Forest Health Pilot
Draft Monitoring Plan
Version 2.6

Project Leader: Ken Roby
Plumas & Lassen N.F.

Table of Contents

Objectives
Strategy
Reporting
Plan Elements

Part 1 - Implementation
Part 2 - Effectiveness at project or site scale

Soil Quality
Treatments in Stream zones
BMPEP
Erosion
SMZs
Roads
Fire Behavior
Ground Fuels
Vegetation
Watershed Restoration
Hypogeous Fungi
Air Quality (under development)

Part 3 -Effects at Larger Scale

Watershed Disturbance
Stream Condition
Vegetation
Wildfire Size and Intensity
Modeling under consideration

I. Monitoring Plan Objectives:

Overall:

At Site Scale:

*** these objectives and related elements dropped from this version.

II. Overall Strategy:

1. Select elements which are useful to supplying results to an Adaptive Management approach. These elements generally have standards of comparison (existing or derivable from reference site data) to provide a yes/no feedback answer to management.

2. Take advantage of the expertise of our “doers”. Provide format for project planners and implementers to subjectively assess all projects for implementation and effectiveness. Track successess and failures to provide feedback to future management.

3. For effectiveness monitoring, provide statistically reliable information while striving for efficiency by employing a stratified random sampling approach to select monitoring sites across all three forests.

4. Provide data for long term and large scale assessment of strategy effectiveness. Provide data at the site scale that is compatible with larger scale analysis. Provide stram and watersjed condition data that will be useful in long term assessments.

 

III. ANNUAL REPORTING:

TIMING

Dec 15 of each calendar year.

RESPONSIBILTY:

Forest Supervisors.

CONTENT:

1. Monitoring tasks completed:

Number and location of Implementation Evaluations completed.
Number and location of Soil Quality evaluations completed.
Number and location of BMPEP evaluations completed.
Number and location of wildfires for previous year.
Number and location of of wildfires within, that passed through or burned within 1/4 mile of a fuels reduction treatment area.
Number and location of of Vegetation plots completed.
Number and location of Stream Condition Inventory reach completed.
Number and location of Watershed Restoration projects monitored.

2. Data Summary and Analysis:

For Implementation Monitoring:

   Summary or ratings from all projects by treatment types.
   Listing of key findings (project specific).
   Listing of key findings common to many projects.

For Effectiveness Monitoring:

   Summary statistics for metrics listed below (averages from all sties, broken out by strata where appropriate)

   Analysis of results compared to standards where applicable (soils, water temperature, etc.) and where appropriate (veg. fuels, etc.) between treatments and reference sites

   Soil Quality Standards:

Ground Cover: % Cover
Soil Disturbance: % Disturbed
Compaction: Penetration (pounds/inch @ 4-8 inch depth)
Organic Matter: Pieces/acre

   BMPEP:

For each evaluation (i.e. T02, etc.) and for composite of all evaluations: percent in each of the four outcome categories (Implemented & Effective, Implmented and Not Effective, Not Implemented and Effective, Not Implemented and Not Effective)

Also reported are comments on each site with poor effectiveness, in terms of degree and duration of potential resource impacts.

   Ground Fuels:

Ground fuels by diameter class in tons per acre, total ground fuels in tons per acre.

   Vegetation Plots:

Summarize data by strata and treatment type.

Trees:

Basal area: (ft2/acre and m2/ha)
Canopy Cover: (%)
Snags/acre: #/acre and #/ha by size and decay classes and total
Decadence- % of trees >21” by feature and total
Large Trees: #/acre and #/ha by species and size and total
Diameter distribution: #/acre and #/ha by dbh class and species
Mortality Rates: % death/yr by dbh class and species and total Stand Density: basal area, stand density index and canopy cover

Seedlings:

Density: #/acre and #/ha by species

Shrubs:

Cover: %
Height: feet and meters
Volume: ft3/acre and m3/ha
Decadence: % volume by decadence class
Species: relative % by cover and volume

Derived metrics include:

Habitat Relationship Models (WHR) (types): % area, patch size distribution & arrangement (to be determined - e.g. contagion indices, interiour area indices)

WHR types, and more specific habitat models available for California spotted owl, forest carnivores, and Forest Plan MIS species will be included.

Strutural complexity types (Franklin and Fites 1996): % area, patch size

Distribution and arrangement (to be determined)

Fuel types and models: % area and arrangement (to be determined, i.e. contagion indices)

Hypogeous Fungi:

Diversity of fungi species
Density of fungi (#/m2)

Watershed disturbance:

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA)
ERA in near stream areas (%)
ERA in sesniss by acres (%)
road density
# road crossings

Stream Conditon Inventories:

For all streams:

   gradient (%)
   grid fines at pool tails (mean and range)
   shade (mean and range)
   pool frequency (#/100m)
   residual pool depths (mean and range)
   bank stability (mean and range)
   particle size distribution (d50, % < 2mm)
   channel width/depth ratio (mean and range)
   temperature (daily max and min)
   large woody debris (abundance, size distribution)

Additional attributes for alluvial streams:

   bank angle (mean and range)
   depth at water edge (mean and range)

Fire Severity and Size

   Fire size
   Location (add to GIS vegetation layer)
   severity class by acres

Component 1.1: Implementation Monitoring

GOAL: Conduct qualitative assessment of all projects. Evaluate project analysis, planning, prescription, and administration. Highlight things that were done well and things that need improvement. Priority goal is to feed findings back into project planning.

1. Sampling:

Sample Population: All FHP projects and additional projects that employ practices or prescriptions that are innovative, unusual or otherwise make them a priority of monitoring.

Site selection: Project is basic “sampling” unit. Field visits are made to units or areas that are representative of the project, or are sites of specific prescriptions or mitigations (underburns with unusual prescriptions, subsoiling areas, treatmetns in or near SMZs., etc.). If there are several treatments, vegetation types, or other key differences between untis with the project, then it is recommended that more than one evaluation be completed.

Protocol:

For Vegetation and Fuels treatments: FHP implementation monitoring protocol

For Watershed Improvement Projects: R% Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) Administrative Evaluation for Watershed Restoration Projects (Form AE-7).

Expected Variation: NA

Timing requirements: Within one year of project completion

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: Project objectives, Forest and Regional Standards and Guidelines

Metrics reported: None

Data Base: Needs to be developed

3. Feedback:

If Standard not attained: At time of assessment discuss, and if possible recommend/decide on necessary corrective actions or follow-up evaluation.

4. Compatibility with LMP: Format is new, compatible with numerous sections of the LMP including:

Visual Quality: Field review of all projects in retention, 1/2 projects in partial

Cultural Resources: Site inspection: all timber sales over 1MMBF with sites and 10% of other projects with sites.

Wildlife (spotted owls): Field review of project planning and implementation

Wildlife (Willow-Alder Community): Field Review of project planning and implementation

Riparian Areas: Field inspection of BMP and Standards and Guidelines (S & G) implementation; most projects. Field evaluation of channel and riparian conditions after BMP implementation; at least one project per district

Water: . . . field inspection of all project areas

Geology (activties on unstable lands): Field review (for effectiveness of S&G.

Fuels: Field and office review; at least 20% of prescribed fire projects.

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

Force account is only practical alternative. Estimate $500 per evaluation

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Data Base development (may be concurrent)

Component 2.1: Soils

GOAL: Determine if projects meet Soil Quality Standards

1. Sampling:

Sample Population: All treatments.

Site selection: Sites are randomly selected from the treatment strata. Plots have same center points as veg. wood, and fuels sites.

Site type: 100 point plots, center in treatment area center, on two randomly selected bearings.

Protocol: Standard taken from Region 5 Soil Quality Standards, see attachment 1.

Expected Variation: Ground Cover: Low
                Soil Disturbance: Low
                Compaction: High
                Organic Matter: High

Necessary Sample Size:

Minimum 30 sites per strata

Timing requirements: Samples collected when soils are below field capacity typically, field season, FS wil have to set start dates on annual basis.

Follow-up Sampling:

10% of sites at 5 year intervals for 20 years (10% are long term sites)

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: Region 5 Soil Quality Standards:

Ground Cover: 85%
Soil Disturbance: 15%
Compaction: 15%
Organic Matter: ????

Metrics reported:

Ground Cover: % Cover
Soil Disturbance: % disturbed
Compaction: penetration (pounds/inch at 4 - 8 inch depth
Organic Matter: pieces per acre

Data Base: Needs to be developed

3. Feedback:

Standard not attained:

4. Compatibility with LMP: LMP calls for monitoring of Soil Quality at 3 sites/year:

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

Estimate $120 per plot for FS, $240 per plot for contract

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Supply sampling locations
Supply sampling protocols
Build database
Define allowable start date for sample collection

2.2 Component: Effects of Treatments in Streamside Areas

GOAL: On site specific bassis, determine if vegetation and fire risk treatments within streamside areas are compatible with riparian and aquatic resource objectives.

1. Sampling:

Sample Population: All (or a portion, depending on the number of treatments.

Site selection: Projects where treatments are proposed within streamside management zones. This included both perennial and non-perennial

Site type: Depends on the site specfic monitoring design.

Protocol: Depends on the site specific monitoring plan. Whenever possible, porotocols for specific attributes (shade, temperature, ground cover, etc.) will be derived from established forest, regional or national protocols (soil quality monitoring, Stream Condition Inventory, etc.)

Expected Variation: Depends on attributes selected, generally, high.

Necessary Sample Size: For this element, each site specific approach will stand alone. Sample size will be determined for each site, such that statisitcally reliable interpretations can be made.

Timing requirements: Site specific.

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: Site specific objectives will be set based on site analysis. Standard may be a Forest Standard and guide, a site specific objective based on site potential or reference conditions.

Metrics reported: Dependent on attributes selected at each site.

Data Base: R5 SCI database where appropriate

3. Feedback:

If standard not attained: evaluation of site to determine if corrective action is necessary. Summarize findings from this element to feed into future project planning.

4. Compatibility with LMP: Compatible. LMPs call for on-site investigations of riparian and channel condition.

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Component 2.3: BMPEP Group 1 (On site erosion, evaluations T02, T03, T04, T07, F25)

GOAL: Determine if Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to control erosion are implemented and effective.

1. Sampling:

Sample Population:

   T02: All treatments with tractor or other ground skidding

   T03: All treatments with suspended yarding (helicopter or skyline)

   T04: All harvest treatments

   T07: All treatments with meadows shown with 100m of a treatment units

   F25: All treatments that include broadcast burning

Site selection: Random selection from treatments as outlined above (no stratification)

Site type: As defined in R5 BMEP protocols, vary by evaluation, but generally, the harvest unit is the sampling unit.

Protocol: R5 Best Management Practices Evaluation Program

Expected Variation:

T02: low
T03: moderate
T04: low
T07: moderate
F25: moderate

Necessary Sample Size:

T02: 20
T03: 30
T04: 20
T07: 30
F25: (All sites with broadcast burning)

Timing requirements: All evaluations call for at least one winter between treatment and sampling

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: Less than 90% Implementation, less than 90% effectiveness (for all samples in this group).

Metrics reported: For each evaluation (i.e. T02, etc.) and for comosite of all evaluations: Percent in each of the four outcome categories (Implemented & Effective, Implemented and Not Effective, Not Implemented and Effective, Not Implemented and Not Effective.)

Data Base: R5 BMPEP Database

3. Feedback:

If standard not attained: Review of specifications and mitigation measures for treatments not meeting standards.

Site evaluation and specific prescriptions for each evaluation indicating potential for more than minor, or more than short term impact to acquatic resources.

4. Compatibility with LMP: Compatible. LMPs calls for occular evaluation of all project areas for effectiveness of erosion control measures and for BMP evaluation on at least one project per RD per year.

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

Force Account: $200 per evaluation
Contract: $300 per evaluation

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Create sample pools for each evaluation
Select sample sites for each evaluation

Component 2.3II: BMPEP Group 2 (Streamside Management Zones, Evaluation T01)

GOAL: Determine if Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to control erosion are implemented and effective in roads in the treatments.

1. Sampling:

All roads within project areas, and all roads treated with maintenance contracts the past 2 years.

Site selection: Random selection of a road from randomly selected roads i the following pools:

Road Maintenance
Salvage Sales
Thinning/Fuels reduction projects
Green Sales (within past 3 years)

Site type: As defined in R5 BMEP protocols,site is a randomly selected road length of 0.1 mile.

Protocol: R5 Best Management Practices Evaluation Program

Expected Variation:

E08: low
E09: moderate
E10: moderate

Necessary Sample Size: 70 (total)

Timing requirements: All evaluations call for at least one winter between treatment and sampling

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: Less than 90% Implementation, less than 90% effectiveness (for all samples in this group).

Metrics reported: For sum of evaluations: Percent in each of the four outcome categories (Implemented & Effective, Implemented and Not Effective, Not Implemented and Effective, Not Implemented and Not Effective.) The Implemented/Not Effective and Implemented/not Effective outcomes are based on composite of results, with weightings applied to criteria based on their importance.

Also reported are comments on each site with poor effectiveness, in terms of degree and duration of potential resource impacts.

Data Base: R5 BMPEP Database

3. Feedback:

If standard not attained: Review of specifications and mitigation measures for treatments not meeting standards.

Site evaluation and specific prescriptions for each evaluation indicating potential for more than minor, or more than minor, or more than short term impact to aquatic resources.

4. Compatibility with LMP: Compatible. LMPs calls for occular evaluation of all project areas for effectiveness of erosion control measures and for BMP evaluation on at least one project per RD per year.

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

Force Account: $200 per evaluation
Contract: $300 per evaluation

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Create sample pools
Select sample sites

Component 2.4: Fire Behavior in Fires Greater than 5 acres

GOAL: Use post fire reviews to assess the degree to which vegetation and fuels treatments affected fire behavior.

1. Sampling:

Sample Population: All fires greater than 5 acres (estimated at 15 annually).

Site selection: Same

Site type: Same

Protocol: Under development. A set of core questions will address fire behavior in and outside treated areas, amount of resource damage, if suppression strategy or tactics (and their effectiveness) were affected by treatments and if suppression costs were affected.

Expected Variation: High

Necessary Sample Size: Unknown, but very high

Timing requirements: As soon after the fire as possible, but prior to November 1 of each fire season.

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: Fires inside and outside treatment areas

Metrics reported: Summary of the responses to the questions

Data Base: R5 BMPEP Database

3. Feedback:

If standard not attained: Summary of the responses to the questions

4. Compatibility with LMP: Exceeds

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

 

Component 2.5I: Ground Fuels

GOAL: Compare amount of ground fuels i treated and untreated plots.

      Compare the changes in ground fuels in treated and untreated plots.

      Data from this component will also be used to assist in fire modeling.

1. Sampling:

Sample Population: Identical to vegetation plots (n = 120).

Site selection: Identical to vegetation plots, stratified random selection, with treatment and vegetation type strata.

Site type: Plot (100 foot bisected angle transects), located at center of vegetation plot.

Protocol: R-5 standard ground fuels treatments.

Expected Variation:

within treatments (initial): low
between treatments (initial): high
within vegetation types (initial): high
between vegetation types (initial): high
within treatments (trend): unknown
between treatments (trend): unknown
within vegetation types (trend): unknown
between vegetation types (trend): high

Necessary Sample Size: 120

Timing requirements: None (apart from lack of snow cover)

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: For treatment and non-treatment comparisons, specific projet objectives (data from this attribute may be linked with the vegetation data in some cases to make this determination)

Metrics reported: Ground fules by diameter class in tons per acre, total ground fuels in tons per acre.

Data Base: Needs to be developed

3. Feedback:

If standard not attained: analysis of original prescription, if "sound" then revised future prescriptions.

4. Compatibility with LMP: Exceeds plan, which calls only for tracking acres by treatment type.

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

Force Account - $50 per plot
Coop - $75 per plot
Contract - $100 per plot

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Site selection
DB development (can be concurrent)

Component 2.5II: Vegetation Plots 1 (forest stands)

BACKGROUND: A Forest Health Pilot (FHP) project is being planned that includes an extensive series of treatments to improve fire resiliency and forest health for the Lassen and Plumas National Forests and the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. The treatments include creation of a large network of defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZ) and fuel reduction zones (FRZ). An important part of the FHP project is to monitor the effectiveness of the treatments in improving fire resiliency and forest health, and the effects on wildlife habitat.

The monitoring protocol described below is for the vegetation portion of the FHP project. Most of the key underlying questions that the monitoring was designed to address are at the landscape scale. However, many of the vegetation elements chosen to be monitored are not directly measureable at a landscape scale. Therefore, the monitoring plan includes many elements that will be measured at the stand or patch scale that will be used to extrapolate to the landscape scale with existing vegetation maps.

Wherever possible, emphasis is placed on measuring process rates (i.e. mortality rates, large tree recruitment rates, snag recruitment rates, seedling recruitment rates, fuel accumulation rates) rather than states of elements. For many of the monitoring elements selected there is little baseline data available. A secondary objective to monitoring trends in key elements is to extablish baseline levels.

GOAL:

QUESTIONS:

1.  How do treated and untreated stands (by forest type) differ (intially and in trends over time) in:

2.  How do treatments affect the amount and landscape patterns of: wildlife habitat (Wildlife Habitat Relationship types, spotted owls, forest carnivores, and selected MIS species or guilds, structural complexity levels-Franklin and Fites 1996), fire hazard levles (fuel models, crown continuity) acres predicted to burn at high severity (probabilistic FIRESAFE model, Session et al. 1997), tree mortality levels and rates.

    SAMPLING

Plots are permanent, with repeat sampling to occur within the same plot areas over time.

Sample Population: Maximum = 270

Site selection: Random selection of plot locations from two tiered strata:

Tier 1: Treatment Types:

Thinning
Broadcast Burns
Thinning + Broadcast Burns
Control (no treatment)
Salvage (need to further discuss this strata)

Tier 2: Vegetation Types

Expected Variation:

within treatments (initial): low
between treatments (initial): high
within vegetation types (initial): moderate
between vegetation types (initial): high
within treatments (trend): unknown
between treatments (trend): unknown
within vegetation types (trend): unknown
between vegetation types (trend): high

Necessary Sample Size: 270 plots (5 treatments x 9 vegetation types x 6 replications)

Timing requirements: None intitially

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: "desired conditions" and "historic range of variability" (as available) for indicator metrics.

     For initial treatments, comparison will be with:

a) specific project objectives,
b) landscape level desired conditions for wildlife, forest health and fire resiliency,
c) against untreated "reference sites",
d) estimated historic range of variability at stand and landscape scales.

Long term, comparisons will be between treatment groups and between treatments and control for trend in key attributes.

Metrics reported:

   Trees:

Basal areas (ft2/acre and m2/hectare)
Canopy Cover: (%)
Snags/acre: #/ acre and #/hectare by size and decay class and total
Decadence- % of trees > 21 inches by feature and total
Large trees: #/acre and #/hectare by species and size and total
Diameter distribution: #/acree and #/hectare by dbh class and species
Mortality Rates: % death/year by diameter class and species and total
Stand Density: basal area, stand density index and canopy cover

  Seelings:

Density: #/acre and #/hectare by species

  Shrubs:

Cover: %
Height: feet and meters
Volume: feet3/acre and m3/hectare
Decadence: % volume by decadence class
Species: relative % by cover and volume

Down Wood by tons and size class per acre
Fuel type
Shrub Component: see above

Derived metrics include:

Wildlife Habitat Relationships Models (types): % aceas, patch size distribution & arrangement (to be determined- e.g. contagion indices, interior area indices)

Wildlife Habitat Relationships types, and more specific habitat models available for California spotted owl, forest carnivores, and Forest Plan MIS species will be included.

Stuctural complexity types (Franklin and Fites 1996): % area, patch size distribution and arrangement (to be determined)

Fuel types and models: % area and arrangementa (to be determined, i.e. contagion indices)

Derived metrics at the landscape scale are developed by applying averages of stand-level metrics aggregated by strata (treatment x vegetation type) to landscape level existing vegetation mapes. Several existing vegetation maps aer or will be available for use. One layer is the Region 5 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) layer updated for treatments. The second layer is in development and is based upon updating the Land and Resources Management Plan, photo-interpreted layers with recent, high resolution remotely sensed data and inventory plots.

Data Base: Needs to be developed, will use existing R5 and National corporate databases as applicable

3. Feedback

If project objective not obtained: if Standard not attained: analysis of original prescriptoin, if "sound" then revised future prescriptions.

4. Compatibility with LMP: Exceeds plan, which calls for some analysis of timber stand improvement projetcts but focuses on plantations.

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

Force Account - $250 per plot
Coop - $250 per plot
Contract - $350 per plot

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Database developement (can be done concurrently)
site selection
sample pool development

Component 2.6: Quantitative Watershed Restoration Project Monitoring

GOAL: To determine if objectives for improving aquatic conditions are met by implementation of watershed restoration projects.

1. Sampling:

Sample Population: Selected projects

Site selection: Projects which lend themselves to before and after, or above and below type monitoring strategies, and represent a prescription or design that warrants investment of monitoring resources.

Site type: Typically, a channel reach.

Protocol: When site is channel reach, appropriate attributes from R5 Stream Condition Inventory

Expected Variation: Moderate

Necessary Sample Size: For each attribute, samle frequencies are outlined in protocols. Attributes are listed in long term stream sampling component.

Timing requirements: Depends on attributes of interests, typically, low flow (summer)

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: Treated (restored) vs untreated (Upstream-Downstream) or Treated vs untreated (Before-After)

Metrics reported: See long term acquatic condition section

Data Base: Region 5 Stream Condition Inventory database

3. Feedback:

If standard not attained: Site visit to assess need for maintenance, corretive actions, revisions.

4. Compatibility with LMP: Exceeds

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

Force Account - $600 per reach
Coop - $900 per reach
Contract - $1200 per reach

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Site selection

Component 2.7: Hypogeous Fungi

GOAL: Determine if there are differences in the productivity and diversity of hypogeous fungi between treated and untreated sites. Hypogeous fungi serve as the primary food source for northern flying squirrels, which are the primary food source of spotted owls.

1. Sampling:

Sample Population: 15 stands, with 3 stands in each of the five treatment types. Stands will be from within the same vegetation type.

Site selection: Random from within the treatments within the selected vegetation type.

Site type: a 4 m2 plot

Protocol: Plots are raked by hand, and fungi picked from the collected material for idenfication and innumeration in the lab.

Expected Variation: High

Necessary Sample Size: 25 plots per stand. 15 stands total.

Timing requirements: Field season

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: The untreated stands serve as the basis for comparison. Before and after within treatment comparisons will also be made.

Metrics reported: Diversity of fungi species
              Density of fungi (#/m2)

Data Base: Pacific Southwest Experiment Station

3. Feedback:

Data will be reviewed to see if differences are caused by treatments. The magnitude of the change, if any will be evaluated. These evaluations may lead to proposals for revision of prescriptions or implementation practices.

4. Compatibility with LMP: Exceeds, no mention of hypogeous fungi. Spotted owl sectoin does discuss monitoring habitat characteristis

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

PSW Co-op - $18,500
PSW Co-op with FS supplied cres - $18,500
Contracting not a viable option.

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Develop sampling pools, select potential sample stands

Component 3.1: Watershed Disturbance

GOAL: Track the trend in selected watershed disturbance elements. Overtime correlate these factors with data from stream condition inventories

1. Sampling:

Sample Population: Selected third order watersheds.

Protocol: Needs to be documented. Use ortho or other aerial photography to identify and quantity:

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) - Use Shasta-Trinity coefficients
ERA in Streamside Zones - Use McGurk and Fong, 1995
ERA on other sensitive lands
Road density (miles per square mile)
Number of stream crossings (crossing per mile of steam)

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: Needs to be developed.

Metrics reported:

ERA %
ERA in near stream areas (%)
ERA in sesniss by acres
road density
# of road crossings

Data Base: Needs to be developed (may be developed via CalOwl)

3. Feedback:

Long-term. Findings at that time (5+ years) should be used in LMP and project level planning

Short-term. Watersheds that do not meet objecties should be highlighted for further evaluation, determine need for revised management and/or restoration activities.

4. Compatibility with LMP: Compatible with Lassen

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

Depends on the scope (# selected). Force account of $1000 per watershed is reasonable (assuming no data exists). Force account would be much more due to generally poor records.

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Develop database and tracking system.

Component 3.2: Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) at Long-Term Sites

GOAL: Compare trend in Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) attributes over time. Establish baseline from which to derive "desired condition" data for project planning. Establish baseline from which to compare SCI for individual projects

1. Sampling:

Sample Population: 44 streams (30 on Plumas NF, 8 on Tahoe NF, 6 on Lassen NF) selected with following criteria:

3rd order
Primary USFS ownership
Representative of streamtype, ecological type, geomorphic type
Data exists
Priority to "reference" sites

Site selection: Follows SCI protocal

Site Type: Stream rach (approximately 1000 meters length)

Expected Variation: high

Necessary Sample Size:

6 on Lassen
30 on Plumas
8 on Tahoe

STREAM CONDITION INVENTORY BY FOREST

Lassen NF Plumas NF
Westside		 Plumas NF
Transition		 Plumas NF
Eastside		 Tahoe NF
Rock French Chips Upper Indian Sagehen
Pine Grizzly Rush Boulder Smithneck
Upper Butt Granite Little Grizzly Dotta-Horton Lemon
Willard Little NF Feather Moonlight Clarks Badenaugh
Cub S Branch Middle Fork Upper Lights Cottonwood Perrazo
Rice Pincard Hungry Upper Last Chance Cottonwood
  Rock Greenhorn Willow Rice
  Upper Little Grass Rock Upper Grizzly Bonta
  Upper Slate Upper Spanish Frenchman  
  Canyon Nelson Little Last Chance Chreek  

Timing Requirements: low flow (June-October)

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: Within stream and watershed type, use data from this monitoring, and from R5 SCI database.

Metrics reported:

For all streams:

gradient
grid fines at pool tails
shade
pool frequency
range and mean in residual pool depths
bank stability
particle size distribution
channel width to depth ratio
temperature (daily maximum and minimum)
Large wood debri (abundance, size distribution)

Addtional attributes for alluvial streams:

bank angle
depth at water edge

Data Base: Needs to be developed (may be developed via CalOwl)

3. Feedback:

If Standard not attained: Site visit to determine cause and assess need for restoration or management revision.

4. Compatibility with LMP: Exceeds, LMP calls for quaterly sampling of 3 basins

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

Force Account - $600 per reach
Coop - $900 per reach
Contract - $1200 per reach

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Identify sensitive reach locations
Provide thermographs?

 

Component 3.3: Landscape Level Changes

GOAL: Track and display changes in vegetation types, fuel loadings, fie occurance and severity, road density and roads in streamside zones over time.

Approach:

Use data from plot data, STRS and other sources, linked to GIS to display, on a planing watershed and larger scale basis, changes over time in key resource attributes.

Vegetation attributes include:

habitat types
forest composition types
fire hazard or severity classes

Metrics for this display would include:

acres
patch size
connectivity of key habitat types or fire severity classes
perimeter of key habitat type
predicted rate of spread or fire size

Other resource attributes include:

acres in riparian vegetation type
connectivity of riparian habitat
road density
road density in streamside zones

Administrative attributes include:

watershed (planning area) status (area with plan, plan begun, plan completed)
acres treated

Forest Service Need: Adequate GIS vegetation layer, Data Base to track STRS and plot data

Component 3.4: Long-Term Fire Frequency and Severity

GOAL: Track the trend in stand replacing fires in terms of size and severity. Over time draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of fuels reduction treatments.

1. Sampling:

Sample Population: All fires

Protocol: Individual fire reports

Expected Variation: High

Necessary Sample Size: All fires

Timing requirements: annual input of fire report data

2. Data Analysis and Reporting:

Standard for comparison: Over long term, number, size and severity of fires in areas with and without treatment, and against averages from pre-tratment periods.

Metrics reported:

Fire size
Location (add to GIS vegetation layer)
severity class by acres

Data Base: Pacific Southwest Experiment Station

3. Feedback:

Long term. Findings at that time (10+ years) should be used in LMP and project level planning

4. Compatibility with LMP: Compatible but expanded

5. Cost and Implementation Alternatives:

Force account. Cost should be minimal

6. FS Pre-Monitoring Actions

Develop databse and tracking system (this most likely by contract)

,)/,(/,( 0(:,( AM