SAWTOOTH NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2007 MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORT FY 2008

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...... 4

II. 2007 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 ...... 10 Nonnative Plants Objectives...... 10 Fire Management Objectives...... 11 Timberland Resources Objectives...... 12 Rangeland Resources Objectives...... 12 Minerals and Geology Resources Objectives...... 12 Lands and Special Uses Objectives...... 13 Facilities and Roads Objectives...... 13 Recreation Resources Objectives ...... 14 Scenic Environment Objectives...... 14 Heritage Program Objectives...... 14 Tribal Rights and Interests Objectives...... 14 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 ...... 15 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) ...... 19 5. Terms and conditions or reasonable and prudent measures that result from consultation under Section (a) of the ESA (Forest Plan, p. IV-6) ...... 20 Terms and Conditions...... 20 Conservation Recommendations ...... 21

III-B: Monitoring Elements Found in Table IV-2 of the Forest Plan with Annual and Three-Year Reporting Requirements ...... 23

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

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 2 Requirements ...... 34

IV. FUTURE MONITORING AND EVALUATION REPORTS AND SCHEDULE ...... 35

V. ERRATA...... 35

Tables Table 1 Noxious Weed Acres Infested and Treated: 2004-2007 by District ...... 11 Table 2 Predicted Forest Plan Budget Level vs. FY 2007 Actual Allocation...... 16 Table 3 Management Indicator Species for the Sawtooth National Forest...... 17 Table 4 Aquatic restoration accomplishments by WARS priority subwatersheds.... 20 Table 5 FY07 Aquatic Restoration Projects ...... 25

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

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 South Fork Ponderosa Pine Thinning Project Field Review Summary Attachment 2 Lower Rock Creek Dispersed Recreation Project Field Review Summary Attachment 3 Lower Rock Creek Fuels Reduction Project Field Review Summary Attachment 4 Big Water Gulch Culvert Replacement Project Field Review Summary Attachment 5 2007 Sawtooth Aquatic Management Indicator Species Monitoring Report Summary Attachment 6 Errata #6 to the Forest Plan

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) 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 fourth year of implementing the revised Sawtooth National Forest Plan.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 4 Figure I-1. Location Map – Sawtooth National Forest

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 5 II. 2007 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 2007.

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

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) 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 2007. 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: Framework 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 what areas are in the best or most impaired condition; what areas need certain types of restorative actions; what areas are a priority for restoration actions; and reduce costs when making project and monitoring decisions to assess progression toward forest plan goals and objectives.

In 2007 completion of the South Fork of the Boise subbasin framework assessment was delayed due to higher forest priorities. A completion date is unknown at this time. Discussions on how to proceed with the Upper Salmon subbasin occurred with NMFS and USFWS. At this time the Upper Salmon framework will be completed in the fall of 2008.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 7 Objective TEOB07: During fine-scale analyses, identify practices or facilities that are adversely affecting TEPC species or their habitats, and prioritize opportunities to mitigate, through avoidance or minimization, adverse effects to TEPC species.

Accomplishment: The Sawtooth National Recreation Area and the Fairfield Ranger District propose and implement numerous projects each year within streams that have threatened or endangered fish species. Many of these projects are reviewed by district staff to determine how to best implement them without adversely affecting habitat or species. In addition the Forest Level 1 consultation team reviews projects in these areas and makes recommendations (e.g. developing design criteria to minimize impacts from routine trails maintenance and trail reroutes, recommending changes to placer mining, etc.) to mitigate adverse effects. Finally, the forest implements a number of restoration projects each year to address short and long term adverse effects. Projects implemented in 2007 are discussed by the monitoring question “Have restoration and conservation activities been focused in priority watersheds identified by the WARS process? Have restoration objectives in ACS priority subwatersheds been accomplished.”

Objective TEOB11: Update appropriate NRIS database modules for TEPC species and their habitats on a biennially basis to incorporate latest field data.

Accomplishment: In 2007, all data from biological surveys in the Upper Salmon and S.F. Boise subbasins where T&E species are present were entered into NRIS water. A national data transfer for plant data was scheduled to occur in late 2007 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

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 8 helicopter, use of gasoline and diesel fuel for pumps, saws, and engines, and cleaning/sanitation of equipment.

Mitigation measures from the 2006 BA were used on the Trail Creek and Castle Rock fires in 2007. According to the resource advisor, some of the mitigation measures (e.g. locating facilities, refueling, and firelines outside of riparian conservation areas (RCAs), constructing firelines on slopes greater than 60 percent, water dipping without consultation with the resource advisor, application of retardant in RCAs, and no cleaning for invasive aquatic species) were not implemented on the Castle Rock fire due to poor communication and tactics that had to be implemented by the type 1 fire team to address life and property issues.

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 2007.

Objective SWOB15: Maintain and update species occurrence and habitat maps for Forest species (e.g., MIS and Region 4 Sensitive species) during fine and site/project-scale analyses.

Accomplishment: Refer to the response to TEOB01

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.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 9 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 in 2007.

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.

Accomplishment: The administrative boundary of the Sawtooth NF falls primarily within eleven Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs): Blaine County, Sawtooth Basin, Camas, Custer Goose Creek, Power, Raft River, Shoshone Basin, South Fork Sawtooth River, Upper Payette River, and Utah & Idaho CWMAs. Coordinated accomplishments for CWMAs are reported in the winter following the field season of work. Information concerning programs and accomplishments by participating partners within these CWMAs, as well as throughout Idaho, are available from the Idaho Department of Agriculture. Some of this information can be found on the WEB at: http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/PlantsInsects/NoxiousWeeds/cwmas.php.

In 2007, the Sawtooth National Forest continued to cooperate with multiple partners involved in Coordinated Weed Management Area (CWMA) strategic priorities, and in locating and treating noxious weeds and nonnative invasive species on National Forest System lands within the administrative boundary of the Sawtooth National Forest. The species with the greatest number of acres infested on the Sawtooth NF include Canada thistle, leafy spurge, and spotted knapweed. Rush skeletonweed, a species of particular concern, is invading the Forest from the East. It was first discovered in the Banks, Idaho area in the early 1960s. It is estimated that over 100,000 acres of land in the adjacent Boise National Forest and over 3,000,000 acres of land in Idaho are now infested with this species to varying degrees. Concerted efforts are being made primarily by the Fairfield and Ketchum Ranger Districts to locate and eradicate any new infestations of this weed. Dyers Woad is a species of concern that is moving north into the Forest from Utah and South Eastern Idaho. Large acreages of public and private lands in northern Utah are infested by this noxious weed. Concerted efforts are being made by the Minidoka Ranger District working with local CWMAs to detect and eradicate any new infestations of this weed on the Forest.

In 2006, the Forest began the process of digitizing weed infestations and storing digital maps and associated records in the NRIS Terra Invasives Database. This was done in part to provide a consistent mapped record of invasive plant species on the Forest. Data entry was completed in 2007 for most noxious weed species. However, accurate information for widespread species such as Canada thistle is not complete for the Forest. Additionally, the noxious weed list for Idaho was expanded in 2007 by the State Legislature to 57 species. Additional data may need to be entered into the database for some infestations of newly listed weeds. This data is spatially mapped and

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 10 stored in digital format to provide a consistent base for noxious weed management activities on the Forest.

Projects developed and implemented at the District level included analysis of existing populations and potential for spread of noxious weeds. Efficacy monitoring is also recorded in the FACTS treatment database. Review of this data indicates that the project level analysis, mitigation and weed management activities are effective in preventing the introduction of new non-native invasive plant infestations and in controlling the spread of these species as a result of project activities. Prevention of infestations from vectors associated with dispersed recreation use and use of roads and trails is more problematic. Use of herbicides on confined areas of noxious weed infestations appears to be successfully reducing the existing infestation and spread of most noxious weed species on the Forest. Use of biological agents on infestations of leafy spurge and spotted knapweed are showing effective control of large scale infestations of these two species.

An additional challenge for the Forest was presented as the result of approximately 138,100 acres of wildfire that burned in 2007 (see attached map). Rehabilitation and noxious weed management actions were planned in 2007 to be carried out in 2008 and later years to prevent new infestations of noxious weeds and insure that existing infestations do not spread as a result of wildfire suppression activities and wildfire impacts.

The Sawtooth Wilderness has approximately 465 acres of noxious weeds. These infestations were treated in 2007, many with horseback mounted sprayers. Treatments were implemented in cooperation with Boise County, Boise National Forest and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

An additional challenge for the Forest was presented as a result of approximately 138,100 acres of wildfire that burned in 2007 (see attached map). Rehabilitation and noxious weed management actions were planned in 2007 to be carried out in 2008 and later years to prevent new infestations of noxious weeds and insure that existing infestations do not spread as a result of wildfire suppression activities and wildfire impacts.

Table 1. Noxious Weed Acres Infested and Treated: 2004 - 2007, by District Minidoka Ketchum SNRA Fairfield Forest Year Infested Treated Infested Treated Infested Treated Infested Treated Infested Treated 2004 685 377 1,335 746 3,169 741 10,124 1,942 15,313 3,806 2005 2,922 452 791 247 1,530 331 10128 3,508 15,371 4,538 2006 N/A 583 N/A 512 N/A 314 N/A 2,807 N/A 4,216 1 2007 15,133 610 1,683 494 9,112 690 14,475 2,073 40,383 3,867 N/A = Not available at the time because not all records had been entered into the NRIS Terra Invasives database. 1 Infestation data from NRIS Invasives Database as of 5/13/08. Treatment data from FACTS database 10/31/07.

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).

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 11 Accomplishment: In FY 2007, the Sawtooth National Forest treated 4,243 acres with fuels reduction projects. Projects were completed on 1,217 acres of WUI lands and 3,017 acres of non-WUI fuels reduction. Treatments included 3,017 acres of prescribed fire and 1,217 acres of mechanical treatments. The Trapper Ridge Fire and La Moyne Wildland Fire Use fires also accounted for 1,303 acres. Total treated acres including fire use were 5,546 acres. Treatments were utilized using both contract and force account crews.

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 42 acres; b) No reforestation occurred; and c) Timber stand improvement activities were completed on 196 acres

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

Accomplishment: In 2007 the Sawtooth National Forest made available 2.2 million board feet (MMBF) of timber (1.4 MMBF of salvage and 0.8 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 2007 the Sawtooth National Forest made available 3.36 million board feet (MMBF) of wood products (2.26 MMBF in personal use firewood and 1.1 MMBF in free use firewood). When combined with the 2.2 MMBF contributing to ASQ (i.e. TROB02), the Sawtooth National Forest made available 5.56 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)

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 12 This section contains no annual accomplishment requirements.

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 Travel Analysis was begun on portions of the Ketchum and Fairfield Districts and the Minidoka District. In addition to the Travel Map analysis, most field work was completed for an analysis of spur roads on the Cassia Division of the Minidoka District. Further analysis will be completed in future fiscal years.

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.

Federal Highway Administration Western Federal Lands is working on reconstruction of a stretch of Highway 75 between Stanley and Clayton. The Forest Service is participating in the planning for this project. At this point, preliminary planning that will be analyzed through NEPA is being done.

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 5.0 miles of roads were obliterated in FY07. This included: 0.7 miles of unauthorized roads obliterated in the Vat Creek area and 2.8 miles in the Alturas area on the Sawtooth NRA (Alturas to Yellowbelly Roads Analysis); a 0.2 mile segment of Rd. #70440a obliterated in the Alturas Lake area of the Sawtooth NRA (Alturas to Yellowbelly Roads Analysis); and a 1.3 mile segment of Rd. #70642 obliterated (Job Creek Roads Analysis).

Objective FROB11: In the Forest’s annual program of work, prioritize and schedule improvements to existing culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings to accommodate fish passage, 100-year flood flow, and bedload and debris transport. Include accomplishments in the biennial update of the Watershed and Aquatic Recovery Strategy (WARS) database.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 13 Accomplishment: In 2007, fords on FR 079 road of lower Emma Creek in the S.F. Boise subbasin were reconstructed to reduce sedimentation of habitat and improve access during low flows. . 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, and again in 2007 in preparation for the RSI special funding submittals. The Forest received about $400,000 in RSI funds that will be used in 2008 to retire $275,000 in Deferred Maintenance needs.

In accordance with Trails Deferred Maintenance Protocols, data entry for national core data relative to trails was completed September 30, 2006. 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 continued to work on the Travel Management project initiated in 2004.

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

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 14 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 2007 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)

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.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 15

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 2 shows the predicted Forest Plan budget level, inflated to reflect 2007 values, by program area based on average allocations and BFES and the actual allocation for fiscal year 2007, 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.

Table 2. Predicted versus Actual Forest Budget Levels Fund Code Predicted FY 2007 Actual Percent Forest Plan Allocation Change DESCRIPTION Budget Level BDBD BRUSH DISPOSAL $ 46,835 $ 15,448 -67% CMFC/ FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND $1,475,940 $1,441,251 -2% CMII/CP09 MAINTENANCE CMRD ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND $1,359,314 $1,186,977 -13% MAINTENANCE CMTL TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AND $ 580,650 $ 468,413 -19% MAINTENANCE CWKV $ 227,235 $ 15,448 -56% CWK2* REFORESTATION $ 83,650 LALW LAND ACQUISITION MGMT. $ 263,085 $ 48,866 -81% NFIM INVENTORY AND MONITORING $ 584,437 $ 480,000 -18% NFLM LAND OWNERSHIP MGMT. $ 306,608 $ 279,675 -9% NFMG MINERALS & GEOLOGY MGMT. $ 333,697 $ 377,168 +12%

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 16 Fund Code Predicted FY 2007 Actual Percent Forest Plan Allocation Change DESCRIPTION Budget Level NFPN LAND MGMT PLANNING $ 653,746 $ 84,000 -87% NFRG GRAZING MGMT. $ 815,582 $ 754,225 -8% NFRW RECREATION/HERITAGE $2,574,429 $2,054,277 -20% RESOURCES/WILDERNESS MGMT. NFTM TIMBER MANAGEMENT $ 661,873 $ 435,376 -34% NFVW VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (FOREST $1,039,213 $ 711,147 -32% AND RANGE)/WATERSHED IMPROVEMENTS/SOIL/WATER/AIR MGMT. NFWF WILDLIFE/FISH/THREATENED & $ 856,438 $ 524,921 -39% ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT MGMT. RBRB RANGE BETTERMENT $ 79,240 $ 77,813 -2% SSSS SALVAGE SALE $ 261,127 $ 72,088 -72% WFHF HAZARDOUS FUELS $ 725,430 $ 646,380 -11% WFPR FIRE PREPAREDNESS $4,023,126 $3,466,115 -14% *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 3 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 3. 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

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

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 17 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:

ƒ The proportion of habitat patches that bull trout occupy within each subbasin across time. ƒ The spatial pattern of occupied bull trout patches within each subbasin across time. ƒ 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.

2007 Monitoring Results Attachment 5, the 2007 Sawtooth Aquatic Management Indicator Species Monitoring Report, provides the results of MIS monitoring for bull trout.

Pileated Woodpecker and Sage-grouse 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

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 18 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.

2007 Pileated Woodpecker Monitoring Results:

Fairfield Ranger District. Number of Observations- 10 Hits. -Shake Creek Route: 1 PIWO. -President’s Trail Route: 2 PIWO. -Skunk Creek Route: 1 PIWO. -Worswick Creek Route: 1 PIWO. -Williams/Rosetta Route: 5 PIWO.

Ketchum Ranger District. Number of Observations– 2 Hits. -PIWO detected at 2 points along 1 transect.

Sawtooth National Recreation Area. Number of Observations– 4 Hits. -PIWO detected at 4 points along 3 transects.

2007 Sage Grouse Monitoring Results:

Twenty-one (21) active leks with 59 males in attendance were identified on the Minidoka District in 2007.

In addition to the lek surveys, Greater Sage-grouse habitat assessments initiated on the Minidoka District in 2005 were continued in 2006 and 2007. Habitat assessment work was not continued in 2008 due to lack of funding. 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. Eight (8) plots representing lek habitat and eight (8) plots representing nesting habitat were sampled during this time. 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.

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 4 displays a summary of the aquatic restoration that occurred in ACS priority subwatersheds on the Sawtooth National Forest in 2007.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 19 Table 4 – Sawtooth National Forest 2007 Aquatic Restoration Projects by WARS priority Outside ACS Priority Watersheds Within ACS TOTAL From WARS High WARS Mod WARS Low Priority Columns 2, 3, Watersheds Priority Priority Priority 4 and 5 Watershed Watershed Watershed Miles of Stream 3 8 1 14 2 Improved Acres of Lake ------2 2 Improved Acres of Watershed 65 15 461 763 222 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 2007, 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.

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;

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 20 • 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 2007 a “Line Officer Certification Report” was not submitted to the Interior Columbia Basin Deputy Regional Executive Team, NOAA Fisheries, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Grazing implementation monitoring data was also not entered into the ITT database.

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.

No likely to adversely affect actions were submitted for consultation in the Upper Salmon River subbasin in 2007.

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.

There were no fires that required suppression activities in 2007 in drainages that support listed anadromous species.

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.

Evaluations of recreational activities and facilitates have not yet occurred in the Upper Salmon subbasin.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 21 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 2007 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. For a response to this question, please refer to the 2007 Sawtooth National Forest Aquatic Management Indicator Species monitoring report.

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 2007 the Sawtooth National Forest completed electrofishing removals of brook trout in the Cassia Creek drainage.

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 2007, fords on FR 079 road of lower Emma Creek in the S.F. Boise subbasin were reconstructed to reduce sedimentation of habitat and improve access during low flows. The forest also continues to work on the diversion strategy that will identify which diversion pose the greatest risk to habitat and fish passage in the Upper Salmon subbasin.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 22 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 biennial basis:

ƒ Activity or Practice 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 required at the facility. In accordance with the schedule, conditions surveys were conducted on the following administrative sites: • Redfish Lake Guard Station • Lookout Mountain Lookout • Horton Peak Lookout • Champion Creek Cabin • Bostetter Guard Station • Rock Creek Guard Station • One Mile Guard Station • Sublett Guard Station • Malta Work Center • Mount Harrison Lookout 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 indicates the water is safe. The drinking water systems for all Forest administrative sites with active water systems were opened in 2007. Monthly samples collected from these water systems 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.

Construction was completed on the Fairfield Bunkhouse, which replaced a double-wide trailer in substandard condition.

ƒ Activity or Practice 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?

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 23

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 toilet and water system replacement at Point Campground on the Sawtooth NRA. Phase I is in 2007 and phase II will occur in 2008. Most of the RSI funds requested for 2008 are for toilet and handpump replacement projects on the Sawtooth NRA and the Fairfield Ranger District.

ƒ Activity or Practice to Be Monitored: Protection of historic properties

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

Summary of findings: Due to a change in personnel, information on this element was not available at the time of this report. The report will be updated as this information becomes available.

ƒ Activity or Practice 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. One such project involved continued aggressive removal of smooth brome from occupied habitat for Castilleja christii, a candidate species. Approximately 90 acres of Castilleja christii habitat was infested with smooth brome. As a result of this work, smooth brome is now found in less than 13 acres of habitat. Other vegetation management projects which should improve habitat components for MIS and TEPC species include timber stand thinning projects and mechanical treatment and burning projects to enhance aspen stand regeneration. For instance, the South Fork Boise River Ponderosa Pine Thinning Project (PVG #1) 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

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 24 specifically provide or improve source habitat for MIS and/or TEPC species which will move a project area towards the desired vegetative condition.

ƒ Species Distribution - Activity or Practice 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: In FY07, 27 aquatic restoration projects were completed (Table 5). These projects improved 14 miles of stream, 731 acres of riparian and upland areas, 2 acres of lake, and decommissioned 4.7 miles of road. Approximately $236,055 was spent on these projects, with the largest project (trail work for the Trail Creek Fire) costing $18,000. Projects focused in ACS and WARS high priority subwatersheds accomplished 5 miles (36%) of stream, 4.7 miles of road decommissioning (100%), 2 acres (100%) of lake, and 287 acres (39%) of riparian and upland improvements on the forest (Tables 4 and 5). A total of $127,283 representing 53% of the total partnership and Forest Service funds spent on aquatic restoration in FY 07 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 FY07 occurred in these subwatersheds. This is due to several reasons. First, some of the aquatic restoration projects implemented in FY 07 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 07 still addressed many key forest wide or management area objectives in ACS or high priority subwatersheds (Table 4).

Table 5 - FY 07 aquatic restoration accomplishments on the Sawtooth National Forest Project Name Subwatershed FW or MA Summary of accomplished work WARS ACS priority (s) in which Objective Restoration subwatershed restoration addressed Strategy and occurred Priority Fairfield Ranger District Little Smoky Little Smoky TEOB27, Riparian and stream impacts were Active/Moderate No Dispersed Creek SWOB16, reduced through rehabilitation Recreation SWOB18, (delineation, soil decompaction, and REOB01, possible closure) of dispersed rec. sites MA 0714, in close proximity to Little Smoky 0730 Creek.

Acres improved - 5 Kelley Creek Kelley Creek TEOB27, Riparian and stream impacts were Active/Moderate No Flats Dispersed SWOB18, reduced in the Kelley Creek Flats Recreation FROB04, vicinity that have been disturbed by

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 25 Project Name Subwatershed FW or MA Summary of accomplished work WARS ACS priority (s) in which Objective Restoration subwatershed restoration addressed Strategy and occurred Priority REOB01, dispersed recreation. Non-system roads Middle and trails, campsites, etc. were defined, SFBR MA decommissioned, blocked from vehicle 0814, 0816, access, decompacted, etc. 0817, 0818 Acres improved - 10 Emma Creek Emma/Axolotl TEOB27, Fords on FR 079 road of lower Emma Active/High Yes Road Fords SWOB12, Creek were reconstructed to reduce SWOB14, sedimentation of bull trout habitat. SWOB18, FROB04, Miles improved – 1 FROB11, MA 0623, 0624, 0630 Large Woody Little Smoky TEOB27, Large woody debris was felled or dead Active/Moderate No Debris Drainage SWOB16, riparian trees pushed into streams REOB01, where at risk to theft by fuelwood MA 0715 cutters.

Miles improved – 3 Beaver Phillips TEOB03, The objective of this project is to Active/Low No Reintroduction Wardrop TEOB07, reintroduce beaver into watersheds on Program MA 0624, national forest, BLM, State, and private Worswick 0630, MA lands where an interagency committee Active/Moderate No Grindstone 1012 has agreed the watersheds could benefit from and support beaver dam Paradise Creek complexes. In 2007 eleven beavers Active/Moderate Yes were released on the Fairfield Ranger S.F. Lime District in Phillips Creek (1), Active/Moderate No Hearn Grindstone Creek (3), Paradise Creek (5), and Maxfield Creek (2). Three beavers were also released onto private lands at two different sites adjacent to the Fairfield Ranger District (paid for by the Camas Soil Conservation District).

Miles improved – 5 Ketchum Ranger District Adams Gulch Adams Gulch SWOB16, The project blocked a blown-out Active/Low No SWOB18, irrigation diversion to assure future FROB04, flow would occur in stream channel. FROB12, MA 0436, Acres improved – 1 0441 Copper Creek Copper Creek SWOB16, Dispersed recreations sites were Active/Low No Dispersed Sites REOB01, rehabilitated to reduce riparian and MA 0526, instream impacts (site delineation, soil 0527 decompaction, and site closure) along Copper Creek.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 26 Project Name Subwatershed FW or MA Summary of accomplished work WARS ACS priority (s) in which Objective Restoration subwatershed restoration addressed Strategy and occurred Priority Acres improved – 3 Bear Gulch Hyndman SWOB16, Rock was placed to stop headcutting on Active/Low No Headcut Creek MA 0441 Bear Gulch and Johnstone Creeks

Acres improved – 2 Minidoka Ranger District Lower Rock Harrington FK SWOB16, With support of DEQ and IDFG, Active/High No Creek Little Rock REOB01, several dispersed campgrounds were MA 1110 relocated and the old campsites were closed to restore streambanks and water quality in lower Rock Creek Canyon on the Cassia Division. Phase I of the project, to physically close and relocate sites, was completed in 2007. Phase II in 2008 will continue actual restoration of the closed campsites. This will involve treatment of invasive plants and planting of appropriate trees and shrubs. Streambanks have already improved and water quality should improve over time with a reduction in sediment and bacteria.

Acres improved – 50 Eightmile West Dry SWOB16, A riparian pasture was turned into a Active/High Yes Exclosure Eightmile MA 1912, riparian exclosure, a small exclosure Fisher 1918 fence was built around the headwaters springs, and willows were planted within the lower exclosure to help speed recovery of Yellowstone cutthroat habitat. Adjustments were made to the Grazing Permit to make the riparian pasture into a riparian exclosure...livestock will no longer have access to graze the lower stream corridor or headwaters.

Acres improved – 17 Upper Trout Trout Creek SWOB16, The buck and rail fence exclosure Active/High No MA 1313, surrounding Upper Trout Creek was 1314 repaired to restore watershed conditions for Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Upper Trout Creek. With an improved exclosure and the relocation of a portion of the road that parallels the creek, livestock will not access the streambanks and vegetation is expected to improve.

Acres improved – 3

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 27 Project Name Subwatershed FW or MA Summary of accomplished work WARS ACS priority (s) in which Objective Restoration subwatershed restoration addressed Strategy and occurred Priority Beaver Beaverdam SWOB16 The Minidoka District worked in Active/Moderate No Reintroduction Creek cooperation with Idaho Dept. of Fish & Program Game, Soil Conservations Districts, Idaho DEQ and other partners to improve deteriorated riparian areas across southern Idaho by releasing beaver into these systems. Beaver are live trapped, generally on private land where they are causing concerns, and relocated to National Forest System lands. The district expects to see elevated water table levels, more sediment control than erosion, enhanced fish habitat within ponds, less streambank erosion and channel degradation, and improved nesting and brood rearing areas for waterfowl. Five beaver were introduced.

Miles improved – 2 Green Canyon Warm Springs SWOB18, The purpose of these treatments is to Passive/High No Fire road Creek FROB04, restore road drainage by reconstructing drainage FROB12 and constructing drainage dips along reconstruction the Green Canyon Road to decrease the (BAER) chance of failures in a narrow canyon with no turnouts.

Acres improved – 2 Black Pine 2 East Dry Burnt MIOB08 The Black Pine Mine Site burned over Active/Low No Fire Black Pine Basin in July, 2007. The fire burned the land Mine Water application system that was used to Management discharge water draining down through (BAER) the reclaimed heap leach pad. Immediately after the fire a temporary evaporation system was constructed at the base of the heap within the lined contained area. The evaporation system consisted of two parallel PVC pipe lines with 5 ft. risers spaced 20 ft. apart. Specially designed “misters” were used for evaporation. Water from the reservoir under the heap was pumped directly to the system and the water level was monitored daily. The system was operated an average of 4 hours per day through August and September. By the end of September, the water level had raised to the spillway level so land application was required. Approval had been granted to utilize BAER Funds and WO Minerals

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 28 Project Name Subwatershed FW or MA Summary of accomplished work WARS ACS priority (s) in which Objective Restoration subwatershed restoration addressed Strategy and occurred Priority Funds to purchase supplies to reconstruct at least 1/3 of the 100 acre land application system.

On October 2, the Forest mobilized four mineral personnel to the mine. Equipment and supplies had been purchased through the end of September and had been delivered to the site. The crew welded approximately 5,000 ft. of 4 inch HDPE Pipe and had it in place by October 12. From October 9 through October 12 approximately 15 miles of drip line was strung between the north laterals. The water system was started on October 15. One employee laid out the remaining 20 miles of drip line on the South laterals from October 15 through October 30. The water system was operated through November 19, when freezing temperatures required it to be turned off.

Acres improved – 100 Black Pine 2 East Dry Burnt SWOB03, The leach pad, impoundment, Active/Low No Fire Black Pine Basin VEOB01, emergency spillway, and outfall Mine MIOB08 channel were seeded in the early fall to Revegetation reduce infiltration of meteoric water (BAER) into the heap and reduce the volume of water that requires treatment.

Acres improved – 355 Sawtooth National Recreation Area Alturas Alturas Lake TEOB27, Project obliterated unauthorized roads Passive/High Yes Unauthorized Creek SWOB16, in the Alturas Lake Creek watershed. Road SWOB18, An excavator and back-hoe were used Obliteration FROB04, for road and campsite obliteration, to REOB01, break soil compaction, to install barrier SNOB02, rock, to re-establish vegetation, and to MA 0249, accelerate restoration. In all, 3.7 miles 0252, 0275 of road and numerous campsites were obliterated. Acres improved – 22 Slate Creek Slate Creek TEOB03, The SNRA improved habitat conditions Active/High No SWOB16, for Chinook, steelhead, bull trout, and SNOB02, westslope cutthroat trout in the lower MA 0250 portions of the Slate Creek drainage by adding large wood (root-wads with 10- 20 foot boles attached) and boulders to the stream channel. Debris flows and extensive flooding in Slate Creek in

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 29 Project Name Subwatershed FW or MA Summary of accomplished work WARS ACS priority (s) in which Objective Restoration subwatershed restoration addressed Strategy and occurred Priority 1998 created a uniform channel lacking fundamental fish habitat structure and complexity such as wood jams and pools.

The project helped to increase rearing habitat for salmonids and resting habitats for spawning adults. Wood was installed in a manner that would allow for future high flows to scour deep water habitats in the vicinity of the “structures”. In all, 32 tree boles and dozens of boulders were placed in Slate Creek in order to enhance fish habitats.

Miles improved – 3 Job Creek Road Job Creek TEOB07, Project relocated the Job Creek Road to Yes SWOB16, an upland location and removes SWOB18, approximately 0.2 miles of the former FROB04, alignment fill from a wetland near FROB06, Stanley lake Creek. Heavy equipment FROB12, (excavator, dump trucks, etc.) where SNOB02, used to remove 235 truckloads of fill MA 0248, associated with the former alignment, 0253 and return it to the original upland source. A short reroute was constructed in uplands to replace this alignment. Wetland functionality is expected to return where altered for over 80 years.

Acres improved – 12 Vat Creek Vat Creek TEOB07, Funds would be utilized to obliterate Active/High No Unauthorized SWOB16, approximately 1 mile of unauthorized Road SWOB18, road in the Vat Creek drainage. Roads FROB04, Analysis and NEPA have been FROB06, completed for this project and funds SNOB02, would be used solely for MA 0249, implementation. 0275 Acres improved – 5 Salmon River Joes Little TEOB07, Project incorporated willow and alder Active/High No Willow/Alder Casino SWOB16, transplants and cuttings at locations Restoration SNOB02, where they are currently absent, but Sawtooth City MA 0250 historically provided the core structure Active/High Frenchman within riparian communities of the upper Salmon River drainage. Locations may include reaches impacted by historic grazing, dewatering, or development. Planting may also occur at earlier restoration sites where experience now suggests much greater use of woody vegetation

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 30 Project Name Subwatershed FW or MA Summary of accomplished work WARS ACS priority (s) in which Objective Restoration subwatershed restoration addressed Strategy and occurred Priority could have been incorporated.

Challis High School "Envirothon" club assisted in planting willow cuttings along the Salmon River. A mini- excavator was used to supplement willow transplants at the 2000 Frenchman Ford Restoration site.

Acres improved – 5 Travel Plan Stanley Lake TEOB07, The extensive mortality of lodgepole Active/High Yes Maintenance Creek SWOB16, pine forests within the Sawtooth Valley SWOB18, has accelerated an already persistent FROB04, resource threat of user pioneered FROB12, vehicle tracks, and expanding dispersed SNOB02, campsites. Such networks expand MA 0249, exponentially as each lead opens new 0275 opportunities for others. Project implement utilized heavy equipment to implement barriers (rocks or debris) of new vehicle paths established by users through areas closed and inappropriate for travel, and at the perimeters for expanding dispersed campsites. Full recovery of these yet lightly used routes is expected.

Acres improved – 10 Valley Road Fourth of July TEOB07, Additional rehabilitation work on the Active/High Yes Fire Road Creek SWOB16, Fisher Creek and 4th of July Roads Work (BAER) SWOB18, inside the Valley Road Fire perimeter Fisher Creek FROB04, was completed in the fall of 2006. FROB12, Several drive through dips were SNOB02, improved and culverts repaired. MA 0248 Acres improved – 2 Trailhead Fire Grandjean TEOB07, Five small 8” culverts in locations that Active/High Yes trail culvert SWOB16, are at risk for flooding and/or debris removal and REOB01, flows were replaced with armored ford REOB20, walkthrough dips on the #7453 Trail construction REOB21 Creek trail. The purpose of this (BAER) treatment is to accommodate increased water flows and associated debris. The objectives for accommodating increased flows are to: 1) stabilize and protect the existing trails; 2) decrease the chances of washing trail fill and surface material into adjacent streams; and 3) minimize trail failure induced flooding that could impact human life and safety.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 31 Project Name Subwatershed FW or MA Summary of accomplished work WARS ACS priority (s) in which Objective Restoration subwatershed restoration addressed Strategy and occurred Priority

Acres improved – 2 Trailhead Fire Stanley Lake TEOB03, One hundred log or rock water bars on Active/High Yes trail drainage Creek TEOB07, trails on slopes greater than 5-8% construction SWOB16, and/or within RCAs were installed to (BAER) SWOB18, divert water, reduce sediment delivery REOB01, to adjacent streams and westslope REOB20, cutthroat habitat downstream in Stanley REOB21, Lake Creek. SNOB02, Upper Acres improved – 12 Salmon River MA 0253 Valley Road Fourth of July TEOB03, Thirty-six miles of trails lie within the Active/High Yes Fire Trail Work TEOB07, burn perimeter of the Valley Road Fire. (NFN3) Champion SWOB16, Most were in high-intensity burn areas. Active/High Yes Creek REOB01, BAER funds were used to install 300 REOB20, additional water bars to control runoff Active/High Yes Fisher Creek REOB21, and preserve the trails. Thorough SNOB02, maintenance of trail drainage structures Passive/High Yes Swimm-Martin MA 0248 will be necessary again this year to ensure continued proper function of the Active/High Yes Upper Warm drainage structures, which fill quickly Springs Creek during spring runoff. It is likely some trail tread repair will be necessary. Thick stands of burned timber over the entire area will require extensive logging-out. Trees in the burned area will be continuing to fall onto the trail for many years.

Acres improved – 109 Trailhead Fire Grandjean TEOB03, Two miles of road prism were Active/High Yes trail drainage TEOB07, reconditioned near the Grandjean construction TEOB27, campground. (NFN3) SWOB16, REOB01, Acres improved – 6 REOB20, REOB21, Valley Road Fourth of July TEOB03, Ten miles of road prism were Active/High Yes Fire Road Creek TEOB07, reconditioned in Fisher and Fourth of Work (NFN3) SWOB16, July Creeks. Fisher Creek SWOB18, FROB04, Acres improved – 30 FROB12, SNOB02, MA 0248

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 32 ƒ Activity or Practice 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 of 2007, approximately 109 subwatersheds had been sampled across the Sawtooth National 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.

Second, each year the forest deploys temperature data loggers from mid-July and mid-September to establish baseline conditions within bull trout habitat patches. During 2007 in the Boise and Salmon subbasins, 49 temperature loggers were deployed, 11 of these were in bull trout 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.

As stated in the 2005 Sawtooth National Forest Plan Monitoring report, a comparison between the numbers of impaired water bodies in the 1998 and 2002 integrated reports cannot be made because DEQ has changed the way they track water quality from stream segments to AUs. It

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 33 was hoped that a better comparison could have been made when DEQ issued its 2004/2006 integrated report because each report will use the same AUs. To date, DEQ has not issued any further integrated report. The 2008 draft 305b report is out for public response and will likely be finalized and approved by EPA in the next few months.

In 2009, the Sawtooth National Forest plans to work with the Boise and Payette National Forests to develop a common approach to address the trend of water quality in relation to our management activities. This will be done by summarizing levels of management activity within subwatersheds where PIBO has completed repeat monitoring. As of 2007, 15 PIBO sites in the Goose Creek, Salmon Falls Creek, Big Wood River, and S.F. Boise River had been resurveyed. However, this number is expected is increase as 2008 PIBO sites are re-sampled. The forest will also compare results from the IDEQ 2002 and 2008 integrated reports and summarize repeat stream temperature monitoring sites within bull trout patches.

ƒ Activity or Practice 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: As of 2007, approximately 109 subwatersheds had been sampled across the Sawtooth National Forest. Fifteen of these sites in the Goose Creek, Salmon Falls Creek, Big Wood River, and S.F. Boise River had been resurveyed. 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. Estimated sample sizes for high, moderate, and low priority WARS subwatersheds are 93, 80, and 57 respectively across the Ecogroup (i.e. Payette, Boise and Sawtooth National Forests). 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 across the Ecogroup. On the Sawtooth National Forest sample sizes for high, moderate, and low priority WARS subwatersheds are 39, 35, and 30.

At this time the trend of WCIs within resurveyed sites has not been evaluated. However, Forests within the Ecogroup plan to work with PIBO in 2009 assess trends within repeat monitoring sites in relation to our management activities.

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 2007. 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?

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 34 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 four projects were reviewed in 2007 using the monitoring protocol: ƒ South Fork Ponderosa Pine Thinning Project– Fairfield District ƒ Lower Rock Creek Dispersed Recreation Project – Minidoka District ƒ Lower Rock Creek Fuels Reduction Project – Minidoka District ƒ Big Water Gulch Culvert Replacement Project –Fairfield Ranger District

Annual project reviews were originally scheduled on the Ketchum District and the SNRA. These reviews were cancelled as ID Team members needed for the reviews were committed to the Castle Rock Evaluation Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) team. The projects scheduled for review in 2007 that were not reviewed will be reviewed in 2008. Summaries of the results of the four project monitoring reviews were completed during the 2007-08 winter. Attachments 1-4 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.

V. ERRATA

Some errors have been found in the final documents for the revised Sawtooth National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). To correct these errors, the Forest has prepared an errata to the revised Forest Plan. The changes represented in Errata #6 represent factual corrections or clarifications that have no bearing on the analysis completed or the decisions made by the Responsible Official in the Record of Decision for the Sawtooth National Forest Plan. Changes are presented here to correct inconsistencies between the final documents and technical reports or project record information, and to help make the documents easier to understand and implement for Forest managers. Errata #6 for the revised Forest Plan is included in this monitoring report as Attachment 6.

2007 Sawtooth NF Monitoring and Evaluation Report (September 2008) Page - 35