Pacific

Southwest

Region

United States

Department of

Agriculture

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

Forest Service

Stanislaus

National Forest

March 1998
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Region

Stanislaus National Forest

Further Information: Stanislaus National Forest

Attn: Monitoring

19777 Greenley Road

Sonora, CA 95370

(209) 532-3671

Abstract

The 1997 Monitoring and Evaluation Report, prepared by an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) for the Forest

Supervisor, documents the results of monitoring and evaluation activities accomplished on the Stanislaus

National Forest from October 1, 1996 to September 30, 1997. The accomplishments shown are based on

projects and activities reported and performed to the levels specified in the Forest Plan. The Report

presents the IDT’s review of the monitoring results, along with their conclusions and recommendations

based on those results.

Stanislaus National Forest

1997 Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, California

March 1998

"The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service is a diverse organization committed to equal opportunity in employment

and program delivery. USDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, religion, sex, or disability, familial status, or

political affiliation. Persons believing they have been discriminated against should contact the Secretary, US Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC 20250, or call 202-720-7327 (voice), or 202-7201127 (TDD)."


Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

1

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

1. Introduction

The Regional Forester approved the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan (Forest Plan) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on October 28, 1991 (USDA 1991).

Chapter V of the Forest Plan includes a monitoring program. As stated in the Forest Plan (pg. V-1)

the purpose of monitoring is to:

1. Inform the decision maker of progress toward achieving Plan goals and objectives, and

applying standards and guidelines.

2. Determine the costs and effects of Plan implementation.

3. Identify when Plan amendments/revisions are needed.

In addition to monitoring, the Forest Plan requires evaluation of results. Evaluation is the analysis

and interpretation of monitoring data to determine whether changes in the Forest Plan, or in

project implementation are necessary. Monitoring and evaluation are critical elements ensuring

that the Forest Plan remains a dynamic and responsible tool for managing the Forest’s land and

resources in a changing social and economic climate.

This report, prepared by an Interdisciplinary Team (see List of Preparers) for the Forest

Supervisor, documents the results of monitoring and evaluation activities accomplished on the

Stanislaus National Forest during federal fiscal year 1997 (October 1, 1996 to September 30,

1997). The accomplishments and results shown in this report are based on projects and activities

reported and performed to the levels specified in the Forest Plan. Although more monitoring may

occur, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) did not show accomplishments for any items without

documentation or, conducted at less than Forest Plan levels. The IDT reviewed this information in

light of Forest Plan Chapter V requirements. Later, the IDT completed its evaluation in an

integrated fashion to develop the recommendations contained in this Report.

2. Monitoring Activities

The Forest Plan includes a total of 93 individual monitoring items in 22 broad categories ranging

from Air Quality to Forest Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). Table 1 (see Appendix) shows

monitoring and evaluation accomplishments as reported for fiscal year 1997. It lists the 22 Forest

Plan categories (Resource) and a short description of each monitoring objective (Objective). The

item number (Key), is used for tracking purposes. Monitoring activities or accomplishments are

shown by National Forest System Watershed (USDA 1991). Items shown as not applicable under

accomplishments in Table 1 do not occur or apply in that particular watershed.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

2

3. Evaluation of Monitoring

The IDT reviewed the results of monitoring and evaluation activities in an integrated fashion. In

order to draw conclusions and make recommendations, the team identified these questions.

n Does the Forest Plan work?

n What monitoring has been done and what does it mean?

n Does monitoring relate to Forest Plan goals?

n Do managers consider monitoring results when making decisions?

n Do we monitor the right things?

n What additional monitoring is needed?

n What have we learned from outside sources (SNEP, etc.)?

Table 2 (see Appendix) shows a summary of the results of monitoring accomplished during the

reporting period. Similar to Table 1, it lists the Resources and Objectives along with the IDT

evaluation of results and their conclusions and recommendations. The sections immediately

following present more detailed explanations. Items shown as not applicable under results in

Table 2 do not have standards or limits of variability established in the Forest Plan.

3.1 Results

The Forest Plan includes a total of 93 individual monitoring items in 22 broad categories ranging

from Air Quality to Forest Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs). Monitoring activity occurred on 29

of the 93 Forest Plan items and on 9 non-Forest Plan items. The IDT reviewed the information

pertaining to all 102 items, comparing conditions to monitoring limits of variability defined and

established in Forest Plan Chapter V.

This Section provides a summary of the results obtained from monitoring activities conducted on

the Stanislaus during fiscal year 1997. While conducting this portion of the evaluation, the IDT

also considered the monitoring results contained in the 1994-1996 Stanislaus National Forest

Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA 1997). Results show each item falling into one of the

following categories (see Appendix, Table 2 for notes and legend).

A. Conditions within limits of variability

B. Conditions not within limits of variability

C. Not enough information

D. Not Applicable (no standards)

E. None Conducted or Reported

A.Conditions Within Limits of Variability

The IDT determined conditions are within limits of variability on 7 items:

2-1 Cultural Resource cumulative effects 6-1 Forest Pests problems and damage

5-14 Peregrine Falcon nesting 9-2 Permitted and actual AUMs

5-15 Bald Eagle population 18-1 Water quality standards (BMPs)

5-19 Mule Deer population
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

3

B.Conditions not Within Limits of Variability

The IDT determined conditions are not within limits of variability on 8 items:

5-11 Flycatcher S&Gs for habitat 10-5 Effects of OHVs

9-3 Allotment management objectives 11-1 Riparian maintained/improved

9-4 Range administration and compliance 13-1 S&Gs for soil productivity

9-5 Range improvements 18-2 Watershed S&Gs

10-2 Condition of developed sites

The following information provides some details for each item listed above.

5-11 Willow Flycatcher S&Gs for Habitat

Grazing effects do not meet the limit of variability for this activity, in Ackerson Meadow, a

known repeated Willow Flycatcher nesting area.

9-3 Allotment Management Objectives

At times, some allotments were not in full compliance with their allotment management

objectives.

9-4 Range Administration and Compliance

At times, some allotments were not in total compliance with the terms of their permits.

9-5 Range Improvements

At times, some allotment improvements were not in compliance with their allotment plan,

annual instructions or permit.

10-2 Condition of Developed Sites

Due to budget limitations and a previously identified $12.5 million rehabilitation backlog,

achieving the limit of variability for this activity is not feasible.

10-5 Effects of OHVs

The limit of variability for this activity allows no unacceptable (un-defined) soil or resource

damage. Approximately 20 miles of OHV trails needing major reconstruction are

considered in “unacceptable” condition. These trails will be reconstructed or closed and

relocated due to poor location or high erosion hazard.

11-1 Riparian Maintained/Improved

Monitoring indicates most, but less than 90% of Streamside Management Zones (SMZs),

are being implemented correctly.

13-1 S&Gs for Soil Productivity

This item includes four soil quality standards: Soil Cover, Soil Porosity, Soil Organic

Matter, and Surface Organic Matter. Contour tilling for some site preparation projects are

not within the limit of variability for soil cover or soil organic matter. Some areas do not

meet the surface organic matter limits of variability, possibly due to older plantations,

such as Wrights Creek or Granite Burn, that did not require retention of large woody

debris.

18-2 Watershed S&Gs

Streambank stability, ground cover and vegetative structure monitoring indicate the SMZ

S&G is implemented at less than 90%.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

4

C.Not Enough Information

Although monitoring occurred at Forest Plan specified levels, the IDT could not determine whether

conditions are within, or not within limits of variability on 14 items:

1-3 Air pollution 5-12 Great Gray Owl population

5-1 Wildlife: vegetation diversity 5-22 Resident Trout population

5-2 Wildlife: special habitat 5-23 Lahontan Trout population

5-4 Wildlife: stream ecosystems 9-1 Range condition and trend

5-6 Spotted Owl population and habitat 10-4 Condition of dispersed camping

5-9 Goshawk population 12-1 Sensitive Plants selected populations

5-10 Flycatcher population 20-1 Wilderness management

D.Not Applicable

The IDT could not evaluate conditions because the Forest Plan does not include monitoring

standards or limits of variability on 10 items:

3-A Vegetation treatments 5-D Amphibians

4-A Fuel treatments 9-A Noxious Weeds

5-A Bald Eagle nesting 15-6 Reforestation

5-B Sierra Nevada Red Fox 15-A Herbicides

5-C Western Pond Turtle 19-A Wild and Scenic River values

E.None Conducted or Reported

The IDT could not evaluate conditions because monitoring did not occur; or, monitoring occurred

but was not reported on the remaining 63 Forest Plan monitoring items (see Appendix, Table 2,

result E).

3.2 Conclusions

This Section provides a summary of the IDT conclusions based on results obtained from

monitoring activities conducted on the Stanislaus during fiscal year 1997. While conducting this

portion of the evaluation, the IDT also considered the conclusions contained in the 1994-1996

Stanislaus National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA 1997).

While evaluating the overall Forest Plan monitoring program, the IDT found:

n Improved application of management prescriptions and conditions now within standards for

two items: Cultural Resource (2-1); and, Water Quality (18-1).

n The Forest completed the Motor Vehicle Travel Management Forest Plan Amendment.

n The Forest identified a proposed action and conducted preliminary public scoping for a Forest

Plan Amendment separating the 57 Forest Plan resource monitoring items from the 36

accomplishment and duplicate items.

n Additional monitoring and documentation occurred on 10 items previously identified for

increased monitoring and/or documentation.

n The 1998 Program of Work identifies monitoring as an emphasis item.

n Managers often consider monitoring information while developing and approving site specific

projects.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

5

n Forest Plan monitoring program requirements are not fully implemented for several reasons:

the program is too ambitious and based on a much larger overall Forest program than exists;

lack of funding and staffing; and, other priorities and emergencies.

While evaluating the specific results of each individual monitoring activity, the IDT developed

conclusions using the following broad categories:

1. No Action (continue current monitoring)

2. Improve Application of Management Prescriptions

3. Amend Forest Plan Management Prescriptions

4. Amend Forest Plan S&Gs

5. Amend Forest Plan Management Area Allocations

6. Amend Forest Plan Schedule of Outputs

7. Revise Forest Plan

8. Amend Forest Plan Monitoring Items

a. Accomplishments

b. Duplicate or Not Feasible

9. Amend Forest Plan Chapter V

10. Increase Monitoring and/or Documentation

A listing of the conclusions, by category, follows (see Appendix, Table 2 for notes and legend).

Several monitoring items appear in more than one category; therefore, no overall Forest totals or

percentages are shown.

1. No Action (continue current monitoring)

Forest Plan management direction and monitoring requirements are up-to-date and, where

applicable, conditions are within limits of variability for 5 items:

3-A Vegetation treatments 6-1 Forest Pest problems and damage

5-14 Peregrine Falcon nesting 15-A Herbicides

5-15 Bald Eagle population

2.Improve Application of Management Prescriptions

Conditions are not within limits of variability, however it is likely that conditions can meet limits of

variability with improved application of existing management direction, for 3 items:

11-1 Riparian maintained/improved 18-2 Watershed S&Gs

13-1 S&Gs for soil productivity

3. Amend Forest Plan Management Prescriptions

Monitoring results did not show any items where applicable Forest Plan management

prescriptions are out-of-date.

4. Amend Forest Plan S&Gs

Applicable Forest Plan S&Gs are out-of-date or do not provide specific management direction for

5 items:

3-1 Acres major vegetative type 5-19 Mule Deer population

3-2 Acres forest seral stage 20-1 Wilderness management

5-13 Great Gray Owl S&Gs for habitat
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

6

5. Amend Forest Plan Management Area Allocations

Applicable Forest Plan management area allocations are out-of-date for 1 item. Insect mortality is

causing major changes within established Bald Eagle territories. Possible resolution may include

boundary adjustments or relocations; however, detailed changes should occur only after

completion of the 5 year Forest Plan Review:

5-16 Bald Eagle recovery habitat

6. Amend Forest Plan Schedule of Outputs

Forest Plan projected outputs are out-of-date and do not accurately reflect recent, or expected

future accomplishments; however, detailed changes should occur only after completion of the 5

year Forest Plan review.

7. Revise Forest Plan

Some conditions are not within limits of variability and several Forest Plan Amendments are

needed. However, overall monitoring results indicate conditions are moving towards desired

conditions as stated in the Forest Plan (USDA 1991). In addition, the IDT did not identify any items

of sufficient magnitude to warrant Forest Plan revision.

8. Amend Forest Plan Monitoring Items

Some Forest Plan monitoring requirements are “accomplishments”; duplicates of other monitoring

items; already covered by project plans and reports; or, feasible only at a larger than Forest scale.

a. Accomplishments

Monitoring requirements reflect “accomplishments” rather than resource conditions for 21

Forest Plan monitoring items (see Appendix, Table 2 for individual conclusions and

recommendations). Existing “accomplishment” reports address these “accomplishments”

outside from the annual interdisciplinary monitoring and evaluation report. Information and

results would still be available to managers and the public through existing “accomplishment”

reports.

4-1 Fire acre control objectives 15-7 Burn area reforestation

8-1 Land adjustments 16-1 Roads closed to public vehicles

8-2 Landline location priorities 16-2 Average daily traffic

8-3 Right-of-way acquisition 16-3 Road construction

10-3 Actual use of developed sites 16-4 Trail construction

15-1 Allowable sale quantity 17-3 Visual resource improvements

15-2 Forest regulation 21-1 Cost of practices and activity

15-3 Reforestation and TSI needs 21-2 Values of goods and services

15-4 Harvest unit size 21-3 Return to counties

15-5 Timber suitability 21-4 Local and area employment

15-6 Reforestation
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

7

b. Duplicate or Not Feasible

Monitoring requirements are duplicates of other monitoring items; already covered by project

plans and reports; or, feasible only at a larger than Forest scale for 15 items (see Appendix,

Table 2 for individual conclusions and recommendations). These items can be removed from

the annual Forest Plan monitoring program. Information and results would still be available to

managers and the public through other Forest Plan monitoring items or through project

reports.

5-1 Wildlife: vegetation diversity 12-3 Sensitive Plants viable populations

5-7 Spotted Owl S&Gs for viable populations 13-2 Soil moisture conditions

7-1 Geology mitigation measures 13-3 Tree, grass and shrub growth

8-4 Land occupancy and use 13-4 Effects of OHVs

9-2 Permitted and actual AUMs 15-8 Yield table projections

9-3 Allotment management objectives 17-1 Visual Resource planned objectives

9-5 Range improvements 18-5 Water yield predictions

10-1 ROS Classes

9. Amend Forest Plan Chapter V

Forest Plan Chapter V does not consistently identify specific indicators of resource conditions that

are measurable or subject to change. Standards and limits of variability are not consistently

defined or even identified for several items. Some standards are not measurable, or not

achievable; however, detailed changes and full integration of new monitoring requirements should

occur only after completion of the 5 year Forest Plan Review. Monitoring requirements are out-ofdate, no longer feasible as written or, without specific indicators or measurable standards for 52

items:

1-1 Air quality related values 5-A Bald Eagle nesting

1-2 Smoke emissions 5-B Sierra Nevada Red Fox

1-3 Air pollution 5-C Western Pond Turtle

2-1 Cultural Resource cumulative effects 5-D Amphibians

3-1 Acres major vegetative type 9-4 Range administration and compliance

3-2 Acres forest seral stage 10-2 Condition of developed sites

4-A Fuel treatments 10-5 Effects of OHVs

5-2 Wildlife: special habitat 11-1 Riparian maintained/improved

5-3 Wildlife: riparian areas 12-1 Sensitive Plants selected populations

5-4 Wildlife: stream ecosystems 12-2 Sensitive Plants all populations

5-6 Spotted Owl population and habitat 13-1 S&Gs for soil productivity

5-9 Goshawk population 13-6 Soil moisture regime

5-10 Flycatcher population 13-7 Soil hydrologic function

5-11 Flycatcher S&Gs for habitat 13-8 Soil environmental health

5-12 Great Gray Owl population 14-1 Botanic SIA conditions

5-13 Great Gray Owl S&Gs for habitat 14-2 Cultural SIA conditions

5-17 Gray Squirrel population 14-3 Cave conditions

5-18 Woodpecker population 15-9 Timber stand improvements

5-20 Fisher population 17-2 Trends in Scenic Corridors

5-21 Marten population 18-1 Water quality standards (BMPs)

5-22 Resident Trout population 18-2 Watershed S&Gs

5-23 Lahontan Trout population 18-3 Water quality baseline

5-24 Riparian Bird habitat capability 18-4 Watershed condition

5-25 Conifer Bird habitat capability 19-A Wild and Scenic River values

5-26 Meadow Bird habitat capability 20-1 Wilderness management

5-27 Oak Bird habitat capability 22-1 Forest S&Gs reviews
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

8

10. Increase Monitoring and/or Documentation

Although the IDT could not determine conditions on 80 monitoring items (see results C and E), it

is unlikely that trends could be established for most, over the relatively short period since Forest

Plan approval, even with more information and unlimited monitoring budgets. The IDT expects

monitoring occurs on several items but is not consistently reported. The IDT found not enough

information or documentation exists and the information is needed to help answer questions for 20

items:

1-3 Air pollution 5-16 Bald Eagle recovery habitat

5-4 Wildlife: stream ecosystems 9-1 Range condition and trend

5-5 Spotted Owl S&Gs for habitat 9-4 Range administration and compliance

5-6 Spotted Owl population and habitat 10-4 Condition of dispersed camping

5-8 Goshawk S&Gs for habitat 12-1 Sensitive Plants selected populations

5-9 Goshawk population 13-5 Soil resource improvements

5-10 Flycatcher population 14-1 Botanic SIA conditions

5-11 Flycatcher S&Gs for habitat 14-2 Cultural SIA conditions

5-12 Great Gray Owl population 19-1 Wild and Scenic management

5-13 Great Gray Owl S&Gs for habitat 22-1 Forest S&Gs reviews

3.3 Recommendations

The IDT reviewed their conclusions, and the recommendations contained in the 1994-1996

Stanislaus National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA 1997), to develop the

following recommendations. These items are recommended to the Forest Supervisor for any

further action. Table 3 (see Appendix) lists the specific actions needed to implement these

recommendations.

Short-term

n Improve application of management prescriptions for 3 items: Riparian maintained/improved

(11-1); S&Gs for soil productivity (13-1); and, Watershed S&Gs (18-2).

n Complete Forest Plan Amendment for the Emigrant Wilderness.

n Focus monitoring program on resource conditions rather than accomplishments: complete a

Forest Plan Amendment separating the 57 Forest Plan resource monitoring items from the 36

accomplishment and duplicate items (see conclusions 8a and 8b).

n Complete the 5 year Forest Plan Review.

n Increase Monitoring and/or Documentation for 20 Forest Plan monitoring items (see

Conclusion 10).

n Develop the 1999 monitoring program, based on information contained in this Report,

incorporating into the Program of Work by assigning priorities and funding.

n Schedule and conduct Forest Leadership Team reviews, at least two per year, of Forest Plan

S&Gs implementation.

n Develop ways to increase and improve monitoring documentation and reporting.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

9

Long term

n Amend Forest Plan Diversity S&Gs (see Conclusion 4) and, amend Forest Plan Management

Area Allocations for Bald Eagle Recovery Habitat (see Conclusion 5) pending results obtained

from the 5 year Forest Plan review.

n Amend Forest Plan Chapter V (see Conclusion 9) pending results obtained from the 5 year

Forest Plan review.

n Prioritize monitoring activities and concentrate annual efforts to obtain results on a watershed

or bio-regional scale.

n Coordinate with other federal and state agencies on large scale monitoring.

4. Proposed Action Plan

The IDT proposed a schedule to implement their recommendations (see Appendix, Table 3). The

Proposed Action Plan identifies the additional monitoring needed (or no longer needed) and the

Forest Plan amendments proposed. Full implementation depends on adequate funding, Forest

Leadership approval, and completion of the 5 year Forest Plan Review. The National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and regulations apply to all proposed Forest Plan

Amendments.

5. Status of Previous Recommendations

While conducting this evaluation, the IDT considered the current status of the recommendations

contained in the 1994-1996 Stanislaus National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA

1997). That report identified the following short term recommendations addressed during the

period covered by this report.

n Previous Recommendation: Improve application of management prescriptions for 7 Forest

Plan monitoring items and 1 non-Forest Plan item.

Status: The IDT found improved application of management prescriptions and

conditions now within standards for two of those items: Cultural Resource (2-1); and,

Water Quality (18-1). The IDT brought this recommendation forward for three of the

remaining items: Riparian Areas (11-1); S&Gs for soil productivity (13-1); and,

Watershed S&Gs (18-2).

n Previous Recommendation: Complete Forest Plan Amendments for the Emigrant

Wilderness and Motor Vehicle Travel Management.

Status: The Forest completed the Motor Vehicle Travel Management Forest Plan

Amendment in February 1998 (USDA 1998). Completion of the Emigrant Wilderness

Forest Plan Amendment is expected in 1998. The IDT brought the recommendation

forward for the Emigrant.

n Previous Recommendation: Focus monitoring program on resource conditions rather than

accomplishments. Complete a minor Forest Plan Amendment separating the 57 Forest Plan

resource monitoring items from the 36 accomplishment and duplicate items.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

10

Status: The Forest identified a proposed action and conducted preliminary public

scoping in January 1998. Completion of this Forest Plan Amendment is expected by

October 1998. The IDT brought this recommendation forward.

n Previous Recommendation: Initiate the 5 year Forest Plan Review.

Status: No activity to date. Completion of this Forest Plan Review is expected by

October 1998. The IDT brought this recommendation forward.

n Previous Recommendation: Increase Monitoring and/or Documentation for 10 Forest Plan

monitoring items.

Status: Although additional monitoring and documentation occurred, the IDT determined

not enough information exists to determine conditions for all 10 items. The IDT brought

this recommendation forward along with 10 additional items.

n Previous Recommendation: Complete annual Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Report by

March 31.

Status: Completion of each annual M&E report is expected by March 31. The IDT did

not bring this recommendation forward.

n Previous Recommendation: Prepare a Forest Service Manual Supplement to establish

tracking and reporting protocols and establish formal role of Forest and District Monitoring

Coordinators.

Status: No activity to date. The IDT did not bring this recommendation forward.

n Previous Recommendation: Develop annual monitoring programs, based on information

contained in the previous M&E Report, incorporating into Program of Work by assigning

priorities and funding.

Status: The IDT found some consideration given to the previous M&E Report; and,

monitoring is identified as an emphasis item in the 1998 Program of Work. The IDT

brought this recommendation forward.

n Previous Recommendation: Schedule and conduct reviews of Forest Plan S&Gs

implementation.

Status: No activity to date. The IDT brought this recommendation forward.

n Previous Recommendation: Add Monitoring Performance Element to manager’s

performance evaluation. Consider monitoring part of the normal job and address monitoring

in project planning. Consider Monitoring not complete without adequate documentation and

reporting.

Status: No activity to date on adding performance elements; however, the IDT did not

bring this portion of the recommendation forward. The IDT found monitoring often

considered as part of the normal job and addressed in project planning and did not bring

this portion of the recommendation forward. The IDT expects additional monitoring

occurs without adequate documentation or reporting and brought this portion of the

recommendation forward.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

11

6. Recent Findings

Recent findings, with potential application on the Stanislaus, are shown below.

Clavey River Wild and Scenic River Value Review

The Clavey River Wild and Scenic River Value Review (Apperson 1997) is a collaborative

assessment of the affects of Stanislaus National Forest management on the 8 Outstandingly

Remarkable (OR) values of the Clavey River. The findings are intended as a resource to be used

by the Stanislaus National Forest when considering management within the Clavey watershed.

The findings also serve as the foundation for further collaborative approaches to management

within the watershed.

The review identifies the following priorities for the Forest Service.

1. Conduct a Clavey watershed analysis. Use the Clavey Review findings and

recommendations to help identify key issues and information needs.

2. A Bell Meadow Research Natural Area management plan should be completed and

implemented.

3. Address issues and concerns raised in this review in all planning documents for projects in the

Clavey watershed.

4. Consider amending Forest Plan Chapter V (Monitoring and Evaluation) to include specific key

indicators for outstandingly remarkable values.

5. Continue to use a collaborative approach to management within the Clavey watershed.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

12

7. List of Preparers

Mike Brown

Experience Forest Silviculturist Stanislaus National Forest 1986 to Present

Forest Logging Engineer Stanislaus National Forest 1983 to 1986

District Timber Management Stanislaus National Forest 1980 to 1983

Timber Sale Planner Willamette National Forest 1977 to 1980

Education Southern Illinois University B.S. 1969

Deb Colston

Experience Forest Writer-Editor Stanislaus National Forest 1990 to Present

Cultural Resource Specialist Stanislaus National Forest 1985 to 1989

Education CSU, Chico B.A., Anthropology 1971

Jim Frazier

Experience Forest Hydrologist Stanislaus National Forest 1986 to Present

Hydrologist Stanislaus National Forest 1974 to 1986

Education CSU, Humboldt M.S. 1973

CSU, Long Beach B.A. 1968

John Maschi

Experience Land Management Planner Stanislaus National Forest 1996 to Present

Assistant Recreation Officer Stanislaus National Forest 1991 to 1996

Landscape Architect Stanislaus National Forest 1980 to 1990

Education University of Illinois M.L.A. 1978

Rutgers University B.S., Landscape Architecture 1976

Aileen Palmer

Experience District Wildlife Biologist Stanislaus National Forest 1980 to Present

Forester Lassen National Forest 1978 to 1980

Education Colorado State University M.S. 1978

UC, Berkeley B.S. 1975

Katie Phillips

Experience Assistant Zone Ecologist Stanislaus National Forest 1996 to Present

RNA Ecologist Region 5 1993 to 1996

Education UC, Berkeley M.S., Range Management 1993

CSU, Humboldt B.S., Range Management 1976
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

13

8. Location of Supporting Documentation

Supporting documentation and summary information for this monitoring report is part of the

Planning Records on file at:

n Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor's Office

19777 Greenley Road

Sonora, CA 95370

(209) 532-3671

Project specific files are located at the appropriate Ranger District office:

n Calaveras Ranger District

Highway 4

P.O. Box 500

Hathaway Pines, CA 95232

(209) 795-1381

n Groveland Ranger District

24525 Old Highway 120

Groveland, CA 95321

(209) 962-7825

n Mi-Wok Ranger District

Highway 108

P.O. Box 100

Mi-Wuk Village, CA

(209) 586-3234

n Summit Ranger District

Highway 108

#1 Pinecrest Lake Road

Pinecrest, CA 95364

(209) 965-3434

9. Public Participation

This report is available by request. The Forest will inform the public of its availability by: news

release; notice in the Forest’s Environmental Analysis Quarterly; and, posting on the Forest’s

internet site (http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/stanislaus/mgmt/mereport). Comments received on this report

will be considered in preparing future reports. Please submit comments to:

Stanislaus National Forest

Attn.: Monitoring

19777 Greenley Road

Sonora, CA 95370

10. Appendix

References

Apperson S., et. al. 1997. Clavey River Wild and Scenic River Value Review. Sonora, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,

EIS, Forest Plan and Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region; San Francisco, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. 1994-1996 Stanislaus National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation

Report. Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Motor Vehicle Travel Management Forest Plan Amendment.

Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

14

Table 1: Monitoring and Evaluation Accomplishments; fiscal year 1997; Stanislaus National

Forest; page 1 of 3 (see legend at end of table).

FY 1997 Accomplishments

Resource Key Objective Location (Watershed Number)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1 Air Quality 1-1 Air quality related values

1-2 Smoke emissions

1-3 Air pollution

2 Cultural Resource 2-1 Cumulative effects; mitigation

3 Diversity 3-1 Acres major vegetative type*

3-2 Acres forest seral stage*

3-A Vegetation treatments

4 Fire and Fuels 4-1 Acre control objectives

4-A Fuel treatments

5 Fish and 5-1 Wildlife: vegetation diversity*

Wildlife 5-2 Wildlife: special habitat

5-3 Wildlife: riparian areas

5-4 Wildlife: stream ecosystems

Spotted Owl 5-5 S&Gs for habitat

5-6 Population and habitat trend

5-7 S&Gs for viable populations

Goshawk 5-8 S&Gs for habitat

5-9 Population trend

Flycatcher 5-10 Population status and trend

5-11 S&Gs for habitat

Great Gray Owl 5-12 Population status and trend

5-13 S&Gs for habitat

Peregrine Falcon 5-14 Nesting and reproductive

Bald Eagle 5-15 Population status and trend

5-16 Condition of recovery habitat

Gray Squirrel 5-17 Population status and trend

Woodpecker 5-18 Population status and trend

Mule Deer 5-19 Population status and trend

Fisher 5-20 Population status and trend

Marten 5-21 Population status and trend

Resident Trout 5-22 Population status and trend

Lahontan Trout 5-23 Population status and trend

Riparian Bird 5-24 Habitat capability trends

Conifer Bird 5-25 Habitat capability trends

Meadow Bird 5-26 Habitat capability trends

Oak Bird 5-27 Habitat capability trends

5-A Bald Eagle nesting

5-B Sierra Nevada Red Fox

5-C Western Pond Turtle

5-D Amphibians

6 Forest Pests 6-1 Problems and damage

7 Geology 7-1 Mitigation measures
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

15

Table 1: Monitoring and Evaluation Accomplishments; fiscal year 1997; Stanislaus National

Forest; page 2 of 3 (see legend at end of table).

FY 1997 Accomplishments

Resource Key Objective Location (Watershed Number)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

8 Lands 8-1 Land adjustments

8-2 Landline location priorities

8-3 Right-of-way acquisition

8-4 Land occupancy and use

9 Range 9-1 Range condition and trend*

9-2 Permitted and actual AUMs

9-3 Allotment management

9-4 Administration and compliance

9-5 Range improvements

9-A Noxious Weeds

10 Recreation 10-1 ROS Classes

10-2 Condition of developed sites

10-3 Actual use of developed sites

10-4 Condition of dispersed camping

10-5 Effects of OHVs

11 Riparian Areas 11-1 Riparian maintained/improved

12 Sensitive 12-1 Selected populations

Plants 12-2 Changes to all populations

12-3 Viable populations

13 Soils 13-1 S&Gs for soil productivity

13-2 Soil moisture conditions

13-3 Tree, grass and shrub growth

13-4 Effects of OHVs

13-5 Soil resource improvements

13-6 Soil moisture regime

13-7 Soil hydrologic function

13-8 Soil environmental health

14 Special Areas 14-1 Botanic SIA conditions*

14-2 Cultural SIA conditions

14-3 Cave conditions

15 Timber 15-1 Allowable sale quantity

15-2 Forest regulation

15-3 Reforestation and TSI needs

15-4 Harvest unit size

15-5 Timber suitability

15-6 Reforestation

15-7 Burn area reforestation

15-8 Yield table projections*

15-9 Timber stand improvements

15-A Herbicides
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

16

Table 1: Monitoring and Evaluation Accomplishments; fiscal year 1997; Stanislaus National

Forest; page 3 of 3 (see legend at end of table).

FY 1997 Accomplishments

Resource Key Objective Location (Watershed Number)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

16 Transportation 16-1 Roads closed to public vehicles

16-2 Average daily traffic

16-3 Road construction

16-4 Trail construction

17 Visual 17-1 Planned objectives

Resource 17-2 Trends in Scenic Corridors

17-3 Visual resource improvements

18 Water 18-1 Water quality standards (BMPs)

18-2 Watershed S&Gs

18-3 Water quality baseline

18-4 Watershed condition

18-5 Water yield predictions

19 Wild and 19-1 Wild and Scenic management *1

Scenic Rivers 19-A Wild and Scenic River values *1

20 Wilderness 20-1 Wilderness management

21 Economic 21-1 Cost of practices and activity

21-2 Values of goods and services

21-3 Return to counties

21-4 Local and area employment

22 Forest S&Gs 22-1 S&Gs reviews

Legend

Key Accomplishments Watersheds

19-1 Forest Plan Item Activities Occurred 1 North Fork Mokelumne

19 Resource Number 2 Middle Fork Mokelumne

1 Item Number None or Not Reported 3 South Fork Mokelumne

* 10 Year Report Item 4 Calaveras

19-A Non-Forest Plan Item Not Applicable 5 Stanislaus

19 Resource Number 6 North Fork Stanislaus

A Item Letter *1 The Sierra National 7 Middle Fork Stanislaus (low)

Forest manages the 8 Middle Fork Stanislaus (up)

AUMs Animal Unit Months Stanislaus portion of 9 South Fork Stanislaus

BMPs Best Management Practices the Merced Wild and 10 Toulumne

FY Fiscal Year (10-1 to 9/30) Scenic River 11 North Fork Tuolumne

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 12 Clavey

OHVs Off-Highway Vehicles 13 Cherry Creek

SIA Special Interest Area 14 Middle Fork Tuolumne

S&Gs Standards and Guidelines 15 South Fork Tuolumne

TSI Timber Stand Improvement 16 Merced

17 North Fork Merced
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

17

Table 2: Monitoring and Evaluation Results, Conclusions and Recommendations; fiscal year

1997; Stanislaus National Forest; page 1 of 3 (see legend at end of table).

Resource Key Objective Results Conclusions/Recommendations

A B C D E

1 Air Quality 1-1 Air quality related values 9 (not feasible as written)

1-2 Smoke emissions 9

1-3 Air pollution 9, 10

2 Cultural Resource 2-1 Cumulative effects; mitigation 9

3 Diversity 3-1 Acres major vegetative type* 4, 9 (10 year report item)

3-2 Acres forest seral stage* 4, 9 (10 year report item)

3-A Vegetation treatments 1 (report by project)

4 Fire and Fuels 4-1 Acre control objectives 8a

4-A Fuel treatments 9

5 Fish and 5-1 Wildlife: vegetation diversity* 8b (cover in 3-1), (10 year report item)

Wildlife 5-2 Wildlife: special habitat 9

5-3 Wildlife: riparian areas 9

5-4 Wildlife: stream ecosystems 9, 10

Spotted Owl 5-5 S&Gs for habitat 10

5-6 Population and habitat trend 9, 10

5-7 S&Gs for viable populations 8b (feasible only at larger than Forest scale)

Goshawk 5-8 S&Gs for habitat 10

5-9 Population trend 9, 10

Flycatcher 5-10 Population status and trend 9, 10

5-11 S&Gs for habitat 9, 10

Great Gray Owl 5-12 Population status and trend 9, 10

5-13 S&Gs for habitat 4 (review territories), 9, 10

Peregrine Falcon 5-14 Nesting and reproductive 1

Bald Eagle 5-15 Population status and trend 1

5-16 Condition of recovery habitat 5 (review territories), 10

Gray Squirrel 5-17 Population status and trend 9 (habitat focus)

Woodpecker 5-18 Population status and trend 9 (habitat focus)

Mule Deer 5-19 Population status and trend 4 (Forest Plan appeal resolution)

Fisher 5-20 Population status and trend 9 (habitat focus)

Marten 5-21 Population status and trend 9 (habitat focus)

Resident Trout 5-22 Population status and trend 9

Lahontan Trout 5-23 Population status and trend 9

Riparian Bird 5-24 Habitat capability trends 9

Conifer Bird 5-25 Habitat capability trends 9

Meadow Bird 5-26 Habitat capability trends 9

Oak Bird 5-27 Habitat capability trends 9

5-A Bald Eagle nesting 9

5-B Sierra Nevada Red Fox 9

5-C Western Pond Turtle 9

5-D Amphibians 9

6 Forest Pests 6-1 Problems and damage 1

7 Geology 7-1 Mitigation measures 8b (report by project)
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

18

Table 2: Monitoring and Evaluation Results, Conclusions and Recommendations; fiscal year

1997; Stanislaus National Forest; page 2 of 3 (see legend at end of table).

Resource Key Objective Results Conclusions/Recommendations

A B C D E

8 Lands 8-1 Land adjustments 8a

8-2 Landline location priorities 8a

8-3 Right-of-way acquisition 8a

8-4 Land occupancy and use 8b (report by project)

9 Range 9-1 Range condition and trend* 10 (10 year report item)

9-2 Permitted and actual AUMs 8b (cover in 9-4)

9-3 Allotment management 8b (cover in 9-4)

9-4 Administration and compliance 9, 10

9-5 Range improvements 8b (cover in 9-4)

9-A Noxious Weeds 9, 10

10 Recreation 10-1 ROS Classes 8b (report by project)

10-2 Condition of developed sites 9 (not feasible as written)

10-3 Actual use of developed sites 8a

10-4 Condition of dispersed camping 10

10-5 Effects of OHVs 9 (1998 Motor Vehicle Amendment supercedes)

11 Riparian Areas 11-1 Riparian maintained/improved 2, 9

12 Sensitive 12-1 Selected populations 9, 10

Plants 12-2 Changes to all populations 9

12-3 Viable populations 8b (feasible only at larger than Forest scale)

13 Soils 13-1 S&Gs for soil productivity 2, 9

13-2 Soil moisture conditions 8b (cover in 13-1)

13-3 Tree, grass and shrub growth 8b (cover in 13-1)

13-4 Effects of OHVs 8b (1998 Motor Vehicle Amendment supercedes)

13-5 Soil resource improvements 10

13-6 Soil moisture regime 9

13-7 Soil hydrologic function 9

13-8 Soil environmental health 9

14 Special Areas 14-1 Botanic SIA conditions* 9, 10 (10 year report item)

14-2 Cultural SIA conditions 9, 10

14-3 Cave conditions 9

15 Timber 15-1 Allowable sale quantity 8a

15-2 Forest regulation 8a

15-3 Reforestation and TSI needs 8a

15-4 Harvest unit size 8a

15-5 Timber suitability 8a

15-6 Reforestation 8a

15-7 Burn area reforestation 8a

15-8 Yield table projections* 8b (feasible only at larger than Forest scale)

15-9 Timber stand improvements 9

15-A Herbicides 1 (report by project)
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

19

Table 2: Monitoring and Evaluation Results, Conclusions and Recommendations; fiscal year

1997; Stanislaus National Forest; page 3 of 3 (see legend at end of table).

Resource Key Objective Results Conclusions/Recommendations

A B C D E

16 Transportation 16-1 Roads closed to public vehicles 8a

16-2 Average daily traffic 8a

16-3 Road construction 8a

16-4 Trail construction 8a

17 Visual 17-1 Planned objectives 8b (report by project)

Resource 17-2 Trends in Scenic Corridors 9

17-3 Visual resource improvements 8a

18 Water 18-1 Water quality standards (BMPs) 9

18-2 Watershed S&Gs 2, 9

18-3 Water quality baseline 9

18-4 Watershed condition 9

18-5 Water yield predictions 8b (not feasible as written)

19 Wild and 19-1 Wild and Scenic management 10

Scenic Rivers 19-A Wild and Scenic River values 9

20 Wilderness 20-1 Wilderness management 4, 9

21 Economic 21-1 Cost of practices and activity 8a

21-2 Values of goods and services 8a

21-3 Return to counties 8a

21-4 Local and area employment 8a

22 Forest S&Gs 22-1 S&Gs reviews 9, 10

Legend

Key Results

19-1 Forest Plan Item A Conditions within Limits of Variability

19 Resource Number B Conditions not within Limits of Variability

1 Item Number C Not enough Information

* 10 Year Report Item D Not Applicable (no standards)

19-A Non-Forest Plan Item E None Conducted or Reported

19 Resource Number

A Item Letter Conclusions/Recommendations

1 No Action (continue current monitoring)

AUMs Animal Unit Months 2 Improve Application of Management Prescriptions

BMPs Best Management Practices 3 Amend Forest Plan Management Prescriptions

FY Fiscal Year (10-1 to 9/30) 4 Amend Forest Plan S&Gs

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 5 Amend Forest Plan Management Area Allocations

OHVs Off-Highway Vehicles 6 Amend Forest Plan Schedule of Outputs

SIA Special Interest Area 7 Revise Forest Plan

S&Gs Standards and Guidelines 8 Amend Forest Plan Monitoring Items

TSI Timber Stand Improvement a. Accomplishment

b. Duplicate or Not Feasible

9 Amend Forest Plan Chapter V

10 Increase Monitoring and/or Documentation
Stanislaus

National Forest

1997

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

20

Table 3: Proposed Action Plan; Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) recommendations; Stanislaus

National Forest.

Action Who When

Improve application of prescriptions: District Rangers on-going

11-1 Riparian maintained/improved

13-1 S&Gs for soil productivity

18-2 Watershed S&Gs

Amend Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines:

3-1 Acres major vegetative type Resource Management Staff pending 5 year review

3-2 Acres forest seral stage Resource Management Staff pending 5 year review

5-13 Great Gray Owl S&Gs for habitat Resource Management Staff pending 5 year review

5-19 Mule Deer population status and trend Resource Management Staff pending 5 year review

20-1 Emigrant Wilderness Direction Summit District Ranger 9/30/98

Amend Forest Plan Management Area Allocation:

5-16 Bald Eagle designated recovery habitat Resource Management Staff pending 5 year review

Amend Forest Plan Monitoring Items Land Management Planning 9/30/98

Complete 5 year Forest Plan Review IDT and Forest Leadership Team 9/30/98

Amend Forest Plan Chapter V IDT and Forest Leadership Team pending 5 year review

Increase monitoring and/or documentation District Rangers on-going

1-3 Air pollution

5-4 Wildlife: stream ecosystems

5-5 Spotted Owl S&Gs for habitat

5-6 Spotted Owl Population and habitat trend

5-8 Goshawk S&Gs for habitat

5-9 Goshawk Population trend

5-10 Flycatcher Population status and trend

5-11 Flycatcher S&Gs for habitat

5-12 Great Gray Owl Population status and trend

5-13 Great Gray Owl S&Gs for habitat

5-16 Bald Eagle (wintering) recovery habitat

9-1 Range condition and trend

9-4 Range administration and compliance

10-4 Condition of dispersed camping

12-1 Sensitive plant selected populations

13-5 Soil resource improvements

14-1 Botanic SIA conditions

14-2 Cultural SIA conditions

19-1 Wild and Scenic management (Tuolumne)

22-1 S&Gs reviews

Incorporate monitoring into Program of Work Forest Leadership Team 10/1 annual

Conduct Forest Plan S&Gs reviews Forest Leadership Team at least 2 per year