Studies on Recreation Use, Trends, and Outfitting Regionally And

United States Department of Assessment of Need for Agriculture Outfitted Services and Forest Service Resource Capacity Northern

Region Analysis

In Non-Wilderness and Wilderness Areas

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, with the Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana

ITRR Research and data reporting by: Christine Oschell, Ph.D. Neala Fugere, Research Assistant

College of Forestry & Conservation Phone (406) 243-5686 32 Campus Dr. #1234 Fax (406) 243-4845 The University of Montana www.itrr.umt.edu Missoula, MT 59812

The Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research was created in 1987 to conduct research on travel, recreation and tourism. Located in The University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation, ITRR serves as the research arm for Montana's tourism and recreation industry. Its overall mission is to provide information that will help the industry make informed decisions about planning, promotion and management. Thus, the research conducted is designed to assist both private firms and public agencies who provide facilities and services to visitors.

USDA Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency’s EEO Counselor (http://www.ascr.usda.gov/doc/EEO_Counselor_List.pdf) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632–9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690–7442 or email at [email protected].

Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339 or (800) 845–6136 (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD)

Executive Summary

 The purpose of this document is to analyze need and capacity for outfitter-guide services, and thus help inform decisions to approve or deny those proposed activities on the Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest.  The public need for outfitted services was evaluated based on supply, demand, and projected demand for outfitted services. Resource capacity was also examined.  Data for this report were generated from existing research, as well as a web-based survey and in-person interviews with outfitters, area sporting goods store employees, Forest Service personnel, and area hospitality managers. The Special Use Database (SUDS) was used to generate data regarding outfitter activities on the Forest.  Of the 56 outfitter/guides invited to take the survey, 35 of them agreed to participate and 27 completed the survey (response rate 63%, 77% completion rate.) Of the 29 sporting goods stores and hospitality managers contacted, 18 of them agreed to participate and 17 completed the survey (response rate 59%, 94% completion rate.) A total of 18 Forest Service personnel representing all districts were also interviewed.  From the SUDs data, a total of 57 outfitter/guides providing 23 different activities were found to be currently operating on the Forest.  Outfitters and guides are utilizing an average of 48% of their permitted days.  Every activity offered by outfitters and guides shows some unused permitted days according to SUDS.  Horseback riding, motorized activities, hiking, fly fishing and foot access fishing, hunting, and snowmobiling were popular individual activities mentioned by respondents.  Horseback riding, fly fishing, foot access fishing, hunting, backcountry skiing, motorized activities, game retrieval, and institutional activities were popular guided activities mentioned by respondents.  Visitors are becoming interested in shorter, more intense activities when recreating on the Forest.  Respondents indicated that archery, ATV/motorized activities, mountain biking, bird watching, fishing, hiking, hunting (with specific reference to shorter, road-oriented trips), rock climbing, backcountry skiing, and snowmobiling are activities gaining in popularity on the Forest.  The majority of respondents anticipate no growth in emerging activities on the Forest.  Fifty percent of sporting goods employees reported that some activities could utilize an outfitter because of the need for equipment, specialized skills and knowledge.  Most Forest Service personnel reported that nearly every outdoor activity could benefit in some way from outfitter assistance for safety reasons, especially motorized activities, horseback riding, skiing, rock climbing, bow hunting, and winter activities (especially in avalanche country).  Eighty percent of outfitters and sporting goods store employees do not feel there is an issue of crowding on the Forest.  Sixty-four percent of sporting goods employees and 48% of outfitters notice resource degradation on the Forest.  Sixty percent of sporting goods employees, but only 30% percent of outfitters feel there is an issue of conflict on the Forest.  The majority of Forest Service personnel feel that time, budget, infrastructure, number of employees are not adequate to take on more permits, but that new activities or at least modification to existing permits could be considered. iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... iii

Table of Contents ...... iv

Table of Figures ...... vii

Part 1: Introduction ...... 2

Objectives ...... 3

Assessment of Need: ...... 4

Capacity Analysis: ...... 6

Part 2: Using This Document ...... 10

Data Sources and Methods ...... 10

Characteristics of Respondents to Surveys and Interviews ...... 12

Outfitters ...... 13

Sporting Goods Store Employees ...... 13

Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Service Personnel ...... 14

Limitations ...... 14

Part 3: Context – The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest ...... 15

National Visitor Use Monitoring ...... 15

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Niche ...... 16

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and the BDNF Forest Plan ...... 18

Wilderness Areas on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest ...... 22

The Anaconda Pintler Wilderness ...... 23

The Lee Metcalf Wilderness ...... 25

Unique Beaverhead-Deerlodge Issues ...... 26

Allocations of Service Days and Use Pools ...... 26

Part 4: Assessment of Need ...... 28

Indicator 1: Current Supply of Outfitters...... 28

Indicator 2: Current Demand for Outfitted Services ...... 30

Popular Individual (non-guided) Activities ...... 33

Popular Guided Activities ...... 37

Denied Activities ...... 40

Trends ...... 42

Guided Recreationists vs. Do-It-Yourselfers ...... 42

Institute for Tourism and Recreation (ITRR) Trend Data ...... 42

Review of Literature: Trends in Recreation ...... 44

Indicator 3: Projected Demand for Outfitted Services ...... 53

Possible Explanations of Growth ...... 55

Emerging Activities ...... 56

Indicator 4: Extent of knowledge, skills, and equipment needed ...... 60

Specialized Equipment ...... 60

Safety ...... 61

Knowledge ...... 61

Indicator 5: Consistency with wilderness character and objectives ...... 63

Indicator 6: Dependence on wilderness environment ...... 63

Indicator 7: Opportunities for solitude...... 64

Part 5: Resource Capacity Analysis ...... 65

Crowding, Conflict and Resource Degradation ...... 65

Areas of High Use ...... 66

Conflict...... 69

Visitor Satisfaction ...... 70

Administrative Capacity...... 71

Resource Capacity Analysis ...... 72

Part 6: Conclusion and Assessment Results ...... 74

References ...... 75

Appendix A: Resource Capacity: Standards, Objectives and Recommendations by Forest Plan Landscape ...... 82

Appendix B: Forest Service Interview Results ...... 105

Appendix C: Proposal Review Process ...... 111

Appendix D: Forest Service Screening Criteria ...... 112

Appendix E: Outfitter Survey Instrument ...... 114

Appendix F: Sporting Goods Store Employee Survey Instrument ...... 119

Appendix G: Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Ranger Districts Overlaid with Forest Plan Landscapes ...... 124

Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Ranger Districts Overlaid with Forest Plan Landscapes (also provided in Appendix G) ...... 11

Table 1: Percentage of Outfitters Who Participated in the Survey by District ...... 13

Table 2: Individual Activities Participated in 2010 and 2005 on the BDNF According to NVUM Data ...... 16

Table 3: Visitor Satisfaction in Wilderness Areas on the BDNF ...... 23

Figure 2: Number of Outfitters Operating on Each District According to SUDS ...... 28

Table 4: Activities/Services Offered in the BDNF According to Outfitter Survey Responses ...... 29

Figure 3: Outfitters Currently Operating in Wilderness Areas ...... 30

Table 5: Activities with Unused Days as Reported by Outfitters...... 31

Figure 4: Authorized vs. Actual Use Days, 2007-2011 ...... 32

Figure 5: Total Use Days by District from 2007-2011 ...... 33

Table 6: Total Authorized, Actual, Remaining Days and Percent Utilization ...... 33

Table 7: Comparison of Popular Individual Activities on the BDNF ...... 34

Figure 6: Top 10 Most Popular Individual Activities on the BDNF According To Outfitters ...... 35

Figure 7: Top 10 Most Popular Individual Activities on the BDNF According To Sporting Goods Store Employees ...... 36

Figure 8: Popular Individual Activities on the BDNF According to Forest Service Personnel ...... 36

Figure 9: Popular Guided Activities on the BDNF Forest According to Outfitters ...... 37

Figure 10: Popular Guided Activities on the BDNF According to Forest Service Personnel ...... 38

Figure 11: Popular Guided Activities on the BDNF in Wilderness According To Forest Service Personnel 39

Figure 12: Popular Guided Activities on the BDNF Allowed In Wilderness According To Outfitters ...... 39

Figure 13: Top 10 Requests for Guided Activity Permits that Were Denied According to Forest Service Personnel ...... 40

Table 8: Activities Denied by District ...... 41

Table 9: National Outdoor Activity Participation ...... 45 vii

Figure 14: Total Montana Fishing License Purchases 2009-2011 ...... 48

Figure 25: Total Montana Hunting License Purchases 2009-2011 ...... 48

Table 10: Top 10 Activities in the BDNF 2010 ...... 51

Table 111: Nonresident Travel Characteristics in Quarter 3 of 2012 ...... 52

Table 12: Increasing Activities on the BDNF According to Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel ...... 54

Figure 16: Emerging Activities on the BDNF According to Outfitters and Sporting Employees ...... 56

Figure 17: Decreasing Activities on the BDNF According to Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel ...... 57

Table 13: Increasing Activities Allowed In Wilderness According To Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel ...... 59

Figure 18: Emerging Activities Allowed In Wilderness Areas According To Outfitters and Sporting Goods Employees ...... 59

Figure 19: Decreasing Activities Allowed In Wilderness According To Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel ...... 60

Table 14: Activities That Could Use the Assistance of an Outfitter for Safety or Equipment Purposes According to Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel ...... 61

Table 15: Activities Allowed In Wilderness That Could Benefit From an Outfitter Based On the Need for Specialized Equipment According to Sporting Goods Employees ...... 62

Figure 20: Perception of Crowding According to Outfitters Sporting Goods Employees ...... 65

Table 16: Areas of Highest Use on the BDNF According To Forest Service Personnel ...... 66

Figure 21: Perception of Resource Degradation on the BDNF According To Sporting Goods Employees . 67

Figure 32: Perception of Resource Degradation on the BDNF According To Outfitters ...... 67

Table 17: Resource Capacity Issues by Landscape ...... 68

Figure 23: Perception of Conflict on the BDNF According To Sporting Goods Employees ...... 69

Figure 44: Perception of Conflict on the BDNF According To Outfitters ...... 70

viii

Part 1: Introduction Outfitters and guides cooperate with the Forest Service in providing visitors and clients with outdoor recreation experiences on National Forests. Many visitors are capable of self-sufficiency; however, those selecting an outfitter do so for a variety of reasons, including a lack of skills or abilities, knowledge or specialized equipment. An appropriate balance between guided and non-guided recreation use should be based on public and administrative need, as well as the capability of natural and social resources and the administrative capability of the agency to properly administer outfitter-guide permits (USDA, 2014a; USDA, 2014b).

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest has utilized outfitter-guide services for many decades as part of the recreational opportunities managed by the forest. To this day, most of the guided services on the forest are traditional in nature, revolving largely around big game hunting, pack trips and other activities going back many years. But recreation is constantly evolving here as with other areas, and national policy has recently changed in response to public interests and new technologies. In 2008, the Forest Service revised its regulations outfitter-guide administration, directing greater emphasis on conducting needs assessments and resource capacity analyses, and for establishing temporary and priority use pools for greater administrative ease and need for flexibility in responding to year-to-year changes affecting the industry. The Forest Service Outfitter-Guide Administration Guidebook, 2014 Revision (USDA, 2014a) and the Recreation Special Uses Handbook FSH 2709.14_53.1f (USDA, 2014b) provide guidance for evaluating and determining the type and amount of opportunities for outfitting services

The BDNF Forest Plan, revised in 2009, also addresses this need. Standard five under recreation and travel management states that, “New outfitter and guide permits or increases in existing permits will only be made based on need, administrative capability, and suitable mix of guided and non-guided public capacity determined by forest-wide capacity study”, (USDA, 2009a). This report and the information it presents are designed to satisfy this standard.

Although various needs assessments and capacity analyses were conducted previous to the new policy, some of which can be found at the collaborative wilderness web-portal known as Wilderness.net (http://www.wilderness.net/outfitter), the new policy has prompted a number of more recent publications. Some of these were used to guide this document. For the purpose of providing data and a

rationale for analysis on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, this needs assessment and capacity analysis combines local use data and administrative knowledge with regional trend data that was compiled by the Northern Region office and the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research (ITRR) at the University of Montana. Because of their extensive research experience on the subject of Outfitter- guides, recreation and tourism, the ITRR was contracted by the Forest Service to conduct on-forest research and compile the trend and other data that forms much of this document. Additionally, Forest Service publications were used to guide this effort, most notably the Outfitter-Guide Needs Assessment and Resource Guidance document published by the Bridger-Teton National Forest (2012), the Recreation Use Analysis, Outfitter Guide Need Determination, and Allocation of Recreation Use document published by the Bighorn National Forest (2006), and the Outfitter-Guide Needs Assessment & Resource Capability Determination by the Bitterroot National Forest (in draft 2014c).

Following those examples, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF) Needs Assessment and Resource Capacity Analysis was designed to provide a useful tool for analyzing proposals submitted by existing permit holders or by new interested parties. This report achieves this in two ways: 1) by providing information and tools to understand the need for outfitted services and the extent to which these services are needed and 2) by analyzing both resource and administrative capacity for managing existing and potentially new permits.

Although this report is intended to provide information, recommendations, and a framework to inform decisions on the need for outfitted services and resource and administrative capacity, the decision to reject or accept an outfitter-guide proposal will be made by the appropriate designated official, such as a District Ranger or the Forest Supervisor.

Objectives The need for outfitting and guiding is determined by the agency, with input gathered from the public, including guided and non-guided recreation visitors, outfitters and guides, with consideration of developing trends in guided and non-guided activities (USDA, 2014a). Therefore, the objectives of this project were two-fold. The first objective of the project was to determine the public and administrative need for outfitted and guided services on the Forest. The assessment of need for these services is based upon demand and supply and accomplished through an examination of outfitter/guide use days, regional and national recreation trends and interview data. The second objective was to understand the natural resource and administrative capacity in order to provide recommendations and a decision- 3

making framework to be used in evaluating outfitter/guide permits and proposals, by the landscapes identified in the 2009 BDNF Forest Plan (USDA, 2009a).

Assessment of Need: This report is organized by the indicators of need that are used to guide this assessment. These indicators are not listed in order of importance. Public need for outfitted and guided services on the Forest is evaluated based on the following four indicators:

1. Current Supply of Outfitters in non-wilderness and wilderness areas of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

The first step in determining the need for outfitted services is to examine the current supply of outfitted services on the Forest. In the case of this project, supply represents the amount of outfitters operating on the Forest and the activities that are currently being offered in both non-wilderness and wilderness areas. Knowing this information can help determine whether or not outfitted services are adequate to satisfy current public demand. If supply is low and demand is high, this is a partial indication that additional permits or changes to existing permits could be considered.

2. Current Demand for Outfitted Services in non-wilderness and wilderness areas of on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Demand in this case represents the public’s desire for outfitted services and activities in the non- wilderness and wilderness areas of the forest. It can be determined by looking at activities that are currently popular on the Forest, activities that are declining in popularity, trends in the number of individuals wanting a guided experience versus those who want to go out on their own, and any sense of emerging activities on the Forest. It is important to note that demand for outfitted services is constantly changing and is dependent on a number of factors. Technology, demographics, psychographics, and economics all play a factor in the changing nature of demand and therefore it should be monitored on a regular basis.

3. Projected Demand for Outfitted Services in non-wilderness and wilderness areas of on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Projected demand relates to new and developing trends in outfitted services, such as emerging recreation activities in non-wilderness and wilderness areas of the forest. Emerging recreation activities can be affected by a number of factors, such as changes in the economy, technology, recreationist demographics, or even climate change. Understanding projected demand can give managers a sense of new potential requests that may come up in the future, and to advise them on how to deal with requests to provide activities that are not traditionally offered.

4. Extent of knowledge, skills, and equipment needed to participate in an activity, in non-wilderness and wilderness areas of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Outfitters and guides undoubtedly provide clients with specific knowledge, skills, and specialized equipment to make their experience with an activity safer and more enjoyable. Although nearly any activity could arguably benefit from an expert who can provide these factors, activities vary by complexity, physical ability needed to participate, the amount of equipment they require, and the safety hazards present. These factors result in a wide range of need for outfitted services that varies by activity.

An additional three indicators are provided when making decisions about outfitted and guided services specifically in wilderness areas on the Forest:

5. Consistency with wilderness character and objectives

Is the outfitted service or activity consistent with wilderness objectives, that is, does it maintain a standard of unconfined, primitive recreation?

6. Dependence on the wilderness environment

Is the activity to be provided dependent on the wilderness environment or can it take place in non- wilderness areas?

7. Opportunities for Solitude

Is one of the primary purposes of the activity to provide solitude and primitive settings to the participant?

Capacity Analysis: Another component of this project was to study the present state of natural resource and administrative capacity on the Forest. Resource capacity in this case seeks to identify any social and natural resource issues that may prevent the issuance of new permits or modification of existing permits without perpetuating a problem. If an area is already heavily impacted by recreational use, or if social/ experiential conflicts are prevalent, authorizing more use may exacerbate the problem.

On the other hand, recreation research suggests that incremental impacts of new visitors to low-use areas tend to be highest, while in areas already experiencing moderate to high levels of use, the incremental impact of each additional visitor is usually very low and eventually becomes negligible. Visitors are more likely to say that they encountered too many people in lesser-used areas, where they were expecting to find solitude, and less so in areas where they expected to encounter other users. Therefore, if limits of use should be set anywhere, they would likely be most effective in areas that currently experience lower levels of use, in order to maintain recreational experiences that center around solitude and primitive settings (Blahna, 2007; Blahna and Rieter, 2001; Cole, 1997).

Capacity has been found by research to be more a way of thinking than a metric, and “numbers are not always necessary when addressing capacity” (Cole and Carlson, 2010). Recreation research has found no “magic formula” for specifying capacities (Whittaker et. al, 2010). Decades of research that attempted to scientifically determine the “right” numbers for recreational use found that the concept has been perpetuated primarily at the theoretical level, and deemed to be much less applicable for real- life situations on the ground (Whittaker et al., 2010). Numerical capacities are difficult to pinpoint, and have been largely unsuccessful in resolving issues that appear to be related to capacity, but really may be more about proper site design, zoning of uses, and user etiquette. Numerical carrying capacities do not take into account the wide range of social processes involved in recreation, and how they affect satisfaction with recreational experiences (McCool, Clark, & Stankey, 2007). As a result, the concept of numeric capacity remains controversial and poorly understood, and has never been operationalized in any consistent manner (Cole and Carlson, 2010).

Without a comprehensive understanding of specific conditions, trends in those conditions, and the management actions needed to keep conditions within acceptable limits of change, attempts to set exacting, prescriptive, numeric capacities to areas on the ground often lack effectiveness (McCool and Cole, 1997; Schreyer, 1984). Thresholds, which are the points where capacities are being exceeded, are often not recognized as required triggers for action, and for a variety of reasons, managers find it hard to follow through on taking restrictive actions to reduce visitor numbers (McCool, 2007; Cole and Carlson, 2010; Whittaker et al., 2010). Such decisions tend to be controversial, and any process that has a lack of public buy-in makes implementation most difficult.

It is preferable instead to first describe recreational capacities in terms of objectives for environmental and experiential values, and then identify the types of uses that can be accommodated while sustaining those values (meeting objectives and standards), before proposing numeric allocations or “caps” on recreational use. Management objectives should be defined by consistency with Forest Plan guidelines and recreation settings, and an understanding of existing or potential conflict amongst visitors. These determinations of capacity should be based upon a planning process which takes into consideration diverse and integrated information, analysis, and professional judgment (McCool, Clark & Stankey, 2007; Whittaker et al., 2010).

This is the appropriate stage for the BDNF resource capacity analysis. The 2009 Forest Plan involved comprehensive planning with extensive public input, considering all major issues, resource uses, and values (USAD, 2009a). The planning was integrated and considered the consequences of actions taken together, not in isolation, and publicly disclosed the connections between decisions and objectives. The Forest Plan process analyzed recreation use across the forest, including a validation of the 1986 and 1987 baselines, and delineated geographic “place” based landscapes and management for areas across the forest. The Forest Plan also set non-numeric allocations for recreation use that are based on suitability and desired conditions, including those for types of recreation experiences. Goals, objectives and standards for those allocations divided forest areas by summer and winter uses, for both motorized and non-motorized recreation experiences. These are major considerations in the evaluation of outfitter-guide uses and proposals.

Other allocations, descriptions and designations, such as roadless, recommended wilderness, wilderness study areas, and designated Wilderness have additional implications for analyzing outfitter-guide proposals, particularly a determination of the extent to which commercial services are necessary, and 7

whether such use would impair wilderness character. The “extent necessary” process is closely related to determining the capacity for recreation visitor use. It includes determining the capabilities of the social, biological, and physical components of the wilderness resource to accommodate use without impairment of the wilderness character. Currently, the BDNF has no set numeric allocations, or “caps”, for recreational uses in any area of the forest, including in wilderness.

Consistent with the findings of research discussed above, it is preferable not for BDNF managers to expend limited resources on determining numerical capacities at this time; rather to apply professional knowledge and skills in the proper utilization, design and maintenance of facilities and trails; hardening, rehabilitating, relocating, or rest-rotating dispersed sites and outfitter camps; placing emphasis on outfitter and visitor education, especially on the topics of recreation behavior and user/ client etiquette; zoning or separation of potentially conflicting uses; and monitoring for permit compliance and issues. Outfitters and guides should be expected to work as partners in these efforts, and they often do. Researchers stress that where monitoring does not indicate that resource or experiential values are being threatened, capacity can be addressed more effectively through these daily management practices, without having to set numerical capacities. If monitoring does not indicate that impacts might be exceeding desired conditions, more rigorous analysis and setting of numeric capacities are unwarranted (Cole and Carlson, 2010; USDA, 2014b; Whittaker et al., 2010).

Because the BDNF does not currently have numerical allocations (use caps) on recreation use or on outfitter-guide use, no adjustments or new allocations are proposed at this time. More detail can be found in the sections ahead, but currently there is no indication of such a need; however, changed conditions may occur in the future that could trigger a need, consistent with agency direction found in Recreation Special Uses Handbook FSH 2709.14_53.1f (USDA, 2014b). The BDNF Forest Plan states that, overall, recreation use is occurring appropriately within the BDNF’s recreation niche, the character and desired conditions described for most its landscapes, and there is generally room for recreation to increase in the future. The analysis in this report shows that current outfitter-guide use has decreased over time and that actual use is lower than authorized use. The analysis in this report does not indicate a need to set numerical allocations or caps at this time; rather, the report offers recommendations for managing outfitter-guide activities within the objectives and standards, by landscape, as identified in the 2009 Forest Plan (USDA, 2009a).

This report’s resource capacity analysis centers on describing the user environment of the BDNF, as well as recreation trends, and then identifying each landscape’s desired conditions and indicators for maintaining desired recreation settings and experiences, both outfitted and non-outfitted. The report was designed to compile useful background information and make recommendations, as determined by the cadre of recreation managers employed by the BDNF, for their use in analyzing outfitter-guide proposals for appropriateness to particular landscapes consistent with the BDNF Forest Plan. The report is designed to give the fullest discretion to managers and decision-makers in evaluating proposals, and allow for adaptive decision making. The emphasis is on matching public need and desired recreation settings and experiences with existing and proposed outfitter-guide uses, and updating the baseline for monitoring for desired conditions.

Another concern that must be identified is the amount of administrative personnel available to administer permits and monitor the current outfitter program on the Forest. This is a legitimate concern in this time of constrained budgets. Even with the best of intentions for outfitters and guides, if administration is not adequate (i.e. time available to manage permits or monitor outfitters, other priorities, budget constraints, etc.) to operate the program, more permits may be too overwhelming for existing personnel to manage.

Part 2: Using This Document This document is organized by indicators that can help administrators assess the need for outfitted services. Research and data pertaining to guided and non-guided recreation use occurring on and near the BDNF are also provided, and are used to address the indicators of need. In order to see the full picture, it is recommended that this document first be read completely. The various sections, tables and figures should be more easily used and referenced thereafter.

When a request for a new permit or a change in an existing permit is requested, this document will give the administrator and decision-maker the data needed to make informed decisions. The proposal review process (Appendix C) can be used to narrow the focus to the activity and area in the forest for which a permit or permit change is requested. For example, if a new request for guided hiking makes it through the initial FS screening criteria (Appendix D) the administrator and decision-maker can follow the steps in the framework to decide if there is a need for this service.

Data Sources and Methods Research for assessment of need first examined supply and demand for outfitted services, and utilized multiple methods of research. A query of the 2007-2011 Special Use Database (SUDs) was used to determine the supply of outfitted services currently available on the Forest. The database was queried for each outfitter operating on the Forest, the number of use days they have been allocated, the number of days they actually used, and the activities they offer on the Forest. SUDs information is available only by ranger district, so do not align with the landscapes that are delineated by the BDNF Forest Plan. Decisions made regarding outfitter-guide use are to be consistent with the Forest Plan. Figure 1 below is provided as a helpful overlay of the BDNF’s ranger districts with the Forest Plan landscape boundaries. Additionally, outfitter-guide proposals will include specific locations for activities; which will allow for easier cross-referencing with the Forest Plan and the recommendations made by this document, by Forest Plan landscape, in Appendix A.

The SUDs information is organized by district, outfitter, and the activities provided, and validated by reviewing the websites of each outfitter and by confirming information with BDNF Forest Service personnel. SUDs data was also used to indicate the demand for outfitted services by calculating the difference between the number of allocated days and the actual number of used days used by the

outfitters. Five years of data (2007-2011) were compiled and displayed in table and graph form to display patterns of outfitter activity over time.

Figure 1: Ranger Districts Overlaid with Forest Plan Landscapes (also provided in Appendix G)

Another method used to indicate the level of supply and demand was to conduct in-person interviews with Forest Service personnel. Additionally, email or mail-in surveys were conducted with outfitters and guides operating on the BDNF asking about current and potential activities on the Forest. A review of the literature was also used to determine demand that included an examination of national recreation trend reports, activity trends from the ITRR Research, National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data for the BDNF, and Fish, Wildlife, and Parks information.

To determine resource capacity, an understanding of issues and desired conditions for natural resources and recreation experiences was needed. This was accomplished through in-person interviews with Forest Service recreation personnel. These interviews were additionally used to gather information about the Forest’s administrative capacity for taking on additional permits, modifying existing permits, and for properly managing the permits already in place. . Input provided by Forest Service personnel was supplemented with information collected further through surveys of outfitters and local sporting goods stores. While input by Forest Service personnel differed from that of the outfitters and local sporting goods stores (especially in terms of technical knowledge regarding permit administration and accurately identifying uses that are allowed in certain areas of the Forest), the input was reviewed collectively to gain a more complete sense of public perceptions about recreation on the BDNF, and the potential need for outfitter-guide services on the Forest.

Conducting a more detailed field survey of visitors was not possible, as it would have required a statistical survey design, official clearances, and analysis that were beyond the scope of this project. Therefore, Forest Service recreation managers, outfitters and local sporting goods stores were used as a proxy for describing any known issues of crowding, visitor conflict, or resource degradation on the BDNF. Documents, such as the 2009 Revised Forest Plan, BDNF landscape assessments and scholarly articles concerning capacity were also reviewed for any relevant information. For ease during environmental analysis and evaluation, this document has been aligned with the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan (USDA, 2009a). As such, the proposal review process found in Appendix A is broken out by the landscapes delineated in the Forest Plan.

Characteristics of Respondents to Surveys and Interviews This section outlines demographic characteristics as well as number of respondents for each group interviewed or surveyed for the project. Again, outfitters and sporting goods employees were given a

survey to complete and return, while BDNF personnel were interviewed to obtain the data for this project. Outfitters A total of 57 outfitters were identified to be operating on the 2007-2011 SUDS databases. Of the 56 outfitter/guides asked to take the survey (one was missing contact information), 35 of them agreed to participate and 27 completed the survey for a response rate of 63 percent and a 77 percent completion rate. Of these outfitters that completed the survey, four operate on the Dillon Ranger District, four on the Wise River District, one on the Wisdom District, two on Butte/Jefferson Districts, three on the Pintler District and 17 on the Madison Ranger District. Since only 27 answered the survey to completion, the sample size this report uses for the outfitters is 27. Ten of these outfitters reported operating in wilderness areas, while the rest do not. The number of clients the outfitters take on a typical trip varies from two to 15 people, but the average group size is seven people. Table 1 shows the percentage of outfitters who responded to the survey by district. This is presented to show that the number of responses is adequate to represent the number of outfitters operating on each district.

Table 1: Percentage of Outfitters Who Participated in the Survey by District

District Number of Outfitters % of Total Outfitters Participants Identified in SUDS

Madison 17 74%

Dillon 4 31%

Wise River 4 50%

Pintler 3 43%

Wisdom 2 67%

Butte/Jefferson 1 33%

Source=Outfitters, n=27; 2007-2011 SUDS

Sporting Goods Store Employees Of the 29 sporting goods stores contacted, 18 of them agreed to participate and 17 completed the survey. This resulted in a response rate of 59 percent and a completion rate of 94 percent. The responses represent a wide variety of business specialties, including tackle or fishing shops (23 percent), 13

all-inclusive gear shops (19 percent), winter sports and motorized sports each at 11 percent, hunting, archery, and cycling shops each at 8 percent, and shops specializing in hiking (4 percent). In addition, several hospitality managers at area lodges and hotels who had requested permits were interviewed, making up another 8 percent of this database.

Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Service Personnel A total of 18 Forest Service personnel were interviewed for this project. These employees work in various districts across the BDNF.

Limitations This project began in the fall of 2012 and at that time the only complete set of data available was for activities prior to 2012. Therefore, this project combined information from 2007-2011. While 2007- 2011 should be recent enough to provide an accurate sense of guided and non-guided recreation occurring on and near the BDNF, trends may have developed since that time, which are not included in this analysis. Managers should be aware of other known limitations to using SUDs: 1) SUDs data was found to be inconsistent across districts. Any administrative personnel who were not aware of this before are now mindful of this issue. As a result, information from at least one of the districts was analyzed using the Forest-wide SUDs query and did not come specifically from the district itself.

2) SUDs does not always categorize activities specifically, but identifies the category as “day use other” or “overnight use other.” Outfitters were therefore asked directly to report which activities they provide to obtain a higher level of specificity.

3) There is not a 1:1 overlay of district boundaries to Forest Plan landscapes, making it impossible to apply SUDs data to landscapes (see Figure 1).

**NOTE: When looking at survey data from outfitters and guides and sporting goods store employees, please keep in mind that they answered those questions based on their opinions and perceptions. This data was not altered in any way from their original responses. If results seem surprising or inappropriate to the uses allowed in certain areas of the Forest, remember that these represent non- Forest Service opinions and so may not match with management realities or the responses that Forest Service personnel provided.

Part 3: Context – The Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest The context of the Forest is essential in understanding supply and demand for outfitted and guided services. Located in southwestern Montana, the BDNF is 3.38 million acres in size, one of the largest National Forests and in one of the most-sparsely populated parts of the United States. It is bordered by Yellowstone National Park and the Gallatin, Helena, Salmon, Bitterroot and Caribou-Targhee National Forests. Considered to be part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, part of this forest is home to expansive mountain ranges, trout and elk populations, the Lee Metcalf and Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness areas, and a wide range of recreation opportunities. According to interviews with BDNF Forest Service personnel, the outfitting and guiding industry is characterized primarily by “traditional” outfitting activities, such as hunting and fishing. It is also managed for a variety of resource opportunities such as developed and dispersed recreation, wildlife, livestock grazing, wood products, minerals, oil, and gas (USDA, 2009a). The following sections provide further context in describing the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.

National Visitor Use Monitoring According to National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data, the BDNF received a total of 692,000 visitors in 2010, with 67.1 percent of the 1,525 visitors who agreed to be interviewed reporting they were visiting for national forest recreation purposes. Wilderness areas in the BDNF in 2010 received a total of 12,000 visitors. The primary visitors to the Forest were Montana residents, with the majority of residents reporting they were from Silver Bow, Beaverhead, or Deerlodge counties. 61.6% of respondents traveled less than 50 miles from home to use the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Approximately 14 percent of visitors were nonresidents. Visitors most commonly reported participating in hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, relaxing, and viewing natural features. The top ten activities that visitors indicated they participated in are shown in Table 2 (USDA, 2010).

Table 2: Individual Activities Participated in 2010 and 2005 on the BDNF According to NVUM Data

2010 Activity 2010 % Participation 2005 Activity 2005 % Participation Hunting 33% Viewing Natural Features 58% Hiking/Walking 33% Viewing Wildlife 56% Wildlife Viewing 26% Hiking/ Walking 45% Relaxing 26% Driving for Pleasure 42% Viewing Natural Features 26% Relaxing 37% Driving for Pleasure 22% Hunting 27% Fishing 21% Fishing 19% Cross-country skiing. 12% Motorized Trail Activity 13% Developed Camping 10% Developed Camping 11% Downhill skiing 9% Nature Study 11% Source: USDA, 2010; USDA, 2005a--NVUM Data Note: Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100%.

Although the primary visitors to the BDNF were local Montana residents, it is important to examine the behavior of nonresident visitors as well. According to the Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research (ITRR) in 2012, over 10.7 million nonresident visitors traveled to Montana and their expenditures totaled over $3.27 billion. Of these visitors, six percent hired an outfitter on their trip, contributing a total of $103,520,000 to the state of Montana. Specifically in the summer months of 2012, eight percent of nonresident visitors hired an outfitter on their trip. During this time, 67 percent of nonresident visitors reported being attracted to Montana because of its mountains and forests (ITRR, 2012; 2013).

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Niche The BDNF Forest 2009 Revised Forest Plan identifies a number of characteristics in its Forest Niche. The Forest offers ample fish habitat and fishing recreation opportunities with rivers such as the Madison, Ruby, Beaverhead, and Big Hole. Historic mining extraction and ranching operations contribute a number of historic features that visitors enjoy. Other recreation opportunities include day hikes in non- motorized settings, ATV/OHV trails, a variety of hunting opportunities, winter activities such as skiing and snowmobiling, and backpacking and stock use opportunities in Wilderness and other primitive

areas. The BDNF furthermore contributes to species diversity, open space, tourism, commodity production, and local economic opportunities in southwestern Montana (USDA, 2009a).

The BDNF’s Recreation Facility Assessment (RFA) also included a detailed recreation niche statement for the Forest (USDA, 2008a):

“On the surface, the vast, expansive landscapes of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest teem with elk, and a variety of other wildlife species. Nested beneath the surface other riches - copper, gems, silver and gold are found. Over time, these treasures have both attracted and supported people, from Native Americans, to early ranchers, to miners. Today, these building blocks form the foundation for local livelihoods and lifestyles. Hunting, fishing, rock hounding, or simply roaming the Forest to enjoy scenery, explore history, and appreciate wildlife year round are traditions that continue to span generations.”

The recreation further describes forest-wide settings, special places, and values:

“You can see from here to yesterday. Large, cohesive landscapes connect with other expansive public and private range lands adding to the feel of a wild, wide, west and a sense of freedom and self- discovery. Working ranches and remnants of once lively mining towns enhance the visitor’s experience to the forest and forge a connection to the past. This area supports large populations of game and is the premier hunting are for elk in the state. Straddling the Continental Divide, the Forest’s streams are headwaters to rivers that flow to the east and west, supporting blue ribbon trout fisheries. Special trails include the Lewis and Clark and Nez Perce National Historic trails, and Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. The geology of the area was a significant factor in attracting the first settlers and continues to intrigue visitors. Pristine high mountain lakes dot the landscape and serve as another gem for those traveling into the backcountry.”

Wilderness & Proposed Wilderness – Includes designated and proposed Wilderness in the more wild and rugged landscapes, and is home to game & non-game species. With low density visitation, these expansive areas offer remoteness, a sense of solitude, challenge, and self-reliance for visitors.

Backcountry – Includes wilderness study areas and other more remote lands. Other than snowmobiling, access is non-motorized. Visitors have a sense of solitude and getting away. Historic cabins offer rustic comfort.

Roaded Backcountry – Often a transition between the civilized and the remote, these areas provide a feeling of getting out in the wild. Families can roam on foot or behind a wheel to enjoy vast vistas and abundant wildlife. Historic cabins provide a unique overnight destination.

Frontcountry – This is where you’ll find concentrations of use particularly near communities. It includes the more highly developed Georgetown Lake and the Pioneer Mountain Scenic Byway, and special places such as CCC camps, old railroads, charcoal kilns and other remnants of mining history. It is where communities meet & mingle with the forest on a daily basis.

The recreation niche statement concludes with a description of forest-wide activities, opportunities and experiences:

“Historic roads and trails continue to lead people from their homes to the forest to escape and reconnect with nature. Key multi-season activities include hunting, fishing, hiking, exploring historic sites and areas, viewing natural features/wildlife, participating in regionally significant winter sports, and digging for gems. Campgrounds and camp sites are staging points for other activities. Continuing to tell the stories, the forest is a living classroom that shares the unique geology and history of the area and public lands.”

Wilderness & Proposed Wilderness –Includes hiking and stock use; mostly day trips with some multi-day treks.

Backcountry – Includes hiking, stock use, mountain biking, historic cabin rentals, and winter snowmobiling and skiing.

Roaded Backcountry –Driving for pleasure, OHV and snowmobile riding, mountain biking, hiking, skiing dispersed camping, and historic cabin rentals.

Frontcountry – Driving for pleasure, OHV and snowmobile riding, developed camping, resorts, rental cabins, ski areas, non-motorized winter and summer, trail use, daily backyard access, primary place for historic interpretation.

The recreation niche is an excellent source for finding indicators that describe desired conditions, recreation settings and experiences. While the niche setting descriptions relate closely to ROS classes (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum), and both include terminologies that are used in the Forest Plan, neither the niche descriptions nor ROS directly match the allocations that were set by the Forest Plan. Recreation managers should therefore utilize these concepts in combination as they consider and analyze outfitter-guide proposals. The next section provides information on how these concepts are used in the Forest Plan.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and the BDNF Forest Plan The Forest Service, as an agency, historically has used the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) as a tool for matching visitor’s desires, abilities, and expectations to the management of recreation settings. ROS provides a framework for stratifying and defining outdoor recreation environments, and provides management objectives through a spectrum of six descriptive classes of recreation settings. The continuum of this spectrum can be defined in terms of perceivable modifications to the natural environment, such as presence of roads and trails or the existence of buildings, facilities and

conveniences. Also considered in the evaluation of recreation settings are social factors such as remoteness, size of the space, evidence of human activity, social encounters, and amount of managerial presence. Recreation opportunity can be defied as the availability of choices for visitors to participate in a preferred activity, within a preferred setting (USDA, 1982; Clark and Stankey, 1979).

The ROS is based on the following premises: • People purposefully choose settings for their recreation activities, • Choices are made with the expectation of achieving particular recreation experiences, and • It is desirable to present a diverse spectrum of activity and recreation setting opportunities, ranging from highly developed to primitive, from which people may choose.

The following are the six ROS classes: Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, Semi-Primitive Motorized, Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban. The experience opportunities for each ROS class are described below (USDA, 1982). • Primitive. Areas characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment, of fairly large size. Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other area users is minimal. The area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of man-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is not permitted.

• Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized. Areas characterized by a predominantly natural or natural- appearing environment of moderate-to-large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but is subtle. Motorized uses are not permitted including airplanes, helicopters, hovercraft, etc.

• Semi-Primitive Motorized. Areas characterized by a predominantly natural or natural- appearing environment of moderate-to-large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other area users. These areas are managed in such a way that minimum on- site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is permitted.

• Roaded Natural. Areas characterized by predominantly natural appearing environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design of facilities.

• Rural. Areas characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident and interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are designed for use by a large number of people.

• Urban. Areas characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the background may have natural –appearing elements. Vegetative cover is often exotic and manicured. Sights

and sounds of humans on-site are predominant. Facilities for highly intensified motor use and parking are available with forms of mass transit often available to carry people throughout the site.

Some National Forests have used ROS to set recreation capacities, which are usually allocated in a Forest Plan based on the ROS classes described above. In such situations, ROS has been used to determine a maximum capacity, as an upper limit of People At One Time (PAOT) or Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs), using a low-to-high range of coefficients delineated for each ROS class. The recreation use coefficients are derived from a mathematical equation intended to apportion amounts of space between visitors. This allocates a maximum number of visitors per acre for a specific duration of time, or in the case of outfitter-guide management, allocations are set in the Forest Plan as temporary or priority-use service days, by management area and activity. Examples of this kind of allocation, supported through NEPA and a decision, can be found on the San Juan National Forest (USDA, 1997) and the Tonto National Forest (USDA, 2013).

The BDNF Forest Plan differs from those examples and provides no numeric allocations for outfitter guide or other recreation use. The BDNF forest planning process (USDA, 2009a; 2009b) included a review of the earlier Beaverhead and Deerlodge National Forest Plans (USDA 1986; 1987). Although ROS and ROS terminologies were used to describe recreation settings, no upper limit of people or recreation visits were allocated by either the 1986/1987 or 2009 Forest Plans. Currently, the 2009 Beaverhead Forest Plan describes current and desired conditions in terms similar to those used to describe ROS settings.

In the 1987 Deerlodge National Forest plan, analysis was displayed showing Recreation Visitor Days (RVDs), by ROS classes. It also displayed 1980 levels of recreation use, projected use by the year 2025, and a maximum capacity for potential future production. However, these were not allocated as recreation use “caps” or upper limits, and no further details describing the analysis exists. With the exception of the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM), no monitoring has measured actual recreation use levels over time.

During Forest Plan revision process (USDA, 2009a), the 1986/1987 benchmarks were validated. The 2009 Revised Forest Plan reports that projections for maximum visitor use potential are similar to previous projections. The 1986/1987 projections were compared with current use and no adjustments to the previous benchmarks were deemed necessary. Projections in 1986 showed the capability to

supply three times more recreation use than was estimated to be occurring at that time. Updated projections in the 2009 Revised Forest Plan show that the Forest can supply three times more use than shown as occurring in the 2005 NVUM survey for the BDNF. However, it was noted that hunting use was underestimated in the 1986 document, and developed recreation was felt to have been over-estimated. No further details are available.

In the 2009 Revised Forest Plan, ROS class descriptions were used to inform the development of place- based management areas, which are located within larger landscapes delineated across the forest. Recreation allocations were also broken out as geographic polygons that provide for different types of recreation settings and experiences, displayed on maps found in the Revised Forest Plan (USDA, 2009b, pg. 345). Compatibility of activities landscape/ recreation settings is

Summer Recreation Allocations are defined (USDA, 2009a, pg. 297) as follows:

Wilderness: Primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings are provided, and offer opportunities for foot, stock, ski, snowshoe travel, dispersed camping, and other activities allowed in Wilderness. These lands are designated as Wilderness by Congress.

Recommended Wilderness: Semi-primitive non-motorized settings are provided, and offer opportunities for foot, stock, ski, snowshoe travel, dispersed camping, and other activities.

Summer Non-Motorized: Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation settings offer opportunities for mountain biking, horse and stock travel, hiking, dispersed camping, and other activities. These allocations are intended to provide secure wildlife habitat especially in areas which link landscapes. They also offer quiet summer and fall recreation opportunities and desirable semi-primitive settings.

Wilderness Study Area: Semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized settings are provided. Some opportunities are available for wheeled motorized travel on routes as shown on the travel plan and non-motorized travel is available yearlong.

Backcountry: Semi-primitive motorized recreation settings are provided, and offer opportunities for varied types of travel and recreational activities.

Road-based: Roaded natural and rural recreation settings are provided, and offer a wide variety of opportunities for dispersed and developed recreational activities.

The season of use for areas allocated for summer recreation is May 16 through December 1 as described in the Forest Plan (USDA, 2009a, pg. 304).

Winter Recreation Allocations are defined (USDA, 2009a, pgs. 297-298) as follows:

Recommended Wilderness: Semi-primitive non-motorized settings are provided, and offer opportunities for foot, stock, ski, snowshoe travel, dispersed camping, and other activities.

Winter Non-Motorized : Primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings are provided in these areas, and offer opportunities for ski touring, snowshoeing, and hiking, and other non-motorized activities. These allocations are intended to protect low elevation winter range for deer, elk, and moose; protect high elevation secure habitat for mountain goat and wolverine and to provide quiet winter recreation opportunities in accessible locations.

Wilderness Study Area: Semi-primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized settings are provided, and offer opportunities for wheeled motorized travel on routes as shown on the travel plan. These areas also offer opportunities for snowmobiling December 2 through May 15, and some non-motorized travel in all seasons.

Motorized Recreation: Roaded and semi-primitive motorized recreation settings are provided in these areas, and offer opportunities for a variety of motorized and non-motorized travel and activities. The majority of these allocations provide opportunities for snowmobile travel.

The Winter Season of Use is defined (USDA, 2009a, pg. 307) as December 2-May 15.

Wilderness Areas on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Two different wilderness areas lie within the boundaries of the BDNF: the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness and Lee Metcalf Wilderness. These are co-managed across boundaries with the Bitterroot and Gallatin National Forests. According to BDNF 2009 Revised Forest Plan, both areas provide primitive recreation with high levels of challenge and solitude and are managed for opportunities for hunting, camping, fishing at alpine lakes and scenic integrity. Both areas prohibit motorized vehicles, bikes, and timber harvest, and require Leave No Trace techniques to be used when visiting or recreating in these areas.

A document Applying the Concept of Wilderness Character to National Forest Planning, Monitoring, and Management (USDA, 2008b) was written to provide planners, wilderness staff, and project leaders apply the concept of wilderness character to wilderness management. The ideas in that document were based on the Forest Service’s national framework for monitoring conditions related to wilderness

character (USDA, 2005b), as well as a Technical Guide for monitoring such conditions (USDA, 2009c), and the interagency strategy for monitoring trends in wilderness character (USDA, 2008c). These documents are excellent resources for describing wilderness character, indicators, monitoring measures and potential effects that can be used in analyzing outfitter-guide proposals in wilderness.

2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) examined visitor characteristics and satisfaction of wilderness within the BDNF. Table 15 shows these results. According to this data, approximately 12,000 individuals visited wilderness areas in 2010. Most visitors reported being either somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with management or infrastructure in these areas. Ninety-four percent of visitors surveyed indicated they were very satisfied with scenery and their feeling of safety in wilderness on the Forest, 65 percent reported being very satisfied with the condition of the environment in these areas, and 60 percent reported being very satisfied with trail conditions (USDA, 2010).

Table 15: Visitor Satisfaction in Wilderness Areas on the BDNF

% Very % % Neither % Somewhat % Very Satisfaction Element dissatis Somewhat satisfied nor satisfied satisfied fied dissatisfied dissatisfied Condition of Environment 0.0 0.0 3.9 30.8 65.4

Feeling of Safety 0.0 0.0 3.9 1.9 94.2

Scenery 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 94.2

Signage adequacy 2.3 0.0 52.8 4.5 40.5

Trail Condition 0.0 1.9 3.9 34.6 59.6

Source=2010 NVUM data, n=12,000

The Anaconda Pintler Wilderness The Anaconda Pintler Wilderness encompasses 158,615 acres and is managed entirely by the Forest Service. Characterized by high, rugged peaks, valleys, glacial moraines, and high-elevation lakes, this wilderness area straddles the Continental Divide in the Anaconda Mountain Range. The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail traverses a 45-mile section of this wilderness. Wildlife in this wilderness area includes grizzly, moose, elk, mule deer, mountain goat, wolf, and wolverine. Vegetation consists of sagebrush and willow in lower elevations, and pine, fir, spruce, aspen, whitebark pine, and subalpine 23

larch in higher elevation. The goals for wilderness in the BDNF revised Forest Plan are to “provide primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized settings and offer opportunities for foot, stock, ski, showshoe travel, dispersed camping, and other activities allowed in wilderness (BDNF, 2009a)

Part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness is managed for clean air, water, and critical habitat for endangered plants and animals. Recreation opportunities include hiking, backpacking, climbing, kayaking, canoeing, rafting, horseback riding, bird watching, fishing and hunting (Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness Management Plan, 2013). Specific direction for management of the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness is as follows:

1. All persons entering into the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness are required to fill out a self-issuing, free, mandatory registration card available at trailheads. 2. Group size is limited to a maximum number of 12 people and 12 head of stock. 3. Camping with stock within 1/4 mile of Sawed Cabin Lake, Oreamnos Lake, and Ripple Lake is prohibited. 4. Campfires within 1/4 mile of the following lakes is prohibited: Oreamnos Lake, Upper Phyllis Lake, Surprise Lake, Buck Lake, the Unnamed Lake below Queener Mountain, Lost Lakes, Sawed Cabin Lake, Upper Carpp Lake, Bear Lake, Emerald Lake, Lower Phyllis Lake, Continental Lake, Sauer Lake, Park Lakes, the Unnamed Lake west of Warren Lake. 5. Camping between Big Johnson Lake and Johnson Stock Camp Trail #111.1 and Johnson Lake Trail # 96 is prohibited. Contact the Pintler Ranger District of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest at 406-859-3211 for a map of the designated area. 6. On the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest portion of the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness: (1) Camping or occupancy by any person or group is limited to 16 consecutive days in one place, (2) A person or group cannot relocate within a five-mile radius of the original site for the next 14 days, (3) Camping equipment must be removed by the end of the 16 day limit or the equipment may be impounded. 7. On the Bitterroot National Forest portion of the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness: (1) Camping or occupancy by any person or group is limited to 14 consecutive days in one place. 8. Possessing or using a bicycle, motor vehicle, wagon, cart (including game carts), aircraft or other motorized equipment is prohibited. 9. Grazing, hitching, tethering or hobbling stock within 200 feet of any lake is prohibited. 10. Only certified weed-seed-free hay, grain, straw, and cubes are authorized for possession or storage and must have written certification. 11. Stock use within 200 feet of Big Johnson Lake is prohibited except on designated trails. Contact the Pintler Ranger District of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest at 406-859-3211 for a map of the designated trails. 12. Stock use on the Pintler Ranger District from April 1 to July 1 is prohibited.

The Lee Metcalf Wilderness The Lee Metcalf Wilderness is 254,635 acres and is managed by both the BLM and the Forest Service. This area crosses the Madison Range, and is characterized by high rocky peaks and evidence of past glaciation. Wildlife found in this area includes mountain goat and sheep, grizzly and black bear, moose, elk, cougar, wolf, cutthroat, rainbow, and brook trout (BDNF, 2009a). The Madison River, Bear Trap Canyon, Spanish Peaks, and 300 miles of trail are notable features of this area, which provide opportunities for hiking, backpacking, climbing, kayaking, canoeing, rafting, horseback riding, and bird watching, as well as prime opportunities for solitude. Specific direction for the Lee Metcalf Wilderness is as follows: 1. Party size throughout the Lee Metcalf Wilderness is limited to no more than 15 people per party. Groups larger than 15 people must split into two or more smaller groups and camp a minimum of 1/2 mile apart. 2. Storing equipment, personal property or supplies (caching) is prohibited. 3. Camping within 200 feet of any lake is prohibited. 4. Camping or otherwise occupying a single location for a period longer than 16 consecutive days is prohibited. The term "location" means the occupied undeveloped campsite and the lands within a five mile radius of the campsite. After leaving a location, a minimum of seven days is required before any group or person(s) from that group may reoccupy their original location. 5. Shortcutting a switchback on a trail is prohibited. 6. Disposing of debris, garbage or other waste is prohibited. 7. Wagons, carts (including game carts), bicycles, and other motorized, mechanized or wheeled vehicles are prohibited. 8. Campfires (except camp stoves) are prohibited within 1/2 mile of Lava Lake, located in the Spanish Peaks Unit. 9. All food, refuse or other attractants must be acceptably stored or acceptably possessed during daytime hours (either in certified bear proof containers or hung 10 feet off the ground, 4 feet away from the trunk of the tree or pole). 10. All food, refuse or other attractants must be acceptably stored during nighttime hours, unless it is being prepared for eating, being eaten, being transported, or being prepared for acceptable storage. 11. Any harvested animal carcass must be acceptably stored, unless the carcass is being field dressed, transported, being prepared for eating, or being prepared for acceptable storage. 12. Camping or sleeping areas must be established at least ½ mile from a known animal carcass (on the ground) or at least 100 yards from an acceptably stored animal carcass.

13. The responsible party shall report the death and location of livestock to a Forest Service official within 24 hours of discovery. Any Forest user finding dead livestock should contact the Forest Service. 14. Burnable attractants that cannot be completely consumed by fire (i.e., no post burning residue) must be packed out. 15. Placing or possessing salt for the purposes of attracting wildlife is prohibited in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. Providing salt to pack and saddle stock in approved corrals or other approved livestock feeding locations in the immediate vicinity of camp is allowed. 16. The maximum number of stock allowed in the Monument Mountain and Taylor Hilgard Units is 2 17. The maximum number of stock allowed in the Spanish Peaks Unit is 15. 18. Hitching, tethering, or picketing horses or otherwise containing livestock in violation of posted trailhead instructions, or within 200 feet of a lake or 100 feet of a stream or free-flowing water is prohibited in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. 19. All livestock feed must be certified weed seed free. Each individual bale or container must be tagged or marked as weed free and reference the written certification. 20. Camping with livestock is prohibited within 1/2 mile of Lava Lake year-round. 21. Livestock (including horses, mules, llamas or goats) are prohibited on the Lava Lake Trail #77 between December 2 and September 15 annually. 22. Free trailing of pack or saddle stock is prohibited anywhere in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness.

Unique Beaverhead-Deerlodge Issues The BDNF possesses unique issues that affect the outfitting and guiding industry. One concerns Yellowstone National Park as a primary tourism destination for Montana that is bordered by the BDNF, offering recreational activities such as hiking, backpacking, wildlife viewing, biking, backcountry skiing and snowmobiling. It is possible that the proximity of Yellowstone National Park could overshadow the Forest in terms of interest for some visitors. Another potential issue could be the sheer size and remoteness of some areas of the BDNF; accessibility to various places may be difficult if a visitor is not familiar with the area.

Allocations of Service Days and Use Pools As described earlier, the forest planning process may be used to address issues and make decisions relating to outfitter-guide operations, existing or new. This typically entails an assessment of the resource goals for the Forest and the availability of recreation opportunities to provide for those goals. The result is an allocation of outfitter-guide services, proportioned as an appropriate amount of the total recreation use.

This allocation is defined by the number of service days that will be made available to the outfitted public, usually by geographic area, by type of use. Service days can be allocated to a pool and distributed as necessary to respond to needs and opportunities as they arise. As actual use is monitored, a need to adjust allocated service days may be identified. In situations where service days are specified by a forest plan, adjustments are made via a forest plan amendment, requiring an Environmental Assessment (EA) and decision (USDA, 2014a).

The BDNF Forest Plan sets no service day allocations, and the forest has historically utilized pools only for its wilderness areas. However, upon completion of this assessment and resource capacity analysis, the BDNF intends to establish and manage a pool of service days for temporary as well as priority use, and facilitate the administration and distribution of service days from those pools. Allocations of service days or quotas to a use pool will be based upon this needs assessment and resource capacity analysis, which are required to evaluate the current utilization of service days, whether service days are available to place in a pool, and to determine the agency’s capacity to manage and administer additional use.

During an open season for a use pool, qualified applicants would apply for service days from the appropriate use pool. Upon completion of each open season, all pool service days or quotas allocated to permit holders would be returned to the use pool for redistribution during the next open season. Direction for establishing use pools and distribution of service days can be found in Forest Service Outfitter-Guide Administration Guidebook, 2014 Revision (USDA, 2014a) and in Recreation Special Uses Handbook FSH 2709.14_53 (USDA, 2014b).

Part 4: Assessment of Need

Indicator 1: Current Supply of Outfitters To obtain data for determining supply, a query of 2007-2011 special use permits in the SUDs database was used to determine how many outfitter/guides are currently operating on the Forest and what activities they provide. From the SUDs data, a total of 57 outfitter/guides providing 23 different activities were found to be currently operating on the Forest. Figure 2 displays the number of outfitters from each district as shown by the 2007-2011 SUDs database.

Figure 2: Number of Outfitters Operating on Each District According to SUDS

Source=SUDS, 2007-2011

Because SUDs is limited and does not always specify what activities each outfitter offers, outfitters were directly asked in their surveys which activities they currently provide to their clients. The outfitters reported offering some activities that do not appear on the SUDs query. The assumption is that these activities are either not taking place on National Forest land or were categorized as “day use other” or “overnight other” according to SUDs. Table 2 shows the list of activities offered in the forest as reported by the outfitters themselves in order of most offered to least offered. The most common activities reported as being offered by the outfitter/guides are horseback riding, fly fishing, archery, educational activities, and hunting.

Table 3: Activities/Services Offered in the BDNF According to Outfitter Survey Responses

Activity Total Activity Total

Horseback riding 19 Bird watching 5

Fly fishing 14 Backcountry skiing 4

Archery 12 Stand-up paddle boarding 4

Education 12 Alpine skiing 3

Hunting 11 ATV/motorcycle tours 3

Fishing (foot access) 10 Cattle drives 3

Hiking 9 Rock climbing 3

Backpacking 8 Snowmobiling 3

Mountaineering 8 Cross-country skiing 2

Wildlife viewing 8 Ice climbing 2

Float fishing (day use) 6 Snowshoeing 2

Photography 6

Source=Outfitters, n=27

Summary of Indicator 1: Supply

• 57 total outfitters are known to be operating on the BDNF. (2007-2011 SUDS) • The highest concentration of outfitters is on the Madison District, with 23 guides currently operating. (2007-2011 SUDS) • Horseback riding, fly fishing, archery, educational activities, and hunting are the outfitted activities most commonly offered on the BDNF. (Outfitter survey) • 620,000 people visited the BDNF in 2010 (2010 NVUM)

Although supply is important in understanding the current situation of the outfitting and guiding industry on the BDNF, managers must have an understanding of demand for outfitted services in order

to make decisions about potential future permits. The following section will explore current and projected demand for both individual recreation activities and outfitted activities on the BDNF.

Indicator 2: Current Demand for Outfitted Services Demand for outfitters was determined by examining a variety of data sources, the first of which being a query of SUDS to look at use days by activity. Again, because many of the categories for activities in SUDS were not specific, activities in SUDS that matched the activities the outfitters/guides reported offering were examined to look at the difference between authorized use days for outfitters and actual number of days used by the outfitter. The difference between authorized and actual use is one indicator of demand in this case. It is important to note that there are many factors affecting the amount of unused days an outfitter may have, including economics, personal health, politics, etc., however this data is still useful as a piece of the puzzle.

To determine current demand for outfitted services for non-wilderness areas, all activities reported as being popular on the BDNF were examined using surveys with outfitters and sporting goods store employees, Forest Service personnel interviews, and the Special Use Database (SUDs). Although SUDs was not able to identify which outfitters specifically operate in wilderness areas, of the 29 outfitters that were surveyed for this project only 10 outfitters self-identified operating in wilderness areas. Refer to Figure 20 for the percentage of outfitters operating in Wilderness:

Figure 3: Outfitters Currently Operating in Wilderness Areas

Source: Outfitters, n=27

Because SUDS does not identify which outfitted services are taking place in wilderness, it is difficult to assess precisely which activities are in demand in wilderness areas. Based on Forest Service interviews and NVUM data, however, visitors are enjoying both the Anaconda Pintler and Lee Metcalf wilderness areas for recreation purposes. Findings from Forest Service interviews regarding the popularity of wilderness areas are as follows: Question: What trends in outfitted activities have you noticed in the past 5 years? Do you anticipate the demand for outfitted activities to rise? Are there specific outfitted activities that will be in higher demand in the future? Findings: Requests for disadvantaged youth and educational opportunities in the Lee Metcalf; requests in the Lee Metcalf for backcountry skiing, mountaineering, hut skiing, guided tours

Question: What individual activities occur on the Forest? Findings: Day use in the Lee Metcalf due to its size

Question: Do you know of any requests for outfitting permits that have been denied in the last 5 years? If so, what were they for and why were they not granted? Findings: No authorization of any new uses in the Lee Metcalf because of the language in the current plan; yurt backcountry skiing in the Anaconda Pintler.

Table 4 displays the list of activities reported being offered by the outfitters that did not use all of their authorized days (no distinction between non-wilderness and wilderness). Table 4: Activities with Unused Days as Reported by Outfitters

Activity # Outfitters with Unused Days

Hunting 29 Horseback riding 10 Fishing 5 Backpacking 4 Hiking 4 Education 2 Biking 2 Backcountry skiing 2 ATVs/motorized 1 Snowmobiling 1 Source: SUDS, Outfitters, n=27

It is furthermore important to note that every category or activity contained some days that outfitters did not use. Based on this information, it could be argued that outfitters are being given too many use days overall, which could be an important consideration for the development of service day pools.

Figure 4 shows the total amount of use days for all districts over time, comparing both authorized and actual use days. This shows that outfitters are on average using 48 percent of the days authorized to them, but results vary by district (Table 5). Figure 5 shows a comparison of authorized and actual use by district over the five year period of 2007-2011, as well as the differences in outfitted and guided services overall between districts. As the figures show, all the outfitters operating on the districts are significantly short of the days issued to them overall. From 2007 to 2011, the Madison District utilized the most authorized days at 65 percent utilization, whereas Wise River utilized the least amount of authorized days at 23 percent utilization. Table 5 illustrates each district’s total authorized, actual, and remaining days from 2007-2011, as well as the percentage of day utilization, from most to least days utilized.

Figure 4: Authorized vs. Actual Use Days, 2007-2011

Source: 2007-2001 SUDS

Figure 5: Total Use Days by District from 2007-2011

Source=SUDS 2007-2011

Table 5: Total Authorized, Actual, Remaining Days and Percent Utilization

District Authorized Days Actual Days Days Remaining % Utilization Madison 18343 11891 6452 65%

Dillon 16445 8558 7887 52%

Butte/Jefferson 2220 1132 1088 51% Pintler 7220 3492 3728 48%

Wisdom 3420 1635 1785 48% Wise River 7780 1775 6005 23%

Source=2007-2011 SUDS

Popular Individual (non-guided) Activities Another method of determining demand was to ask questions in the outfitter and sporting goods employee surveys regarding current recreation trends on the BDNF. Forest Service personnel were also asked similar questions during the interview process (see Appendix E for full survey and interview questions.) The questions included: 1. Which individual activities are currently popular on the Forest? 2. Which activities are popular guided activities on the Forest? 3. Which activities do you see declining on the Forest?

Figures 6-9 show the most popular individual activities on the BDNF according to each group of respondents. As the figures show, horseback riding, hiking, fly fishing and foot access fishing, hunting, and backpacking were most frequently mentioned with outfitters, while all types of fishing and snowmobiling were most frequently mentioned as popular individual activities by sporting goods employees. Although ATV and motorized use did not fall in the top 10, it was the second most frequently mentioned by both the outfitters and the sporting goods employees. Forest Service personnel overwhelmingly indicated motorized activities as being popular.

During the interview process, several Forest Service employees also mentioned that visitors seem to be interested in shorter, more intense activities than in the past, partially because visitors may not have the extra time in their busy schedules to recreate for multiple days at a time. They report that motorized activities are going up across the board most frequently, perhaps because of the country’s aging population who may require more assistance to access areas on the Forest. Table 6 shows a comparison of all respondent’s opinions of the most popular individual activities on the Forest.

Table 6: Comparison of Popular Individual Activities on the BDNF

Outfitter/Guide Survey Forest Service Interview Sporting Goods Stores Data Data Survey Data Archery Archery Archery ATV tours Motorized activities ATV tours Backpacking Dispersed camping Backpacking Mountain biking Biking Mountain biking Bird watching Bird watching

Fishing (foot access) Fishing (foot access) Float fishing (day use) Float fishing (day use) Fly fishing Mountain lion hunting Fly fishing

Summer/Fall Hiking Day hiking Hiking Horseback riding Elk hunting Horseback riding Hunting Hunting without stock Hunting Mountaineering Short, high-energy activities Geocaching Rock climbing Rock climbing Hang gliding

Rock hounding Gold/sapphire mining

Stand-up paddleboarding Wind surfing Llama trips

Alpine skiing Alpine skiing Backcountry skiing Backcountry skiing Backcountry skiing Cross-country skiing Cross-country skiing

Dog-sledding Dog-sledding Ice climbing Ice climbing Ice climbing Winter Sleigh rides Sleigh rides Snowmobiling Snowmobiling Snow shoeing Snow shoeing Education Family activities Education Photography Ecotourism Photography round -

Wildlife viewing Recreation events Year

Source=Outfitters, sporting goods employees, and Forest Service personnel, n=62

Figure 6: Top 10 Most Popular Individual Activities on the BDNF According To Outfitters

Source: Outfitters and Guides, n=27

Figure 7: Top 10 Most Popular Individual Activities on the BDNF According To Sporting Goods Store Employees

Source: Sporting goods store employees, n=17

Figure 8: Popular Individual Activities on the BDNF According to Forest Service Personnel

Source: Forest Service personnel, n=18

Popular Guided Activities When determining demand in this case, it is important to understand what guided activities are popular as well as what individual activities are popular. Both Forest Service personnel and outfitters were asked about guided activities during the data collection process. Figure 9 shows the top 10 outfitters’ response to the question, “what guided activities on popular on the forest?” They feel that horseback riding, fly fishing, foot access fishing, hunting, and float fishing are the most popular guided activities.

Figure 9: Popular Guided Activities on the BDNF Forest According to Outfitters

Source: Outfitters, n=27

Figure 10 shows activities Forest Service personnel indicated as being popular guided activities. Aside from these specifically mentioned activities, the personnel indicated multiple times that outfitters are looking to diversify their current more traditional activities, such as moving from fall hunting to a variety of summer activities, but may not currently have the flexibility to do so.

Figure 10: Popular Guided Activities on the BDNF According to Forest Service Personnel

Source: Forest Service personnel, n=18

Figure 11 shows popular guided activities permitted in wilderness areas according to the Forest Service and Figure 12 shows popular guided activities permitted in wilderness according to outfitters. Based on outfitter surveys and Forest Service interviews, it seems that the most popular activities that are allowed in wilderness are backcountry skiing, game retrieval services, and institutional outfitting activities such as education for the Forest Service, and fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing for the outfitters.

Figure 11: Popular Guided Activities on the BDNF in Wilderness According To Forest Service Personnel

Source=Forest Service Personnel, n=18

Figure 12: Popular Guided Activities on the BDNF Allowed In Wilderness According To Outfitters

Source=Outfitters, n=27

Popular activities that were agreed upon by all three groups of respondents are archery, hiking, hunting, backcountry skiing, and ice climbing. Backpacking, bird watching, fly fishing, horseback riding, rock climbing, cross-country skiing, snow shoeing, education, and photography were activities permitted in wilderness that were mentioned by two groups of respondents.

Denied Activities Forest Service employees were also asked about outfitter/guide proposals that had been denied, in order to further sense the demand for guided activities. These proposals were denied because the 2009 Revised Forest Plan required that a forest-wide needs assessment be completed before requests could be considered. Forest Service employees also reported that local lodges and resorts, although located outside the national forest, were seeing demand from resort guests to provide guided activities, but those proposals were also denied because of the lack of a needs assessment. Figure 13 shows the top ten most frequently requested of those proposed activities. According to Forest Service records, the most frequently-requested activities were mountain biking followed by backcountry skiing and OHV/ATV activities. Table 7 displays requests for activities that were denied by districts according to Forest Service personnel.

Figure 13: Top 10 Requests for Guided Activity Permits that Were Denied According to Forest Service Personnel

Source=Forest Service Personnel, n=18

Table 7: Activities Denied by District

Request denied? Activities Butte/Jefferson Dillon/Wise Madison Pintler River/Wisdom

Mountain biking X X

Backcountry skiing X X

OHV/ATV X X

Hunting X

Fishing X

Ecotourism X X

Camping X

Snowmobiling X X

Education X X

Hiking X

Rock climbing X

Horseback riding X X

Backpacking X X

Photography X

Shuttle services X

Bird watching X

Game retrieval X

Snowshoeing X

Auto tours X

Source=Forest Service Personnel, n=18

Trends

Guided Recreationists vs. Do-It-Yourselfers To assess demand, sporting goods store employees were asked if they noticed any trends in recreationists taking a do-it-yourself approach versus desiring to hire an outfitter or guide. The majority of respondents (81 percent) reported that they did notice a trend in those seeking to hire a guide versus those who want to go out on their own. When asked for details, a wide variety of responses were given.

Question: Please be specific about any trends you notice in the number of guided recreationists vs. do-it-yourselfers: Findings: Increased volume of people for both; There are always visits at this store for information about forest use and that often times includes a request for a guide to accompany them, even the do-it-yourselfers would like to be accompanied their first time on a trail or in an area that is new for them; More people seeking guided recreation here in the Big Hole Valley; Locals seem to want to go out on their own but tourists and non-locals tend to request outfitters and guides.

Another method of determining demand for outfitted services is to analyze current recreation trends on a national and regional level. The following section outlines these recreation trends, beginning with a summary, followed by national, Montana, and BDNF recreation trends according to National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data, Institute for Tourism and Recreation (ITRR) data, and a review of the literature.

Institute for Tourism and Recreation (ITRR) Trend Data National Recreation Trends • The United States population is increasing • The population is characterized by a higher proportion of senior citizens • The United States is becoming more ethnically diverse • The number of individuals participating in recreation is growing • Nature-based activities are increasing • Viewing/photographing wildlife and birds, bicycling, hiking, running outdoors, and kayaking/canoeing are activities show an increase in participation (Cordell, 2012) • Telemarking, snowshoeing, freestyle skiing and kayaking are increasing (Outdoor Foundation, 2012) • Wildlife-related recreation, such as hunting wildlife watching, and birding are increasing (USFWS 2011, Cordell, 2013) • Downhill skiing and recreational fishing are increasing (American Recreation Coalition, 2011) • Fishing and camping are decreasing (Cordell, 2012)

National Outfitting and Guiding Trends • The outfitting/guiding industry is making a comeback (American Recreation Coalition, 2011) • Outfitted trips are characterized by shorter, less-expensive activities as opposed to pricier, multiday excursions (American Recreation Coalition, 2011) 42

• Photography, geocaching, and motorized activities are increasing guided activities due to changing technology (American Recreation Coalition, 2011)

Montana Trends • Montana ranks 44th in terms of number of residents and is make up of primarily Caucasians (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). • Montana’s population is increasing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). • The number of senior citizens is increasing in Montana (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). • The most popular outdoor activities for nonresidents in 2012 were scenic driving, wildlife watching, nature photography and day hiking (ITRR, 2012) • The most popular outdoor activities for residents in 2012 were scenic driving, shopping, fishing, and visiting historic sites and museums (ITRR, 2012) • 60 percent of nonresident visitors visited Yellowstone National Park and 53 percent were attracted to Montana because of the park (ITRR, 2012) • 66 percent of nonresident visitors were attracted to Montana because of its mountains and forests (ITRR, 2012) • The majority of nonresident visitors visited Montana for vacation, recreation, or pleasure (ITRR, 2012)

Outfitting and Guiding Trends in Montana • Montana fishing and hunting license purchases for both residents and nonresidents have dropped significantly in 2011 (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, 2011) • In 2005, there were 998 outfitters and approximately 4,300 guides who served 3,186,000 clients (ITRR, 2007) • Guides were most often hired for rafting, floating canoeing or kayaking , fishing,” other” trips such as birding, snowmobiling, and wildlife watching, horse related trips, and hiking and backpacking (ITRR, 2007) • Over half of all guided trips in 2005 took place on National Forest land (ITRR, 2007) • The outfitting/guiding industry brought $167,633,000 and 2,590 year round jobs in 2005 (ITRR, 2007) • A total of 9,194,000 nonresidents surveyed reported hiring an outfitter or guide (6% of those surveyed) in 2012 (ITRR, 2012) • In the peak summer months, 8 percent of nonresidents surveyed hired an outfitter or guide (ITRR, 2012)

Regional Trends: The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest • 692,000 people visited the BDNF in 2010 (NVUM, 2010) • 67.1 percent of those surveyed visited the Forest for recreational purposes in 2010 (USDA, 2010) • 14 percent of visitors to the Forest were nonresidents (USDA, 2010) • The most common activities visitors participated in were hunting (33%), hiking/walking (33%), viewing wildlife (26%), relaxing (25.8%), viewing natural features (25.8%), driving for pleasure (21.9%), and fishing (21.4%) in 2010. (NVUM, 2010) • Since 2005, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and downhill skiing are increasing (USDA 2005a, 2010) • Hiking/walking, relaxing, viewing natural features, and driving for pleasure are decreasing (USDA 2005a, 2010) 43

• 980,694 nonresidents were intercepted in Gold West Country in 2012 (ITRR, 2012) • 12 percent of nonresident visitors hired an outfitter or guide in Gold West Country in 2012 (ITRR, 2012) • 29 percent of these visitors fished in Gold West Country in 2012 and 58 percent participated in hunting in 2012 (ITRR, 2012)

Review of Literature: Trends in Recreation National Trends

It’s important to note significant demographic changes in the United States, as these may have a direct impact on recreation, leisure, and outfitting trends. In 2011, the United States’ population more than doubled since 1950 with 308.7 million people (Shrestha and Heisler, 2011). This growth trend could be due to a combination of increased births, decreased deaths, and increased net immigration (Shrestha and Heisler 2011). Another important trend relating to recreation is a change in the age structure of the population; persons age 65 or older have increased to 13.3 percent in 2011, resulting in a significant increase in the proportion senior citizens (Shrestha and Heisler, 2011; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The United States is also becoming even more ethnically diverse, with Hispanics replacing African Americans as the nation's largest minority, at 16.7 percent of the population in 2011 (Shrestha and Heisler, 2011; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

Overall, the number of people who participated in outdoor recreation activities is growing, from 196 million in 2000 to 209.9 million in 2009 (Cordell, 2012). Nature-based activities also increased in population, with participation in these activities increasing by 31 percent from 2000-2009 (Cordell, 2011). According to Ken Cordell’s 2012 report, “Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures,” 48.6 percent of Americans participated in one or more of the outdoor activities. Table 8 shows the most popular recreation activities nationally. According to this table, Americans most commonly participated in walking for pleasure, attending gatherings with family or friends, gardening/landscaping for pleasure, viewing natural scenery, and visiting outdoor nature centers/zoos in 2005-2009 (Cordell, 2012). Cordell’s report shows that viewing/photographing wildlife and birds, bicycling, hiking, running outdoors, and kayaking/canoeing are activities showing an increase in participation, whereas fishing and camping are currently on the decline (Cordell, 2012). In April of 2013, Cordell’s more recent report, “Birding Trends,” shows that although birding participation currently ranks 15th on the list of most popular activities, the activity is significantly increasing across all demographics of the United States (Cordell, 2013). Additionally, “Outdoor Recreation Outlook 2011,” by the American Recreation Coalition/

Derrick Crandall indicates that downhill skiing and recreational fishing are significant increasing activities.

Table 8: National Outdoor Activity Participation

Activity Total Participants Percent Participating (millions) 2005-2009 Walk for pleasure 200.0 85.0

Gathering of family/friends 157.6 74.0

Gardening/landscaping for pleasure 157.9 67.1

View natural scenery 149.8 63.7

Visit outdoor nature center/zoo 133.3 56.6

Sightseeing 123.9 52.7

Picnicking 121.6 51.7

View wildflowers/trees 121.3 51.6

Driving for pleasure 120.5 51.2

View wildlife 103 50.2

Source: Cordell, 2012

Other studies show similar national outdoor recreation trends. The Outdoor Foundation’s 2011 report indicates that recreation among Americans reached the highest level of participation in the last five years, with 141.1 million individuals participating in at least one outdoor activity in 2011, or 1.4 billion more outings than the previous year (Outdoor Foundation, 2012). In contrast from Cordell’s report, however, The Outdoor Foundation (2012) maintains that the most popular activities among Americans are running, biking, camping, fishing, hiking, bird watching, and participating in triathlons. Findings also include that kayaking, telemarking, snowshoeing, and freestyle skiing have increased significantly over the past three years (Outdoor Foundation, 2012).

In terms of trends in outfitting and guiding, according to the American Recreation Coalition (2011),” the nation's outfitting and active travel industry is displaying a modest rebound, with fewer companies suffering significant losses in 2010 compared to 2009 (5 percent versus 14 percent.) Approximately half

of the respondents involved in the study expected improvements in profits in 2010 as compared to 2009. In addition, probably due to the economic downturn, companies report that shorter trips with less-expensive options are more popular than pricier, multi-day trips to remote locations (American Recreation Coalition, 2011). Technology is also changing the face of outfitted and guided services, resulting in an increase of interest in geocaching, photography, and motorized recreation (Cordell, 2012).

In addition, trends in the popular guided activities relating to wildlife show an increase in participation. The 2011 National U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey found that more than 90 million U.S. residents ages 16 or older participated in some form of wildlife-related recreation, a three percent increase from five years earlier (USFWS, 2011). Fishing and hunting highlights of this survey include:

• Of the 13.7 million hunters 2011, 11.6 million hunted big game, 4.5 million hunted small game, 2.6 million hunted migratory birds, and 2.2 million other animals. • Of the 33.1 million anglers that fished, 27.5 million freshwater fished and 8.9 million saltwater fished. • While 94% of the U.S. population 16 years of age and older resided in metropolitan areas (50,000 and over populations), 89% of all anglers and 80% of all hunters were metropolitan residents. • 73% (24.2 million) of all anglers were male and 27% (8.9 million) were female. 89% (12.2 million) of all hunters were males and 11% (1.5 million) were females (USFWS, 2011).

Wildlife watching highlights of this survey include:

• 71.8 million U.S. residents observed, fed, and/or photographed birds and other wildlife in 2011. Almost 68.6 million people wildlife watched around their homes, and 22.5 million people took trips of at least one mile from home to primarily wildlife watch. • Of the 46.7 million people who observed wild birds, 88% did so around their homes and 38% on trips a mile or more from home. • Other types of wildlife also were popular for trip takers: 13.7 million people enjoyed wildlife watching land mammals such as bear, squirrel, and buffalo. 4 million people wildlife watched marine mammals such as whales and dolphins; 6.4 million enjoyed watching fish; and 10.1 million enjoyed watching other wildlife such as butterflies. • People spent $54.9 billion on their wildlife-watching trips, equipment, and other items in 2011. This amounted to $981 on average per spender for the year (USFWS, 2011)

Montana Trends

Montana’s demographic statistics differ drastically from that of the United States, which can contribute to unique recreation characteristics. In 2011, Montana’s population reached 998,199 people, as opposed to the U.S. population of 308.7 million people. Although Montana is the 4th largest state in terms of square miles, it ranks 44th in terms of number of residents. Other striking differences from the rest of the United States are the percentage of white persons versus any other ethnicity. Where the United States is made up of 78.1 percent whites, Montana is made up of 89.9 percent whites, as well as a higher number of Native Americans than the rest of the nation (6.4 percent versus 1.2 percent.) Where the United States is comprised of 16.7 percent Hispanics—the highest-ranking ethnicity in the country-- Montana is home to only 3.1 percent Hispanic persons. Although Montanan’s education levels are relatively similar, if not higher, than the rest of the United States, Montana falls behind in household income ($45,324 versus $52,762.) Similar to the rest of the country, however, Montana is made up of a higher, and increasing, percentage of persons over 65 years of age (Shrestha and Heisler, 2011; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

Similar to demographics, the most popular recreation activities in Montana are quite different from the average national recreation preferences. According to 2012 Institute for Tourism and Recreation report summaries, 10,770,000 non-residents were most interested in scenic driving at 68 percent, wildlife watching and nature photography at 42 percent, and day hiking at 39 percent (ITRR, 2012). Of the 15,534 Montana residents, the top five activities residents preferred to participate in were scenic driving (49%), shopping (34%), fishing (21%) and visiting historic sites and museums (21%) in 2012 (ITRR, 2012).

In 2012, 39 percent of nonresident Montana visitors came to Montana for vacation, recreation, or pleasure, and 10 percent spent their nights at public land campgrounds. In addition, 60 percent of nonresident visitors visited Yellowstone National Park and 35 percent visited Glacier National Park (ITRR, 2012). Fifteen percent, or 1,379,100 of those surveyed visited Little Bighorn Battlefield, and 3 percent or 275,820 individuals visited Big Hole Battlefield (ITRR, 2012).

According to a 2011 Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks report, total revenues for hunting and fishing licenses dropped by about $2 million. Although most licenses for fishing, birds, deer, antelope, and general elk are showing declines in the number of licenses purchased, resident and non-resident elk B licenses are up (Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, 2011). As shown in Figures 14 (fishing) and 15 (hunting), fishing and hunting license purchases have significantly declined from 2009 to 2011. A 47

number of factors could be the cause of this decline, including economics, animal population decline, and the passage of Initiative 161, which restricted nonresident hunting and fishing licenses. Nonresident expenditures in particular have dropped the most sharply from 2010 to 2011, suggesting that the Initiative has had a direct impact on the number licenses purchased (Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, 2011).

Figure 14: Total Montana Fishing License Purchases 2009-2011

Source=Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, 2011

Figure 25: Total Montana Hunting License Purchases 2009-2011

Source=Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, 2011

Montana Outfitting and Guiding Trends

The outfitting and guiding industry in Montana shows a number of important trends. A 2007 ITRR study examined the state of the outfitting and guiding industry in Montana though an examination of all possible lists of outfitter names in the state, including USFS, BLM, NPS, MTFWP, MT Board of Outfitters, Travel MT, Montana Outfitter and Guide Association (MOGA), and the Fishing Outfitters Association of America (FOAM). Findings indicated that there were a total of 998 outfitters in Montana and approximately 4,300 guides. The number of guided clients that year totaled 3,186,000 individuals. In terms of activities, 124,000 (39%) reported hiring a guide for rafting, floating, canoeing or kayaking, 63,800 (20%) for fishing, 48,270 (15%) for other trips such as birding, snowmobiling, tours, photography, wildlife watching, etc., 45,100 (14%) for horse-related trips, 19,500 (6%) for hunting, and 18,000 (6%) for hiking or backpacking. Of these trips, over half of them, or 55 percent, took place on Forest Service land. The Outfitting Industry brought a combined economic impact of $167,633,000 and a combined 2,590 jobs (excluding seasonal jobs) to the state in this year alone (ITRR, 2007).

In more recent years, the percentage of nonresident visitors who hired an outfitter or guide remains fairly consistent from 2009-2012. In 2009, of the 4,684,000 nonresidents, seven percent hired an outfitter or guide, five percent of the 8,772,000 surveyed nonresidents hired an outfitter or guide in 2010, six percent of the 8,822,000 respondents in 2011, and of the 9,194,000 nonresidents surveyed in 2012, six percent hired an outfitter or guide. However, in months of July-September 2012, typically the peak season for outfitting and guiding, eight percent of respondents hired an outfitter or guide on their trip, or 735,520 non-resident visitors (ITRR, 2012).

Regional Trends: The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

The best available source for estimates of forest-level use is the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The NVUM program provides science-based estimates of the volume and characteristics of recreation visitation to the National Forest System, as well as the benefits recreation brings to the American public. Completed in 5-year cycles, the NVUM program is provided to help the Forest Service to manage its recreation resources in such a way that best meets the needs of visitors while maintaining the quality of the natural resource base. National NVUM program managers stress that the NVUM process is still relatively new, with the initial application occurring nationwide from 2000 to 2003. Because there have been only three rounds of the survey, and the fact that significant refinements and improvements to the process were instituted during that time. NVUM

program managers caution the use of NVUM data to show trends. Because the revisions affected data consistency, trend information regarding recreation visitation has not yet been compiled and made available. Therefore NVUM data provide a ‘snapshot’ of annual National Forest visitation (USDA, 2005a; 2010).

Not surprisingly, the NVUM shows demographics for the BDNF to be relatively on par with the rest of the state of Montana. The National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program samples recreation visitors to the BDNF to determine information about the quantity and quality of recreation visits on this national forest land. In 2010, a total of 692,000 people visited the BDNF, with 193,000 day use developed site visits, 47,000 overnight use developed site visits, 440,000 general forest area visits, and 12,000 designated wilderness visits (NVUM, 2010). Of these visitors who agreed to be interviewed, 67.1 percent reported they were visiting the national forest for recreation purposes. Of these 1,525 visitors, 28.9 percent were female while 71.1 percent were male. When asked about race/ethnicity, 98.9 percent of visitors claimed to be white, followed by 2 percent Hispanic/Latino, and 1.5 percent American Indian/Alaska Native. Asians, African Americans, Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders were all less than one percent. Visitors were found to most commonly be from Silver Bow County in Montana at 36.3 percent, followed by Beaverhead and Deer Lodge counties at 11.3 percent. Nonresidents made up 14 percent of these visitors (NVUM, 2010).

Visitor respondents to the BDNF reported participating in a wide variety of activities. Table 9 shows the top 10 most popular activities visitors participated in on the BDNF.

Table 9: Top 10 Activities in the BDNF 2010

Activity % Participation Hunting 33.3 Hiking/Walking 33.0 Viewing Wildlife 26.0 Relaxing 25.8 Viewing Natural Features 25.8 Driving for Pleasure 21.9 Fishing 21.4 Cross-country Skiing 12.2 Developed Camping 10.3 Downhill Skiing 8.8 Source=2010 NVUM

Greater Yellowstone Area Trends

Because the BDNF makes up part of the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), visitor behavior for this entire region was also considered important. In the 2006 report, “Outdoor Recreation in the Greater Yellowstone Area: An Interagency Report,” an estimated sixteen million visitors occur each year to public land in the GYA. According to visitor monitoring surveys in the GYA from the last five years, the top five most popular activities in the area are: 1. Viewing natural features and scenery 2. Viewing wildlife 3. General relaxing 4. Hiking or walking 5. Driving for pleasure

Trends by Travel Region

Non-resident visitors intercepted in the travel region containing BDNF vary distinctly from the rest of the state. Montana is divided into six travel regions: Southeast Montana Region, Southwest Montana, Central Montana Region, Glacier Country, Missouri River Country, and Yellowstone Country. The BDNF Forest lies within Southwest Montana. ITRR data from quarter 3 (June-September) 2012 shows that while only 8 percent of the 9,194,000 nonresidents visiting hired an outfitter or guide on their trip throughout Montana, 12 percent of the nonresidents visiting southwest Montana reported hiring an 51

outfitter or guide. 29 percent of visitors who traveled in Southwest Montana participated in fishing or fly fishing in quarter 3, while only 16 percent reported fishing or fly fishing throughout Montana. The most noticeable difference is the number of individuals who reported participating in hunting throughout Montana versus the number of individuals who reported participating in hunting and traveled in Southwest Montana in quarter 3 of 2012; one percent of visitors hunted in all Montana while 58 percent of Southwest Montana travelers reported hunting in the state. Table 10 shows a comparison of nonresident travel characteristics between all of Montana and the Southwest Montana travel region. (ITRR, 2012).

Table 10: Nonresident Travel Characteristics in Quarter 3 of 2012

Nonresident Travel Characteristic All Montana Those who traveled through Southwest Montana

Hired a guide on their trip 8% 12% Came to Montana for vacation/recreation/pleasure 48% 58% Spent nights public land camping on their trip 11% 11% Participated in fishing/fly Fishing on their trip 16% 29% Participated in hunting on their trip 1% 58% Participated in wildlife viewing on their trip 46% 48% Participated in nature photography on their trip 45% 46% Source=ITRR, 2012

Summary of Current Demand

• Outfitters and guides are utilizing an average of 48% of their permitted days (Figure 5, Table 5). • Every activity offered by outfitters and guides shows some unused permitted days according to SUDS. • Horseback riding, motorized activities, hiking, fly fishing and foot access fishing, hunting, and snowmobiling were popular individual activities mentioned by respondents (Table 5). • Horseback riding, fly fishing, foot access fishing, hunting, backcountry skiing, motorized activities, game retrieval, and institutional activities were popular guided activities mentioned by respondents (Figures 9 - 12). • Mountain biking, backcountry skiing, and OHV/ATV activities and expansion of existing hunting permits into summer activities like hiking and wildlife watching are activities most often denied for permits on the BDNF (Figure 13, Table 7.) • Visitors are interested in shorter, more intense activities when recreating on the Forest. • There is evidence of demand for additional, non-traditional guided activities.

• There is evidence for the need for expansion of or additional permits to allow resorts and lodges to take the guests on forest land for activities like hiking in the summer and backcountry skiing in the winter.

Current demand for activities and outfitted services is important to assess in relation to the amount of current supply on the BDNF. The next section will identify potential upcoming activities and demand for outfitted services on the BDNF.

Indicator 3: Projected Demand for Outfitted Services

The expertise and experience of BDNF personnel, outfitters, and area sporting goods store employees was again used to get a sense of future demand of individual and outfitted activities.

Both sporting goods and Forest Service employees were asked about any activities they noticed were increasing in popularity on the BDNF. These activities ran the gamut, but both parties agreed that archery, ATV/motorized activities, mountain biking, bird watching, fishing, hiking, hunting (with specific reference to shorter, road-oriented trips), rock climbing, backcountry skiing, and snowmobiling are activities gaining popularity. This information was pulled from responses to the questions: With your knowledge of outdoor recreation, what activities do you anticipate the number of participants growing in the next five years? What trends in outfitted activities have you noticed in the past 5 years? Sporting goods employees most frequently reported fly, float, and foot access fishing as the most popular increasing activities, followed by mountain biking and backcountry skiing. Forest Service personnel most often cited motorized activities, mountain biking, and backcountry skiing as activities growing in popularity on the Forest. Table 11 displays the results for both of these parties.

Table 11: Increasing Activities on the BDNF According to Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel

Sporting Goods Stores Survey Data Forest Service Interview Data Archery Archery ATV tours Motorized activities Backpacking Camping Mountain biking Mountain biking Bird watching Bird watching Cattle drives Family activities

Fishing (foot access) Backpacking (overnight) Float fishing (day use) Mountaineering Fly fishing Fishing

Summer/Fall Hiking Hiking Hunting Hunting (shorter trips and road- oriented) Llama trips Horseback riding Mountaineering Ecotourism activities Rock climbing Rock climbing Wind surfing Alpine skiing Backcountry skiing Backcountry skiing

Cross-country skiing Hut skiing Sleigh rides Winter Snowmobiling Snowmobiling Snowshoeing Ice climbing Education

Photography round -

Year Wildlife viewing

Source=Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel, n=35

Possible Explanations of Growth Forest service personnel, sporting goods store employees and regional and national recreation trends offer some insight as to why these activities might be increasing in the future. Below is a summary of possible explanations for growth by activity: Archery: Rifle hunting is decreasing in popularity and hunters are moving towards archery as a preferred method of hunting (Forest service personnel).

ATV/motorized activities (including snowmobiling): Changes in technology coupled with an aging population are increasing motorized vehicle use on all districts. New machines such as the side-by-side ATV are allowing individuals who may not be as physically fit as they once were access to areas they may not have been able to access otherwise. In turn, this aging population with more discretionary income is passing along their enjoyment of OHV/ATV activities to younger generations (Forest Service personnel and sporting goods employees.)

Mountain biking: High energy, high-octane sports that can be accomplished in one weekend are growing in popularity across districts. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National forest offers a variety of trails such as the Continental Divide, Great Divide, and Nez Perce Trails that cater to mountain biking interests (Forest Service personnel).

Bird watching: Nontraditional activities that can be classified as ecotourism are going up on all districts. Unique opportunities for bird watching in the Deer Lodge area exist. An aging population could be responsible for this rise in popularity as well (Forest Service personnel and sporting goods employees.)

Fishing: Traditional activities dominate outfitted and guided services across the Forest. Fishing has long been a tradition on the world-renowned rivers that run through the Forest (Forest Service personnel and sporting goods employees).

Hiking: Nontraditional activities that can be accomplished in a single day are gaining popularity throughout the Forest (Forest Service personnel).

Hunting (day-use): Existing outfitters who traditionally relied on overnight hunting are experiencing a decline in interested clientele. Day use activities are on the rise throughout the district. Technology enables individuals to access areas further in the backcountry than in previous years (Forest Service personnel).

Rock climbing: High-energy, high-octane sports are on the rise across districts (Forest Service personnel).

Backcountry skiing: 55

Changes in technology are influencing improvements in gear associated with backcountry winter travel (Dionne, 2012). Snow levels have been low enough in the front country to push recreationists further into the back country (Tory, 2012).

Emerging Activities Both sporting goods store employees and outfitters were also asked if there were any “emerging activities” they noticed increasing in popularity. “Emerging activities” are defined here as nontraditional activities that the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research has identified as up-and-coming for our region, and include geocaching, hang gliding, ice climbing, kite boarding, ski joring, stand-up paddle boarding, and a category for “other,” to give opportunity to report on any other emerging type of recreation they have identified. An option for “no growth anticipated” was also offered if they do not feel any of these “emerging activities” are prevalent on the forest. The results show that the majority of both outfitters and sporting goods store employees, or 60 percent of those surveyed, do not anticipate any new types of outdoor recreation activities emerging in the next 5-10 years, but that does not mean that requests for permits for “new-age” activities may not occur in the future. For those that do anticipate growth in participation from these emerging activities, the most frequently reported activity to be on the lookout for was kite boarding followed by geocaching and stand-up paddle boarding. Other activities mentioned were side-by-side ATVs, folfing (frisbee/disc golf) and parasailing. Figure 16 displays the combined results of both outfitters and sporting goods employees.

Figure 16: Emerging Activities on the BDNF According to Outfitters and Sporting Employees

Source=Outfitters and Sporting Goods Employees, n=44

In terms of declining activities, Forest Service personnel most commonly mention hunting as decreasing on the Forest. Many sporting goods employees reported they felt that activities were staying the same or they could not determine any decreasing activities. Those they did feel were on the decline along with those mentioned by Forest Service personnel are displayed in Figure 17.

Figure 17: Decreasing Activities on the BDNF According to Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel

Source: Sporting goods and Forest Service employees, n=35

As previously stated, future demand for recreation activities and outfitted services is dynamic and difficult to assess. Varieties of economic, social, and political factors constantly affect projected demand and should be assessed on a regular basis when looking at the future of outfitted services. The next section will discuss the need for outfitted services on the BDNF based on knowledge, skills, and equipment needed for activities.

Summary of Projected Demand

• The majority of respondents anticipate no growth in emerging activities on the Forest. • Archery, ATV/OHV activities, mountain biking, bird watching, fishing, hiking, hunting (with specific reference to shorter, road-oriented trips), rock climbing, backcountry skiing, and snowmobiling are activities gaining popularity on the Forest. • Hunting and snowmobiling are reported as decreasing on the BDNF.

Projected demand in this case was determined by examining activities allowed in wilderness areas that were reported by respondents as increasing, decreasing, or emerging. Recall from the previous section that projected demand is difficult to assess because of its dynamic nature and should be evaluated on a regular basis for changing trends.

Most respondents reported that they see little anticipated growth with respect to emerging activities in general, and this may extend to wilderness as well. Those that do anticipate growth indicated that geocaching and stand-up paddle boarding are activities that could become popular in the future, followed by ice climbing and parasailing. It is important to note that these responses were not made necessarily specific to the Anaconda-Pintler and Lee Metcalf Wildernesses. Along with the communities located immediately proximate to the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, responding sporting goods stores were also located in the communities of Bozeman and Missoula; therefore their responses may be related to other wildernesses as well, such as the Frank Church-River of No Return on the Bitterroot National Forest, for example). Figure 18 shows the results of these responses. Table 12, in addition, shows activities that are allowed in wilderness areas that are increasing, according to sporting goods employees and Forest Service employees. Outfitters were not asked this question in terms of individual activities, but were instead asked only about emerging activities (Figure 18).

Table 12: Increasing Activities Allowed In Wilderness According To Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel Sporting Goods Stores Survey Data Forest Service Interview Data Archery Archery Backpacking Camping Bird watching Bird watching Family activities

Fishing (foot access) Backpacking (overnight) Float fishing (day use) Mountaineering Fly fishing Fishing Hiking Hiking Summer/Fall Hunting Hunting (shorter trips and road-oriented) Llama trips Horseback riding Mountaineering Ecotourism activities Rock climbing Rock climbing Wind surfing

Backcountry skiing Backcountry skiing Cross-country skiing Ice climbing

Winter Snowshoeing

Education - Photography Year round Wildlife viewing Source=Sporting Goods Store Employees and Forest Service Personnel, n=35

Figure 18: Emerging Activities Allowed In Wilderness Areas According To Outfitters and Sporting Goods Employees

Source=Outfitters and Sporting Goods Employees, n=44 59

Figure 19: Decreasing Activities Allowed In Wilderness According To Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel

Source=Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel, n=35

Indicator 4: Extent of knowledge, skills, and equipment needed Depending on the activity, a spectrum of need exists for outfitted and guided services on the Forest. This section illustrates activities that may have higher need because they require specific knowledge, skills, and equipment that the average user may not possess. The activities are based on those the respondents pointed out as requiring a need for an outfitter to improve safety, pass along knowledge, or provide specialized equipment.

Specialized Equipment Sporting goods store employees were specifically asked if they felt there is a need to provide additional outfitting assistance due to the need for specialized equipment. Half of the respondents reported that yes, some activities could utilize an outfitter because of the need for equipment, 25 percent indicated that no, this is not necessary, and the remaining were unsure. Respondents reported that nearly every outdoor recreation activity could benefit from an outfitter because of equipment, but the most frequently mentioned activities were any fishing activity followed by archery, horseback riding, and snowmobiling. The results are shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Activities That Could Use the Assistance of an Outfitter for Safety or Equipment Purposes According to Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel

Activity type Archery OHV/ATV Backcountry skiing Horseback riding Snowmobiling Fishing Rock climbing Snowshoeing Ice climbing Source=Sporting Goods Employees and Forest Service Personnel, N=35

Safety Forest Service employees were asked which activities, if any, could use an outfitter to ensure safety in the user. Although most respondents reported that nearly every outdoor activity could benefit in some way from outfitter assistance with respect to safety, motorized activities, horseback riding, skiing, rock climbing, bow hunting, and winter activities (especially in avalanche country) were all mentioned. These activities are included in Table 13.

Knowledge Sporting goods store employees also commented on the benefits of the level of knowledge that outfitters provide that assists not only recreationists but the sporting goods stores themselves. One individual remarked that, “Outfitters have the ability to take a novice person and instill passion about a particular sport. This causes them to not only to want to continue with the sport, but to want to purchase the gear necessary to continue and thereby bring an increase in revenue to local businesses.”

When determining whether or not to issue a permit in wilderness areas, it is important to determine if the activity requires specific knowledge, skills, and equipment that are both compatible with wilderness objectives and can help contribute to the wilderness character. Asking the following questions regarding an activity will help determine if it fits these criteria:

1. Does the outfitter/guide ensure visitor safety and specialized equipment to those who may not have the skills to travel safely in Wilderness? 2. Are specific skills required for the activity that would take substantial time/talent to learn?

3. Does the activity require the use of expensive, specialized equipment for which the public could or would not expend the dollars or time? 4. Are the skills required so unique that outfitting and guiding assistance is almost a prerequisite if the public is to have any opportunity to participate in and enjoy the activity?

As stated in the previous section, sporting goods store employees were asked, based on their expertise of specialized equipment, which activities could benefit from a guide based on the need for specialized equipment. Table 14 shows the list of activities that were mentioned by these employees:

Table 14: Activities Allowed In Wilderness That Could Benefit From an Outfitter Based On the Need for Specialized Equipment According to Sporting Goods Employees

Activity type

Archery

Backcountry skiing

Horseback riding

Fishing

Rock climbing

Snowshoeing

Ice climbing

Source=Sporting Goods Employees, n=17

Forest Service personnel were also asked if there were any activities taking place in the Forest that are particularly dangerous to visitors that could benefit from an outfitter. The following are the activities that are allowed in wilderness areas that Forest Service personnel identified as being dangerous but could be participated in more safely with the assistance of an outfitter:

1. Horseback riding 2. Backcountry skiing 3. Rock and mountain climbing 4. Archery 5. Any winter sport in avalanche country

Summary of Knowledge, Skills and Equipment

Fishing, archery, horseback riding, and snowmobiling were activities cited as needing an outfitter for specialized equipment. 62

ATV/OHV activities, horseback riding, rock climbing, archery, and winter activities in avalanche country were cited as needing an outfitter for safety reasons.

Indicator 5: Consistency with wilderness character and objectives Activities in question for wilderness areas must be consistent with wilderness character and objectives. The Wilderness Act states that “where a choice must be made between wilderness values and visitor or any other activity, preserving the wilderness resource is the overriding value.” Therefore, activities in question must be consistent with the Wilderness Act and the National Wilderness Preservation System. Profitability and the comfort and convenience of visitors are not factors that should be considered when making decisions about outfitted activities in wilderness. Some questions managers should ask themselves when considering the issuance of permits in wilderness are:

1. Will the outfitter/activity provide education (such as minimum impact techniques) beyond what the Forest Service can provide? 2. Is the outfitter willing to assist with trail management by educating others on minimizing impacts to the Wilderness resource? 3. Does the activity provide for public use, enjoyment and understanding of wilderness consistent with wilderness management objectives? 4. Does the outfitter or activity use information, interpretation, and education as the primary tools for management of wilderness visitors? 5. Is the proposed area experiencing impaired wilderness character or is wilderness character threated? Impairment of wilderness character must be avoided and use should be limited to avoid it.

Indicator 6: Dependence on wilderness environment One of the most important and obvious indicators for deciding to issue a permit in wilderness areas is to determine whether or not the activity can take place successfully instead in a non-wilderness area. Because of wilderness requirements and the pressure that too many recreation activities can put on the wilderness resource, it is important to evaluate if the activity can take place elsewhere. Draft Forest Service guidelines are anticipated that will provide a 5-step Extent Necessary Determination process that will be used when considering outfitter-guide activities in wilderness. According to the draft Guidelines for Determining the Need and Extent Necessary and Allocating Use for Commercial Services in Wilderness, “recreation should not be defined as wilderness dependent if it can occur in any setting that has certain attribute (glaciated peaks, unroaded areas for endurance routes, etc.), which are not part of the wilderness resource as defined by the 1964 act. The term ‘wilderness dependent’ is tied to the

wilderness resource, not to any specific recreational activity or recreational setting simply because they can occur within wilderness,” (USDA, 2011-draft). Compatibility with wilderness character is not a sufficient reason for outfitter-guide activities to occur in wilderness.

Examining wilderness capacity estimates and potential for existing and demanded services in non- wilderness areas can help determine this allocation. Wilderness education and survival courses are arguably the most ideal activities for this indicator, as well as activities that ensure a level of solitude that can’t be achieved in non-wilderness areas, as discussed below.

Indicator 7: Opportunities for solitude The wilderness recreation experience is designed to be primitive, more quiet, and uncrowded. Wilderness should not include large groups, alterations of any kind to the natural resource, or noise pollution such as motorized activities. If one of the purposes of the activity in question is to provide opportunities for solitude, it could be considered along with the other indicators as a possibility for an outfitted opportunity. The draft Forest Service Guidelines for Determining the Need and Extent Necessary and Allocating Use for Commercial Services in Wilderness state that permitted outfitter operations should “maximize visitor freedom within the wilderness [and] minimize direct controls and restrictions,” (USDA, 2011-draft).

Part 5: Resource Capacity Analysis Natural resource and administrative capacity on the BDNF is important to assess when determining the need for outfitted and guided services. Having this understanding can help predict the management of potential permits as well as to what extent natural resources can support future outfitted activities. This information was gathered using a variety of methods. Outfitters, sporting goods employees, and Forest Service personnel were asked their opinions on the presence of visitor conflict, extent of crowding, extent of resource degradation, and visitor satisfaction the BDNF. A summary of these issues by landscape area can be viewed in Table 14. Forest Service personnel were additionally asked about the amount of administrative capacity currently available to manage outfitter permits.

Crowding, Conflict and Resource Degradation Respondents identified many of the same issues and concerns about visitor recreation on the BDNF. It is important to note, however, that although several issues were brought up, most respondents indicated that they do not feel crowding is an issue in the BDNF. Generally, respondents stated they feel the area is sparsely populated and crowding is not a major issue overall between recreationists. Figure 20 represents the perception of crowding on the Forest according to sporting goods store employees and outfitters. Of the 45 outfitters and sporting goods managers that answered the question, 36 respondents feel that there is not an issue of crowding (10 sporting goods employees and 26 outfitters), eight feel that there is an issue of crowding (five sporting goods employees and three outfitters), and one outfitter was unsure.

Figure 20: Perception of Crowding According to Outfitters and Sporting Goods Employees

Source: Sporting Goods Employees and Outfitters, N=44

Areas of High Use Forest Service employees were asked where areas of highest use exist on the Forest. These areas may not receive much use compared to other forests but these are the areas in the BDNF that receive the most use. Table 15 shows these areas by districts.

Table 15: Areas of Highest Use on the BDNF According To Forest Service Personnel

Dillon/Wise Madison Butte/Jefferson Pintler River/Wisdom Best springs The Ruby Tobacco Roots Anaconda Pintler Wilderness Kelly Reservoir The Potosi Continental Divide Trail The North Flints Elkhorn Tobacco Roots The Highlands The lakes in the Sapphires Birch Creek Lost Canyon Mine Racetrack to Red Lion Pioneer Scenic Byway Lost Creek Trail Chief Joseph Ski Trail Warm Springs Medicine Lodge Storm Lake Area around Altoona Lodge Storm Lake Frog Pond Source=Forest Service employees, n=18

In contrast to perception of crowding, sporting goods managers and outfitters appear to be much more divided when it comes to resource degradation on the BDNF. Of the 43 outfitters and sporting goods employees that answered the question, 23 feel there is no issue of resource degradation (nine sporting goods employees and, 17 individuals feel there is an issue of resource degradation on the Forest (five sporting goods employees and 12 outfitters), and three outfitters were unsure. Of those that did report issues of resource degradation on the Forest, the most common issues cited were trail, road, campsite, and stream damage relating to public ATV and motorized vehicle use; trashed backcountry camps relating to hunting and/or horseback riding from both outfitted and public use; and resource damage near water attractions especially in wilderness and primitive backcountry areas. Figure 21 displays the perception of resource degradation according to sporting goods employees and Figure 22 displays the this information according to the outfitters.

Figure 21: Perception of Resource Degradation on the BDNF According To Sporting Goods Employees

Source=Sporting Goods Employees, n=17

Figure 32: Perception of Resource Degradation on the BDNF According To Outfitters

Source=Outfitters, n=27

Forest service employees report a variety of issues pertaining to resource degradation. Activities around water attractions, dispersed camping, motorized activities, and illegal outfitting were the most frequently identified issues regarding degradation on the Forest. See Table 16 for summarization of resource degradation issues by Forest Plan landscape.

Landscape

ackpacking/ ATVS/ ATVS/ Motorized Backcountry/ country Cross Skiing Camping/ Base Camps Fishing B Hiking Hunting Mountain Biking Snowmobiling Wildlife Viewing

Big Hole 4 12 2 Clark Fork Flint 10 4 10, 12 10 4 4 Gravelly 11 2 2, 4, 14 11 Jefferson River 4, 5, 8, 12 4, 12 4 Lima-Tendoy 8, 4, 10 4 4 4 4, 10 Madison 6, 10, 11 6 2, 7 6 2, 14 6, 11 Pioneer 8, 13 4 4 4 8, 14 Tobacco Root 4, 6, 9, 14 6,11 4 4 6, 9 9, 14 Upper Clark Fork 5, 6, 10, 8 Upper Rock Creek 4, 7, 11 Table 16: Resource Capacity Issues by Landscape Source=outfitters, Sporting Goods Employees, Forest Service Personnel, n=62

Key to Table 14

1. Trail maintenance issues 8. Frustration with trail closures 2. Conflict between public and outfitters 9. Noise pollution 3. Conflict between outfitters 10. Garbage/general resource degradation 4. General crowding/competition 11. Illegal outfitting 5. Expanding trails 12. Stream/lake degradation 6. Conflict between quiet and loud recreation 13. Improper stock handling 7. River etiquette conflicts 14. Wildlife conflicts *Wilderness areas are separate (see Wilderness section). **1 and 3 were mentioned without reference to specific areas (See interview questions [Appendix E] for full explanation.

Forest Service personnel were also asked if they feel outfitters and guides increase or reduce resource degradation on the Forest. Responses were divided, with some reporting that outfitters are not only taking care of the resource but also making improvements to infrastructure. Others, however, reported that some outfitters do not always comply with Forest Service standards and are often in conflict with 68

one another. Overall, the general sense is that it depends entirely on the outfitter, and that if administrative capacity was at a more desirable level, personnel could spend the time necessary with each outfitter to achieve better cooperation amongst outfitters, improved resource conditions, and better monitoring of both public and outfitted uses on the Forest.

Conflict Outfitters and sporting goods employees seem to differ on their perception of conflict in the BDNF as well. Whereas the majority of outfitters do not feel conflict exists between recreationists on the Forest, sporting goods employees, the majority of sporting goods store employees do feel there is an issue of conflict between visitors. This may be more of a perception of conflict more than actual conflict but this is difficult to assess.

Specific issues of conflict sporting goods employees notice include limited access and trail maintenance, closures and stricter regulations for motorized activities causing conflict between louder and quieter types of recreation, and a sense that outfitters are frustrated because their operating regulations differ from that of the public in the backcountry. Figure 23 displays the sporting goods employees’ perception of conflict on the Forest:

Figure 23: Perception of Conflict on the BDNF According To Sporting Goods Employees

Source: Sporting Goods Employees, n=17

Outfitters feel conflict takes place particularly with hunting and motorized activities. Specifically, outfitters report that resident hunters are very territorial towards both outfitters and nonresident hunters. There also appears to be conflict between outfitters when it comes to hunting, particularly

when outfitters hunt in areas that are permitted to another outfitter. In addition, outfitters report conflicts in the Tobacco Root Mountains due to OHV/ATV travel near wilderness boundaries, expressing the feeling that more motorized closures are necessary to reduce conflict between quieter and louder forms of recreation. Figure 24 illustrates the outfitters’ perception of conflict on the Forest:

Figure 44: Perception of Conflict on the BDNF According To Outfitters

Source: outfitters, n=27

Visitor Satisfaction Forest Service personnel were asked if feel that visitors on the BDNF are achieving their desired recreation experience to determine to what extent visitors are enjoying their experiencing currently on the Forest. Overall, respondents indicated that the vast majority of recreationists are very satisfied with their experience on the Forest and that only a few complaints ever arise. Complaints, they report, usually have to do with outfitters not cooperating alongside one another rather than any visitor dissatisfaction. Specific findings are as follows:

Question: Do you feel visitors are achieving their desired experiences on the forest? Are there areas/activities where visitors are not satisfied? If so, what do you feel is the cause of this dissatisfaction? Findings: Rarely get any feedback from any outfitter clients, only in an extremely negative situation; More calls received because the outfitters aren’t playing well with each other rather than visitor dissatisfaction; Outfitter clientele experiencing greater satisfaction level because they get to do activities they normally couldn’t do because of lack of knowledge and skills; old timers remember a much different hunting experience than today, but newcomers aren’t dissatisfied by their experiences; People are dissatisfied by hunting experiences today because of low game populations; People have the perception they will find game to hunt but we can’t always provide those opportunities and perceptions are more problematic than reality; Complaints about captive elk herds on private lands and wolf activity, mostly on the Madison; Lower snow levels causing outfitters go out of business for fall/winter activities; Most people get their desired experience on the Madison; 70

Some motorized users have a perception they are being locked out on the Madison; People get frustrated when they feel campground infrastructure is inadequate; Mountain bikers feel Butte/Jefferson area is bike friendly, technical, and challenging, especially over the Lolo forest; Rock climbers satisfied on the Butte/Jefferson; Butte/Jefferson urban-oriented so people wanting a backcountry experience recreate elsewhere; Complaints about trail maintenance on the Pintler could be improved with the presence of an outfitter; minor complaints from motorized users about restrictions due to changes in the Forest Plan on the Pintler; no complaints regarding outfitters.

Administrative Capacity As previously stated, administrative capacity refers to the amount of personnel, time, and budget to consider, issue, and manage permits. To assess if administrative capacity is adequate on the BDNF to manage permits, Forest Service personnel were asked if they felt they had the time, budget, and number of employees available to take on more permits. Some personnel acknowledged that the outfitting industry provides a good service by keeping resource degradation down and offering another set of eyes to police activities on national forest land; therefore, they felt that new activities or at least modification to existing permits should be considered. Overwhelmingly, however, many answered that time, budget, infrastructure, number of employees and skills of employees was not adequate to take on more permits in any case. Other limitations to administrative capacity include federal regulations, the restrictions NEPA places on new permits, and the difficulties with current systems such as SUDs. Specific findings include:

Question: Do you feel that the amount of administrative personnel is adequate to issue and manage permits on your district? Findings: No more capacity to accept an increase in outfitter guides; manipulating existing permits to different uses or seasons may be accommodated; do not have the infrastructure or monitoring abilities to increase permits; not enough personnel for outdoor monitoring in the Lee Metcalf wilderness; the outfitting industry provides a good service and keeps resource degradation down so we should consider accepting new activities; if the administration system is running the way it’s supposed to more permits should slide right in; 20 years ago we could not take on more outfitted services but today we have less so more wouldn’t make much difference; Permits not being administered the way they should be; too much to do to issue more permits; personnel willing but do not have the time to make contact with outfitters; skills that make outfitter administration easier are being lost over time; systems like FEMA and SUDs are not user friendly, the agency moves really slow when it comes to making changes; SUDs does not have a good training program, is time-consuming and not user- friendly; The budget makes it difficult to entertain more permits; NEPA administration and lack of personnel makes this difficult; Not enough personnel, time, or skills to monitor/administer even

though the interest is there; Adding more year round positions could help increase permit management and the timeliness of our responses to outfitters.

Resource Capacity Analysis For this indicator, crowding, conflict, resource degradation, and administrative capacity were analyzed for both non wilderness and wilderness areas of the BDNF. Refer to pages 48-58 for a complete analysis of outfitter and area sporting goods employees’ perception of conflict, crowding, and resource degradation throughout the Forest.

The following interview questions were asked of the Forest Service about conflict, the highest areas of use in Wilderness, any resource degradation in wilderness areas, and the amount of administration available to monitor Wilderness and manage outfitter permits. Question: Do you notice any current or potential conflict among visitors in wilderness areas? Findings: Demand for quieter recreation opportunities on the Gallatin side of the Lee Metcalf which are being disturbed by peripheral motorized use; Illegal outfitting in the Anaconda Pintler with fall hunting.

Question: Where are the highest areas of use within wilderness? Findings: Anything with a water feature for both public and outfitted; The Anaconda Pintler Wilderness gets the highest use, but is also difficult to track; Johnson Lake in the Anaconda Pintler is getting hammered with too many people; Sphinx and Lava Lake in the Lee Metcalf exceeding draft standards set for the number of parties encountered every day.

Question: Do you notice any current or potential resource degradation in wilderness areas on the BDNF? Findings: Potential degradation in the Anaconda Pintler wilderness near lakes despite restrictions already in place; lakes are an attractant and getting hit with greater impact; outfitter camps causing degradation in wilderness areas in summer and fall.

Question: Do you feel the amount of administrative personnel is adequate to issue and manage permits in your district: Findings: Not enough personnel for outdoor monitoring in the Lee Metcalf and Anaconda Pintler Wildernesses.

Summary of Resource Capacity Analysis • Eighty percent of outfitters and sporting goods store employees do not feel there is an issue of crowding on the Forest (Figure 14). • Sixty-four percent of sporting goods employees and 48% of outfitters notice resource degradation on the Forest. • Sixty percent of sporting goods employees and 67% percent of outfitters feel there is an issue of conflict on the Forest. • Overall, visitors are achieving their desired experiences on the Forest.

• The majority of Forest Service personnel feel that time, budget, infrastructure, number of employees and skills of employees are not adequate to take on more permits, but that new activities or at least modification to existing permits could be considered. • See Appendix A for landscape level results of resource capacity analysis

Part 6: Conclusion and Assessment Results

Additional need for outfitted services was determined in this assessment by looking at all the available data within each indicator. An overarching theme that came out in interviews with forest personnel was that flexibility is needed for current permit holders to expand into offering other activities. This flexibility would allow those offering traditional activities (like hunting), which seem to be on the decline, to offer more diverse services to visitors (like summer activities). Another theme that came out in interviews with local businesses is that resorts and lodges have demand from their guests for activities on forest land that they cannot offer now.

Another theme that came from interviews was that the capacity of forest personnel to analyze proposals and administer permits (current and new) is limited. This should be taken into account when considering any recommendations. It would not be beneficial to anyone for the Forest Service to take on more permits than the agency can realistically handle.

The following activities show the potential for additional outfitted services across the forest. For landscape level recommendations on need for additional guiding, see Appendix A.

1. Backcountry skiing (potentially involving yurt to yurt skiing).

2. Mountain biking.

3. OHV/ATV/snowmobiling and other motorized activities.

4. Educational tours (emphasis on wildlife viewing, nature, culture, and history).

These findings were based on what was collected in this study and should be considered during analysis with other more site specific indicators of need that are addressed in Appendix A. Examples of other indicators of need include site specific resource conditions and concerns, and forest plan requirements. Other indicators that may be considered but are not examined in this document are: viability of current outfitters, view of the outfitted public, and FS funds available for analyzing and administering additional permits.

References

American Recreation Coalition (2011). Outdoor Recreation Outlook 2011. Available at: http://www.calroundtable.org/Presentations/Outdoor%20Recreation%20Outlook%202011%20 -%20Crandall.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

Anaconda Pintler Wilderness General Information. (2013). Available at: http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/wildView?WID=10. Verified 02 June 2014.

Blahna, D.J. (2007). Introduction: Recreation Management. In Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research and Management. Held February 8-10, 2005. Kruger, L.E., Mazza, R., Lawrence, K. eds. 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNS-GTR-698. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 230 p. Available at: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27600. Verified 04 April 2014.

Blahna, D.J. and D. K. Rieter. (2001) Whitewater Boaters in Utah: Implications for Wild River Planning. International Journal of Wilderness 7: 39-43.

Carlson, T. and Cole, D. (2010). Numerical Visitor Capacity: A Guide to Its Use in Wilderness. GTR RMRS-GTR-247. Available at: http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/vum/Guide%20to%20Numerical%20Visitor %20Capacity%20in%20Wilderness.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

Clark, R.N. and G.H. Stankey. (1979). The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management and Research. Available at: http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/eng/facilities/recopp.htm. Verified 04 April 2014.

Cole, D.N. (1997). Recreation Management Priorities Are Misplaced--Allocate More Resources to Low- Use Wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 3(4): 4-8. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/research/people/profile.php?alias=dcole. Verified 04 April 2014.

Cordell, K. H. (2012). Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Available at: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs150.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/40453. Verified 02 June 2014. 75

Cordell, K.H. (2013). Birding Trends: A Research Brief in the IRIS Series. Online publication. Available at: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/pdf-iris/IRISRec30rptfs.pdf. Verified 06 May 2014.

Dionne, R. (2012). Industry Talks Backcountry Skiing Trend. Available at: http://skiingbusiness.com/15408/features/industry-talks-backcountry-skiing-trend. Verified 02 June 2014.

Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. (2006). Outdoor Recreation in the Greater Yellowstone Area: An Interagency Report. Available at: http://fedgycc.org/RecreationintheGreaterYellowstoneArea.pdf.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, University of Montana (2007). Montana’s Outfitting Industry. Available at: http://www.itrr.umt.edu/research07/OutfitterGuideReport.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, University of Montana (2008). Baseline Information for Region 1 Needs Assessments. Available at: http://scholarworks.umt.edu/itrr_pubs/211/ and http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/recreation/rec_special_uses_web/outfitters_guides/index.shtml. Verified 01 April 2015.

Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, University of Montana. (2011). Flathead National Forest: Assessment of Need for Outfitted Services.

Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, University of Montana. (2012). 2012 Traveler Characteristics of Vacationers. Available at: www.tourismresearchmt.org. Verified 15 April 2014.

Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, University of Montana. (2013). Nonresident Values of Montana’s Natural Areas. Available at: http://www.itrr.umt.edu/research2013/nonrespublandvaluesrr2013_13.pdf. Verified 15 April 2014.

Lee Metcalf Wilderness General Information. (2013). Available at: http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/wildView?WID=316. Verified 02 June 2014.

Love, T., Mucklow, D., Blackburn, J., Gordon, A. (2005). Determination of Need & Extent in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex. Available at: http://www.wilderness.net/outfitter. Verified 20 May 2014.

McCool, S.F. and D.N. Cole. (1997). Experiencing Limits of Acceptable Change: Some Thoughts after a Decade of Implementation. Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Framework in the National Park System: Rationale, Current Status, and Future Direction. In: Proceedings—Limits of Acceptable Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions, compiled by S.F. McCool and D.N. Cole. 1997 May 20-22, Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-GTR-371. Ogden, UT, USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station, pp. 29-33. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/research/people/profile.php?alias=dcole. Verified 06 March 2014.

McCool, S.F., Clark, R.N., Stankey, G.H. (2007). An Assessment of Frameworks Useful for Public Land Recreation Planning. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr705.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. (2004). Recreation and Tourism. Available at: http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/reference/montanaChallenge/reports/tourism.html. Verified 20 May 2014.

Montana Fish Wildlife & Parks. (2011). FWP Revenue Jumps, Slips and Dips on Wild Ride in 2011. Available at: http://fwp.mt.gov/doingBusiness/reference/reports/default.html. Verified 02 June 2014.

Outdoor Foundation. (2012). Participation Report 2012. Online publication. Available at: http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/research.participation.html Verified 02 June 2014.

Schreyer, R. (1984). Social Dimensions of Carrying Capacity: An Overview. Leisure Sciences. 6 (4).

Shrestha, L.B., Heisler, E.J. (2011). The Changing Demographic Profile of the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Available at: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/825. Verified 02 June 2014.

Tory, S. (2012). State of the Industry 2012. Backcountry Magazine. Available at: http://backcountrymagazine.com. Unverified at the time of this writing.

United States Census Bureau. (2012). USA QuickFacts. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/30000.html. Verified 04 April 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (1982). ROS Users Guide. Available at: http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/eng/facilities/recopp.htm. Verified 04 April 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (1986). Beaverhead National Forest Plan.

USDA Forest Service. (1987). Deerlodge National Forest Plan.

USDA Forest Service. (1997). San Juan National Forest. Recreation Use Analysis and Outfitter- Guide Need Determination. Available at: http://www.wilderness.net/outfitter. Verified 20 May 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2005a). Visitor Use Report. National Visitor Use Monitoring. Data collected FY 2005. Available at: http://apps.fs.fed.us/nrm/nvum/results/ReportCache/Rnd3_A01002_Master_Report.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2005b). Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: A National Framework. Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR- 151 Available at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/544.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2006) Bighorn National Forest. Recreation Use Analysis, Outfitter Guide Need Determination, and Allocation of Recreation use. Available at: http://www.wilderness.net/outfitter. Verified 20 May 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2008a). Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Recreation Facility Analysis: A Five-Year Proposed Program of Work and Programmatic Results of Implementation. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/bdnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fsm9_003371. Verified 20 May 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2008b). Applying the Concept of Wilderness Character to National Forest Planning, Monitoring, and Management. Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-217. Available at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/662.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2008c). Keeping it Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System. Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-212. Available at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/654.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2009a). Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Corrected FEIS. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5052782.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2009b). Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Plan. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/bdnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5052938&wi dth=full. Verified 02 June 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2009c). Technical Guide for Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness Character. General Technical Report, WO-80. Available at: http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/678.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2010). Visitor Use Report. National Visitor Use Monitoring. Data collected FY 2010. Available at: http://apps.fs.fed.us/nrm/nvum/results/ReportCache/Rnd3_A01002_Master_Report.pdf. Verified 02 June 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2011-draft). Forest Service Manual: Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management Chapter 2320. Wilderness Management Guidelines for Determining the Need and Extent Necessary and Allocating Use for Commercial Services in Wilderness.

USDA Forest Service. (2012). Bridger-Teton National Forest. Outfitter-Guide Needs Assessment & Resource Guidance.

USDA Forest Service. (2013). Tonto National Forest. Issuance of Priority Outfitter-Guide Permits and Forest Plan Amendment to Adjust Outfitter-Guide Service Day Allocations. Available at: http://data.ecosystem-management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=36856. Verified 20 May 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2014a) Forest Service Outfitter-Guide Administration Guidebook, 2014 Revision. Available at: http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/recreation/rec_special_uses_web/outfitters_guides/index.shtml. Verified 02 June 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2014b) Recreation Special Uses Handbook FSH 2709.14_53.1f. Available at: https://fs.usda.gov/wps/myportal/fsintranet/!ut/p/c5/hY_bjoIwAES_yLQNpbaPNAUBb7CgIC8GE ZBAra5sUb5- 8QPcnXk8mUwOyMDUa66bOu8bdc07kIKMHDHfY4cFBtwih0KPUmIzn0PI5hM_fOSRafyz9kFWd- o0_SSiaJlQ60HY4vIYOeaulpbdnJOdMjjyomU8S_BLFdqUJROQUusiH7XH2ZmkJPBfqB6h6YR5u2jYU y9-okrcOQpRfF8fu5l3- _aHU6XCflw5dDknvNdoH686PBhfAXxS7R52BUje_n_7vDn8EAuCjatkCW4yHcu2sn4BmXh4ZQ!!/d l3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfNEJWNEY5UDMwTzFGODBJODg2RTlKQjAwOTU!/?subject=1 0015&topic=landing. Verified 06 June 2014.

USDA Forest Service. (2014c) Bitterroot National Forest. Outfitter-Guide Needs Assessment & Resource Capability Determination. In draft.

USDA Forest Service. Outfitter-Guide Management in Wilderness: The Wilderness Act and Forest Service Policy. Available at: http://www.wilderness.net/search.htm?cx=011237615088348999715%3A- yw_czh5kz4&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Outfitter-Guide+Management+in+Wilderness. Verified 04 April 2014.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Online publication. Available at: http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/NationalSurvey/2011_Survey.htm. Verified 04 April 2014.

Whittaker, D., B. Shelby, R. Manning, D. Cole, and G. Haas. (2010). Capacity Reconsidered: Finding

Consensus and Clarifying Differences. National Association of Recreation Resource Planners, Marienville, PA. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2010_whittaker_d001.pdf. Verified 04 April 2014.

Appendix A: Resource Capacity: Standards, Objectives and Recommendations by Forest Plan Landscape

Anaconda Pintler Wilderness

• High, rugged peaks, valleys, glacial moraines, and high-elevation lakes, this wilderness Character • Straddles the Continental Divide in the Anaconda Mountain Range • Habitat for grizzly, moose, elk, mule deer, mountain goat, wolf, and wolverine • Recreation opportunities include hiking, backpacking, climbing, kayaking, canoeing, rafting, horseback riding, bird watching, fishing and hunting

Anaconda Pintler Recommended Wilderness Additions: Wilderness characteristics and non-motorized recreation opportunities with high Forest Plan level of challenge and solitude. Scenic integrity of high importance. Semi-primitive non-motorized in summer and mix of motorized and Standards and non-motorized in winter. Objectives Anaconda Pintler Wilderness: Wilderness characteristics and provide primitive recreation with high levels of challenge and solitude. Opportunities for hunting, camping, and fishing at alpine lakes. Maintain scenic integrity. Prohibit motorized vehicles, bikes, and timber harvest.

Areas of heavy use • High use throughout • High use near lakes in general • Johnson Lake

Recommendation • No more new outfitted activities recommended by Forest Service personnel

Key References Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 2009 Forest Plan Wilderness.net Interviews: BDNF Forest Service Personnel

Lee Metcalf Wilderness

• Characterized by high rocky peaks and evidence of past glaciation • The Madison River, Bear Trap Canyon, Spanish Peaks, and 300 miles of trail are notable features of this area Character • Provides habitat for mountain goat and sheep, grizzly and black bear, moose, elk, cougar, wolf, cutthroat, rainbow, and brook trout • Opportunities for hiking, backpacking, climbing, kayaking, canoeing, rafting, horseback riding, and bird watching • Generally a day-use only area for recreationists

Lee Metcalf Wilderness Management Area: Primitive to semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting guided by Wilderness regulations. Includes parts of both the Gallatin and BDNF. Moderate summer recreation on the Sphinx Mountain, Beer Creek and Indian Forest Plan Creek trail systems. Trailheads and campgrounds utilized by fall hunters traveling by foot or on horseback. Light winter use due to limited Standards and access to snow. Important wildlife security including the Hilgard area in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. Resolve inconsistent access and Objectives management with state land in Bear Creek. Improve access to the Wilderness at Indian and South Indian Creeks. Evaluate additional access between Indian Creek and Papoose creek. See additional standards in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Plan. Lee Metcalf Recommended Wilderness Additions Management Area: Managed to protect wilderness characteristics and values and to provide non-motorized recreation activities with high levels of challenge and solitude. Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting. Contains isolated units available only through the Wilderness. See BDNF 2009 Forest Plan for details. Contains backcountry hunting camps. Elk calving habitat, elk winter range, and grizzly bear habitat. Mountain bikes not currently allowed Areas of heavy use Sphinx and Lava Lake exceeding draft standards set for number of parties encountered daily. Bear Trap Canyon.

Recommendation • There may be additional need for backcountry skiing guides (with no motorized component) in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness. However, administrative capacity to monitor these activities is very limited. • Opportunities for disadvantaged youth programs could be considered as well as other educational opportunities that are consistent with wilderness standards. Key References Beaverhead-Deerlodge 2009 Forest Plan Wilderness.net Interviews: Forest Service Personnel

Big Hole Landscape

• Access to Nez Perce National Historic Trail, Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, May Creek National Recreation Trail Character • Pintler Wilderness and access points • Big Hole River: class one trout stream and grayling habitat, sporting opportunities, and Butte municipal water supply • Continental Divide: dispersed camping and day use, summer horseback and hiking trips • Chief Joseph cross-country ski area: provides access to snowmobiling, backcountry skiing and cross country skiing • Big Hole Battlefield National Park • High elevation habitat for wildlife including goats, moose, and elk • Consistently high snowfall for winter recreation opportunities Anaconda Pintler Recommended Wilderness Additions: Wilderness characteristics and non-motorized recreation opportunities with high level of challenge and solitude. Scenic integrity of high importance. Semi-primitive non-motorized in summer and mix of motorized and Forest Plan non-motorized in winter. Standards and Anaconda Pintler Wilderness: Wilderness characteristics and provide primitive recreation with high levels of challenge and solitude. Objectives Opportunities for hunting, camping, and fishing at alpine lakes. Maintain scenic integrity. Prohibit motorized vehicles, bikes, and timber harvest. Anderson Mountain: Undeveloped roadless recreation setting. Secure habitat for wildlife. Provide semi-primitive recreation settings and a variety of non-motorized recreation opportunities. Fishtrap-Mount Haggin: Opportunities for developed, dispersed and wilderness recreation. Opportunities for hunting, camping, ATV riding, bicycling, horseback riding, and snowmobiling. Timber harvest, production and livestock grazing. Maintain Deep Creek watershed native fish population. Restoration likely in the roaded parts of Sullivan and Seymour Creek watersheds. Pintler Face Management Area: Summer non-motorized and motorized recreation opportunities. Access to developed campgrounds and Wilderness trailheads. Provide winter snowmobile opportunities. Manage timber harvest, livestock grazing and irrigation water storage at Mussigbrod Lake. Maintain and conserve native fish populations in the Plimpton watershed. Ruby Management Area: Manage for vehicle access, timber products, livestock grazing, and dispersed recreation. Access to historic gold- mining sites. Opportunities for dispersed camping, mountain biking, historic interpretation, and snowmobile. Motorized and non- motorized vehicle opportunities. Active restoration of Moosehorn Creek key watershed. Protect and interpret sites around the Pioneer town site. South Fleecer Area: Roaded and semi-primitive areas with natural scenery. Opportunities for camping, hunting, ATV riding, mountain biking and hiking. Winter use for snowmobiling and skiing. Opportunities for fall walk-in hunting. Important habitat for elk and native fish populations. Improve motorized trail opportunities in summer. Tie-Johnson Area: Access for hunting, firewood cutting, fishing, summer drives, and winter snowmobiling. Semi-primitive areas adjacent to the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness with emphasis on non-motorized recreation and ecosystem integrity. Backcountry opportunities in 84

Big Hole Landscape

roadless area of Elk Creek. Develop historic preservation plan for traditional cultural property. Trail Creek Area: Semi-primitive and roaded natural recreation opportunities. Maintain nationally designated historic and recreation features. Motorized and nonmotorized summer and fall hunting activities. Valuable winter sports areas at Lost Trail Pass and Chief Joseph Pass. Forest Service cabin rental opportunities at Hogan, May Creek, and Gordan Reese Cabins. High quality summer habitat for moose. West Big Hole Area: Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation activities including hiking, stock travel, mountain biking, snowmobiling and cross-country skiing. Historic mine sites present. Motorized route to Ajax Lake. Livestock grazing present. Maintain undisturbed summer and winter wildlife habitat along continental divide, and in higher elevations for wolverine and mountain goat security. West Big Hole Flats: Roaded and semi-primitive recreation areas. Lakeside camping opportunities. Motorized activities on roads and trails in summer and fall. Snowmobile, cross-country ski, and challenging winter ATV opportunities. Active restoration of Saginaw Creek watershed. Light livestock grazing. Areas of heavy use Ruby River, Big Hole River, Chief Joseph Ski Area, Maverick Mountain

Recommendation • There is a potential need for outfitted services for ATV/OHV activities, snowmobiling, and mountain biking in South Fleecer and West Big Hole areas. Key References • Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 2009 Forest Plan • Interviews: Forest Service Personnel

Boulder River Landscape

• Includes upper Boulder River watershed. • Favorable area for mineral deposits such as gold. Character • Contains a large number of patented claims within the exterior Forest boundary. • Roads are dense to accommodate timber harvest, mining, and access to private property. • Dispersed recreation with roads and trails to accommodate motorized vehicles. • Heavy recreation use in winter, summer, and fall hunting season. • Recommended wilderness area Electric Peak. Basin Cataract Management Area: Roaded natural recreation setting. Heavy recreation use during all season. Secure wildlife habitat for winter elk forage in South Fork of Basin Creek, Vacchio/Clay Creek and Three Brothers areas. Water quality likely to improve from mine Forest Plan reclamation. Convert Basin Creek Campground to a dispersed camp site. No net increase in open motorized road and trails. Standards and Boulder River-Sheepshead Management Area: Roaded and rural recreation settings. Scenic views of pastoral valley and hills. Remnants of Objectives historic mining. Snowmobiling, hunting, driving, and camping recreation opportunities. Winter motorized use constrained on big game winter. Livestock grazing and timber production. Manage, harden, and designate dispersed recreation sites on the Boulder River and Lowland Roads. Adjust number and location of developed recreation sites to meet demand from access points. Electric Peak Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. Opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, and riding horses in summer in a non-motorized setting. Minor livestock grazing. Travel closures for elk habitat in summer and fall and denning habitat for wolverine in winter. Restore closed motorized trails to a more natural condition. Snowmobiling confined to designated routes. Electric Peak Recommended Wilderness Management Area: Protect wilderness characteristics and non-motorized recreation with high level of challenge and solitude. Semi-primitive and natural recreation setting. One of the few unroaded, high quality areas for wildlife habitat in this landscape. Potential wolverine habitat. Semi-primitive and non-motorized allocations in summer and winter. Mountain bike travel prohibited. I-15 Corridor Management Area: Managed as a travel corridor and scenic backdrop for Interstate 15. Roaded and semi-primitive recreation setting. Yearlong and seasonal motorized closure areas are found on either side of the interstate to provide secure areas for elk. Reduce risk of wildlife near Basin through vegetation treatments. Kit Carson Management Area: Mostly roaded recreation setting. Timber harvest and mining. Hunting, ATVs, motorcycles, camping, and snowmobiling opportunities. Big game winter range in northeastern corner closed to motorized activity in winter. Some timber production and livestock grazing. Little Boulder Management Area: Non-motorized and backcountry recreation setting. Dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hiking, and group gatherings near Elder Creek Picnic Area. ATV riding and snowmobiling in areas open to motorized activities. Livestock grazing. Restoration activities in the North Fork and Lower Little Boulder restoration watersheds. Upper Little Boulder watershed managed for native fish populations. Expand summer non-motorized opportunities along the CDNST.

Boulder River Landscape

Little Boulder-Galena Gulch Management Area: Roaded natural and modified recreation setting. Mining and timber harvest activities. Hunting, ATV riding, and hunting opportunities. Motorized activities closed in winter for big game range in northern portion. Livestock grazing, winter forage for elk. Stream and mining reclamation possible. Restoration activities to take place in Little Boulder and Beaver Creek watersheds. Mormon Buffalo Management Area: South end contains road based recreation setting. Firewood cutting, driving, snowmobiling, and hiking opportunities. North end includes summer and winter motorized closures for elk security and semi-primitive recreation opportunities. Motor vehicle riders on roads and trails year-round. Current mining activity or reclamation. Areas of heavy None mentioned use

Recommendation No need for additional permits.

Key References Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 2009 Forest Plan

Clark Fork Flint Landscape

• Flint Creek and Anaconda Mountain Ranges dominate the landscape • Supports moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, elk herds, and some rare plants. Character • Contains tributaries to the Clark Fork Watershed which provide habitat for bull trout and westslope cutthroat. Management of watersheds for the protection of native fish populations. • Remnants of mining culture including the Anaconda Smelter Stack. • High-density recreation use areas in Georgetown Lake and Discovery Basin Ski Area including developed camping and summer homes. • Flint Range offering mix of motorized and non-motorized summer, hunting season and winter use. • Challenging backcountry uses in the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness. • Communities in Granite and Powell Counties rely on area forest products for nearly a third of their economic industry. East Deerlodge Management Area: Mostly roaded recreation setting. Dispersed and road-oriented recreation opportunities. Firewood cutting, weekend camping, fishing, and hunting opportunities. Orofino Campground and Picnic Area and Orofino Snowmobile shelter on the Forest Plan Deerlodge Snowmobile Trail System. Semi-primitive non-motorized area on the north for non-motorized opportunities. Historic mining Standards and remnants and current mining activity or reclamation. Timber harvest activity. Objectives Flint Foothills Management Area: Roaded recreation setting. Firewood gathering, fishing, weekend camping, and hunting opportunities. Semi-primitive non-motorized area between Long Park and Tin Cup Joe Creek offers hiking and wildlife viewing opportunities. Historic and current mining sites including patented inholdings throughout. Winter non-motorized closures on lower elevations to protect big game winter range. Reduce fire risk near private residences in the Boulder Creek drainage through vegetation treatments. Flint Uplands Management Area: Semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. High mountain lakes, scenic vistas, backcountry and trail opportunities. Unique geologic setting adjacent to Lost Creek State Park. Active watershed restoration of key watersheds. Motorized closure for mountain goats and forest carnivores. Classify some low standard roads as motorized trails. Maintain historic motorized access to irrigation lakes and dams. Georgetown Lake Management Area: Mix of rural and roaded natural recreation setting. Georgetown Lake, Echo Lake and Discovery Basin Ski area bring high concentration of recreation development: campgrounds, fishing and picnic areas, boat launches, interpretive sites, cross- country skiing and snowmobiling trails. Winter non-motorized allocations for quiet recreation opportunities. Unique rough fescue grassland protected at Windy Ridge Research Natural Area. Noxious weed control of high importance. Mature forest provides secure habitat for wildlife. Connect Georgetown and Red Lion snowmobile trail to create a loop. Offer hiking trail opportunities. Reduce fire risk near private lands and around developments. Manage nutrient input into Georgetown Lake. Harvey Creek Foothills Management Area: Most of area managed by Lolo National Forest. Roaded and semi-primitive recreation setting. Variety of motorized and non-motorized activities. High recreation use in fall during hunting season to harvest trophy big game. Harvey Creek and Eightmile Creek managed to conserve native fish populations. John Long Management Area: Managed for native fish conservation and low density backcountry recreation. Range of recreation settings

Clark Fork Flint Landscape

from roaded in the southeast corner to semi-primitive in the remainder of the area. Mostly motorized recreation opportunities. Much of backcountry is non-motorized due to lack of access. Secure wildlife habitat. Livestock grazing, firewood gathering and mining activities. Key fishers are Cottonwood and South Fork Willow. Warm Springs Management Area: Mostly roaded recreation setting. Pintler Scenic Route with important scenic opportunities. Motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. Higher elevations are semi-primitive and non-motorized. South facing slopes at lower elevations closed to winter motorized use for bighorn sheep winter range. Timber production and harvest, livestock grazing, road restoration, and noxious weed management. Identify road and trail systems needed on lands in watershed acquisition and add them to forest inventory. Schedule others for removal, decommissioning, or conversion to trails. Reduce noxious weeds for wildlife forage. Establish an access route and wilderness trailhead below Storm Lake. Areas of heavy use Georgetown Lake, Warm Springs, Storm Lake, Moose Lake Road, Altoona Lodge, Racetrack, Red Lion, Lost Creek Trail, the Flints

Recommendation • Potential need for permits for backcountry skiing/cross country in the Flint area. • Potential need for diversification in activities of existing hunting permitees. • No need for water based activity permits due to high use on these resources. Key References • Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 2009 Revised Forest Plan • Forest Service Interviews • Sporting goods and hospitality managers

Gravelly Landscape

• Includes Gravelly, Snowcrest, Greenhorn, and Centennial Mountains and the Ruby and Madison Rivers. • Unique geology from recent and ancient volcanic and seismic activity. Character • Productive soil supports extensive aspen stands. • Grasslands support nearly 50% of all the livestock on the Forest. • Water management critical for fish habitat and recreation and sporting opportunities on the rivers. • Within the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), providing semi-primitive backcountry experiences for a range of users. Snowmobile and other off- trail opportunities in West Yellowstone and Island Park areas. • Summer recreation activities include firewood gathering, horseback and ATV riding, fishing, boating, dispersed camping, hiking, viewing wildflowers and wildlife, and driving for pleasure. • One of the most heavily hunted areas in the state in the fall. • Important secure habitat for grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, bighorn sheep, and elk. Antelope Basin Management Area: Mix of roaded and semi-primitive recreation setting. Hunting, driving, camping, backcountry snowmobiling opportunities. Winter motorized closures for recreational opportunities and secure habitat areas. Limit snowmobiles to the road #056 corridor through Forest Plan Standards and the non-motorized area to provide access to open areas beyond. Objectives Centennial Foothills Management Area: Semi-primitive motorized and non-motorized recreation setting. High concentration of hunting around dispersed camping sites. Backcountry driving opportunities with views of natural scenery. Winter closure west of the road for wildlife habitat in the Snowcrest Range. Retain, but do not increase, opportunities for driving full-size vehicles on primitive roads with mitigating impacts to other resources. Centennial Recommended Wilderness Management Area: Managed to protect wilderness characteristics and provide non-motorized recreation opportunities with high levels of challenge and solitude. Semi-primitive recreation setting. Links to the Greater Yellowstone Area providing habitat for grizzlies, peregrine falcons, and wolverine. No mountain bike travel. Chain of Lakes Management Area: Mixed roaded and semi-primitive recreation setting. Madison River Recreation Area provides variety of heavily used camping and day-use facilities on the river. Developed sites at Cliff, Wade, and Elk lakes for boat launches, campgrounds, picnic areas, resorts, trailheads, and an interpretive trail. Hiking, fishing, skiing, ice fishing and snowmobiling opportunities. Habitat for grizzly, bald eagles, trumpeter swans, osprey, peregrine falcon, moose, elk, otters, grayling and boreal chorus frogs. Contains world renowned trout stream Madison River. Pursue conservation easements to protect the viewshed at Wade and Cliff Lakes. Retain semi-primitive character at Lost Mine Canyon between the north end Hidden and Cliff Lakes. Manage and control dispersed camping. Maintain groomed ski trail in Cliff and Wade Lakes vicinity. Restrict snowmobiling to designated ice fishing access routes. Enhance non-motorized winter recreation opportunities in the Madison River area. Provide ski trail system easily accessed from Highway 287. Increase the spring water flow in the Narrow Creek to improve grayling habitat. Greenhorn Mountains Management Area: Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting. Dispersed summer recreation and fall hunting opportunities. Winter motorized closures for elk, moose, deer, and bighorn sheep range. North Fork and South Fork Greenhorn watersheds are managed to conserve native fish populations. Maintain or enhance roadless characteristics and naturalness. Acquire motorized access to Powder Gulch and Ice Creek. Hellroaring Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. Wildlife viewing opportunities from the Gravelly range. Dispersed camping and scenic driving opportunities. Non-motorized backcountry recreation opportunities in summer. Winter motorized closures in the Blue Lake area for winter wildlife habitat and remote recreation opportunities. Maintain or enhance roadless characteristics and naturalness. Develop a historic preservation plan for Traditional Cultural Properties. 90

Gravelly Landscape

Idaho Creek Management Area: Mostly roaded recreation setting. Road-based motorized opportunities and dispersed non-motorized recreation opportunities. Most recreation takes place during hunting season. Winter motorized closure for big game winter range. Idaho Creek watershed managed to conserve native fish populations. Historic mining remnants and current mining activity or reclamation. Johnny Gulch Management Area: Mostly roaded recreation setting. Timber production, firewood cutting and mineral extraction. Motorized recreation opportunities in summer. Heaviest recreation use during hunting season. Snowmobile access in winter on top of Gravelly Range and Johnny Gulch road area, but the rest is closed for wintering elk and non-motorized recreation. Retain dispersed camping opportunities with motorized access. Retain opportunities for primitive full-size four wheel driving on low standard roads. Lobo Mesa Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. Year round recreation, heaviest use during hunting season. Miller Flat and Elk River provide access to motorized, non-motorized, and backcountry recreation opportunities, including snowmobiling in winter. Maintain or enhance roadless characteristics and naturalness. Mount Jefferson Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. Hiking, stock travel and mountain biking opportunities in summer. Snowmobiling and cross-country skiing in winter. Wildlife habitat along the divide linking the Great Yellowstone Area and Centennial Mountains. Ruby-Centennial Corridor Management Area: Roaded recreation setting. Current and historic ranching evidence. Ruby Centennial Road provides opportunities for scenic driving and dispersed camping in summer and fall hunting season. Important grayling and boreal toad habitat in the Ruby River. Manage, harden and designate new dispersed recreation sites along the Ruby Centennial Road. Manage side roads consistently with adjacent management areas. Ruby-Horse Creek Management: Semi-primitive, non-motorized recreation setting. Opportunities for scenic driving, horseback riding, hiking, or bicycling in summer and snowmobiling and skiing opportunities in winter. Secure wildlife habitat for elk as they move to the Wall Creek Game Range in winter. Livestock grazing limited in areas to protect wildlife habitat. Horse Creek managed to conserve native fish populations. Maintain or enhance roadless characteristics and naturalness. Develop an Historic Preservation Plan for Traditional Cultural Properties. Snowcrest Mountain Recommended Wilderness Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. High alpine mountains provide opportunity for scenery, wildlife viewing, and back country recreation like horseback riding and hiking. Road corridors lead to Antone and Notch cabins, designated campsites, and trailheads. Important traditional livestock grazing in lower elevations. Secure wildlife habitat in mountains next to Blacktail and Robb Ledford Game Ranges. Stabilize abandoned roads to prevent further erosion. Route to Antone Cabin open to motorized vehicles yearlong, dispersed camping allowed where marked. Route to Notch Saddle is open to vehicles in the summer, dispersed camping is allowed within 300 feet of the road. Traditional ranching uses will continue. Mountain bikes currently allowed. Timber Creek Management Area: Roaded recreation setting. Hunting, dispersed camping, road-based, firewood gathering, and non-motorized trail recreation opportunities. Winter non-motorized allocation for big game winter range habitat security. Upper Ruby Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. Backcountry diving experiences from Ruby River and Gravelly Range roads. Non- motorized trail system for horseback riding and packing opportunities. Opportunities for solitude and challenge except in fall when hunters concentrate dispersed camping sites. Soil management risks include shale susceptible to saturation, soil movement and high sediment yields. Burnt Creek managed for native westslope cutthroat and tiger salamanders. Retain opportunities for primitive full-size vehicle driving while mitigating impacts to other resources. Develop an Historic Preservation Plan for Traditional Cultural Properties. Wall Creek Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. Summer opportunities for solitude in backcountry areas of Wall Creek. High use during hunting season. Dispersed campsites along roads and backcountry trails. Closed in winter for winter game range. Wall Creek managed to conserve native fish populations. No net increase in motorized trail density. Dates or motorized prohibitions must be coordinated with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks to improve winter elk security. These dates will supercede forest-wide standards for non-motorized allocations.

Gravelly Landscape

West Fork Madison Management Area: Roaded recreation setting. Driving for pleasure, dispersed camping, firewood gathering and hunting popular. River corridor attracts fishermen and campers from early summer through hunting season. Groomed snowmobile trails and cross country skiing for winter recreation opportunities. Winter closures in Standard Creek and Gold Butte areas for wildlife movement and quiet recreation opportunities accessible from Highway 287. Freezeout Creek managed to restore watershed conditions. Soap Creek managed to conserve native fish populations. Retain a low level of development in dispersed sites along the West Fork Madison. Consolidate use, designate and harden sites to prevent resource damage. Develop cross-country skiing and snowshoeing opportunities with easy access from US 287. Retain current levels of development for snowmobiling. Snowmobile grooming with remain intermittent for more challenging experiences. Manage summer road closures for firewood gathering and post and pole harvest opportunities. No net increase in permanent open motorized density. Areas of heavy use The Ruby, Madison River, Snowcrest

Recommendation • Potential need for diversification in activities of existing hunting permitees. • Potential opportunity to expand guided winter activities in Lost Mine Canyon. Key References • Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 2009 Revised Forest Plan • Interviews: Forest Service

Jefferson River Landscape

• Includes the Highlands, Whitetail Pipestone and Bull Mountains. • Characterized by large granite boulders jutting above the ground known as the Boulder Batholith. Character • Drier than other parts of the forest because of the granitic composition of soils and its position in the rain shadow of the continental divide. • Elk, moose, and bighorn sheep graze on the uncommon species of Mountain mahogany. • Contains historic railroad structures, mills, adits, mills, mining evidence, and Native American sites. • Intercepted by Interstate 90 on Homestake Pass. • Motorized trail use near Butte in summer and winter, as well as scenic driving, picnicking, dispersed camping, and trail riding are popular. • Law enforcement challenges exist due to close proximity to urban areas. Bull Mountains Management Area: Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting. Limited public access due to mixed land ownership. Primary recreation use is during hunting season on limited motorized routes. Winter closures to protect elk habitat. Forest Plan Standards Coordinate management with owners of private lands inside Forest boundary. Improve rangeland conditions by reducing widespread and Objectives Douglas-fir colonization of grasslands. Burton Park Management Area: Range of roaded to semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting. Quiet recreation experiences in all seasons and motorized summer roaded opportunities. Winter closures to protect elk habitat and accessible winter recreation opportunities. Construct a trailhead at Burton Park at the terminus of Trail #106 and a trailhead day use area where the Continental Divide crosses Highlands Road. Acquire access to the north of Climax Gulch for non-motorized recreation. Hells Canyon Management Area: Mostly roaded recreation setting. Firewood cutting, camping, hunting, and recreational driving opportunities. Light winter recreation use with some cross-country skiing. Lack of precipitation often prevents snowmobiling opportunities. Contains important rainbow trout spawning stream for the Jefferson River. Some dispersed camping along forest roads. Hungbug Management Area: Roaded recreation setting. History of timber production and mining, with evidence of historic mining evidence. Driving for pleasure, hunting, and snowmobiling opportunities. Year-round bighorn sheep habitat. Segregate opportunities for full-size highway vehicles and ATVs. Pipestone Management Area: Roaded recreation setting. Heavily used for motorcycles, ATVs full size vehicles, mountain bikes, hikers and rock climbers in the Spire Rock area and adjacent trail system. Campground use near Delmoe Lake and near Highway 2. Water transmission line, natural gas, four electrical transmission lines, and a communication site are located in this area. Halfway Creek managed for native fish populations. Winter closures on north end to protect Bull Mountain game range. Quiet recreation opportunities on the south end. Management of noxious weeds a high priority. Accommodate recreational demand for a mostly motorized trails network in the area. Reduce risk of wildfire near private property. Develop information and interpretive signs at Homestake Pass to highlight recreation opportunities in the area. Table Mountain Recommended Wilderness Management Area: Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting. Unique opportunities for quiet and solitude with day hiking opportunities. Hunting predominate activity. Entry into portion of area prohibited 93

Jefferson River Landscape

for the protection of public health and safety. Develop an access point and trailhead on the eastern edge of the Forest Boundary. Mountain bikes not currently allowed. Whitetail Management Area: Semi-primitive, mostly unroaded recreation setting. The road developed for the Whitetail Water User’s Association is the only road to the reservoir open to the public. Motorized trails in a mostly undeveloped backcountry setting. Dispersed motorized and non-motorized recreation activities in summer, hunting in the fall, and light snowmobiling opportunities in the water. Winter closures for wildlife habitat. Whitetail Reservoir is a 1000 acre wetland system containing fisheries with native fish populations and elk calve in the meadows. Livestock use managed to protect soils and riparian vegetation. Improve stream bank vegetation conditions and reduce sediment sources on Halfway Creek and Whitetail Creek. Areas of heavy use Burton Park, Humbug, Pipestone, Whitetail, Spire Rock

Recommendation • Potential need for outfitted motorized activities due to high demand and problems with individual motorized users.

Key References • Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 2009 Revised Forest Plan • Forest Service Interviews

Lima-Tendoy Landscape

• Contains the tallest group of mountain peaks in Montana. • Characterized by the Tendoy and Beaverhead Mountains. Character • Provides habitat for birds, waterfowl, small mammals, and big game species such as elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats. • Recreation concentrated mostly during hunting season. Occasional dispersed camping and hiking in the summer months. • Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, and the only National Landmark on the Forest, Lemhi Pass National Historic Landmark are all located in this management area. Garfield Mountain Recommended Wilderness Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting with opportunities for high levels of challenge and solitude. Non-motorized summer use on roads and trails. Heaviest use during hunting season. Livestock grazing and high Forest Plan quality big game winter range. Mountain bikes not currently permitted. Standards and Horse Prairie North Management Area: Roaded and semi-primitive recreation setting. Sections of Lemhi Pass National Historic Objectives Landmark and three National Trail sections. Hunting, hiking, Lemhi Pass interpretation, mountain biking, and ATV riding popular in summer. Snowmobiling and cross country skiing opportunities in winter. Winter closures on the north end for winter wildlife habitat protection. Buffalo, Rox, Reservoir, and Painter creeks managed to conserve native fish populations. Expansion of the utility corridor or its uses in areas visible from Lemhi Pass National Historic Landmark not allowed. Horse Prairie South Management Area: Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting with some backcountry and roaded areas. Primitive access. Backcountry recreation such as hunting, traveling along the divide, hiking, mountain biking and ATV riding opportunities in summer. Snowmobiling and cross country skiing opportunities in winter, though skiing is uncommon. Bear Creek managed to conserve native fish populations. Italian Peak Recommended Wilderness Management Area: Managed to protect wilderness characteristics and provide non-motorized recreation opportunities with emphasis on challenge and solitude. Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting. Hunting, hiking, horse use, dispersed camping and fishing opportunities. Nicholia Creek managed to conserve native fish populations. Mountain bikes not currently allowed. Lima Peaks Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. Light motorized and non-motorized summer use on roads and trails. Heaviest use in fall during hunting season. Access to Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. Winter closures for big game habitat. Lower Nicholia Creek managed to conserve native fish populations. Improve access to Italian Peaks Recommended Wilderness by constructing a trailhead on the Nicholia Creek road. No net increase in roads. Existing roads to trailheads may be reconstructed. Medicine Lodge-Tendoy Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting with primitive roaded areas. Hunting most popular recreation activity. Timber harvest, livestock grazing, mining and oil and gas exploration present. Selway-Saginaw Management Area: Also included in the Big Hole landscape. Roaded and semi-primitive recreation setting. Reservoir Lake Campground provides boating, fishing and camping opportunities. Hunting, motorized and non-motorized travel on roads and trails, 95

Lima-Tendoy Landscape

and winter snowmobiling opportunities. Saginaw and Andrus Creeks managed for watershed conditions and native fish populations.

Areas of heavy use Saginaw, Morrison Lake, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trails, Elkhorn, Medicine Lodge

Recommendation • Potential need for diversification in activities of existing hunting/fishing permitees. • Potential need for guided mountain biking with monitoring to ensure protection of resources and visitor experiences, especially concerning the continental divide trail area. Key References • Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 2009 Forest Plan • Forest Service Interviews

Madison Landscape

• Contains the Madison Range, Bear Trap Canyon, Quake Lake, Sphinx and Helmet Mountains, and the Madison River. • Part of the Great Yellowstone Ecosystem. Character • Habitat for wolves, elk, grizzly bears, goats, bighorn sheep, wolverine, and mountain lions. • Characterized by the Lee Metcalf Wilderness, which is managed to retain natural ecosystems function and provide challenging, primitive recreation opportunities. • Hiking, climbing, horseback riding, fall hunting, cross-country skiing, mountaineering, snowmobiling and ice climbing opportunities. Lee Metcalf Wilderness Management Area: See Lee Metcalf Capacity Analysis Lee Metcalf Recommended Wilderness Additions Management Area: Managed to protect wilderness characteristics and values and to Forest Plan provide non-motorized recreation activities with high levels of challenge and solitude. Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting. Standards and Contains isolated units available only through the Wilderness. See BDNF 2009 Forest Plan for details. Contains backcountry hunting Objectives camps. Elk calving habitat, elk winter range, and grizzly bear habitat. Mountain bikes not currently allowed. Madison Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting providing a transition between Lee Metcalf Wilderness and adjacent developed land. Dispersed camping, hiking, and horseback riding at Bear Creek, occasional snowmobiles at McAtee, and few visitors in the Jack Creek parcels. Includes a transition between wilderness and high use areas of Moonlight Basin and Big Sky Resorts. Areas of heavy use Lee Metcalf Wilderness, Madison Range, Sphinx, Helmet, Madison River

Recommendation • No need for additional permits

Key References • Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 2009 Forest Plan • Interviews with Forest Service

Pioneer Landscape

• Contains Pioneer Mountains • Habitat for wildlife including lynx, wolverine, and big game Character • Big Hole and Beaverhead Class One Trout Streams • Challenges are managing critical fish habitat, recreation, and irrigation, while supplying municipal water for Dillon through Rattlesnake Creek and for Butte and Melrose through the Big Hole River. • Birch Creek Education Center, historic Civilian Conservation Corps Camp, the Canyon Creek Kilns, Elkhorn Mining District, Pioneer Mountain Scenic Byway, Crystal Park, West Pioneer Wilderness Study access, and the Torry Mountain Recommended Wilderness Area. • Winter destinations including Wise River National Recreation Trail, Maverick Mountain Ski Resort and Elkhorn Hot Springs for skiing, soaking, and snowmobiling Bryant Creek Management Area: Roaded and semi-primitive recreation setting. Motorized vehicles including snowmobiling, and mountain bike recreational travel. Some winter closures for elk in the summer and fall. Forest Plan Standards East Face Management Area: Semi-primitive and roaded recreation Dispersed motorized and non-motorized recreation including and Objectives motor vehicle users, mountain bikers, snowmobilers, and skiers. Provides University of Montana Western outdoor education classes. Winter motorized vehicle closures for big game winter range north of Canyon Creek and South of Rock Creek for big game winter range and quiet recreation opportunities. Small lake recreation activities. Cheery Creek managed for conservation of native fish populations. Develop or improve trailheads and access to motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities. Improve the quality of motorized trail opportunities. Pioneer Mountains Scenic Byway Management Area: Administered by Beaverhead County. Roaded natural recreation setting. Scenic driving, camping, natural and cultural history, crystal digging, and backcountry opportunities in summer. Fall hunting and winter snowmobiling and skiing. Developed to be consistent with the theme, “The West the way it used to be.” Erect barriers to control user built trails in Lacey Creek Campground and restore conditions. Prepare a management plan for Crystal Park. Quartz Hill Management Area: Roaded recreation setting. Remnants of old mining activity. Camping, hunting, archery, snowmobiling and motorized recreation opportunities. Torrey Mountain Recommended Wilderness Management Area: Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting, managed for high levels of challenge and solitude. Hiking, backpacking, horseback trips, backcountry skiing and snow shoeing opportunities. Contains trailheads on the Pioneer Mountain Scenic Byway. Restore closed motorized trails to more natural conditions. No mountain bikes currently allowed. West Face Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting except for past timber harvest evidence. Limited road access on north end. Access to the West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area. Hunting, camping, hiking, horseback trail trips, driving for pleasure and snowmobiling recreation opportunities. Motorized winter closures to protect big game winter range. Firewood gathering, post and pole 98

Pioneer Landscape

harvest, and cattle grazing important uses. Doolittle and Squaw Creek managed to conserve native fish populations. West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. Provides for dispersed recreation and other activities consistent with wilderness designation. Hunting, stock, OHV use on trails, and snowmobiling recreation opportunities. Doolittle and Squaw Creek managed to conserve native fish populations. Restore areas altered by discontinued uses to a more natural condition. Areas of heavy use East Pioneers, Pioneer Mountain Scenic Byway, Maverick Mountain, Birch Creek

Recommendation • Potential need for guided winter activities • Potential need for guided mountain biking in West Pioneers Key References • 2009 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Plan • Forest Service Interviews

Tobacco Root Landscape

• Contains Tobacco Root Mountains characterized by high peaks, snowy basins and alpine lakes. Complex geology dominated by granite and gneiss and favorable for metallic vein deposits. Character • Home to the largest number of mountain goats in any southwest Montana range. • Evidence of mining activities and other historic sites. • Southern half lies within the Great Yellowstone Ecosystem but outside the sphere of tourism or wildlife movement. • Firewood cutting, dispersed camping, various trail opportunities, motorized and non-motorized alpine lakerecreation, snowmobiling and cross-country ski opportunities. Brown Back Management Area: Semi-primitive and roaded recreation setting. Mostly hunting recreation takes place with some hiking and skiing. Non-motorized in winter for wildlife security and occasional non-motorized recreation use. Historic mining Forest Plan Standards evidence. Improve road access to the management area, and the quality of road and trails by designating routes and connecting and Objectives access points. Meadow Creek Management Area: Semi-primitive and roaded recreation setting. Dispersed camping, hiking, fishing, ATV travel, snowmobiling and skiing recreation opportunities. Heavy recreation use in all seasons. Evidence of historic mining throughout. Area north of Sureshot Lakes closed to motorized use in winter for wildlife security and skiing opportunities. Active watershed restoration within the South Willow Creek Watershed. Provide separate loop opportunities for motorized and non-motorized use. Reduce risk of fire near private lands in mixed ownership areas and subdivisions through vegetation treatments. Middle Mountain Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. Quiet non-motorized backcountry experience in summer and fall such as skiing and snowshoeing. Non-motorized in winter to provide for wildlife security and quiet winter recreation opportunities. Historic mining and mills throughout. Contains the occasionally active Nicholsen Mine. Some livestock grazing. Maintain or enhance roadless characteristics and naturalness. Mill Creek Corridor Management Area: Mostly roaded recreation setting. Developed recreation sites at Mill Creek, Balanced Rock, and Branham Lakes. Camping, hunting, snowmobiling, and skiing opportunities. Evidence of current and historic mining activities. Maintain the designated snowmobile route on Mill Creek Road. Ramshorn Management Area: Roaded recreation setting in lower elevations and semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting in the higher elevations along the crest of the Tobacco Root Mountains. Light recreation limited to firewood cutting, hunting, and recreational driving. Snowmobile closure to protect big game winter range in Horse Creek-Currant Creek foothills. California Creek is a fisheries key watershed. Retain and improve access to roadside dispersed camping sites. South Boulder Corridor Management Area: Mostly roaded recreation setting. Dispersed recreation opportunities including scenic driving, camping, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, and trail access. Designate dispersed sites and where necessary, harden and provide sanitation to minimize soil and water impacts. Reduce risk of wildfire near Mammoth through vegetation treatment. South Willow Corridor Management Area: Roaded and semi-primitive recreation settings. Concentrated areas of recreation 100

Tobacco Root Landscape

development offering camping, hiking, riding trail vehicles, snowmobiling and skiing opportunities. Active water restoration may take place in this portion of South Willow Creek. Develop access and parking to support winter recreation opportunities. Tobacco Root Peaks Management Area: Semi-primitive recreation setting. Motorized access to some mountain lakes and alpine areas, with others only accessible by foot, horse, or mountain bike. Motorized and non-motorized creation opportunities including hiking, skiing, and horseback riding. Closed to motor vehicles in selected high elevations for mountain goats and remote backcountry winter recreation opportunities. Watershed restoration activities may take place in South Willow Creek watershed with Indian Creek as fisheries key watershed. Retain opportunities for full-size four-wheel driving while mitigating impacts to soil and water. Wisconsin Creek Management Area: Semi-primitive and roaded recreation setting. Trail and road recreation use providing routes to high alpine lakes. Snow-free non-motorized winter and spring recreation opportunities. Area south of Wisconsin Creek closed in winter to motorized use for wildlife protection and non-motorized recreation opportunities. Indian Creek fisheries key watershed. Retain opportunities for full sized four-wheel drive vehicles while mitigating impacts to soil and water. Areas of heavy use Tobacco Roots, Potosi

Recommendation • No additional guided motorized activities

Key References • 2009 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Plan • Forest Service Interviews • Sporting goods interviews

Upper Clark Fork Landscape

101

• Located on the Pacific side of the Continental Divide • Home to mountain goats, elk, moose, and streams containing bull trout and westslope cutthroat. Character • Contains the Butte urban area and mixed land ownership along the forest fringe, creating management relating to patented mining claims and private home mixed with forest vegetation. • Remnants of mining culture dominate. Streams, soils, vegetation, and landform have been altered by mining. • Recreation use, such as day use gatherings, picnicking, and trail outings is high, despite this being the smallest landscape on the forest. Backyard Butte Management Area: The area is managed for concentrated recreation use and other resource uses. Rural, roaded, and semi-primitive recreation settings. Areas of mixed private land and forest lands. Combination of motorized and non-motorized recreation Forest Plan opportunities year-round. Mix of ownership leads to concerns about fuels buildup around homes and in municipal watershed. Winter non- Standards and motorized allocations provide wildlife security above the East Ridge. Wildlife security and quiet recreation opportunities south of Butte. Objectives Vegetation managed to provide wood products, reduce fuels, and provide forage for livestock and wildlife. Blacktail and Columbia Gulch key fisheries, managed for native fish populations. Develop a master plan for Thompson Park in cooperation with BSCCCG to ensure community needs are met in addition to federal regulations for NFS management. Reduce risk of wildfire to private property by managing vegetation and fuel loads in wildland urban interface. Basin Creek Management Area: Managed to protect water quality within a designated Class A watershed. Entry into this portion of the area is prohibited yearlong for health and safety. Mix of roaded and semi-primitive recreation settings. Recreation use is not encouraged. Exceptions are the Highland (Moose Creek) Road with traverses the east side, Trail #108 on the west side, and the CDNST along the upper boundary. Winter non-motorized allocations to provide wildlife security and protect water quality. Activities above the Basin Creek Dam are restricted to those which contribute to watershed protection. Butte North Management Area: Area managed for timber harvest, livestock grazing and dispersed recreation. Roaded recreation setting with a mix of modified and natural appearing scenery. Dispersed and motorized recreation opportunities including snowmobiling, ATVs, and fall hunting opportunities. Columbia Gulch is a fisheries key watershed managed for native fish populations. Segregate opportunities for full-size highway vehicles and ATVs. Convert some roads to trails. Reduce risk of wildfire to private property by managing vegetation and fuel loads in wildland urban interface. Areas of High use Fleecer, Hermit Gulch, Highlands

Recommendation • Potential need for guided historical/educational tours

Key References • 2009 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Plan • Forest Service Interviews

102

Upper Rock Creek Landscape

• Characterized by high rocky peaks on the south and more rounded and forested, steep mountain summits along the west edge. Character • Ponderosa pine, unique on this Forest, provide important habitat for flammulated owls. • Provides habitat for wide ranging wildlife species such as bighorn sheep, mountain goats, elk, and moose between the Sapphire Mountains to the south and Garnet Range to the north. Rock Creek supports strong populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat. • Rock Creek and all major tributary streams located in the landscape are important in the recovery plan for species listed under the Endangered Species Act, such as bull trout. • Rock Creek a national class one trout stream, and segments are managed as eligible for National Recreational River designation on both the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Lolo National Forests. • Shared jurisdiction with the Lolo National Forest. Upper forks draining into Rock Creek administered by the Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest. • Nearly one third of National Forest Systems lands in upper Rock Creek are part of the Anaconda-Pintler Wilderness or the Sapphire Wilderness Study Area. • Recreation and aesthetics regarded by many as the highest value of this landscape. Wide range of recreational pursuits including numerous developed and camping sites and trailheads. Quality fishing experience drawing anglers from around the world. Big game hunting, camping, hiking, horseback riding, pleasure driving, and snowmobiling also draw visitors.

• Middle Fork Management Area: Managed for fish conservation and recreation. Roaded to semi-primitive non-motorized in higher elevations against Wilderness and Wilderness Study area. Popular for fishing, hunting, motorized and non-motorized Forest Plan Standards recreation. Manage, harden and designate dispersed camping sites to concentrate campers and reduce impact to soils and and Objectives aquatic resources. Restore vigor in riparian willow communities. • Quigg Recommended Wilderness Management Area: Managed for wilderness characteristics and for recreation with high levels of challenge and solitude. Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting. Wildlife security a priority. • Ross Fork Management Area: Managed for fish conservation, dispersed recreation, and secure wildlife habitat in winter. Semi-primitive and roaded settings. Non-motorized trails connect to Wilderness Study Area. Popular for big game hunting and snowmobiling. Winter closure to protect winter game range. Key bull trout habitat. Maintain opportunities for primitive 4- wheel drive routes. Restore vigor in willow communities where willows are declining. • Sapphire Mountains Wilderness Study Area Management Area: Managed to protect wilderness character and for dispersed

103

Upper Rock Creek Landscape

recreation consistent with designation. Semi-primitive recreation setting. Summer non-motorized activities. Big game hunting and snowmobiling popular. Key habitat for bull trout. Develop an historic preservation plan for traditional cultural property to ensure protection and consistent management with the Bitterroot National Forest. See 2009 Forest Plan for standards in addition to Forestwide Standards. • Stony Management Area: Managed for native fish conservation, recreation, and secure winter wildlife habitat. Roaded to semi-primitive non-motorized. Rock Creek runs through this area. Historic mining, bighorn sheep viewing, campgrounds, and road-based recreation opportunities. Winter closures for game. Harden, close, or improve dispersed and developed recreation sites to reduce impact to soils and aquatic resources. Control weeds in bunchgrass communities to protect area value as forage for bighorn sheep and big game. • Stony Recommended Wilderness Area: Managed to protect wilderness character and yearlong recreation opportunities with high levels of challenge and solitude. Semi-primitive recreation setting. Hunting and horseback riding popular. • Upper Willow Management Area: Managed for dispersed recreation and other resource uses. Roaded and semi-primitive non- motorized recreation settings. Big game hunting and dispersed camping popular. • West Fork Rock Creek Management Area: Managed for fish conservation, dispersed recreation, and secure winter wildlife habitat. Roaded and semi-primitive non-motorized recreation setting. Snowmobiling and camping popular. Restore vigor in riparian willow communities where willows are declining. Areas of High Use • Frog Pond • Moose Lake • Skalkaho Highway • Rock Creek fishing

Recommendation • No motorized recreation in Recommended Wilderness Management Areas. • No additional guided fishing • Potential need for additional guided winter activities

Key References • 2009 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Plan • Forest Service Interviews • Area Hospitality Mangers Interviews

104

Appendix B: Forest Service Interview Results

In the spring of 2013, the Institute for Tourism of Recreation Research (ITRR) from the University of Montana conducted a series of interviews with all districts of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. Questions and findings from this study are summarized below:

1. What trends in outfitting activities have you noticed in the past 5 years? Do you anticipate the demand for outfitted activities to rise? Are there specific outfitted activities that will be in higher demand in the future? Findings: Decrease in hunting; decrease in traditional outfitted activities; increase in nontraditional activities; outfitters specializing in fall activities such as hunting want to diversify to more summer activities; decrease in institutional hiking groups; outfitters with the ability to rove to multiple base camps more successful; requests for wolf hunting/trapping guide permits; desire to commercialize recreation events with an outfitter; increase in auto tours; back country skiing, hut skiing, cross country skiing increasing; horseback riding increasing; illegal outfitting throughout the BD; increase in requests for game retrieval; increase in permit requests for institutional outfitted activities; requests in the Lee Metcalf for backcountry skiing, mountaineering, hut skiing, guided tours; increase in OHV/ATV guides; potential for mountain biking on the Butte/Jefferson; higher requests for recreation events than outfitted activities overall on Butte/Jefferson; traditional outfitted activities dominate on the Pintler; trends impacted by politics, economy, and lack of discretionary income; outfitters willing to try new things to maintain their lifestyle

2. What individual recreation activities (not outfitted) occur on your forest? What trends in individual activities do you see in the next 5 years? Findings: increase in archery hunting; decrease in rifle hunting; increase in biking because of Butte trail system; increase in family activities; increase in motorized activities on all districts; ecotourism increasing; ice climbing, rock climbing, parasailing, and wind surfing on the Bear Trap; ice climbing on the Sphinx; day hiking on the Sphinx and Helmet; increase in high-energy, high-octane sports that can be accomplished in one weekend; decline in day-use hunting; hunting with a camper instead of stock; day-use activities on the Lee Metcalf; elk hunting in the Madison and Gravelly Ranges; OHV/ATV and dirt biking on the Continental Divide Trail, Whitetail Pipestone; Thompson Park and Tobacco Roots areas; growing opportunities in heritage tourism; rock climbing in the Whitetail Pipestone area and Spire Rock; backcountry skiing on the Pintler

3. Do you know of any requests for outfitting permits that have been denied in the past 5 years? If so, what were they for and why were they not granted? Findings: denied requests for traditional hunting/fishing because outfitters don’t want to buy another permit or get a transfer; requests for rock-climbing, mountain biking, ecotourism activities because of lack of carrying capacity analysis; no new permits since 2008 because of administration requirements for capacity analysis; denies for traditional, day-use, roving 105

activities, biking, backcountry yurt, backcountry skiing; denied requests for snowmobile guides; denied requests for game retrieval; (DWW) new quests for hunting denied since 1986; no new permits authorized in the Lee Metcalf because of the language in the current plan; no additional motorized use in the east Gravellys because allocated days are full; denied requests for snowmobile requests; horseback riding denied in the last four years in the Gravellys and the west fork of the Madison because of lack of allocation days; (M) any requests denied on the Butte/Jefferson because of administrative requirements; OHV and backpacking in the Tobacco Roots denied; denied requests for skiing hiking, biking in the Flints; backpacking tips for youth camp throughout Pintler; ecotourism, camping, and photography on the Pintler; denied requests for guided skiing, snowboarding, hiking, running, mountain biking and camping in the Flints; denied requests for hiking, biking, backpacking, skiing, and horseback riding from existing outfitter; yurt backcountry skiing on the edge of the Pintlers; ATV tours, fishing, bird watching, wolf hunting

4. Do you notice any current or potential conflict among visitors in non-wilderness areas? Wilderness areas? Findings: Competition for hunting, fishing, and exploring on the Dillon district; conflicts between outfitters and public because public is disregarding rules/regulations, especially with food storage; No crowding issues for Dillon; Not a lot of conflict on Wisdom/Wise River; Lack of acceptance for changes in the forest plan on the Dillon District with its more traditional motorized areas; Outfitter/guides don’t always play well with each other; Conflict may be more perceived than actual; Visitor competition (real or imagined) with outfitters; Reports of conflict from the Snowcrest almost every year; Small points of conflicts in the Madison Range; Hunting conflicts with either wolves or disappointment with game populations; Long-time hunters in the Ruby do not like competition with outfitters; Potential for conflict in hunting season between the public and guided; Public demanding restrictions on outfitter/guides on the Big Hole and Beaverhead Rivers in 2012; Demand for quieter recreation opportunities on the Gallatin side of the Lee Metcalf which are being disturbed by peripheral motorized use; The most concentrated areas other than the Ruby (the focal point for so many years) are Pony in the Tobaccos and the east Fork of the Blacktail the Madison district west of Dillon; Tobacco Roots between Butte and the Gallatin getting busy with heavy mountain biking, dirt biking, and backpacking use; potential conflict between mountain bikers and other users on the Continental Divide Trail; Potential conflict with increase in recreation events; Conflict relates to day-use only; people don’t often spend multiple days on the Butte district; The Highlands is the biggest area of conflict on the Butte/Jefferson with full-size vehicles going off-road; abuse with disabled hunting on the north end of the Whitetail Pipestone reservoir; illegal outfitting in the Anaconda Pintler wilderness especially with fall hunting; conflicts between outfitter and non-outfitter on the Pintler; not a lot of conflict overall on the Pintler;

106

5. From your experience and observation, where are the highest areas of use in the district?

Findings: Best Springs and Kelly Reservoir; Anything with a water feature for both public and outfitted uses; Elkhorn for Dillon; Birch Creek Drainage; Use is going to increase overall because Ennis is being promoted as the recreational area for Bozeman, so we’re going to see all these things increasing;The Pioneer Scenic Byway; Chief Joseph ski trail and Maverick in the winter; Medicine Lodge especially during hunting season; The Ruby and the Potosi; Tobacco Roots in general get hit really hard with motorized activities; There are specific time periods where there is conflict; Tobacco Roots and potential for the Continental Divide Trail with mountain bikes; The Highlands biggest area of conflict on the Butte/Jefferson with full-size vehicles going off-road; the Anaconda Pintler wilderness; the North Flints with mostly non-outfitted activities during hunting season; the lakes in the Sapphires; Racetrack to Red Lion on the Pintler; Lost Creek Trail and Warm Springs especially during hunting season and summer with fishing, hiking, and ATV use; area around Altoona Lodge on the Pintler; Storm Lake and Frog Pond on the Pintler.

6. Do you notice any current or potential resource degradation in non-wilderness areas in the BDNF due to outfitted/guided activities? Wilderness areas?

Findings: Lakes are an attractant and are getting hit with greater impact; Potential degradation possible in the Anaconda Pintler wilderness near lakes despite restrictions already in place; Morrison Lake because of the general public and not necessarily the outfitters because of the scrutiny that’s put on their permits; A few spots have high-volume dispersed camping but they’re probably not desirable for outfitter use; Any motorized use because of the noise factor and the capacity to reach anything anywhere, specifically motorized activities in Mt. Jefferson in winter; Sphinx and Lava Lake in Lee Metcalf exceeding the draft standards set for the number of parties encountered every day; Some level of illegal outfitting going on within the motorized community in both summer and winter, especially because there aren’t any authorized winter motorized guided trips; Potential degradation because of motorized use and mountain biking on the Great Divide, Nez Perce, and Continental Divide Trails, largely because of availability of website information and ability for guided trips; Outfitter camps in wilderness areas in fall and summer; Whitetail Pipestone because of the nature of the location of those areas: near streams, go through wooded areas, and people try to make connections with places that they shouldn’t be; The biggest degradation on the Butte/Jefferson is from dispersed camping connected to the OHV and ATV use; the Flints experiencing motorized incursions; East Deerlodge has lots of motorized use; Storm Lake is a unique area with high amounts of impact; Johnson Lake in the Anaconda Pintler wilderness getting hammered with too many people

107

7. Do you feel that outfitters/guides help reduce or increase resource degradation in the area? How so? Findings: Outfitters are definitely taking care of the resource; Depends on how much time we spend with the outfitters: if we’re in a solid relationship with the outfitter everyone is more successful; outfitter base camps in worse shape than public camps but this could be because outfitter impact regulations are stricter than public impact regulations; Some do not comply with standards and others make improvements; hard to generalize; outfitter base camps as opposed to progressive trips help decrease impacts in wilderness; Outfitters don’t often communicate on the Butte/Jefferson; Outfitters are just part of the crowd on the Butte/Jefferson; Hard to monitor their activities because Butte/Jefferson outfitters are involved in lots of little, sporadic activities; certain outfitters report to the Pintler and volunteer with weed control; building relationships with outfitters and making time for them increases stewardship

8. Do you feel that the amount of administrative personnel is adequate to issue and manage permits in your district? Findings: No more capacity to accept an increase in outfitter guides; manipulating existing permits to different uses or seasons may be accommodated; do not have the infrastructure or monitoring abilities to increase permits; not enough personnel for outdoor monitoring in the Lee Metcalf wilderness; the outfitting industry provides a good service and keeps resource degradation down so we should consider accepting new activities; if the administration system is running the way it’s supposed to more permits should slide right in; 20 years ago we could not take on more outfitted services but today we have less so more wouldn’t make much difference; Permits not being administered the way they should be; too much to do to issue more permits; personnel willing but do not have the time to make contact with outfitters; skills that make outfitter administration easier are being lost over time; systems like FEMA and SUDs are not user friendly, the agency moves really slow when it comes to making changes; SUDs does not have a good training program, is time-consuming and not user-friendly; The budget makes it difficult to entertain more permits; NEPA administration and lack of personnel makes this difficult; Not enough personnel, time, or skills to monitor/administer even though the interest is there; Adding more year round positions could help increase permit management and the timeliness of our responses to outfitters

9. Are there any areas or activities in your region you find particularly dangerous to visitors that could benefit from a guide or outfitter? If yes, which activities? Findings: Everything could be seen as dangerous; anything mechanized/motorized; anything involving stock; downhill skiing when skiers go out of bounds; Rock and mountain climbing; Bow hunting in the south Gravellys where there’s a lot of the bear activity; Any winter sport of course you’re going to find things from having an avalanche-awareness guide when snowmobiling; OHV use in the Whitetail Pipestone area because it isn’t signed, attracts many people from out of the area, and is very technical in nature; Hazardous mine openings that have not been identified on

108

forest land or border forest land on the Pintler; Firewood cutting where people have dropped trees on themselves; Pintler not as dangerous as other areas with higher use and activities like rock or ice climbing

10. Do you feel visitors are achieving their desired experiences on the forest? Are there areas/activities where visitors are not satisfied? If so, what do you feel is the cause of this dissatisfaction? Findings: Rarely get any feedback from any outfitter clients, only in an extremely negative situation; More calls received because the outfitters aren’t playing well with each other rather than visitor dissatisfaction; Outfitter clientele experiencing greater satisfaction level because they get to do activities they normally couldn’t do because of lack of knowledge and skills; old timers remember a much different hunting experience than today, but newcomers aren’t dissatisfied by their experiences; People are dissatisfied by hunting experiences today because of low game populations; People have the perception they will find game to hunt but we can’t always provide those opportunities and perceptions are more problematic than reality; Complaints about captive elk herds on private lands and wolf activity, mostly on the Madison; Lower snow levels causing outfitters go out of business for fall/winter activities; Most people get their desired experience on the Madison; Some motorized users have a perception they are being locked out on the Madison; People get frustrated when they feel campground infrastructure is inadequate; Mountain bikers feel Butte/Jefferson area is bike friendly, technical, and challenging, especially over the Lolo forest; Rock climbers satisfied on the Butte/Jefferson; Butte/Jefferson urban-oriented so people wanting a backcountry experience recreate elsewhere; Complaints about trail maintenance on the Pintler could be improved with the presence of an outfitter; minor complaints from motorized users about restrictions due to changes in the Forest Plan on the Pintler; no complaints regarding outfitters

11. Do you have any concerns about the current state of the outfitter program in the Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest? Findings: The program is too rigid and it needs more flexibility; outfitters need greater opportunities and flexibility to be successful; Having a matrix will help us determine how to modify or receive a new permit; I would like flexibility to work with existing outfitters but also have the option to consider new ones; collaboration with other forests would improve the outfitter program; Concerned about illegal guiding going on now that need to get under permit, specifically we’ve seen shuttle services, mountain biking, back country skiing, jeep tours, sleigh rides, rock climbing and fishing happening illegally on DWW; Jeep tours operating illegally on DWW; Outfitters need to police themselves better; The economy is going to weed out outfitters that aren’t fully committed to the industry and don’t keep in contact with us; Montana Outfitters and Guides Association is organized, astute, and helps its members be successful; We need to pay more attention to our outfitters and update the program more frequently; More diversity in addition to traditional outfitted uses because of increasing demand for these activities in society overall; Lack of management, time, and budget to administer the program;

109

Regional regulations regarding the industry are unclear making it difficult to make decisions at smaller levels; The new policy makes administration much harder and takes away all flexibility; Not enough budget or time to market the forest’s opportunities and outfitters could assist with that; Opportunities for tourism and recreation only open to those willing to do the research and go out on their own because there is no budget or management capacity to assist with that; Budgets have to go to higher priorities--recreation has always been neglected even though it is the primary use on this forest

110

Appendix C: Proposal Does the proposed activity meet a Review Process public need? NO YES See 36 CFR 251.54 and FSH 2709.11, Chapter 10 Does the activity pass and Level 1 Level II Screening Criteria? YES NO

Does the proposed activity fit within the of the BDNF? NO niche YES

Does the proposed activity conform to the desired

NO character and setting of the landscape, including extent necessary in wilderness? YES

Is there adequate capacity for administration Reject of the proposed activity? NO Proposal YES

YES Are resource capacity issues, crowding, or conflict identified for that would be worsened by the proposed activity in the proposed location? NO (May have to be determined via NEPA)

Is supply high and/or NO demand for the Accept Proposal as

YES proposed activity low? Application

Line officer denies or Determine if approves the proposal Conduct necessary pools are with or without NEPA established with modification. If Assess Cost Recovery adequate days to approved, amend if an accommodate the proposed activity existing permit or issue a Determine competitive (May require new permit. interest via prospectus NEPA)

111

Appendix D: Forest Service Screening Criteria

Step 1 Meet with the proponent Step 2 Proposal submittal (written or oral) Step 3 Check proposal for required information (1) Proponent name/identity (2) Nature of proponent - individual, partnership, corporation (shareholder info), government agency (3) Technical & financial capability (4) Project description (5) Additional information Step 4 Proposal Triggers Pre-application consideration Step 5 Initial Screening (1) Use consistent with laws, regulations, orders, policies of NFS lands, other federal laws & applicable with State & local health & sanitation laws (2) Use consistent or can be made consistent with land & resource management plans (3) Use does not pose serious or substantial risk to public health or safety (4) Use does not create an exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy (5) Use does not unreasonably conflict or interfere with administrative use, other scheduled or existing authorized uses or adjacent non-NFS lands (6) Proponent does not have a delinquent debt owed to the Forest Service (7) Use does not involve gambling or provision of sexually oriented commercial services (8) Use does not involve military or paramilitary training/exercises by private organizations or individuals unless federally funded (9) Use does not involve disposal of solid waste, radioactive waste or other hazardous substances Step 6 Proposal does not meet criteria. Stop further consideration/processing. Advise proponent and return proposal. Proposal does meet criteria. Provide guidance and information , ask for additional information, if needed. Go to second-level screening Step 7 Second-level screening (1) Inconsistent or incompatible with purposes for which lands managed or with other uses (2) Use not in the public interest (3) Proponent not qualified (4) Proponent lacks technical or cannot demonstrate technical or economic feasibility or, financial or technical capability to comply with terms and conditions (5) No person or entity to sign and be willing to accept responsibility Step 8 Proposal fails to meet criteria. Advise proponent in writing, discontinue processing, return proposal. Proposal does meet criteria. Advise proponent and provide guidance on additional information needed. Agency is ready to accept proposal as a formal application.

112

Proposal does meet the criteria and agency is ready to accept proposal as a formal application Step 9 Application processing Cost recovery processing fee – determine & collect (36 CFR 251.58; FSH 2709.11, Ch. 20) Review application; evaluate environmental effects Step 10 Authorized officer makes decision Allow the proposed use, as submitted Allow the proposed use, with modifications Deny the proposed use

113

Appendix E: Outfitter Survey Instrument

This survey should take no more than 15 minutes to complete. It is voluntary and you may choose to stop the survey at any point. Your responses will be kept anonymous. This information will benefit the United States Forest Service, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in deciding the proper need for outfitters and guides on National Forest land.

Conditions and Stipulations

1. I understand that all the information I provide is anonymous. I will not be personally identified in any report. I agree to complete the questions for the purposes of research at the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research (ITRR) and the resulting data will be anonymous but will be made available to the general public in the form of a report. 2. I understand that the survey involves questions about recreation trends. 3. I understand that my participation is voluntary and I may decline to participate without any penalty. 4. I understand that I may contact ITRR with any questions I may have. 5. The research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context.

Thank you very much for your time and support. Please check the box below if you accept the conditions to continue.

o I accept the above conditions and will participate

1. Do you currently operate in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest? a. Yes b. No

2. Which region(s) to you operate in? a. Dillon Ranger District b. Wise River Ranger District c. Wisdom Ranger District d. Butte Ranger District e. Jefferson Ranger District f. Pintler Ranger District g. Madison Ranger District

114

3. What recreation activities do you currently provide for your clients? (Select all that apply.) • Alpine skiing • Hiking • Archery • Horseback riding • ATV tours • Hunting • Back country skiing • Ice climbing • Backpacking • Kite boarding • Biking • Llama trips • Bird watching • Mountaineering • Cattle drives • Photography • Cross-country skiing • Rock climbing • Dog sledding • Rock hounding • Education • Ski joring • Fishing (foot access) • Sleigh rides • Float fishing (day use) • Snowmobiling • Float fishing (overnight) • Snow shoeing • Fly fishing • Stand-up paddleboarding • Geocaching • Wildlife viewing • Gold/sapphire mining • Zip-lining • Hang gliding • Other

4. What individual outdoor recreation activities are popular in this area? (Select all that apply.) • Alpine skiing • Hiking • Archery • Horseback riding • ATV tours • Hunting • Back country skiing • Ice climbing • Backpacking • Kite boarding • Biking • Llama trips • Bird watching • Mountaineering • Cattle drives • Photography • Cross-country skiing • Rock climbing • Dog sledding • Rock hounding • Education • Ski joring • Fishing (foot access) • Sleigh rides • Float fishing (day use) • Snowmobiling • Float fishing (overnight) • Snow shoeing • Fly fishing • Stand-up paddleboarding • Geocaching • Wildlife viewing • Gold/sapphire mining • Zip-lining • Hang gliding • Other

5. What guided outdoor recreation activities are popular in the area? (Select all that apply.) • Alpine skiing • ATV tours • Archery • Back country skiing

115

• Backpacking • Hunting • Biking • Ice climbing • Bird watching • Kite boarding • Cattle drives • Llama trips • Cross-country skiing • Mountaineering • Dog sledding • Photography • Education • Rock climbing • Fishing (foot access) • Rock hounding • Float fishing (day use) • Ski joring • Float fishing (overnight) • Sleigh rides • Fly fishing • Snowmobiling • Geocaching • Snow shoeing • Gold/sapphire mining • Stand-up paddleboarding • Hang gliding • Wildlife viewing • Hiking • Zip-lining • Horseback riding • Other

6. Do you foresee any new types of outdoor recreation activities emerging in the next 5-10 years? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

7. Which activities do you emerging in the next 5-10 years? (Select all that apply.) • Geocaching • Ski joring • Hang gliding • Stand-up paddleboarding • Ice climbing • Zip-lining • Kite boarding • Other

8. From your perspective as an outfitter or guide, do you notice any conflict among visitors in the areas you operate in? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

9. Please be specific about any conflict you notice in the areas you operate in (amount, location, activities involved, etc.):

10. From your perspective as an outfitter or guide, do you believe there is an issue of crowding in the areas in which you operate? a. Yes c. Unsure b. No

116

11. Please be specific about issues of crowding in the areas you operate in (amount, location, time of year, activities involved, etc.):

12. From your experience as an outfitter or guide, do you notice any current or potential resource degradation in the areas you operate in? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

13. Please be specific about the resource degradation due to recreation/visitor use you notice in the areas you operate in (extent of degradation, resources affected, type of visitor, activities involved, etc.):

14. From your own personal experience or observation, do you notice any current or potential conflict among visitors, in areas other than those in which you operate? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

15. Please be specific about visitor conflict you notice in areas other than those you operate in (type of visitors, location, nature of conflict, activities involved, etc.):

16. From your own personal experience or observation, do you believe there are issues of crowding in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, in areas other than you operate? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

17. Please be specific about issues of crowding in areas other than those in which you operate (amount, location, time of year, activities involved, etc.):

18. From your personal experience or observation, do you notice any resource degradation due to recreation/visitor use in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National forest, other than areas in which you operate? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

117

19. Please be specific about the resource degradation due to recreation/visitor use you notice in areas other than those you operate in (extend of degradation, type of visitor, activities involved, etc.):

20. Do you have any comments or concerns about the guiding/outfitting industry in the Beaverhead- Deerlodge National Forest?

118

Appendix F: Sporting Goods Store Employee Survey Instrument

This survey should take no more than 15 minutes to complete. It is voluntary and you may choose to stop the survey at any point. Your responses will be kept anonymous. This information will benefit the United States Forest Service and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in assessing use and future need for outfitter-guide services on National Forest land.

Conditions and Stipulations

Thank you very much for your time and support. Please check the box below if you accept the conditions to continue.

o I accept the above conditions and will participate

1. What is the name of your business or the business you work for?

2. What does your business specialize in? a. All-inclusive/variety b. Archery c. Fishing d. Hunting e. Winter sports f. Other

3. What outdoor recreation activities are popular in your area? (Select all that apply.) • Alpine skiing • Cross-country skiing • Archery • Dog sledding • ATV tours • Education • Back country skiing • Fishing (foot access) • Backpacking • Float fishing (day use) • Biking • Float fishing (overnight) • Bird watching • Fly fishing • Cattle drives • Geocaching

119

• Gold/sapphire mining • Rock climbing • Hang gliding • Rock hounding • Hiking • Ski joring • Horseback riding • Sleigh rides • Hunting • Snowmobiling • Ice climbing • Snow shoeing • Kite boarding • Stand-up paddleboarding • Llama trips • Wildlife viewing • Mountaineering • Zip-lining • Photography • Other

4. With your knowledge of outdoor recreation, what activities do you anticipate the number of participants growing in the next five years? (Select all that apply.) • Don’t know • Hiking • Alpine skiing • Horseback riding • Archery • Hunting • ATV tours • Ice climbing • Back country skiing • Kite boarding • Backpacking • Llama trips • Biking • Mountaineering • Bird watching • Photography • Cattle drives • Rock climbing • Cross-country skiing • Rock hounding • Dog sledding • Ski joring • Education • Sleigh rides • Fishing (foot access) • Snowmobiling • Float fishing (day use) • Snow shoeing • Float fishing (overnight) • Stand-up paddleboarding • Fly fishing • Wildlife viewing • Geocaching • Zip-lining • Gold/sapphire mining • Other • Hang gliding

5. What activities do you anticipate decreasing over the next five years? • Don’t know • Dog sledding • Alpine skiing • Education • Archery • Fishing (foot access) • ATV tours • Float fishing (day use) • Back country skiing • Float fishing (overnight) • Backpacking • Fly fishing • Biking • Geocaching • Bird watching • Gold/sapphire mining • Cattle drives • Hang gliding • Cross-country skiing • Hiking 120

• Horseback riding • Ski joring • Hunting • Sleigh rides • Ice climbing • Snowmobiling • Kite boarding • Snow shoeing • Llama trips • Stand-up paddleboarding • Mountaineering • Wildlife viewing • Photography • Zip-lining • Rock climbing • Other • Rock hounding

6. Do you foresee any new types of outdoor recreation activities emerging in the next 5-10 years? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

7. Which activities do you foresee emerging in the next 5-10 years? a. Geocaching b. Hang gliding c. Ice climbing d. Kite boarding e. Ski joring f. Stand-up paddleboarding g. Zip-lining h. Other

8. Do you notice any trends in the number of guided recreationists vs. do-it-yourselfers? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

9. Please be specific about any trends you notice in the number of guided recreationists vs. do-it- yourselfers:

10. Do you believe there is there a need to provide additional outfitting/guiding assistance due to the need for specialized equipment? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

11. What activities do you feel could use a guide due to the need for specialized equipment? (Select all that apply.) • Alpine skiing • Back country skiing • Archery • Backpacking • ATV tours • Biking

121

• Bird watching • Kite boarding • Cattle drives • Llama trips • Cross-country skiing • Mountaineering • Dog sledding • Photography • Education • Rock climbing • Fishing (foot access) • Rock hounding • Float fishing (day use) • Ski joring • Float fishing (overnight) • Sleigh rides • Fly fishing • Snowmobiling • Geocaching • Snow shoeing • Gold/sapphire mining • Stand-up paddleboarding • Hang gliding • Wildlife viewing • Hiking • Zip-lining • Hunting • Other • Ice climbing

12. From your own personal experience or observation, do you notice any current or potential conflict among visitors in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

13. Please explain any visitor conflict you notice in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (type of visitor, nature of conflict, location, time of year, etc.):

14. From your own personal experience or observation, do you believe there is an issue of crowding in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest? a. Yes c. Unsure b. No 15. Please explain the issues of crowding you notice in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (extent of crowding, those involved, location, time of year, activities involved, etc.):

16. From your personal experience or observation, do you notice any current or potential resource impacts or degradation to natural resources due to recreation/visitor use in the Beaverhead- Deerlodge National forest? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

17. Please explain the resource impacts or degradation you notice in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (resources affected, location, extent of negative impacts, reasons for negative impacts, etc.)

18. Did you sell fishing licenses during the year 2012? a. Yes b. No 122

c. Unsure 19. What is the number of fishing licenses you sold during the 2012 year?

20. Did you sell hunting permits during the year 2012? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure

21. What is the number of hunting permits you sold during the 2012 year?

22. Do you have any comments or concerns regarding the outfitting/guiding industry in this area?

123

Appendix G: Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Ranger Districts Overlaid with Forest Plan Landscapes

124