LAND AND RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
In September 2003, the
One of the lessons learned from experience implementing the original Forest Plans is that plans need to be dynamic to account for changed resource conditions such as large scale wildfire or listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act, new information and science, and changed regulation and policies such as the roads analysis policy. To accomplish this, the 2003 Forest Plan has embraced the principles of adaptive management. Monitoring and evaluation are critical to these principles.
The goal of our monitoring program is to help us determine
what in the Plan is working well and what is not, and to help identify
if we need to change management direction or monitoring methods. Monitoring
and evaluation is intended to tell us how forest plan decisions have been implemented,
how effective the implementation has proven to be in accomplishing desired
outcomes, and how valid our assumptions were that led us to decide on the
management strategy detailed in the Forest plan. Monitoring and evaluation of key results over
time will help us determine if we are making satisfactory progress toward the
desired conditions identified in the Plan or if a “need for change” in the
existing strategy is required. As long
as the monitoring and evaluation results determine that the management strategy
outlined in the Forest plan is resulting in acceptable progress toward Forest
Plan desired conditions, then the conclusion would be that there is no need for
change in that strategy. However, if
monitoring and evaluation concluded that the Forest Plan strategy is not
effective in light of conditions and circumstances at the time of the
assessment, then the Forest Supervisor would make the determination as to what
the “needs for change” are and whether plan amendment or revision would be
needed.
This document reflects the first year of implementing the
revised Sawtooth National Forest Plan.
It reports
As previously stated, monitoring and evaluation provide knowledge and information to keep the Land and Resource Management Plan viable. Appropriate selection of indicators, and monitoring and evaluation of key results helps us determine if we are meeting the desired conditions identified in the Plan. Chapter IV of the Revised Forest Plan provides the list of activities, practices and/or effects to be monitored and the various indicators to be used as measures. While most of the monitoring elements require that some level of data be gathered each year, the majority of elements are designed to evaluate the effects of management over time. Therefore, results of monitoring efforts for most elements are reported after evaluation of data that has been gathered for multiple years.
Chapter IV, Table IV-1 of the Forest Plan identifies
elements related to National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and other pertinent
laws and regulations that are reported on either an annual basis or every 5
years. Elements that are not reported
each year are typically those that require the collection of information over
multiple years before a meaningful evaluation is possible. In this first year monitoring report under
the 2003 Forest Plan, only the 5 elements identified in Table IV-1 with a “yes”
in the “Annual Posting of Results” column will be discussed in Section III-A
below.
Table IV-2 of the Forest Plan identifies questions and indicators that will be monitored to determine the success of the Forest Plan management strategy in progressing toward desired conditions. Similar to Table IV-1, information pertaining to many of the indicators requires multiple years of collection before any meaningful evaluation of an element and its related question can be made. Therefore, only the four monitoring questions and their related indicators with “annually” in the “Report Period” column will be addressed in Section III-B below.
As described above, the monitoring elements from Table IV-2
were designed around monitoring questions that need to be answered about Forest
Plan implementation. For many of the elements, information used to answer the
questions is gathered through annual review of selected projects. In addition to the annual monitoring
requirements from Table IV-1 and Table IV-2, section III-C below includes a
description of project level monitoring that occurred in 2004.
Monitoring requirements identified in the
1. A quantitative
estimate of performance comparing outputs and services with those projected by
the
As defined in the Forest Plan, Objectives are “concise
time-specific statements of actions or results designed to help achieve goals”.
As such, objectives provide the best projection of outputs and services to be
provided through implementation of the Forest Plan. Forest Plan objectives are
found under the various Forest-wide Resources sections in Chapter III of the
Forest Plan. Following is a summary of
the
The objectives addressed below are organized by resource section as they are found in the Forest Plan. Those resource sections in the Plan that do not contain objectives that are reported on an annual basis or require an annual accomplishment will be noted below.
Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species
Objectives (FLRMP pages III-8 to III-11)
Objective TEOB22: Develop
operational resources (maps, keys, desk guides, etc.) within 1 year of signing
the ROD, to coordinate TEPC species concerns and practical mitigations, and
include those resource tools in the Fire Management Plan. Consult with NMFS and
USFWS on operational resources on an annual basis.
Accomplishment: Fire operational guidelines were developed in the
spring of 2004. Guidelines from the
Guidelines were developed further
through input from the Sawtooth National Forest Level 1 consultation team,
district biologists, supervisor office fire staff, and district fire management
officers. Final acceptance of the guidelines by the regulatory agencies (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service/NOAA Fisheries) occurred in May 2004.
The guidelines cover protective
measures for wildlife, botany, and aquatic resources. Specifically, there is
direction for (1) drafting and dipping of water from lakes and ponds; (2) foam
and retardant application near waterways; (3) fireline construction; (4)
activities in riparian conservation areas (RCAs); (5) noxious weeds; (6)
aquatic invasive species; and (7) nest and denning sites for wildlife. It was
agreed that guidance would apply across the entire forest. This is because it
would help to minimize effects to similar resource issues on all districts.
Guidance should be used once a Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA) has been
approved.
AIR
QUALITY AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT Objectives (
This
section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.
SOIL,
WATER, RIPARIAN AND AQUATIC RESOURCES Objectives (
Objective SWOB11: Coordinate
with state and local agencies and tribal governments annually to limit or reduce degrading effects from stocking
programs on native and desired non-native fish and aquatic species.
Accomplishment: The
Participation in the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council subbasin assessments in Boise-Payette-Weiser and
the
WILDLIFE RESOURCES Objectives (
This section contains no annual reporting
requirements.
VEGETATION RESOURCES Objectives (
This section contains no annual accomplishment
requirements.
BOTANICAL
RESOURCES Objectives (
Objective BTOB07: Maintain
annually a list of
Accomplishment: No
species were added to or deleted from the Forest Watch list.
NON-NATIVE PLANTS Objectives (
Objective NPOB03: Develop strategic noxious weed
management plans for Coordinated Weed Management Areas. Cooperate on a regular basis with federal
agencies, tribal governments, the State of Idaho, county weed organizations,
state and local highway departments, and private individuals in establishing
Coordinated Weed Management Area strategic priorities, and locating and
treating noxious weed species.
Accomplishment: The administrative boundary of the
FIRE MANAGEMENT Objectives (
Objective FMOB04: Schedule
and complete at least 40,000 acres of fuels management through prescribed fire
and mechanical treatments in the next decade to achieve desired vegetation
attributes and fuel reduction goals.
Focus on wildland/urban interface and areas in Fire Regimes 1, 2, and 3
(non-lethal, mixed1, mixed2) in Condition Classes 2 and 3 (moderate to extreme
hazard rating).
Accomplishment: In FY04,
the
TIMBERLAND RESOURCES Objectives (
Objective TROB01: Provide timber harvest, and related
reforestation and timber stand improvement activities, to contribute toward the
attainment of desired vegetation conditions.
Annually, during the next 10 to 15 years:
a) Harvest timber, other than by salvage, on an
average of approximately 2,000 acres,
b) Reforest an average of approximately 480
acres, and
c) Complete timber stand improvement activities on an average of
approximately 300 acres.
Accomplishment:
a) Harvested
timber, other than by salvage, on 26 acres;
b) Reforested
3 acres; and
c) No
timber stand improvement activities were completed.
Objective TROB02: Make available an estimated 60 million board
feet of timber for the decade, which will contribute to Allowable
Accomplishment: In 2004 the
Objective TROB03: Utilize wood products (e.g., fuelwood,
posts, poles, houselogs, etc.) generated from vegetation treatment activities,
on both suited and not suited timberlands, to produce an estimated 69 million
board feet of volume for the decade.
This volume, when combined with ASQ, is the Total
Accomplishment: In 2004 the
RANGELAND
RESOURCES Objectives (
This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.
MINERALS
AND GEOLOGY RESOURCES Objectives (
Objective MIOB02: Develop
and implement within one year standardized inspection, monitoring, and
reporting requirements for minerals activities to provide for environmentally
sound exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources.
Accomplishment: A standardized inspection
form developed for the Minidoka District was expanded to the Ketchum,
LANDS
AND SPECIAL USES Objectives (
This section contains no annual accomplishment
requirements.
FACILITIES
AND ROADS Objectives (
Objective FROB01: Analyze road system needs and associated
resource effects in accordance with the established agency policy direction for
roads analysis.
Accomplishment: Two Roads
Analysis Processes were completed during fiscal year 2004; one for the Oakley
Stone quarries on Minidoka District and one for the
Objective FROB05: Coordinate transportation systems, management, and decommissioning with
other federal, state and county agencies, tribal governments, permittees,
contractors, cost-share cooperators, and the public to develop a shared
transportation system serving the needs of all parties to the extent possible.
Accomplishment: Timber sale purchasers and other
commercial users of FS roads either participate in road maintenance based on
the amount of timber they haul or contribute money toward FS maintenance. Road maintenance coordination meetings were
held with
Objective FROB06: Identify roads and
facilities that are not needed for land and resource management, and evaluate
for disposal or decommissioning.
Accomplishment: No project
decisions were made under the current Forest Plan that identified the addition
or decommissioning of any roads.
Objective FROB11: In the Forest’s annual program of work,
prioritize and schedule improvements to existing culverts, bridges, and other
stream crossings to accommodate fish passage, 100-year flood flow, and bedload
and debris transport. Include
accomplishments in the biennial update of the Watershed and Aquatic Recovery
Strategy (WARS) database.
Accomplishment:
The
In FY 03 and FY 04, approximately
500 stream crossings were inventoried on the
The 2003 inventory found that about 65% of stream crossings do not meet the criteria to pass fish and are a barrier for at least one life stage. Most of the "red" crossings are associated with circular or squashed pipe-arch culverts and are a barrier due to the culvert slope. Only 11% of the evaluated culverts met the passage criteria and are not a barrier to fish for both juvenile and adult life stages. The remaining 24% of the evaluated culverts are undeterminable and candidates for further evaluation (e.g.; Fish Xing software).
No culvert or bridgework was
accomplished in 2004 to correct fish passage, flow or bedload problems. However, a decision on the Fairfield District was made to replace 3 existing
culverts carrying Soldier Creek with a bridge.
Although funding has been obligated in 2004, work will not actually be
completed until 2005.
One ford in Little Smokey Creek at
the FR 096 crossing (T2N, R15E, Sec 8, SW 1/4) and one ford in Basalt/Sawmill
Creeks (T2N, R14E, Sec 24, SW 1/4) of the S.F. Boise subbasin were
rehabilitated. At the Little Smokey crossing the ford was reconstructed in
conjunction with a realignment of the stream channel. A new stream channel was excavated downstream
of the ford to eliminate most of the existing road-stream overlap and the ford
was graded and hardened to minimize the potential for recapture of the creek.
The Basalt ford was eliminated, rehabilitated, and blocked. While the former
culvert crossing on Sawmill Creek was redesigned with a new, larger, engineered
ford. Both projects will reduce erosion and sedimentation during spring run-off
and facilitate fish passage. Additionally, work will be taking place this fall on
RECREATION
RESOURCES Objectives (
Objective REOB12: Annually
update recreation databases for developed sites, dispersed areas, and trails.
Accomplishment: Condition and deferred maintenance surveys were
conducted for selected developed recreation sites, recreation buildings, and
trails according to an established schedule.
The schedules for these inspections are based on inspecting
approximately 20% of each recreation element every year.
The INFRA developed site and
buildings databases are being updated with the results of the 2004 deferred
maintenance surveys, which includes repair and replacement needs for each
improvement for each site and building.
The INFRA trails module is new
this year. As a result, forest trail
managers were completing the initial data entry requirements. Complete trail data entry is not scheduled
for completion until
Objective REOB17: Initiate
a process of phased, site-specific travel management planning as soon as
practicable. Prioritize planning based
on areas where the most significant user conflicts and resource concerns are
occurring. Identify and address
inconsistent access management of roads, trails, and areas across
Accomplishment: The
Open houses were held in the communities of
Objective TROB01: Meet
annually with designated tribal representatives to coordinate tribal uses of
National Forest System lands as provided for through existing tribal rights
with the
Accomplishment: There are four federally recognized Native American
tribes who have expressed interest in management activities on the
·
Nez Perce Tribe
·
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
·
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
·
Northwest Band of he Shoshone Nation
Scoping documents for most
projects proposed in FY 2004 on the
In September 2004 the Sawtooth National
Forest Supervisor met with the Shoshone-Bannock Business Council in Fort Hall,
Idaho to discuss, in part, the need to establish a regular consultation process
protocol that would result in effective coordination of tribal uses on the Sawtooth
National Forest, as well as the identification and understand of tribal rights
and interests that may be affected by proposed activities on the
2. Documentation of costs associated with carrying out
the planned management prescriptions as compared with the costs estimated in
the
Summary of findings: As described in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan, the
final determining factor in carrying out the intent of the Forest Plan is the
adequacy of funding. Allocation of
dollars from Congress during the first planning period (1987-2003) was
consistently lower than Forest Plan projections for most program areas. Because of this, rate of implementation of
the 1987 Forest Plan was considerably lower than projected.
To predict a more realistic rate of implementation, the budget level used
to develop the revised Forest Plan for all programs except timber management
and hazardous fuels was based on average allocations from 2001 to 2003. Timber management and hazardous fuels
reduction were based on a 10% increase over average service level constraints
from the Forest Service Budget Formulation and Execution System. Actual allocations by fund code and program
emphasis will vary on an annual basis based on
|
Fund Code |
DESCRIPTION |
Predicted |
FY 2004 Actual
Allocation |
Percent Change |
|
BDBD |
BRUSH
DISPOSAL |
$ 42,740 |
$ 50, 163 |
+15% |
|
CNFC/ CMII |
FACILITY
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE |
$1,346,888 |
$1,109,271 |
-18% |
|
CMRD |
ROAD
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE |
$1,240,459 |
$1,148,016 |
-8% |
|
CMTL |
TRAIL
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE |
$ 529,880 |
$ 528, 020 |
-1% |
|
CWKV |
REFORESTATION |
$ 207,366 |
$ 250,130 |
+18% |
|
LALW |
LAND
ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT |
$ 240,082 |
$ 100,000 |
-59% |
|
NFIM |
INVENTORY
AND MONITORING |
$ 533,334 |
$ 656, 590 |
+19% |
|
NFLM |
LAND
OWNERSHIP MGMT |
$ 279, 799 |
$ 324,289 |
+14% |
|
NFMG |
MINERALS
& GEOLOGY MGMT |
$ 304,519 |
$ 304,426 |
0% |
|
NFPN |
LAND
MGMT PLANNING |
$ 598,470 |
$ 185,108 |
-70% |
|
NFRG |
GRAZING
MANAGEMENT |
$ 701,206 |
$1,139,154 |
+39% |
|
NFRW |
RECREATION/HERITAGE
RESOURCES/WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT |
$2,349,320 |
$2134,613 |
-10% |
|
NFTM |
TIMBER
MANAGEMENT |
$ 604,000 |
$ 283,808 |
-54% |
|
NFVW |
VEGETATION
MANAGEMENT ( |
$ 948,347 |
$ 855,387 |
-10% |
|
NFWF |
WILDLIFE/FISH/THREATENED
AND ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT MANAGEMENT |
$ 781,553 |
$ 781,035 |
0% |
|
RBRB |
RANGE
BETTERMENT |
$ 72,312 |
$ 65,574 |
-10% |
|
SSSS |
SALVAGE
|
$ 238,295 |
$ 311,195 |
+24% |
|
WFHF |
HAZARDOUS
FUELS |
$ 662,000 |
$1,016,172 |
+35% |
|
WFPR |
FIRE
PREPAREDNESS |
$3,671,354 |
$3,504,451 |
-5% |
Substantial differences in predicted allocations versus actual were seen
in Land Acquisition Management; Inventory and Monitoring and Land Management
Planning; Grazing Management; Timber Management and Salvage Sales; and
Hazardous Fuels. The
|
Type |
Common Name |
Habitat |
Management Concerns |
|
Bird Species |
Pileated
Woodpecker |
PVGs
2-9 |
Sufficient
large trees, snags, and down logs |
|
Sage
Grouse |
Sagebrush/grassland |
Habitat
reduction and alteration |
|
|
Fish Species |
Bull
Trout |
Perennial
streams |
Sediment
in spawning and rearing areas, water temperature, habitat connectivity |
Following is a summary of the
monitoring completed for each MIS on the
Bull Trout Monitoring:
An approach to monitoring bull trout as a management indicator species
was developed with the
For aquatic species, trend is
typically monitored using relative abundance estimates over time in a select
set of streams. However, the challenge with abundance data is that it is often influenced by sampling error and natural inter-annual
variation in abundance (Platts and Nelson 1988; Maxell 1999; Ham and
Pearsons 2000; Dunham et al. 2001).
Previous work on bull trout and other salmonids highlight several
limitations to monitoring abundance for detecting trends, including 1) low
statistical power (Maxell 1999; Hamm and Pearsons 2000), 2) errors in estimating
abundance (Dunham et al. 2001; Peterson et al. 2004), 3) high natural
variability in populations (Platts and Nelson 1988), 4) lack of a connection
between abundance and habitat (Fausch et al. 1988), and 5) the high cost of
estimating population abundance using rigorous methods, such as
mark-recapture.
Given these well-known
limitations, an alternative trend monitoring approach was needed. The alternate
approach selected for bull trout is monitoring the
spatial patterns of occurrence (distribution) through time. Monitoring distributions can be particularly
appropriate for bull trout because it has very specific habitat
requirements. Specifically, bull trout distribution is limited to cold water
(Dunham et al. 2003), and suitably cold habitats are often patchily distributed
throughout river networks (Poole et al. 2001).
Dunham and Rieman (1999) found that bull trout populations in the
Spatial patterns can also provide information on population persistence,
local extinction and recovery (recolonization). The stability and
persistence of metapopulations are related to the number, size, and relative
distribution of populations (Dunham and Rieman 1999). Bull trout populations in larger, less
isolated, and less disturbed habitats appear more likely to persist and these
habitats may prove critical as long-term refugia or cores for changing
environments and future recolonization of restored habitats (Rieman and
McIntyre, 1995). Large patches may
persist because the populations are larger and because they support more
diverse habitats for bull trout allowing some internal stability in the face of
variable environments (Rieman and McIntyre, 1995; Dunham et al. 2003; Miller et
al. 2003).
Based upon the above
approach the following metrics for determining trend will be used:
§
The proportion of
habitat patches that bull trout occupy within each subbasin across time.
§
The spatial pattern of
occupied bull trout patches within each subbasin across time.
§
In the future we will
explore indices of abundance and distribution within individual streams as a
metric useful for developing relationships with or exploring the linkages to
local management.
In 2004, the
Pileated Woodpecker Monitoring
The primary goal of
the Sawtooth National Forest Management Indicator Species/Landbird Monitoring
Program is to estimate the overall population trends on the
The
Sawtooth monitoring strategy for pileated woodpecker is modeled on standardized
bird monitoring methods (i.e. Northern Region Landbird Monitoring
Program) which is being applied on the National
Forests in
The
adopted monitoring strategy is a population-based approach to bird
monitoring that spreads survey locations randomly across the
Each year 350 points are monitored
across habitat suitable for these two species. Points typically fall wherever they may in
various cover types, landscapes, managed habitats, and heterogeneous mosaics. As
long as the points are sampled over a specified period of time, overall
population trends are relatively simple to calculate and are robust (Hutto and
Young 2002).
In addition to population information, habitat information (vegetation structure) is gathered at each individual point. Vegetation measurements are collected: within a 100-meters radius of the point, within a 30-meter radius of the point, and within a 15-meter radius of the point. This information is intended to characterize the site with vegetative structure and species composition.
2004 Monitoring Results
All transects (350 points) were surveyed in
2004. Pileated woodpeckers were detected
at 21 points. Data collected in 2004 will be assessed
against data collected in future years to establish trend relationships within
the planning unit.
Sage Grouse Monitoring.
As previously stated,
the primary goal of the Sawtooth National Forest Management Indicator
Species/Landbird Monitoring Program is to estimate the overall population
trends on the
The Sawtooth is
working on refining a protocol for monitoring sage grouse populations on the
To monitor sage grouse habitat
attributes, the SNF adopted the habitat classification and inventory protocol
for upland non-forest vegetation that is currently being used by Steven K. Rust
of the
Currently,
the only known occupied sage grouse habitat occurs on the Minidoka District with
30 known lek on the Cassia Division. Monitoring
efforts in 2004 were focused on the south end of the
2004 Monitoring Results : A
total of 10 leks were surveyed of which 4 were found to be active.
Summary of findings: The Watershed Aquatic Recovery Strategy
(WARS) is a process that identified restoration priorities (high, moderate, and
low) and restoration type (passive, active, and conservation) among the 650
subwatersheds across the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup. This strategy provides the
“blue print” for recovery and protection of aquatic (both physical and
biological) resources across the Ecogroup. Table 3 displays the aquatic
restoration that occurred in ACS priority subwatersheds on the
Table 3 Aquatic Restoration Activities in ACS Priority
Watersheds
|
ACS
Priority Subwatershed |
FW
or MA Objective addressed in FY2004 |
FY2004
Work Completed |
|
Warfield-West Fork Warm Springs (170402191001) |
SWOB 18 |
Rehabilitation of unmanaged recreation |
|
|
SWGO15
- Provide habitat to support populations of well-distributed native and
desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that
contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities. SWOB17
- During fine-scale analysis, identify opportunities to restore degraded
upland and aquatic habitat conditions in order to support productive and
diverse populations of native and desired non-native aquatic species to meet social needs and
tribal interests. Opportunities should focus on restoring passage for fish and other
aquatic species, and restoring desired ranges of water
temperature, large woody debris, streambank stability, sediment levels, water
chemistry, and pool size and numbers. Upper
Salmon MA Objective 0253 - Restore or maintain native vegetation that
provides naturally resilient and productive shoreline habitats, through
management of lakeside recreation use and developments, with emphasis at
Stanley, Redfish, Little Redfish, Perkins, Pettit, and Alturas Lakes. |
Lakeshore
restoration and fencing. Project was designed to limit recreational impacts
on lakeshore banks, soils, and riparian vegetation in the |
Summary of findings:
Both NOAA Fisheries and the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued
Biological Opinions in response to the Federal Action (i.e. proposed action or
management strategy) outlined in the 2003 Forest Plan. However, only NOAA Fisheries issued
reasonable and prudent measures and related terms and conditions with their Biological
Opinion.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
(RPMs) are non-discretionary measures to minimize take that may or may not
already be part of the description of the proposed action. They must be implemented as binding
conditions for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Forest Service has the continuing duty to
regulate the activities covered in this incidental take statement. If the Forest Service fails to carry out
required measures, fails to require applicants to adhere to the terms and conditions
of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to
the permit or grant document, or fails to retain the oversight to ensure
compliance with these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of section
7(o)(2) that will become effective at the project level may lapse. To be eligible for an exemption from the
prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, the Forest Service must comply with the
following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent
measures described above for each category of activity. These terms and conditions are
non-discretionary.
The terms and conditions related to two of the three RPMs in the NOAA
Fisheries Biological Opinion apply to the Sawtooth and require annual
reporting. They are identified below,
along with the 2004 accomplishments related to them.
RPM #1: Minimize the likelihood
of incidental take by clarifying local sideboards pertaining to:
d)
Fire
Management timelines for fire operational resource guidance
As described earlier under TEOB23, Fire
operational guidelines were developed in the spring of 2004. Guidelines from
the
RPM #2: Minimize the likelihood
of incidental take by maintaining the necessary linkages between the
a)
Provide an oversight and accountability body that
links to IIT by continuing to work with the IIT and provide exchange of
information regarding processes that are local in scope, but have broad-scale
implications, such as subbasin planning, watershed analysis and monitoring.
The Interagency Implementation Team (IIT) conducts
monitoring at the level of the Forest Service Forest Plan or BLM Resource
Management Plan for the salmon, steelhead, and bull trout listed in the
The 2003 Sawtooth National Forest Plan monitoring (Forest
Plan Chapter IV) was built with the current IIT monitoring being conducted
across the planning unit in mind.
However, because the IIT implementation monitoring process is
based on the specific direction found in PACFISH and INFISH, it cannot be tied
directly to the direction found in the Sawtooth National Forest Plan. However, it is clearly possible to use the
same or similar monitoring protocols to allow the Sawtooth National Forest Plan
implementation monitoring protocols to be aggregated to the basin level
with the rest of the implementation monitoring data conducted on other
administrative units. In calendar year
2005 the
IIT effectiveness monitoring is conducted annually
by a centralized unit across a sample of 6th field HUs within the
basin on a 5-year cycle. IIT
effectiveness monitoring involves collection and analysis of data on the
channel and stream processes to assess how baselines are changing, for the
better or worse. Data collection for
this effort is not dependent on specific direction, but is intended to answer
the question “Are key biological and physical components of aquatic and
riparian communities maintained, degraded, or restored in the range of
steelhead and bull trout? Essentially,
this monitoring is intended to provide an indicator as to whether management
strategies being implemented across the basin are resulting in the desired
maintenance or improvement of the key biological and physical components
considered. Data for the IIT
effectiveness monitoring is stored in a database at the Forest Service Fish
Ecology Unit,
As
In addition to work in the IIT process,
As described in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan, monitoring elements were designed around monitoring questions that need to be answered about Forest Plan implementation. These questions are key to determining if we are moving towards meeting the desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan. Following is a summary of the findings for those elements that we are required to monitor and evaluate on an annual basis:
§ Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Safety of administrative facilities
Monitoring Question: Are administrative sites safe and accessible for visitors and employees including drinking water sources?
Summary of findings: Sanitary surveys are required every 5 years at
a minimum to assess the overall operational quality, function and maintenance
of water systems. In accordance with the
schedule, sanitary surveys were conducted on the
Water systems are tested for bacteriological contamination
on a monthly basis when they are open.
Any systems that show bad results are re-tested according to FS
direction and either closed or posted as non-potable if re-testing indicates a
problem. The drinking water systems for all
In addition to surveys and testing, the
Construction is currently taking place to replace the water
systems for the Big Smoky Administrative Site and Shake Creek Administrative
Site.
Monitoring Question: Are developed recreation sites free of high-risk
conditions? Do water systems meet Federal, State, and local requirements?
Summary of findings: Generally, all
The drinking water systems for 86 recreational facilities
were open for use in 2004. Monthly
samples collected from these water systems during the months the systems were
open for use, determined that each of these systems were compliant with the
Safe Drinking Water Act standards. In
2004, all developed recreation water systems met all standards established
under this act and agency regulations.
Monitoring Question: Are historic properties being affected by project activities?
Summary of findings: Data from field review of historic properties is not currently available.
Monitoring Question: Have restoration and conservation activities been focused in priority watersheds identified by the WARS process?
Summary of findings: Many of the aquatic restoration projects implemented in FY 04 were planned under the 1987 forest plan prior to development of the WARS. Therefore, they were not planned with forest-wide, management area objectives or WARS in mind. Many have, however, addressed several of these objectives as indicated in the above table. It is hoped that as districts more fully understand the forest plan and the WARS strategy that more projects will be designed in ACS priority or high priority subwatersheds. Table 4 provides a list of projects completed in FY 04.
Table 4 Aquatic Restoration Projects
Relationship to WARS
|
Subwatershed
in which FY2004 restoration occurred |
FW
or MA Objective addressed |
Summary
of FY2004 work accomplished |
ACS
Prioriy-yes or no WARS
Restoration Strategy and Priority |
|
Warfield-West Fork Warm Springs (170402191001) |
SWOB 18 - Reduce road-related effects on soil productivity,
water quality, and aquatic/riparian species and their habitats. Refer to the Watershed and Aquatic Recovery
Strategy (WARS) for mid-scale prioritization indicators to assist in fine and
site/project scale restoration prioritization planning. |
Warm Springs Unmanaged Recreation Rehabilitation |
Yes - Active/Low |
|
Almo
Creek (170402100802) |
SWOB18 |
Ranger
Trail and Road Rehabilitation |
No
- Active/High |
|
Upper
Little Smoky |
SWOB17
- During fine-scale analysis, identify opportunities to restore degraded
upland and aquatic habitat conditions in order to support productive and
diverse populations of native and desired non-native aquatic species to meet social needs and
tribal interests. Opportunities should focus on restoring passage for fish and other
aquatic species, and restoring desired ranges of water
temperature, large woody debris, streambank stability, sediment levels, water
chemistry, and pool size and numbers. SWOB18
|
Ford
Restoration in Upper Little Smoky Creek. Project will reduce erosion and
sedimentation during spring run-off and facilitate fish passage. |
No
- Active/Moderate |
|
Joes-Little
Casino |
TEOB27 - During fine-scale analyses in areas where dispersed and developed recreation practices or facilities are identified as a potential concern or problem contributing to adverse affects to TEPC species or degradation of their habitats, evaluate and document where the problems are and prioritize opportunities to mitigate, through avoidance or minimization, adverse effects to TEPC species. REOB01
- During fine-scale analyses in areas where recreation facilities are
identified as a potential concern or problem contributing to degradation of
water quality, aquatic species or occupied sensitive or Watch plant habitat,
evaluate and document the location of the facilities causing degradation and
prioritize opportunities to mitigate effects. EFSR
White Clouds MA 0335 - Restore floodplain function and streamside habitats
along the Salmon River corridor by reducing or modifying developed or
dispersed recreation sites, and reducing highway alignment or maintenance
conditions that are detrimentally affecting the floodplain. |
Casino
Creek Campground Restoration was designed to reduce foot traffic and camp
sites along the |
No
-Active/Moderate |
|
Redfish-Little
Redfish Pettit
Lake Creek |
SWOB17
- (see description above) Upper
Salmon MA 0249 - Reduce lakeshore pressure at the morainal lakes,
particularly in areas of current or historic sockeye shoal spawning. Redfish-Little Redfish Upper
Salmon MA Objective 0253 - Restore or maintain native vegetation that
provides naturally resilient and productive shoreline habitats, through
management of lakeside recreation use and developments, with emphasis at
Stanley, Redfish, Little Redfish, Perkins, Pettit, and Alturas Lakes. |
Lakeshore
restoration and fencing. Project was designed to limit recreational impacts
on lakeshore banks, soils, and riparian vegetation in the |
Yes
- Active/High in Passive/High
in |
|
Stanley
Creek |
TEOB03
- Identify and reduce road-related effects on TEPC species and their habitats
using the Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy and other appropriate
methodologies. TEOB09
- As funding allows, implement restoration activities in accordance with the
current Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy or Forest Service-approved
portions of recovery plans to: (a)Restore listed fish species distribution,
(b) Restore desired habitat conditions, (c) Conserve genetic diversity, and (d)
Provide for genetic exchange. FROB04
- During fine-scale analyses, identify opportunities to reduce road-related
degrading effects to help achieve other resource objectives. FROB12
- During fine-scale analyses in areas where roads and facilities are
identified as a potential concern or problem contributing to degradation of
water quality, aquatic species or occupied sensitive or Watch plant habitat,
evaluate and document where the contributing facilities are and prioritize
opportunities to mitigate effects. |
Wetland
Restoration and Road Realignment in Stanley Creek. Project was designed to
reduce annual road damage from high flows; reduce sedimentation; and restore
1 acre of wetland/floodplain in Stanley Creek. |
No
-Active/Moderate |
|
Baker
Creek |
SWOB17
- (see description above) Big
Wood River MA 0440 - Restore watershed and floodplain function and reduce
accelerated sediment by modifying roads, trails, and developed or dispersed
recreation sites in the Big Wood River headwaters above Owl Creek, and in the
Silver Creek, Baker Creek, Warm Springs Creek, Prairie Creek, Boulder Creek,
North Fork Big Wood River, Deer Creek, Big Wood River, East Fork Big Wood
River, and Trail Creek drainages. |
|
No
-Active/Moderate |
|
Basalt
Creek |
SWOB17
- (see description above) SWOB18
- (see description above) |
Ford
Restoration in Basalt Creek. Project was designed to reduce erosion and
sedimentation during spring run-off and facilitate fish passage. |
No
-Active/Moderate |
Given that this is the first year of monitoring under the revised Plan, a monitoring protocol for annual project reviews was developed. This protocol was based upon addressing the following key questions, in addition to applicable Forest Plan monitoring questions from Table IV-2, during Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) field review of the selected projects:
Results of the annual project reviews will be compiled and evaluated and results reported by monitoring element in accordance with the reporting periods identified in Table IV-2. The following three projects were reviewed in 2004 using the monitoring protocol:
During the fall/winter of 2004/2005, evaluation of results of project monitoring reviews will be completed for these projects. Summaries of findings will be presented in the 2005 monitoring report.
Also, the Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation
report is intended to be a “living” document. As such, it will be updated
periodically through out the year to incorporate new information and findings.