Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2006 MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FY 2007

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...... 4

II. 2006 FOREST PLAN MONITORING and EVALUATION REPORT ORGANIZATION ...... 6

III. SUMMARY OF MONITORING RESULTS ...... 6 III-A: Five Annual Monitoring Elements Found in Table IV-1 of the Forest Plan....6 1. A quantitative estimate of performance comparing outputs to services with those predicted in the Forest Plan (Forest Plan, p. IV-5) ...... 6 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species Objectives ...... 7 Air Quality and Smoke Management Objectives ...... 9 Soil, Water, Riparian and Aquatic Resources Goals and Objectives ...... 9 Wildlife Resources Objectives ...... 9 Vegetation Resources Objectives ...... 9 Botanical Resources Objectives ...... 9 Nonnative Plants Objectives...... 9 Fire Management Objectives...... 10 Timberland Resources Objectives...... 10 Rangeland Resources Objectives...... 11 Minerals and Geology Resources Objectives...... 11 Lands and Special Uses Objectives...... 11 Facilities and Roads Objectives...... 11 Recreation Resources Objectives ...... 13 Scenic Environment Objectives...... 14 Heritage Program Objectives...... 14 Tribal Rights and Interests Objectives...... 15 Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness, and IRA Objectives...... 15 Wild and Scenic River Objectives...... 15 Research Natural Areas Objectives ...... 15 Social and Economic Objectives ...... 15 Sawtooth National Recreation Area Objectives ...... 16 2. Documentation of costs associated with carrying out planned management prescriptions as compared with costs (Forest Plan, p. IV-5) ...... 15 3. Population trends of the management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined (Forest Plan, p. IV-6) ...... 17 4. Accomplishment of ACS priority subwatershed restoration objectives (Forest Plan, p. IV-6) ...... 22 5. Terms and conditions or reasonable and prudent measures that result from consultation under Section (a) of the ESA (Forest Plan, p. IV-6) ...... 22 Terms and Conditions...... 23 Conservation Recommendations ...... 25

III-B: Monitoring Elements Found in Table IV-2 of the Forest Plan with Annual and Three-Year Reporting Requirements ...... 29

III-C: Annual Project Level Monitoring that Contributes to Forest Plan Monitoring

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 2 Requirements ...... 42

IV. FUTURE MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORTS AND SCHEDULE ...... 42

Tables Table 1 Predicted Forest Plan Budget Level vs. FY 2006 Actual Allocation...... 16 Table 2 Management Indicator Species for the Sawtooth National Forest...... 16 Table 3 Aquatic restoration accomplishments by WARS priority subwatersheds.... 21 Table 4 Comparison of Bull Trout Patch Strata...... 34 Table 5 FY06 Aquatic Restoration Projects ...... 37 Table 6 Acres of Noxious Weeds Treated by Method...... 48

Figures Figure 1 Location Map – Sawtooth National Forest ...... 5

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 Dove Creek Mine Field Review Summary Attachment 2 Raft River Aspen Regeneration Field Review Summary Attachment 3 Soldier Creek Bridge Field Review Summary Attachment 4 Stanley Creek Road Field Review Summary Attachment 5 Center Salvage Field Review Summary Attachment 6 Gooding Allotment Field Review Summary Attachment 7 Errata to the Forest Plan Glossary Attachment 8 2006 Sawtooth Aquatic Management Indicator Species Monitoring Report

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 3

I. INTRODUCTION

In September 2003, the Forest began implementing its revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) which will shape management of the Forest for the next 10 to 15 years. The revised Forest Plan defines a strategy that manages Forest resources to attain a set of desired resource and social and economic conditions by emphasizing the maintenance or restoration of watershed conditions, species viability, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and healthy, functioning ecosystems.

One of the lessons learned from experience implementing the original Forest Plans is that plans need to be dynamic to account for changed resource conditions such as large scale wildfire or listing of additional species under the Endangered Species Act, new information and science, and changed regulation and policies such as the roads analysis policy. To accomplish this, the 2003 Forest Plan has embraced the principles of adaptive management. Monitoring and evaluation are critical to these principles.

The goal of our monitoring program is to help us determine what in the Plan is working well and what is not, and to help identify if we need to change management direction or monitoring methods. Monitoring and evaluation is intended to tell us how forest plan decisions have been implemented, how effective the implementation has proven to be in accomplishing desired outcomes, and how valid our assumptions were that led us to decide on the management strategy detailed in the Forest plan. Monitoring and evaluation of key results over time will help us determine if we are making satisfactory progress toward the desired conditions identified in the Plan or if a “need for change” in the existing strategy is required. As long as the monitoring and evaluation results determine that the management strategy outlined in the Forest plan is resulting in acceptable progress toward Forest Plan desired conditions, then the conclusion would be that there is no need for change in that strategy. However, if monitoring and evaluation concluded that the Forest Plan strategy is not effective in light of conditions and circumstances at the time of the assessment, then the Forest Supervisor would make the determination as to what the “needs for change” are and whether plan amendment or revision would be needed.

This document reflects the final monitoring report for the third year of implementing the revised Sawtooth National Forest Plan.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 4 Figure I-1. Location Map – Sawtooth National Forest

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 5 II. 2006 FOREST PLAN MONITORING and EVALUATION REPORT ORGANIZATION

As previously stated, monitoring and evaluation provide knowledge and information to keep the Land and Resource Management Plan viable. Appropriate selection of indicators, and monitoring and evaluation of key results helps us determine if we are meeting or moving towards the desired conditions identified in the Plan. Chapter IV of the 2003 Forest Plan provides the list of activities, practices and/or effects to be monitored and the various indicators to be used as measures. While most of the monitoring elements require that some level of data be gathered each year, the majority of elements are designed to evaluate the effects of management over time. Therefore, results of monitoring efforts for most elements are reported after evaluation of data that has been gathered for multiple years.

Chapter IV, Table IV-1 of the Forest Plan identifies elements related to National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and other pertinent laws and regulations that are reported on either an annual basis or every 5 years. Elements that are not reported each year are typically those that require the collection of information over multiple years before a meaningful evaluation is possible. In this third year monitoring report under the 2003 Forest Plan, only the 5 elements identified in Table IV-1 with a “yes” in the “Annual Posting of Results” column will be discussed in Section III-A below.

Table IV-2 of the Forest Plan identifies questions and indicators that will be monitored to determine the success of the Forest Plan management strategy in progressing toward desired conditions. Similar to Table IV-1, information pertaining to many of the indicators requires multiple years of collection before any meaningful evaluation of an element and its related question can be made. Therefore, only the monitoring questions and their related indicators with “annually” or “3 years” in the “Report Period” column will be addressed in Section III-B below.

As described above, the monitoring elements from Table IV-2 were designed around monitoring questions that need to be answered about Forest Plan implementation. For many of the elements, information used to answer the questions is gathered through annual review of selected projects. In addition to the annual monitoring requirements from Table IV-1 and Table IV-2, section III-C below includes a description of project level monitoring that occurred in 2006.

III. SUMMARY OF MONITORING RESULTS:

III-A. Annual Monitoring Requirements – Table IV-1:

Monitoring requirements identified in the Forest Plan shall provide for: 1. A quantitative estimate of performance comparing outputs and services with those projected by the Forest Plan.

As defined in the Forest Plan, Objectives are “concise time-specific statements of actions or results designed to help achieve goals”. As such, objectives provide the best projection of outputs and services to be provided through implementation of the Forest Plan. Forest Plan

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 6 objectives are found under the various Forest-wide Resources sections in Chapter III of the Forest Plan. Following is a summary of the Forest’s accomplishments for those objectives designed to provide for specific services on an annual basis, and/or projected outputs resulting from management actions. Other objectives found in the various sections of the Forest Plan that were not required to be accomplished in the first three years of plan implementation or did not require an annual accomplishment are not discussed in this third year monitoring report. These objectives are discussed only in those cases where activities have been implemented that have substantially contributed towards or fully accomplished the objective in the first three years. Typically, these objectives will be addressed in detail every 5 years, unless otherwise specified or warranted due to changed conditions or circumstances.

The objectives addressed below are organized by resource section as they are found in the Forest Plan. Those resource sections in the Plan that do not contain objectives that are reported on annually or within the first three years will be noted below.

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species Objectives (FLRMP pages III-8 to III-11)

Objective TEOB01: Continue to map and update locations of species occurrence and habitat for TEPC species during fine- or site/project-scale analyses. Incorporate information into a coordinated GIS database and coordinate with the Idaho Conservation Data Center.

Accomplishment: TEPC and sensitive aquatic organism information from project analyses, field inventories, and monitoring were entered into the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) in 2006. This information was used to develop spatial coverages that display species distribution across the forest. Data has not yet been shared with the Idaho Conservation Data Center.

Objective TEOB06: Develop an agreed upon process with NMFS and USFWS for project-level consultation that addresses multi-scale analyses and tracking environmental baselines.

Accomplishment: The framework process described in previous monitoring reports is intended to evaluate existing conditions, natural (landslide prone terrain) and management induced risks/threats (roads, grazing, etc.), and propose conservation approaches to reduce these risks/threats at multiple spatial scales. This information is intended to help set a landscape context of which areas are in the best or most impaired condition; to identify which areas need certain types of restorative actions and which areas are a priority for restoration actions; and to reduce costs when making project and monitoring decisions to assess progression toward forest plan goals and objectives.

In 2006, completion of the South Fork of the Boise subbasin framework assessment was delayed due to higher forest priorities. A new, target completion date has not been set.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 7 Objective TEOB11: Update appropriate NRIS database modules for TEPC species and their habitats on a biennially basis to incorporate latest field data.

Accomplishment: In 2005, all legacy data on fish distribution on the Forest was entered into NRIS water. The Forest did successfully load the terra module for TEPC plant data however, the module was not populated with data. A national data transfer for plant data was scheduled to occur in late 2006 or early 2007 which would have transferred all plant legacy data into the terra module. This transfer has not yet occurred. The Forest did begin entering legacy data for wildlife in 2005, including TEPC species. Wildlife legacy data entry was completed in 2007.

Objective TEOB22: Develop operational resources (maps, keys, desk guides, etc.) within 1 year of signing the ROD, to coordinate TEPC species concerns and practical mitigations, and include those resource tools in the Fire Management Plan. Consult with NMFS and USFWS on operational resources on an annual basis.

Accomplishment: Fire operational guidelines were originally developed in the spring of 2004. The guidelines included protective measures for wildlife, botanical, and aquatic resources. In 2006, the Boise NF and Sawtooth NF completed a Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) for Wildfire Suppression and Wildland Fire Use activities that incorporated and improved upon the 2004 guidance. This BA was submitted for informal consultation, which concluded with letters of concurrence from the FWS and NOAA on 08-11-2006 and 08-30-2006, respectively.

Mitigation criteria in the programmatic BA was developed for water and chemical retardants, construction of fuel breaks around fire perimeters, removal of understory and overstory vegetation during fire line construction, establishment and operation of spike and base camps, burnout operations between firelines and the wildland fire, water drafting, establishment of helispots and helibases where Jet-A fuel is transported and stored, bucket dipping (or snorkeling) of water from rivers, large streams, and lakes by helicopter, use of gasoline and diesel fuel for pumps, saws, and engines, and cleaning/sanitation of equipment.

Fire operational guidelines were originally developed in the spring of 2004. The guidelines included protective measures for wildlife, botanical, and aquatic resources. In 2006, the Boise NF and Sawtooth NF completed a Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) for Wildfire Suppression and Wildland Fire Use activities that incorporated and improved upon the 2004 guidance. This BA was submitted for informal consultation, which concluded with letters of concurrence from the FWS and NOAA on 08-11-2006 and 08-30-2006, respectively.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 8 stored, bucket dipping (or snorkeling) of water from rivers, large streams, and lakes by helicopter, use of gasoline and diesel fuel for pumps, saws, and engines, and cleaning/sanitation of equipment.

AIR QUALITY AND SMOKE MANAGEMENT Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-16)

This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

SOIL, WATER, RIPARIAN AND AQUATIC RESOURCES Objectives (Forest Plan, pages III-19 to III-21)

Objective SWOB11: Coordinate with state and local agencies and tribal governments annually to limit or reduce degrading effects from stocking programs on native and desired non-native fish and aquatic species.

Accomplishment: No coordination meetings relative to fish stocking occurred in 2006.

WILDLIFE RESOURCES Objectives (Forest Plan, pages III-25 to III-26)

Objective WIOB10: Update appropriate NRIS database modules for sensitive species’ occurrence and habitat on a biennial basis to incorporate latest field data.

Accomplishment: As described above, data entry for wildlife occurrence and habitat, including sensitive species, began in 2005 and continued through 2006. All terrestrial wildlife legacy data entry was completed in 2007. Terrestrial wildlife data collected by Forest staff are entered annually, along with updates from other data sources.

VEGETATION RESOURCES Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-30)

This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

BOTANICAL RESOURCES Objectives (Forest Plan, pages III-32 to III-33)

Objective BTOB07: Maintain annually a list of Forest Watch plants that identify species of concern (see Appendix C for list of species).

Accomplishment: No species were added to or deleted from the Forest Watch list.

NON-NATIVE PLANTS Objectives (Forest Plan, pages III-35 to III-36)

Objective NPOB03: Develop strategic noxious weed management plans for Coordinated Weed Management Areas. Cooperate on a regular basis with federal agencies, tribal governments, the State of Idaho, county weed organizations, state and local highway departments, and private individuals in establishing Coordinated Weed Management Area strategic priorities, and locating and treating noxious weed species.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 9 Accomplishment: The administrative boundary of the Sawtooth National Forest and Sawtooth Wilderness falls within nine Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs): Blaine County, Boise Basin, Camas Creek, Custer County, Goose Creek, Raft River, Shoshone Basin, South Fork Boise River, and Upper Payette River. Each of these CWMAs has strategic plans in place for managing noxious weeds. The Forest participates and cooperates in these CWMAs with numerous land owners and agencies in noxious weed prevention and management activities. Coordinated accomplishments for CWMAs are reported through the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) during the winter following the field season of work. These reports are published by ISDA and when published, are available on the WEB at: http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/PlantsInsects/NoxiousWeeds/cwmas.php.

FIRE MANAGEMENT Objectives (Forest Plan, pages III-38 to III-39)

Objective FMOB04: Schedule and complete at least 40,000 acres of fuels management through prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in the next decade to achieve desired vegetation attributes and fuel reduction goals. Focus on wildland/urban interface and areas in Fire Regimes 1, 2, and 3 (non-lethal, mixed1, mixed2) in Condition Classes 2 and 3 (moderate to extreme hazard rating).

Accomplishment: In FY06, the Forest treated 3,000 acres in non-wildland urban interface (Non-WUI) and 350 acres in wildland urban interface (WUI) with prescribed fire. Mechanical treatment was used to treat 1,910 acres in WUI for an accomplishment of 5,260 acres. No fire-use acres were accomplished.

TIMBERLAND RESOURCES Objectives (Forest Plan, pages III-42 to III-43)

Objective TROB01: Provide timber harvest, and related reforestation and timber stand improvement activities, to contribute toward the attainment of desired vegetation conditions. Annually, during the next 10 to 15 years: a) Harvest timber, other than by salvage, on an average of approximately 2,000 acres, b) Reforest an average of approximately 480 acres, and c) Complete timber stand improvement activities on an average of approximately 300 acres.

Accomplishment: a) Timber harvest other than by salvage was completed on 12 acres; b) No reforestation occurred; and c) Timber stand improvement activities were completed on 197 acres

Objective TROB02: Make available an estimated 60 million board feet of timber for the decade, which will contribute to Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ).

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 10 Accomplishment: In 2006 the Sawtooth National Forest made available 2.38 million board feet (MMBF) of timber (1.3 MMBF of salvage and 1.08 MMBF of green) which contributed to the Allowable Sale Quantity.

Objective TROB03: Utilize wood products (e.g., fuelwood, posts, poles, house logs, etc.) generated from vegetation treatment activities, on both suited and not suited timberlands, to produce an estimated 69 million board feet of volume for the decade. This volume, when combined with ASQ, is the Total Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ). The TSPQ for the first decade is estimated to be 129 million board feet.

Accomplishment: In 2006 the Sawtooth National Forest made available 3.65 million board feet (MMBF) of wood products (2.25 MMBF in personal use firewood and 1.4 MMBF in free use firewood). When combined with the 2.38 MMBF contributing to ASQ (i.e. TROB02), the Sawtooth National Forest made available 6.03 MMBF that contributed to the Total Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ).

RANGELAND RESOURCES Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-44)

This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

MINERALS AND GEOLOGY RESOURCES Objectives (Forest Plan, pages III-48 to III- 49)

Objective MIOB02: Develop and implement within one year standardized inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for minerals activities to provide for environmentally sound exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources.

Accomplishment: A standardized inspection form developed for the Minidoka District was expanded to the Ketchum, Fairfield, and SNRA to document annual inspection results. Annual inspections are conducted as required as part of the "administered to standard" Minerals Attainment Report (MAR) Target. In FY06, 53 inspections were completed with no notices of non-compliance issued.

LANDS AND SPECIAL USES Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-53)

This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

FACILITIES AND ROADS Objectives (Forest Plan, pages III-58 to III-59)

Objective FROB01: Analyze road system needs and associated resource effects in accordance with the established agency policy direction for roads analysis.

Accomplishment: A Roads Analysis was completed for the Welch access road on the Minidoka District in 2006. This project involved approval of an approximately ¾ mile long

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 11 access road to a private inholding on the Raft River Division. A decision authorizing the road was issued in the Spring of 2006. The SNRA also completed a Roads Analysis for the area from Alturas Lake to Yellowbelly Lake in 2006 where approximately 60 miles of system and user created routes were analyzed. As a result of the analysis, 15 miles of user created routes were identified for obliteration and rehabilitation; 1 mile of system road was identified for decommissioning; 12 miles of user created roads were converted to trails; 3 miles of user created roads were added to the system as level 2 roads; 4 miles of user created routes were identified where there is a need to confirm access needs for private inholdings and power line access; and no changes were recommended for 26 miles of system road.

An additional rap was completed in August 2006 for the Job Creek area, along Forest Road 642 and south of Stanley Lake Creek. As a result of this analysis, approximately ½ mile of existing non-system two-track spur road adjacent to Job Creek Road 642, and within the Hanson Lakes Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA), was recommended for obliteration. The beginning of Forest Road 642 would be realigned and this reroute would become the system road. The existing portion of Job Creek Road that extends from the intersection with Stanley Creek Road 455 up to the midpoint of the first switchback (approximately 1200 feet) would be removed and rehabilitated. Upon completion of the project, Job Creek Road 642 would be closed at the Hanson Lakes Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) boundary to inhibit motorized travel into the IRA.

Objective FROB05: Coordinate transportation systems, management, and decommissioning with other federal, state and county agencies, tribal governments, permittees, contractors, cost- share cooperators, and the public to develop a shared transportation system serving the needs of all parties to the extent possible.

Accomplishment: Timber sale purchasers and other commercial users of FS roads either participate in road maintenance based on the amount of timber they haul or, contribute money toward FS maintenance. Road maintenance coordination meetings were held with Camas County this year. Custer County participated with the Forest Service on a project on Cow Lane, Road #70682.

Objective FROB06: Identify roads and facilities that are not needed for land and resource management, and evaluate for disposal or decommissioning.

Accomplishment: A total of 7.9 miles of roads were obliterated or converted to trails in 2006. This included: 4.2 miles of unauthorized roads obliterated in the Vat Creek area on the Sawtooth NRA (Alturas to Yellowbelly Roads Analysis); a 0.3 mile segment of Rd. #70441 obliterated in the Alturas Lake area of the Sawtooth NRA (Alturas to Yellowbelly Roads Analysis); a 0.6 mile segment of Rd. #70205 converted to a trail (Upper Alturas Roads Analysis); and a 2.8 miles segment of Rd. #70134 obliterated in the bottom of Copper Creek on the Ketchum Ranger District.

Objective FROB11: In the Forest’s annual program of work, prioritize and schedule improvements to existing culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings to accommodate fish passage, 100-year flood flow, and bedload and debris transport. Include accomplishments in the

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 12 biennial update of the Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy (WARS) database.

Accomplishment: In September 2006, a culvert was removed from Big Water Gulch Creek to restore upstream fish passage. The existing perched round 48" diameter culvert was replaced with a round 120" diameter culvert. The new culvert was countersunk about 5 feet and filled with appropriate substrate to simulate a natural stream channel. The new culvert should open up 2 miles or more of Big Water Gulch Creek to passage by bull trout and other aquatic organisms.

RECREATION RESOURCES Objectives (Forest Plan, pages III-62 to III-64)

Objective REOB12: Annually update recreation databases for developed sites, dispersed areas, and trails.

Accomplishment: Condition and deferred maintenance surveys were conducted for developed recreation sites, recreation buildings, and trails according to schedule. The schedules for these inspections are based on inspecting approximately 20% of each recreation element every year.

The INFRA developed site and buildings databases were updated with the results of the 2004 deferred maintenance surveys, which includes repair and replacement needs for each improvement for each site and building. In preparation for the Recreation Facility Analysis (RFA) exercise, all developed recreation site databases were updated in 2005. They were reviewed and updated again in 2006.

In accordance with Trails Deferred Maintenance Protocols, data entry for national core data relative to trails was completed September 30, 2005. National Core data includes data elements such as completed condition survey dates, trail jurisdiction, trail status, and length.

Objective REOB17: Initiate a process of phased, site-specific travel management planning as soon as practicable. Prioritize planning based on areas where the most significant user conflicts and resource concerns are occurring. Identify and address inconsistent access management of roads, trails, and areas across Forest, Ranger District, and interagency boundaries.

Accomplishment: The Forest initiated Travel Management in 2004 focusing on areas with unrestricted cross-country motorized travel on the Minidoka, Ketchum and Fairfield Districts. The goal of the process is to designate a manageable snow-free season motorized transportation system that will address resource concerns while providing opportunities for quality motorized recreation on the Forest.

The formal 30-day comment period on the proposed action was initiated on Oct 4, 2006 and continued through November 4, 2006. The Forest is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) and is planning to release the EA in the Fall of 2007 for a 28-day courtesy review prior to releasing the decision. A final decision on the new travel map is expected in early 2008.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 13 SCENIC ENVIRONMENT Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-68)

This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

HERITAGE PROGRAM Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-70)

This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

TRIBAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-72)

Objective TROB01: Meet annually with designated tribal representatives to coordinate tribal uses of National Forest System lands as provided for through existing tribal rights with the U.S. Government

Accomplishment: There are four federally recognized Native American tribes who have expressed interest in management activities on the Sawtooth National Forest. They are: • Nez Perce Tribe • Shoshone-Bannock Tribes • Shoshone-Paiute Tribes • Northwest Band of he Shoshone Nation

Scoping documents for most projects proposed in FY 2006 on the Forest were sent to the Tribes. The Forest continues to work on a process which ensures the Tribes receive copies of all scoping documents.

In April 2007, the Staff from Sawtooth National Forest met with the Shoshone-Bannock Technical Staff in Fort Hall, Idaho to discuss the most recent SOPA. The Sawtooth National Forest is continuing to work on a Consultation agreement and MOU with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Representatives from the Sawtooth National Forest have attended Wings-to-Roots meetings with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes.

WILDERNESS, RECOMMENDED WILDERNESS and INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREA Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-74)

This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

WILD and SCENIC RIVERS Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-76)

This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-77)

This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

SOCIAL and ECONOMIC Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-78)

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 14 This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

SAWTOOTH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA Objectives (Forest Plan, page III-79)

This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

2. Documentation of costs associated with carrying out the planned management prescriptions as compared with the costs estimated in the Forest Plan.

Summary of findings: As described in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan, the final determining factor in carrying out the intent of the Forest Plan is the adequacy of funding. Allocation of dollars from Congress during the first planning period (1987-2003) was consistently lower than Forest Plan projections for most program areas. Because of this, rate of implementation of the 1987 Forest Plan was considerably lower than projected.

To predict a more realistic rate of implementation, the budget level used to develop the revised Forest Plan for all programs except timber management and hazardous fuels was based on average allocations from 2001 to 2003. Timber management and hazardous fuels reduction were based on a 10% increase over average service level constraints from the Forest Service Budget Formulation and Execution System. Actual allocations by fund code and program emphasis will vary on an annual basis based on Forest priorities for a given year, as well as the will of Congress. Table 1 shows the predicted Forest Plan budget level, inflated to reflect 2006 values, by program area based on average allocations and BFES and the actual allocation for fiscal year 2006, not including carry over dollars. Carry over dollars are unobligated funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year that may be carried over to the next fiscal year. These funds tend to be highly variable and therefore are not included.

Substantial differences in predicted allocations versus actual were seen in Brush Disposal, Road Construction and Maintenance, Land Acquisition Management; Land Management Planning; Timber Management and Salvage Sales; Vegetation Management and Wildlife, Fish, and Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat Management. The Forest did receive additional funding in Land Acquisition Management for easement acquisition on the SNRA from 2001 – 2003. Funding levels for this fund code will vary based on potential for easement purchases. During Forest Plan revision, the Forest received Land Management Planning funds at a level necessary for revising the plan. Now that the revision process has been completed, the Forest is being funded at a maintenance level which is considerably less. Reductions or additions in other funding areas reflect, in part, current National and Regional priorities of work for the Forest Service as well as reductions due to competing funding needs for other domestic and national security programs. Because funding for the third year of plan implementation appears to be well below the average anticipated for most funding areas, accomplishment of Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions may be delayed if this trend continues. However, the key measure of the success of obtaining funding to achieve Forest Plan objectives must be looked at and monitored over multiple years (5+ years) before an assessment can be made as to the implications to achieving objectives in the 2003 Forest Plan and their contribution to Forest Plan goals.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 15 Table 1. Predicted versus Actual Forest Budget Levels Fund Code Predicted FY 2006 Actual Percent Forest Plan Allocation Change DESCRIPTION Budget Level BDBD BRUSH DISPOSAL $ 46,835 $ 10,000 -79% CMFC/ FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND $1,475,940 $ 1,242,061 -16% CMII/CP09 MAINTENANCE CMRD ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND $1,359,314 $ 866,700 -36% MAINTENANCE CMTL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND $ 580,650 $ 555,402 -4% MAINTENANCE CWKV $ 227,235 $ 15,000 +29% CWK2* REFORESTATION $ 306,922 LALW LAND ACQUISITION MGMT. $ 263,085 $ 144,867 -45% NFIM INVENTORY AND MONITORING $ 584,437 $ 413,175 -29% NFLM LAND OWNERSHIP MGMT. $ 306,608 $ 239,015 -22% NFMG MINERALS & GEOLOGY MGMT. $ 333,697 $ 332,515 0% NFPN LAND MGMT PLANNING $ 653,746 $ 142,569 -78% NFRG GRAZING MGMT. $ 815,582 $ 790,485 -3% NFRW RECREATION/HERITAGE $2,574,429 $2,008,234 -22% RESOURCES/WILDERNESS MGMT. NFTM TIMBER MANAGEMENT $ 661,873 $ 199,325 -70% NFVW VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (FOREST $1,039,213 $ 618,583 -40% AND RANGE)/WATERSHED IMPROVEMENTS/SOIL/WATER/AIR MGMT. NFWF WILDLIFE/FISH/THREATENED & $ 856,438 $ 541,236 -37% ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT MGMT. RBRB RANGE BETTERMENT $ 79,240 $ 111,190 +29% SSSS SALVAGE SALE $ 261,127 $ 175,000 -33% WFHF HAZARDOUS FUELS $ 725,430 $ 703,200 -3% WFPR FIRE PREPAREDNESS $4,023,126 $3,068,698 -24% *CWK2 - The FY 2006 appropriations act included an amendment to the K-V Act which expanded the allowable uses for K-V funds to include watershed restoration, wildlife habitat improvement, control of insects, disease and noxious weeds, community protection activities, and maintenance of forest roads within the Region in which the timber sale occurred.

3. Population trends of the management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat changes determined.

Table 2 shows the Management Indicator Species (MIS) selected by the Sawtooth National Forest in the 2003 Forest Plan. The primary reason MIS are selected is because their populations are believed to indicate the effects of management activities.

Table 2. Management Indicator Species for the Sawtooth National Forest, 2003 Forest Plan Type Common Name Habitat Management Concerns Pileated PVGs 2-9 Sufficient large trees, snags, and Bird Woodpecker down logs Species Sage Grouse Sagebrush/grassland Habitat reduction and alteration Perennial streams Sediment in spawning and rearing Fish Bull Trout areas, water temperature, habitat Species connectivity

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 16

Following is a summary of the monitoring completed for each MIS on the Forest in FY 2005:

Bull Trout Monitoring: An approach to monitoring bull trout as a management indicator species was developed with the Boise National Forest, Regional Office, and Rocky Mountain Research Station in 2004.

For aquatic species, trend is typically monitored using relative abundance estimates over time in a select set of streams. However, the challenge with abundance data is that it is often influenced by sampling error and natural inter-annual variation in abundance (Platts and Nelson 1988; Maxell 1999; Ham and Pearsons 2000; Dunham et al. 2001). Previous work on bull trout and other salmonids highlight several limitations to monitoring abundance for detecting trends, including 1) low statistical power (Maxell 1999; Hamm and Pearsons 2000), 2) errors in estimating abundance (Dunham et al. 2001; Peterson et al. 2004), 3) high natural variability in populations (Platts and Nelson 1988), 4) lack of a connection between abundance and habitat (Fausch et al. 1988), and 5) the high cost of estimating population abundance using rigorous methods, such as mark-recapture.

Given these well-known limitations, an alternative trend monitoring approach was needed. The alternate approach selected for bull trout is monitoring the spatial patterns of occurrence (distribution) through time. Monitoring distributions can be particularly appropriate for bull trout because it has very specific habitat requirements. Specifically, bull trout distribution is limited to cold water (Dunham et al. 2003), and suitably cold habitats are often patchily distributed throughout river networks (Poole et al. 2001). Dunham and Rieman (1999) found that bull trout populations in the Boise River basin were linked closely to available habitat “patches” or networks of cold water. A patch is defined for bull trout as the contiguous stream areas believed suitable for spawning and rearing (Rieman and McIntyre, 1995). Rieman and McIntyre (1995) analyzed bull trout in the Boise River and found occurrence to be positively related to habitat size (stream width) and patch (stream catchment) area, as well as patch isolation and indices of watershed disruption. Patch size (area) was the single most important factor determining bull trout occurrence.

Spatial patterns can also provide information on population persistence, local extinction and recovery (recolonization). The stability and persistence of metapopulations are related to the number, size, and relative distribution of populations (Dunham and Rieman 1999). Bull trout populations in larger, less isolated, and less disturbed habitats appear more likely to persist and these habitats may prove critical as long-term refugia or cores for changing environments and future recolonization of restored habitats (Rieman and McIntyre, 1995). Large patches may persist because the populations are larger and because they support more diverse habitats for bull trout allowing some internal stability in the face of variable environments (Rieman and McIntyre, 1995; Dunham et al. 2003; Miller et al. 2003).

Based upon the above approach the following metrics for determining trend will be used:

The proportion of habitat patches that bull trout occupy within each subbasin across time.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 17 The spatial pattern of occupied bull trout patches within each subbasin across time. In the future we will explore indices of abundance and distribution within individual streams as a metric useful for developing relationships with or exploring the linkages to local management.

2006 Monitoring Results Attachment 8, the 2006 Sawtooth Aquatic Management Indicator Species Monitoring Report provides the results of MIS monitoring for bull trout.

Pileated Woodpecker Monitoring

The primary goal of the Sawtooth National Forest Management Indicator Species/Landbird Monitoring Program is to estimate the overall population trends on the Forest for specific avian management indicator species, namely the pileated woodpecker and sage-grouse. The secondary goal of this monitoring strategy is to conduct an assessment of habitat relationships as they relate to population trends for those two species.

The Sawtooth monitoring strategy for pileated woodpecker is modeled on standardized bird monitoring methods (i.e. Northern Region Landbird Monitoring Program) which is being applied on the National Forests in Idaho in Region 1 of the USFS, as well as the Payette and Boise Forests in Region 4. As such, the data collected from any one unit becomes not only relevant to its particular Forest, but contributes to a larger data set which allows monitoring trends to be evaluated at multi-forest scales, state-wide scales, or regional scales. The Region 1 protocols have been in place for 10 years and are well tested as to achieving their goal for establishing population trend data.

The adopted monitoring strategy is a population-based approach to bird monitoring that spreads survey locations randomly across the Forest, irrespective of habitat, to determine an overall population trend for the Forest. The survey design for the Sawtooth National Forest samples both potential and existing suitable habitat across the historic range of the pileated woodpecker. Permanent monitoring points were established on each Ranger District with potential and existing habitat in 2003 (Ketchum, the SNRA, and Fairfield Districts). District Wildlife Biologists initially mapped points and individual points were then later marked in the field.

Each year 328 points are monitored across habitat suitable for these two species. Points typically fall wherever they may in various cover types, landscapes, managed habitats, and heterogeneous mosaics. As long as the points are sampled over a specified period of time, overall population trends are relatively simple to calculate and are robust (Hutto and Young 2002).

In addition to population information, habitat information (vegetation structure) is gathered at each individual point. Vegetation measurements are collected: within a 100-meters radius of the point, within a 30-meter radius of the point, and within a 15-meter radius of the point. This information is intended to characterize the site with vegetative structure and species composition.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 18 2006 Monitoring Results:

Fairfield Ranger District. Number of Observations- 2 Hits. -President’s Trail Route: 1 PIWO at point 5. -South Fork Soldier Route: 1 PIWO at point 1. -Interpretation of Results: There have not been any major management activities relative to vegetative manipulation within Pileated woodpecker habitat on the Fairfield Ranger District. Therefore, management activity effects cannot be assessed.

Ketchum Ranger District. Number of Observations– 2 Hits. -PIWO detected at 2 points along 2 transects. -Interpretation of Results: There have not been any major management activities relative to vegetative manipulation within Pileated woodpecker habitat on the Ketchum Ranger District. Therefore, management activity effects cannot be assessed.

Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Number of Observations– 3 Hits. -PIWO detected at 3 points along 2 transects. -Interpretation of Results: There have not been any major management activities relative to vegetative manipulation within Pileated woodpecker habitat on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Therefore, management activity effects cannot be assessed.

Habitat Surveys for Pileated Woodpecker.

Habitat information (vegetation structure) is gathered at each individual point. Vegetation measurements are collected: within a 100-meters radius of the point, within a 30-meter radius of the point, and within a 15-meter radius of the point. This information is intended to characterize the site with vegetative structure and species composition.

Sage Grouse Monitoring.

As previously stated, the primary goal of the Sawtooth National Forest Management Indicator Species/Landbird Monitoring Program is to estimate the overall population trends on the Forest for both the pileated woodpecker and sage-grouse. The secondary goal of this monitoring strategy is to conduct an assessment of habitat relationships as they relate to population trends for those two species.

The purpose of the sage grouse habitat assessment studies is to establish long-term monitoring plots on potential nesting and leking habitat of Greater Sage-grouse on the Sawtooth National Forest. On the Minidoka Ranger District, Greater Sage-grouse habitat assessments were initiated in 2005 and continued in 2006. Locations of monitoring sites were selected in reference to leks occupied by the greatest number of Sage-grouse over the

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 19 recent decade. There were 36 potential plot locations identified on the Cassia Division (Minidoka Ranger District).

To monitor sage grouse habitat attributes, the SNF adopted the habitat classification and inventory protocol for upland non-forest vegetation that is currently being used by Steven K. Rust of the Idaho Conservation Data Center, Department of Fish and Game. Using this protocol and strategy, the SNF intends to be able to better assess the impacts of management activities on reproductive success at the lek sites, and the quality and quantity of habitat at other use areas on the Forest. This strategy will provide the information needed to examine relationships between MIS use, vegetative cover, and management actions within sage grouse habitats. Currently, the only known occupied sage grouse habitat occurs on the Minidoka District with 30 known lek on the Cassia Division. Monitoring efforts in 2006 were focused primarily on the south end of the Forest in the Cassia Division. Idaho Department of Fish and Game is currently working with Lava Lake Land and Livestock to radio collar sage grouse on BLM and private land adjoining the Ketchum District. In the future this information will be used to identify if any habitats on the east side the Ketchum District are being used. The Forest will be working with the Interagency Sage Grouse Working Group to identify monitoring sites on the north end of the forest, and to develop joint monitoring efforts. The Fairfield District is using the lek counts conducted annually by IDFG on BLM and private ground on the Camas Prairie to glean population information for the District. The District has also been conducting lek searches but have yet to find any strutting sage grouse on the Fairfield Ranger District. They have found sage grouse strutting in two locations on private land within two miles of the District boundary and two leks within 3 miles of the Fairfield District (one on BLM, another actually on the Mtn. Home RD, Boise NF).

2006 Monitoring Results:

Thirteen of 47 historically active leks were visited in 2006. Of the 13 leks visited, 9 were found to be active. In addition to the lek surveys, Greater Sage-grouse habitat assessments on the Minidoka District, which were initiated in 2005 were continued in 2006. Ten (10) vegetative monitoring plots were established within the vicinity (< 3-km radius of lek) of 5 Greater Sage-grouse lek areas. The vegetative attributes measured include: herbaceous cover, ground surface cover, shrub canopy cover, and shrub height. For leks, open areas are typically located on ridges and knolls, and used exclusively for display and mating. Sagebrush density typically is low. Eight (8) plots representing lek habitat were sampled

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 20 during the 2005 and 2006 field seasons. For nesting, hens typically select stands with high canopy cover (15 to 40%) and choose from the tallest shrubs (36 to 80 cm) with good lateral cover to nest under. Representative nesting habitat was sampled on eight (8) plots during the 2005 and 2006 field seasons.

4. Accomplishment of ACS priority subwatershed restoration objectives. Summary of findings: The Watershed Aquatic Recovery Strategy (WARS) is a process that identified restoration priorities (high, moderate, and low) and restoration type (passive, active, and conservation) among the 650 subwatersheds across the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup. This strategy provides the “blue print” for recovery and protection of aquatic (both physical and biological) resources across the Ecogroup. Table 3 displays a summary of the aquatic restoration that occurred in ACS priority subwatersheds on the Sawtooth National Forest in 2006.

Table 3. FY 06 aquatic restoration accomplishments by WARS priority subwatersheds Outside ACS Priority Watersheds TOTAL From Within ACS Columns 2, 3, Priority WARS High WARS Mod WARS Low 4 and 5 Watersheds Priority Priority Priority Watershed Watershed Watershed Total Miles Total Miles of Stream 2.6 9.2 of Stream 2.6 Improved Improved Total Acres Total Acres of Lake 5 5 of Lake 5 Improved Improved Total Acres Total Acres of 2282.5 51 of 2632 2632 Watershed Improved Watershed Improved

5. Terms and conditions or reasonable and prudent measures that result from consultation under Section (a) of the Endangered Species Act.

A. Terms and Conditions - Summary of findings: In 2006, there were no consultations completed for aquatic resources that required terms and conditions or reasonable and prudent measures.

RPM #1: Minimize the likelihood of incidental take by clarifying local sideboards pertaining to:

Fire Management timelines for fire operational resource guidance

Refer to the discussion for TEOB22 on how operational guidance was developed.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 21 RPM #2: Minimize the likelihood of incidental take by maintaining the necessary linkages between the Sawtooth National Forest Plan and broad-scale restoration/recovery strategies. To implement RPM #2 the Sawtooth National Forest is required to:

a. Provide an oversight and accountability body that links to IIT by continuing to work with the IIT and provide exchange of information regarding processes that are local in scope, but have broad-scale implications, such as subbasin planning, watershed analysis and monitoring.

The intent of the IIT implementation monitoring was to track implementation of management direction at the level of the FS Land and Resource Management Plan or BLM Resource Management Plan for the salmon, steelhead, and bull trout listed in the Upper Columbia and Snake River Basins. Specific objectives are to:

• Provide a reporting format for all Level 1 Team implementation monitoring requirements, and ensure a “feedback loop” for Level 1 Teams and Managers to accomplish agency adaptive management; • Meet the broad-scale, mandatory requirements and commitments of the PACFISH/INFISH, the 1998 Biological Opinions, and the IIT Charter; • Provide documentation to show that direction in PACFISH, INFISH and the 1998 Biological Opinions is being implemented on the ground; and • Document status and trends in implementation of federal activities by land management agencies, including locations of non-compliance with the aquatic conservation direction.

It was hoped that data collected by the Implementation Monitoring Module in combination with data from the Effectiveness Monitoring Module, would provide information to help validate the basic assumptions under which the management direction was developed.

In 2006 a “Line Officer Certification Report” was submitted to the Interior Columbia Basin Deputy Regional Executive Team, NOAA Fisheries, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The report detailed compliance with relevant forest plan standards and guidelines, progress on the framework assessment and WARS, tools and processes to manage risk for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead identified in LRMP BO and SWIE LRMPs, Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy (WARS) Accomplishments, and questions relating to grazing practices, facilities, handling, and implementation monitoring.

Compliance was found with all requirements. A detailed explanation for each response can be found in the 2006 “Line Officer Certification Report.”

b. In the Upper Salmon, South Fork Salmon, and Little Salmon River subbasins, not allow likely to adversely affect actions with adverse effects lasting 3 years or longer on ESA-listed anadromous fish species or their habitat prior to completion of the appropriate consultation framework document, unless informed or driven by recommendations from existing or new subbasin assessments or watershed analyses.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 22 No likely to adversely affect actions were submitted for consultation in the Upper Salmon River subbasin in 2006.

B. Conservation Recommendations that resulted from consultation under Section (a) of the Endangered Species Act.

In addition to the RPMs, the following conservation recommendations resulted from consultation with USFWS and NOAA fisheries:

1. The USFS should evaluate and report to NOAA Fisheries the effectiveness of rehabilitation efforts in RCAs in response to fire suppression activities (use of heavy machinery, fire retardants, camp and base locations, etc.) that affected RCAs.

The Trailhead Fire burned approximately 1,040 acres between July 19 and July 31, 2006. The fire started 1 ¾ miles northeast of Grandjean on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, or 25 air miles northeast of Lowman, Idaho from human causes in the S.F. Payette subbasin. Although the Trailhead Fire was contained, the burned area had small pockets of smoldering fuels within the black area. On August 23, 2006 these smoldering fuels were rekindled by heavy winds. Extremely low humidity and high temperatures also influenced the fire behavior. The Trailhead Fire moved eastward into the Trail Creek, Iron Creek, Crooked Creek, and Stanley Lake drainages on the western side of the Sawtooth Wilderness on the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, burning an additional 3,312 acres. Approximately 4,252 total acres were burned between July 19 and September 6, 2006.

Suppression Actions

Fire suppression actions in the Upper Salmon were limited to an Incident Command Post located at the sheep trail in upper Valley Creek; a few spike camps and handlines constructed in the headwaters of Stanley Lake Creek; and water drafting points for upper Stanley Lake Creek from high mountain ponds or alpine lakes. All of these actions occurred outside of riparian conservation areas.

All intake hoses were screened per Fire Suppression Operation Guidelines. Engine/tender operators and fire crews were instructed to use 3/32” mesh (or smaller) on the intakes to avoid entraining fish in pump intakes, as per the Sawtooth N.F. Fire Suppression Guidelines. Resource Advisors for the fire verified that tenders, engines, and portable pumps were using appropriate screens during suppression efforts.

2. For subbasins identified as currently having moderate to high levels of recreation (i.e., Little Salmon, Lower Salmon, Middle-Salmon Chamberlain, South Fork Salmon, and Upper Salmon subbasins), the Forest Service should evaluate and describe (in its 5-year Forest Plan monitoring reports) how changing levels of recreation are expected to affect ESA-listed anadromous fish and designated critical habitat throughout the remainder of the planning period.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 23 Evaluations of recreational activities and facilitates has not yet occurred in the Upper Salmon subbasin.

3. Over the planning period, the Forest Service objective for fish habitat restoration should be to move at least two ACS Priority Subwatersheds per subbasin into a “functioning appropriately” condition. The SWIE Matrix (LRMP Appendix B) should be used to assist in assessment of this objective. In addition, the Forest Service should initiate habitat improvements in the other ACS Priority Subwatersheds as identified by WARS. The strategy to achieve this objective should include steps to coordinate restoration activities, and should take advantage of opportunities to pool funding (within Forest Service, and among other sources including NOAA) across administrative boundaries to accomplish top priority restoration projects.

Refer to responses for (1) Accomplishment of ACS priority subwatershed restoration objectives and (2) Have restoration and conservation activities been focused in priority watersheds identified by the WARS process?

4. Cooperate with the State of Idaho, tribes, and others to evaluate bull trout subpopulation status and distribution on a regular basis. The Sawtooth National Forest participated in several coordination meetings with Idaho Department of Fish and Game in 2006 to discuss bull trout sampling. Districts worked with Idaho Fish and Game to determine which streams each agency would sample and share results from the previous year’s monitoring.

5. Participate in and promote opportunities to study local populations of bull trout to gain a better understanding of conservation and recovery needs at a local scale. The Sawtooth National Forest continues to gather information on the presence and vitality of bull trout for ESA and MIS purposes. More specifically, the current effort focuses on determining whether bull trout and/or reproducing bull trout populations exist in specific streams on the Fairfield Ranger District and Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA). Studies conducted in 2006 include:

Presence/Absence Electrofishing SNRA - During 2006, fourteen patches in the Salmon subbasin (Warm Springs Creek, Fourth of July, Champion, Fisher, Williams, Vat, Cabin, Fishhook, Upper Salmon River, Elk, Slate, Big Boulder, Little Boulder and West Pass) were electrofished using formal protocols and one patch was snorkeled informally (Elk Cr.). Of the patches sampled, eight patches (Warm Springs Creek, Fourth of July, Champion, Fishhook, Slate, Big Boulder, Little Boulder and West Pass) were determined to be occupied by bull trout. Most of these patches were known to biologists as previously supporting bull trout populations.

Electrofishing surveys failed to detect bull trout in the Fisher, Williams, Vat, Cabin, or Upper Salmon patches and snorkel surveys did not detect bull trout in the Elk Creek patch. Probabilities of detection in the patches ranged from 0.27 to 0.98. Bull trout were

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 24 observed in Cabin Creek during snorkel surveys in 2000 and it is possible that the population has been extirpated. All of these patches maintain large and widely distributed brook trout populations, which on the Sawtooth N.F., are correlated with bull trout absence. In addition, Cabin, Fisher, and Williams Creeks have historically been isolated from downstream waters by water diversions and culvert barriers.

Presence/Absence Electrofishing Fairfield - In 2006, presence/absence and distribution surveys were conducted in six patches (Boardman, Skeleton, Bear, upper S.F. Boise River, Carrie Creek and Upper Little Smoky) that had been sampled previously for bull trout. Bull trout populations were confirmed in Upper S.F. Bear River, Boardman, Skeleton, and Bear Creeks but not in the other presence/absence patches.

Bull trout were not observed in Carrie Creek or Upper Little Smoky despite detection probabilities of 0.91 and 0.84, respectively. Although both patches appear to maintain water temperatures that are cold enough to support bull trout populations (MWMT 14.6°C and 15.1°C respectively), these patches are relatively small in acreage (2196 ha and 1957 ha) when compared to patches where BLT have been observed (median = 5052 ha). Additionally, temperatures downstream of each patch have frequently been recorded in excess of 26 C., perhaps creating a thermal barrier to migratory bull trout.

Other Surveys - More-intensive surveys (electrofishing, weirs, and PIT-tagging) were conducted in Boardman and Skeleton Creeks that were known to harbor substantial reproducing bull trout populations in order to: (1) determine the presence of migratory lifestages; (2) estimate spawner and “smolt” abundance, trends; (3) determine migration timing; and (4) estimate population size, growth rates, mortality within selected streams.

Because both resident and migratory life histories/stages exist in the upper South Fork Boise River subbasin, the sampling efforts in the Boardman and Skeleton Creek drainages were two-pronged. To detect resident and/or juvenile bull trout, SNF staff backpack electrofished a total of twenty-eight 50-100 m sites in these streams (accounting for approximately 20 stream miles in each stream) and PIT-tagged many of the larger individuals captured. Weirs were installed in the lower reaches of both Boardman and Skeleton creeks to capture juvenile and adult outmigrants in the late summer and fall of 2003, which are also being PIT-tagged. A half-duplex PIT-tag detector was erected at both Skeleton and Boardman creeks and run from early August at Boardman Creek (technical problems were encountered at Skeleton Creek).

An additional 50 bull trout were PIT-tagged in the Boardman and Skeleton Creek drainages in 2006 and should yield valuable information on migration routes and timing and growth rates if recaptured. Detailed results will be produced upon examination of data in the winter, with PIT-tag recaptures, in future years.

Temperature Monitoring - During 2006, 77 temperature loggers were deployed in 34 patches in the Boise and Salmon sub-basins. Because maximum water temperatures on the Sawtooth tend to occur between mid-July and mid-September (Sawtooth NF. unpublished data), water temperature loggers are deployed in early summer (prior to July

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 25 1) and recovered in early fall (after Sept 1). Gamett (2002) found that mean water temperature (July 1 to September 30) appeared to be the most effective in describing bull trout abundance in the Little Lost river drainage. In addition, Dunham (2003) found that the probability of bull trout occurrence was relatively high (>0.50) in streams with a maximum daily maximum temperature (MWMT, the warmest daily water temperature recorded during a given year or survey) <14-16° C.

Maximum daily maximum temperature (MDMT) and maximum weekly maximum temperature (MWMT), the mean of daily maximum water temperatures measured over the warmest consecutive seven-day period, were calculated for each patch and provide important information for managers when classifying patches into strata or assessing the presence or absence of bull trout. Even though no statistically significant relationship was observed (two sample T-test, α = 0.05), median MWMT temperatures where bull trout were observed were lower than median MWMT temperatures where bull trout were not observed.

Figure 1 Maximum weekly maximum temperature (MWMT - º C) as measured at the confluence of patches where bull trout were detected (1) vs. those where bull trout were not observed (0). Figure includes 2004 - 2006 data.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 26 6. Cooperate with others in efforts to reduce densities and distribution of brook trout, and to manage habitat to provide a competitive advantage to native salmonids, especially bull trout. In 2006 the Sawtooth National Forest completed a draft assessment of factors influencing brook trout distribution and potential priority areas to reduce brook trout populations. Several streams were selected where eradication efforts would have a high probability of success. On the Minidoka District, Cassia, New Canyon, Cold Springs, One-mile, and Johnson Creeks are inhabited by Yellowstone cutthroat trout and brook trout. Each of these small streams have relatively simple habitat and contain numerous potential culvert barriers. In addition, all of these Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations were deemed “conservation populations” by a multi-agency status review of Yellowstone cutthroat trout (May et al. 2001).

If removal projects are successful on the Minidoka Ranger District, other streams in the Big Wood, Little Wood, Upper Salmon and S.F. Boise River subbasins would be investigated. However, many streams in these areas present unique challenges because they are larger and have more complex habitat that make brook trout removal difficult. Use of piscicides would also be difficult in streams that support ESA listed species.

7. Cooperate to increase the benefits for bull trout from work on Forest system lands and efforts by the State, counties, and other Federal agencies to conserve and recover the species. In particular, assist in identifying actions to remove barriers to bull trout movements in locations where the Forests is also doing work to resolve passage problems and improve habitat. In FY 03 and FY 04, approximately 500 stream crossings were inventoried on the Sawtooth National Forest. The purpose of the culvert inventory was to better describe the extent of culvert barriers across the forest to fish and associated aquatic species. The emphasis was to first focus on those streams with listed bull trout, cutthroat trout, steelhead trout, and anadromous salmon. Another objective was to prioritize culverts needing restoration taking into account the extent of habitat blocked, habitat quality, importance of stream, etc. One hundred and twelve of the 500 crossings fall within bull trout habitat. Approximately 70% of these culverts are barriers to juvenile and adult bull trout.

The culvert assessment has given the Sawtooth National Forest a better perspective of the magnitude of fish passage problems and where these problems occur. The inventory will allow us to further assess these fish passage issues in relation to our forest restoration strategy developed through forest plan revision. It will also allow us to better prioritize which culverts to improve first.

In 2006 a culvert was removed from Big Water Gulch Creek to restore upstream fish passage. The existing perched round 48" diameter culvert was replaced with a round 120" diameter culvert. The new culvert was countersunk about 5 feet and filled with appropriate substrate to simulate a natural stream channel. The culvert was replaced in September 2006 and should open up 2 miles or more of Big Water Gulch Creek to passage by bull trout and other aquatic organisms.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 27

III - B. Monitoring Elements in Table IV-2 of the Forest Plan with Annual Reporting Requirements:

As described in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan, monitoring elements were designed around monitoring questions that need to be answered about Forest Plan implementation. These questions are key to determining if we are moving towards meeting the desired conditions identified in the Forest Plan. Following is a summary of the findings for those elements that we are required to monitor and evaluate on an annual or three year basis:

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Management actions

Monitoring Question: Are proposed actions and associated effects being adequately disclosed in NEPA documents?

Summary of findings: Overall, the proposed action and associated effects are being disclosed properly. However, there is room for improvement. In some instances, out-dated Decision Memo formats are still being used which contain the old “extraordinary circumstances” check- list. Specialists need to make sure they are using the current Washington Office Decision Memo template.

The proposed action descriptions were found to be somewhat broad for some projects such as livestock grazing and fuels reduction projects. The Forest has developed a protocol for more clearly describing livestock grazing proposals to include a detailed description of the adaptive management process, a specific monitoring plan, and completion of the allotment management plan as part of the NEPA process. Review of proposed actions for fuels projects by District or Forest NEPA specialists will help identify where proposed actions are too broad and need to be more clearly described.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Tribal participation with the Forest

Monitoring Question: Are current processes meeting the needs for consultation?

Summary of findings: Current processes are adequate at the minimum level. The Forest is doing a good job of notification to the tribes regarding projects. The Forest does not generally follow-up on these notifications, technical coordination and formal consultation does not happen on a regular basis. The lack of technical and formal consultation is based on a number of factors, many of which the Forest has no control over. Rigid or general lack of consultation procedures within the Tribes sometimes hinders the agencies consultation activities. The Forest has been making significant strides in this area. Annual meetings between the Forest and Tribal technical staff, attempts to host the Tribes on field trips, and general notification of projects have been occurring on a regular basis.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Coordination with Tribes

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 28 Monitoring Question: Are traditional cultural resources and special interest areas being considered and maintained?

Summary of findings: The Sawtooth National Forest considers and maintains identified Traditional Cultural Properties, Sacred Sites, and Special Interest Areas

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: State and local government participation with the Forest

Monitoring Question: Are current processes such as commission appearances, field reviews, etc., meeting coordination needs?

Summary of findings: The Forest and Districts do an excellent job of involving State and local government participation. All major projects on the Forest have a Public Involvement Plan developed which identify needs for public meetings, field reviews, meetings with County Commissioners, etc. The practice of developing a Public Involvement Plan for large or complex projects should continue into the future as it is working well.

District Rangers and the Area Ranger meet regularly with their respective County Commissioners. They also attend City meetings when appropriate.

Coordination is excellent at the staff level as well. A fine example is the Sawtooth Level 1 Team which includes IDFG, USFWS, and NOAA Fisheries on the Team. The Cooperative Weed Associations work well with our noxious weed administrators. Our fire management is integrated with local fire departments. The Idaho Parks & Recreation Department comment on all our projects, providing us with invaluable recreation input.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Safety of administrative facilities

Monitoring Question: Are administrative sites safe and accessible for visitors and employees including drinking water sources?

Summary of findings: Condition surveys are required every 5 years at a minimum to assess the overall operational quality, function and maintenance of the facility. In accordance with the schedule, conditions surveys were conducted on two administrative sites, the Hereford Guard Station and the Shake Creek Guard Station. In addition sanitary surveys were completed this year on approximately 20% of the total water systems.

Water systems are tested for bacteriological contamination on a monthly basis when they are open. Any systems that show bad results are re-tested according to FS direction and are closed if repeat samples indicate contamination. Systems are re-opened when deficiencies are corrected and repeat sampling indicate the water is safe. The drinking water systems for all Forest administrative sites with active water systems were opened in 2006. Monthly samples collected

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 29 from these water systems during the months the systems were open for use, determined that each of these systems were substantially compliant with the Safe Drinking Water Act standards.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Safety of developed recreation sites

Monitoring Question: Are developed recreation sites free of high-risk conditions? Do water systems meet Federal, State, and local requirements?

Summary of findings: Generally, all Forest developed recreation sites are inspected in the spring or early summer in conjunction with opening for the summer season. Any identified hazards are removed or mitigated at this time. Water systems are managed and tested in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and Forest Service regulations.

The drinking water systems for the majority of the recreational facilities were open for use in 2006. Monthly samples collected during the months the systems were open for use determined that each of these systems was substantially compliant with the Safe Drinking Water Act standards. In 2006, most of the developed recreation water systems met all standards established under this act and agency regulations.

Construction included the installation of a handpump at Casino Creek Campground and rehabilitation of the handpumps at Mormon Bend Campground.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Recreation use conflicts

Monitoring Question: Are conflicts rising between recreational uses?

Summary of findings: The results for this element will be documented in the FY 2008 Monitoring and Evaluation Report, which will reflect the recent change in the reporting period from “every three years” to “every five years.”

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Dispersed recreation use and distribution

Monitoring Question: What level of use is occurring in dispersed sites and what impacts are occurring to other resource values

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Track actual daily and seasonal use versus use capacity

Monitoring Question: What level of use is occurring in special use areas, including recreation sites (e.g., downhill ski areas)?

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 30

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Developed site use and distribution, and resource impacts to sites

Monitoring Question: What level of use is occurring in developed sites and what impacts are occurring to other resource values?

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Level of trail maintenance relative to trail use

Monitoring Question: Are trails being maintained for anticipated levels of use?

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Potential impacts to visual resources

Monitoring Question: Are Forest management actions being designed and implemented to meet Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs)?

Summary of findings: All projects have included consideration of their effects on the appropriate VQO. Projects that do not initially meet the VQO prescribed in the Forest Plan have been modified to eliminate the non-complying elements prior to project decision and implementation. As projects are implemented, the Forest or Sawtooth NRA Landscape Architect monitors the project to ensure compliance with the VQO.

No Forest Plan amendments to change a Forest Plan prescribed VQO were proposed.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Protection of historic properties

Monitoring Question: Are historic properties being affected by project activities?

Summary of findings: Due to gaps in available data and a change in personnel, there is a possibility that historic properties may have been affected by past project activities. Although it

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 31 appears that in most cases archaeological survey was accomplished, many survey and site data files are incomplete. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Tribes may not have been accomplished in some instances. Records which indicate SHPO concurrence with project related findings are not found in the project record of several completed and on-going projects.

The Sawtooth National Forest is addressing these issues in several ways. Personnel are now in place to survey proposed project areas. The Forest Archaeologist is in the process of updating site and project files, project tracking, and insuring consultation with SHPO and Tribes. The Forest will also be utilizing independent contractors for projects which require specialized knowledge and/or a high time commitments. An agreement with Weber State University to provide the Forest with important base-line data that can be used in future management decisions is being finalized. This data will provide information needed for better site predictive modeling which can then be designed to help in project planning and implementation.

In 2006, the Sawtooth National Forest Heritage Resources program surveyed over 4000 acres, recorded 36 new historic sites, and monitored 26 previously recorded sites. Under an agreement with Weber State University, the Sawtooth National Forest also began a multi-year research project which will provide valuable information and assist in the future management of heritage resources on the Sawtooth National Forest. The Heritage Resources program completed and submitted 68 heritage resources reports covering 71 projects to the Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Stewardship of historic properties

Monitoring Question: Are historic properties being managed to standard?

Summary of findings: Historic properties are being managed to standard as time and budget allows. The Sawtooth National Forest, along with most Forests in the nation, does have a list of deferred maintenance in regards to historic properties and managing them to standard. In order to manage all historic properties to standard would require long-term personnel commitments and funding considerably above current levels.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Gathering activities on the Forest

Monitoring Question: Are Forest gathering activities resulting in resource depletion (i.e., mushrooms, bear grass, huckleberries)?

Summary of findings: Historically, the Forest has not received many requests for gathering activities. However, the Forest is now experiencing a significant increase in permit requests, particularly for commercial collection. Although gathering activities have not resulted in resource depletion to date, as the number of requests for collection permits increases, this could become a problem. Based on the number of requests received in 2006 and 2007, it was determined that the Forest needs to develop an internal protocol on procedures for commercial collection. Part of the protocol should include establishment of fair market price for collection of

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 32 native seed. Given that a large number of the permits are being issued to Spanish speaking people, there is also need to develop permits in Spanish.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Habitat for terrestrial Management Indicator Species (MIS); Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate (TEPC) species, both plant and animal.

Monitoring Question: Are management actions providing for, or moving toward the extent of vegetation components necessary to meet the needs of MIS and TEPC species?

Summary of findings: The Forest has implemented several vegetation management projects which have resulted in movement towards vegetation desired conditions. These include more aggressive removal of smooth brome from 70 acres of occupied habitat for Castilleja christii, a candidate species, through both mechanical and chemical treatments; timber stand thinning projects within several Potential Vegetation Groups, mechanical treatment and burning projects to enhance aspen stand regeneration, etc. may have improved source habitats for terrestrial wildlife MIS (Pileated woodpecker, Greater Sage-grouse) and TEPC (Bald eagle, Gray wolf, Lynx) or the associated prey species. For instance, the South Fork Boise River Ponderosa Pine Thinning Project (PVG #1) (currently in progress) was designed to produce a Ponderosa Pine stand that contains, on average, larger diameter trees than the current condition. Although Pileated woodpeckers currently use this stand, the future condition may provide higher quality source habitat for this species. In the future, vegetative manipulation project may be designed to specifically provide or improve source habitat for MIS and/or TEPC species which will move a project area towards the desired vegetative condition.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Botanical species of concern, Watch species or Sensitive species

Monitoring Question: Are Forest management actions affecting known Sensitive species or Watch species habitats at the project level?

Summary of findings: The Forest did not have any projects in known rare plant populations.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Soil productivity

Monitoring Question: Are management actions and forest plan direction effectively maintaining or restoring long-term soil productivity?

Summary of findings: Results for this monitoring element were not available at the time of this report. This report will be updated to include these results as soon as they become available.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Distribution of aquatic ecosystems

Monitoring Question: Are management actions maintaining or restoring the distribution, abundance, and habitat quality of management indicator and TEPC species?

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 33

Summary of findings: This question has two components. The first asks how well are management actions maintaining or restoring the distribution and abundance of bull trout and other TEPC species (Chinook and sockeye salmon, and steelhead trout). The second asks how habitat is trending within those streams that currently support or have the potential to support bull trout and other TEPC species in relation to our management activities.

Species Distribution – (refer to page 16 of this report, MIS bull trout, for a description of the monitoring protocol used to address species distribution)

Data collected over the past three years were compared with information collected prior to 2004 to provide a preliminary indication of bull trout trend across the planning unit (Table 4). Results from this comparison indicate a slight increase in bull trout distribution in the S.F. Boise, S.F. Payette, and Upper Salmon subbasins over the last three years. Bull trout were probably present, but previously undetected, in many of the patches that are now reclassified as occupied (category 1). Still, the data indicates that bull trout presence is more robust than previously thought and that bull trout are still occupying most patches where previously detected. Table 4 also shows a slight increase in the number of unsuitable/inaccessible patches in the Upper Salmon subbasin. These patches were reclassified as unsuitable based on recently acquired data that documented unfavorable existing conditions, such as high water temperature, natural barriers, and/or high brook trout abundance. Several more patches surveyed in this timeframe are also likely to reclassified as unsuitable upon further evaluation of the collected data.

Table 4 - Comparison of bull trout patch strata 2003-2006. Category S.F. Boise N.F. and M.F. S.F. Payette Upper Salmon Subbasin Boise Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin # # # # # # # # Patches Patches Patches Patches Patches Patches Patches Patches 2004 2006 2004 2006 2004 2006 2004 2006 1 – Occupied 11 12 4 4 0 2 6 13 2 – 22 23 1 1 4 2 28 18 Suitable/Unoccupied 3 – 10 8 0 0 0 0 3 8 Unsuitable/Inaccessible 4 – Un-surveyed 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5

Bull trout trend was also compared to local and potential population designations in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife draft bull trout recovery plan released in 2003. The information in this plan reflects the best summary of bull trout presence prior to 2002. This provides another snapshot in which to compare recent bull trout trend from data collected by the MIS protocol or other agency depletion surveys.

Within the Sawtooth National Forest 31 local populations within the Upper Salmon, M.F. /N.F. Boise River and S.F. Boise River were designated by the draft recovery plan. Nine potential populations in the S.F. Boise River subbasin were also designated. Surveys since 2003 have confirmed bull trout in 25 of the 31 local populations, but only in two of the 9 potential

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 34 populations. This quick comparison implies the majority of designations were justified. However, our data is beginning to reflect some common traits to where bull trout have and have not been observed.

Bull trout were confirmed in two patches (Big Peak and NF Fork Big Smoky Creeks) that were designated as potential populations in the draft recovery plan. Both of these areas have no fish barriers, maximum daily maximum temperature at or below 15 °C over most of the available habitat, and no brook trout.

Where bull trout have not been found in local or potential populations, streams have culvert barriers, maximum daily maximum temperature that exceed 15 °C over most of the available habitat, brook trout and no strong bull trout populations in adjacent streams. The following provides further explanations on how many of these factors are influencing bull trout presence and trend.

One of the most important factors influencing bull trout presence is water temperature. Bull trout are among the most thermally sensitive species and their occurrence declines rapidly as maximum daily maximum temperature (MDMT) and maximum weekly maximum temperature (MWMT, the mean of daily maximum water temperatures measured over the warmest consecutive seven-day period) exceed 15 °C. Many of the patches with local and potential populations where bull trout have not been found have MDMT above 15 °C. For example, Big Water Gulch and Little Smoky Creek (both local populations in the S.F. Boise subbasin) have MDMT above 17 °C. Some accessible headwater reaches support water temperatures below 15 °C, but not over enough area to sustain a viable local population.

The second factor influencing bull trout trend is the presence of brook trout. In several patches brook trout are widespread with very high densities. Brook trout are believed to be one of the reasons why bull trout have not been found recently in the Pettit Lake Creek or Salt Creek local populations. Rieman and McIntyre (1993) concluded that brook trout presence and density were important variables explaining the observed distributions and number of bull trout among streams. Brook trout are frequently implicated in the decline of bull trout, impacting populations through introgressive hybridization, and possibly through interactive segregation (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

The third factor influencing bull trout trend is habitat access. Many local and potential populations where bull trout have not been observed have culvert barriers or recently had barriers that had been removed. Eight of the 10 local and potential populations in the S.F. Boise River subbasin have or had culvert barriers. Bull trout have clearly not had access or there is not enough available habitat above these barriers to support a viable resident population.

Finally, some patches and potential populations (N.F., M.F. and S.F. Lime Creeks in the S.F. Boise River subbasin) may not sustain bull trout because migratory or neighboring tributary populations are not strong enough to support the colonization of unoccupied habitat. Rieman and McIntyre (1995) found that bull trout never occurred in tributary streams without also occurring in the associated main stems.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 35 These factors individually or in collectively are likely influencing the ability of bull trout populations to occupy patches within designated local or potential populations under the draft recovery plan. These and other factors will be investigated further as the forest continues to monitor bull trout.

Habitat Trend - To address habitat trend, the Sawtooth and Boise National Forests have worked with the PACFISH, INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) monitoring group in Logan, Utah to develop a monitoring strategy across each forest. This monitoring approach evaluates habitat trend across subwatersheds where PIBO integrator sites have been established. Each integrator site has been sampled once from 2001 to 2005, with resurveying of select sites beginning in 2006.

As of 2005, approximately 41 subwatersheds had been sampled across the forest where TEPC fish species are present. It is estimated that this sample size will allow for the detection of a 10 - 15% change in habitat condition over the life of the Forest Plan (refer to “Answering SWIE LRMP Soil Water Riparian and Aquatic Monitoring Elements” paper for a more detailed discussion on statistical considerations for estimating sample sizes). At this time habitat trend within sites with bull trout or TEPC fish species can not be assessed because integrator sites have not yet been resurveyed.

Species Distribution - Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Watershed restoration and conservation activities

Monitoring Question: Have restoration and conservation activities been focused in priority watersheds identified by the WARS process?

Summary of findings: The Watershed Aquatic Recovery Strategy (WARS) is a process that identified restoration priorities (high, moderate, and low) and restoration type (passive, active, and conservation) among the 650 subwatersheds across the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup. This strategy provides the “blue print” for recovery and protection of aquatic (both physical and biological) resources across the Ecogroup.

The intent of the WARS strategy is the movement of subwatershed functions, ecological processes, and structures toward desired conditions. The intent of WARS is also to: (1) secure existing habitats that support the strongest populations of wide-ranging aquatic species and the highest native diversity and geomorphic and water quality integrities; (2) extend favorable conditions into adjacent subwatersheds to create a larger and more contiguous network of suitable and productive habitats; and (3) restore soil-hydrologic processes to ensure favorable water quality conditions for aquatic, riparian, and municipal beneficial uses that will fully support beneficial uses and contribute to the de-listing of fish species and 303(d) water quality limited water bodies.

WARS identified subwatersheds with high aquatic integrity (strong populations of listed fish species and native cutthroat trout), high geomorphic integrity, and high water quality integrity. These subwatersheds received the highest priority for restoration, specifically a conservation

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 36 strategy that maintains and protects their high quality with minimal short-term risk from other management actions.

High priority subwatersheds were further prioritized to focus recovery efforts and provide a “blue print” as to which should be the highest priority for restoration or conservation during the planning period (next 10-15 years). ACS priority subwatersheds were identified for each subbasin to represent the “highest of the high” in terms of applying management direction and restoration prioritization, especially for short-term recovery objectives. This process is designed to focus management direction and restoration prioritization for the recovery of listed fish species, their habitats, and 303(d) impaired water bodies, and other SWRA resources.

Aquatic restoration can be measured by: (1) how many projects were implemented; (2) how many acres or miles were accomplished; and (3) how many dollars were spent. In FY06, 26 aquatic restoration projects were completed (Table 5). These projects improved 12.9 miles of stream, 2702 acres of riparian and upland areas, and 5 acres of lake, and decommissioned 9.5 miles of road. Projects focused in ACS and WARS high priority subwatersheds accomplished 8.7 miles (67%) of stream improvement, 9.5 miles of road decommissioning (100%), 5 acres (100%) of lake improvement, and 2647.5 acres (98%) of riparian and upland improvements on the forest (Tables 6). A total of $2,045,181, representing 96% of the total partnership and Forest Service funds spent on aquatic restoration in FY 06, was spent in high priority subwatersheds.

Although ACS and WARS high subwatersheds are the highest priority for restoration, not all restoration projects implemented or dollars spent in FY06 occurred in these subwatersheds. This is due to several reasons. First, many of the aquatic restoration projects implemented in FY 06 were planned several years ago under the old forest plan and past planning efforts. Projects were not planned with forest-wide, management area objectives or WARS emphasis in mind. Second, some restoration projects are driven by specific resource issues that must be addressed immediately or additional degradation may occur (i.e. sediment coming from a storm damaged road). Finally, restoration projects may be driven by outside groups that have a specific interest in an issue or aquatic resource that falls outside of ACS priority subwatersheds. Even with these considerations, the projects implemented in FY 06 still addressed many key forest wide or management area objectives in ACS or high priority subwatersheds (Table 7).

Table 5 - FY 06 aquatic restoration projects Project Name Subwatershed (s) FW or MA Summary of accomplished work WARS ACS in which Objective Restoration priority restoration addressed Strategy subwater occurred and shed Priority D5S.F. Boise Abbot-Shake TEOB07, Removed dispersed campsites in riparian Active/Mod No Dispersed TEOB27, areas and rehabilitated user-created trails erate Recreation SWOB16, in the Kelley Flats area. SWOB18, REOB21, Acres Improved - 40 Middle SFBR MA 0818, 0840 Beaver Upper Willow SWOB16, In FY 2006, six beavers were released Active/Low Yes – Transplants Creek; Worswick Soldier Willow onto Sawtooth National Forest lands and Upper Grindstone; and Creek MA 1012 three beavers released onto private land Phillips

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 37 Deer-Chicken adjacent to the Sawtooth National Forest. only Creek Three beavers were placed into Upper Phillips Creek (7-28-06) and three beavers into Grindstone Creek (8-29 through 9-1-06) on the Fairfield Ranger District. Beavers were placed into Little Deer Creek on private land adjacent to the Forest in September 2006. Upper Phillips and Grindstone Creeks are expected to have 140 acres of habitat improvement each and Little Deer Creek, 70 acres of wildlife habitat improved.

Total Acres improved - 350

Big Water Big Water- TEOB03, Project removed a passage barrier to fish Active/Low No Gulch Creek Virginia TEOB07, and other aquatic organisms on Big Water Culvert SWOB12, Gulch Creek. The existing perched round Replacement SWOB13, 48" diameter culvert was replaced with a SWOB18, round 120" diameter culvert. The new FROB04, culvert was countersunk about 5 feet and FROB11, Middle filled with appropriate substrate to SFBR MA 0820, simulate a natural stream channel. The culvert was replaced in September 2006 and should open up 2 miles or more of Big Water Gulch Creek to passage by bull trout and other aquatic organisms.

Miles Improved - 2 D3Warm Barr Gulch-Rooks SWOB16, This project was intended to more Active/Low No Springs III SWOB18, effectively manage the effects of Warfield-West Fk FROB04, dispersed recreation and to improve Warm Spring FROB12, Big riparian conditions. Poorly located or Active/Low Yes Wood River MA unneeded roads were reclaimed to 0440 improve riparian areas.

Acres Improved - 10 Corral Creek Corral Creek SWOB16, Big Twenty one logs were placed in lower Active/Low No Large Woody Wood River MA Corral Creek to create pool habitat, Debris 0441 overhead cover for fish, and provide structures to catch additional wood debris moving down the channel.

Miles Improved – 2.2 Copper Creek Copper Creek SWOB16, Project decommissioned riparian and Active/Low No Road and SWOB18, valley bottom roads near Copper Creek Riparian FROB04, and two tributaries, while maintaining Rehabilitation FROB12 trail access to the stream corridor. Approximately 2.8 miles of system road and 100 yards of the non-system road near the mouth of Blackspar Canyon Creek were decommissioned. Project benefited native redband trout and non- native brook trout.

Acres Improved – 8.5

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 38 D1Onemile Onemile Creek SWOB16, Raft Project installed a rootwad revetment on Active/Mod No Creek Rootwad River MA 1815 Onemile Creek to prevent the stream erate Revetment from flowing out of its channel and into a system road.

Acres Improved - 1 Pole Camp NF Shoshone SWOB16 Project constructed an exclosure to Active/Mod No Exclosure Hopper exclude livestock and recreational use erate from a spring.

Acres Improved - 10 D4Valley Road Fourth of July SWOB16, The Valley Road Fire burned Active/High Yes Fire – Aerial SNOB02 approximately 40,838 acres between Straw Mulch Champion Creek September 3 and September 15, 2005 in Active/High Yes the White Cloud Mountains on the east Fisher Creek side of Sawtooth Valley. In October 2005 Active/High Yes approximately 1,400 acres of straw mulch Swimm-Martin were treated via aerial application in Passive/Hig Yes Fisher, Champion, Warm Springs, and h Upper Warm Fourth of July subwatersheds. In Yes Springs Creek addition, 500 acres in the Fourth of July Active/High drainage were treated by hand, for a total mulch treatment of 1,900 acres. Treatment objectives were to (1) provide protective organic mulch to help stabilize hillslopes by reducing soil erosion and subsequent sediment delivery to streams; (2) reduce peak flows by absorbing and slowly releasing accelerated overland runoff due to bare soil and hydrophobic soils; (3) secure on site seeds that and maintain a favorable moisture regime for seed germination and growth.

Acres Improved -1,900 Valley Road Fourth of July TEOB03, Treatments increased culvert capacities to Active/High Yes Fire – Road and Fisher Creeks SWOB16, accommodate increased water flows and Drainage SWOB18, associated bedload and debris, and restore Improvements FROB04, road template drainage. Six drivable dips FROB12, Upper were constructed, six culverts were Salmon River replaced, and one new culvert was MA 0248 installed. Other work included the maintenance of existing drainage structures to bring them to current standards in response to the burned conditions.

Acres Improved -5 Valley Road Fourth of July TEOB27, Thirty six miles of trail in high or Active/High Yes Fire – Trail SWOB16, moderate burn severity areas had Drainage Champion Creek REOB01, waterbars cleaned to route water and Active/High Yes Maintenance REOB20, Upper sediment from the trails, preventing trail Fisher Creek Salmon River erosion and minimizing impacts to habitat Active/High Yes MA 0289, EFSR for federally listed aquatic species. Swimm-Martin White Clouds Passive/Hig Yes MA 0370 Acres Improved -100 h

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 39 Upper Warm Yes Springs Creek Active/High Valley Road Williams Creek TEOB27, Project was implemented to ensure Active/High No Fire – Trail SWOB16, drainage structures sufficiently divert Drainage Champion Creek REOB01, water away from trails given expected Active/High Yes Maintenance REOB20, Upper increased runoff/overland flow. Erosion Swimm-Martin Salmon River control was needed to protect trails and Passive/Hig Yes MA 0289, EFSR high value watersheds, including h Upper Warm White Clouds spawning and rearing habitat for federally Yes Springs Creek MA 0370 listed aquatic species. Water bars were Active/High repaired or replaced along 33 miles of trails in Garland, South Fork, Champion, Casino/Martin, Martin, Williams, Pigtail, and Warm Springs Creeks.

Acres Improved -100 Cabin Creek Cabin-Vat TEOB07, Project restored late season water flows Active/High No Diversion SWOB12, and fish access, while improving water Closure and SWOB13, quality and water dependent habitats to Restoration SWOB16, Cabin Creek that was captured by an SNOB02, Upper abandoned irrigation diversion intake. Salmon River The project used an excavator to establish MA 0254 a plug in the abandoned diversion intake using natural/bioengineering methods. Cabin Creek contains or influences habitat for five TES aquatic fish species.

Miles Improved – 1.5 Cabin Creek Cabin-Vat TEOB07, The purpose of project was to modify an Active/High No Sill SWOB12, existing masonry sill, installed in an Modification SWOB13, manmade channel segment in 1964, to SWOB16, better facilitate fish access at the mouth of SNOB02, Upper Cabin Creek. The sill was notched with Salmon River the use of hand tools and labor. Better and MA 0254 more consistent fish access is expected for salmonids, as needed for both thermal refugia and reproductive purposes within the drainage.

Miles Improved – 1.5 Cabin Creek Cabin-Vat TEOB07, The purpose of this particular project was Active/High No Wetland SWOB16, to restore wetlands altered with a Restoration SNOB02, Upper drainage/interceptor ditch in 1964. The Salmon River project used an excavator to fill 200 MA 0250 meters of wetland drainage ditch and restore the former natural cross drain channels. Restored wetland function is expected including enhanced baseflows in Cabin Creek through increased wetland storage, as well as improved lake habitats in adjacent Perkins and Alturas Lakes.

Miles Improved - 1 Cabin Creek Cabin-Vat TEOB07, The purpose of this particular project was Active/High No Restoration at SWOB12, to restore Cabin Creek where captured by Luther Heights SWOB13, an informal back entrance to the Luther

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 40 Road SWOB16, Heights Organization Camp. The project SNOB02, Upper used an excavator to establish plugs in six Salmon River separate channels of Cabin Creek using MA 0254 natural/bioengineering methods, and to restore the former natural cross-drain channels of Cabin Creek. Improved passage for salmonids is expected in Cabin Creek, as well as improved water quality, and habitat conditions. Improvements would also be expected in lake habitats in adjacent Perkins and Alturas Lakes.

Miles Improved – 1 mile and .5 acres Vat Creek Cabin-Vat TEOB03, The user-created roads in Vat Cr. were Active/High No Meadow Road TEOB07, not engineered, designed, nor constructed Obliteration SWOB16, for forest access, resource protection, or SWOB18, visitor safety. A roads analysis of the area FROB04, identified these roads as contributing to FROB12 resource damage while providing few benefits to forest visitors. In addition, some routes occur within the Smoky Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area. The purpose of the project is to obliterate numerous roads from the seasonal wetland and associated uplands and to restore vegetation and drainage in the area. An excavator and back-hoe were used road obliteration, to break soil compaction, re-establish natural drainage, and accelerate restoration. Four miles of road was removed in the vicinity of Vat Creek Meadow. Due to the seasonally wet conditions in much of the area, vegetation is expected to quickly recolonize the former roadbed. Soil, water, and wildlife will benefit when vehicular traffic is removed, erosion is reduced, and the meadow returns to a more natural state.

Miles Improved – 0.1 miles; 4 miles road decommissioned S40 Diversion Gold-Williams TEOB07, Purpose of the project was to improve Active/High No Reconstruction SWOB12, fish passage during the irrigation season SWOB13, past the S40 diversion on the Salmon SWOB16, River, and eliminate the periodic need for SNOB02, Upper heavy equipment within the River for Salmon River maintenance of the former facility. A MA 0243, 0254 contractor of the Custer County Soil and Water Conservation District reconstructed the facility with the use of 400 cubic yards of boulders that created a roughened ramp diversion structure within the Salmon River. A permit to the partner authorized the activity on public lands.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 41

Miles Improved - 1 Valley Creek 6 Iron-Goat TEOB07, The purpose of the project was to restore Active/High Yes Diversion SWOB12, natural processes to Valley Creek and its Restoration SWOB13, floodplain in the vicinity of the former SWOB16, Valley Creek 6 diversion intake. The SNOB02, Upper project replaced the plug of boulders Salmon River within the former Valley Creek 6 MA 0243, 0254 diversion intake, with a plug constructed with natural materials. The plug is designed to reestablish deep rooted willow and sedge bank vegetation, common at the site, while using conifer revetment to provide resilience in the near-term. In addition the project removed another 120 large boulders from the floodplain associated with the former VC6 waste way. Bank locations where boulder treatments are removed would be rehabilitated with similar natural methods. Fish and fish habitats are expected to benefit from the project by facilitating long-term habitat processes.

Miles Improved – 1 Acres Improved - 15 Blair Cabin Cabin-Vat TEOB03, Field surveys documented some portions Active/High No Meadow Road TEOB07, of the roads in the Blair Cabin Meadow Obliteration SWOB16, as having high erosion potential with as SWOB18, much as 40% of the road being wet FROB04, during all seasons. A roads analysis of the FROB12, area identified this road as contributing to SNOB02, Upper resource damage while providing few Salmon River benefits to forest visitors. The road within MA 0250 this seasonal wetland was obliterated and vegetation and drainage restored. An excavator and back-hoe were used to break soil compaction, re-establish natural drainage, and accelerate restoration. One mile of road was removed.

Miles Improved - .1 Sawtooth NRA Alturas Lake TEOB03, The extensive mortality of lodgepole pine Passive/Hig Yes Travel Plan Creek TEOB07, forests within the Sawtooth Valley has h Maintenance TEOB27, accelerated an already persistent resource No Cabin/Vat Creek SWOB16, threat of user pioneered vehicle tracks. Active/High SWOB18, Such networks expand exponentially as No Pettit Lake Creek FROB12, each lead opens new opportunities for Passive/Hig SNOB02, Upper others. The Sawtooth C&M crew used h Salmon River heavy equipment to construct barriers MA 0248, 0275, (rocks or debris) on new vehicle paths 0282 established by users through areas closed and inappropriate for travel.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 42 Miles Improved - .5 Acres Improved - 10 Dispersed Alturas Lake TEOB03, The project implemented Passive/Hig Yes Recreation Creek TEOB07, recommendations from the Alturas- h TEOB27, Yellowbelly Roads Analysis, as well as SWOB16, from the Dispersed Recreation Task SWOB18, Team. Restoration focused on dispersed SNOB02, Upper recreation including camping, ATV use, Salmon River and non-classified roads. MA 0250, 0252, 0287, 0289 Acres Improved – 150; 5 miles of road decommissioned Upper Alturas Alturas Lake TEOB03, The purpose of the project was to halt Passive/Hig Yes Transportation Creek TEOB07, deteriorating conditions of Road 205 and h Modifications TEOB27, Alpine Creek occurring at the Alpine SWOB12, Creek ford. During the previous decade SWOB16, deteriorating conditions upstream of the SWOB18, ford resulted in the capture of Alturas FROB04, Lake Creek within a ¼ mile segment of FROB06, Road 205, immediately above the ford. FROB12, This situation was addressed in 2000 with REOB01, the return of flows to the natural channel. SNOB02, Upper However, it was also recognized that a Salmon River similar scenario was soon to occur at the MA 0248, 0249, Alpine ford without intervention. As a 0255, 0289 result the initial planning effort was expanded to include the comprehensive changes need to maintain healthy landscape functions and sustainable road and trail infrastructure in the upper Alturas Lake Creek drainage. The result of this planning effort was a revised transportation system in Upper Alturas Creek. In FY06 the Mattingly and Alpine Creek Trailheads were consolidated and relocated to a new location below Alpine Creek; a new trail bridge was constructed; ½ mile of former trail no longer needed was obliterated and rehabilitated; and the former vehicle ford through Alpine Creek, including ½ mile of approach on either side of the ford was closed and rehabilitated.

Miles Improved – 1 Acres Improved - 2 Inlet Dock Redfish-Little TEOB07, The purpose of the project was to curtail Active/High Yes Reconstruction Redfish TEOB27, the deteriorating condition of lakeshore SWOB16, associated with the Redfish Inlet Boat REOB01, Dock. The shoreline adjacent to the Dock SNOB02, facilities was repaired and hardened with Salmon River the installation of stairs and handrails. MA 0247, 0251 Shoreline erosion is expected to diminish over time as Dock traffic now occurs on the hardened paths provided. In addition, the increasing effects that would have

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 43 resulted without the project have been avoided.

Acres Improved - 5 Quicksand Big Boulder TEOB07, Project relocated approximately 0.5 miles Active/High No Meadows Trail Creek TEOB27, of trail from riparian and wetland areas in Relocation SWOB16, the Big Boulder Cr. drainage. The trail REOB20, was relocated upslope and the old trail REOB21, section was rehabilitated. Standard trail SNOB02, EFSR construction/rehabilitation methods were White Clouds used, including turnpike and culvert MA 0332, 0370 construction, log foot bridge construction, and trail obliteration. The project successfully relocated the trail section from riparian and wetland habitats, reducing sediment inputs into Big Boulder Cr.

Miles Improved - .5

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Landslide prevention

Monitoring Question: Are management actions and forest plan direction effectively preventing management-induced landslides?

Summary of findings: Results for this monitoring element were not available at the time of this report. This report will be updated to include these results as soon as they become available.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Water quality and beneficial use status

Monitoring Question: Are management actions maintaining or restoring water quality to fully support beneficial uses, and native and desired non-native fish species and their habitats over multiple spatial scales?

Summary of findings: As with the WCIs, this question also has two parts. The first asks how well management actions and direction are maintaining or restoring water quality to fully support beneficial uses, and native and desired non-native fish species and their habitats. The second part asks what the trend of water quality is over time in relation to our management activities. The evaluation of management actions and direction is described previously in the following WCI monitoring question below. Therefore, only the evaluation of water quality trend and associated beneficial uses will be in this summary.

The Sawtooth National Forest monitors water quality several ways. First, trend is determined using the PACFISH, INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) monitoring approach. As discussed previously, PIBO was selected because monitoring objectives are similar to the forest’s and PIBO already has an extensive network of monitoring locations on each forest in the SWIE to help determine trend.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 44 PIBO data can assist in determining whether streams are meeting some of the criteria that protect beneficial uses. For example, salmonids spawning and cold water biota are sub-classifications of aquatic life beneficial use. In the State of Idaho, salmonids spawning and cold water biota are protected by two kinds of criteria, narrative and numeric. Numeric criteria are those criteria that protects when specific, quantifiable amounts of pollutants (water temperature, turbidity, etc.), and non pollutants (dissolved oxygen, pH) exceed numeric thresholds (i.e. maximum daily water temperature averages no greater than 66°F). PIBO collects information on a few of these attributes, such as water temperature and inchannel sediment, that can be used to gauge whether water quality changes are occurring.

As of 2005, approximately 80 subwatersheds had been sampled across the forest. It is estimated that this sample size will allow for the detection of a 10 - 15% change in water temperature and inchannel sediment over the life of the Forest Plan (refer to “Answering SWIE LRMP Soil Water Riparian and Aquatic Monitoring Elements” review for a more detailed discussion on statistical considerations for estimating sample sizes).

Second, each year the forest deploys temperature data loggers from mid-July and mid-September to establish baseline conditions within bull trout habitat patches. In 2006, 77 temperature loggers were deployed in 34 patches. All bull trout patches across the forest will be sampled several times over the life of the plan. This means the forest will have temperature trend data for hundreds of sites to determine if maximum daily water temperatures exceed numeric criteria that protect salmonids spawning and cold water subclassification of the aquatic life beneficial use.

Finally, the forest works closely each year with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). IDEQ’s Surface Water Program routinely monitors Idaho's waters through the Beneficial Use Reconnaissance Program (BURP) and assesses water quality using methods described in their Water Body Assessment Guidance (WBAG). Each year the BURP program sends crews to collect water temperature data, biological samples (e.g., fish, bacteria), chemical measures (e.g., specific conductivity, the ability of water to pass an electrical current), and habitat data from Idaho’s surface water. The collected information is used to determine whether beneficial uses are being supported in Idaho’s streams, rivers, and lakes.

Using BURP and other data and the methods described in the (WBAG), DEQ determines if each of Idaho's water bodies meets water quality standards and supports beneficial uses. DEQ submits an "Integrated Report" to EPA every two years that identifies and prioritizes the state's water quality problems. This report is based on the data collected through DEQ's monitoring programs and serves as a guide for developing and implementing plans to protect beneficial uses. This report provides an overall assessment to the forest to gauge how well water quality and beneficial use are being maintained on water bodies within forest administered boundaries.

Idaho's 2002 integrated report was completed by DEQ in April 2004 and was submitted to EPA for approval in July 2004. The final report was approved by EPA in December 2005. Based upon the findings in this report the forest has 58 “assessment units” (AUs) that are not supporting a beneficial use because they are impaired by one or more pollutants. AUs are groups of similar streams that have similar land use practices, ownership, or land management. The methodology used to describe AUs can be found in DEQ’s WBAG II.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 45

Unfortunately, a comparison between the numbers impaired water bodies in the 1998 and 2002 integrated reports can not be made because DEQ has changed the way they track water quality from stream segments to AUs. A better comparison can be made when DEQ issues its 2004/2006 integrated report because each report will use AUs.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Aquatic ecosystems

Monitoring Question: Are management actions and forest plan direction effectively maintaining WCIs when currently in the range of desired conditions, and restoring WCIs when outside the range of desired conditions over multiple spatial scales?

Summary of findings: The Sawtooth National Forest evaluates management actions and direction through two processes: (1) forest-wide implementation field reviews and (2) IIT implementation monitoring. Each year, a forest IDT reviews up to eight projects across the forest. For each project the IDT answers a series of questions on how well a project meets forest plan and project specific objectives and direction. The IDT also addresses if project effects were within the expected range described in the project analysis. The reviewed projects represent a subsample of how well all projects on the forest are meeting forest plan direction and what overall affect are they likely having on WCIs within a specific area.

The intent of the IIT implementation monitoring is to track implementation of forest plan management direction for the salmon, steelhead, and bull trout listed in the Upper Columbia and Snake River Basins. Specifically, IIT evaluates how well forest projects within these basins have implemented standards and guidelines. If standards and guidelines were not implemented for a specific project, then the forest must explain why, and what mechanisms we are using to ensure management actions will neither degrade nor retard attainment of WCIs.

Both evaluations will be summarized to determine what influence project implementation is having on WCIs across the forest.

To address the trend of WCIs over time, the Sawtooth and Boise National Forests have worked with the PACFISH, INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO) monitoring group in Logan, Utah to develop a monitoring strategy to determine the trend of (WCIs) across each forest. The PIBO monitoring approach was selected because:

1. PIBO and forest plan monitoring objectives are similar. PIBO monitoring is intended to evaluate the effect of land management activities on aquatic and riparian communities at multiple scales and will assess whether management direction is effective in maintaining or improving aquatic and riparian conditions at both the landscape and sub-watershed scales on federal lands.

The forest plan also is intended to evaluate the effects of forest management actions and assess if these actions and management direction are maintaining or restoring the condition of aquatic resources (WCIs, etc) across each forest.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 46 2. PIBO monitoring data either fully addresses or provides a good foundation to build upon to address forest plan trend monitoring questions. The PIBO program measures many of the WCI attributes. These include stream temperature; surfaces fine sediment, dominant substrate, large wood, pool frequency and quality, streambank condition, channel shape, and riparian vegetation.

3. PIBO already has an extensive network of monitoring locations on each forest in the SWIE. PIBO samples approximately 210 integrator reaches and 45 designated monitoring areas (DMAs) for cattle allotments every five years across the ecogroup. PIBO also samples 10 sentinel sites every year over their study period. This monitoring allows forests to better direct their monitoring resource to areas missed by the PIBO program. It also gives them a higher sample size in which to have a greater probability of detecting a change in aquatic conditions.

4. Finally, PIBO already has an effective organization in place that provides high quality results. The program has worked extensively to quantify and minimize observer variability associated with sampling methods, reduce errors during data collection and summarization, and has used periodic reviews to improve database structure and function. This information has been used to design and maintain an organization that can provide repeatable and timely results.

This monitoring approach will evaluate the trend of WCIs across all subwatersheds where PIBO integrator reaches have been established. Each integrator reach has been sampled during one of the first five years (2001 to 2005), and will be resampled on a five-year rotation. This monitoring approach will also look at trends within the Watershed Aquatic Recovery Strategy (WARS) priorities (low, moderate, and high) because the forest plan anticipated the rate of watershed recovery and improvement to WCIs would be greater in high priority subwatersheds.

An integrator reach is the lowest-most stream reach within the subwatershed that has greater than 50% federal ownership upstream of the sample reach, contains no tributary junctions or beaver activity, and has a stream gradient less than 3%. It is assumed that integrator reaches would be responsive to all management activities that occurred upstream or around the reach. All integrator reaches are resampled every five years to determine what changes have occurred.

As of 2005, approximately 100 subwatersheds had been sampled across the forest. It is estimated that this sample size will allow for the detection of a 10 - 15% change in the condition of most WCIs over the life of the Forest Plan (refer to “Answering SWIE LRMP Soil Water Riparian and Aquatic Monitoring Elements” paper for a more detailed discussion on statistical considerations for estimating sample sizes). Estimated sample sizes for high, moderate, and low priority WARS subwatersheds are 100, 80, and 40 respectively. The sample size in low priority subwatersheds was near the minimum recommended sample size of 50 sites needed to detect a statistical change. Therefore, the Boise and Sawtooth National Forests funded an additional 24 integrator reaches in 2005 to have a more robust sample size. The sample sizes within the WARS priority subwatersheds will allow for a detection of a 10-15% change in the condition of most WCIs over the life of the Forest Plan.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 47

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Noxious weed prevention

Monitoring Question: Are Forest Plan standards and guides effective in preventing establishment of new noxious weed infestations?

Summary of findings: Prevention activities were reviewed in various projects including specific Forest Plan monitoring actions during 2006. In general, Forest standards and guidelines applied to activities are effective in preventing the establishment of new infestations.

The SNRA carried out an effective Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) program within the Sawtooth Wilderness which included extensive inventory of trails and use areas. Existing and new infestations were treated for eradication.

Reclamation actions on the 2005 Valley Road Fire included application of straw mulch which was certified as noxious weed free per Forest Plan requirements. Monitoring conducted in 2006 did not identify noxious weeds introduced from this source, however; other weedy species have been found in the mulched area brought in with the straw. This identified the need to be very careful with contract requirements and certification of mulch and similar products used on the Forest.

Most projects reviewed had implemented inventory and prevention actions which included pre- cleaning of equipment and treatment of infestations found within the project area as needed (see 2006 Forest Plan Monitoring Reports). Additional emphasis is needed to ensure that all projects evaluate the potential of increasing or introducing noxious weed infestations and that adequate prevention activities are implemented and monitored.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Noxious weed containment

Monitoring Question: Are Forest management strategies effective in preventing further expansion of established noxious weed populations?

Summary of findings: The Forest continues an aggressive program for treating and managing existing noxious weed infestations. The Forest treated a total of 4,216 acres of noxious weeds in FY06. Table 6 shows the total number of acres treated by treatment method.

Table 6: Acres of Noxious Weeds Treated by Method Method Acres Treated Chemical 1,540 Mechanical/Manual 151 Biological 2,525 Total 4,216

Strategies related to specific projects are effectively preventing expansion of noxious weed infestations. However, the major vector for infestation is associated with recreation and transportation across the Forest. While great inroads are being made with many noxious weed

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 48 species, several are continuing to spread into uninfested areas. Primary concerns are related to the spread of spotted knapweed, Dalmatian toadflax and rush skeletonweed. Widespread recreation use of the Forest creates a significant problem in identifying new weed infestations. Current inventory efforts are not adequate to meet this need.

The Forest is having significant success with the use of biological agents for treating infestations of spotted knapweed and leafy spurge. Forest insectaries have been established and large numbers of insects are being harvested and redistributed to weed infestations on the Forest. These include helicopter distribution of insects to numerous leafy spurge infestations. The use of helicopters has lead to the ability to access many more sites than would otherwise occur.

Additional efforts were made in 2006 to inventory infestations and document this information in NRIS Terra, a GIS spatially based data base system. This tool will provide the Forest with more accurate inventory assessments.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Noxious weed control and eradication

Monitoring Question: Are Forest management strategies effective in controlling or eradicating targeted populations of noxious weeds?

Summary of findings: Forest management strategies are generally effective in controlling targeted populations. (The discussion in the above section pertains equally to this monitoring item.) Eradication of infestations which are relatively small in area is being successful. The EDRR program in the Sawtooth Wilderness is a good example of a successful strategy. Wilderness guards, other personnel, and wilderness users are annually monitoring wilderness trails for new weed infestations. New infestations are located with precise GIS coordinates and treated for eradication. These sites are revisited on succeeding years and treated as needed to eradicate these infestations.

The Forest is not as effective in identifying new infestations in other areas. Extensive road and trail systems and the amount of public use of the Forest provides a significant vector for weed spread to areas and locations which are not readily inventoried. Additional emphasis needs to be placed on establishing EDRR programs across the Forest and enlisting the aid of CWMAs, Forest user groups and other cooperators in noxious weed inventory.

Activity or Practiced to Be Monitored: Forage Utilization Levels

Monitoring Question: Are established utilization levels providing for desired ground cover, soil stability, plant vigor and composition?

Summary of findings: Approximately 778,000 acres of the Sawtooth National Forest included in grazing allotments were monitored to standard in 2006 (data from INFRA data base records and Forest Plan Consultation reports). Utilization levels were met on nearly all of these

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 49 allotments. Exceptions were generally limited to localized areas or portions of pastures within allotments.

Long-term trend and condition monitoring was conducted in 2006 on numerous grazing allotments at locations also monitored for grazing utilization. This monitoring in both riparian and upland vegetation sites indicates that the application of utilization criteria established in the Forest Plan are effective in maintaining and achieving desired conditions for ground cover, soil stability, plant vigor and plant composition (allotment NEPA project records, Gooding Allotment Forest Plan Monitoring Report, & allotment files). Two exceptions should be noted. Desired conditions set by the Forest Plan for Aspen and sagebrush stand diversity are not being met in many areas of the Forest. Both of these species are disturbance related and require disturbance primarily by wildfire to maintain stand conditions and composition diversity at desired levels. Where wildfire events have not been frequent enough, artificial treatment through activities such as prescribed fire or mechanical treatment are needed.

III-C. Annual Project Level Monitoring That Contributes to Forest Plan Monitoring:

The monitoring protocol developed in 2004 for annual project reviews was again used in 2006. This protocol was based upon addressing the following key questions, in addition to applicable Forest Plan monitoring questions from Table IV-2, during Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) field review of the selected projects: 1. How well did the project meet its objectives? 2. Were the effects to resources within the expected range? 3. Was the project design and mitigation effective? 4. Are the proposed actions and associated effects being adequately disclosed in NEPA documents? 5. Have prescriptions, projects and activities been implemented as designed and in compliance with the Forest Plan? 6. Did the project result in movement towards desired conditions or contribute to management objectives as described in the Forest Plan?

Results of the annual project reviews will be compiled and evaluated and results reported by monitoring element in accordance with the reporting periods identified in Table IV-2. The following six projects were reviewed in 2006 using the monitoring protocol:

Dove Creek Quarry Project – Minidoka District Raft River Aspen Regeneration Project – Minidoka District Center Salvage Sale Project – Sawtooth National Recreation Area Stanley Creek Road Realignment and Crossing Rehabilitation – Sawtooth National Recreation Area Soldier Creek Bridge Project – Ketchum District Gooding C&H Allotment – Fairfield Ranger District

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 50 Evaluation of results of project monitoring reviews was completed for these projects during the winter. Attachments 1-6 are summaries of findings from these reviews.

IV. FUTURE MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORTS and SCHEDULE

As described in the 2004 Monitoring Report, the Sawtooth National Forest will issue the Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation report in late spring or summer of each year. The report will describe findings from monitoring data collected through the prior year’s field season and evaluated during the winter of the reporting year. As described in the 2004 report, 2004 data collections were not completed until late fall of 2004 and the evaluations of the data collected did not occur until late fall or winter 2004/2005. Thus, moving publication date of the monitoring and evaluation report will allow a complete display of the prior year’s data collection, as well as the evaluation of that data.

Also, the Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation report is intended to be a “living” document. As such, it may be updated periodically through out the year to incorporate new information and findings.

2006 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2007) Page - 51