United States Department Tongass National Forest of Agriculture Forest Service 2012 Annual & Five Year Monitoring and Alaska Region Evaluation Report R10-MB-757 July 2013 Monitoring Overview INSIDE THIS The 2012 Annual Monitoring and Evaluation The monitoring report can be found on the Tongass web REPORT Report summarizes specific monitoring site under Projects and Plans. A full reference report for completed during fiscal year 2012 in ac- each question is available by hyperlink. cordance with the Tongass Land and Re- If you have questions or comments about this report, source Management Plan (Forest Plan). please contact Carol Seitz-Warmuth at the Ketchikan Physical & Biologi- 2–20 Chapter 6 of the Forest Plan specifies an Forest Supervisor’s Office, 907-228-6341. cal Environment annual written summary of forest wide mon- itoring programs. As a result of the 2008 Forest Plan Amend- Human Uses and 20–28 ment, some monitoring protocols and ques- Land Manage- tions were updated to better ment define and focus the monitoring work. This report serves as both Economic and 29 the annual written summary of Social Environ- forest wide monitoring programs, and also the five year review of ment all monitoring done since the Forest Plan Amendment. The five year review is a compre- hensive description of results for each monitoring question, and an evaluation of the last five years of data. Monitoring efforts are currently underway for most of the ques- tions in this report. In some cases, monitoring protocols are still being developed or under review. Monitoring and Evaluation Program Monitoring and evaluation is a ment of plans and budgets, or gathered during the year and quality control process for im- both, to facilitate feasible and identification of issues requiring plementation of the Tongass meaningful action on the immediate attention, while a Forest Plan. It provides the ground. more comprehensive evalua- public, the Forest Service, and The Forest Supervisor is re- tion process takes place every other concerned resource agen- sponsible for coordinating the fifth year. The evaluation in- cies with information on the preparation of the annual moni- cludes recommendations for POINTS OF progress and results of plan remedial action, if necessary, to INTEREST toring and evaluation report. implementation. As such, mon- This report summarizes the make management activities itoring and evaluation comprise monitoring activities conducted and their effects consistent Streams; Fish Habitat; an essential feedback mecha- during the year and the results with the Forest Plan. Specific nism within an adaptive man- recommendations for corrective Aquatic Condition p. 13 obtained. It addresses and agement framework to keep evaluates each of the questions action depend on the risk to the Soil & Water- the Plan dynamic and respon- listed in the monitoring plan at resource and type of disparity sive to changing conditions. discovered. Soil Productivity p. 16 the reporting period identified. The evaluation process also Generally, the annual report provides feedback that can focuses on the information trigger corrective action, adjust- 2012 ANNUAL & FIVE YEAR MONITORING AND EVALUATION Page 2 Physical and Biological Environment 1. Air Quality Is air quality being maintained? Tracy Arm and Stikine-LeConte. Twenty lichen tissue samples were collected, pro- To protect resources from the deleterious cessed and sent to the University of Minne- time periods. However, with the develop- effects from air contaminants from on and sota Soil Analytical Lab for analysis of con- ment of critical loads and the calibration of off-Forest emission sources, changes in air taminants including N, S, Hg and other the nutrient N in lichens, in the future we quality were monitored for human health, heavy metals. can use the lichen bio-monitoring program and lichen contaminant thresholds were to detect exceedances of nutrient and acidi- calculated for ecosystem health. In 2011, wilderness areas were revisited for ty CLs by collecting lichen samples for ele- lichen biomonitoring work that supported mental analysis. The data can be used to The City of Juneau was designated non- the Chief’s 10-Year Wilderness Stewardship attainment for National Ambient Air Quality track trends or map the spatial extent of the Challenge. Wilderness areas with new data impacted areas. Standard (NAAQS) particulate matter PM are: Chuck River, South Prince of Wales, 10 in 1990. Efforts have been made over South Etolin, Russell Fiords, Endicott River, the years to minimize road dust through Karta River and Kuiu. An additional plot in paving as well as educating the public to non-wilderness was established in Paradise limit woodstove use and open burning dur- Valley on the Juneau Icefield. No contami- ing certain periods. Juneau was re- nants were above threshold from the first designated as a maintenance area with the visit to Chuck River Wilderness in 2005, but US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are now exceeding thresholds for some in 2009. contaminants (N, P, and K). Data from 2006-2008 indicate that Juneau The plots with lichens elevated above has met federal air quality standards for threshold with heavy metals and others PM 2.5 (ADEC 2010). In 2012, Juneau was from the first monitoring cycle in 2005 con- very close to exceeding the PM 2.5 health tinue to be elevated to some degree. this based standard of 24-hour 35 micrograms time. More sampling is needed to detect a per cubic meter. However, Juneau is not on trend in nitrogen, as it could be from other the national list of "non-attainment areas" natural sources or drifting from Lynn Canal for PM 2.5. boat traffic. In 2012, seven lichen biomonitoring plots Lichens accumulate contaminants so they were revisited within two wilderness areas: are not used to detect pollution for short TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST Page 3 2. Climate Change What are the long-term changes to the seasonal snowpack), and streamflow. southern and outer coastal areas of the permanent snowpack and how does it Climate change vulnerability assessments Tongass NF. affect the physical and biological envi- are in progress and can inform meaningful ronment? operational guidelines and adaptive actions focused on resources at risk that are man- This question was added to the Forest Plan aged by the For- monitoring plan in 2008. The resource spe- est Service. cialists assigned to develop a protocol for this question recommended deferring specific Additional rec- efforts until information from regional and ommendations state climate change assessments was availa- include maintain ble. Glacier and snowpack changes can indi- current invest- cate climate trends that are relevant to nation- ments in snow al forest management. Changes in glaciers courses and and snowpack alter stream flow, water quality, stream gauges and habitats important to fish, wildlife, and and establishing additional snow- people. pack monitoring This report summarizes new information and sites in salmon ongoing efforts related to climate change, producing water- snowpack changes (glaciers, permanent and sheds in the 3. Biodiversity—Restocked Harvested Forest Are harvested forest lands restocked within 5 years after harvest? The 2008 Forest Plan requires that all harvest- ed stands be restocked within 5 years of tim- ber harvest. All harvested lands were exam- ined following treatment. Typically, natural regeneration occurs on 100% of harvested stands. If natural restocking does not occur, artificial regeneration is required, but this has not occurred in the past several decades on the Forest. All stands harvested in 2007 were certified as restocked in FY2012 or an earlier fiscal year. All lands harvested prior to FY2007 have also been certified as restocked. The results show that 100 percent of forestland that was harvested in FY2007 have been sur- veyed for natural regeneration and were ade- quately restocked within five years. 2012 ANNUAL & FIVE YEAR MONITORING AND EVALUATION Page 4 4. Biodiversity—Habitat for Old-Growth Associated Species Following young-growth treatments, commercial thinned since 1965. From FY and its nutritional quality, the season and is the change in understory vegeta- 2007 through FY 2012 35,016 acres were snow depth, and the reproductive status of tion providing improved habitat for pre-commercial thinned. On average, ap- deer. Results indicate the thinning treat- key old-growth associated species? proximately 6,000 acres have been treated ments improved the value of the habitat for per year since FY 2007. Of the acres treat- deer in winter and summer conditions (the There are an estimated 461,652 acres of ed 1,654 acres were for specifically for exception was experiment I (red alder plant- young growth due to timber harvest on the improvement of wildlife habitat and 141 ing in one to five year old stands), treating Tongass as of the close of fiscal year (FY) acres were riparian thinning to improve the stands earlier (15 to 25 year old) yield- 2012 and we estimate one third is less anadromous fish habitat. ed greater benefits than did later treat- than 25 years old and two-thirds are 25 to TWYGS experiments 1, 2, 3, and 4 were ments(25 to 35, and 35+ year-old stands), 150 years old. These age classes roughly measured four to eight years after treat- and compared to a wide range of old- correspond to the stand initiation and stem ment in 2011, 2007, 2008, and 2010 re- growth stands from throughout the region, exclusion stages of forest succession, re- spectively. This completes the first meas- summer and winter with low snow depths spectively. urement cycle for TWYGS. The Juneau For- and treated earlier yielded better food re- The Tongass has been working to improve estry Sciences Lab and the Tongass have sources for deer than did old-growth forest, the value of young growth stands for wildlife completed a manuscript of the first post whereas later treatments yielded poorer and to improve their value for future har- treatment measurement and it has been habitat than old growth.