill the specific purposes for which the trust
was created (i.e., the lands must be managed
to provide income for the designated trust
beneficiary such as the common schools,
agricultural college, mining college, asylums,
reform school, or public buildings).

I believe that by implementing Omega, DNRC
will best meet its trust obligations to produce
revenue in support of common schools.
Omega will allow us to produce short- and
long-term income for the trust by managing
intensively for healthy and biologically diverse
forests. A diverse and stable forest will
produce the most reliable short- and long-
term revenue stream. Timber and other uses
will provide for sustained income and will also
help maintain stable trust income in the face
of uncertainty regarding future resource
values.

The constitution also gives the State Board of
Land Commissioners the authority to manage
and control the disposition of the trust lands.
The Board can take no action contrary to the
trust principles outlined above. However,
they have broad discretion in applying those
principles. That discretion is necessary
because DNRC is required not only to satisfy
trust principles, but also to comply with state
statutes.

The discretionary authority of DNRC is based
on two principles. The first is the concept of
sustained yield. The Montana Supreme Court
has said, "In exercising its constitutional
authority, the legislature has provided that full
market value shall encompass the concept of
sustained yield. " Jerke vs. Department of
State Lands (now the Department of Natural
Resources and Conservation). Therefore, it
is within the discretion of the DNRC to receive
less income currently, if this action will

maintain the long term productivity of the land
and guarantee income to the beneficiaries in
the long run.

The second important principle is that
DNRC's management of school trust lands is
subject to state and federal laws enacted to
protect public health, safety, welfare and the
environment. Montana's Constitution requires
that "The state and each person shall
maintain and improve a clean and healthful
environment in Montana for present and
future generations " and directs the legislature
to enact laws to this end (1972 Montana
Constitution, Article IX, Section 1).

I believe that the selection of the alternative
Omega properly exercises the discretion of
the Land Board in meeting short- and long-
term trust obligations as well as complying
with appropriate state and federal laws.

The Montana Environmental Policy Act

DNRC's activities in the management of state
school trust lands are also subject to the
planning and environmental assessment
requirements of the Montana Environmental
Policy Act (ME PA) (§75-1-101, MCA) and the
administrative rules implementing MEPA
(ARM 26.2.628-663). This statute directs
state agencies to improve and coordinate
their planning processes that the state may
"create and maintain conditions under which
man and nature can coexist in productive
harmony, recognize the right to use and enjoy
private property free of undue government
regulation, and fulfill the social, economic,
and other requirements of present and future
generations" (§75-1-103, MCA).

DNRC has complied with MEPA in the
development of this programmatic plan. The
preparation of the EIS included extensive
public scoping which led to the development

ROD -6

RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

of six distinct management philosophies.
After the alternatives were developed and the
environmental impacts of each alternative
were assessed for a range of resources, a
Draft EIS was released. Public comment
was requested and received through the mail
as well as at public hearing held throughout
the state. Public comments were used in the
development of the Omega alternative, which
was then presented in the Final EIS. I have
reviewed the Draft and Final EIS and am
satisfied that DNRC, using the best available
scientific data, has met both the specific
procedural requirements and the intent of
MEPA in the development of this Plan.

Land Administration/ Resource Management
Laws

DNRC's management of school trust lands is
subject to state and federal laws enacted to
protect public health, safety, welfare and the
environment (as listed in the Appendix LGL of
the EIS). Montana's Constitution requires
that "The state and each person shall
maintain and improve a clean and healthful
environment in Montana for present and
future generations " and directs the legislature
to enact laws to this end (1972 Montana
Constitution, Article IX, Section 1).

I believe that Omega adequately fulfills our
obligation to state and federal laws.

D. Other Reasons For The Decision

On June 19, 1995, DNRC released the State
Forest Land Management Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to
the public for review. The comment period
lasted for 45 days and closed on August 4,
1995. In addition, testimony was recorded at
public hearings held in Billings, Bozeman,
Kalispell and Missoula. One hundred
seventy-four comments were received.

Substantive comments were received
regarding almost every resource area and
issue category covered in the DEIS. Of
particular concern were the method of our
economic analysis, impacts of management
activities on threatened and endangered
wildlife and fisheries, protection of
watersheds (particularly in Northwestern
Montana) and riparian areas, road density,
recreational access, forest health, old-growth,
control of noxious weeds, and the merit of
specific Resource Management Standards
(RMS) presented in the DEIS. A summary of
the public comments and our responses are
in Appendix RSP of the FEIS.

Several issues were identified by the public
which precipitated changes, including
categorical exclusions, road management
and the RMS. As a result of this input, three
categories of categorical exclusions were
dropped from further consideration: timber
harvest, timber stand improvement and
prescribed fire. The road management
standards were amended to clarify policy on
road closures under each alternative.
Additions and amendments were also made
to other resource management standards.
For instance, the Fisheries RMS were
expanded to include an explanation of
Recommendation #17 of the Flathead Basin
Forest Practices and Fisheries Cooperative
Program for the protection of bull trout and
westslope cutthroat trout, as well as the
Immediate Actions developed by the
Governor's Bull Trout Restoration Team. The
Sensitive Species and Threatened and
Endangered Species RMS were modified to
further clarify our policy in these areas.

The public comments received on the DEIS
were instrumental in the development of the
Omega alternative. I believe that Omega
meets our trust obligations and complies with
state and federal laws, while reflecting the

ROD -7

RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

concerns of the public and our staff in
managing forested trust lands.

III. OTHER ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED

Originally six alternatives were developed
through a process of internal discussion,
public discussion, development of preliminary
concepts, and a rigorous screening process.
After release of the DEIS, a seventh
alternative. Omega, was developed based on
public comments and input from our staff.
The Omega alternative was developed using
Beta as a philosophical base and then
combining elements of Beta, Delta and
Epsilon.

The narratives below explain the core
concepts of each of the original alternatives
(the text of Omega is presented on page
ROD-1. Each approach represents differing
beliefs and assumptions as to the best way to
meet the trust mandate.

Alpha

This is the way we do things now, and it is the
path we would continue to follow in the
absence of major changes in legislative or
policy direction. We would provide income to
the trust by marketing a sustainable harvest
of forest products while allowing other
revenue-generating uses, such as grazing
and cabin-site leasing, in response to
applications initiated by the public.

We would meet legal and/or generally
accepted standards of environmental
protection. Existing standards and

guidelines, and all other current plans, would
remain in effect. Standards and guidelines
would be modified or expanded when
conditions warranted such action.

ROD -8 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

Beta

Under Beta, we assume that intensive
management would promote healthy and
productive ecosystems while yielding greater
long-term income than natural processes
alone would produce. We would promote an
ecologically diverse, resilient, and productive
forest. Managing for diversity of stand
structures would provide a sustainable yield
of timber and other outputs whose cumulative
value would exceed that from timber alone.

Timber harvest would play the dual role of
directly generating revenue, as in the past,
while also serving as our primary tool for
producing the desired range of stand
structures and patterns. We would also use
other measures to enhance environmental
quality. Because diverse wildlife habitat
would be supported by managing for a variety
of forest conditions, we would de-emphasize
standards for individual species.

Gamma

An underlying assumption of Gamma is that
growing population and a fixed land base will
cause the value of forested lands to be driven
high enough that a diverse array of small
annual yields from natural ecosystems will
produce the greatest possible long-term
average trust income. Current uncertainty in
the politics of natural resource allocation
makes it smarter for us to preserve the widest
and richest possible array of future options,
rather than maximize revenue in the short run
and risk significantly limiting future options.

Under Gamma, our program direction would
emphasize restoring and maintaining natural
ecosystems under the assumption that we
can do little to improve on nature's ability to
sustain a productive and healthy ecosystem.
We would expect relatively small marketable
yields each year, but would expect the quality

and diversity of marketable opportunities to
grow rather than diminish with passing time.

Delta

Under this alternative, we assume that the
greatest long-term average return would
come from competitively marketing our
resources, focusing on flexibility, creativity,
and attention to financial rate of return.
Forest land management would be strongly
influenced by market conditions.

We would inventory potential money-making
opportunities and use financial analysis as
the first indicator for initiation and timing of
projects. Our decisions would balance our
response to changing market conditions with
maintaining technical adaptability, so that we
would not abruptly drop one activity to begin
another. However, we would be strongly
influenced by market conditions such as
cycles in demand and price for commodities
or unique recreational demands. Dominant
land uses could shift with changing market
trends, but we would not normally make
disruptive changes in response to temporary
market variations. This approach would
emphasize a high degree of flexibility in
choosing dominant land uses.

Epsilon

Under this program, we assume that the
relative market value of timber, the existence
of a manufacturing and marketing
infrastructure, and our own technical
expertise and long experience give us a
natural advantage that makes timber
management the best way to maximize long-
term average trust income. Consequently, we
would formalize timber marketing as our
primary business. Our main program goal
would be to offer the harvest level and mix of
sales most appropriate for current market
conditions and long-term sustainable yield.

ROD -9

RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

We would meet the minimum acceptable
standards of environmental protection. In
cases where the standards allowed
discretion, we would accept some adverse
environmental effects in order to earn larger
long-term monetary returns to the school
trust. In cases of uncertain environmental
impacts, we would take some risk in favor of
earning greater monetary return.

Zeta

Under this program, we assume that
changing social values, an increasing
demand for quality outdoor experiences, and
our status as a large forest land manager put
us in a unique position to maximize long-term
average trust revenue by specializing in
marketing outdoor recreation and wildlife-
related opportunities. Our program direction
would emphasize wildlife and recreation
management first and other activities only to
the degree that they did not conflict with, or
would enhance, these primary resource
values.

We would inventory opportunities for making
money through emphasizing recreation and/or
wildlife management. Under this strategy, we
would concentrate our efforts on initiating and
actively marketing proposals that would
provide income from wildlife and recreation
management.

ROD - 1 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

V. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN

This section includes:

• a brief summary of how the Plan will be managed (see FEIS Appendix MNG for more detail);

• the full text of the Resource Management Standards that will be implemented in this Plan;

• additional management direction relating to issues of access, administrative coordination,
cumulative environmental effects, conflicting land uses, public involvement and recreation; and

• a list of the Categorical Exclusions adopted under this Plan.

A. Managing the Plan

Beginning in the year 2000, and every five years thereafter, the Forest Management Bureau Chief
would make a written report to the Director of DNRC and the Trust Land Management Division
Administrator on the current status of Plan implementation and effectiveness, including a
recommendation on the need for significant changes to the Plan.

The Plan could be reviewed and changed at any time for one or more of the following reasons:

1 ) new legislation is passed that is not compatible with the chosen alternative;

2) new direction from the State Board of Land Commissioners; or

3) the Forest Management Bureau Chief judges that original assumptions supporting the Plan
no longer apply.

Minor changes or additions could be made as long as they were compatible with the overall Plan.
Cumulative minor changes could result in a programmatic review of the entire Plan.

The Forest Management Bureau Chief could change management direction without changing the
Plan if the proposed change did not violate the fundamental intent as reflected in the Plan and EIS.
For example, as our resource specialists became aware of new information through their ongoing
review of scientific literature, we might modify our biodiversity strategy without amending the plan as
long as the changes remained consistent with our original intent.

Field Implementation and Compliance

We implementation to be a learning process. The Department will conduct a phased-in
implementation of the Plan. The development of implementation guidance and monitoring
procedures, as well as the training of personnel, will be an on-going process.

ROD - 11 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

On all projects that have already gone through the MEPA public scoping process, we won't require
that all elements of the Plan be implemented. However, these projects will be evaluated to discern
all reasonable opportunities to comply with the Plan. This will largely depend on where the project
is in the process. For example, if scoping has begun yet no alternatives have been developed,
there will be more opportunity to develop an alternative consistent with the Plan philosophy and
standards. If alternatives have already been developed and/or analyzed, there may be
opportunities for incorporating Resource Management Standards into project design.

On new projects, all applicable Resource Management Standards and developed guidance will be
implemented. Additional guidance, if necessary, will be implemented as it is developed.

The Department is not requesting additional FTE or budget at this time. This is to allow DNRC to
gain experience in implementing the Plan and to determine, through that experience, if additional
personnel and budget are needed to fully implement the plan.

Our implementation training process will include opportunities for field managers to test the Plan
against various situations they expect to face. Interpretation would be through continuing dialogue
between field personnel, managers, and the Forest Management Bureau.

The following measures would be used to ensure that the Plan is being followed by DNRC staff and
field personnel:

1 ) During our annual review, we would revise Program goals and objectives as necessary to
remain in compliance with the Plan.

2) We would monitor individual resources, based on resource management standards
specified in the Plan, and take the prescribed corrective actions when problems occurred.
We would also ensure that prescribed corrective actions were included in contracts and
implemented.

ROD - 1 2 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

B. Resource Management Standards
BIODIVERSITY

WE ADOPT THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION OF BIODIVERSITY (BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY):

In the simplest of terms, biological diversity is the variety of life, and its processes. It
includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the
communities and ecosystems in which they occur. ^

Premise

A diversity of stand structures and compositions provides a broad range of current and prospective
trust revenue opportunities including a sustained yield of timber, maintenance of forest health and
biodiversity, and other outputs, while reducing risks of catastrophic fires, and insect or disease
attacks.

Standards

Fundamental Approach

1) We would promote biodiversity by taking a 'coarse filter' approach thereby favoring an
appropriate mix of stand structures and compositions on state lands. Appropriate stand
structures and compositions would be based on ecological characteristics (e.g., land type,
habitat type, disturbance regime, unique characteristics). A coarse filter approach "assumes
that if landscape patterns and process (similar to those species evolved with) are maintained,
then the full complement of species will persist and biodiversity will be maintained" (Jensen and
Everett, 1993).

2) The coarse filter approach supports diverse wildlife habitat by managing for a variety of forest
structures and compositions, instead of focusing on habitat needs for individual, selected
species. Because we cannot assure that the course filter approach will adequately address the
full range of biodiversity, we would also employ a 'fine filter' approach for threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species (see T&E Species RMS, and Sensitive Species RMS). The
fine filter approach focuses on a single species' habitat requirements.

Landscape Analyses

3) Within areas of large, blocked ownership, we would manage for a desired future condition
characterized by the proportion and distribution of forest types and structures historically
present on the landscape. Our typical analysis unit would be a third order drainage wherein we

Biological Diversity on Federal Lands: Report of a Keystone Policy Dialogue. 1991. The
Keystone Center, P.O. Box 606, Keystone, CO 80435.

ROD -13 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

would focus on maintaining or restoring the forest conditions that would have naturally been
present given topographic, edaphic and climatic characteristics of the area. Any particular
combination of site, topography and climate has an associated disturbance regime and range of
possible forest conditions. Among the forest conditions we will consider are successional
stage, species composition, stand structure, patch size and shape, habitat connectivity and
fragmentation, disturbance regime, old-growth distribution and composition, and habitat type.
Timber harvests would be designed to promote long-term diversity and an appropriate
representation of forest conditions across the landscape. Where our ownership contained
forest structures made rare on adjacent lands due to others' management activities, we would
not necessarily maintain those structures in amounts sufficient to compensate for their loss
when assessed over the broader landscape. However, if our ownership contained rare or
unique habitat elements occurring naturally (e.g, bog, patches of a rare plant), we would
manage so as to retain those elements.

4) On areas of smaller, and/or scattered ownership we would not frequently be in a position to
provide for appropriate representation of forest conditions across the broader landscape level.
Our activities would still be based on restoring a semblance of historic conditions within our
ownership. Where our ownership contained forest structures made rare on adjacent lands due
to others' management activities, we would not necessarily maintain those structures in
amounts sufficient to compensate for their loss when assessed over the broader landscape.
However, if our ownership contained rare or unique habitat elements occurring naturally (e.g,
bog, patches of a rare plant), we would manage so as to retain those elements.

5) We would make reasonable attempts to pursue cooperative planning with major adjoining
landowners. The objectives of cooperative planning would be to: (a) maintain appropriate
amounts and distribution of stand structures and species mixtures to promote biodiversity at a
landscape level; and (b) equitably maintain or promote trust revenue opportunities over the long
term.

6) Within an appropriate analysis area, DNRC would seek to maintain or restore old-growth forest
in amounts of at least half the average proportion that would be expected to occur with natural
processes on similar sites. We would maintain sufficient replacement old-growth to meet this
goal given that old-growth does not live forever. However, DNRC would not maintain additional
old-growth to compensate for loss of old-growth on adjoining ownerships. Procedures such as
those described in "Biological Diversity Strategies for Forest Type Groups" or other technical
references would be used for designating and managing old-growth blocks and replacement
areas.

7) "Biological Diversity Strategies for Forest Type Groups" or other current references would be
used as guidance for landscape-level biodiversity evaluations, old-growth protection, and design
of timber harvests to promote biodiversity. The Biological Diversity Strategies would be updated
periodically, with professional review, as new information and concepts are developed.

ROD -14 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

Monitoring

8) A subset of revenue-generating activities would be field reviewed by specialists after project
completion, or every five years for ongoing projects, to evaluate the application of biological
diversity measures at a stand and landscape level.

9) Landscape evaluations would be checked to compare actual effects of management activities
and natural processes against desired or predicted effects. Trends in forest cover
characteristics, habitat values, insect and disease activity, and other natural disturbances would
be evaluated.

1 0) Cooperative plans would be evaluated as needed, to monitor how successfully they are being
implemented.

11) Results of monitoring would be used to help plan follow-up and future activities in the
evaluation area, and to improve our ability to predict the effects of activities in similar situations
elsewhere. Monitoring would be frequent enough to accomplish these purposes effectively.

References - Biodiversity

Jensen, M.E. and R. Everett. 1993. An overview of ecosystem management principles. In:
Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment. Vol II. Ecosystem Management:
Principles and Applications. M.E. Jensen and P.S. Bourgeron, editors. USDA, National
Forest System, Forest Service Research, pp. 9-18.

Remington, D. 1 993. Biological diversity strategies for forest type groups. Montana Department of
State Lands, unpublished paper. (The text of this paper follows on the next page).

ROD - 1 5 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

SILVICULTURE

Standards

Biological

1) All prescribed silvicultural treatments would maintain the long-term productivity of the soil
and site in order to ensure the long-term capability to produce trust revenue and maintain
soil hydrologic function.

2) Ecological characteristics of the site would be evaluated and used to develop stand
management regimes that are compatible with the site. Management regimes would
address stand structures and development, species mixtures, silvicultural systems, and time
periods for reforestation. Suitable management regimes are those which can be expected
to realize the productive capability of the site for producing desired products and benefits.
They also minimize the risk of losses to biotic or abiotic agents (e.g., wind-throw, micro-
climate changes, etc.) which would prevent achievement of these benefits.

3) The long-term quality of the genetic base would be maintained or improved in terms of
growth, form and adaptation of tree species.

4) Diversity of species, ages, and structure would be maintained within or between stands, in
order to maintain a complex and stable ecosystem that would be buffered against losses to
insects, disease, wildfire, and climatic elements.

Silvicultural Prescriptions

5) Silvicultural prescriptions would be prepared for all planned treatments. These prescriptions
would be written to accomplish the following objectives in a clear and organized manner:

a) Guide DNRC personnel in the correct implementation of the prescribed
treatments.

b) Provide a record of the objectives and details of prescribed treatments for
future reference.

c) Document conformity of the prescribed silvicultural treatments with
requirements of the State Forest Land Management Plan and relevant
DNRC Resource Management Standards.

Financial

6) A financial evaluation would be done for all proposed silvicultural treatment(s) using an
appropriate combination of the following procedures:

ROD - 1 6 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

a) The use of FAST or similar software approved by the Forest Management
Bureau to estimate the treatment net present value (NPV) and land
expectation value (LEV). This would be done on at least one stand per
administrative Unit per year, and when proposed activities represent a
questionable investment.

b) The foresters use their best professional judgement to rank the financial
merit of treatment alternatives.

7) All recommended silvicultural treatment regimes would have to produce a net return for the
combined current and future stands (i.e., LEV) that was higher than the net return for the
"no action" alternative. These financial comparisons would need to consider effects of the
prescribed treatments on future harvest opportunities in other stands in the vicinity, as well
as discounted costs and returns at the stand level.

8) The discount rate for evaluating silvicultural treatment investments would be based on the
returns from AAA corporate bonds and an estimate of risk. The discount rate is currently
3.75 percent, and would be updated periodically.

Integration with Other Resource Management Standards

9) Prescribed silvicultural treatments would meet other resource management standards and
comply with all appropriate statutes and regulations, in a manner consistent with the above
standards. This would require coordination of treatments between stands in order to
achieve parcel or drainage-wide goals for distribution of age, size, stocking, and structure
characteristics.

1 0) Until updated references are developed, the guidelines from DNRC Silvicultural Treatment
Standards and Guidelines (draft dated 2/91), or other appropriate technical references,
would be used as needed for guidance to implement these standards.

Monitoring

11) Monitoring procedures and information would be used to:

• monitor the effectiveness of completed silvicultural treatments at meeting
treatment objectives;

• identify promptly the need for follow-up treatments in order to meet treatment
objectives and environmental commitments;

• provide information for improving the effectiveness of future silvicultural
practices; and

• identify potential improvements to the Silvicultural Treatment Guidelines.

12) A regeneration survey would be completed promptly enough to ensure that treatment
objectives and environmental commitments were met, in all stands where a regeneration cut
has been applied.

ROD - 1 7 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

13) In all planted stands, a survival survey would be completed the first fall after planting.

14) Stand evaluations would be scheduled and conducted prior to each scheduled entry and
after each completed treatment. Evaluation methods and intensity would be sufficient to
provide information necessary for developing appropriate silvicultural prescriptions and for
determining treatment results in terms of the prescribed objectives.

15) Information on the dates and types of completed treatments and activities would be
maintained for each stand.

16) Information on revenues and costs would be maintained for all treatments.

1 7) A record would be maintained of all conditions and events that occur during the course of
treatment that have a significant potential to affect the treatment outcome.

18) On selected sites, soils effects would be monitored for implementation of mitigation
measures and effectiveness to guide future harvest practices.

ROD - 1 8 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

ROAD MANAGEMENT

Standards

Transportation Planning

1 ) DNRC would plan the transportation system for the minimum number of road miles. DNRC
will only build necessary roads, that is, those needed for current and near-term
management objectives, as consistent with the other resource management standards.
Roads would be built to the minimum standard necessary to avoid unacceptable adverse
impacts, and best meet current and future management needs and objectives. We would
evaluate and use alternative transportation systems that do not require roads whenever
possible.

2) Transportation planning would be conducted as part of landscape-level evaluations. An
evaluation of existing and possible future transportation systems would be conducted prior
to road location and design. These items would be considered:

a) The relationship of access routes and road systems on adjacent sections
(regardless of ownership). Managers would plan systems cooperatively with
adjacent landowners to minimize road construction.

b) Existing and probable future management needs of the tributary area, such
as coordination of state needs with adjacent ownership needs, public
access, cable vs. tractor logging, TSI activities, fire protection, and wildlife
habitat protection.

c) Value(s) of resources being accessed for the proposed project as well as
resources to be accessed from future reading or extension of transportation
system.

Road Location and Design

3) The location, design, construction and maintenance of all roads would be consistent with
Best Management Practices (BMPs), Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) rules.
Watershed Standards, other State Land Resource Standards, and the conditions of all
appropriate permits.

4) For roads outside Streamside Management Zones, we would locate and design new roads
if reconstruction and use of existing roads would produce greater undesirable impacts than
new construction. For roads inside SMZs, we would refer to the Watershed Resource
Management Standards.

5) Road management activities would comply with applicable DNRC weed management plans
for prevention, revegetation, and management.

ROD - 19 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

6) DNRC would locate and design roads to require a relatively low level of maintenance.

Road Construction

7) Contract specifications and administration of construction projects would be sufficient to
ensure roads were built as designed to meet resource protection requirements.

Road Maintenance

8) Maintenance would be scheduled and funded commensurate with expected continued road
use and appropriate resource protection. Drainage structures and other resource protection
measures would be maintained on restricted as well as open roads.

9) Adequate maintenance requirements, proportional to road use, would be included in all
agreements for granting and acquiring right-of-way, and those requirements would be
enforced on the ground.

Road Closures

10) DNRC would plan road density to meet landscape level ecosystem plans and other
Resource Management Standards. DNRC would determine road density to meet
Threatened and Endangered Species, Big Game, Sensitive Species, and Biodiversity
Resource Management Standards, as well as road surface protection and other resource
needs.

11) On roads which are deemed non-essential to near-term future management plans, DNRC
would emphasize obliteration through revegetation and slash obstruction. This would
minimize maintenance costs and erosion and to enhance road closure and effectiveness,
while leaving the capital investment intact. Determination of which roads to obstruct would
be made during project level analysis. In the Swan River State Forest, road closures would
be planned in accordance with terms of the February 23, 1995 Swan Valley Grizzly Bear
Conservation Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service,
and Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P.

Monitoring

12) Contract administration would be the primary form of monitoring. The stipulations and
requirements contained in Environmental Assessments would be incorporated into contracts
and enforced by contract administrators. Deficiencies would be corrected using standard
contract enforcement provisions.

1 3) Oualitative assessments, such as BMP audits, would include an assessment of roads, and
would be conducted as time allowed and appropriate sites were available. Findings of the
audits would be incorporated into future project planning and contracting.

ROD -20 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

1 4) Road maintenance would be monitored by contract administrators in connection with timber
sales or repair contracts. Deficiencies would be corrected using standard contract
enforcement provisions.

1 5) Road maintenance would be monitored by direct inspections of road and drainage condition
of both open and closed roads every five years. Maintenance operations would be
scheduled based on the results of the inspections.

1 6) Existing road systems would be inspected by DNRC specialists when they review proposed
timber sales and other projects. This would provide monitoring for road planning,
construction, and maintenance, and give an opportunity for correction of problem areas by
incorporating corrective measures into future project plans.

1 7) Road closure structures, such as gates and kelly humps, would be inspected as part of on-
going administrative duties and in response to notice of road closure violations received
from the public. If road closures are violated in sensitive areas (as defined by the Resource
Management Standards for Threatened and Endangered Species, Big Game, and Sensitive
Species), DNRC would evaluate and consider alternative methods of closure. Inspections
would occur at least every five years. Repairs would be a high priority when allocating time
and budget.

References - Road Management

Road Management Standards and Guidelines, review draft #5, provides guidelines for meeting
these standards and the specifications for road activities.

Streamside Management Zone Law and Rules, and Best Management Practices for Forestry in
Montana provide the primary resource protection information for implementation of these standards.

ROD -21 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

WATERSHED2

Standards

General

1 ) DNRC would manage watersheds, soil resources, and streams, lakes, wetlands, and other
bodies of water to maintain high quality water that meets or exceeds state water quality
standards, and to protect designated beneficial water uses.

2) DNRC would comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to water resources when
conducting or permitting activities on state-owned forest lands.

3) An inventory and analysis of watershed impacts would be conducted on state-owned forest
land as funding allowed. The analysis would be sufficient to identify causes of watershed
degradation and set priorities for watershed restoration. DNRC would emphasize mitigation
of existing water quality impacts in order to provide greater opportunities to produce trust
income while maintaining beneficial uses.

Best Management Practices

4) All management activities would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the
project design and implementation. BMPs appropriate for a given project or situation would
be determined during project development and environmental analysis. The source
document for minimum standard BMPs would be "Best Management Practices For Forestry
In Montana".

Cumulative Watershed Effects

5) Projects involving substantial vegetation removal or ground disturbance would require an
assessment of cumulative watershed effects. The analysis would ensure that the project,
considered with other existing and proposed activities, would not increase impacts beyond
the physical limits imposed by the stream system for supporting its most restrictive
beneficial use. The analysis would identify opportunities, if any existed, for mitigating
adverse effects on beneficial water uses.

2 PLEASE NOTE THAT THE WATERSHED RMS FOR OMEGA PRESENTED IN

THE FEIS WERE, IN PART, INCORRECT. WE HAVE CORRECTED THIS
ERROR HERE. AS SUCH, THE WATERSHED RMS PRESENTED IN THIS
RECORD OF DECISION ARE FINAL AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AS
WRITTEN HERE.

ROD -22 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

6) The level of cumulative watershed effects analysis would be dependent on the extent of the
proposal, the level of past activity, and the watershed values at risk. Watersheds would be
screened in a step-wise process, which would include three levels.

ROD - 23 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

Level 1 -- Screening is a broad evaluation of physical parameters, beneficial
uses, and potential for impacts. Based on the information assembled, the
analysis would stop at the first level, or proceed to the next level. Except for
small-scale projects with very low potential for impacts, additional analysis
would be required.

Level 2 -- Preliminary Watershed Analysis would involve documenting
history of past activities through the use of maps, aerial photography, and
harvest records; developing indices of watershed disturbance, such as area
harvested, length of road, and number of stream crossings; and conducting
field evaluations of stream channels and watershed condition. Based on
these results and the values at risk, the analysis might stop or proceed to the
third level.

Level 3 -- Detailed Watershed Analysis A detailed watershed analysis would
be needed when screening or preliminary analysis predict or indicate the
existence of unacceptable cumulative watershed effects. The type of
watershed analysis varies and would be determined on a case-by-case
basis. The detailed analysis might include comprehensive field evaluations,
model simulations of watershed response to disturbance, and other
indicators of cause and effect relationships. The methods used will attempt
to quantify the potential effects of the proposed activity on downstream water
resource values.

7) Threshold values for cumulative effects would be established by DNRC on a watershed
basis, taking into account such items as stream channel stability, beneficial water uses, and
watershed condition. Threshold values would be set at a level to ensure protection of
beneficial water uses with a low to moderate degree of risk. On the Stillwater, Coal Creek,
and Swan River State Forests, we will establish thresholds at a level to ensure protection of
beneficial water uses with a low degree of risk due to the blocked ownership, sensitive
watershed values and past commitments.

8) DNRC would cooperate with other landowners in watersheds with mixed ownership to
manage cumulative watershed effects within prescribed thresholds.

Streamside and Riparian Management Standards

9) DNRC would manage Streamside Management Zones (SMZs), riparian areas, and
wetlands in a manner that complied with appropriate laws and regulations and protected
and maintained water quality and beneficial water uses. Adequate measures for protecting
water values would be of primary importance.

10) SMZ width would be dependent on erosion potential, level of disturbance proposed, and
beneficial uses of the stream. We would use the following table as a guide for determining
SMZ width.

ROD -24 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE 1

Guide For Minimum Recommended SIVIZ Widtli

(slope distance eacli side of stream)

SLOPE

SOILERODIBILITYC

-ASS

HIGH
(4X)

MEDIUM
(3X)

LOW
(2X)

5%

50 h 1 .*

50 FT.*

50 FT.*

15%

60 1-1.

50 1-1.*

50 h 1 .*

30%

1 20 FT.

90 1-1.

60 1-1.

>50%

200 h 1 .

150 1-1.

1 00 h 1 .

*Use minimum width when formula results equal < 50 ft.
Modify SMZ width based on topographic breaks.

11) Timber harvest in SMZs along streams containing bull trout will be prohibited, unless
approved by a fisheries biologist (see Fisheries RMS #8). Trees would be retained in the
SMZ as prescribed in the SMZ rules. Multiple entries that would result in less than 50
percent of the pre-harvest stand would not be allowed except in salvage situations.

1 2) DNRC would use plant species composition, soil characteristics, or depth of water table to
identify wetlands. A 50 ft. wide equipment restriction would be applied around isolated
wetlands greater than one-quarter acre. Equipment would not be operated in wetlands
unless the operation would not cause rutting or displacement of soil and shrubs and
submerchantable trees would be protected.

13) Existing roads in SMZs would be used if potential water quality impacts are adequately
mitigated. The economic and watershed implications of relocating roads outside the SMZ
would be primary considerations.

Rehabilitation

14) DNRC would rehabilitate or mitigate the adverse effects of fire, flood, and other natural or
management-related events, as funds were available. We would apply erosion control to
damage incurred as a part of fire suppression. The DNRC Wildfire Rehabilitation Policy
would provide guidance.

1 5) For development activities, DNRC would ensure that adequate reclamation plans and bonds
are included in approved plans of operation. Such plans and bonds would have to address
the costs of removing facilities, equipment, and materials; recontouring disturbed areas to

ROD - 25

RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

near pre-disturbance topography; isolating and neutralizing or removing toxic or potentially
toxic materials; salvaging and replacing topsoil; and preparing seedbed and revegetating.

Fire Management

1 6) DNRC would locate incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, helispots, and other
centers for incident activities outside of the SMZ.

1 7) DNRC would use suppression methods that result in the least disturbance possible in the
SMZ. We would consider the potential adverse effects of fire suppression and the potential
adverse effects of wildfire damage to determine appropriate suppression activities.

Monitoring

18) Contract administration would be the primary form of compliance monitoring. The
stipulations and requirements contained in Environmental Assessments and project
contracts would be periodically evaluated by contract administrators. Deficiencies would be
corrected as they were observed by the contractor, under supervision of DNRC.

1 9) Qualitative assessments, such as BMP audits, would be conducted on most projects with a
substantial amount of soil disturbance. Problems noted would be remedied by DNRC.
BMPs that failed to provide adequate protection would be revised for future application.

20) DNRC will develop a monitoring strategy to assess watershed impacts of land use activities
and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The protocol will be distributed for external
peer review followed by Land Board review.

21) If monitoring indicates watershed impacts from management activities, or other activities
such as grazing, mining, cabinsites or recreation, problems would be corrected. The
information collected would be used to identify the need for mitigation measures and the
need to modify future activities to avoid similar impacts.

22) The impacts of land management on the physical soil properties would be evaluated using
quantitative methods on a representative sample of sites. The information collected would
be used to identify the need for mitigation measures and the need to modify future activities
to avoid similar impacts.

23) DNRC would continue to participate in cooperative monitoring efforts, such as the Flathead
Basin Commission's Monitoring Plan and the Flathead Basin Forest Practices and Fisheries
Cooperative Program Final Report recommendations (see Fisheries RMS #2).

24) Upon request, monitoring data will be made available to the public. DNRC will compile the
results of monitoring into a report for the Land Board by October 2000 and every 5 years
thereafter.

ROD -26 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

References - Watershed

Cline, Richard, G.Cole, W.Megahan, R. Patten, J.Potyondy. 1980. Guidelines for predicting
sediment yields. USPS R-1 & R-4.

Plathead Basin Commission. 1991. Plathead Basin forest practices water quality and fisheries
cooperative program final report. Kalispell, MT.

Hansen, Paul L.,R.D. Pfister, K. Boggs, B.J.Cook, J. Joy, and D.K. Hinckley. 1995. Classification
and management of Montana's riparian and wetland sites. Montana Forest and
Conservation Station, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT.
Miscellaneous Publication No. 54.

Kootenai National Forest Plan. 1991 . Riparian area guidelines - timber harvest guidelines within
streamside management zones. USDA Forest Service Kootenai National Forest Appendix
26. Libby, MT.

Montana Department of State Lands. 1991 . Wildfire rehabilitation policy. Revised June 1991 .

Montana Environmental Quality Council. 1 989. Best management practices for forestry in Montana.
July 1989.

Pfister, Robert D., K.Sherwood, D.F. Potts, and P.L.Hansen. 1991. Delineating streamside
management zones for Montana forests. In: Flathead Basin forest practices water quality
and fisheries study cooperative. Flathead Basin Commission. Kalispell, MT.

Thomas, Jack W., M.G. Raphael, et al. 1993. Viability assessments and management
considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forest of the
Pacific Northwest. The Scientific Analysis Team Report.

USDA Forest Service. 1974. Forest hydrology part II - hydrologic effects of vegetative manipulation.
Missoula, MT.

ROD - 27 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

FISHERIES

Standards

1) DNRC would coordinate with MDFWP in the design and implementation of projects that
might affect fisheries resources through compliance with the Stream Preservation Act (§ 87-
5-501, MCA).

2) Land management activities in the Flathead Basin would be designed to protect bull trout
and westslope cutthroat trout habitat by meeting the recommendations of the Flathead
Basin Cooperative Study. See "Flathead Basin Forest Practices and Fisheries Cooperative
Program Final Report" Recommendation #1 7. Land management activities in areas outside
of the Flathead Basin would be managed to sustain and enhance bull trout, westslope and
Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and all other designated "sensitive" species and Species of
Special Concern, where applicable.

3) Impacts to fisheries habitat would be minimized by implementing Resource Management
Standards and Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs), and by complying with the
Streamside Management Zone Law and other laws and regulations.

4) DNRC would construct, reconstruct, and maintain road crossing structures on existing and
historic fish-bearing streams to provide for fish passage.

5) Silvicultural treatments adjacent to fish bearing streams would prescribe for steady entry of
pool-forming trees into the stream system. The number and type of trees would depend on
specific site conditions and the needs of the individual fisheries.

6) Fisheries designated as "sensitive" or Species of Special Concern (SOSC) would be
managed so as to comply with any additional, and possibly more restrictive, direction as
specified in the Sensitive Species Resource Management Standards.

7) DNRC would cooperate with other agencies to eliminate non-native fish stocking, over
fishing, and poaching.

8) DNRC would implement the Immediate Actions described in Pat Flowers' memo of 1 2/5/94
to NWLO and SWLO area managers as interim measures to protect bull trout habitat, as
recommended by the Governor's Bull Trout Restoration Team.

Monitoring

9) In conjunction with land management activities, DNRC would monitor fisheries habitat
conditions in areas identified as critical bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout habitat in the
Flathead Basin as prescribed in the "Flathead Basin Forest Practices and Fisheries
Cooperative Program Final Report," Recommendation #17.

ROD -28 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

10) Contract administration would be the primary form of project monitoring. The stipulations
and requirements contained in Environmental Assessments and project contracts would be
periodically evaluated by contract administrators. Deficiencies would be corrected by the
contractor, as they are observed, under supervision of DNRC.

1 1 ) Compliance with Watershed and Grazing RMS would be treated as important indicators of
fisheries protection.

Summary of Flathead Basin Forest Practices and Fisheries Cooperative Program
Recommendation #17.

Recommendation #17 provides for protection of bull trout (BT) and westslope cutthroat trout
(WSCT). Protection measures include:

Cooperate in obtaining more complete information on fish species composition in drainages

where management activities are planned.

Management recommendations for bull trout spawning and rearing areas and migratory

westslope cutthroat trout spawning areas:

For "threatened" streams, take active precautions to minimize new sediment loading, and

ameliorate past disturbances contributing sediment.

"Threatened" stream criteria: fine material in spawning gravel >35% (BT & WSCT) or

substrate score (measure of embeddedness) <10 (BT only).

For "impaired" streams, assure that no additional sediment loading occurs as a result of

new land disturbance, and stabilize all sediment sources from past activities.

"Impaired" stream criteria: fine material in spawning gravel >40% (BT & WSCT) or substrate

score <9 (BT only).

Summary of Bull Trout Immediate Actions

The Governor's Bull Trout Restoration Team has developed interim recommendations for protection
of bull trout. These "Immediate Actions" will eventually be replaced by basin-level plans. DNRC
has committed to the following:

Conduct surveys to determine presence/absence of bull trout in streams adjacent to

proposed management activities, where existing information is lacking.

As part of our pre-sale analysis in drainages containing bull trout, conduct sediment source

surveys and initiate remedial measures for identified sources.

Discontinue timber harvest and cattle grazing in SMZs along streams containing bull trout,

unless specifically approved by a fisheries biologist.

Carefully conduct road maintenance activities to keep wastes from entering waters

containing bull trout.

All proposed fisheries and land management activities in drainages containing bull trout

should be reviewed and modified as necessary to have no negative impact to bull trout.

This is done through implementation of the Immediate Actions, BMPs, SMZ law, 124

permits, MEPA analysis and interdisciplinary design.

ROD - 29 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

• All land management entities should have fisheries biologists and hydrologists involved in
the development and review of proposed management actions. Hydrologists and soil
scientists review and help design management practices. Fisheries biologists will be
consulted as needed.

References - Fisheries

Flathead Basin Commission. 1991. Flathead Basin forest practices water quality and fisheries
cooperative program final report. Kalispell, MT.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 1 994. Internal Memo, September 9. Immediate
Actions (for Bull Trout Restoration). Larry Peterman, Administrator, Fisheries Division.

Montana Department of State Lands. 1 994. Internal Memo, December 5. Immediate Actions for
Bull Trout Restoration. Pat Flowers, Chief, Forest Management Bureau.

Thomas, Jack W., M.G. Raphael, et al. 1993. Viability assessments and management
considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forest of the Pacific
Northwest. In: The scientific analysis team report.

ROD -30 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Standards

1) DNRC would participate in recovery efforts of threatened and endangered plant and animal
species. We would confer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop habitat mitigation
measures. These measures might differ from Federal management guidelines because we play
a subsidiary role to Federal agencies in species recovery. However, in all cases, measures to
support recovery would be consistent with our responsibilities under the Endangered Species
Act and under Trust Law.

DNRC would work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to amend such measures when, in
the judgement of the Chief of the Forest Management Bureau, they were inconsistent with trust
management obligations. Measures to support species recovery would be periodically updated
to implement new biological information and legal interpretations as warranted.

2) DNRC would participate on interagency working groups that have been established to develop
guidelines and implement recovery plans for grizzly bears, bald eagles, and wolves. If
additional plant or animal species with habitat on state forest land were listed as threatened or
endangered, we would participate in working groups for those species as well. DNRC would
also participate in interagency groups that may be formed to oversee management of any
recently delisted species.

In the Swan River State Forest, DNRC would adhere to the set of Management Guidelines
contained in the February 23, 1 995 Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement with the
U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P.

Monitoring

3) Contract administrators would monitor compliance with all requirements indicated in project
environmental analyses. If contract requirements were not being met, they would be corrected
by the contractor, under DNRC supervision.

4) DNRC specialists and field staff would report all sightings of T&E species, except bald eagles,
to DNRC wildlife biologists, who would then forward the information to the respective working
groups for inclusion in a cooperative data base. For bald eagles, only new nest locations need
be reported because the Montana Bald Eagle Working Group monitors nesting success of all
nests in the state each year.

5) DNRC would participate in annual monitoring and reporting of implementation of the
Management Guidelines in the Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement.

ROD -31 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

References - Threatened & Endangered Species

The following guidelines developed by interagency working groups or Federal agencies, in
coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would serve as the primary references for
protecting threatened and endangered species. The Forest Management Bureau Wildlife Biologist
would provide any additional guidance needed to implement these guidelines.

Forest Management Bureau. 1995. Interim Grizzly Bear Guidance. Northern Continental Divide
Ecosystem Project Mitigation and Analysis. Missoula, MT.

Conservation Agreement among Plum Creek Timber Company, L.P., and Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Flathead National Forest, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, February 23, 1995 ("Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation
Agreement").

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. Missoula, MT.

Montana Bald Eagle Working Group. 1 986. Montana bald eagle management plan. BLM-MT-GI-86-
001-4352.

Paige, C, B. Madden, and B. Ruediger. 1991. Habitat management guide for bald eagles in
Northwestern Montana. Montana Bald Eagle Working Group.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. Fish and Wildlife
Enhancement Office, Helena, MT.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. American peregrine falcon recovery plan (Rocky
Mountain/Southwest populations). Prepared in cooperation with the American peregrine falcon
recovery team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO.

ROD -32 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

SENSITIVE SPECIES

Premise

We recognize tliat certain plant and animal species, both terrestrial and aquatic, are particularly
sensitive to human activities in managed forests. Populations of such species are usually small
and/or declining, and thus continued adverse impacts from land management activities may lead to
their being Federally listed as threatened or endangered. Further, because sensitive species
usually have specific habitat requirements (tending to be ecological specialists rather than
generalists), consideration of their needs is recognized as a useful and prudent "fine filter" for
ensuring that we meet our primary goal, namely maintenance of diverse and healthy forests. By
considering sensitive species in our management actions, we help to ensure that: 1) we are
making decisions appropriate to our fundamental philosophy; and 2) additional Federal listings will
not be necessary.

Standards

Fundamental Approach

1) We would manage so as to generally support populations of sensitive species on state land.
This policy would be pursued by managing for site characteristics generally recognized as
important for ensuring long-term persistence. Localized adverse impacts could be accepted,
but only within the context of an overall strategy of supporting habitat capability for these
species.

2) For sensitive plant species, important sites and/or site characteristics would be protected with
mitigation measures applied to management activities that would likely have substantial long-
term impacts.

3) For sensitive animal species, we would provide habitat characteristics recognized as suitable for
individuals to survive and reproduce in situations where land ownership patterns and the
underlying biological and geographical conditions allow for them. Our contribution toward
conservation of wide-ranging animal species that occur in low densities and require very large
areas to support self-sustaining populations would be supportive of, albeit subsidiary to, the
principal role played by Federal agencies with larger land holdings.

4) For sensitive animal species, we would, for all proposed projects, look for opportunities to
provide for habitat needs primarily through managing for the range of historically occurring
conditions appropriate to the sites. In blocked ownerships, in addition to considering habitat
needs generally, we would consider such issues as connectivity and corridors. In scattered
ownerships, we would not necessarily commit to providing all the life-requisites of individual
members of sensitive species, particularly if adjacent land-owners managed in ways to limit the
potential for individuals on our lands to be part of functional populations.

ROD -33 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

5) For sensitive animal species, the Forest Management Bureau would provide guidance for
managing so as to support these populations. Such guidance would use a hierarchical
procedure to identify lands by their appropriateness for providing habitat needs of each listed
sensitive species.

6) We would refer to databases maintained by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) or
the U.S. Forest Service for information on occurrence of plant species of special concern prior
to conducting planned land management activities. Where lists or other information indicate
potential for sensitive plant species and their habitat to occur within the project area field
surveys and/or consultation with qualified professionals may be required to determine the
presence, location, and mitigation measures for the sensitive plant species.

7) The Forest Management Bureau Chief would maintain a list of sensitive animal species, which
would be specific to each Land Office. To generate and modify this list, we would rely
principally on information and classification systems developed by the USDA Forest Service,
the MNHP, and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (for fish species only).
Listing by Land Office would be based on the general geographic distribution and habitat
affinities of the animal species, and would not require site-specific evidence of presence on
state land. Additions to, or deletions from this list, of any animal species not already
categorized as "sensitive" by Forest Service Region 1 , or as "fish species of special concern" by
MDFWP, would require written justification. We would not routinely conduct site-specific
surveys for the presence of sensitive animal species.

Monitoring

8) DNRC specialists and field staff would continue to report all observations of sensitive plant and
animal species to the MNHP.

9) On DN RC projects with identified sensitive plant species, sites identified as important would be
monitored to assess implementation of mitigation measures. On selected DNRC projects with
listed sensitive animal species, periodic follow-up surveys would be conducted to assess how
well management actions have provided for site conditions needed to support those
populations. In both cases, deficiencies would be documented and used to guide future
management actions and mitigations.

References - Sensitive Species

Project field staff may reference the Montana Heritage Program, and other agency botanists for
information on plant occupance, life cycle and habitat requirements.

Remington, D. 1993. Biological diversity strategies for forest type groups, landscape planning
process. Montana Department of State Lands.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Caring for the land. USDA Forest Service Region One Threatened,
Endangered, and Sensitive Species Program.

ROD -34 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

BIG GAME

Standards

1 ) DNRC would promote a diversity of stand structures and landscape patterns, and rely on them
to provide good habitat for native wildlife populations.

2) To the extent possible, we would manage to provide for big game habitat. Measures to
mitigate potential impacts would be implemented if they are consistent with overall management
objectives, and with the Biodiversity Resource Management Standards.

3) The current elk and white-tailed deer management standards and guidelines drafted November
1989 would no longer be adopted as Department policy.

4) DNRC would consult with MDFWP to determine which big game habitat values are most likely
to be affected by proposed management actions and would cooperate with MDFWP to limit
detrimental impacts to big game.

Monitoring

5) Mitigation efforts described in the project MEPA document, or other record, would be
incorporated in sale or lease contracts. Contract administrators would monitor compliance with
contract requirements related to big game habitats, as described in environmental documents.
Deficiencies would be corrected or mitigated by the contractor, under DNRC supervision.

6) Biodiversity monitoring procedures, described in the Biodiversity Resource Management
Standards, would be used to track the health of forest ecosystems. This process would be used
as the primary indicator of the health of wildlife populations using these ecosystems. When
necessary, corrective actions would be taken as described in the monitoring section of the
Biodiversity Resource Management Standards.

References - Big Game

Remington, D. 1 993. Biological diversity strategies for forest type groups. Montana Department of
State Lands unpublished paper.

ROD -35 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

GRAZING ON CLASSIFIED FOREST LANDS

Standards

1 ) Grazing licenses (classified Forest lands) and grazing leases (forested classified Grazing lands)
would specify the number of animal unit months (AUMs), kinds of livestock, and grazing period
of use. Lease/license stipulations would be set at the time of lease/license renewal.

2) Lessees and licensees would have primary responsibility for developing and maintaining range
land improvements. They would also be responsible for maintaining or improving range sites by
managing livestock grazing and utilization in a manner that would produce a stable or upward
trend in range condition. DNRC would support rangeland improvements through technical and
financial assistance, as workload and budget allow. Rangeland improvements could include
riparian management, weed control, prescribed burning, water developments, grazing
management systems, fencing, and conversion of forest edge ecotones to grassland. Cost-
sharing for improvements between the lessee/licensee and the state would be accomplished
through an addendum to the lease/license. The addendum would stipulate terms and
conditions by which the lessee/licensee may be required to reimburse the state for improvement
expenses incurred.

3) Stocking rates would be estimated by visual assessment of existing vegetative plant species
composition. Estimated species composition by weight per range site would be compared to
potential (climax range condition) for a specific range sites. The following references, published
by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, would serve as technical guides: "Guides for
Determining Range Condition and Initial Stocking Rates"; Range Site Criteria; and "Guides to
Determine Forest Understory Vegetation Condition and Recommended Stocking Rates".
Range site would be determined by soil characteristics, topography, climate, and professional
judgement.

4) Livestock management practices would be designed to prevent unacceptable loss of
streambank vegetation and structural damage to streambanks that results in nonpoint source
pollution. Practices would be designed to: (1 ) improve or restore both herbaceous and woody
species to a healthy and vigorous condition and facilitate the ability of vegetation to reproduce
and maintain different age classes in the desired riparian-wetland plant communities; and (2)
leave sufficient vegetation biomass and plant residue (including woody debris) to provide for
adequate sediment filtering and dissipation of stream energy for bank protection.

5) Mineral, protein, and other supplements would be placed so as to maximize animal distribution
away from riparian areas. Holding facilities would be placed outside of riparian areas.

6) Continuous season-long grazing would be authorized with the level of forage utilization not to
exceed 60 percent and healthy riparian function maintained.

ROD -36 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

Monitoring

7) a) At renewal (every 10 years), leases/licenses would be evaluated for the following:
range condition; plant species composition; riparian browse utilization; and
streambank disturbance.

b) Leases/licenses would be evaluated at mid-term (every 5th year) for the following:
riparian browse utilization; streambank disturbance; and an ocular assessment of tract
condition with notations for potential concerns or problems.

c) Range condition would be evaluated using standard USDA Soil Conservation Service
methods and recorded on a DNRC Field Evaluation Form. Browse utilization would be
measured using standardized survey methods, such as the Cole Browse Survey Method
(Fatten and Hall, 1 966) or a modified version of Evaluating Health of Riparian Areas on
the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (Cook, et al., 1993) to measure form
class of shrubs or percent riparian vegetation utilization, respectively. No shrubs would
be in the heavily hedged form class and less than 25 percent of the shrubs would be in
the moderately hedged form class. In addition, streambank disturbance induced by
livestock trampling would be limited to less than 10 percent alteration per 500 feet of
streambank.

d) Areas that showed resource damage greater than the prescribed limits would be
mitigated or rehabilitated by the lessee, with technical assistance from DNRC. If
improved management did not resolve the damage, adjustments in the license or lease
would be used to facilitate rehabilitation efforts.

ROD -37 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

WEED MANAGEMENT

Standards

1 ) Forested state lands would be managed to prevent or control the spread of noxious weed. We
would comply with the weed management law by inventorying noxious weed occurrences,
developing management plans, and allocating funds for weed control projects.

2) DNRC would submit general revegetation plans to county weed boards for their review of land-
disturbing projects such as road construction associated with timber harvest. We would
promptly revegetate with site-adapted grasses that emphasize native species.

3) In areas where weeds are widespread across state and adjacent ownerships DNRC would
cooperate with weed districts for control projects across all ownerships.

3a) We would use an integrated pest management approach for noxious weed control in
accordance with HB 395 (§ 2-22-21 51 , MCA, as amended 1 995) including cultural, biological
and chemical methods as appropriate.

4) We would promote prevention of weed spread by requiring a combination of measures such as,
use of weed-free equipment, prompt revegetation of roads, and reduction of ground
disturbance.

5) Stipulations and control measures to limit the spread of weeds would be attached to timber sale
contracts. Where specified, weed control efforts would continue for two years following land
disturbance.

6) Herbicide treatments would be limited to areas where herbicide offers the most cost effective
means of control, and where biological and mechanical control measures are ineffective. New
outbreaks of noxious weeds and locations where native plant communities are threatened by
noxious weed encroachment would have first priority for control. Large areas of weed
infestation may be limited to perimeter weed containment.

7) On unleased lands, DNRC would be responsible for weed control.

8) A lessee or licensee of state land would be responsible for weed control as outlined in Surface
Management Rules 26.3. 1 56. The lessee or licensee must provide weed control at his cost and
must comply with the Montana County Weed Management Act.

9) All right of way and special use agreements would require the permittee to control weeds in
association with the permittee's use. This may include fees charged for weed control.

1 0) On sites where weeds are introduced by recreation use, a portion of recreational access fees
would be available for weed control.

ROD -38 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

Monitoring

11) On DNRC projects where weeds were a concern, field staff and specialists would review
implementation of noxious weed control and mitigation measures. Deficiencies would be
remedied.

12) Whenever field reviews were made, DNRC staff would inventory and map all infestations of
noxious weeds on grazing leases/licenses. Lessees/ Licensees would be notified of the weeds
and could be required to enter into a supplemental lease agreement (SLA) which outlines
specific control measures. In order to ensure an integrated approach, county weed staff may
be contacted to assist in developing these weed control measures.

1 3) On sites where a SLA outlines weed control remedies, DNRC would make follow-up reviews as
necessary, to ensure the control measures are completed. Failure by the lessee to perform
any of the terms stipulated in the SLA would result in cancellation of the lease.

ROD -39 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

C. Management Direction

In the EIS, we identified 13 issues raised by the public and other agencies based on responses to
press releases and our initial public mailing, and affirmed by a series of public meetings. Some of
these issues are addressed through Resource Management Standards (RMS) for Biodiversity,
Silviculture, Road Management, Watershed, Fisheries, Threatened and Endangered Species,
Sensitive Species, Big Game, Grazing on Classified Forest Lands, and Weed Management.

The remaining issues, while not included in the Resource Management Standards, are addressed
as follows:

Access - Public's Right to Use State Lands

• General recreational use (currently defined as including non-commercial and non-
concentrated hunting, fishing and other activities determined by the land board to be
compatible with the use of state lands; general recreational use does not include the use of
streams and rivers by the public under the stream access law provided in Title 23, Chapter 2,
Part 3.) would be allowed on legally accessible lands with the purchase of a Recreational Use
License.

Access - Right-of-way Across State Forest Lands

Proposals for rights-of-way would be considered subject to management constraints, workload
and environmental review. Compatibility with our management goals would be an important
factor in approval of right-of-way requests.

Access - Acguiring Access to State Land

Access would be secured to state lands when specific projects were proposed. When possible,
we would obtain permanent access to state lands.

Administrative Coordination

In addition to our current level of cooperation with other land owners, we would attempt
cooperative ecosystem management planning.

• We would be actively involved in community-based planning efforts where appropriate.

We would favor land exchanges that improved our flexibility to manage for a variety of trust
revenue opportunities.

Cumulative Environmental Effects

We would evaluate cumulative effects and pursue cooperative agreements to share the

responsibility of mitigation among landowners.

In some cases we may accept significant individual resource impacts if the activity would result

in greater overall ecosystem integrity and greater long-term revenue potential, (e.g., wildlife

security may be reduced to promote natural vegetation conditions)

We would pursue ecosystem management, and other agreements with adjoining land owners

to achieve mutual landscape goals.

ROD -40 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

Conflicting Land Uses

We would consider adjusting our management activities so they are compatible with adjacent
lands, when doing so is consistent with the general philosophy of the alternative.
We would coordinate activities with adjacent landowners on a case-by-case basis.

• When conflicts did occur, we would consider covenants or conservation licenses as long as the
trust was adequately compensated. These covenants or licenses may not fully comply with the
biodiversity elements of this alternative. However, because we expect these other income
opportunities to occur on a minor amount of the forest acreage, these uses would not
compromise the overall fundamental premise of managing for biodiversity.

Public Involvement and Planning

• Public participation efforts would conform to current MEPA rules. The degree of public
involvement would be project-specific and vary by public interest and uncertainty of, or
potential for, significant impacts. Proposed projects would be modified to address public
concerns to the extent consistent with our trust obligations. Site-specific management
decisions would be made at the most local level possible.

Recreational Opportunities

General recreational use (currently defined as including non-commercial and non-concentrated
hunting, fishing and other activities determined by the land board to be compatible with the use
of state lands; general recreational use does not include the use of streams and rivers by the
public under the stream access law provided in Title 23, Chapter 2, Part 3) would be allowed
on legally accessible lands with the purchase of a Recreational Use License.
Cabinsites would continue to be leased and new ones developed where appropriate.
We would develop recreational opportunities as guided by the changing markets for new and
traditional uses. These land uses may not comply with the biodiversity elements of this
alternative. However, because we expect these other income opportunities to occur on a minor
amount of the forest acreage, and such site-specific changes in use will be subject to further
environmental review, these uses would not compromise the overall fundamental premise of
managing for biodiversity. These activities would only be pursued where the revenue potential
exceeds that of current use or complements the current use.

ROD -41 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

D. Categorical Exclusions

By process of this programmatic review, pursuant to ARM 26.2.643(5)(a), DNRC, Trust Land
Management Division, is authorized to adopt the following additional categorical exclusions for
activities conducted on state forest lands. "Categorical Exclusion" refers to a type of action that
does not individually, collectively, or cumulatively require an EA or EIS unless extraordinary
circumstances occur (ARM 26.2.642(5)).

The following list of categorical exclusions includes extraordinary circumstances when the
categorical exclusion will not apply. Extraordinary circumstances include the general extraordinary
circumstances listed in Chapter V of the FEIS in addition to those described in the individual
categorical exclusions. The categorical exclusions include activities on state forest lands conducted
by others under authority from the Department as well as activities conducted by the Department
itself.

1 ) Temporary Uses with Negligible Effects - Minor temporary uses of land involving negligible or
no disturbance of soil or vegetation and having no long-term effect on the environment,
provided that federally listed Threatened and Endangered species are not likely to be present
in the immediate area during the time of use.

2) Plans and Policies - Plans or modifications of plans adopted or approved by the Department
that would not essentially pre-determine future individual department actions affecting the
physical or biological environment.

3) Leases and Licenses - The issuance, renewal, or assignment of a lease or license of land
when the uses of the land authorized under the lease or license will remain essentially the
same.

4) Acguisition of Land or Interest in Land - Acquisition of fee title, easements, rights-of-way, or
other interests in land that does not tend to commit the Department to other actions.

5) Road Maintenance and Repair - Maintenance and repair of existing roads that are open to
motorized use by the public, unless the road has become impassable to highway vehicles.

6) Bridges and Culverts - Reconstruction or modification of an existing bridge on essentially the
same alignment, or replacement of a culvert, including temporary diversion or channelization of
the stream, if done in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations and
with best management practices to minimize sedimentation.

7) Crossing Class 3 Streams - Crossings of "class 3 stream segments" by means of culvert,
bridge, ford, or other means, in accordance with best management practices. "Class 3 stream
segment" means a portion of a stream that does not support fish; normally has surface flow
less than six months of the year; and rarely contributes surface flow to another stream, lake, or
other body of water (ARM 26.6.601 ).

ROD -42 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

8) Temporary Road Use Permits - Issuing permits for temporary use of existing roads designated
as open to motorized public use.

9) Road Closure - The closure of existing roads including installation of gates, berms, debris, or
other facilities necessary to close existing roads to motorized public use.

1 0) Boundaries - Surveying, posting, and painting landline boundaries.

1 1 ) Material Stockpiles - Removal of materials that have been stockpiled from previous excavation.

12) Backfilling - Filling of earth into previously excavated land with material compatible with the
natural features of the site.

1 3) Gathering Forest Products for Personal Use - Gathering small quantities of forest products for
personal use, such as firewood, Christmas trees, or posts.

14) Regeneration - Regeneration of an area to native tree species, through planting or other
means, including site preparation that does not involve the use of herbicides or result in
conversion of the vegetation type.

15) Nursery Operations - Seed procurement, growing, lifting, and distributing nursery stock, and
associated non-chemical disease and pest control.

1 6) Water Wells - Drilling of water wells for domestic use and for irrigation of lawns and gardens for
existing cabinsites or home sites.

17) Herbicides and Pesticides - Herbicide or pesticide treatments, done in accordance with
registered label instructions and uses, for control of pests or nuisance vegetation, using spot
applications on less than 160 acres within a 640-acre section, during a calendar year.

1 8) Other Hazardous Materials - The handling of hazardous materials for fire suppression or other
purposes (e.g., fuel for a helicopter seeding project) when done according to specifications of
the U. S. Department of Transportation, state and federal regulations, and label specifications.

1 9) Fences - Fence construction to improve livestock distribution (which may include cutting minor
amounts of live timber), if the fence is no more than 42 inches high and the bottom wire is at
least 16 inches from the ground.

20) Waterlines - Installation of water pipelines to improve livestock distribution or otherwise benefit
grazing allotments.

21) Removal of Small Trees - Mechanical removal of trees less than two feet tall that are
encroaching on range or non-commercial forest lands, on up to 60 contiguous acres, not to
exceed a total of 160 acres within a 640-acre section, during a calendar year.

ROD -43 RECORD OF DECISION

DNRC STATE FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

VI. PROJECT RECORD

The Project File containing additional information used in the preparation of the EIS is located and
available for public review at the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forest
Management Bureau, 2705 Spurgin Road, Missoula, Montana.

VII. SIGNATURE OF DECIDING OFFICIAL:

ARTHUR R.CLINCH

Director, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

May 30, 1996

ROD -44 RECORD OF DECISION