text:
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
United 1:1tates Fotest Tnternlounta~n 324, 25~h s.treet Department_ of Servi,ce Region ' -Ogden, UT. 8440,1 A riculture -~-'t .... , m ReplY, to: 23~0 .. MA" F ·I~ """1 Date: FEB 271991 ,> ~ Honor{lble I:arry LaRocco House or Representatives 111• Lppgwortn•House'Office ~ujlding Washi~gton, DC 20515 MAR 0 6 19~1 ~ } ' ' n•' Dear Congressman LaRoCco: ~~ .. As discussed- during bur me11ting last >leek, ene'lbsed 'a't,e do'quai<rrtts c6ncernfhg the' f~p>lrc~eryi"WCCL~ that may. 'be of; ~nthest to r • • " .r •~ • you. " ·· ,· · We appreciate 'your takihg the .t;in\e to 'meet wi·th ··us management of National Foresto Sys,t;em 6lands. • an"d yo,ur- .. ;•- .. '• int~l€;St· in It was good to' /Set acquflinted witlo_ x9u ar;.d dific'uss Idaho N'!lti'o":'a1 Fares~ ,t ~ssues. I regret tha:t we won't, ge~ a. ,cha!fpe· to work- ~o.gether in this , . ' capacitY., but I am qert~in·ygu will find ~ra¥9respon;~~~ anohelpful, along. with J,ohn ,M.J.lli)IDa in the ,Northern Reg on. • · Sincerely, )/;:;\/~ J. S .. TIXiER Regional Fotester 'Enclosure. Salmon NF '• Forest i1 ',. •'· S~rvice ;1 r,•,. Jt:\(~ 11. Reply To: 2320 Date: Subject: Implementation of FG~-RONRW Cache Agreement To: Regional Foresters, R-1 and·R-4 MAR 0 6 1991 Following is a summary of the progress to date .on the implementation of the -.c-a.ch~e-t~mes& =ag:r;.eeme~ Our percentage reductions fell short of -the target assignments. However, our internal, as well as the outfitters', understanding of the expectations of this phased process has been strengthened. We fully expect that the rate of accomplishment will hasten next summer. The following percent reductions were accomplished on a wilderness-wide basis: 1990 Target Item reduction Dumps 75% Tent structures 67% Furniture 33% Obtrusive storage 50% Plumbing 100% Permanent buildings 100% Accomplished reduction as a percent of items 24% 37% 28% 29% 100% 57% Accomplished reduction as a % of # of camps that had such items 24% 31% 20% 29% 100% 50% The following indicates the percent of the 88 camps compliance with regards to the "indicated items: that are now in full Item Dumps Tent structures Furniture Obtrusive storage Plumbing Permanent buildings % of camps in full liance - 1989 67% 45% 42% 41% 96% 80% Forty percent of all reserved camps are now in total compliance with the end result desired·by the settlement agreement. Numerous other camps are in compliance with~he terms of the Agreement in a 11 pha~e·in 11 sense, but may still have one or more nonconforming 'items present. Caring for the Land anc:l Serving People .. ~ ~·' 'I( .1J 0,;1 FS-6200-28b(4188) 'I Foresters, R-1 and R-4 data is presented in the following Enclosure 1 - Number of "items 11 by District. enc losureMs:A R 06 1991 2. Enclosure 2 - Number of reserved <::amps that have "items" by District. S2v7~3 foo :=> of <>• """"' •='• JOHN E. BURNS Forest Supervisor Enclosures (3) KEStauffer:kes:rf cc: FC-RONR Supervisors ) FC-RONR Rangers ) R4-DRF Resources ) w/enclosures Rl-DRF.Resources ) """ Caring for the Land and Serving People FS-6200·28b(4/88) I I DISTRICT I I I WEST FORK I I CASCADE I I LOWMAN I I CHALLIS I I MIDDLE FORK I I YANKEE FORK I I RED RIVER I I SALMON RIVER I I KRASSEL I 1 McCALL I I COBALT I I NORTH FORK I I TOTALS ENCLOSURE 1 - NUMBER OF "ITEMS" BY DISTRICT # OF I # NONCONFORMING l # HEAVY I I # PIPED H20 I # PERMANENT DUMPS TENT STRUCTURES FURNITURE STORAGE SYSTEMS BUILDINGS I l __ l 89 190 ISC9ll 89 190 lsc~l89 190 lsc9ll 90 1 NM ISC9ll89 190 lsc9ll89 190 lsc91 I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1· I I I 3 I 10 I 10 I o I o I o I q_ I · o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I 2 I o I o I l I I I I I I 1-1--1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I o I o I o I o I o I Q___J___p I o I. o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o_l l I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I ol I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I 3 I 3 I o I o I o I 2 I o I b I 2 I o I o I 1 I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 I 13 I 3 I 6 I 4 I 4 I 13 I 2 I 2 I 32 I 30 I 30 I 12 I 6 I 6 I 6 I o I o I o I 6 I o I o__L l I ·I I I I I I -~--1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I ~ I o I 2 I 2 I 2 I 12_l_12 I 12 _ I o I o I o I 3 I 3 I 3 I 3 I o I o I o I 2 I 2 I 2_l l I I I I ··- I --~- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 I 8 I 5. I o I o I o I 1 I 1 I 1_L4 I 4 I 4 I 2 I 1 I 1 I 1 I o I o I o I 1 I L I 1 l I I -1 I I . I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I o I o I o I o I o I o_l__o I o _I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I o I I I I I I-~- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 I 33 I 11 I 18 I 16 I 16 I 72 I 66 I 66 - I 125 I 115 I 115 I 28 I 28 I 22 I 22 I o I o I o I 3 I 3 I 3 l I I I I I I I *l-*-1 I I I I I *I *I I I I I *I * I 1 I 2 I o I o I o I o I 4._1 4 I· o I o I o I o I 2 I 2 I 2 I o I o I o I o I 1 I 1 I o I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I 9 I o I o I o I o I 40 I 15 I 15 I 153 I 99 I 53 I 9 I 9 I 1 I 1 I o I o I o I 3 I o I o I I I I I I I -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ~--1 I 3 I 7 I 3 I 3 I o I o I 15 I o I o I 3i I ·2 I 2 I 7 I 5 I 2 I 2 I 3 I o I 6 I 3 I 2 I 2 I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 36 I 88 I 35 I 29 I 22 I 22 I 159 I 1oo J 96 __l_l_48 I 250 I 204 I 64 I 54 I 37 I 35 I 3 I _Q_J o I 21 I 9 I 8 I X OF REDUCTION IN # OF ITEMS 24% 37% 28% 29% 100% 57% # O&G = Number of land based outfitters and guides operating in the FC-RNRW. # CAMPS = Total number of reserved camps. #IN COMP =Number of reserved camps in full compliance with the end result of the terms of the settlement agreement (currently stands at 40%). 89 = Number of described items existing at the end Of 1989. 90 = Number of described items still existing at end of 1990. SC 91 = Items that are scheduled for removal per an approved operating plan. NM =These are the number of caches· that do not meet the guideline e.g. one· that is "obtrusive or visible ... etc. • = These items are currently scheduled for removal in 1994 per an approved operating plan. DUMPS = No longer in use "stuff" e.g. old stovepipe, old tools, junk, waste material, debris. NONCONFORMING TENT STRUCTURES = Tent structures that are not a single base log with temporary poles that are removed at end of use season. HEAVY FURNITURE = bunks, tables, cabinets, stoves. STORAGE ~ These columns show total number of caches and those caches that do not meet the guidelines. PIPED H20 SYSTEMS = These were the 11 in camp" piped water systems. PERMANENT BUILDINGS = Contain portions of four walls, roof may be permanent or temporary. NOTE: These results are a combination of FS field verified and outfitter reported. Complete field verification will occur in the spring of 1991. ENCLOSURE 2 - NUMBER OF RESERVED CAMPS CONTAINING THE INDICATED FEATURE IN THE INDICATED YEAR # # DISTRICT O&G CAMPS WEST FORK 3 10 CASCADE 1 0 '1. LOWMAN ·1 0 . CHALLIS 3 3 MIDDLE FORK 6 13 YANKEE FORK 1 3 RED RIVER 5 8 SALMON RIVER - 0 0 KRASSEL 9 33 McCALL 1 2 COBALT 3 9 NORTH FORK 3 7 TOTALS 36 88 % OF REDUCTION IN # OF CAMPS % OF_ CAMPS IN COMPLIANCE WITH EACH ITEM TENT DUMPS STRUCTURES 89 90 89 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0- 0 1 '0 6 4 5 ·1 2 2 ,_ - 3 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 18 16 23 18 . 0 0 2 2 0 0 9 8 3 0 4 0 29 22 48 33 24% ' 31% 75% 62% OBTRUSIVE PERMANENT FURNITURE STORAGE PLUMBING BUILDINGS 89 90 89 90 89 90 89 90 0 0 0 0 .o 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 7 12 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 21 23 22 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 9 9 2 1 0 0 3 0 7 2 7 2 3 0 3 2 51 41 52 37 3 0 18 9 20% 29% 100% 50% 53% 58% 100% 90% I :;·· United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Honorable Richard H. Stallings House of Representatives 1221 Longworth House Office Building Washingt.on, DC 20515-1202 Dear Congressman Stallings: Salmon National Forest P.O. Box 729 Salmon, ID 83467 Reply to: 2300 Date: December 5, 1990 I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on our progress with improving management of the Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness. Since several on-going actions .are involved, I '11 list each with cop!ments on where we stand at this time. cbe'otd--.::~est>-lles-i=gna.t;;i.oBJ The e>:almoil:Nm:±ona•l-'f1lres)I has been designated as the "lead" forest for managirig information and coordination activities, and is beginning to function in that role. As with all administrative changes, some time is needed to work the bugs .out,'. and I have every expectation that the concept will be successful and effective. Our progress should accelerate as soon as the wilderness coordinator is on board. c:wtbderness Coo~~~atbr Mr. ~~~has been sel~cted as the coordinator, and he will report to Salmon at the end of January. We had a number of extremely well qualified applicants, and Ken's intensive wilderness management experience on the Boundary Waters area of the Superior National Forest made him the ideal person for the job. A key part of his role will be providing continuity and leadership to the "lead working group" in "!:he execution of projects assigned collectively by the involved Forest Supervisors. He will also function as the executive secretary of the ·Forest Supervisor's group, providing continuity and staff support, and will be their "bridge" to the lead working group. All in all the ~igniTi~~the-; ~..!liozat':tomrt 6o"'Rlex~i-e"""2~~ and ensure follow th;:Qugh on needed act~ons. , . · ' '\; T Honorable Richard H. Stallings 2. Lead Working Group We are currently restructuring the membership of this group to increase District Ranger participation. The wilderness management specialist from each Regional Office (Rl and R4) will also sit on the lead working group. These changes should be in place this winter. Administrative Units We are proceeding with adjustment of administrative responsibilities in order to reduce the number of units involved in the wilderness. By the end of the " year, or shortly thereafter, we expect the key adjustments identified in the -xreport to be in place. Some people will undoubtedly feel more could and should be done, but I believe 1il:laCO!ll~r::::t:~r-or-so-the-advarrt:ag!'~-~ 11!1.1: ..ap.pr.oacfi:.l5e~ki.:rm:_w:i+l-become-more-appa,;:ent.,"> On-The-Ground Management We have planned increased on-the-ground emphasis within the wilderness this coming summer. HoWever, with the steady reduction in authorized personnel strength (expressed in "Full Time Equivalents" or "FTE' s ") for the National Forest System it will be increasingly difficult to put more people on the ground. Increased contracting will provide some relief, but it can not totally accomplish the needed work. Budget and Data One of the first tasks for the·coordinator will be to develop a uniform budget and data display procedure for the wilderness. This subject has had a great deal of confusion .surr'ounding it in the past, and it has been difficult assemble meaningful data in short time frames. 5 ·: ..... ey aspect of the £tiaget-=d:i:cs~ill be to. gl~~t""~n:!.-s1,ng~ c:::toca.t ion-f m:-.rl"l:""'cy'gts-ass oc i.a.t:e d_;ti.th-rnanag :i::n:g=:thg=-wi~ s.l We in tend to dO'tr1Ts-ndt only for currentyearel<:penditures, but for out-year budget proposals. We also expect to maintain. an :U'llienaor'\C::Qf-nee<le<J..-f-ac·W,..i.t:f...w¢-.. (i.e. trails, bridges, etc.) so that a composite picture of-the wi1"c!ernes·s--J can be readily provided at any time. It will provide a foundation for internal program analysis by the coordin~tor and the Supervisors, and will enable us to better deveYop long-term fully integrated proposals for the wilderness. A major benefit of this approach is that for ·the first time all wilderness. costs will be identified. In previous years people have tended to think that all costs' of wilderness administration were borne· by "wilderness dollars" - i.e.-those funds s~ identified as a subset of the recreation portion of the National Forest Syst.em budget. In reality, ceffie-I'-funds---c&=:;t::it::S!u)Cheil3i)tlf· (!Wll-~t:!!:Q;-the-ma.;j,o.J:,-Sl:><t'tet = tlf owi-.kl=ness-.manage.~ Fire management, trail construct~on and-ma~ntenruJ~facilit~es ma~nCellance, general administration, wildlife and fisher.ies, law enforcement, etc. , are not separated in the appropriations and allocation process, as to wilderness or non-wilderness. As a result, they tend to be over looked when wilderness budgets or expenditures are examined. As an illustration, I have found that on the Salmon National Forest, with about one-fourth cif the FC-RONR Wilderness, our total yearly expenditure, not counting fire, was $478,347 with the Salmon's ~-- ( Honorable Richard H. Stallings 3. "wilderness" allocation being $85,600. I believe we will find similar patterns on the other units once our cost tracking process is operational. The point, of course, is not which budget item 11 pays" the varied operational expenses of wilderness, but what those costs actually total and how they are integrated in the overall management program for the wilderness. Cache Policy We are now assembling our report on·l990 accomplishments in=b~~giflg 0\.l't;;f.i.l:ter camp;.:arid:dc~otinJ.ne<Cin tne-chle:&r:s=di-:r;ei!t::t:llll:::;. and the FC-RONR Management Plan. Considerable effort was directed to this by the outfitters and Forest Service in 1990. Although progress is significant, overall we did not fully accomplish our objectives for the year. The report is comprehensive and will identify progress and'needs for each of the 88 outfitter camps. It will provide a basis for a focused effort in the 1991 season, and we fully expect to be on schedule at the end of the year. This report should be in final form soon, and I'll provide a copy to you and your field offices. General During the past year I spent a considerable amount ·of my time in the wilderness (about 20 days) and the two District Rangers involved spent much more. By no means have we seen all or even most of the wilderness but our -~- observation is that th; country - the basic wilderness resource - is in ~ excellent condition :-r::11'av.e-obs;_=='ed UU s tt,£f0) ons-tha.v .suppo.(t a -grt:!hLt~..= 1 "Vtfferent-plri":t-~·o:pnies"-by-d·Hferent'""marmge"i:S':;) ~F"fiave-"b~<:,"'-~ wjSb..--spe:ci~~J'.ii:i.':bt:;:""Pitiill:J::SI..I:::!'~On~dlll'}~t:~,.:::an<Hi07 eiJ7hJrt::-e~.:::'IJJ::Q~nmr~..l£~:=.!:~~i"'P'""l.l£::7 b~r_s~11'a.1::::1l:M!::".l.'fi"cf1!penae'bt"""O~an:i:zoat:i:orra'i-st·ru~sJ. For example, the often mentioned Difficult. Cr'eek Bridge replacement proposal would be c·ontroversial regardless of what unit manages that lo~at;ion, for some wilderness users want the bridge replaced and. some. do not. I hope this summary is helpful to you, and that you will let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. I have provided this summary to the other members of the Idaho Congression~l Delegation and I'll keep you informed as we move ahead with implementation of the management actions. Sincerely, /s/John E. Burns JOHN E. BURNS Forest Supervisor JBurns:jc cc: RF/DRF-R4 RF/DRF-Rl Director R&L-R4 Director R&L-Rl FC-RONR Supervisors WO-LA - United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Honorable Richard H. Stallings House of Representatiives li2l Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-1202 Qear Congressman Stallings: Salmon National Forest P.O. Box 729 Salmon, ID 83467 Reply to: 2300 Date: December 17, 1990 Recently I sent you an update on our progress in management coordination of the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. This summary contained an error · the "Disappointrnent 11 Creek Bridge was referred to as the "Difficult11 ,Creek Bridge. Just wanted to make you aware of this and ensure that I didn't create the impression that I was referring to a second bridge proposal. Let .me know if you have questions. Sincerely, /s/Ernest W. Schneider for JOHN E. BURNS Forest Supervisor JBurns :j c cc: RF/DRF-R4 RF/DRF-Rl Director R&L-R4 Director R&L-Rl "' FC-RONR Supervisors WO-LA •. \)nited,States Department of Agriculture ·. Forest Service salinon National Fares~ ··~ l.l:l. I 6 f991 •. Reply to: P.O. Box 729 Salmpn, 'ID 83467 2320 Date: pece~er ~1, 1991 Congressman Larry laRo:X.• ,. Washington, DC ~p: ~ Honorable Larry LaRocco HouSe' of Representatives 1117 Longworth House Office Washington, DC· 20S15-1201 D,ear Congressman L,aRbc;::co: , BuJ,ldi,ng Enclosed is.a 'copy of ·6ur first Annual Report for tbe F.rafik~hurch ,-River of No Return Wilderness~ . copies of. the. report ar,t. avail<able to the pui>lJ,~ ori request. ~ ,;, ·. .. We believe the repdrt· ;is a_ gooq ".firs't 'j:ime" 's~l!ry of .. the status and accomplishments wit~ in t'he• Wil'derne'ss. 'Itehts sucl\ as~ trail wo:tk, fir~ t. map~~!'m!!'l..t; P,.f't:~~npe_!.JJ..w~ .._ c;.~te;. 4P4 .so. a¥ ~a e~jnlii';'<ie:? , ,rp r:'~es ....:.U..ae7~ the chief's "cache agt'):!ement" with the Idaho•Out.fitter;s ana Gu;Ldes is also •\, . ~ '• ' \ ,, ... . ~ ' detailed. ~ ·~ .. ~ ·~ ~·· •'• • '~- .. • "' ,.; • ~ • .il ' Overa li, we fee1 signi'ficant progress' ' !l' as 'b een made\• We· realize that ~ . ' ' ' .. additional work• iS I)eeded tO fully alleviate the COncerns which J,ecf to OUl; intensified coordination -effort,. b1,1t· .at: thj>' ptesent. rate' of. pr9gt:;ess I'll\ confident that' the ~il~derness wil.l be ,rec;Og,n1zed; as p.n examplS ~of.' ,ef~ec1=-ive and pro~ressive management. .." "-• puring the. Idaho :Forest Supervi'sor:•s Meeti}lg -in. Boi.se we .agreed with Dean John Hendee of the Universi.ty\' of ,irdal\o"tt;> j'ointly sponsor,,'!> sY'!'posivm on the management of. the Frank Church -~ River- of No Return Wildernes's. ·other organiz~tions will~be invited·to Partidipat~ in ~he organization and cpnduct of f.he symposium, which wilt ti'e designed #to explore m'anagemen't issues ·and " ' ~ .. " " opportunities for th,is unique wilderness.. The., ten_tative date ·for the symposium would be late next fall or early wrn~er. ~ If you or your s1:-aff haye• any>comment;s pr~ qu,stion~, 'please let me kndW . .. Forest super~isor .. Enclosure c'.a. r.in.g for the Land ancj Serving People FS-6200-28b(4/88) '< .· Annual Wilderness Report - i 99i INTERMOUNTAIN REGION and NORTHERN REGION ~K. C~-tr.L/ZC!.H 12·1'1·"tJ FRANK CHURCH- RIVER OF NO RETURN WILDERNESS ;,/f.~.·.\ .>·, "~ ,.,, ' ~. .~ ",_'',. ". , ,,. ,...,.. ' '· / ,"' I .• r. ;v--A,.l(!1 ''I. ?f,i.j,~,,~-~-;·;-%"~ l':\ -:;' ' / ' \ \ \ ' . .... •••• J 'I \ \.'1 ~ """-1 •; "".' ::"< ·"·''.', •• -.: ,,.,,:;.;·-·.;, • \ \ '.. I· ~ ~ .....___ ,~",",_".' ... .. .,..... ... • .. . , "... _..,.,._.,.,. ........ ..", . .;. "' > ' ' .. .._' \ '' ' I n. v.· , '',<''''>'·' :C)'i'\):;O'•:•i ,, ' ; ", . ~: ""' h·- .......... "''-"'" '... ' ' '· '•• '•· ,,1, .. ' ! l ,.,' ~"Ac··" ~~\ - .•. ,,.,. . : :·. . ....... -•• · " " '' ·' " • :;:~:;.:-: .......... :.' ." ··':- ::": ,,• I',' """' " 'J ' • "'·' .,,,,.. ., •• c ! uL.: .. .,,,,. ,,__;.. ... .'-. --, It--/- -, ' ;.i . -· -·~ II .. ' " '" . ' ;..::<"~ 1 w-•:::;2 "· •·" "' •' dU -'·' .j\ . '< • • \ r \·r~~-i' -.i /~~-" . ~w.· ·~· f ~ ~~, ~ ~ ';""> >.!'>- . ., . ' . . ~~" ,..~ .r .} K .. ' IJ\;.-.:. - .. - .--··. ~ t .- ~ F .. . • . . .. ., . ·. . ' .. J ' ·) e=...~tr, . . . -------. _: ,'?' !u~{Gc.rl~ L-~ •· I TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 1. (:HANGES IN ACREAGE 1 2. SIGNIFICANT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 1 a Resource Management 1 1) Cultural resources 1 2) Fire management 3 3) Fisheries 7 4) Grazing (range) 8 5) Lands 9 6) Minerals . 10 7) Soil, air and watershed 10 8) Exotic .plants 11 9) Threatened and Endangered Species 11 10) Wildlife 13 b. Recreation Management 14 1) Trail/trailhead development 14 2) Signs 17 3) Bridges 19 4) Other accomplishments 20 5) Administration of special use permits 21 6) Wilderness education/information/public contact 23 a) Newsletter (Frankly Speaking) 23 b) Freedom of Information Act requests 24 c) Correspondence/inquiries 24 d) Contacts 25 e) Meetings/groups/organizations 29 1) Fairs attended 30 g) School visits 31 h) Wilderness wide Information/Education Plan 31· c. Administration 32 1) Administrative use of motorized equipment (FS) 32 2) Authorized use of motorized equipment (non-FS) 35 2a) Unauthorized use of motorize equipment 36 3) Search and Rescue 36 4) Violations and law enforcement action 37 d. Administrative structures and cleanup 38 1) Stations, lookouts and electronic sites 38 I I I e. Ongoing research projects, including non-FS 40 I 3. ADMINISTRATION 41 Existing Plans and Status 41 I Project Level Planning and Status 41 a. Status of Wilderness Implementation Schedules 42 I b. Regulations in Effect 42 c. Staffing 44 I 1) Personnel and budget 44 I d. Ongoing Partnerships that Assist Wilderness Management 48 e. Other Administrative Actions 49 I 1) Summary of 1990 Admin. Study Action Plan ttems 49 2) Groups that specify/implement policy for FC-RONR 51 I a) Regional Policy Councils 51 b) FC-RONR Board of Directors 51 c) FC-RONR Lead Working Group 51 I d) Wilderness Coordinator 52 3) Issues 53 I a) Settlement Agreement 53 4. PROBLEMS THAT LIMIT EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THIS I WILDERNESS, EXCLUDING FUNDING CONSTRAINTS 57 5. FORTHCOMING ACTIONS • FY 92 59 I 6. APPENDIX MATERIAL {Appendices A through F) 60 II I I I Annual Wilderness Report - 1991 INTERMOUNTAIN REGION and NORTHERN REGION FRANK CHURCH - RIVER OF NO RETURN WILDERNESS PREFACE The Frank Church - River of No Return (FC-RONR) Wilderness was established by the Central Idaho Wilderness Act in 1980. At just over 2,361,000 acres, the FC-RONR Wilderness is the largest Wilderness in the lower 48 states and the largest administered by the USDA Forest Service. The boundaries of the FC-RONR encompass six National Forests and two Regions. · Lying in the heart of Idaho, the FC-RONR is bordered on the north by the Selway Bitterroot and Gospel Hump Wilderness Areas. Known for its whiTewater rivers, the FC-RONR is traversed from easi to west by the Salmon River. The Salmon is designated as a wild river and is directed to be managed as such, rather than as Wilderness. The Middle Fork of the Salmon runs 1 04 miles from the confluence of Marsh and Bear Valley Creeks on the southern end of the FC-RONR to its confluence with the Salmon River. Direction for the management of the FC-RONR .is contained in a comprehensive Management Plan, which is incorporated into the Forest Plans for the Bitterroot, Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette and Salmon National Forests. A recently revised Fire Management Plan provides a basis for consistent management of fire within the Wilderness. Management Plans for the Salmon and Middle Fork of the Salmon provide direction for those River Systems. Because of the large geographic size, the numbers of Forest Service Units involved in administration, and a desire to emphasize management of the FC-RONR, several significant changes have occurred in 1991. These changes have been instituted primarily as a result of a July 1990 Administrative Study and are designed to insure more consistent management and to provide better opportunities for the public to be involved and informed in matters of Wilderness Management. These changes, as well as activities and accomplishments for 1991 are included in this report. •' FRANK CHURCH-RIVER OF NO RETURN WILDERNESS LOCATION MAP 10 0 Boise 0 Scale Miles 10 20 Idaho Falls 0 :_'1 ·I ··,] I ,, ' 1. CHANGES IN ACREAGE In total there were 1,287 acres that will be added to the Frank Church- River of No Return Wilderness. Of these addrrions 1,280 acres are State Sections 16 and 36 in T. 17N., R.12E, on the Boise National Forest, and 7 acres are the acquisttion of the Allison Ranch located on the" Nez Perce National Forest, at the confluence of Myers Creek and the Salmon River. Both of these additions are the result of a land exchange transaction. Based on direction in the July 1990 Administrative Study Report, administration of the FC-RONR has been consolidated between National Forests. This changes the numbers of acres being managed by certain Forests and Ranger Districts. Figure 1 shows the approximate area of Wilderness that each National Forest manages. Forest Salmon NF Challis NF Payette NF Nez Perce NF Bitterroot NF Boise NF Total Figure 1 - FORESTS AND ACREAGE Proclaimed & Legislated Administered 421 m acres ... 18 percent 462m acres ... 20 percent 521 m acres ... 22 percent 849m acres ... 36 percent 789m acres ... 33 percent 782m acres ... 33 percent 11Om acres ... 5 percent 267m acres ... 11 percent 193m acres ... 8 percent 0 acres ... 0 percent 332m acres ... 14 percent o acres... o percent 2.4 million acres 2. SIGNIFICANT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES a. Resource management 1) Guttural resources Cultural resource activtties in the FC-RONR Wilderness included cuttural resource training tor Forest Service employees. Inventory and monttoring trips were conducted and cuttural surveys were completed tor several proposed projects. Maintenance and stabilization work was conducted on some structures and one building was nominated to the National Register of Histo. ric Place.s . Challis A cultural resource inventory was conducted in association with the Kwiskwis fire to determine ff any cultural or historic structures could be affected by the fire and determine ff any additional documentation was ne~ded. A mining road proposal was reviewed in the Rapid River drainage for possible impacts on cultural and historic sites. · 1 A cultural survey was conducted at the Sulphur Creek Ranch. All buildings were photographed and the site surveyed for potential hazardous materials in anticipation of a possible purchase. The area included in the proposed Boundary Creek Campground and administrative site improvement project was surveyed during the summer. The preliminary results of this survey indicate that this was a significant site. Nez Perce The Nez Perce Forest provided Cultural Awareness training lor all District people involved in Wilderness management. A cultural resources survey was completed lor trail #096. A trip was conducted to identify historic and prehistoric sites along the Salmon River. Payette Maintenance and stabilization work continued on two structures at Cabin Creek - an acquired homestead. Other non-historical buildings have been removed from the site. Efforts continue to naturalize and rehabilitate the Cabin Creek site. The 1990 project to stabilize the Coyote Springs telephone booth received recognition as a runner-up for the National Primitive Skills award. This structure was determined to be historically significant due to its associa· tion with past Forest Service management. Replacement of sill logs at the Chamberlain and Cold Meadows Forest Service Stations was completed to be consistent with the desire to retain both a functional condition of the structures, and their cultural resource values. A cultural review of Cold Mountain lookout tower was conducted for removal of the lookout. Salmon The Forest Archeologist presented a lour-hour archeology workshop to Forest paraprofessionals, wilderness rangers and trail-crew workers. The intent of the workshop was to teach them how to identify 'historically significant' items that were likely to be encountered during the clean up of FS administrative sites. To help identify those items of historical value, paraprofessional archaeologists helped wilderness field crews with the clean up of lookouts and other administrative sites. The Forest Archaeologist has nominated the Johnny Briggs cabin to the National Register of Historic Places. The Idaho State Historic Preservation Office donated the time arid expertise to help complete the necessary documents. Minor maintenance was also pertormed at the Johnny Briggs Cabin. A five day monitoring trip was conducted by the Forest Archae::>logist to evaluate recreation impacts to cultural resources at river campsites. A cultural survey has been completed for a proposed bridge across the Salmon River at Disappointment Creek, and archaeological clearance procedures are underway. 2 I I 2) Fire management The fire season of 1991 was preceded by a prolonged period of drought in central Idaho and over many other portions of the west. On July 10, 1991 a Region 4 memo was issued that identified ' ... essentially no opportunity for prescribed natural fire activity in ... the Frank Church River of No Return.' The letter went on !o say •assessment of a potentially severe fire season is being validated with each fire occurence. Fire behavior is intense, spotting common, and large fuels are fully consumed.' These conditions and direction explain in pan the relative lack of prescribed natural fire activity in the FC-RONR. One hundred and sixteen fires were reported in the Wilderness during FY 91: The fires burned ·11 ,272 acres, 1 09 were caused by lightning and seven were human caused. Of these only four fires totaling one half acre were managed as prescribed natural fires. Numbers of fires, acres and management strategy are displayed in Table 1. The five reporting Ranger Districts have fire programs totaling $638,674 with 13 permanent fire employees and 56 temporary appointees. In addition, a total of $2,601,225 was spent in Wilderness fire fighting activities. Table 2 displays fire personnel and costs of fire management activities. Challis For a three year period the District Fire Management Officer has worked with the Middle Fork Ranch Inc., in an advisory capacity, to develop a Fire Plan for the Association. A three stage plan was developed and the Ranch has completed stage one; implementation of stages two and three is proceeding rapidly. The Plan calls for cleaning up the forest floor, reducing ladder fuels, reducing or eliminating hazards around cabins, and provides for structural protection with a water and hose system throughout the sub-division. The District is now in the planning process for a shaded fuel break along the forest boundary to be completed by FY 95. Francis Mohr's guide of Light Hand Tactics for Fire Management has been revised, reduced in size and reprinted by the District Fire Management Officer. The guide, now in shin pocket size, is used by Land Managers, Incident Commanders, and firefighters. The guide is given to all fire teams when they are assigned to an incident on the Middle Fork Ranger District. The Kwiskwis fire short overhead team was activated to develop an Action Guide for this fire and for implementation on other fires that could threaten the administrative site at Indian Creek or the Middle Fork Ranch at Pistol Creek. Within the Guide was a structural protection plan and crew organization for protection of the two sites. This guide will be maintained, on file, and updated as needed for future use should the need arise. Payette There were 36 lightening caused (natural) fires reponed in the Payette National Forest portion of the Wilderness. An appropriate wildfire suppression response was determined for 32 of these fires (33 acres). Four fires (.5 acre) were determined to be prescribed, consistent with the approved Fire Management Plan for the FC--RNRW. . Immediate fire suppression (contro~ occurred on 31 fires that were lightening caused and treated as 'wildfires'. Based on an analysis of existing conditions such as fire location, fire size and availability of fire 3 suppression resources, one fire was monitored only, and allowed to burn out with no suppression tactics in a wildfire status. There were two person-caused fires reported in 1991. The Rush Creek fire was the largest, and grew to a total perimeter size of approximately 8447 acres. The selected suppression response resulting from an Escaped Fire Situation Analysis was 'confinement' (no direct suppression action) with structure protection. Due to the proximity of the fire to the State owned Taylor Ranch and the privately owned Flying B Ranch, resources to protect the facilities were mobilized and put into place. Pumps and hose were laid and several crews moved into Taylor Ranch during a period of high potential for fire spread. The fire never reached the facilities and the cooler fall weather finally ended the threat. Salmon During the Kitchen Fire a resource management specialist, who is a leader in light hand Wilderness fire management techniques, was employed to promote light hand tactics for fire suppression efforts. 4 FC-RONR Table 1 Unit Challis NF Middle Fork RD Nez Perce .NF Red River RD Salmon River RD Payette NF Krassel RD Salmon NF Cobalt RD North Fork RD FC~RONRW Total 1991 Annual Report Fire Management I Number of fires in Mangement Stategy Wilderness Lightning/ Human Confine Contain Control Prescribed natural caused # acres # acres # acres # acres # acres # acres 27 962.2 1 <1 2 956 0 0 26 >6 0 0 21 >1 3 0 0 0 24 >1 0 0 0 0 36 >33 2 8447 1 1 1 8447 32 33 4 <1 11 1 1 30 0 0· 0 'o 12 31 0 0 14 1796 0 0 0 0 0 .o 14 1796 0 0 09 2794 7 8478 3 957.1 25 8448 84 1866 4 <1 5 ...J FC-RONR Table 2 Unit Challis NF Middle Fork RD Nez Perce NF Red River RD Salmon River RD Payette NF Krassel RD Salmon NF Cobalt RD North Fork RD FC-RONRW Totals Fire Management II 1991 Annual Report Wilderness Fire Fire Programs (1) Prescribed Fires (2) Sub Total Fire Supression (3) Total Cost $638,674 + 1,000 639,674 +2,601 ,225 3,240,899 Number of Fire Personnel (Unit total) Presupres Severity %of Unit sion $ $ in ~erm. Temp. Fc-RaliRW Appoint. Aopoint. Cost of Wilderness Fire Programs ;-- -----------.., lA + 8 X % = $ I 1...-- r---- -------...! 1 10 42,140 30,000 94 67,812 3 14 113,200 14,421 40 50,808 Basedon70% ol !he total 11 of Oi;trlc:1 fires In Wildeerness 3 16 "179,178 83,185 75 183,654 1 6 92,000 0 45 41,400 5 10 130,000 6,000 50 300,000 13 56 556,518 133,606 638,674 ( 1 ) 6 Cost of Cost of Prescribed Wilderness Fires Fire Supression 0 314,400 0 800- 1.061,125 1000 1,228, 700 0 0 800- 2,601,225 1000 (2) I ( 3 ) 3) Fisheries Much of the fisheries work conducted in the FC-RONR was completed by other groups or agencies, some in partnership with the National Forests. Groups involved include Idaho State Fish and Game, Idaho State University, the Nez Perce Tribe, National Marine Fisheries Service and the Intermountain Research Station in Boise. Emphasis is on the management of anadromous fisheries, and include£ stream inventories, spawning ground surveys, a riparian improvement project, and fish tagging and tracking programs. The Forest Service completed one bank stabilization project and habitat inventory as well. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is nearing the completion of the Anadromous Fisheries Five-Year Action Plan for salmon and steelhead in the Middle Fork Salmon River. Steelhead angler surveys were conducted this year by the Idaho Fish and Game using check stations and creel census. Steelhead returns this spring were low, but fall fish returns were up over previous years. The University of Idaho began the first year radio tracking study of steelhead and salmon. Two thousand tags and 500 radios were attached to fish at Ice Harbor Dam. Boise The Boise National Forest evaluated Porter Creek, which is a reference stream in the Elk Creek drainage. They used this information to help define desired future condition of streams in their area. The survey covered about one mile of stream and included about 20 habitat units. Streambank stability information is collected as part of this survey. Challis Approximately 100 miles of anadromous fish streams were inventoried in FY 91 (Loon Cr., Indian Cr., Warm Springs Cr.). During the Kwiskwis Fire, protection was provided for structures on private lands within the Wilderness and adjacent to the burn area. The protection included the installation of a foam system. Because the property was next to the Middle Fork of the Salmon River, the question arose about the possible effect of the foaming agent on fish if the chemical was introduced into a stream. The fisheries biologist contacted the manufacturer of the foam who determined that the chemicals involved could cause fish kills. The system was modified to prevent any chemical from reaching the river. Follow-up should be initiated to determine if any substitutes are available, and warning labels should be posted on the cans of chemicals informing users of this potential hazard. Payette Monitoring/Inventory: Fisheries monitoring was completed on Chamberlain Creek, the West Fork of Chamberlain Creek, McCalla . Creek, Monumental Creek, Porphyry Creek, and the lower South Fork Salmon River near Knob Creek. Idaho State Univ./Payette N. F.- Wayne Minshall from ISU continued a cooperative project in 1991 which studies the effects of fire on the aquatic environment of streams affected by fires. Streams being studied in . 1991 were Cougar, Cliff, Dunce, Crooked and Rush Creeks which are tributaries of Big Creek. In addition, Whimstick and McCalla Creeks, which are tributaries of Chamberlain Creek, were also studied. 7 Intermountain Research Station, Boise.-- Completed stream inventory work on the West Fork of Chamberlain Creek beginning upstream of the Stonebreaker Ranch property. The inventory method used in this study was the Hankin and Reeves 'Basin' type survey which measures several physical and biological parameters. The West Fork of Chamberlain area is being used to determine Desired Future Conditions for comparison with other streams. Nez Perce Tribe-- Completed redd counts on Big Creek in 1991. The stream was studied after the Chinook salmon had spawned so that the number of completed redds could be counted. These counts were done between Monumental Creek and Copper Camp on Big Creek. National Marine Fisheries Service.-- The NMFS tagged juvenile Chinook salmon in the Chamberlain Basin area. The procedure included snorkeling, electofishing, and capturing juvenile salmon so that 'Pit' tags could be placed in the fish. Idaho Departmen: of Fish and Game/McCall Subregion Office-- The Fish and Game Department conducted several surveys in the FC-RONRW in 1991. These surveys include: Snorkel Transects on Marble Creek, Monumental Creek, and the Wr,st Fork of Monumental Creek. Spawning ground surveys and snorkel transects were conducted on Chamberlain Creek from the confluence with the West Fork Chamberlain to Flossie Creek; and on the West Fork Chamberlain Creek from the confluence with Chamberlain Creek to Game Creek. A willow planting project was done on the West Fork of Chamberlain Creek inside the boundaries of the Stonebreaker property. This was done to improve riparian vegetation. The project was completed by Fish and Game personnel with the help of volunteers. Habitat Improvement: The District completed a section of bank stabilization near the Monumental Creek trailhead. The work occurred just inside the Wilderness boundary where the trail leaves the road to Thunder Mountain. Salmon The Idaho Fish and Game conducted their annual spawning surveys for salmon and steelhead in the Middle Fork and Camas Creek. The Cobalt Ranger District hired a full time fisheries biologist this year to meet increasing concerns for fish habitat management in the Salmon River basin. 4) Grazing (range) Range management focused on monitoring of areas receiving heavy use and assessing the success of previous efforts to reduce grazing imp.acts. Payette Range condition inspection was ~onducted at Cabin Creek, and it appears that some action to control grazing will be necessary at this location. Umitations on the number and season of grazing for pack and saddle stock at Cold Meadows, a high elevation meadow in the Chamberlain Basin area, have been successful. The meadow condition has improved and compliance with grazing restrictions has been good by the outfitters working in the area. 8 Salmon Grazing impacts were monhored in the Bernard area and within the Bighorn Crags. There is one grazing allotment near Bernard. This allotmenfwas inspected in April for utilization and the range improvement structures were also inspected at this time. The three enclosures on this allotment were monitored in September. Monitoring in the Bighorn Crags is a continuation of efforts over the past several years. This monitoring includes revisiting several sites that are heavily used by recreational stock and comparing the vegetative composition and vigor with similar areas that ; eceive little or no stock use. 5) Lands Activities in lands are primarily the ongoing exchange program between the State oi Idaho and the Forest Service. One of these exchanges was completed by the Boise National Forest and an additional1280 acres was added to the federally managed portion of the FC-RONR. Another completed exchange on the Nez Perce National Forest resulted in an additional seven acres of previously private land becoming part of the FC-RONR Wilderness. One public trail easement was relinquished. Boise Exchange was completed to include 1,280 acres, State Sections 16 and 36 in T. 17N., R.12E, on the Boise' National Forest. Challis The Challis National Forest is involved in a land exchange with the State of Idaho and the Caribou National Forest. The transaction will result in three state sections (1 ,920 acres) of land in the Mahoney area being gained for Wilderness management in exchange for land on the Caribou NF. Nez Perce The seven acres acquired are the Allison Ranch located on the Nez Perce National Forest, at the confluence of Myers Creek and the Salmon River. · Payette Payette is involved in the ongoing land exchange program with the State of Idaho, for acquisition of State school sections. . ' Salmon At the Gattin Ranch, an existing public easement was relinquished for the Horse Creek Trail #169 which was located through private property. In exchan9e. the property owners constructed about 3/4 mile of new trail around their private property. - 9 6) Minerals All minerals activities in the FC-RONR were on the Payette National Forest. Payette The claimant of the Yellow Ja~ket mining claims and the Forest Service have entered a relinquishment agreement. The Forest Service will proceed to clean this site up and conduct rehabilitation work on the claims. The claimant will continue to conduct ar.nual assessment work. Inspections of the Golden Bear and Golden Hand claims were conducted this year. Rulings on appeals of invalid determinations for two claim groups (Golden Bear and Golden Hand) have not yet been issued by the Interior Board of Land Appeals. 7) Soil, Air and Watershed Programs in these resource areas are predominantly monitoring of water quality and air quality. Monitoring includes partnerships with the State of Idaho, the Coeur-Thunder Mine, Air Resource Specialist, Brigham Young University, Universtty of California at Davis, Rocky Mountain Experiment Station and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Boise Monttored baseline water quality as part of the Forest Plan implementation. A water quality station is es;ablished on Sulphur Creek where sediment is measured and trends in water quality are evaluated. Challis There are 35 points along the Middle Fork Salmon River that are monitored for water quality regularly. The 1991 monitoring trip was conducted in conjunction with the local representative from the State of Idaho Division of Environmental Quality. The State purchased all necessary supplies used during collection of the water samples. Payetre Water qualtty monitoring was conducted on Monumental and Marble Creeks in cooperation between CoeurThunder Mine and the Forest Service. Funding was received to support trail relocation, stabilization and rehabilitation efforts to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Approximately 1.5 mile of work was completed as part of the trail betterment program. The Payette National Forest installed a west side air quality monitoring station on War Eagle Lookout (outside the Wilderness) tci monitor visibility within the Wilderness. 10 For full document, please contact Boise State University I Albertsons Library Special Collections and Archives 1910 University Dr. Boise, ID 83725-1430 email@example.com, 208-426-3958 Executive Summary of the Annual Wilderness Report - 1991 INTERMOUNTAIN REGION and NORTHERN REGION FRANK CHURCH - RIVER OF NO RETURN WILDERNESS 'f'' •':' ••·· ··:;v·,·~·· ·c~ ·,,,.~, :t ·.,v~.·e-•..,· ~#·~~·"'·T- -~---;;;-·~-·il.·,--~~--.·__....,..,.--, .. -.-·,.---~ .. ~·-_,..---···-- -------------------------------~~---- ------~---- ------- - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PREFACE The Frank Church - River of No Return (FC-RONR) Wilderness embraces pver::2;3 millipnacres of rugged backcountry in central Idaho. The U.S. Forest Service administers this immense Wilderness, the largest in the lower 48 states. 1 da::ulSo:a<Fures~ervjce 'A'dministrative"Study-lm:licated·a nee_d-formore:ctiRsisterit rhanage~' iM!)t, C,QOJptetnmsivs-reporting, arrd better·public involvememt and:informatior>!. ~r:r 1990 and tt99t-'tJre:::f£r.~st .. Seryice maden::lgr.lif~nt-:changes"ir:t:tl:le.-:managem'ei'it of the FC-RONR Wilderness. These changes, as well as Wilderness management activities and accomplishments for 1991 are included in this report. This is the first Wilderness-wide report for the FC-RONR Wilderness. The Forest Service is a leader in Wilderness management. We have rul~d· and aedfcated , IIJMptft.Wii'o cm-e 'deeply forthe-Wilderness1 We are st(iVil')g-f,Qr·consis!lfri.cy.l!r:nt~c~lleDCe..• in Wilderness management. And we need your help. Wilderness management is an evolving science. Your concerns and suggestions are vital in our efforts to manage your Wilderness. For more information on the management of the FC-RONR Wilderness contact: Sincerely, Ken Wotring, Wilderness Coordinator Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness C/0 Salmon National Forest P.O. Box 729 Salmon, Idaho 83467 (208) 756-2215 ~.:;:--~ Kenneth T. Wotring c/ FC-RONR Wilderness Coordinator Executive Summary of the Annual Wilderness Report - 1991 INTERMOUNTAIN REGION and NORTHERN REGION FRANK CHURCH - RIVER OF NO RETURN WILDERNESS INTRODUCTION The Frank Church - River of No Return (FC-RONR) Wilderness was ~~t!lil>~~!!t\fl';ll ldaoCC, '13l'llltlerness.J\l<ljo::J~At just over 2,361 ,000 acres, the FC-RONR Wilderness is the largest Wilderness in the lower48 states and the ~oiliflWdl:5~trl~he boundaries of the FC-RONR encompass ~ andJ~!I.P::::Bli9il'nS! The location map on page 2 indicates the Wilderness boundaries relative to major population centers. Lying in the heart of Idaho, the FC-RONR is bordered on the north by the Selway Bitterroot and Gospel Hump Wilderness Areas. Known for its whitewater rivers, the FC-RONR is traversed from east to west by the Salmon River. The Salmon is designated as a wild river and is directed to be managed as such, rather than as Wilderness. The Middle Fork of the Salmon runs 1 04 miles from the confluence of Marsh and.._ Bear Valley Creeks on the southern end of the FC-RONR to its confluence with the Salmon River. Direction for the management of the ££-RONR is contained in~jyj!IJlluiagemen'LEJal.'l, which is.Triccltf'bl'ateliiii!othe-liiorest:F.lrar:is:lor-the~iR!l)!.£!ot;~g!_~.Jl"311is~.El\2Me:abdOS.lll~ational Forests. A recently revised l<ireOMaFJagemenf Plan provides a basis for Q,P.nsist~!J) management of fire within the Wilderness. Management Plans for the Salmon and Middle Fork of the Salmon provide direction for those River Systems. Because of the FC-RONR Wilderness' large geographic size, the numbers of Forest Service offices involved in its administration, and a desire to emphasize management of the FC-RONR, !ll!l1iitllt:g9.!:!~tlt-dlij[f9ew o.l!alle"Jlt:cJJrte'd-in:.199l1. These changes wereio§!ituted-p_r.iDWi)~Dir,pf:s,;WI~-j.,990~0niiillstrati'(fe Study 1 and are designed:!2:.lJJsure more::ConsiSterir.:managerrientland,j?'fllVi~.llJj):lo1tunilies-:fciF-thl!"pue.!i¢:to be involved and informed in matters of Wilderness Man~gement. · These changes, as well as a summary of activities and accomplishments for 1991, are included in this Executive Summary. The Summary concludes with a list of the major <PTQ~s..tbat_:wUI:b.§! _illitiate!'d:or« ~ccili'ip!!ited in 1992:-• 1 FRANK CHURCH-RIVER OF NO RETURN WILDERNESS LOCATION MAP N 10 0 Boise 0 Scale 10 Miles 20 Idaho Falls 0 CHANGES IN WILDERNESS ACREAGE AND ADMINISTRATION In 1991, 1 ,287 acres were added to the Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness as a resutt of two land exchange transactions: 1 ,280 acres from two State sections on the Boise National Forest, and 7 acres from a private ranch on the Nez Perce National Forest. Based on direction in the July 1990 Administrative Study Report, acli'iiiriist"fation df.the FC=RONR has been • ~consolidatect..tr.Prn::six to;tpur NatiQ.narF.orests! Figure 1 shows the approximate area of the 2.4 million acres in the Wilderness that each National Forest currently manages, compared to when the Wilderness was proclaimed and legislated. Figure 1 - FORESTS AND ACREAGE Forest Proclaimed & Legislated 1,000 acres percent Salmon NF 421 18 Challis NF 521 22 Payette NF 789 33 Nez Perce NF 110 5 "\Bitterroot N~ 193 8 Srnse-NF 332 14 SIGNIFICANT MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Currently Administered 1,000 acres 462 849 782 267 . ·.o. • . -o' ., percent 20 36 2~. .0 1_1. ..) 0 This section·summarizes significant management activities of the FC-RONR Wilderness in 1991, including resource management, recreation management, administration, administrative structures, cleanup, and ongoing research projects. a. Resource Management 1) Cultural resources Cuttural resource activities in the FC-RONR Wilderness included the following: !Wttui'al res_d,SJ,Y:e fniini!Jg • for Forest Service employees; several cultural resaurs;_e inventocy:·and monitd'ring ~rip~ culturaislmi'eys for proposed projects such as a mining road, campground development, administrative site improvement, bridge construction, and land purchase; and 'llaintenance.and.stabilizatiOI~· work on some structures. One building was nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, and one stabilization project received recognition as a runner-up for the National Primitive Skills award. 2) Fire management The FC-RONR Wilderness has an approved":Fire..Managemefif' Plan1 which provides for prescribed natural fire. The fire season of 1991 was preceded by a prolonged period of drought in central Idaho and over many other portions of the west. On July 1 0, 1991 a Region 4 memo was issued that identified • ... essentially no opportunity for prescribed natural fire activity in ... the Frank Church River of No Return.' The letter went on to say •assessment of a potentially severe fire season is being validated with each fire occurrence. Fire behavior is intense, spotting common, and large fuels are fully consumed. • These conditions and direction explain in part the relative lack of prescribed natural fire activity in the FC-RONR in 1991. 3 4 One hundred and sixteen fires, which burned a total of 11 ,272 acres, were reported in the Wilderness during FY 91. One hundred nine were caused by lightning and 7 were human caused. Of these 116 fires only tour fires, totaling one haff acre, were managed as prescribed natural fires, in accordance with the approved Fire Management Plan tor the FC-RONR. Fire management expenditures tor 1991 totaled $3,240,899. The five reporting ranger districts have fire programs totaling $638,674, with 13 permanent fire employees and 56 temporary appointees. In addition, a total of $2,601,225 was spent in Wilderness fire suppression. Finally, approximately $1,000 was spent on prescribed fire management activities. One district was particularly active in fire prevention work, including developing plans to reduce ladder fuels, hazards around structures, and a forest boundary fuel break, and writing guides for fire fighting tactics and structural protection strategies. · :t)~EisMnes The Forest Service illiDmt.l;!ril:ld;·over-1 ~o miles-oLanadromtlUs fisflel'iesstreams~"SYaJJ:!ated"l!Ro:rrtooi.,jDI. ed:liSfie'ries:babitat:cl!l'\dition in several drainages, and completed a streambank stabilization project. Much of the fisheries work conducted in the FC-RONR was completed by other groups or agencies, some in partnership with the National Forests. The groups involved included the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho State University, University of Idaho, the Nez Perce Tribe, National .Marine Fisheries Service, and the Intermountain Research Station in Boise. Emphasis was on the management of anadromous fisheries, and included stream inventories, spawning ground surveys, a riparian improvement project, and fish tagging and tracking programs. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is nearing the completion of the Anadromous Fisheries Five-Year Action Plan for salmon and steelhead in the Middle Fork Salmon River. 1991 steelhead angler surveys were conducted using check stations and creel census. Spring steelhead returns were low, but fall fish returns were up over previous years. The University of Idaho began its radio tracking study of steelhead and salmon. Two thousand tags and 500 radios were attached to fish at Ice Harbor Dam. Idaho State University is studying the effects of fire on the aquatic environment of streams. 4) Range management Range management focused On;!)JQ!!tt2,1'i!1Q.9razin~ ilJlpacts!on areas receiving heavy use, and assessing the success of previous efforts to reduce grazing impacts. Conditions in one high elevation meadow improved through outfitters' compliance with grazing restrictions, which incll!ded limitations on the number and season of grazing for pack and saddle stock. · 5) Lands Lands activities included ongoing and completed land exchanges between the State of Idaho and the Forest Service, acquisition of 7 acres of private land, and a relinquished public easement for trail access (the owners constructed new trail around their property instead). 6) Minerals Minerals activities, all on the Payette National Forest, included inspections of two claims and an agreement with the claimant of the Yellow Jacket mine, whereby the Forest Service continues cleanup and rehabilitation at the site, and the claimant conducts annual assessment work. 7) Soil, air and watershed Air and water quality monitoring programs include partnerships with the State of Idaho, the CoeurThunder Mine, Brigham Young University, University of California at Davis, Rocky Mountain Experiment Station, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Air quality monitoring stations assess visibility and airborn particulates. Air current data acquired from NOAA will help scientists interpret data from the air quality monitoring studies. Some funding was received to support trail work to reduce erosion and sedimentation. B)-E=x=o=t.i c plants lnventocy-woil<iwas completed to:to_c<atEHrJll§dmg-pfar:lfs, and some eradication efforts were taken at specific locations. The primary plant of concern on a Wilderness wide basis is spotted knapweed; however leafyspurge, henbane and other exotics are present. 9) Threatened and endangered species Most threatened and endangered species management focused on the Rocky Mountain gray wolf. Reported sightings were reviewed, and two were verified. Howling surveys and track surveys were completed, but with little wolf response. Partners involved in wolf investigations included the Eastern Verification Team, the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Area Steering Committee, San Francisco State University, and Wolf Haven International. Some Wilderness managers were trained to identify certain threafened, endangered and sensitive species of plants. A Challenge Cost Share project with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game completed a 4,500 acre survey of the Bear Valley fawn-lily's population status. ' 1 0) Wildlife The predominant wildlife work involved Idaho Fish and Game aerial bighorn sheep and mountain goat surveys. Forest Service wildlife programs that were ongoing in 1991 included surveying and verifying wolverine habitat in cost share ·wfih the Idaho Fish and Game Natural Heritage Program, monitoring browse transects, and' a raptor identification program. b. Recreation Management 1) Trail/trailhead development and maintenance Public Law 96..:312, the legislation that established the Frank Church- River of No Return Wilderness, made special provisions for trail maintenance: ' ... to the maximum extent practicable ... [the Forest Service will] ... clear obstructions from all of the national forest trails within or adjacent to the wilderness on at least an annual basis.' In 1991 this provision was not met, in part due to some high intensity rainfall and wil)dstorms which caused trails to be washed out or blocked by trees.~ !;!WCent-{1i137;'7'".millls) 'of. !lie-~1~~~ileS' 5f ltail~ in:the·Williemess 'Weti'f maintairie~ eHeeonstmcTEl'tf=ml_!:ihg 'Pl"'91• eonditiop ·~ys ;y.rere:completeq op,57.9.9:rtiiles, ?11&1 a:;:9:5 ;roile:;; were ,identifiecf-for-reit:onstruction! One trailhead received finish work and another, a cooperative project with U.S. Antimony Mining Corporation, is in the process of construction. 5 - ... '-~-. Work on trails was completed using contracts, Forest Service crews, a human resources cooperative agreement with the Shoshone-Bannack tribes, volunteers, a mining company and some work contributed by outfitters. . 2)~ The FC-RONR Management Plan states that trail junctions should be signed and show one primary destination for each fork of that junction; no trail mileage, numbers or arrows are to appear on the sign. Some managers are concerned that destinstion signing is not sufficient for safety, protection of the wilderness resource, and as a service to help the user know where they are. To help address this concern, an article on signing was included in the first issue of FRANKLY SPEAKING and public comment was solic~ed. The public input received will be consic:Jered in any future evaluation -of signing in the FC-RONR Wilderness. Signing is an integral part of the trail maintenance program. A portion of the budget is dedicated to replacement of signs damaged by animals, vandalized, stolen for souvenirs or to better direct the users. There are about 3,490 signs in and at the portals to the Wilderness. During the year, 60 signs were replaced and 24 new signs were installed or prepared for installation. Two signs were removed. Many Wilderness signs were inventoried, photographed, and inspected for maintenance or replacement in the future. 3) Bridges There are 61 major bridges in the Wilderness, and dozens more native material trail facil~ies which may serve as bridges. Tllft:major-!:Jrielges.rec!l~~d maiotefmr1C'e'"acd'tW1J:"Rew bridges:were"'1cstall~?d• Data is being collected for analysis oftnreebridge projects. 4) Camps~e inventory and cleanup Oller ~OO·CMJpsiteS! in the Wilderness we?9.inveii!or~ea"aRd/orcleaned·Of.trash, as part of a 'liriifts of' acceptable change• mon~oring program. 5) Administration of special use permits ~jtfa..ill!5' spetlal~§le permitll:administered in the FC-RONR Wilderness,\7,e":'lle·fw .outfitter.an~urue ~ --g{?eratic_Jt'([\i:m'a!ili9{51l) 5rTaricfl5asea~20))t The remaining special use permits are for jet boats (18), private camps on river (3), water diversion (3), water transmission (2), and cattle and horse grazing (1). 6):.M!!JOerness·edl:lcatiot~/iRfgrmation/public contact Presentations and personal contacts: Forest'Service personnel contacted more than 54,600 people during the year, including ~9,300 contacts by hosts and wilderness rangers at entry points and w~hin the Wilderness. Other contacts were at eight fairs (23,930), five elementary or middle schools {1,123 students), and eight group meetings (291). Five demonstration camps displayed lightweight equipment and techniques for back country vis~ors. One presentation was made to a group of handicapped individuals. 'Ehe- Bitter(90t·Nationai~Forest-r~e:eived:-riational recogniliQn:-f~tr ~s:classr5'0rii-.Wiltlerness • El'dUl:ation: "\'he Forest Service also handled several requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act, and responded to thousands of written, oral, and telephone requests. ------,1"-nte;pre"tiVe·media!=Brief T.V. se·gments ·orr minimum impact camping and minimum impact stock handling techniques were aired on a Boise, Idaho station in August, 1991, to help teach viege~<&>out wilderness values, ethics, and behavior. Two interpretive signs were·posted attrailheads,~~1'lW-• xampjFtg bro?~ure was, written in cooperation with the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association, and 6 1 plans are underway for a brochure discussing;.;lii'Sfripsl in the Wilderness (specifically written for pilots and other airstrip users). Wilderness newsletter: The fii'~!isA~Je ofF RANKLY SPEAI!ING, a ~;af'l~Ual report.PUhe.F.C-RONfl1 was puDiilih~ll in Jul5f, 1991••and mailed to 800 individuals, organizations ancf other agencies that use, or have been interested and involved in management of, the FC-RONR. An additional 850 copies were provided to Forest Service Offices for distribution to interested visitors. This report is designed to help keep the public informed and involved in matters of Wilderness management. Response to FRANKLY SPEAKING has been very positive. Over 180 people responded to the article on Wilderness signing, and many others have asked to be added to the FRANKLY SPEAKING mailing list. Information and education plan: In June of 1991 ,;.t:J.flixetsit}l.Of.ldahi5:Studentllaurie Matthews prq= , 1pqse~ a three phase project to complete a comprehensive Wilderness wide information and education plan for the FC-RONR. The·plarr is designed tti: [denlif5' Wilderne!:S users·, irfcll!Ping ucllan ,users and ' special interesfgroups~roVidfi consisteru:y anclaccouritabilitx'..!hrl2Jmh~rl}rsiated..g~~,9.'?1~ct[ye,g, t.ar:~d'mocitoriog;j.ngre{IS.~ s..t<~is.~IJpJ.QJlurwolv.ement;:and idectify e~.t;l..iy,a;p.artnerships. The proposal will be funded beginning in FY 92. c. Administration 1) Motorized use in the FC-RONR Wilderness ~.;{· Motors'were used over 7,000 times in the Wilderness during FY 91. Most of the activity was authorized -""-- non-Forest Service use, a!Le~il:nate.d.6,6.7..5.airplaneJandif1gS;stc:P.\loiDg.on.public.airstrips..Within.tbe/ v 'I\Olilderness. These airstrips are aru>OW.EUtiot.Usaii:i tne.FC-RONFI..Wi).£fe.!.n~~~L~gi§latig..(11 This does not include an estimate for private airstrips within the Wilderness. The second major use of motors was for authorized Forest Service use related toltireaciivities: 324 aircraft landings and 46 authorizations for chain saw use. In addition, aircraft were used several times tor search and rescue emergencies, and for medical evacuation. Helicopter use occurred once for radio repair under emergency conditions, and a rock drill was authorized for one trail relocation project. Fifteen incidents of unauthorized use of motors were reported. 2) Search and Rescue Several search and rescue activities were initiated in the Wilderness in 1991, for various reasons: injury or illness (4), airplane crash (3), evaluation from a hazardous fire situation (1), and a lost hunter (1). 3) Violations and Law Enforcement Action Ten violation notices were written, three for 14 day camping violations, two for chainsaw use, two for storage of equipment and three for entering a closed area Two incidents of illegal outfitting were investigated. Other miscellaneous incidents were noted through warning notices or incident reports, including unauthorized improvements to an airstrip and an unauthorized landing. The Environmental Protection Agency issued a citation for illegal storage of hazardous materials on private lands within the Wilderness, and the site was cleaned up. d. Administrative Structures.and-CieAD_,.u<.~p:o.-__ :--:--.~~--:-------- . ________ _ ~ . ~ ~ ~ In Spring, 1991, a FC-RONR Wilderness Administrative Accomplishments Report was prepared. This report displays infermat[Q..n re_g?fding..the administrative sites, lookouts, and electronic sites used or available for use 7 / I -----·------------- in managing the FC-RONR Wilderness and the-amount of clean up work accomplished on these sites during the 1990 field season through May 1, 1991. It also estimates work that remains to be done at the sites. D"iill'lg:J 99IJJitn1:lbroagtrMA~ t:"t991-;;:Ieal:rofl'-work-Was.dorie.of!'S'eJ1ElJl admioist~~;::tour=tofilio'UiP and ooCilll;I!Il[)i~lie JN.ildero.e.ssttEigbt"..Sffu'c!t~res-werm'Oile~s,.1~2;:ROI;Icds:;tJt:trmlh::an:l7 ru~rbijg~ere-re!'l~e_p, and f:3'.s:mlles'of.j5b<lbS"Ji.Qeytir~ we~:I:JauledDat. From May 1 through the remainder of FY 91 the following additional work was completed: Nineteen administrative sites, ten lookouts and two electronic sites were worked on with several structures removed and 2000 pounds of material removed from these sites. Crews packed out 1030 pounds from dumps and bone yards, 9348 pounds of garbage, and 13 miles of phone line wire. e. Ongoln!f2i!§l!i:'rt:f11'!rojet:ts, Including Non-Forest Service One area administered by the Challis National Forest was established as a<ResEl<!tCf! r:J,aturat..'l:re.a.JTwo ongoing research projects with the University of Idaho include: 1) vegetative research of exclosures, and 2) . a Wilderness Research Field Station with various studies (bigAom-sheeJ?flabjtat-and population, Adl'i-ftlrest• V habitats:1:!~s£riptivn, spottelt. knapweed..SUfVey; lo. Dg-term. ecplo.gi~::ilf®itOrifJg,tatmospheric.:moAitering," f, · -rapf5r j5'6puilition:trfooitqrin~. aii'll ag~3]_c..s~steJ.!l~Oni\OrilJg (responses to wildfire)). ADMINISTRATION Several administrative plans or reports provide current direction in the FC-RONR Wilderness: FC-RONR Management Plan and amendments; FC-RONR Fire Management Plan and revision; Salmon Wild and Scenic · River Management Plan; Middle Fork Salmon River Management Plan; and FC-RONR Administrative Study Report. Additional project plans, to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, are in progress or recently completed. These NEPA documents deal with proposals such as trail improvement, outfitter area allocation, outfitter and guide special use permits, horse allotment assessment, and bridge construction. The following are several aspects of administration which are pertinent to the management of the FC-RONR Wilderness. Regulations in Effect: In 1991 several new special orders were implemented Wilderness wide and by the four administering Forests. These regulations deal with camping restrictions, equipment storage, use of livestock salt, maximum size of groups and animals in their possession, garbage disposal, trail use, and use of vehicles. Personnel and Budget: 0ne·tmndred eignfY-R!or·El~Pioy~es-sp~nt·a-total of 43:28 -pt!l'Sol'fyear'll".doirrg'O~ ,[ s.uppOJliOQ.~ irrll'\!tfC:R.QNFrWiiCI!il'nes§'in""'9911. The-saJ~or these employees tb'ttlled§t;21.?.;"'9j.6tof -v: · these 184 employees('S5 WO'I'ked in· a Sup~ryisor's Offi!!'e ol tt]~ Forest Service and 129 wor~ed on Ranger , ~Ta>- These figures do not include support provided by volunteers or participants in the Seniors Community Service Employment Program. This appears to be about one haH of projected needs. J:orest'SS~i~;:e-manag.~r§"!)stirfni!e';ihaf'!i.f!'"aljtlitiooal-: 45-persO'tl ~earS:"!lf'wcmc.:are 'Tle.e.dect in support of Wilderness managemen~. arid..Prcije'li~itiom!l i1-;237!~1JJP.be:D~dEl.d1D p.ay salaries for those persons. These costs do not include money that would be needed to support the positions; i.e., equipment, transportation, training, etc. In total, $1,815,151 was spent on management in and support of the FC-RONR Wilderness in 1991. $796,847 was allocated for Wilderness recreation management in FY 91, and a!t'.C!.o.ll<;~rs .all.o.catedloT.Wildercess were , ~nt·iA-Support-OfWif®ms-_rrmoageml;ll')!, Of this amount, $140,290 supported Wilderness programs through GA and Common Services (rent, lights, computer equipment, etc.) with $656,557 for Wilderness management programs. An additional $378,630 appropriated for other resources was spent in support of 8 Wilderness (trails $294,525; range $3,582; minerals $13,902; lands $36,250; wildiHe $1 0,624; fire, $3375 and other sources $16,372), and $639,000 was spent for fire management activities in support of Wilderness. Ongoing Ptinili;:$h!P_~ that Assist with Wilderness Management: In ~JiipfembeF-6f-199'1 an:f,gre~rnent was , sjgnea:Oeiween-t~e Idaho tiutfitters..and Guldes:Ass6ciatibn.-and..the4SI01fh'E!'rn.aRd tnteFmeuntaiR-Regi6ns. , ~t tlie 1:/S~ ~reS!""lf!!'rviqe:.The intent of the Agreement isw.stmre tbe.costs:-of.1acating~lru"ccbasing;atte!J I ,. te.~LIJg·lfeYi:lightwe(gh~·l?qt!able'equipiiienl for bacRcouot!Y·~se~ The purpose is to facilitat!_!.roeetiog_tiJEl. goal. _. 'tO..C1llltir:tml" to ·.promote."tl'ltnJsS::O.Higbtweigt.lt,-pgrt<~ble. eii]uipm'ent cthat-can- b_e-taken~in anc:F'out :oube -:X' Wiltler~:~ess-ar-th~b~ginning·anc:tenc:to(e,.ech u~e seas_an:,and that will replace large unwieldy items presently · • in use. In addition, some of the Ranger Districts are testing other types of lightweight equipment and techniques. The information gained from this effort will be used to develop and publish information about the protection or preservation of the wilderness environment through the use of this equipment, and will be shared with other backcountry users and the public by brochures, pamphlets, newspaper articles and other means that are appropriate for educating the public. Examples of other partnerships which help with Wilderness management are: volunteer groups which work on trail maintenance, lookout coverage, and trash cleanup; a feed company which supplies feed tor sale to reduce the impacts of recreational stock; and an outfitter who teaches a wilderness guide school. 1990 Administrative Study Action Plan: The 1990 Administrative Study included an action plan, which identifies specHic actions and target dates for those actions to be accomplished. The majority of items have been completed as scheduled. · · Consolil:latiqn otJ;.G:8.0NluViTderness"Mana"9lWent~anagement ofthe FC-RONR has been consolidated at the Forest and District levels, and throughQJlpOir~tmel')tlif.:a:J.6a(l.:EragimGiQ~ The .DlJOJl$!}1of Forest Service offices that manage the FC-RONR is.fi!:t!cr~rom six National Forests to four, and.~:!!QQ~I?!~r.ict..l' •Jo: !!Ps.'""J:he Jllt!lrr:I10i.icfiiioll"egibnab~"ttJtn~alrooo ('ia.ljpnat.ElireSO:J~ been .designated<I@:Region and Forest with responsibility for information and inquiries, data management, reporting and agreements. Policy for the Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness is established from the Regional Level down to the field level through a series of policy and work groups, including Regional Policy Councils, a FC-RONR Board of Directors, a FC-RONR Lead Working Group, and a Wilderness Coordinator. Resolution of Major Issues. Settlement Agreement: On May 8, 1991 the Frank Church --River of No Return Wilderness Management Plan and the Bitterroot, Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette and Salmon National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans were amended. These actions were taken to make these Plans consistent with the June 4, 1990 Frank Church - River of No Return Wilderness Agreement between the Chief of the Forest Service and the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association. This amendment changes wording in the Plans related to reducing the storage of items in, and removal of plumbing fixtures from, the Wilderness. The Forest Service has been working with outfitters to implement the June 1990 Settlement Agreement. This Agreel"!1ent.provides a S_?~edule for adjustment of outfitter camp operations to eliJll!!)~te~~ain;ite.ms:_·ahr;t ·~giilljgs (dumps; tenf"Siructutel>,1urnitt.11"e,.pltlmbing;-·obtrusive·storage; anctpermanent.'buildings~.•Ninety:"l ¥ !l.~eri~~rceot Ql.lhe· BB..teserved canips:are:expected..to ·be. in;complial'll!e·witlfttie '1991" stalldards-by -!bElT -~~~based on outfitter assurances that provisions of the agreement will be met when camps are removed at the end of the season. Forest Service camp visits during the 1991 field season show 56% of the - camps already meet 1991 standards. How outfitter camps will be managed under the Settlement Agreement has continued to be a controversial issue, and some decisions within the FC-RONR have been formally appealed or litigated. 9 eti!OBtEMs:T..f.I'A"':"I:IMIT·EFEECIIll~EME[\IT OF THIS WILDERNESS The following is a summary of problems that limtt effective management of the FC-RONR. t!l!..r!~pwpria11'iills: Nearly every District reported the need for additional and appropriately designed funding - to keep pace wtth inflation, fund field level work rather than non-field overhead, and to fund FTE's. &ZOhd:e:eUJC!tel'll!§t: At 2.4 million acres, the Wilderness is immense and remote. Most of the trailheads are at least 20 - 30 miles from any paved roads, and the long travel times to and wtthin the Wilderness create logistic and management challenges. The rough terrain also challanges our field crews and equipment. Portions of the Wilderness boundary follow no topographic feature, and prove difficult to' identify. Conflicts in Permitted Uses of the Wilderness: There is an inherent 1&\mlic;l:_~"'!.tlml!!iD!r.laws-_ao~ l:\tVi1C!9rness._ti@Q~~rnlLnt;'l which produces the potential for development or patenting of mining claims. Motorized access to the interior of the Wilderness vi<cROU!~il!atlii:alrf.J.Ellr;ls :t:i5l!l'i'fOllliMS, to a degree, the objectives of Wilderness management and the expSI'ieiJCe-:Ef;gr_OlJJlf!.'1r!!vg!!j_n~. Private landowners wtthin the Wilderness may request uses and means access detrimental to the Wilderness resource. And, the lack of direction for management of acquired lands sometimes results in land uses which are inconsistent wtth the intent of the purchase. Need for'JN'ifci'ftrnes~l:@_geme..!J[P"iiieer-lac1aer ancf/2etiffaiienr\ol!Pr.Jst..org_e;.Jhere is a ~clllV!llop:1 tl.r'I'Ci-fet'almR'IIIl!$r:fed~fed~r'IT!ar.rent.WOtkfot'C!tiorWIJaemeS'S:'mainl!;leme~M'e see a defintte need to continue to support Forest Seniice wide effortsltcfesta:b_lis,p a.:I?~Qte~si~~-at~es..o~;.Caree?l<!"d~ for wilderness rangers in ordei\Q5]mn!'i"JI'MJrill.tQJ!'T!npainstfea!l'r'elt.ttl8EClfest.Serttl~. There is also a need for ~d,jLt,J~fjztfll!l'.§1!00lliJq~,o!!Jp~te-fj~lc;tLeyetJ-t'!~~s in trail maintenance, trail recol')struction, area clean up, and user contact/education. We need to be able to offer a decent length of season and a potential to advance as skill increases through a career ladder for dedicated and qualified personnel in both trails and Wilderness management. Need for Forma/Information and Education Plan: There is a need to teach Wilderness users and other persons how to enjoy the Wilderness, while being sensttive to the wilderness resource . ..t::torn'i1l.li1:iffil'matiQ!l:l :Ws!;.edccl!lJei'i::Pilmis•l)eeded·to help identify both Wilderness users and methods to modify visitor behavior in order to minimize wilderness resource impacts. FORTHCOMING ACTIONS - FY 92 Several important projects will be completed or initiated in 1992. These include: Reach Closure on,::amplfance'lllfith the"Settl~mentAgteementr The projected accomplishments for 1991 show that not all camps are expected to be on schedule with 1991 requirements. The end of 1992 is the target date by which all camps must be cleared of items that are not specifically agreed to in either the Settlement Agreement or the outfitter's operating plan. The Forest SeiVice will be preparing for final camp visits, and along with the Outfitters and Guides Board, will be dealing wtth those sttuations that do not meet the terms of the Agreement. Any unresolved ttems will be reviewed in 1993 and a schedule for accomplishment established. Monitor Ughtweight Gear Study: This is also the first full year of operation under the ligbtvll!.igh!:Qe@ "C:f.l.f![l.O~l[)ip.~mem::4he Forest SeiVice and Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association will evaluate whether the equipment is lightweight, portable, and sutted to protect the wilderness resource. 10 LJil)its'bTiicce;;iaDre 'Change (LA"O): In FY 92 a Wilderness Specialist will be added to the coordination staff, with primary responsibilities of leading the Limits of Acceptable Change effort, which involves completing data collection and analysis, and evaluating solutions to social and environmental impacts on the Wilderness. ,klOld~IIJ~n!t~!i..QJI,.S&IJfl.dJifll.'WIS): A draft WIS will be developed for the FC-RONR Wilderness in 1992. The intent of the WIS is to schedule activities that need to be completed to meet the FC-RONR Management Plan, and to identify who will be responsible for completing the tasks and what costs are associated with each task. ~~j,[st.porgp~sj"-~e8.'2t'~i~.~~orkload, cost~. ~!)_!i !~~p~o ,man%l;.!ll~_;.,F'!S.f'l.~lderness. · -.........-- • Training-Team Building for Wilderness Rangers & Line Officers: A spring of 1992 session is being scheduled for 'll(jjperne§~.YI!ide.trainirJg.aRci.DI'ie~tatien. The training will include line..effieers;-WiiEiero~aQr~[?~• and Wildeme~ual!9!ill:~ ~o~t. Several topics have been suggested for the agenda including: political and environmental aspects of managing the Wilderness; Wilderness management goals; Wilderness ranger recommendations for future training {backcountry, rivers, airstrips etc.); techniques for checking camps; quality trail work; no trace camping awareness; and more. Wilderness Wide Information and Education Plan: University of Idaho student Laurie Matthews will be developing a cnrogrebfilo~[g~~itl!LiD!_o~iQO..eQ_~eatiQQ,BI_2QJ"r the FC-RONR. The plan is designed to: identify Wilderness users, including urban users and special interest groups; provide consistency and accountability through clearly stated goals, objectives and monitoring; increase stakeholder involvement; and identify effective partnerships. Wilderness Symposium: The Uoillil~tJ.~.Q..I!P.Q.the US Forest Service are jointly planning and sponsoring a ~O!!$.-S}(mpm;h!m, specific to the Frank Church- River of No Return Wilderness. The Symposium is tentatively scheduled for January or February ..Qf 1993 and will provide a forum for pertinent customers, stakeholders, and partners to 1dentii)i ttienfconcernsarnl'their vision for future management ofthe Wilderness. 11 066L .Afnr lt~Od3t~ Aanls 31\ll V'tllSINIII\I0\7' I LBBL 9 (! ).rtfi,IJ SS3Nti3011M NCinl3tl. ON . .:10 CI3/\U:I- -H~)CinH8 >IN,·lCJ ..: I . - . r r f . ' Church--River of No Return Wilderness Administrative Study Executive Summary Background The Regional For<!sters of "the Norl:hern and Intermountaj.n Reg:tons co.nvened a 1 ~J"ectal-task··force~in·- AP.r±l-:;.t'll '<ixp'fore -·a varl.ety. of -o_£g~"tz!tt.i.i>u'!l. - ' alternatives for manag4.ng li:he Frank -Church- --River o~"No ·Return Wthlerness. Pub-H~-;!.nterest·"<ind a'gency "con;;"erns • prompt~d the_RE!g:tonar Form;ter,_ action. Vision The task group developed the following vision to guide the development and subsequent analysis of a range of alternatives. The Frank Church--River of No Return Wilderness is the "crown jewel" of the National Wilderness Preservation System. This biologically diverse wilderness incorporates the Middle Fork and main stem Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers and is unique because of its size, diversity of use, and accessibility. Management of the Frank Church--River of No Return Wilderness is holistic and cohesive. The management team consists of a collaborative partnership of dedicated people of the Forest Service and other agencies working with interested citizens. It is empowered by and accountable to the American people. Elements of Sound Management In developing the vision, the task force identified the following requisite ele,m. ents for sound management: I *enduring wilderness character *stakeholder involvement I *communication and information *consistency *accountability *programming, planning, and budgeting *responsibility and authority for quality work *customer service *timely monitoring, evaluation, and reporting Alternatives Developed ,Eight alternatives were developed, displaying a range from the cu~~entt situation to· ~-consolidated Slngre~wi}dernes~ forest made up entirely of the Frank Church--River of No Return lands. In between are sJ.x.~lt~rnatives tha~ -wopd~~p~s?lida~~ the administration in various configurations. 1. Current Situation--2 Regional Offices, 6 National Forests, and 12 Ranger Districts. 2. One Regional Office (Ogden), 3 Forests, and 7 Ranger Districts. 3. One Regional Office (Ogden), 3 Forests, and 3 Ranger Districts. .... 4) ~ One Regional Office (Ogden), 1 Forest, and 3 Ranger Districts. 5. Greater Yellowstone Model, 2 Regional Offices (Ogden with lead), with coordinating staff, 6 Forests, and 12 Ranger Districts. 6. Multi-Region (Ogden with lead), 5 Forests, and 7 Ranger Districts. 7. Multi-Region (Ogden with lead), 6 Forests (1 lead), with wilderness coordinating staff. 8. Multi-Region/Greater Yellowstone Area, 2 Regional Offices (Ogden with lead), with wilderness coordinating staff, 5 Forests, and 7 Ranger Districts. Final Alternative Selection The alternatives developed were presented to the Northern and Intermountain Regions Frank Church--River of No Return Wilderness line officers in late April. Components of several of the alternatives evaluated by the original task group were considered to be desirable and a set of "guiding" principles agreed upon as the basis for formulating a recommended alternative. The task group was made up of six individuals, all of whom were on the original task force. They developed a final recommended alternative, which was presented to the Regional Foresters and approved for implementation. Recommended Management Actions ~Bp~-~~g1tih~will remain involved in the administration of the Frank Church--River of No Return Wilderness. *The l,I!terrnollbtaiii~liegion.-wHi be -tne ~lead~l<egil'n"having responsibility for coordination, both internal and external. *The ~111\on -National Forest will be the lerul;.;:.Foust~ *A «.'!9¢i'nator .posi.tiou",.ldll-be--added' with responsibility for the functions associated with the lead role. *Instead of six Forests, there will b~~Pr~acs~involved with mana;geDnenl of the Frank Church--River of No Return Wilderness. *The~pu!!l!!.~r;.qf. J)i~r=icts 'involved with management will be r:eaucred·"b,,c:j'!im ~Eil.J?~) .. c..inyolventlmt- wi-i.]:..be-:encou=ged' with an open invitation to attend meetings and participate in the management of the Frank Church--River No Return Wilderness. *There will be a ~n!fal: source-..of...lJ::!fp,p!uiti~ including an 800 number. *The lead working group will continue with greater involvement of Rangers. *The Frank Church--River of No Return Wilderness directors group will continue with greater involvement of the Regional Offices. *There will be an annual managers meeting with participation of interes publics encouraged. FRANK CHURCH--RIVER OF NO RETURN WILDERNESS Recommended Management Actions Salmon NF Challis NF Payette NF Boise NF Nez Perce NF Bitterroot NF July 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary 1 Guiding Principles 1 Recommended Management Structure 2 Regional Level 2 Forest Level 3 District Level 4 Recommended Management Operations 5 Coordinator Position 5 Public Involvement/Information 6 Management of Policy and Work Group 7 Costs and Budget 8 Action Plan 9 Attachments 1. Organization Chart 2. Recommended Management Map Bitterroot/Nez Perce NF Portion 3. Recommended Management Map - Boise NF Portion 4. Frank Church--River of No Return Wilderness Organizational Alternatives - A Collaborative Analysis 5. Always ... Frank Church--River of No Return Wilderness Tabloid I. Summary On April 25, 1990, the Frank Church - River of No Return administration analysis task group completed its report on management alternatives for the Wilderness. This report was presented to the Regional and National Forest managers involved with the Wilderness on April 26-27, 1990, in Salmon, Idaho. Each alternative was discussed in detail by the group. Components of several of the alternatives·evaluated by the original task group were considered to be desirable and a set of "guiding principles" agreed upon as the basis for formulating a recommended alternative. A task group-consisting of John Burns, Bertha Gillam, Steve Morton, Ruth Monahan, ~q~ Kovali~ky·and Marsha Kearney, was named to develop the recommended alternative. The recommended alternative task group met in Salmon, Idaho on June 13-15, 1990. This report outlines the recommended alternative approval bY. the Regional Foresters, R-1 (Missoula, MT) and R-4 (Ogden, UT). The recommended alternative also has the support of the six Forest Supervisors currently involved in administration of the FC-RONR Wilderness. A copy of the April 25, 1990 report of the original task group is attached. For brevity, discussion and background included in the April 25 report is not repeated in this report, except where needed for clarity. II. Guiding Principles The Region 1 and Region 4 managers agreed to the following principles for formulation of the recommended alternative: A. Two Region Involvement - Both Rl and R4 must remain involved in the administration of the wilderness. B. Lead Region - A single region will have responsibility as a coordination contact point, internal and external. C. Lead Forest/Coordinator - A single forest will have responsibility as a coordination contact point, internal and external; and appropriate staff will be needed on that unit. D. Administrative Consolidation - Through administrative agreements between units, the number of line officers involved will be reduced. E. Lead Working Group - The existing lead working group will continue to be an integral part of the management process, but that group's strength and visibility will be enhanced. F. Public and User Involvement - The involvement of the public and users will be increased, including a more formalized mechanism to ensure that concerns and advice of private citizens is obtained. G. Immediate Actions - items proposed in the April 15 report will be implemented. H. Line officers - Involvement will be increased, and line officers will meet as the FC-RONR Directors at least twice annually and will serve as members of the Lead Working Group as well. 1 :I " Key Objectives These objectives we're als'O identified at the time the guiding principles were deve'loped by the managers liieedng in· Salmon. 1. Fully implement FC-RONR Management Plan. The management plan for the wilderness provides an excellent framework within which to accomplish effective coordination arid management of the wilderness resource. It was developed over a period of several years with extensive public participation, and tul1y met NEPA requirements. The plan has been subsequently incorporated in the National Forest land management plans involved. 2. Achieve ~ps.iJ~f.eric)lc.-of iiiiinagE!'flfef\t between units. 3. _Appi:opri:ately. con!lider· cos.t"efficienc)f.l 4. Adequately fund management and monitoring. III. Recommended Management Structure A. Regi6hal Level 1. Present Si.tuation Approximately 13 percent of the 2.3 million acre wilderness lies within Region 1, headquattered in Missoula, Montana. The balance, 87 percent, is within Region 4, headquartered in Ogden, Utah. Although the minority of FC•-RONR acreage is within Region 1, that portion of the area is nevertheless vast and is in itself latger than most wilderness areas in the United States. Access to the expertise and skiiis available in two Regional Offices is a definite plus iri effective on-the-ground administration. However, a mechanism does not exist for prompt information assembly, dissemination, and analysis for the wilderness as a whole. As a result the programs and activities between the Regions suffer in some instances, and an appearance of coordination failure is projected. Access to the skills and expertise of both Regional Offices can be maintained by continuing the Regionai line authorities for their respective parts of the wilderness as they now exist, but improvement in information and communications management is necessary. 2. Recommended Management The Regional Forester for Region 4 will be designated as having lead ~ responsibility for the following items (See Attachment #l): a. Information and inquiries b. Data management c. Program display d. Budget display 2 e. Activity display f. Reporting and records g. Monitoring Tracking h. Management Agreements The above is feasible only if a lead forest with a coordination staff position is established. The actual staff work would occur on the lead forest. B. Forest Level 1. Present Situation Six National .Forests contain a portion of the wilderness; two in Region 1 and four in Region 4. Percentages and acreages of the wilderness with each are: Forest Proclaimed & Legislated Administered Salmon NF 421,179 acres 18% 426,004 acres 18% Challis NF 512,904 acres 22% 784,968 acres 33% Boise NF 331,611 acres 14% 65,009 acres 3% Pay~tt~.Nf 789,017 acres 33% 781,717 acres 33% ~~~Per~e-NR· 110,441 acres 5% 110,441 acres 5% Bitterroot NF 193,659 acres 8% 193,659 acres 8% Total 2,361,767 acres These acreages and percentages reflect only the area within proclaimed andjor designated boundaries, and the existing inter-unit agreements which provide for land area administration on one unit by another. For example, the Challis NF administers a considerable portion of the Boise NF wilderness land. Other agreements on river administration are not shown, such as the Salmon administers the Main Salmon River use through the Salmon, Bitterroot, Nez Perce, and Payette NF's. Other agreements are in effect as well, including those with other agencies, and are as effective and efficient. The existing National Forest boundaries were largely determined by access considerations. The "overlay" of the wilderness in and of itself does not .I alter the access situation in terms of routes, travel time, weather, ranger stations, barriers, and patterns of human use. The opportunities for reduction or simplification of administrative units is limited, unless cost is no object. Within reasonable cost parameters, some consolidation of administrative responsibility could be achieved, and is described in the following recommended management section. 3 2. Recommended Management a. Responsi9ility for certa~n Bitterroot NF lands in the Main Sal~on River breaks assigned to the Salmqn National Forest (See Attachment 'C2). b. Responsibility for Boise NF lands assigqed to Challis and/or P~yette NF (See Attachment #3). ~· Responsibility for Bitterroot and Nez Perce portions of wilderness consoli~ated on the Nez Perce NF (See Attachment #2). Each of the above potential actions 'S.hotild. oe"l:ne:subject of .a separate' afl'!lysis .that carefully e~uU.peo; th!!_benefits··aiJd epats for- .;:n "resoutcl> progr~. Since the wilderness managers agree that FC--RONR administration is inadequately funded at present, any action that increases costs - even though that action is highly desirable - may actually be detrimental if implemented without appropriate funding. d. Qesignate Sa~mon NF as lead forest for 2 year trial period, with responsibilities as follows (See Attachment #1): ( (1) Information and Inquiries (2) Data Management (3) Budget Display I ( 4) Program Display \ (5) Activity (Projects) Display \ <6) Reporting ~nd ~ecords • (7) Monitoring and tracking (8) Management A~reements These responsi~ilities parallel those 9f ~he lead region, but the forest would be the "working level" for this accomplishment. In addition, the lead forest would provide support for the coo.rdinatpr p()dtion identified it:l S.ection IV of this report. ·· ~ In the event a wilderness visitor center is subsequently established in ~ Challis, centralization of the lead functions at that location would be "' appropriate. C. District Level 1. Present Situation Administratively ten Districts have land area within portions of the wilderness, ranging in size from 12,089 acres on the Cascade District, Boise NF to 681,717 acres on the Krassel Ranger District, Payette NF. In addition, one District (Slate Creek on the Nez Perce) is responsible for administrating upstream boating activity on the Main Salmon, but has no wilderness land area responsibility. Also, the McCall District administrative responsibility is assigned to the Krassel RD on the Payette. 4 Numerous situations exist wherein Ranger Districts on the same and adjacent Forests have agreements defining cross-boundary administrative responsibilities for certain wilderness activities. As·a result, efficiency and public service are enhanced. 2. Recommended Management a. Administrative adjustments of District boundaries within the Challis need funther evaluation. A number of possible combinations exists between the three Districts on that Forest, and ~dd!tional assessment is needed to determine which, if any, combinations are desirable. b. At this time, administration on the Payette NF is assigned to a single District (the Krassel RD) and s.hould continue as is. c. On the Salmon, the configuration of the wilderness, access, and administrative site locations does not lend itself to consolidation. Circumstances are similar on the Nez Perce and Bitterroot Districts. IV. Recommended Management Operations A. ·Ooordi:.tm~ "PO!ti""ti"btf Establish a GS-12 coordinator position for a-2.7eur t~ p~riod on the Lead Forest, with staff responsibility for the functions associated with the lead role. This position will need technical support in order to be fully effective. The Salmon NF currently has a GS-11 PAO whose duties can be expanded to provide support to the coordinator. Additional support needs will be assessed by the FC-RONR Directors on a continuing basis. The coordinator would be responsible for the initiating and working with the other forests to accomplish the lead functions previously listed in this report. In addition, the following specific tasks would be the responsibility of the coordinator. a. Operate the "800" information number for the Wilderness. b. Publish a Wilderness newsletter. c. Guide development-and updating of brochures and special publications on the wilderness, including user guide. d. Provide logistical and staff support to the FC-RONR Directors. e. Serve as executive secretary for the Lead Working Group and the FC-RONR Directors. f. Provide a focal point for information flow and technical guidance between Regions, Forests, external groups, LWG, and the public. g. Monitor scheduled accomplishments and recommend needed adjustments in plans and programs to FC-RONR Directors. 5 I ···---· -····------------......., h. Organize and manage agenda, logistical support, and record keeping for annual FC-RONR managers meeting. i. Maintain liaison and communications with public and interest groups on wilderness matters, but not to the exclusion of other responsible line managers. j. Track status of wilderness monitoring activities and accomplishments. k. Provide leadership in design and implementation of common data base, LAC process, and other technical matters. B. Public Involvement/Information Presently there is ~o ~antra~ source-~~nforma~iQn, nor a process to aggregate data on a wilderness-wide basis. Customers often do not know where to go for information about the FC-RONR Wilderness and requests concerning the entire Wilderness are not readily answered. The Lead Working Group and Board of directors have done an excellent job dealing with issues but their visibility is low and there is no involvement of publics external to the agency. The River Systems are one aspect of the Wilderness where efforts have been well coordinated and there continues to be a high level of public involvement. It needs to be recognized that this is just a part of the Wilderness and the same level of involvement/awareness for all programs within the FC-RONR is needed. During the development of the FC-RONR Wilderness Management Plan a high level of public involvement occurred but that has dropped significantly in the past years. As we enter the LAC planning process, public involvement will greatly increase as that is critical to the success of the endeavor. this is just one of the many opportunities to improve the coordination between the Forest Service and the external publics interested in the FC-RONR Wilderness. Recommendations 1. Establish the "800" information number for the Wilderness. Coordinator will be responsible for management and marketing of the "800" number. 2. Publish a spring and fall newsletter and an annual "State of the Wilderness" brochure. This will be the responsibility of the FC-RONR Coordinator. 3. Develop and distribute brochures and special publications on the Wilderness. 4. Involve the public and other agencies in management of the FC-RONRW. Provide the public with an open invitation to attrend the Board of Directors, Lead Working Group and annual FC-RONR Managers Meeting. 5. Continue to investigate opportunities for an information 6 6. Consider innovative funding sources to improve wilderness administration such as: Revenue dollars going back to the unit where collected (similar to campground fees) - User fees - Friends of FC-RONR Wilderness Foundation 7. Coordinate with all units which remain involved and responsible for wilderness management activities. The above recommendations can not be accomplished with the present workforce and is dependent upon the creation of the FC-RONR Coordinator position. It also needs to be recognized that a substantial cost is involved, to be funded by both Regions on a pro-rata basis. C. Management of Policy and Work Groups 1. Lead Working Group The Lead Working Group will be continued, but involvement of District Rangers will be increased. The LWG will be responsible for preparing completed staff work on projects or activities assigned by the Directors. In addition, the LWG will fill a technical advisory role to the Directors, and serve as a conduit for information and concerns from field personnel and the public. Personnel assigned to the Lead Working Group will consist of : One representative per involved District, with at least one-third of the representatives being district rangers. In addition, one representative per SO and one per Regional Office will be members. The Lead Working Group will meet ~~ least quarterly with additional meetings scheduled as the need arises. The chair will rotate on a two year basis as at present. The FC-RONR coordinator will work with the LWG as the executive secretary, providing logistical and other support as needed. 2. Directors The FC-RONR Directors Group will be continued, but modified to increase the involvement of the two Regional Offices. Membership will consist of the Forest Supervisors for each involved National Forest, and the appropriate RO Directors with responsibility for Wilderness Management. The chair of this group will rotate on a two year basis among the Forest Supervisors, with the FC-RONR Coordinator functioning as executive secretary and providing logistical and other support as needed. Directors will meet at least semi-annually , and on a more frequent basis as needed. One of the Directors meetings may be set to correspond with the Annual Managers Meeting described under item 4. 3. Citizens and other Agency Involvement Both the LWG and Directors Group will solicit participation by the public and representatives of organizations and agencies with an interest in wilderness management. Meetings will be announced in advance and external participation will be encouraged. 7 -----------··-·~-~-------------- • I' I !If< 4' Annual,Managers Meeting At least annually, a meeting will be scheduled among all managers of the Frank church-River of No ~eturn Wiiderness. Participation at the annual meeting will include the Lead Working Group, Board of Directors, Regional Foresters, and District Rangers. Interested publics, Governor and Congressibnal staff representatives and other agencies will also be encouraged to attend. D. Costs and Budget Under the present situation, wilderness expenditures and budget submissions are not aggr~gated to reflect the total FC-RONR Wilderness. Nor, are the figures easily identified and segregated for that purpose. This is due to the fact that most expenditures and program budgets do not carry a wilderness identifier. For example, a wildlife biologist expenses within wilderness are covered by wildlife funding which is not split between wilderness and non-wilderness. The same is true of a District Ranger's general administration funding, trail construction, fire management, cultural resources, etc. The oniy funds identified specifically as "wiiderness" are those requested and allocated as a sub set of "recread.on." Rough figures developed by the original task group indicate thai: current actual expendi'tures (excluding fire) within wilderness are approximateiy 400% greater on se~eral units than the allocated wilderness funds. This is not improper expenditure of funds, but merely the result of the funding categories contained in Congressional Appropriations wherein wilderness and non-wilderness disti'nctions are not drawn In order to implement the immediate actions and establish the coordinator position and its support, the following additional annual funding will be needed by the lead forest: 1. Co!>rdina tor Salary and Travel 2. Information Officer Salary and Travel (50% of existing PAO costs) 3. Publications, 800#, Supplies, etc. $ 65;000 $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $140,000 A key step in effective display and analysis of the program budget and expenditure data will be the coordinator involvement in the normal program budget and allocation cycle with the individual units. This process should begin with the forthcoming FY 93 program budget submission. This displayed program request could then be utilized by the Districts for evaluation, goal setting, and program consistency. attempt has been made at this time to determine ·the costs or cost savings the potential administrative unit realignments. The analysis necessary to this should be prepared in conjunction with the forthcoming detailed evaluations of the realignments under consideration. (See sections III B and • II C). 8 V. Action Plan Items to be completed are listed below·with target dates: Report Section III. A. Regional Level B. Forest Level C. District Level IV. A. Designate Lead Forest Item Target Date Designate R4 Lead RegionChief designate or MOU between Regions. Aug. 15, 1990 1. Analyze the potential assignment of Salmon River breaks administration to Salmon NF. Three forest evaluate-and make recommendations to RF's. 2. Analyze the potential On or before Dec. 31, 1990 assignment of remaining Boise NF land to Payette and/or Challis. Three forests evaluate and make recom-mendations to R4 RF. On or before Dec. 31, 1990 3. Initiate administration of Nez Perce and Bitterroot Wilderness lands by a single unit. On or before Dec. 31, 1990 Analyze the potential adjustment of Challis NF District boundaries. Challis evaluate and make recommendations to R4 RF. Salmon NF designated as lead forest (2 year trial period). On or before April 30, 1991 July 30, 1990 Salmon develop coordinator position description, classify, and advertise. Lead Forest select and fill Coordinator position. FC-RONR Directors prepare role statement and work plan for coordinator. July 30, 1990 October 1, 1990 October 1, 1990 Coordinator develop methodology for tracking wilderness related expenditures. April 30, 1991
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
|Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Reports
|Searchable Date
|Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Reports
|Subject (TGM I)
National parks & reserves
|Location (TGN)
|Frank Church River of No Return (Idaho, United States : nature reserve)
|Location (TGN) ID
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness
|Larry LaRocco
|Larry LaRocco Papers, MSS 139, Box 19, Folder 13, Boise State University Special Collections and Archives.
|Contributing institution
|Boise State University, Albertsons Library Special Collections and Archives
|Resource type
|Original physical format
|Digital format
|Ordering and permissions
|The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or email@example.com.
|Full Text
United 1:1tates Fotest Tnternlounta~n 324, 25~h s.treet
Department_ of Servi,ce Region ' -Ogden, UT. 8440,1
A riculture
-~-'t .... ,
ReplY, to: 23~0
Date: FEB 271991
Honor{lble I:arry LaRocco
House or Representatives
111• Lppgwortn•House'Office ~ujlding
Washi~gton, DC 20515 MAR 0 6 19~1
} ' ' n•'
Dear Congressman LaRoCco:
~~ ..
As discussed- during bur me11ting last >leek, ene'lbsed 'a't,e do'quai