Pacific

Southwest

Region

United States

Department of

Agriculture

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

Forest Service

Stanislaus

National Forest

March 1999
United States Forest Stanislaus National Forest

Department of Service 19777 Greenley Road

Agriculture Sonora, CA 95370-5909

(209) 532-3671

FAX: (209) 533-1890

TTY/TDD: (209) 533-0765

http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/stanislaus

File Code: 1900

 Date: March 31, 1999

Dear Friends:

I am pleased to announce completion of the Stanislaus National Forest 1998 Monitoring and

Evaluation Report. The Report documents the results of monitoring and evaluation activities

accomplished during federal fiscal year 1998 (October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998). It also

presents the Interdisciplinary Team’s (IDT) conclusions and recommendations based on those results.

The Report identifies several major 1998 accomplishments, related to the recommendations

contained in the Stanislaus National Forest 1997 Monitoring and Evaluation Report:

ß The Forest completed the Emigrant Wilderness Direction Forest Plan Amendment.

ß Additional monitoring and documentation occurred on 6 items previously identified for

increased monitoring and/or documentation.

ß The Forest Leadership Team conducted two Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines

(S&Gs) Reviews.

ß The 1999 Program of Work identifies monitoring as an emphasis item.

I support the IDT findings. Full implementation of their recommendations depends on adequate

funding. Accordingly, the Forest will:

1. Improve application of management prescriptions for 3 items: Sensitive Plants selected

populations; S&Gs for soil productivity; and, Watershed S&Gs.

2. Complete Forest Plan Amendments for the Carson-Iceberg and Mokelumne

Wildernesses.

3. Focus monitoring program on resource conditions rather than accomplishments.

4. Increase Monitoring and/or Documentation, to the levels specified in the Forest Plan, for

17 Forest Plan monitoring items.
page 2

The 1998 Monitoring and Evaluation Report is available by request. Call, write, or stop by the Forest

Supervisor's Office for copies. You may submit requests by e-mail

(webmaster/r5_stanislaus@fs.fed.us). You may also view the Report on the Forest’s website

(http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/stanislaus/mgmt/mereport).

Comments received on this report will be considered in preparing future reports. Please submit

comments, or any written requests for the documents to:

Stanislaus National Forest

Attn.: Monitoring

19777 Greenley Road

Sonora, CA 95370

Sincerely,

BEN L. DEL VILLAR

Forest Supervisor
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 1998 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, 1997 to September 30, 1998. 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

1998 Monitoring and Evaluation Report

Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, California

March 1999

"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

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

1

1998

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 1998 (October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998). The

accomplishments 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 (as amended) now includes a total of 99 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 1998. 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

1998

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?

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

Monitoring activity occurred on 30 of the 99 Forest Plan items and on 5 non-Forest Plan items. The

IDT reviewed the information pertaining to all 104 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 1998. While conducting this portion of the evaluation, the IDT also

considered the monitoring results contained in the 1997 Stanislaus National Forest Monitoring and

Evaluation Report (USDA 1998a). 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 9 items:

2-1 Cultural Resource cumulative effects 10-5 Motor vehicle conflicts

4-1 Fire acre control objectives 16-1 Roads closed to public vehicles

5-23 Lahontan Trout population 16-3 Road construction

6-1 Forest Pests problems and damage 18-1 Water quality standards (BMPs)

9-2 Permitted and actual AUMs
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

3

B. Conditions not Within Limits of Variability

The IDT determined conditions are not within limits of variability on 12 items:

9-3 Allotment management objectives 13-1 S&Gs for soil productivity

9-4 Range administration and compliance 13-6 Soil hydrologic function

9-5 Range improvements 15-6 Reforestation

10-2 Condition of developed sites 15-7 Burn area reforestation

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

12-1 Sensitive Plants selected populations 22-1 Forest S&Gs reviews

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

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.

11-1 Riparian Maintained/Improved

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

are being implemented correctly.

12-1 Sensitive Plants Selected Populations

Monitoring of selected populations showed several sensitive plant occurrences not within

the limits of variability possibly due to both natural causes and management activities.

13-1 S&Gs for Soil Productivity

Soil cover and soil organic matter are not within the limit of variability due to contour tilling

on some site preparation projects. Some older plantations (Wrights Creek or Granite

Burn), that did not require retention of large woody debris, do not meet the surface organic

matter limits of variability.

13-6 Soil Hydrologic Function

Monitoring of selected meadow soils showed that infiltration rates were not within the

range of natural variability at numerous locations.

15-6 Reforestation

15-7 Burn Area Reforestation

Due to catastrophic fires, limited funding and available workforce, reforestation of some

areas has not been accomplished within 5 years of harvest.

18-2 Watershed S&Gs

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

S&G is implemented at less than 90%.

22-1 Forest S&Gs Reviews

Some conditions resulting from catastrophic natural fires and a landslide do not meet

Forest Plan S&Gs.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

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 9 items:

5-1 Wildlife: vegetation diversity 5-19 Mule Deer population

5-2 Wildlife: special habitat 5-26 Meadow Bird habitat capability

5-6 Spotted Owl population and habitat 9-1 Range condition and trend

5-9 Goshawk population 13-4 Soil resource improvements

5-12 Great Gray Owl population

D. Not Applicable

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

standards or limits of variability on 5 items:

4-A Fuel treatments 5-C Amphibians

5-A Bald Eagle nesting 9-A Noxious Weeds

5-B Western Pond Turtle

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 69 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 1998. While conducting this

portion of the evaluation, the IDT also considered the conclusions contained in the 1997 Stanislaus

National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA 1998a).

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

n The Forest completed the Emigrant Wilderness Direction Forest Plan Amendment.

n Additional monitoring and documentation occurred on 6 items previously identified for

increased monitoring and/or documentation.

n The 1999 Program of Work identifies monitoring as an emphasis item.

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

projects.

n The Forest Leadership Team conducted two Forest Plan S&Gs Reviews.

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.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

5

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 7 items:

2-1 Cultural Resource cumulative effects 13-4 Soil resource improvements

5-15 Bald Eagle population 15-6 Reforestation

6-1 Forest Pests problems and damage 22-1 Forest S&Gs reviews

10-5 Motor vehicle conflicts

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:

12-1 Sensitive Plants selected populations 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 6

items:

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

3-2 Acres forest seral stage 9-A Noxious Weeds

5-13 Great Gray Owl S&Gs for habitat 20-1 Wilderness management
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

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 Sierra Nevada Framework (see section 6. Recent Information):

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

Sierra Nevada Framework.

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 15-5 Timber suitability

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

9-2 Permitted and actual AUMs 16-4 Trail construction

10-3 Actual use of developed sites 17-3 Visual resource improvements

10-6 Designated route miles 21-1 Cost of practices and activity

15-1 Allowable sale quantity 21-2 Values of goods and services

15-2 Forest regulation 21-3 Return to counties

15-3 Reforestation and TSI needs 21-4 Local and area employment

15-4 Harvest unit size
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

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 18 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.

1-3 Air pollution 12-1 Sensitive Plants selected populations

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 15-7 Burn area reforestation

10-1 ROS Classes 15-8 Yield table projections

10-4 Condition of dispersed camping 17-1 Visual Resource planned objectives

10-7 Trail condition ratings 18-5 Water yield predictions

11-1 Riparian maintained/improved 20-6 Stream condition

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 Sierra Nevada Framework. Monitoring requirements are out-of-date, no

longer feasible as written or, without specific indicators or measurable standards for 47 items:

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

1-2 Smoke emissions 5-B Western Pond Turtle

3-1 Acres major vegetative type 5-C Amphibians

3-2 Acres forest seral stage 9-3 Allotment management objectives

4-A Fuel treatments 9-4 Range administration and compliance

5-2 Wildlife: special habitat 9-5 Range improvements

5-3 Wildlife: riparian areas 9-A Noxious Weeds

5-4 Wildlife: stream ecosystems 10-2 Condition of developed sites

5-6 Spotted Owl population and habitat 12-2 Sensitive Plants all populations

5-9 Goshawk population 13-1 S&Gs for soil productivity

5-10 Flycatcher population 13-5 Soil moisture regime

5-11 Flycatcher S&Gs for habitat 13-6 Soil hydrologic function

5-12 Great Gray Owl population 13-7 Soil environmental health

5-13 Great Gray Owl S&Gs for habitat 14-1 Botanic SIA conditions

5-17 Gray Squirrel population 14-2 Cultural SIA conditions

5-18 Woodpecker population 14-3 Cave conditions

5-20 Fisher population 15-9 Timber stand improvements

5-21 Marten population 17-2 Trends in Scenic Corridors

5-22 Resident Trout population 18-1 Water quality standards (BMPs)

5-23 Lahontan Trout population 18-2 Watershed S&Gs

5-24 Riparian Bird habitat capability 18-3 Water quality baseline

5-25 Conifer Bird habitat capability 18-4 Watershed condition

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

5-27 Oak Bird habitat capability
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

8

10. Increase Monitoring and/or Documentation

Although the IDT could not determine conditions on 78 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, at the levels specified in the Forest Plan, 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 17 items:

5-5 Spotted Owl S&Gs for habitat 9-1 Range condition and trend

5-6 Spotted Owl population and habitat 9-A Noxious Weeds

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

5-9 Goshawk population 19-1 Wild and Scenic management

5-10 Flycatcher population 20-2 Crowding

5-11 Flycatcher S&Gs for habitat 20-3 Campsite condition

5-12 Great Gray Owl population 20-4 Stock holding area condition

5-13 Great Gray Owl S&Gs for habitat 20-5 Firewood availability

5-14 Peregrine Falcon nesting

3.3 Recommendations

The IDT reviewed their conclusions, and the recommendations contained in the 1997 Stanislaus

National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA 1998), to develop the following

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

Full implementation depends on adequate funding, Forest Leadership Team approval, and

completion of the Sierra Nevada Framework. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

process and regulations apply to all proposed projects and Forest Plan Amendments. Table 3 (see

Appendix) lists the specific actions needed to implement these recommendations.

Short-term

n Improve application of management prescriptions for 3 items: Sensitive Plants selected

populations (12-1); S&Gs for soil productivity (13-1); and, Watershed S&Gs (18-2).

n Complete Forest Plan Amendments for the Carson-Iceberg and Mokelumne Wildernesses.

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

Forest Plan Amendment separating the 62 Forest Plan resource monitoring items from the 37

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

n Increase Monitoring and/or Documentation to the levels specified in the Forest Plan for 17

Forest Plan monitoring items (see Conclusion 10).

Long term

n Amend Forest Plan 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 Sierra Nevada Framework.

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

Nevada Framework
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

9

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 Team approval, and completion of the Sierra Nevada Framework. The National

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

Forest Plan Amendments.

5. Status of Previous Recommendations

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

contained in the 1997 Stanislaus National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report (USDA 1998a).

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 3 items:

Riparian maintained/improved (11-1); S&Gs for soil productivity (13-1); and, Watershed S&Gs

(18-2).

Status: The IDT found conditions not fully within standards for these three items: The IDT

brought this recommendation forward for two of these items: S&Gs for soil productivity

(13-1); and, Watershed S&Gs (18-2).

n Previous Recommendation: Complete Forest Plan Amendment for the Emigrant Wilderness.

Status: The Forest completed the Emigrant Wilderness Direction Forest Plan Amendment

in April 1998 (USDA 1998b).

n Previous Recommendation: 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).

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

in January 1998. The IDT brought this recommendation forward but now recommends

completion of this Forest Plan Amendment pending the Sierra Nevada Framework.

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

Status: No activity to date. Due to expectations of the Sierra Nevada Framework, the IDT

did not bring this recommendation forward.

n Previous Recommendation: Increase Monitoring and/or Documentation for 20 Forest Plan

monitoring items

Status: Additional monitoring and documentation occurred on 6 items previously identified

for increased monitoring and/or documentation. The IDT determined not enough

information exists and the information is needed to determine conditions for 10 of those

items. The IDT brought this recommendation forward along with 7 additional items.

n Previous Recommendation: Develop the 1999 monitoring program, based on information

contained in this Report, incorporating into the Program of Work by assigning priorities and

funding.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

10

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

monitoring is identified as an emphasis item in the 1999 Program of Work. Since this item

should now be considered normal business, the IDT did not bring this recommendation

forward.

n Previous Recommendation: Schedule and conduct Forest Leadership Team reviews, at

least two per year, of Forest Plan S&Gs implementation.

Status: The Forest conducted two reviews of Forest Plan S&Gs implementation during

1998 (USDA 1998c and USDA 1999). Since this item should now be considered normal

business, the IDT did not bring this recommendation forward.

n Previous Recommendation: Develop ways to increase and improve monitoring

documentation and reporting.

Status: The IDT expects additional monitoring occurs without adequate documentation or

reporting. However, since this item should now be considered normal business, the IDT

did not bring this recommendation forward.

6. Recent Information

Recent information, with potential application on the Stanislaus, is shown below.

Sierra Nevada Framework

The Forest Service adopted interim guidelines for protecting owl habitat in 1993 and subsequently

began developing a long-term management plan for owl habitat and other issues. A draft

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this work was released in 1995. A revised draft EIS was

scheduled for release in 1996. However, release of new scientific information in the Sierra Nevada

Ecosystem Project (SNEP) report influenced the withdrawal of the revised draft EIS. The Secretary

of Agriculture empanelled a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) to review and advise on the EIS

and SNEP report. The FAC report offered recommendations for addressing inconsistencies with

new scientific information, identified shortcomings in some key elements of the analysis process,

and stressed the need for more collaborative planning.

In response to the FAC report and other information, the Forest Service is now beginning a new

project to amend the management plans for eleven national forests in the Sierra Nevada. As part

of the larger Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration (Framework), a new

EIS is being developed to pursue cooperative solutions to range-wide issues in the Sierra.

To provide a foundation for Framework, a team of scientists from the Pacific Southwest Research

Station, produced the Sierra Nevada Science Review (USDA 1998d). The Science Review

summarizes new scientific information with specific attention to issues of urgent priority in the

Sierra. A companion document, the Summary of Existing Management Direction (USDA 1998e)

summarizes existing management direction on Sierra Nevada National Forests as it relates to

issues brought forward in the Science Review.

A "Notice of Intent" (USDA 1998f) identifies the proposed action and possible alternatives for the

new EIS. However, many additional issues surfaced in public meetings that are not appropriately

addressed in the EIS. To address these issues, the Forest Service developed a "Design Paper"

(USDA 1998g) to describe the agency's proposals for addressing issues that will not be included in

the EIS. Currently, comments from the pre-NEPA scoping period, which ended January 19, 1999,

are being analyzed. A draft EIS is expected to be available in 1999.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

11

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

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

Denise Van Keuren

Experience Forest Range Conservationist Stanislaus National Forest 1988 to Present

Range Conservationist Tonto National Forest 1985 to 1988

Range Conservationist Coronado National Forest 1979 to 1985

Education Arizona State University B.S., Range Management 1979
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

12

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 and posting on the internet (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
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

13

10. Appendix

References

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. 1998a. 1997 Stanislaus National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1998b. Emigrant Wilderness Direction Forest Plan Amendment. Stanislaus

National Forest, Sonora, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1998c. June 1998 Fire Salvage Standards and Guidelines Review.

Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1998d. Sierra Nevada Science Review. Pacific Southwest Research

Station. July 24, 1998.

USDA Forest Service. 1998e. Sierra Nevada Framework for Conservation and Collaboration,

Summary of Existing Management Direction. Pacific Southwest Region. August 11, 1998.

USDA Forest Service. 1998f. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Project EIS, Notice of Intent.

Pacific Southwest Region. November 16, 1998.

USDA Forest Service. 1998g. Sierra Nevada Framework Project, Design Paper (version 1.4).

Pacific Southwest Region. November 18, 1998.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. September 1998 Recreation Standards and Guidelines Review.

Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA.
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

14

Table 1: Monitoring and Evaluation Accomplishments; fiscal year 1998; Stanislaus National

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

FY 1998 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*

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 Western Pond Turtle

5-C Amphibians

6 Forest Pests 6-1 Problems and damage

7 Geology 7-1 Mitigation measures
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

15

Table 1: Monitoring and Evaluation Accomplishments; fiscal year 1998; Stanislaus National

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

FY 1998 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 Motor vehicle conflicts

10-6 Designated route miles

10-7 Trail condition ratings

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 Soil resource improvements

13-5 Soil moisture regime

13-6 Soil hydrologic function

13-7 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
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

16

Table 1: Monitoring and Evaluation Accomplishments; fiscal year 1998; Stanislaus National

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

FY 1998 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 Scenic 19-1 Wild and Scenic management *1

20 Wilderness 20-1 Wilderness management

20-2 Crowding

20-3 Campsite condition

20-4 Stock holding area condition

20-5 Firewood availability

20-6 Stream condition

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

9-1 Forest Plan Item Activities Occurred 1 North Fork Mokelumne

9 Resource Number 2 Middle Fork Mokelumne

1 Item Number None or Not Reported 3 South Fork Mokelumne

* 10 Year Report Item 4 Calaveras

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

9 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 Tuolumne

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

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 12 Clavey

SIA Special Interest Area 13 Cherry Creek

S&Gs Standards and Guidelines 14 Middle Fork Tuolumne

TSI Timber Stand Improvement 15 South Fork Tuolumne

16 Merced

17 North Fork Merced
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

17

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

1998; 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 8b (feasible only at larger than Forest scale)

2 Cultural

Resource

2-1 Cumulative effects; mitigation 1

3 Diversity 3-1 Acres major vegetative type* 4, 9 (depends on Framework)

3-2 Acres forest seral stage* 4, 9 (depends on Framework)

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

4-A Fuel treatments 9 (depends on Framework)

5 Fish and 5-1 Wildlife: vegetation diversity* 8b (cover in 3-1), (depends on Framework)

Wildlife 5-2 Wildlife: special habitat 9

5-3 Wildlife: riparian areas 9

5-4 Wildlife: stream ecosystems 9

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 10

Bald Eagle 5-15 Population status and trend 1

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

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 Western Pond Turtle 9

5-C Amphibians 9

6 Forest Pests 6-1 Problems and damage 1

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

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

18

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

1998; 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 8a

9-3 Allotment management 9

9-4 Administration and compliance 9

9-5 Range improvements 9

9-A Noxious Weeds 4, 9, 10 (depends on Framework)

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 8b

10-5 Motor vehicle conflicts 1

10-6 Designated route miles 8a

10-7 Trail condition ratings 8b

11 Riparian Areas 11-1 Riparian maintained/improved 8b (cover in 18-2)

12 Sensitive 12-1 Selected populations 2, 8b, 10 (not feasible as written)

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 Soil resource improvements 1

13-5 Soil moisture regime 9

13-6 Soil hydrologic function 9

13-7 Soil environmental health 9

14 Special Areas 14-1 Botanic SIA conditions* 9

14-2 Cultural SIA conditions 9

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 1 (catastrophic events)

15-7 Burn area reforestation 8b (cover in 15-6)

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

15-9 Timber stand improvements 9
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

19

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

1998; 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 Scenic 19-1 Wild and Scenic management 10

20 Wilderness 20-1 Wilderness management 4, 9 (Carson-Iceberg and Mokelumne)

20-2 Crowding 10 (Emigrant)

20-3 Campsite condition 10 (Emigrant)

20-4 Stock holding area condition 10 (Emigrant)

20-5 Firewood availability 10 (Emigrant)

20-6 Stream condition 8b (Emigrant)

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 1 (catastrophic events)

Legend

Key Results

9-1 Forest Plan Item A Conditions within Limits of Variability

9 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)

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

9 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

SIA Special Interest Area 6 Amend Forest Plan Schedule of Outputs

S&Gs Standards and Guidelines 7 Revise Forest Plan

TSI Timber Stand Improvement 8 Amend Forest Plan Monitoring Items

a. Accomplishment

b. Duplicate or Not Feasible

9 Amend Forest Plan Chapter V

10 Increase Monitoring and/or Documentation
Stanislaus

National Forest

1998

Monitoring and

Evaluation Report

20

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

National Forest. Full implementation depends on adequate funding, Forest Leadership

Team approval, and completion of the Sierra Nevada Framework. The National

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

and Forest Plan Amendments.

Action Who When

Improve application of prescriptions: District Rangers on-going

12-1 Sensitive Plants selected populations

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 pending Framework

3-2 Acres forest seral stage Resource Management pending Framework

5-13 Great Gray Owl S&Gs for habitat Resource Management pending Framework

5-19 Mule Deer population Resource Management pending Framework

9-A Noxious Weeds Resource Management pending Framework

20-1 Carson-Iceberg and Mokelumne Direction Calaveras and Summit DRs 9/30/99

Amend Forest Plan Management Area Allocation:

5-16 Bald Eagle designated recovery habitat Resource Management pending Framework

Amend Forest Plan Monitoring Items IDT and Forest Leadership

Team

pending Framework

Amend Forest Plan Chapter V IDT and Forest Leadership

Team

pending Framework

Increase monitoring and/or documentation to the levels

specified in the Forest Plan:

District Rangers on-going

5-5 Spotted Owl S&Gs for habitat

5-6 Spotted Owl population and habitat

5-8 Goshawk S&Gs for habitat

5-9 Goshawk population

5-10 Flycatcher population

5-11 Flycatcher S&Gs for habitat

5-12 Great Gray Owl population

5-13 Great Gray Owl S&Gs for habitat

5-14 Peregrine Falcon nesting

9-1 Range condition and trend

9-A Noxious Weeds

12-1 Sensitive Plants selected populations

19-1 Wild and Scenic management

20-2 Crowding

20-3 Campsite condition

20-4 Stock holding area condition

20-5 Firewood availability